Leaving ELCA

[Edial]

I love listening to Gianna. I could listen to her all day.

I find it sad that there are people who want the power of choice so badly that they resort to calling this woman a propaganda tool.

I did not realize until later on that she was actually attempted to be aborted and survived and now is an adult.

What a stunning legal, moral and human objection - an adult asks: "Why did you try to kill me?"

Since being alive apparently means having soul (description of Adam coming to life).
Since in Heaven there will be no age.

... Would the aborted ones ask at the Judgement: 'Why did you kill me?"

Fascinating.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

Your Lutheranism. ELCA=Pro Choice lest you forget.

In a sense, yes, but the ELCA's position is not one of "abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever." Despite how the health insurance is set up, the expectation is not to have an abortion simply because of convenience sake (Not that you're arguing that the expectation is different, but I know others think it is since they're from the outside judging as if they were inside).

 

[Protoevangel]

In a sense, yes, but the ELCA's position is not one of "abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever." Despite how the health insurance is set up, the expectation is not to have an abortion simply because of convenience sake (Not that you're arguing that the expectation is different, but I know others think it is since they're from the outside judging as if they were inside).

Actually, I was on the inside, for years. The abortion statement is one that I discussed with all levels in the ELCA, all the way up to Mark Hanson.

I recognize how you interpret the words, and I acknowledge and praise you for your stance, and apparently the stance of your own parish. I know the words are written so as to only specifically approve of abortion "as a last resort".

The problem arises in how does one interpret "last resort". For someone who is pro-life, the last resort is only after spending every effort to save the life of both mother and child, but regretfully must remove the child from her protective home so to save the life of the mother.

Unfortunately, this is not what is the common understanding or practice in any ELCA congregation I have ever been a part of or visited for long enough to talk with the pastor. Almost every ELCA pastor and bishop I have spoken with (including several pastors in the Word Alone camp), believe that the only issue is the choice of the woman.

I even know of ELCA employees (lay ministers, children's ministers, etc) who have been forbidden from participating, and/or fired for volunteering their time at local Crisis Pregnancy Centers and participating in the Walk for Life.

If what was writter were a real expectation, then I might be able to tentatively agree with you here... But the real position of a church is in the practices of the congregations, and what is allowed to be promulgated, much more than the most conservative possible interpretation of a paper that happens to be called a social statement.

I really wish your interpretation were more prelevant.

 

[lux et lex]

Honestly? I can't truthfully answer that without facing some disciplinary actions from my bosses.

But I can boil it down to Evangelical "Church" of American. Take Lutheran out of your name, for Heaven's sake. You don't listen to the Confessions, you throw the bible out with the aborted babies and you let people think that living in sin is perfectly okay with God.

As I pointed out here earlier, I fully believe this pretty sums up my idea of the ELCA:

There's no doubt what that means.

And how you neatly skipped around violating the rules yet still informed me my denomination is less than Christian. That takes talent.

I haven't thrown my Bible out with any aborted babies lately...that seems pretty sensationalist, and it's these sensationalist "arguments" that are all I hear from LCMS and WELS folks, who are convinced that their respective denomination is Lutheran Superior. As much as I disagree with the doctrine of both denominations, I still recognize them as Lutheran. I guess this is not a reciprocal view, which is really too bad.

 

[AngelusSax]

I recognize how you interpret the words, and I acknowledge and praise you for your stance, and apparently the stance of your own parish.

Yes, my parish is highly conservative on this issue (not that every member is, but a vast majority as well as congregational leadership in a high majority fashion).

I suppose my mistake was thinking my congregation was a reflection of an overall attitude (though I never thought it was for every person 100%). Then again, my congregation is in the Bible Belt, so it would be more conservative than a lot of others, I suppose. On this issue, I wish my (and my congregation's) stance and interpretation was more prevalent, too.

 

[AngelusSax]

But I can boil it down to Evangelical "Church" of American. Take Lutheran out of your name, for Heaven's sake. You don't listen to the Confessions, you throw the bible out with the aborted babies and you let people think that living in sin is perfectly okay with God.

