The fallout

[AngelusSax]

Okay, so there's a few threads floating around discussing the ELCA CWA 2009 itself. But let's talk about the fallout from that assembly, shall we? For instance, now that we, as a Church Body, will allow openly gay pastors and bishops, but there's still the local option in play, how does that affect you or your congregation?

My congregation is fairly conservative, so I don't see us getting a gay pastor... ever. Or even blessing same sex unions. Our pastor is against it, so definitely not while he is there.

How about you/your congregation?

 

[AngCath]

I do not want to derail this thread by any means, just wanted to say that as an Episcopalian in full communion with you all, my prayers are with you and I have nothing but the highest hopes for you all as the local option is put in play.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Where I am, I can promise you that there will be no gay pastor for some time (if ever). But my former congregation I know will be very open to gay pastors.

Pax

 

[BabyLutheran]

Our pastor more or less told me we would move to another yet unformed synod if one forms and is a good fit. At the least we will ask the ELCA formally to repent. If we do not eventually move out of the ELCA, I think the congregation will dwindle over time, Va Beach is a conservative area.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Two kinds of congregations will be directly affected by the decisions made at Churchwide Assembly:

1. Those who want to call a homosexual pastor living in a committed relationship, and,

2. Those who feel that they need to leave the ELCA.

Most congregations, including the one in which I worship, will not be directly affected. That's the nature of a local option.

I do think that there will be effects felt beyond the local congregation that may prove problematic. Seminaries may have an influx of gay students who will be hard to place. And, pastors who have been removed from the roster may ask to be reinstated. Of course, they cannot be reinstated without a call.

 

[Willy]

Yes, I think what you, D.W., have to say is very true. I already know of a man who is thinking about returning to the ELCA. He had gone to the Episcopal church. I also think that there will be an influx of gays (frankly, I think that a lot of lesbians have already been in the seminaries) into the seminary. My church will probably not see much change. I would not aniticipate our congregation calling a gay or lesbian person, although many of our people are in agreement with the ELCA's decision. I suspect that I will be asked to perform gay unions. I will have to decide how I would respond to that. I cannot act as an independent actor. I would support the provision of gay union ceremonies, but I would need to operate in a way that would respect that I serve not just myself.

 

[Edial]

Okay, so there's a few threads floating around discussing the ELCA CWA 2009 itself. But let's talk about the fallout from that assembly, shall we? For instance, now that we, as a Church Body, will allow openly gay pastors and bishops, but there's still the local option in play, how does that affect you or your congregation?

My congregation is fairly conservative, so I don't see us getting a gay pastor... ever. Or even blessing same sex unions. Our pastor is against it, so definitely not while he is there.

How about you/your congregation?

All this means one thing.
ELCA will attracts a lot more church goers that hold same sex views and repel the others.

But the same sex leaders (the smart ones) would not want conservatives to leave, because they will become a laughing stock of Christendom if it would consist of only gay lifestyle sympathizers.

So, in my opinion they would lay low and instruct the more loud followers of gay lifestyle to tone it down, so the conservatives would be lulled back to sleep and pretend that nothing really happened.

I find it very intereting that non gay sympathizers want to be left alone, but gay sympathizers cannot live without non gays being with them in one synod.

This is just an observation, could be wrong on this one.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

Will the church become so small that this one issue will be all anyone takes into consideration when deciding whether to stay or not?

 

[ricker]

Will the church become so small that this one issue will be all anyone takes into consideration when deciding whether to stay or not?

I'm sorry, but our denomination ignoring what many people believe the Bible plainly says is not a small issue, no matter what the theological subject is.

 

[ricker]

Two kinds of congregations will be directly affected by the decisions made at Churchwide Assembly:

1. Those who want to call a homosexual pastor living in a committed relationship, and,

2. Those who feel that they need to leave the ELCA.

Most congregations, including the one in which I worship, will not be directly affected. That's the nature of a local option.

I do think that there will be effects felt beyond the local congregation that may prove problematic. Seminaries may have an influx of gay students who will be hard to place. And, pastors who have been removed from the roster may ask to be reinstated. Of course, they cannot be reinstated without a call.

Do you think most congregations would be united in belief on this subject when the time comes to call a pastor or leave the ELCA? I really doubt it.

Is your congregation really unaffected? Ours has had people leave the church immediately after the decision, and many more I have talked to are planning to leave, sitting tight for the moment to see what happens. Some applaud the decision. It's no fun being council president....

 

[AngelusSax]

I'm sorry, but our denomination ignoring what many people believe the Bible plainly says is not a small issue, no matter what the theological subject is.

No, but it's not the only issue either, which kinda goes against the grain of this being the only issue some people talk about. That was the point of my question. Will we become small enough to only discuss this and let things go like mission outreach, world hunger relief, etc. I know the denomination as a whole probably won't, but there seem to be some individuals/congregations that might.

 

[ricker]

No, but it's not the only issue either, which kinda goes against the grain of this being the only issue some people talk about. That was the point of my question. Will we become small enough to only discuss this and let things go like mission outreach, world hunger relief, etc. I know the denomination as a whole probably won't, but there seem to be some individuals/congregations that might.

I don't think we are "letting go" of our worldview of helping others. The fact there wasn't much debate on the resolutions that passed on these matters show our common desire to implement them. It's the opposite of an indication we are ignoring it. We are strong in this!

I would think that we would all (ELCA) basically agree that mission outreach, ending hunger, fighting AIDS, etc. are worthy causes and should be promoted. There is no such consensus on the subject of practicing homosexual clergy, hence the time and energy devoted to debate on the subject.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

What is saddenning is that with so many leaving the chances to ever prevent something like this again is dwindling. Look at how narrow that social statement passed. But if all on "one side" leave, next time there will not be any real debate.

