Current ELCA Crisis

[Mr_E]

I refer to this as a crisis because a big decision relating to homosexuality is being made right now in the ELCA and if things go wrong the ELCA could be divided. Here is a link to a document that was recently in the news...

wfn.org | Teaching Theologians Affirm ELCA Task Force Documents

I know that there are a lot of verses that can be argued about and intrepeted different ways by different people, but there is one in particular thing God says in the Bible that I think is as clear as can be...


Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

...Obviously I am not saying we should stone homosexuals to death, because we no longer live in the Old Testament ways (thanks to the most wonderful gift ever given in Christ), but we are still supposed to uphold the Law. Why is there even a debate!?!?

Edit: I just wanted to add that I know we are all guilty of sin and we all deserve death according to the Law (thankfully, all who believe have hope in Christ). I am just saying that I do not believe God is OK with people committing homosexual acts, and if we as a church pretend such acts are OK, we are not doing anybody any favors.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

I refer to this as a crisis because a big decision relating to homosexuality is being made right now in the ELCA and if things go wrong the ELCA could be divided. Here is a link to a document that was recently in the news...

wfn.org | Teaching Theologians Affirm ELCA Task Force Documents

I know that there are a lot of verses that can be argued about and intrepeted different ways by different people, but there is one in particular thing God says in the Bible that I think is as clear as can be...


Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

...Obviously I am not saying we should stone homosexuals to death, because we no longer live in the Old Testament ways (thanks to the most wonderful gift ever given in Christ), but we are still supposed to uphold the Law. Why is there even a debate!?!?

Edit: I just wanted to add that I know we are all guilty of sin and we all deserve death according to the Law. I am just saying that I do not believe God is OK with people committing homosexual acts, and if we as a church pretend such acts are OK, we are not doing anybody any favors.

Nice to meet you Mr E!
It all depends upon the ways in which we view scripture. The ELCA holds to a historical critical view, which analyzes homosexuality in the midst of that culture's lack of understanding of homosexuality. It sounds as if your views are similar to the LCMS, or that the Word of God is unchangeable and inerrant. I am LCMS btw, and I pray that the ELCA may face this issue of homosexual ordination, and other homosexual issues with a spirit of unity and love. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Not even the gates of Hell can ruin the church!

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Nice to meet you Mr E!
It all depends upon the ways in which we view scripture. The ELCA holds to a historical critical view, which analyzes homosexuality in the midst of that culture's lack of understanding of homosexuality. It sounds as if your views are similar to the LCMS, or that the Word of God is unchangeable and inerrant. I am LCMS btw, and I pray that the ELCA may face this issue of homosexual ordination, and other homosexual issues with a spirit of unity and love. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Not even the gates of Hell can ruin the church!

One of the issues at hand can be noted in your post. That is the texts (such as the quoted leviticus one) do not speak of homosexuality-that is orientation, but they speak of homosexual sex. That is, the act. Now how the ELCA justifies being involved in the act I cannot say nor am I trying to defend. But there is a point in the difference between orientation and action. And it is an oversimplification to generalize all the decisions on the basis of historical critical method, although it is true that the method does at times inform their interpretation.
Blessings and peace.

 

[IowaLutheran]

I refer to this as a crisis because a big decision relating to homosexuality is being made right now in the ELCA and if things go wrong the ELCA could be divided. Here is a link to a document that was recently in the news...

wfn.org | Teaching Theologians Affirm ELCA Task Force Documents

I know that there are a lot of verses that can be argued about and intrepeted different ways by different people, but there is one in particular thing God says in the Bible that I think is as clear as can be...


Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

...Obviously I am not saying we should stone homosexuals to death, because we no longer live in the Old Testament ways (thanks to the most wonderful gift ever given in Christ), but we are still supposed to uphold the Law. Why is there even a debate!?!?

Edit: I just wanted to add that I know we are all guilty of sin and we all deserve death according to the Law (thankfully, all who believe have hope in Christ). I am just saying that I do not believe God is OK with people committing homosexual acts, and if we as a church pretend such acts are OK, we are not doing anybody any favors.