As I pointed out here earlier, I fully believe this pretty sums up my idea of the ELCA:

There's no doubt what that means.

To be fair, a lot of ELCA people I've talked to think the LCMS and others twist and warp both Scripture and the Confessions to get to their stances on some things so they can be highly exclusionary and judgmental (out of faux love) by taking some things hyper-literal on a face value with distorts the actual meaning of what is being said.

Just because someone reaches a different interpretation than you doesn't mean you're right and they're not really "Lutheran" or "Christian". Unless one wants to claim absolute perfection in all things and interpretations...

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I did not know that.
If that is the case then whatever ELCA appears to teach on paper concerning abortion being 'the last resort' type of procedure contradicts to what it provides via health insurance.

Thanks for this info.

Hubby and I just about had a fit when we were reading our insurance stuff and found out that it covers abortion when the life of the mother is at stake. It was finally clarified that it ONLY covers ectopic pregnancies. Still, the wording is vague enough for loopholes and we're still fighting that, and WELS is one of the most pro-life synods around.

And how you neatly skipped around violating the rules yet still informed me my denomination is less than Christian. That takes talent.

I haven't thrown my Bible out with any aborted babies lately...that seems pretty sensationalist, and it's these sensationalist "arguments" that are all I hear from LCMS and WELS folks, who are convinced that their respective denomination is Lutheran Superior. As much as I disagree with the doctrine of both denominations, I still recognize them as Lutheran. I guess this is not a reciprocal view, which is really too bad.

Nope, it is not a reciprocal view and won't be until the ELCA actually teaches Lutheranism. Right now it doesn't. Right now the ELCA is simply the Church of America - the church that caters to every whim of society. ELCA has collapsed into the "if it feels good, it must be right, because God wouldn't have us feel bad" mode of religion. And THAT I find to be really too bad.

To be fair, a lot of ELCA people I've talked to think the LCMS and others twist and warp both Scripture and the Confessions to get to their stances on some things so they can be highly exclusionary and judgmental (out of faux love) by taking some things hyper-literal on a face value with distorts the actual meaning of what is being said.

Just because someone reaches a different interpretation than you doesn't mean you're right and they're not really "Lutheran" or "Christian". Unless one wants to claim absolute perfection in all things and interpretations...

The thing is, ELCA's opinions are based on societal opinions, not scripture. At least WELS, LCMS, etc. can back their claims up scripturally.

I've never seen ONE person in the ELCA give me scriptural proof that God is okay with abortions or homosexuality. It's always "Well, it's legal so it's okay" and "Jesus told us to love our neighbor".

I know you are ELCA, Angelus, and I know sometimes what I say about ELCA offends you, and I understand that. I can't sugarcoat it. I've been involved in the problems of ELCA for YEARS because of my family.

Say what you like about WELS. I stand firm on the bible. I stand firm on the Confessions and BoC. When someone asks me why I believe what I do, I can honestly say that it's certainly not because it's popular opinion. It's called conviction. I don't think the ELCA synod knows what conviction is these days. Their loyalties fly wherever the wind goes, communing with churches who don't believe in the trinity, some who don't even believe Jesus physically resurrected, some who believe that the bible is just a nice little fairy tale. They're like the kid who tries too hard to be everyone's friend and in the end, they lose everything.

I am unapologetic for the stance that I take towards ELCA. I have wonderful friends and family who are ELCA, and I love them dearly, but my thoughts towards the synod do not change because of that.

 

[AngelusSax]

I've never seen ONE person in the ELCA give me scriptural proof that God is okay with abortions or homosexuality. It's always "Well, it's legal so it's okay" and "Jesus told us to love our neighbor".

That's not the conversations I have with ELCA people (well, not all of them, though obviously some people do resort to only that). Perhaps you just haven't talked to the right people.

Edit:

I stand firm on the Bible, too. The difference, on some issues (though obviously you and I agree on abortion, even if that puts me at odds with the ELCA), is in how we interpret the Bible upon which we stand firmly. It's not simply a case of "throwing out" the Bible or "going with society". I understand that many people will refuse to acknowledge that, for whatever reason.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That's not the conversations I have with ELCA people (well, not all of them, though obviously some people do resort to only that). Perhaps you just haven't talked to the right people.