Pax

 

[Edial]

No, but it's not the only issue either, which kinda goes against the grain of this being the only issue some people talk about. That was the point of my question. Will we become small enough to only discuss this and let things go like mission outreach, world hunger relief, etc. I know the denomination as a whole probably won't, but there seem to be some individuals/congregations that might.

AngelusSax, the primary role of a church is spiritual in nature, not philantropical.

The primary role of a church is to give to the world the testimony of our lives as the ones who are obedient to the Scriptures.

So far, in ELCA, this testimony is pitiful.

Even the atheists are laughing at us.

Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

AngelusSax, the primary role of a church is spiritual in nature, not philantropical.

The primary role of a church is to give to the world the testimony of our lives as the ones who are obedient to the Scriptures.

So far, in ELCA, this testimony is pitiful.

Even the atheists are laughing at us.

When I meet an atheist laughing at us for a decision like this, I'll let you know. As far as spiritual/philanthropical:

I agree the church should have a very strong spiritual nature. But if the church doesn't feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, then the church refuses to do those things for Jesus, as per His words (I do not believe He was speaking only to specific individuals). Both are necessary, though the philanthropical side will come by God's Grace. So I suppose if we do see a stop in the philanthropical side, where good works are no longer done, then it would raise concerns over whether God's Grace is on us as a church or not (It could still be, and we wouldn't be acting on it, or it could be gone because we are too far gone, both are possible).

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

AngelusSax, the primary role of a church is spiritual in nature, not philantropical.

The primary role of a church is to give to the world the testimony of our lives as the ones who are obedient to the Scriptures.

So far, in ELCA, this testimony is pitiful.

Even the atheists are laughing at us.

Ed

It is the primary role to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments, but care, concern, and work for the neighbor is the necessary outcome of that gospel ministry. If the church is not concerned on how it can be a servant to the world, then it is not obedient to scriptures nor is the gospel purely and entirely being preached. Plain and simple.

The difference for the church is that the cross and salvation through Christ are at the center of this effort. Our lives are marked by the work of God for us.

I understand you point that social ministry should not take precedence over proclamation of the gospel, and that without that the church is outside its mandate and definition. But the church is very much in the world (even if not of the world) and so long as we are here our responsibility is to our neighbor's every need. Spiritual and physical.

That is something I appreciated when coming to the ELCA. I felt that they had a much better sense of caring for the whole of the neighbor.

Pax

 

[Edial]

It is the primary role to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments, but care, concern, and work for the neighbor is the necessary outcome of that gospel ministry. If the church is not concerned on how it can be a servant to the world, then it is not obedient to scriptures nor is the gospel purely and entirely being preached. Plain and simple.

The difference for the church is that the cross and salvation through Christ are at the center of this effort. Our lives are marked by the work of God for us.

I understand you point that social ministry should not take precedence over proclamation of the gospel, and that without that the church is outside its mandate and definition. But the church is very much in the world (even if not of the world) and so long as we are here our responsibility is to our neighbor's every need. Spiritual and physical.

That is something I appreciated when coming to the ELCA. I felt that they had a much better sense of caring for the whole of the neighbor.

Pax

In my opinion ELCA's preaching of a gospel and philantropy is a cover-up for indecencies it actively promotes.

The Bible cares very little if gospel is proclaimed while gross immorality sins are encouraged (especially among the clergy. Clergy!)

Ed

 

[Edial]

When I meet an atheist laughing at us for a decision like this, I'll let you know. As far as spiritual/philanthropical:

I agree the church should have a very strong spiritual nature. But if the church doesn't feed the hungry and shelter the homeless, then the church refuses to do those things for Jesus, as per His words (I do not believe He was speaking only to specific individuals). Both are necessary, though the philanthropical side will come by God's Grace. So I suppose if we do see a stop in the philanthropical side, where good works are no longer done, then it would raise concerns over whether God's Grace is on us as a church or not (It could still be, and we wouldn't be acting on it, or it could be gone because we are too far gone, both are possible).

In a specific case when the Corinthin church (1 Cor 5) was actively promoting sexually immoral activity and was actually proud of it, Apostle Paul cared extremely little about their "good works".
He was going to tear them apart. Rebuked them sharply and told them to expel that fellow from church, so perhaps his spirit be saved after Satan is done with him.

Also, in the Bible sexual immorality is often linked with spiritual immorality.

What ELCA is doing is shameful. Among the clergy!
And they are proud of it.

Shame.

Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

Sexual immorality and homosexuality may not be one in the same, or even one inclusive of the other. That's where the debate is. It's not just "well let's promote sexual immorality because the world thinks it's okay" to most people (perhaps to some, in which case their motives are wrong no matter if they even would reach the right conclusion).

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

In my opinion ELCA's preaching of a gospel and philantropy is a cover-up for indecencies it actively promotes.

The Bible cares very little if gospel is proclaimed while gross immorality sins are encouraged (especially among the clergy. Clergy!)

Ed

But now you have made a shift Ed. You have gone from the church is about proclamation first (which I was discussing) to the church must remain moral. I certainly agree with you on that. I think your phrase that preaching the gospel and philantropy is a cover-up is grossly innappropriate. I do not think anyone is trying to use it as a "cover up". Do I think the ELCA is misguided in its current decision? Yes.

Also I would disagree on your last statement. Not that the Bible does not care if sin is encouraged, but that it cares little about the preaching of the gospel amidst encouraging sin. Faith comes by hearing, it comes by the Holy Spirit. Wherever the gospel is preached purely, the Holy Spirit has promised to come and grant faith, through faith grace of Christ on the Cross. Do not get me wrong, I am not endorsing encouraging sin, I am saying that the Bible never undermines the power of the gospel.

Pax