I don't fit in ELCa---where do I fit?

[Jim99]

It’s true, politics and religion do not mix and I find myself about to leave the church as I can no longer be a member in an organization whose policies are so different from my own. Unfortunately, I feel that I’m not really wanted as a member of the ELCA.

The current controversy about sexual orientation and acceptance is but the third strike.

I am very confused about the decision to allow those individuals, involved in a committed in a longstanding relationship, to serve as leaders. What I find confusing- (hypocritical is probably more definitive) is, if an individual is “straight” and single it appears to be perfectly permissible for him or her to date, however, if he or she is homosexual- well, then it’s a different story isn’t it.
((What if one part of the long term committed relationship couple is a “flaming drag queen”… would that be acceptable?))

As I say, this current issue is but the third strike.

The second strike thrown to me is over Israel. I believe that Israel has the right to self defense and if they want to build a wall 50 feet tall to prevent some radical suicide murderer from blowing up their children, well, that is their right. Self defense is a God given right. Radicals must learn to love their children more than hate Jews.

The first strike was thrown to me many years ago. I believe that an illegal alien is just that, illegal! I have all the admiration in the world for an individual who walks from Guatemala, successfully sneaks into and then through Mexico and then makes it to the United States. But when they cross that line they are here without benefit of the law. Feed them, clothe them and hurry them on their way back. ((And, may I add, amend the constitution from birth right citizenship to citizenship derived from your parents- no more anchor babies). My grandparents came to the US legally. I once asked my mother why she didn’t speak Lithuanian. She told me that her father told her and her brothers and sisters “we are in America, we speak American.” (And yes, I have first hand experience with illegals, over 20 years worth! Fortunately, for me, any involvement with the coddling and comforting of illegals was either not an active part of any congregation I belonged to or it was kept hidden from me)

I love the church and will miss it, but I cannot support any organization that will use my money to further agendas so different from my own.

Now, I've been dwelling on this a long while. Perhaps my vision has become too narrow and I just jeed some disinteresed opinions to broaden my perspective.
I also wonder if I'm the only one out there or is the church filled with people who compromise their political beliefs for fellowship?

Jim

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

It’s true, politics and religion do not mix and I find myself about to leave the church as I can no longer be a member in an organization whose policies are so different from my own. Unfortunately, I feel that I’m not really wanted as a member of the ELCA.

The current controversy about sexual orientation and acceptance is but the third strike.

I am very confused about the decision to allow those individuals, involved in a committed in a longstanding relationship, to serve as leaders. What I find confusing- (hypocritical is probably more definitive) is, if an individual is “straight” and single it appears to be perfectly permissible for him or her to date, however, if he or she is homosexual- well, then it’s a different story isn’t it.
((What if one part of the long term committed relationship couple is a “flaming drag queen”… would that be acceptable?))

As I say, this current issue is but the third strike.

The second strike thrown to me is over Israel. I believe that Israel has the right to self defense and if they want to build a wall 50 feet tall to prevent some radical suicide murderer from blowing up their children, well, that is their right. Self defense is a God given right. Radicals must learn to love their children more than hate Jews.

The first strike was thrown to me many years ago. I believe that an illegal alien is just that, illegal! I have all the admiration in the world for an individual who walks from Guatemala, successfully sneaks into and then through Mexico and then makes it to the United States. But when they cross that line they are here without benefit of the law. Feed them, clothe them and hurry them on their way back. ((And, may I add, amend the constitution from birth right citizenship to citizenship derived from your parents- no more anchor babies). My grandparents came to the US legally. I once asked my mother why she didn’t speak Lithuanian. She told me that her father told her and her brothers and sisters “we are in America, we speak American.” (And yes, I have first hand experience with illegals, over 20 years worth! Fortunately, for me, any involvement with the coddling and comforting of illegals was either not an active part of any congregation I belonged to or it was kept hidden from me)

I love the church and will miss it, but I cannot support any organization that will use my money to further agendas so different from my own.

Now, I've been dwelling on this a long while. Perhaps my vision has become too narrow and I just jeed some disinteresed opinions to broaden my perspective.
I also wonder if I'm the only one out there or is the church filled with people who compromise their political beliefs for fellowship?

Jim

I am a politically liberal confessional Lutheran. It's very easy to separate church and state. If gays can marry in my state, which they can, I have no problem with it. Church and state must remain separate in a secular nation. If gays can marry in my church I will move to another church. The word endureth forever...not the state. Try the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

 

[filosofer]

Howdy, Jim and welcome. It is good for us to examine why we are affiliated with the church we attend. So hang around; we can have fun and learn.

