Lutheran Church Embraces Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I am thoroughly enjoying that this "debate" (I'm not sure exactly what to call it) it taking place amongst people who are mostly NOT Lutheran, and if they are Lutheran, they aren't ELCA. If you don't like the ELCA policies/etc, then don't be ELCA.

We're not ELCA, but we're tired of being lumped in with the ELCA. We're tired of everyone thinking that the ELCA speaks for all Lutherans. Every time the ELCA does something, it's touted as "The Luther Church" does this or that, when in fact a good majority of the Lutheran Churches did no such thing.

So as long as the ELCA continues to parade their decidedly un-Lutheran (and unscriptural) policies as actual Lutheranism, yes, I'll speak up about it.
 
Upvote 0

lux et lex

light and law
Jan 8, 2009
3,457
168
✟12,029.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Well being that the ELCA is the biggest Lutheran Church in America, I could see where that happens. So you'd technically be false by saying a "good majority" of Lutheran churches do not, because in actuality they do. The two major Lutheran fringe groups, LCMS and WELS do their own thing, and ELCA isn't generally bothered by it, aside from when these minorities become vocal with their hate for the ELCA and proclaim to be the only True Lutherans. It's irritating.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, I am not Lutheran (though as a TEC member, I'm entitled to a small voice about ELCA through CCM). But what I see as the bottom-line issue here is that the "confessional Lutherans" (LCMS and WELS, about the latter of which the joke is that they stand in opposition to those 'dangerous radicals' in the Missouri Synod! :D) are holding up the precise words of Scripture and viewing them as absolute condemnation of homosexual practice under any circumstances, while ELCA, TEC, etc., are trying to be analytical and saying, in effect, "they don't say what it appears at first glance they say, owing to the circumstances in which they were taught." To the confessional Lutherans this is tantamount to "throwing out the Scripture."

However, let me note that if one is going to do this, one should be consistent. The precise words of Scripture are "Thou shalt not kill." Not "don't take another's life into one's own hands without regard for the law" as many understand its proper interpretation to be, but a blanket "Thou shalt not kill." Does this not mean that all unrepentant servicemen and policemen should be excommunicated, disfellowshipped, whatever the proper Lutheran term is, until they repent of their sin in being in professions where they are likely to be called on to kill?

Consider these passages:
  • "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest." (Exodus 22:25)
  • "Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit." (Leviticus 25:36-37)
  • "Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess." (Deuteronomy 23:19-20)

It would appear that you also need to excommunicate all bankers, anyone who works for Beneficial or Household Finance, GMAC, motrgage companies, etc., and, given the Leviticus passage, also anyone who works in a grocery or supermarket.

Those are not passages from the dietary or ceremonial law. They must therefore be from the moral law, same as good old Leviticus 18:22. And they are backed up by Jesus's own teachings about generosity, turning the other cheek, giving someone your cloak, etc., so they're confirmed in the New Testament.

If you are condemning gay people but not servicemen, bankers, policemen, and grocers, then you're playing at Scriptural cherry-picking.

Or else, maybe, what Jesus said about how to apply the Law to one's own life and the lives of others actually means something, something important to one's everyday life.

But naah, that's too radical an idea. Can't be what God really meant. It's much easier to blame those Muslims, illegal immigrants, liberals, and gays for what's wrong, than that we ourselves are not obeying what it is that God really meant, and in fact explicitly said.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
You need to read the old texts to get a proper contextual translation, especially of "do not kill".

And of course, dealing with ceremonial law is different than dealing with moral law.

But hey, homosexuality FEELS GOOD, man! How can love be so bad? Premarital sex ain't so bad if you're doing it with someone you LOVE! Love is GOOD! Jesus says "love your neighbors"!!

Ask David what his love for Bathsheba did to him, her and their son.

But I'm not here to debate homosexuality's sinfulness. Point is, Lutheranism doesn't embrace homosexuality. The ELCA may have, but Lutheranism as a whole does not. The biggest mouth doesn't mean the right mouth.
 
Upvote 0

b.hopeful

Sharp as a razor, soft as a prayer
Jul 17, 2009
2,057
303
St.Louis metropolitan area
✟18,662.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I am not Lutheran (though as a TEC member, I'm entitled to a small voice about ELCA through CCM). But what I see as the bottom-line issue here is that the "confessional Lutherans" (LCMS and WELS, about the latter of which the joke is that they stand in opposition to those 'dangerous radicals' in the Missouri Synod! :D) are holding up the precise words of Scripture and viewing them as absolute condemnation of homosexual practice under any circumstances, while ELCA, TEC, etc., are trying to be analytical and saying, in effect, "they don't say what it appears at first glance they say, owing to the circumstances in which they were taught." To the confessional Lutherans this is tantamount to "throwing out the Scripture."