IMHO the traditional position on sexuality is much more strongly supported by the creation account - specifically Genesis 1:27:

27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
(A) male and female he created them.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Genesis 1:27

And, more importantly, Jesus' echo of the creation account in Matthew 19:4-6:

4He answered, (A) "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said,(B) 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and(C) the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh.(D) What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATT 19:4-6;&version=47;

Your own post reveals the flaw in putting too much weight on Leviticus in this debate - you first state it is "as clear as can be" and then you proceed to make distinctions anyway by saying only part of the law applies to us today. I'm not saying that Leviticus is irrelevant to this discussion, as it certainly is relevant, but my point is that laws can can be debated and distinctions can be made - Acts tells us that this has been going on since the very beginning of the Church. The Genesis account, affirmed by Jesus, makes a positive statement that male/female sexuality is a part of the very essence of creation, instead of simply being another one of the 613 laws from the Torah (Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)), some of which we follow, some of which we don't.

 

[ricker]

IMHO the traditional position on sexuality is much more strongly supported by the creation account - specifically Genesis 1:27:

27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
(A) male and female he created them.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Genesis 1:27

And, more importantly, Jesus' echo of the creation account in Matthew 19:4-6:

4He answered, (A) "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said,(B) 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and(C) the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh.(D) What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: MATT 19:4-6;

Your own post reveals the flaw in putting too much weight on Leviticus in this debate - you first state it is "as clear as can be" and then you proceed to make distinctions anyway by saying only part of the law applies to us today. I'm not saying that Leviticus is irrelevant to this discussion, as it certainly is relevant, but my point is that laws can can be debated and distinctions can be made - Acts tells us that this has been going on since the very beginning of the Church. The Genesis account, affirmed by Jesus, makes a positive statement that male/female sexuality is a part of the very essence of creation, instead of simply being another one of the 613 laws from the Torah (Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)), some of which we follow, some of which we don't.

Yes, I would hesitate to apply the "Levitical" laws given to the nation of Israel to the Christian church under the new covenant. There is much said elswhere in the Bible on the issue.

 

[Mr_E]

IMHO the traditional position on sexuality is much more strongly supported by the creation account - specifically Genesis 1:27:

27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
(A) male and female he created them.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Genesis 1:27

And, more importantly, Jesus' echo of the creation account in Matthew 19:4-6:

4He answered, (A) "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said,(B) 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and(C) the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh.(D) What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: MATT 19:4-6;

Your own post reveals the flaw in putting too much weight on Leviticus in this debate - you first state it is "as clear as can be" and then you proceed to make distinctions anyway by saying only part of the law applies to us today. I'm not saying that Leviticus is irrelevant to this discussion, as it certainly is relevant, but my point is that laws can can be debated and distinctions can be made - Acts tells us that this has been going on since the very beginning of the Church. The Genesis account, affirmed by Jesus, makes a positive statement that male/female sexuality is a part of the very essence of creation, instead of simply being another one of the 613 laws from the Torah (Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)), some of which we follow, some of which we don't.

You have a good point, but I guess what I was saying is that the intent of the verse is clear. I meant that it was clear that God was saying that homosexual acts were sinful. It would be hard to mistranslate what he was saying.

A lot of people who take the other side of the argument try to say either people did not understand homosexuality in Biblical times or that the Bible was actually referring to another sin, such as rape rather than homosexual acts in the case of Genesis 19:5. In the case of the Leviticus verse I quoted, it is God who is speaking, so you cannot say he did not understand homosexuality (He is all-knowing). Also, there is no second thing (such as rape) that God could possibly be talking about. Also, God does not change, so why would his opinion on homosexual acts change.

If you take the scripture I quoted, and throw in the very good scripture that you quoted, plus all of the other relevant verses elsewhere in the Bible (both in the new and old testament), I have a hard time understanding how anybody can think that God is OK with homosexual acts.

I feel like people are unintentionally changing God's Word so that it fits with their perception of how things should be in the world, based on the world we live in. We are supposed to live to please God, not the world.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I think one thing (which at times is problematic but not always) about the ELCA that is worth noting here is that there is a huge disjunct between the hierarchy and the churches. What this essentially means is that the synod goes at paces and in directions that the congregations don't necessarily go. Thus even when the synod makes decisions like this it does not guarantee that it will come down to you or many of the ELCA churches you might encounter. Does that excuse or make choosing whatever at the synod level ok? By no means, but it does mean that you will not necessarily be roped into this nor your church. You do have the flexability to say "No."
Sure it's not the greatest joy, but it does allow for your own "bound conscience".
Pax

 

[DaRev]

One of the issues at hand can be noted in your post. That is the texts (such as the quoted leviticus one) do not speak of homosexuality-that is orientation, but they speak of homosexual sex.

Just to clarify the Scriptures...

1 Corinthians 6:9, in English, mentions the "effeminate". The Greek "malakos" refers not to the act of homosexuality (that is mentioned seperately in the verse) but to the orientation. So the text does indeed speak against the orientation and that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Just to clarify the Scriptures...