Edit:

I stand firm on the Bible, too. The difference, on some issues (though obviously you and I agree on abortion, even if that puts me at odds with the ELCA), is in how we interpret the Bible upon which we stand firmly. It's not simply a case of "throwing out" the Bible or "going with society". I understand that many people will refuse to acknowledge that, for whatever reason.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit difficult to incorrectly interpret the verses that talk about marriage being for a man and a woman and it's a bit difficult to incorrectly interpret the verses that deal with sexual immorality.

But society has chosen to view these verses as being outdated, or not having to do with our culture, and the ELCA seems to agree with that.

The ELCA church that my grandpa belonged to often preached to the young kids that sex before marriage was understandable given today's times and that if kids were going to indulge in it, they should make sure that they really love the person they're with. I know this because I attended a youth group meeting with my cousin where this exact subject came up. When I raised my hand and asked about abstinence and about sex being for marriage, the group leader shook his head and said something along the lines of coming into the 21st century and then told me that abstinence and waiting to be married was unrealistic. I thought at the time that the church was crazy for hiring this guy. What Christian teaches this??

Turns out plenty.

 

[JoeCatch]

That's not the conversations I have with ELCA people (well, not all of them, though obviously some people do resort to only that). Perhaps you just haven't talked to the right people.

Edit:

I stand firm on the Bible, too. The difference, on some issues (though obviously you and I agree on abortion, even if that puts me at odds with the ELCA), is in how we interpret the Bible upon which we stand firmly. It's not simply a case of "throwing out" the Bible or "going with society". I understand that many people will refuse to acknowledge that, for whatever reason.

Angelus,

You yourself have done as good a job as anybody here in this forum of wrestling with how to interpret the bible on matters of human sexuality and demonstrating that many alternatives present themselves as possibilities on how the frequently cited passages should be understood. The oft-repeated claim the ELCA ignores scripture and merely follows societal trends is a pure canard, and is easily debunked by even a cursory search of the TCL archives. It's telling that, for as often as it's repeated, very little evidence is ever given for the claim. I can understand why the tired "ELCA follows society and not scripture" line gets repeated, since it's a great polemical device for those who know no better; its sole weakness is that it just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny into whether or not it's actually true.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Joe, even people in the ELCA see it.

 

[AngelusSax]

The ELCA church that my grandpa belonged to often preached to the young kids that sex before marriage was understandable given today's times and that if kids were going to indulge in it, they should make sure that they really love the person they're with. I know this because I attended a youth group meeting with my cousin where this exact subject came up. When I raised my hand and asked about abstinence and about sex being for marriage, the group leader shook his head and said something along the lines of coming into the 21st century and then told me that abstinence and waiting to be married was unrealistic. I thought at the time that the church was crazy for hiring this guy. What Christian teaches this??

Well, it would be easier if we were forced into marriages when we turned 13 or 14 by our parents, as it was in the good ol' days.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit difficult to incorrectly interpret the verses that talk about marriage being for a man and a woman and it's a bit difficult to incorrectly interpret the verses that deal with sexual immorality.

Plenty of people think homosexuality, as discussed in the Bible, is actually about forced sex of a young boy with an older man, for one thing, and that translators and others have done a disservice when labelling it as homosexuality in all forms.

They might be wrong. They might not. Either way, the idea that it's all about just appeasing society is a good way to avoid delving into that discussion in earnest. It's easy to say "you're just going with the times, I'll stick to the Bible, that's the end of the discussion." It's hard to say "okay, so how do you get to that interpretation?" The fear many people have is that someone else's interpretation might have some merit to it. Better to avoid that than confront it.

If I may ask, what ELCA church did your grandpa attend? My ELCA church expects sex to be only within marriage. Of course, if someone does have sex before marriage, then marries that person, they aren't barred from communion forever for living in unrepentant sin or anything like that... But then, we err on the side of Grace when the situation calls for it. To err on the side of the law would be to condemn us all.

