Current ELCA Crisis

[Mr_E]

Me neither... and I figured for sure, someone would have done so... Perhaps I'll sit down and do so this weekend.

I saw your post and I was just curious if you had put together some kind of a summary over the weekend, as you mentioned you might. If you have, please share it with the rest of us!

 

[mnphysicist]

I saw your post and I was just curious if you had put together some kind of a summary over the weekend, as you mentioned you might. If you have, please share it with the rest of us!

Wow, yes, I'm workng on it. Turns out that each synod has their own resolutions, often with differing verbiage, and apparently no standard way of reporting such info. Thus, its not just the simple task of looking up the 65 synods and seeing how they voted, which I sort of thought might be the case.

By the same token, its also way cool to read the news from various synods, and what all is happening. Tons of way way cool stuff, the CWA seems to pale in comparison to the amazing work going on at the individual synod levels... and no doubt even more so at the congregational level. I think we often just look at our local congregation, and synod and figure the rest are pretty much the same, and wow... they are not, its really really cool.

When I get it together, I'll pubish it, and post a link.

 

[ricker]

Christian unity is not equivalent to institutional cohesion.

Nor is institutional preservation a worthy goal in and of itself.

But, there is a human toll to be counted and this, most of all, is what bothers me.

By the way, I have no doubt that, should the recommendations be defeated, there will still come a time, not too far away, when the ordination of homosexuals in committed relationships will be officially recognized by our church.

If and when this happens this council pres will have to make a decision whether to follow the Bible's clear teaching or cave to PC. I don't like it one bit, I love being an ELCA.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Excellent point.

I was reading the News pages in the latest Lutheran magazine today, it seems that most Synods are sending memorials to Churchwide urging adoption of the task force's recommendations. I spent a little time looking for a source that might put all of the synods' actions into a single chart, but haven't found it yet.

Word Alone has at least put up various summaries of what the local synod assemblies have recommended regarding: 2/3 majority vote, social statement, recommendation on ministry policies.

WordAlone - Synod assemblies

Not sure if that is what you're looking for, but it might be helpful to see where each synod is currently aiming.

pax

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Word Alone has at least put up various summaries of what the local synod assemblies have recommended regarding: 2/3 majority vote, social statement, recommendation on ministry policies.

WordAlone - Synod assemblies

Not sure if that is what you're looking for, but it might be helpful to see where each synod is currently aiming.

pax

Exactly what I was looking for. I tried WordAlone's website, but didn't find that.

Thanks!

 

[FreeinChrist]

So do the ECLA now accept homosexual associates?


I was real surprized to see the ECLA church my friend attended (and where her funeral was held) is now a 'Gospel' church - same minister (I think). I was wondering if it was realated to this topic.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

So do the ECLA now accept homosexual associates?


I was real surprized to see the ECLA church my friend attended (and where her funeral was held) is now a 'Gospel' church - same minister (I think). I was wondering if it was realated to this topic.

Many ELCA congregations are what are called "reconciling in Christ" congregations, which welcome and embrace people of all sexual orientations. Officially though, practicing homosexuals cannot serve in church positions.

But this is only the official standing...which is sad that one could say only...but nonetheless it means that this is only enforced if the bishop holds the congregation accountable. Many bishops have chosen to "look the other way" in this regard and allow it to go on anyways.

This August the ELCA will be voting on the social statement and recommendation on ministry policies documents. If passed, the answer would be yes the ELCA would allow practicing homosexual associates of ministry, deaconal ministers, deaconesses, pastors, etc.

Also, all this is in regards to those who wish to practice homosexuality, that is, have an open partner in what the ELCA refers to as committed, life-long, monogomous relationships (trying to get as close to marriage expectations as possible). Those in the ELCA who are homosexual by orientation but not by practice and have the gift of celibacy are free to serve in any position within the church today.

Hope that helps clear things up,
Pax

 

[FreeinChrist]

ahhh...thanks!

I know my friend was real involved in her church and in Bible study, and I liked how her pastor handled the funeral service - so it was something I wondered about when I saw the change.

 

[Dongus]

I am an ELCA Lutheran with roots back to the LCA in the 1950's. I am an Arminian/Calvanist hybrid. I believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Once we assume the power and authority to discount or dismiss any part of the Scriptures, we place ourselves on a very slippery slope. If we presume that we humans can discern where God has either accidentally or intentionally misspoken in His inspired word or failed to account for the effects of time on His Word we can just toss the Bible on the trash heap.

The Scriptures are God's words to us. Once we begin selectively interpreting or applying His word, it becomes our word, and that does not bring salvation.