1 Corinthians 6:9, in English, mentions the "effeminate". The Greek "malakos" refers not to the act of homosexuality (that is mentioned seperately in the verse) but to the orientation. So the text does indeed speak against the orientation and that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Malakos does not refer to orientation, that is a gross interpretation of the word. The word technically means soft but here likely refers specifically to those who are the passive partners in homosexual acts. The fact that all the sins listed are acts and almost all refer to sexual acts, it is not accurate to assume this to be orientation. The word effeminate as a translation still relates to the passive act in sex (hence why other translations including the NIV, the translation the Concordia Self-Study Bible used with no translational notes have opted for male prostitute).
I just do not think the word or the internal evidence supports your claim. The other term used in the verse more likely deals with the one who is fornicating the passive male. The language of the two words are the kind of contrast one sees in pederasty.

 

[DaRev]

Malakos does not refer to orientation, that is a gross interpretation of the word. The word technically means soft but here likely refers specifically to those who are the passive partners in homosexual acts. The fact that all the sins listed are acts and almost all refer to sexual acts, it is not accurate to assume this to be orientation. The word effeminate as a translation still relates to the passive act in sex (hence why other translations including the NIV, the translation the Concordia Self-Study Bible used with no translational notes have opted for male prostitute).
I just do not think the word or the internal evidence supports your claim. The other term used in the verse more likely deals with the one who is fornicating the passive male. The language of the two words are the kind of contrast one sees in pederasty.

Being a "passive effeminate" indicates orientation. It's not a gross misinterpretation at all.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Being a "passive effeminate" indicates orientation. It's not a gross misinterpretation at all.

Two things:

1. You are mistaking behavior for orientation.

2. You are not allowed to debate here.

 

[DaRev]

Two things:

1. You are mistaking behavior for orientation.

The word "malakos" indicates a state of being, not a behavior.

2. You are not allowed to debate here.

I wasn't intending on debating, just correcting an errant statement. I'll go away now.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

It's indicating the role within the act, not the orientation. You are stereotyping homosexual orientation with the notion that all are effeminate in their actions and passive, the verse clearly shows otherwise.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

The word "malakos" indicates a state of being, not a behavior.



I wasn't intending on debating, just correcting an errant statement. I'll go away now.

I think it is safe to say that anytime you assert your interpretation of Scripture over someone else's you are debating.

In reply to your parting salvo, I will add that it is your statement that was in error. The word malakos describes a person who engages in a certain behavior. It does not describe a sexual orientation.

 

[DaRev]

In reply to your parting salvo, I will add that it is your statement that was in error. The word malakos describes a person who engages in a certain behavior. It does not describe a sexual orientation.

It describes a behavior based upon a state of being, effeminate. Their allowance of that behavior upon themselves (passive) is evidence of their orientation.

My last word on the matter in this forum.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

It describes a behavior based upon a state of being, effeminate. Their allowance of that behavior upon themselves (passive) is evidence of their orientation.

My last word on the matter in this forum.

Your last word is still mistaken. "Effeminate" is not an orientation. The word describes a complex of behavioral traits. I have known effeminate men who were not homosexual and homosexual men who were not effeminate.

We should probably also note that the word "malakos" is not universally translated into English as "effeminate." The word "malakos" means "soft" and elsewhere in the New Testament it refers to soft clothing. Several English translations render "malakos" as "male prostitute."

I will grant that in 1 Corinthians 6:9 "malakos" most probably refers to someone who partakes in homosexual behavior. My study leads me to think that it is a cross-dressing male prostitute. With less assurance, I would suggest that a "malakos" was a temple prostitute.

Whatever "malakos" means, we can be sure of two things. First, it does not refer to an orientation. Second, it does not refer to someone living in a committed, covenanted, mutually faithful same-sex relationship.

The culture in which Paul lived had a different understanding of homosexual behavior than we do today. Though not everyone agrees, I don't thnk that his condemnations of "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai" can be taken as an eternal and universally binding condemnation of all homosexual behavior, and definitely not of homosexuality as an orientation.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

It's indicating the role within the act, not the orientation. You are stereotyping homosexual orientation with the notion that all are effeminate in their actions and passive, the verse clearly shows otherwise.

These interpretations are making me a little grossed out. I could be a doctor because blood doesn't seem to bother me, but this! Maybe I ought to rethink this whole pastor thing.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I refer to this as a crisis because a big decision relating to homosexuality is being made right now in the ELCA and if things go wrong the ELCA could be divided. Here is a link to a document that was recently in the news...

