IMHO: ELCA's last straw.

[Studeclunker]

I don't see the LCMS running around signing agreements with the RCC and allowing gay pastors to be in committed relationships. The ELCA synod seems to cherish controversy, and unfortunately, because it's the synod with the biggest mouth, it's the synod that the whole Lutheran faith is based on.

Do you perhaps mean that 'because it's the synod with the biggest mouth, it's the synod that the whole world and the media think the Lutheran faith is based on'?

If churches wish to be looked upon with respect and dignity, perhaps they ought to act respectful and dignified.

The ELCA synod on a whole has not done this for a long time, and should've removed the name Lutheran from their name a long time ago.

Here, here!!

Luther073082, I'm one of those people who actually believe in the persepuity of scripture. At one time, the ELCA was the denomination I was associated with. When it got to where I was too ashamed to continue in that egregious congregation, I switched to the LCMS. Yes, Missouri Synod has it's problems, but at least we aren't so back-slidden as to ordain (knowingly or willingly) Homosexuals yet. ELCA deserves it.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Ok, so this afternoon I was looking on yahoo news and I saw this little article on lutheran pastors being allowed to be in homosexual relationships.

Good for them. Hopefully, this debate is now over and I won't have to watch another one in yet another denomination for years to come. However, I'm not holding my breath

 

[RadMan]

1CO 5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Right on Bro.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Do you perhaps mean that 'because it's the synod with the biggest mouth, it's the synod that the whole world and the media think the Lutheran faith is based on'?

Why, yes, Studenclunker. That is exactly what I meant!! OOPS.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Good for them. Hopefully, this debate is now over and I won't have to watch another one in yet another denomination for years to come. However, I'm not holding my breath

This debate will never be over as long as active, unrepentant sinners are allowed to be pastors, whatever that sin may be.

 

[RadMan]

Pastors are held to a higher degree. If my husband ever committed a crime, even if he repented of it, he would be asked to step down. If there was an affair, even if he repented of it, he would be asked to step down. How can he uphold the law to his congregation if he himself cannot keep it?

Of course, we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, and while there's no difference in the degree of sins, I think we can agree that a "large" sin on the part of a pastor is viewed differently than the "large" sin of a layperson. And rightfully so. As QuiltAngel pointed out, read 1 Timothy 3.

It's something that we do struggle with here, too, simply because our whole family is scrutinized. When Matt and I first got engaged, he had to write a letter to his council to explain how it was that I already had a child. (This was so it was in official records) He had to do this because some of the ladies of the congregation were wagging their tongues. It was not right at all...but very indicative of the attitude towards pastors and their families.

I had a friend of mine that was an LCMS pastor for over 30+ years and he decided to get a divorce. Now he can only teach in Lutheran schools and not be a pastor. The LCMS rescinded his ability to receive calls.

 

[RadMan]

It has more to do with the attitude of LCMS members and the even larger attitude of not wanting to work with other churchs not called "Lutheran" that bothers me about the LCMS and the WELS.

Maybe it has something also to do with the community I'm in. We have two LCMS churchs in the community that really won't work with any other church groups. (they might work together I don't know) While just about every other church works together in our community. My pastor is friends with just about every other pastor in the community, but the pastors at the LCMS churchs won't even take his calls. (And he's tried multiple times) I know the pastor that is leavning my one of the LCMS churchs (my uncle goes there) was kind of a jerk and constatly complained about his pay. I went to see my cousin's baby baptized there and the pastor in his sermon (and in seriousness) said that prior to her baptism her baby was "demon posessed". I wouldn't repeat that if I had not heard it myself, and I think even in the LCMS thats bad theology. If my pastor said that I'd be up out of my pew at that moment challenging his assertions but I don't like to do that when I'm a guest.

They really need a pastor that is going to clean up the problems in that parish. The members there have a very cold and unfriendly attitude the members are in cliques and their kids are also in cliques. We have a lot of members that are refugee's from that particular congregation.

The thing is that I've been to about 6 different LCMS churchs before and of those 6 I've only been to one where the congregation was warm and friendly.

I think you are hallucinating.