 

[Korah]

I am an ELCA Lutheran with roots back to the LCA in the 1950's. I am an Arminian/Calvinist hybrid. I believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Once we assume the power and authority to discount or dismiss any part of the Scriptures, we place ourselves on a very slippery slope. If we presume that we humans can discern where God has either accidentally or intentionally misspoken in His inspired word or failed to account for the effects of time on His Word we can just toss the Bible on the trash heap.
The Scriptures are God's words to us. Once we begin selectively interpreting or applying His word, it becomes our word, and that does not bring salvation.

I assume, Dongus,
I agree with you against homosexual clergy.
However, your logic fails. Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran traditions of what Bible verses are read on Sunday are very picky and limited on what makes the cut. Therefore, there is a back-up position on Scripture that we can base our beliefs on those portions of Scripture that are actually part of the liturgy. You'll find very little of the Old Testament except the prophets and Psalms.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I assume, Dongus,
I agree with you against homosexual clergy.
However, your logic fails. Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran traditions of what Bible verses are read on Sunday are very picky and limited on what makes the cut. Therefore, there is a back-up position on Scripture that we can base our beliefs on those portions of Scripture that are actually part of the liturgy. You'll find very little of the Old Testament except the prophets and Psalms.

While your criticism has merit, that is, you are right that much of the Bible is not read on Sunday mornings, it does not seem to recognize the function of the texts within the lectionary. And correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that if it is not read in the lectionary then those traditions do not consider it important or in some manner authoritative, which would be entirely innacurate.
And Lutherans, Catholics, and Anglicans are not the only ones who use the lectionary. Many in the Presbyterian, Methodist, and UCC traditions I know of also utilize it.
Lectionary has its weaknesses and limitations, but it also has offered much to the church (but that is another topic for another thread I suppose).
Pax

 

[Dongus]

"Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up." Deuteronomy 11:19

The Scriptures are so much more than simply what is read or sung in church on Sunday. It is the Word that we read, study, hide in our hearts, and believe.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

The Scriptures are so much more than simply what is read or sung in church on Sunday. It is the Word that we read, study, hide in our hearts, and believe.

This has become one of the great and unfortunate changes of our time. There is a movement within the church away from Sunday morning being a part of one's encounter with scripture to the whole of one's encounter with scripture. I will grant that I am generalizing greatly about christians, but there certainly has been a great shift in this direction. I believe as our culture offers more and more things to do, the centrality of the family is broken down (I am talking here about the ability of the family to do things together, respect each other, and teach/learn from one another-not to be mistaken with the argument that homosexuality breaks down the family) that the church has become for many the sole means of spiritual engagement, and in our consumer world can often be viewed as a spiritual gas station...getting one's fill of God for the week. This movement is dangerous indeed and the church's inability to recognize or deal with it for so long has likewise facilitated this problem within the church. Now people try various remedies to fix for example the vast biblical illiteracy that plagues many lutherans today. The most recent attempt is this book of faith initiative which I do not know much about, and have heard mixed feelings about it. I do think it is at least attempting to fix this great and terrible tragedy within our synod.

Although once more I have stranded off topic. Although perhaps I could bring myself back a bit by arguing that one of the reasons the ELCA is in such struggles today and have so many varying opinions is that one, many possess limited exposure to the bible, meaning they believe it does not speak at all to certain issues or they only are aware of the verses defending one side of the issue. And two, the ELCA has not done an effective effort in creating a unified hermeneutic or thematic vision of the Bible which has caused many different interpretations. While at times I will confess value to the ability to find different meanings from texts, the vastness of difference within our synod has moved us from a rich diversity to a greatly conflicted and divided church on various issues.

And how has the ELCA planned on fixing this? By supporting one or the other side? By giving the church direction in exegesis and interpretation? No, instead it has come out with a social statement that supports such polarizing methods of interpretation and has suggested an unprecedented form of organized chaos in biblical literacy, interpretation, and therefore church practice and belief. (please note; this is a sarcastic clap).

I think the fact that the current social statement avoids many of the pressing scripture passages that the church has been debating on proves its either unwillingness or inability to offer direction to its people. And all this is "for the sake of unity". Nevermind how this issue has divided the church, so long as we all call ourselves members of the same synod we are united?

And now I'm ranting and have gone on way too long. I humbly apologize.

pax

 

[Korah]

"Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up." Deuteronomy 11:19
The Scriptures are so much more than simply what is read or sung in church on Sunday. It is the Word that we read, study, hide in our hearts, and believe.