Actually the big decision, if it gets made, will be made in August at Church-wide Assembly. I would say that the ELCA is already divided, but we have not split over these issues. An organic rift may take place. I hope not. I pray that the ELCA is big enough to encompass people of good faith who in good conscience disagree.

wfn.org | Teaching Theologians Affirm ELCA Task Force Documents

Interesting article. Ralph Klein and Barbara Rossing are two of the most faithful and intelligent people I've ever had the pleasure to meet. Even if one disagrees with them, they are well worth listening to.

I know that there are a lot of verses that can be argued about and intrepeted different ways by different people, but there is one in particular thing God says in the Bible that I think is as clear as can be...


Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version) "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

...Obviously I am not saying we should stone homosexuals to death, because we no longer live in the Old Testament ways (thanks to the most wonderful gift ever given in Christ), but we are still supposed to uphold the Law. Why is there even a debate!?!?

There is a debate because there is difference of opinion about how verses like Leviticus 20:13 are to be applied, what they originally meant, why they were written in the first place, what modern knowledge has to say about them, etc.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I know we are all guilty of sin and we all deserve death according to the Law (thankfully, all who believe have hope in Christ). I am just saying that I do not believe God is OK with people committing homosexual acts, and if we as a church pretend such acts are OK, we are not doing anybody any favors.

On the other hand, condemning people who happen to born gay to a life of unhappy celibacy based on a purity code that is otherwise ignored isn't doing them any favors either. So we struggle in this day and age with the question of how best to bring the Gospel of God's redeeming love to gay people in our day and age.

Peace to you, Mr. E.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

On the other hand, condemning people who happen to born gay to a life of unhappy celibacy based on a purity code that is otherwise ignored isn't doing them any favors either. So we struggle in this day and age with the question of how best to bring the Gospel of God's redeeming love to gay people in our day and age.

Peace to you, Mr. E.

So as Lutheran Christians we should not condemn gay Lutherans that have sex because celibacy is unhappy, I think many priests would disagree...or agree . I think that choosing celibacy if one has a homosexual orientation is one of the most beautiful actions that one can make for Christ. Of course all Christians do this in some way, but I believe that celibate homosexuals are truly blessed, carrying an extra large cross of sorts. So I think in this respect the LCMS and RCC have a similar stance on homosexuality, and I thought that the ELCA had the same position no? Doesn't Jesus address this issue when he mentions Eunuchs? I could be wrong, like always. I love fellowship on the ELCA forum, but if I do step out of bounds please do tell me.
Godbless!

 

[D.W.Washburn]

So as Lutheran Christians we should not condemn gay Lutherans that have sex because celibacy is unhappy...

Not quite. In light of what we know by general revelation (ie. that homosexual orientation is innate in a minority of individuals) we should make allowance for gays to express their sexuality in ethical ways.

... I think many priests would disagree...

The RC church, which requires celibacy of its priesthood, teaches, correctly, that celibacy is a gift. Not everyone, gay or straight, has the gift of celibacy.

...or agree .

I think that choosing celibacy if one has a homosexual orientation is one of the most beautiful actions that one can make for Christ. Of course all Christians do this in some way, but I believe that celibate homosexuals are truly blessed, carrying an extra large cross of sorts.

Jesus tells us to take up our own crosses, not to impose crosses upon others.

So I think in this respect the LCMS and RCC have a similar stance on homosexuality, and I thought that the ELCA had the same position no?

I couldn't speak for either the RCC or the LC-MS. This would actually be a good place for DaRev to re-enter the conversation. He could explain the LC-MS position, provided he didn't debate it.

As for the ELCA's position, we teach celibacy outside of marriage and chastity within it. For our clergy, we require it. So the question for us really becomes whether we will recognize same-sex marriage.

Doesn't Jesus address this issue when he mentions Eunuchs?

I think we have essentially the same understanding of Matthew 19:12. It refers to those who voluntarily adopt a celibate way of life.

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.

Key to this verse though, is its last sentence. Not everyone is able to accept celibacy. First century Christians, expecting the parousia at any moment, lived with an interim ethic. If the Christian Church had required celibacy, it would have gone the way of the Shakers many centuries ago.

I love fellowship on the ELCA forum, but if I do step out of bounds please do tell me.
Godbless!

I like the fellowship, and the serious discussion of difficult issues here, too. Since you and I are ELCA, we're allowed to debate in this subforum.

God bless you, too.