However, let me note that if one is going to do this, one should be consistent. The precise words of Scripture are "Thou shalt not kill." Not "don't take another's life into one's own hands without regard for the law" as many understand its proper interpretation to be, but a blanket "Thou shalt not kill." Does this not mean that all unrepentant servicemen and policemen should be excommunicated, disfellowshipped, whatever the proper Lutheran term is, until they repent of their sin in being in professions where they are likely to be called on to kill?

Consider these passages:
  • "If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest." (Exodus 22:25)
  • "Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit." (Leviticus 25:36-37)
  • "Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess." (Deuteronomy 23:19-20)

It would appear that you also need to excommunicate all bankers, anyone who works for Beneficial or Household Finance, GMAC, motrgage companies, etc., and, given the Leviticus passage, also anyone who works in a grocery or supermarket.

Those are not passages from the dietary or ceremonial law. They must therefore be from the moral law, same as good old Leviticus 18:22. And they are backed up by Jesus's own teachings about generosity, turning the other cheek, giving someone your cloak, etc., so they're confirmed in the New Testament.

If you are condemning gay people but not servicemen, bankers, policemen, and grocers, then you're playing at Scriptural cherry-picking.

Or else, maybe, what Jesus said about how to apply the Law to one's own life and the lives of others actually means something, something important to one's everyday life.

But naah, that's too radical an idea. Can't be what God really meant. It's much easier to blame those Muslims, illegal immigrants, liberals, and gays for what's wrong, than that we ourselves are not obeying what it is that God really meant, and in fact explicitly said.


We had a 70+ yo lesbian minister speak at our church and I was very moved by her. She made this analogy and it really hit home. She held up a prism and said some people look at Scripture and they see a piece of cut glass. It's beautiful...they marvel. Others see the prism..it's beautiful, they marvel and then they examine it..turn it over, seek out every corner...and suddenly that prism becomes a rainbow...and with that she held up the prism and turned it in the light....wow.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
We had a 70+ yo lesbian minister speak at our church and I was very moved by her. She made this analogy and it really hit home. She held up a prism and said some people look at Scripture and they see a piece of cut glass. It's beautiful...they marvel. Others see the prism..it's beautiful, they marvel and then they examine it..turn it over, seek out every corner...and suddenly that prism becomes a rainbow...and with that she held up the prism and turned it in the light....wow.

and?

Proper examination of the word doesn't always equal rainbows for our lives. That's the problem with some churches...they want the "feel good gospel" and nothing more.

I'm sorry you allowed an openly sinful and unrepentant person in your pulpit. Jesus himself said "Go and sin no more"...why is it so hard for our churches to do the same these days?
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The fallacy of the excluded middle may be worth pointing out. To say "there may be grounds for feeling that the Scriptural condemnations on licentious sex do not apply to a couple in a committed monogamous relationship," does not equate to "anything goes; feel free to have sex with your toasterand your German shepherd if it feels good."
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The fallacy of the excluded middle may be worth pointing out. To say "there may be grounds for feeling that the Scriptural condemnations on licentious sex do not apply to a couple in a committed monogamous relationship," does not equate to "anything goes; feel free to have sex with your toasterand your German shepherd if it feels good."

Except that many churches already started taking that approach a long time ago. This didn't start with homosexuality. Many churches took the stance that if you were living together in a committed relationship, God was okay with that. They said that premarital sex was an old-fashioned concept meant for a different time period. Look at divorce...more and more churches refuse to take a hard-lined stance at it anymore because they don't want to upset their congregations. We are basically being told by some churches that rather than condemn the sin we're to accept it and condone it. What used to be sinful isn't any more where these churches are concerned...

At least the ELCA's not alone in that regard.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 15, 2010
357
7
✟8,034.00
Faith
Seeker
The fallacy of the excluded middle may be worth pointing out. To say "there may be grounds for feeling that the Scriptural condemnations on licentious sex do not apply to a couple in a committed monogamous relationship,"
If they are committed,they will get married.
does not equate to "anything goes; feel free t
o have sex with your toasterand your German shepherd if it feels good."
What God puts together,let no man pull apart.I wonder why he said that?Why did God say only have sex in marriage?
 
Upvote 0

b.hopeful

Sharp as a razor, soft as a prayer
Jul 17, 2009
2,057
303
St.Louis metropolitan area
✟18,662.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
and?

Proper examination of the word doesn't always equal rainbows for our lives. That's the problem with some churches...they want the "feel good gospel" and nothing more.

I'm sorry you allowed an openly sinful and unrepentant person in your pulpit. Jesus himself said "Go and sin no more"...why is it so hard for our churches to do the same these days?


Comprehension was not applied here. Rainbows doesn't translate to "feel good" in that story...it translates to seeing things in a whole new light...or in many different lights. Focusing on all the facets...seeing just how magnificent the gospel can be.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Polycarp1,
If you are condemning gay people but not servicemen, bankers, policemen, and grocers, then you're playing at Scriptural cherry-picking.
The attempted reasoning of the pro-gay lobby is one reason the believing church cannot associate with it. It is just based on denying the scriptural condemnations of same sex relations whilst claiming to believe other parts of scripture, and then after having cherry picked, to accuse believers of cherry picking.