I understand your point of view, Dongus, and I acknowledge that most Lutherans agree with you, at least theoretically.
My point is that "It ain't necessarily so", and we could in theory adopt an understanding of Scripture as fully authoritative only when it has been part of the the 2000 year history of Church Sunday readings. No ecumencial council ever decided what is the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent, and that was a Roman Catholic council (Trent, 1545-1563). That council, as well as several 4th Century minor church councils, decided upon a canon that included seven extra books not normally recognized by Lutherans.
On such an understanding, Lutherans and Episcopalians could justify taking the tolerant view of homosexuality so popular now. I don't take that liberty myself, but it is a tenable view, regardless of your opinion against it.
Korah

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I understand your point of view, Dongus, and I acknowledge that most Lutherans agree with you, at least theoretically.
My point is that "It ain't necessarily so", and we could in theory adopt an understanding of Scripture as fully authoritative only when it has been part of the the 2000 year history of Church Sunday readings. No ecumencial council ever decided what is the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent, and that was a Roman Catholic council (Trent, 1545-1563). That council, as well as several 4th Century minor church councils, decided upon a canon that included seven extra books not normally recognized by Lutherans.
On such an understanding, Lutherans and Episcopalians could justify taking the tolerant view of homosexuality so popular now. I don't take that liberty myself, but it is a tenable view, regardless of your opinion against it.
Korah

So is your point that since there was no official, clear canonization of scripture the Lutherans and Episcopalians have the right to change their view on homosexuality? Or they have the right to call certain passages unauthoritative? Or are you saying that we have the right to declare anything not in the lectionary unauthoritative? I feel like I missed a dot on this line. Could you explain what you mean?
Thanks
Pax

 

[Korah]

So is your point that since there was no official, clear canonization of scripture the Lutherans and Episcopalians have the right to change their view on homosexuality? Or they have the right to call certain passages unauthoritative? Or are you saying that we have the right to declare anything not in the lectionary unauthoritative? I feel like I missed a dot on this line. Could you explain what you mean?
Thanks
Pax

Yes and no. Or maybe. Or maybe not.
No, my intrusion of canonicity in this thread was specifically in response to Dongus's hand grenade here that a liberal stand on homosexuality necessarily threw the Bible out the window. Personally I think the Bible is too clear on this issue to allow doing what ELCA seems about to do, but I acknowledge that people can disagree with me without necessarily being atheists or antinomians. Whereas Roman Catholics and most Protestants have such clearly defined canons of Scripture to disallow so much tolerance, Lutherans and Episcopalians have less.
On the other hand, we have Tradition, which means that we are answerable to a body of doctrines and practices which are in many ways more conservative than the Bible. So I personally feel bound to be more slow about changes than some one who can point to the Bible justifying his position.
And yes, anything traditionally in the Sunday readings for 2000 years gets my attention more than other parts of the Bible. I take my stand on what is in the liturgy according to the Liturgical Renewal.
And I'm a Catholic Lutheran or Lutheran Catholic, so that makes me more conservative or liberal depending on how you define those terms. For practical purposes I basically take my stand on the Augsburg Confession (and not what's in the rest of the Book of Concord).
Korah

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Yes and no. Or maybe. Or maybe not.
No, my intrusion of canonicity in this thread was specifically in response to Dongus's hand grenade here that a liberal stand on homosexuality necessarily threw the Bible out the window. Personally I think the Bible is too clear on this issue to allow doing what ELCA seems about to do, but I acknowledge that people can disagree with me without necessarily being atheists or antinomians. Whereas Roman Catholics and most Protestants have such clearly defined canons of Scripture to disallow so much tolerance, Lutherans and Episcopalians have less.
On the other hand, we have Tradition, which means that we are answerable to a body of doctrines and practices which are in many ways more conservative than the Bible. So I personally feel bound to be more slow about changes than some one who can point to the Bible justifying his position.
And yes, anything traditionally in the Sunday readings for 2000 years gets my attention more than other parts of the Bible. I take my stand on what is in the liturgy according to the Liturgical Renewal.
And I'm a Catholic Lutheran or Lutheran Catholic, so that makes me more conservative or liberal depending on how you define those terms. For practical purposes I basically take my stand on the Augsburg Confession (and not what's in the rest of the Book of Concord).
Korah

Thank you for clarifying. I too also think people can develop interpretations from biblical texts differently on this issue, although I sense that many do not derive it from scripture and the methods of some who do are questionable.
I also think antinomianism is a serious problem in our church, it has popped up time and time again since Lutheranism began (as you can see in the controversies dealt with in the Formula of Concord or article XX in the AC).
Being a liturgy buff and taking a stand according to the liturgical renewal I hope you understand the purposes of the texts within the lectionary and not mistake it to claim them to be the only texts with relevance or authority for Christians.
Lutherans do have a tradition, but unlike Catholics we do not hold tradition on the same level as scripture. This is the meaning of sola scriptura. It is the ultimate authority, any tradition is ultimately accountable to scripture. This is why for example the BoC is only given such high prominence because it is understood as "true witness" to the testimony of scripture. But for example, Luther's works, while informative and reflect our theology are not necessarily or inherently authoritative, nor considered completely infallible.
Just a quick thought, although it's not worth debating in this thread, the other documents following the BoC are all in some manner related to the AC, so I find it interesting you are willing to subscribe to the AC and not the rest. But that's another thread.
Thank you for your reflections.
pax