It’s true, politics and religion do not mix

Ironically, you have mixed politics and religion, just a matter of which politics and which religion. This is often hard to understand, but as Lutherans we approach the topic differently. See below for an explanation on at least one example.

The second strike thrown to me is over Israel. I believe that Israel has the right to self defense and if they want to build a wall 50 feet tall to prevent some radical suicide murderer from blowing up their children, well, that is their right. Self defense is a God given right. Radicals must learn to love their children more than hate Jews.

I would question the basis of making the statement that is highlighted.

The first strike was thrown to me many years ago. I believe that an illegal alien is just that, illegal! I have all the admiration in the world for an individual who walks from Guatemala, successfully sneaks into and then through Mexico and then makes it to the United States. But when they cross that line they are here without benefit of the law. Feed them, clothe them and hurry them on their way back. ((And, may I add, amend the constitution from birth right citizenship to citizenship derived from your parents- no more anchor babies). My grandparents came to the US legally. I once asked my mother why she didn’t speak Lithuanian. She told me that her father told her and her brothers and sisters “we are in America, we speak American.” (And yes, I have first hand experience with illegals, over 20 years worth! Fortunately, for me, any involvement with the coddling and comforting of illegals was either not an active part of any congregation I belonged to or it was kept hidden from me).

This is another challenge. For Lutherans, the issue of immigration represents two different issues and a challenge. Historically, Lutherans who immigrated to the US retained their native languages for 2-4 generations. For most German Lutherans World War I and finally World War II tipped the scales to adapt to the English language.

One of the saddest things for me when I visit congregations (especially in California), and ask about outreach to the Hispanic population, it was almost as if I was supporting insurrection. For centuries, Christians could not get to many indigenous people groups. Now God is bringing them to the U.S. What an opportunity for bringing the Gospel to them.

Now, I've been dwelling on this a long while. Perhaps my vision has become too narrow and I just jeed some disinteresed opinions to broaden my perspective.

Well, you asked for disinterested opinions.

(Note: I am not part of ELCA, and none of what I have written is meant to endorse what the ELCA teaches. But the issues need to be addressed from a Biblical and Confessional stand point, not from the standpoint of American civil religion.)

 

[Aibrean]

Feeding and clothing an illegal immigrant is a felony by the way. It could be construed as harboring. Any law-abiding citizen wouldn't do it or encourage it.

 

[DaRev]

Feeding and clothing an illegal immigrant is a felony by the way. It could be construed as harboring. Any law-abiding citizen wouldn't do it or encourage it.

And yet the federal government does it all the time. Go figure.

 

[Aibrean]

We all know the government is corrupt as well as the justice system. It still doesn't give a right to break laws put in place.

 

[BigNorsk]

Jim,

It seems that you are complaining about what is often called the social gospel. Something that is really very strong in the ELCA, and so they are involved significantly in all sorts of worldly help missions.

Are you objecting to the involvement in social issues, or just feel that they picked the wrong ones or are on the wrong side?

Marv

 

[Jim99]

Marv,

Gezz, I was afraid that I failed to communicate, yes, you are correct.

I find it difficult to joyfully give, knowing that part of my money is going up the chain to support pro illegal immigration and pro Palestinian platforms and to support a policy, concerning the acceptance of homosexuals to positions of leadership, that, to me, is hypocritical.

Designating my offering for "local" use only might seem, on the surface, a way around this, but that only means that a percentage of the offering of others is skimmed to fill my void.

So there is my quandary - how do I justify staying in the church and being a hypocritic to my own positions.

Jim

 

[porterross]

Feeding and clothing an illegal immigrant is a felony by the way. It could be construed as harboring. Any law-abiding citizen wouldn't do it or encourage it.

Wouldn't God have a different opinion? There is no way I could refuse anyone in need of food, clothing, shelter or aid. My grandparents in AZ and TX always gave such things with no questions asked. Different generations who experienced wars and the depression saw things from another perspective.

The fact that our government encourages illegal immigration is indeed the problem now. It's not like it used to be decades ago, when workers from Mexico and beyond came into the US to earn money to take back to their families. Everyone I know tolerated that and it benefited those needing workers and those needing work. It only got out of control once the gov't. handouts became customary and then expected.

Back to the OP; I agree with Filo that we need to keep in mind the two kingdoms Christ reminds us of. Personally, I'd prefer not having to live under any ruling man-made power, but God has put us where we are to fulfil His will, not ours. Oh, well. Life goes on. Praise God.