 

[AngelusSax]

Joe, even people in the ELCA see it.

Most who see it are those who want to see it because they're looking to find or even manufacture faults somewhere.

 

[lux et lex]

We got "abstinence only" education figuratively beat into us during confirmation at my church. My sister went through confirmation recently and she got the same thing. So I think that argument may apply to that particular church, but not ELCA churches in general.

After exploring this forum I do really understand why there is such discord between WELS/LCMS and ELCA. Am I still offended when people refer to my church as "Church of America" and impliedly state it's not Christian? Yes. But I understand that some factions of the church are inherently closed minded and forget about the greatest two commandments (even though you see them as a cop out). I haven't forgotten and that's how I choose to practice.

 

[Edial]

...
Plenty of people think homosexuality, as discussed in the Bible, is actually about forced sex of a young boy with an older man, for one thing, and that translators and others have done a disservice when labelling it as homosexuality in all forms.

Would you say homosexuality in this instant is talking about adults or pedophiles?

RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

It's easy to say "you're just going with the times, I'll stick to the Bible, that's the end of the discussion." It's hard to say "okay, so how do you get to that interpretation?" The fear many people have is that someone else's interpretation might have some merit to it. Better to avoid that than confront it.

Of course it is easy to say that one sticks with the Bible and avoids changing with "times".

Wasn't the Bible written for all times?

PS 119:144 Your statutes are forever right;
give me understanding that I may live.

Aren't the "times" moving in cycles?

ECC 1:9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Our behavior and sins are not that unique.

But then, we err on the side of Grace when the situation calls for it. To err on the side of the law would be to condemn us all.

This is a fascinating statement.

Doesn't common sense say, if you see a sign like this: "DANGER. DO NOT go to the edge of cliff" one would stay an extra step away?

And doesn't the Bible caution us on sinning purposely on a side of grace?

RO 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

...

RO 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
RO 6:19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves.

Or perhabs I missed the meaning of what you meant.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

We got "abstinence only" education figuratively beat into us during confirmation at my church. My sister went through confirmation recently and she got the same thing. So I think that argument may apply to that particular church, but not ELCA churches in general.

I understand that being beaten down into submission is not a right approach.
And some people that are beaten down simply rebel and do the opposite.
Teaching is complicated.

But I understand that some factions of the church are inherently closed minded and forget about the greatest two commandments (even though you see them as a cop out). I haven't forgotten and that's how I choose to practice.

Correct.
Love MUST be shown.

Let's do role playing.

Assume you are a Conservative in a way that you believe that the Bible is absolutely true.
You have a child and you want to warn the child not to do certain things that the Bible says not to do.
You believe and are certain that it is dangerous in the long run.
You are worried.

How would you say it?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[lux et lex]

Let's do role playing.

Assume you are a Conservative in a way that you believe that the Bible is absolutely true.
You have a child and you want to warn the child not to do certain things that the Bible says not to do.
You believe and are certain that it is dangerous in the long run.
You are worried.

How would you say it?

This is interesting because this was how I was brought up. My parents are conservative and I am liberal. My parents presented to me their beliefs, morals, and ethical standards and then ultimately let me choose what path was best for me. Not having one thing or another beaten into me caused me to rebel much less than I would have normally. Did I stray from their beliefs? Yes. Have I come back after straying? Sometimes. I don't believe you can micromanage your children because it is extremely unhealthy. Gentle guidance and allowing them to make their own mistakes teaches more than strict discipline.

 

[AngelusSax]

This is a fascinating statement.

Doesn't common sense say, if you see a sign like this: "DANGER. DO NOT go to the edge of cliff" one would stay an extra step away?

And doesn't the Bible caution us on sinning purposely on a side of grace?