 

[Luther073082]

I think you are hallucinating.

No, I'm not, my uncle has been in that church ever since I can remember. And he is my dad's identical twin brother so we're close. And even he will tell you that their church really doesn't want anything to do with any other churchs.

Like I said, I might be bias but my experience with LCMS churchs has always been churchs that won't talk to or work with other churchs in the area.

 

[DaRev]

I had a friend of mine that was an LCMS pastor for over 30+ years and he decided to get a divorce. Now he can only teach in Lutheran schools and not be a pastor. The LCMS rescinded his ability to receive calls.

There must have been some extenuating circumstance in his case because the LCMS certainly does allow divorced men to be pastors. I am a living example of this, although I was divorced prior to entering the ministry. It depends on the circumstance and the grounds.
My home pastor is also divorced, but he did spend an obligatory amount of time out of the ministry and had to be reinstated to the roster before he could accept a call. He has since remarried.

 

[DaRev]

Like I said, I might be bias but my experience with LCMS churchs has always been churchs that won't talk to or work with other churchs in the area.

It's sad that your experience with the LCMS was with congregations that do not practice within the norm of the synod.

 

[DaSeminarian]

Two thoughts.....


I heard the story of the ALC/LCA merger from an ELCA pastor who wasn't at the convention that did that, but was very opposed to it - confident that the ALC would just be "absorbed" into the "absurities" taking over in the LCA. He commented that his expectations had largely been realized. I asked him if a number of congregations dropped out of the ALC when this happened, and he commented that very few did. Since he's still an ELCA pastor serving an ELCA church, clearly he didn't and hasn't either. A VERY tiny group of them just established fellowship with LCMS nearly 20 years after this.


2. Yeah, Lutherans seem to like all the capitol letters... I gotta say, as a new Lutheran, WHAT'S WITH THE NAME MISSOURI SYNOD? Come on, what in the world IS a "synod!" (I know, now, but the word isn't exactly on the tongue of the English speaking world). It sounds like a medical term - something you'd rather NOT know about. And Missouri? Okay, I know the Perry County thing but only a tiny percentage of our denomination lives in Missouri. It IS a national church body!!!!!!!!!!!! The name is confusing, misleading, and says NOTHING about who we are..... I"m not sure I have any obvious alternatives. How about the PPLUSA (plusa - a shortened form of the horse), standing for Pure and Proud Lutherans in the USA. CBNATLA (cabnatla - sound Spanish). Conservative But Not Always Traditional Lutherans in America. Or maybe NECLA (necla - sounds good) NOT the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? Or just CLA. Correct Lutherans in America.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

That whole merger was driven by the Bishop of the ALC at the time David Preus.

The ALC wanted to merger with either the LCMS or LCA. When the LCMS pulled out of the LBW hymnal project in 1978, The ALC sought to join with the LCA and became more liberal. Those that objected to the merger broke off and became the AALC.

As for Missouri... The original name was The Synod of Missouri, Ohio and other States. It wasn't until the 20th century that it was shortened to LCMS or known as The Missouri Synod. It's just easier to remember.

 

[Studeclunker]

This debate will never be over as long as active, unrepentant sinners are allowed to be pastors, whatever that sin may be.

Once again, well said! This is most certainly true!

No, I'm not, my uncle has been in that church ever since I can remember. And he is my dad's identical twin brother so we're close. And even he will tell you that their church really doesn't want anything to do with any other churchs.

Like I said, I might be bias but my experience with LCMS churchs has always been churchs that won't talk to or work with other churchs in the area.

I'm not at all surprised that the congregation you visited is isolationist. Their pastor is teaching error. A pastor who teaches error usually does try to isolate his congregation. One might want to call it the 'Jim Jones' syndrome. This can happen in any denomination.

Dianne, we (conservative Lutherans) believe the word of the everliving God as correct, right, and needful for teaching without any modification. I know very well what a Diest believes in, or doesn't, more precicely. Diests, don't share the same respect for the persepuity of scripture or vitality of the everliving God. Therefore, yours and our stands will never agree. Our sister congregation, the ELCA has stumbled and the other Lutheran congregations feel responsible to correct her. This is largely a family argument and outsiders might find it... obtuse. Possibly even petty. Still, we take this issue very seriously. One can only hope, that by continued dialog, the erring member of one's Christian family can be brought back into the fold.