There is no such thing as ‘gay people’ in God’s Kingdom, homosexual offenders shall not inherit the Kingdom and that’s what some were. Committed monogamous homosexual relationships are homosexual relationships, they are not in the Kingdom however clever the deceptions sound.


By the way, where is DRD4Him?
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You know, if I had said "married" in place of "in a commtted monogamous relationship," someone would have been quick to complain about promoting gay marriages (or "marriages"; mustn't forget the sneer quotes!). My intention was to specify that I meant people who had pledged marital vows or the equivalent to each other, without getting into a fight about the meaning of the word "marriage." It's also interesting to note that the take of some CF members is people who have pledged lifelong monogamous commitment to each other, before God whether or not they believe in Him, are not "married" unless that marriage is recognized by the state. From knowing at least one of those people, I'm sure that's not what was intended, but that's how it came out.

Phnehas: Your post supposedly answering me above gets the same response from me that you graciously accorded me in STR when I asked for dlarification of what you meant.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
Polycarp1,
What people commit to and what they think is meaningless. Someone could claim pigs can fly and black is white.
Marriage in God’s eyes is man and woman, a ‘committed monogamous relationship’ is not marriage unless its man and woman however sneering one thinks God’s word is. People pledging vows to each other is meaningless in God’s eyes if they are vows against God’s purposes as any same sex relationship is.
 
Upvote 0
P

Phinehas2

Guest
One cannot have a Christian view which is only opposite to what scripture consistently says. It is like saying hate is ok as whilst Jesus said love each other, that’s not necessarily the Christian view as some Christians don’t interpret it like that.
The pro-gay view continually makes the same claim, as not all Christians accept God’s condemnation of same sex relations, God isn’t necessarily right.
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Comprehension was not applied here. Rainbows doesn't translate to "feel good" in that story...it translates to seeing things in a whole new light...or in many different lights. Focusing on all the facets...seeing just how magnificent the gospel can be.

And again I ask what your point is.

God's word doesn't say different things when people look at it differently.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

b.hopeful

Sharp as a razor, soft as a prayer
Jul 17, 2009
2,057
303
St.Louis metropolitan area
✟18,662.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And again I ask what your point is.

God's word doesn't say different things when people look at it differently.


Really? Then why do we have denominations? Apparently...groups of people see things in the Bible differently.
 
Upvote 0

thelionsroar1

The lion has roared - who will not fear? Amos 3:8
Apr 22, 2010
52
7
Independence, KS
✟7,709.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Really? Then why do we have denominations? Apparently...groups of people see things in the Bible differently.

Just because we HAVE different denominations doesn't mean we SHOULD have different denominations.

The Truth of God's Word is absolute. There can be only truth and untruth, not varying degrees of the truth.

Just because people see things in the Bible differently doesn't mean that the Truth in the Bible is any less true.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
One cannot have a Christian view which is only opposite to what scripture consistently says. It is like saying hate is ok as whilst Jesus said love each other, that’s not necessarily the Christian view as some Christians don’t interpret it like that.
The pro-gay view continually makes the same claim, as not all Christians accept God’s condemnation of same sex relations, God isn’t necessarily right.
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that he hates all the same people that you do.” ~ Anne Lamott
 
  • Like
Reactions: lux et lex
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Site Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that he hates all the same people that you do.” ~ Anne Lamott

*sigh*

Anne Lamott believes the same "Feel good, anything goes" gospel that many churches today teach, so I expect her to take this attitude.

No one hates anybody, so you can put your strawman away.

Christians should hate sin. But hating a sin doesn't equal hating the person committing the sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
*sigh*

Anne Lamott believes the same "Feel good, anything goes" gospel that many churches today teach, so I expect her to take this attitude.

No one hates anybody, so you can put your strawman away.

Christians should hate sin. But hating a sin doesn't equal hating the person committing the sin.

Dear PW2004:

If I said, "The Wisconsin Synod is a group of homophobic bigots who have substituted their own hatred for the truth of the Gospel," I am sure you and others would be quick to report me. (I don't believe that, by the way; I am setting it up by way of example.) I do not understand, therefore, why you persist in putting up your own strawman of "Anything Goes" morality in churches more liberal than your own. That they may not define the same things as sinful that you do does not mean there is no moral sense. And while there have been people trolling with that sort of attitude, I thought that you of all people were more thoughtful than that. Perhaps this should be a private message, but I feel that it's appropriate to address a public post with another public post. Romans 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9, and the rest of those verses condemn very real and very heinous sins -- on that we are agreed, and most of the GLBT Christians here along with us. Where we disagree is on whether they condemn all gay sex acts, or all gay people as unrepentant sinners. Similarly for a lot of other controversial issues -- that we may not draw lines at the same place as you does not mean we draw no lines.

I would be very grateful, both personally and as someone concerned for the overall tone of the board, if you would consider dispassionately what I have had to say, and amend your comments as you think proper afterwards. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.