 

[LutheranMafia]

One of the saddest things for me when I visit congregations (especially in California), and ask about outreach to the Hispanic population, it was almost as if I was supporting insurrection. For centuries, Christians could not get to many indigenous people groups. Now God is bringing them to the U.S. What an opportunity for bringing the Gospel to them.

There are two Lutheran churchs within a short distance of where I live in Brooklyn, but they have no outreach to Hispanics. There are more than a half dozen Pentacostal services in the same area, all of which have Hispanic outreach boldly proclaimed in Spanish, and with the easy conversion between Italian and Spanish all of the many Catholic churchs in the area have Hispanic outreach by default.

 

[Aibrean]

Romans 13:1-3

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

 

[porterross]

Matthew 25:37-40

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

I lived the majority of my life on the border of Mexico and have had to look some of these illegal statistics in the eye. Many more are abused, murdered, die from starvation/exposure or are injured than most people in the US realize and they are human beings, after all. Both the Mexican and US governments make the risks seem less than the rewards and many of them have been fed a pack of lies, so it's difficult to blame them for trying.

 

[Irrkunst]

Feeding and clothing an illegal immigrant is a felony by the way. It could be construed as harboring. Any law-abiding citizen wouldn't do it or encourage it.

What law is that? Chapter & verse, please.

 

[Aibrean]

H.R.4437 Section 202

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109z5Af7g:e45964:

Law that an authority has made, God has made as I put up above. Do we then disobey the laws that we don't agree with then?

 

[JoeCatch]

Feeding and clothing an illegal immigrant is a felony by the way. It could be construed as harboring. Any law-abiding citizen wouldn't do it or encourage it.

What law is that? Chapter & verse, please.

H.R.4437 Section 202

Point of clarification, as a quick Google search would show, H.R. 4437 was never signed into law.

 

[AngelusSax]

Law that an authority has made, God has made as I put up above. Do we then disobey the laws that we don't agree with then?

Do we obey man's laws that go against God's law (meaning we should disagree with man's law in that instance, at least)?

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Nothing mentioned about checking the legal status of anybody that I can see.

Just thought I'd second porterross's post with a lengthier quote and my own short 2 cents

 

[LutheranMafia]

I lived the majority of my life on the border of Mexico and have had to look some of these illegal statistics in the eye. Many more are abused, murdered, die from starvation/exposure or are injured than most people in the US realize and they are human beings, after all. Both the Mexican and US governments make the risks seem less than the rewards and many of them have been fed a pack of lies, so it's difficult to blame them for trying.

I see a lot of heartlessness in those who care nothing for the suffering of the abused.

 

[Aibrean]

It's still in IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 274

 

[AngelusSax]

It may be, but should we refuse to clothe someone who is an illegal alien when Christ says that whatever we do or do not do to others (the least of these), we do or don't do to Him, based on a secular law?

 

[JoeCatch]

It's still in IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT \ INA: ACT 274

There is nothing in the INA that suggests that feeding or clothing an undocumented immigrant should be construed as harboring.

Romans 13:1-3

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

This is, on my view, one of the most frequently misunderstood passages in the entire Pauline corpus. I do not believe, nor do the majority of Paul scholars today, that it should be understood as a comprehensive theology of the state or a statement of Paul's views about any sort of timeless truths about governments. The passage must be understood in the imperial context in which it was written, as well as the context of Paul's anti-imperialist and apocalyptic views both in this passage's immediate context and in that of his writings elsewhere in his letters. Even that is still a difficult proposition, but if we want to understand the text, that's where we have to start; we cannot simply quote it as though its meaning is somehow self-evident, because it is not.

Law that an authority has made, God has made as I put up above. Do we then disobey the laws that we don't agree with then?

Well, let's look just at your opposition to harboring. What about Jews who, knowing that their fellow Jews were being sent to the camps, went into hiding instead of reporting to the Nazi authorities? What about African-American slaves who, rather than continuing to endure the barbaric and inhumane conditions of their captivity, fled to the North in search of freedom? What about intellectuals and political dissidents who sought to flee Stalin's purges? These are laws that an authority has made, but that are clearly opposed to any sense of justice that we get from scripture. Do we obey the secular law and send the Jew, the slave and the intellectual to their certain deaths? Or do we answer to a higher authority and say that there is a right thing to do, irrespective of whether that right thing coincides with the secular law?