Current ELCA Crisis

[DaRev]

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.

Since I was asked...

The LCMS follows the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is sinful in all forms. From the synod website, "The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has repeatedly affirmed the biblical truth and historical understanding of the Christian church that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as “intrinsically sinful” and is therefore contrary to the will of the Creator and constitutes sin against the commandments of God."

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.

LutheranHawkeye is LCMS.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

LutheranHawkeye is LCMS.

Ut-oh! LutheranHawkeye has been outed. You know what this means, DaRev? We'll both have to keep an eye on him now. Me, in case I have to put a smack-down on him for debating in the ELCA/ELCIC subforum. You, because he has proven that he can pass for ELCA...

Conservative ELCA, but still ELCA.

Since I was asked...

As far as I'm concerned, you are always welcome here. You're just not welcome to debate.

The LCMS follows the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is sinful in all forms. From the synod website, "The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has repeatedly affirmed the biblical truth and historical understanding of the Christian church that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as “intrinsically sinful” and is therefore contrary to the will of the Creator and constitutes sin against the commandments of God."

Thank you for clarifying the LC-MS position. I will only say that the LC-MS follows its interpretation of biblical teaching.

So do we all.

 

[DaRev]

I will only say that the LC-MS follows its interpretation of biblical teaching.

Just to clarify...

The LCMS follows "Scripture interprets Scripture." So, it would be God's interpretation, not ours.

Carry on.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Just to clarify...

The LCMS follows "Scripture interprets Scripture." So, it would be God's interpretation, not ours.

Carry on.

Just to clarify "Scripture interprets Scripture" is the LC-MS's tool for interpreting Scripture. They believe it is God's way.

I mean let's face the fact that there are a lot of Christians in this world who claim that Scripture is inerrant, and that they use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but hold to very different doctrines than the LC-MS...Believers' Baptism and premillenial dispensationalism are two easy examples. They are just as likely to claim God's imprimatur on their beliefs.

And, just to confound things a bit, the ELCA also uses Scripture to interpret Scripture..

 

[DaRev]

Just to clarify "Scripture interprets Scripture" is the LC-MS's tool for interpreting Scripture. They believe it is God's way.

'cause it is.

I mean let's face the fact that there are a lot of Christians in this world who claim that Scripture is inerrant, and that they use Scripture to interpret Scripture, but hold to very different doctrines than the LC-MS...Believers' Baptism and premillenial dispensationalism are two easy examples. They are just as likely to claim God's imprimatur on their beliefs.

But the Scriptures do not support their doctrines. They have either added to or taken away from what the texts actually say.

And, just to confound things a bit, the ELCA also uses Scripture to interpret Scripture..

You mean, those parts of the Bible that they haven't dismissed as being Scripture interprets those parts that they haven't dismissed as being Scripture.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

You are debating again. Go away.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Ut-oh! LutheranHawkeye has been outed. You know what this means, DaRev? We'll both have to keep an eye on him now. Me, in case I have to put a smack-down on him for debating in the ELCA/ELCIC subforum. You, because he has proven that he can pass for ELCA...

Conservative ELCA, but still ELCA.

Hehe I take this as a compliment.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

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.

Sorry to gross you out, no one ever said theology wasn't also messy.
And for the record, pastor or doctor--both very noble vocations.
You might have mentioned this at a previous forum already, but are you at a seminary?

 

[DaRev]

Hehe I take this as a compliment.

Don't worry. If you attend either LCMS seminary, they'll smack that out of you.

You are debating again. Go away.

 

[AngelusSax]

You mean, those parts of the Bible that they haven't dismissed as being Scripture interprets those parts that they haven't dismissed as being Scripture.

Easy to say with blinders on and glasses that dismiss all shades of grey that are in existence.

The LCMS follows the Biblical teaching that homosexuality is sinful in all forms. From the synod website, "The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has repeatedly affirmed the biblical truth and historical understanding of the Christian church that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as “intrinsically sinful” and is therefore contrary to the will of the Creator and constitutes sin against the commandments of God."