 

[RadMan]

There must have been some extenuating circumstance in his case because the LCMS certainly does allow divorced men to be pastors. I am a living example of this, although I was divorced prior to entering the ministry. It depends on the circumstance and the grounds.
My home pastor is also divorced, but he did spend an obligatory amount of time out of the ministry and had to be reinstated to the roster before he could accept a call. He has since remarried.

I don't know. I didn't dig in too deep with him. Touchy subject and all.

 

[Luther073082]

Luther073082, I'm one of those people who actually believe in the persepuity of scripture. At one time, the ELCA was the denomination I was associated with. When it got to where I was too ashamed to continue in that egregious congregation, I switched to the LCMS. Yes, Missouri Synod has it's problems, but at least we aren't so back-slidden as to ordain (knowingly or willingly) Homosexuals yet. ELCA deserves it.

Again I hold to the truth that the scripture only condemns the act of homosexual intercourse (or whatever you want to call it) and does not condemn a person for being homosexual or being attracted to people of the same sex. So therefore a single celibate homosexual is IMO the same as a single celibate pastor.

And the risks are about the same between the two.

However that being said the newest resolution is disconcerning and I strongly disagree with it.

But disagreeing with a church's actions does not permit anyone to make sladerous speeches about them. Especially when in the company of their members.

 

[RadMan]

Again I hold to the truth that the scripture only condemns the act of homosexual intercourse (or whatever you want to call it) and does not condemn a person for being homosexual or being attracted to people of the same sex. So therefore a single celibate homosexual is IMO the same as a single celibate pastor.

And the risks are about the same between the two.

However that being said the newest resolution is disconcerning and I strongly disagree with it.

But disagreeing with a church's actions does not permit anyone to make sladerous speeches about them. Especially when in the company of their members.

Yep----I can just imagine how many people would listen to a sermon about sin by a deviate or be privately consoled by him about immoral thoughts. Kinda looses credibility doesn't it.

I wouldn't want to have him put his hands on my knee to comfort me.

 

[RadMan]

Lets develop a scenario. Church hires homosexual pastor. Probably a church with very little Bible reading and hardly any confessional studying. Half of the men are "put-off" by the decision and decide they would rather stay home and watch football. The other half just go along with the crowd. Who takes over. The women. More men leave again because they biblically believe that men should be the spiritual heads. So they ratio is 70% women and 30% men. Most of the men that would stand against the homosexual ordination are gone. Nothing against women but they are very caring and loving and sometimes overlook people's faults.

Pastor gets caught in an indiscretion. He doesn't feel he needs to repent because he is a sinner like everyone else. He contests the decision to have him to apologize in front of the congregation. The congregation is adamant about it. They're putting on a good show to their fellow synod members. He decides to call in Gay Pride and they boycott the church and picket it every Sunday. This is getting better all the time

The people left in the church are too weak to defend their Christian principles and they cave in to the protests. The Gays now have a church that they can openly come to and worship whether they are repentant or not and openly teach the Sunday school classes, be elders and sit on the finance board.........and counsel.

Who wants to be the first to stand up against this action by the pastor........anybody? Didn't think so.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The word slanderous would be fine if they were indeed slanderous.

But they're not. They're the truth, and if you hate it so much that people talk bad about the ELCA, you should work inside to start effecting change.

 

[RadMan]

The word slanderous would be fine if they were indeed slanderous.

But they're not. They're the truth, and if you hate it so much that people talk bad about the ELCA, you should work inside to start effecting change.

I'm assuming that you were talking to Luther (sextuple digits)

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I'm assuming that you were talking to Luther (sextuple digits)

You assume correctly, grasshopper.

I thought I had quoted the post, guess not.

 

[RadMan]

You assume correctly, grasshopper.

I thought I had quoted the post, guess not.

My the force be with you............and you also.