There's a difference between knowingly sinning (knowing for sure, in this case, that a traditional reading is correct, and going against it is sin), and being caught between knowing if literal face-value is all there is or if there is something else actually being addressed. Of course we are not to purposefully sin. No one advocates genocide, for instance (to use an extreme). But if there's even a possibility that admonishments against something have been either mistranslated or misunderstood, that possibility needs exploring, at the very least. If we reach an unsure stance, where are we to turn? The law, which always condemns us since we all fall short, or Grace, which tells us that the law is already completed in the saved (to use Luther's own understanding according to the book "Luther for Armchair Theologians").

I know that may not clarify as much as everyone would like, but it's about the best I can do right now.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There's a difference between knowingly sinning (knowing for sure, in this case, that a traditional reading is correct, and going against it is sin), and being caught between knowing if literal face-value is all there is or if there is something else actually being addressed. Of course we are not to purposefully sin. No one advocates genocide, for instance (to use an extreme). But if there's even a possibility that admonishments against something have been either mistranslated or misunderstood, that possibility needs exploring, at the very least. If we reach an unsure stance, where are we to turn? The law, which always condemns us since we all fall short, or Grace, which tells us that the law is already completed in the saved (to use Luther's own understanding according to the book "Luther for Armchair Theologians").

I know that may not clarify as much as everyone would like, but it's about the best I can do right now.

Without Grace, the law condemns us. Without law, Grace is unnecessary.

Meaning, we have to use both. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial law, which was put in place to remind those that they were dirty, unclean. But Jesus' death on the cross washed us clean. But..it doesn't mean we no longer follow the law.

If there truly is misunderstanding or confusion in the translations or the interpretations, then wouldn't it make more sense to err on the side of the caution? Instead of preaching that it's okay, preach what the bible says, which is that marriage is intended for man and woman, and that sex is to be reserved for the marriage bed only. Ergo, it appears that the bible advocates for sex between a married couple, man and woman. Don't ignore the fact that wherever homosexuality is discussed (whether it was between young boys and men or whatever the case) that it is discussed with a certain amount of derisiveness. At no point in time in the bible is homosexuality ever given the stamp of approval.

 

[AngelusSax]

Christ said He came to fulfill the law, not just the ceremonial law. I think making that distinction is a man-made travesty. Either all the law is fulfilled or it isn't.

And the Biblical authors never even thought it was possible for someone to be a homosexual by orientation. From their viewpoint, everyone was born straight. So of course there won't be alot of positive things said about homosexual behavior, when it is seen as doing things against the nature of that particular person (which extends to everyone).

We all have sin we are not repentant for, frankly. One can make the case (rightfully) that Jesus overturned the dietary laws. He did not say anything about what one wears, yet we break that law. The Church in Acts decided that of 613 laws, only 4 needed followed (they deemed it unnecessary to require the Ten Commandments, even) for the Gentiles. The Church gets to decide, and it has so since its inception.

Often, when Jesus says "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...", we take that to mean "you must bind what is already bound...." But that is NOT what Jesus says. Jesus gave to Peter and the Disciples, as representative of the Church, the authority to bind and loose laws in the rabbinic tradition, which means deciding what laws are in and out (not just who we will and won't forgive).

Unfortunately, this is not well-received by many, because it tends to do away with a religion that will not tolerate questions, and almost always forces us to ask questions and wrestle with God and actually make a decision, even if it means changing some tenet of behaviorial expectation. Short of calling for idolatry and turning away from God altogether, the church is given quite a bit of lattitude. Of course, since many synods think theirs is the only real church in the universe, and all others are in some egregious error that will make them all turn away from faith in God (at least, that is the perception I am forced to see on these forums quite often), no one from a rigid synod that refuses questions or change in anything will see anything any other synod does the least bit differently as something they are allowed to bind or loose.

And of course, we often forget Jesus' very real teaching that if we retain the sins of any, then our sins are retained as well. That is why "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us" is in there. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem unwilling to forgive the sins of others. I realize there's a repentance factor, but Jesus called on the Father to forgive those who crucified him while they were doing it, obviously unrepentant. Why the heck do we think we're so much better than Jesus that we can withhold forgiveness just because someone hasn't demonstrated to us sufficiently that they're sorry?

And now that I'm done soap-boxing, I think it's time I take a break from this thread.