My only question is what so you do with them? And by that, I mean do you draw distinctions between homosexuals who are repeatedly engaging in sexual intercourse with members of their own gender vs. celibate homosexuals? Can a celibate homosexual who seeks to serve God in a pastoral role be a pastor in the LCMS, or does he need to become either straight or completely asexual first?

I ask because I simply do not know. My guess is there are distinctions made, but I'm not sure.

And as for you debating, Rev, I know what the rules say, but I also know we get nowhere if we simply tell each other to shut up and go away and we only stay in our "safe zones" and pat like-minded people on the back, so for what it's worth, I invite you to say what you gotta say. No one here has to like it, including me, but I believe it is your right and duty to say it for your own conscience's sake.

 

[AngelusSax]

...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!?!?

For the same reason the Church in the Book of Acts debated and got rid of 613 commandments as rules that must be adhered to and made it just 4 things. Because we can and because we feel the Spirit moving in some way, we just aren't sure which way that is.

Just as that church didn't have Acts to follow while making their decision and had to act solely based on what they believed God was telling them right then, even if it was different-sounding than before, so must we act in the same light.

 

[Korah]

Easy to say with blinders on and glasses that dismiss all shades of grey that are in existence.
My only question is what so you do with them? And by that, I mean do you draw distinctions between homosexuals who are repeatedly engaging in sexual intercourse with members of their own gender vs. celibate homosexuals? Can a celibate homosexual who seeks to serve God in a pastoral role be a pastor in the LCMS, or does he need to become either straight or completely asexual first?
I ask because I simply do not know. My guess is there are distinctions made, but I'm not sure.
And as for you debating, Rev, I know what the rules say, but I also know we get nowhere if we simply tell each other to shut up and go away and we only stay in our "safe zones" and pat like-minded people on the back, so for what it's worth, I invite you to say what you gotta say. No one here has to like it, including me, but I believe it is your right and duty to say it for your own conscience's sake.

Good post, AS, even though I usuallly disagree with you on this topic.
As for Da Rev, I see no value in allowing such a narrow-minded person to "debate" with us. That said, I see no objection to having him state facts where appropriate, such as what the LCMS position is. That is, the usual rules--which Da Rev seems constitutionally incapable of staying within.
Korah

 

[DaRev]

That is, the usual rules--which Da Rev seems constitutionally incapable of staying within.
Korah

And yet you have been banned from the forums more than I have. So what does that say about your ability to operate within the rules?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

And as for you debating, Rev, I know what the rules say, but I also know we get nowhere if we simply tell each other to shut up and go away and we only stay in our "safe zones" and pat like-minded people on the back, so for what it's worth, I invite you to say what you gotta say. No one here has to like it, including me, but I believe it is your right and duty to say it for your own conscience's sake.

AngelusSax:

Believe me, I have nothing personal against DaRev. Nor do I think that issues concerning sexuality should be discussed in a theological vacuum. Back when there was still a separate "Debates on Homosexuality" subforum, I participated there frequently. It was instructive. I have learned much from both those with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree.

But, I don't believe that this subforum is the proper place for a general theological discussion and debate on sexuality.

The fact is, the ELCA is facing a serious, important and highly contentious set of decisions in August. We need to be able to discuss these issues openly and freely, without interference and without peanut gallery comments from outside.

 

[Korah]

And yet you have been banned from the forums more than I have. So what does that say about your ability to operate within the rules?

Higher intellect is discriminated against, and not just in TCL or CF.

 

[DaRev]

Higher intellect is discriminated against, and not just in TCL or CF.

ROFLMHO!!!!!!!!!!

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Well, I guess we can kiss this thread goodbye.

It has gotten personal...

 

[Studeclunker]

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.

I hope and pray for that split to occur. I was one of those conservative Lutherans who were dragged unwillingly into the merger that created the ELCA.

This has been an interesting thread.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Sorry to gross you out, no one ever said theology wasn't also messy.
And for the record, pastor or doctor--both very noble vocations.
You might have mentioned this at a previous forum already, but are you at a seminary?

I'll be a junior in college in 2 weeks. I'm pretty sure I'm going to Concordia Seminary in St. Louis though.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I'll be a junior in college in 2 weeks. I'm pretty sure I'm going to Concordia Seminary in St. Louis though.

Blessings on your finals!
Pax