To all, but particularly ELCA and ELCIC members; What are your thoughts?

I'll give you 1 guess as to how I feel about this.

As I said in the sub forum, I am quite angry about this. Its not just the fact that he is Gay (which is against our theology, confessions and current constitution), but he also has not been collaquized or called by the Synod. Just to note this ordination has not been sanctioned by the Eastern Synod, however, I think they should suspend (which may lead to excommunication) from the roster all those who participate. Its not enough to simply not sanction, there needs to disciplinary action.

I think this is another step down the path of a split in the ELCIC, between liberal east and conservative west.

It is a violation of the Scriptures (first) and the Lutheran Confessions (second). There is no place in scripture where God repeals the Law. Yes, it is fulfilled in Christ, but it is not abolished, repealed, or anulled. The Law is still in effect in that it shows us our sinfulness and need for a saviour. Christ is that saviour. However, if we are truly saved, we should not act in a manner contrary to the law. Moses would have likely stoned the ENTIRE congregation that is involved in this. This will certainly cause further division within the entire christian church as a whole.

While there is some precedent for Law being changed/repealed/what-have-you (dietary laws were explicitly so, and the church has, through history, "repealed" many laws, actually in Acts saying the Mosaic law no longer holds any sway at all for Gentile Christians--it was all Noah law as the 4 biggies), I don't see that homosexuality, which may fall under the "sexual immorality" clause of the laws in place according to Acts, has been repealed.

But, if it is true that the law is given by God through the church now, as the book of Acts clearly indicates, as well as Jesus' statements to Peter on binding and loosing, then the church gets to decide. Not the congregation, the church. If the congregation goes against what the church has in place, then that congregation is undoubtedly in violation of not only church law, but Holy Law which is given through the church.

Practically speaking, I see nothing but division resulting from this. Even the mere mention of the word "homosexuality" is enough to make some people want to get up and leave and never come back. It will be interesting to see who has placed themselves under the church's authority-even in disagreement with the rulings of the church--and under their own authority.

As of now, the church has a position of requiring celibacy for those who are homosexual, and as far as I know, all straight people outside the bonds of holy matrimony. For any person or congregation to violate this is wrong, period. They are not being faithful. If they really want change and believe the Holy Spirit is calling for change, they need to make their case, either in writing or verbally, and let the synod assembly votes be cast and trust that the winning side is the side that is supposed to win.

I grew up in what became the ELCA, which I have been visiting lately. That is what I'm familiar with. The congregation I've visited is a bit more conservative than the ELCA website suggests is the average. A lot of much older members there. I had left church altogether for a long time, then went to my mother-in-law's church - Church of God/Anderson Indiana. I'm leaning much closer to the LCMS nowadays.

I may have to part ways with ELCA altogether. I knew it may be the case when the study on sexuality was finished. There's a part of me that wants to stay and speak up and use my voice to try to change things. But realistically I think it's too far gone from that point. Sometimes I wonder if the majority of laity agree with how things are going within the ELCA.

Ordaining an actively gay pastor goes against scripture. To me , this is just not a cultural issue thing. I have read the various culturally based arguments concerning this and I find them lacking. I have read the ones saying it's about temple prostitution, paganism and idolatry. God is quite clear about this issue. The law does not change. Jesus clarified what marriage was meant to be. I don't see how scripture can be twisted to change the Law. The Law stands, though we are justified. Jesus said to the adulteress, 'Go and sin no more.' To dismiss the Law to live as we see fit is nothing more than idolatry of self and our own standards IMO- putting our own desires before God.

Our culture has gotten farther and farther from God. Seperation of church and State has become a dominant issue in America today. Joseph Campbell once said, to paraphrase, 'You can tell the importance of something to a society based on how big that something's buildings are.' He went on to explain how the temples in ancient civilzations were the biggest, the cathedrals in Europe were the biggest. And now, it's the buildings of commerce that tower over us. He went on to this saying he applied as being spoken of Americans, 'We work at our play, worship our work, and play at worship.'
I have never forgotten it and strive to worship at worship. Is there worship without obedience? Or should I say is there worship with open defience? The bible lists homosexuality as a sin. If the church were knowingly ordaining an actively, openly practicing unrepentant: liar, thief, drunkard, idolator, etc, to shepard her flock then I'd disagree with that too.
That's my two cents.

The bible lists homosexuality as a sin. If the church were knowingly ordaining an actively, openly practicing unrepentant: liar, thief, drunkard, idolator, etc, to shepard her flock then I'd disagree with that too.

Click to expand...

I am glad that you include all those. The only question I ask is:
What about someone who unrepentantly wears a poly/cotton blend? That is a command given by God to all his followers in Israel to never do, for it too is an abomination. Jesus never repealed this as He did the dietary laws (to my knowledge).
It may seem like that example is over-used, and perhaps it is. But the Law is the Law, and to break even the slightest part of any of it, including what you eat or wear, then you break, according to Scripture, the entire Law altogether.

It is good that you would oppose ordination of an unrepentant sinner regarding sins more than just homosexuality. But since we all break at least one of the 613 commandments from God, and none of us fully love our enemies, and since we don't order our lives to do so, we aren't repentant on that sin of not fully loving our enemies, can we ordain anyone who is unrepentant on any sin?

My argument is that we already do, in all honesty. The bar for what is sin and what we need to do in order to not sin is so high, none of us ever gets over save on a few issues. And it tends to be the issues we clear the hurdle on (at least we think we clear it) that we are most adamant others not do.

This isn't a problem with you personally or anything like that. It's a trap everyone falls into, myself included.

That being said, I realize we can't ordain unrepentant pedophiles or murderers or something like that. Of course there has to be a line. The question is exactly where we draw that line?

I still maintain that this is a church issue, and if we have placed ourselves under the authority of God through the church, then for us to leave when the church decides what we don't like is being unfaithful, and it's unfaithful to stay only as long as they agree with what we want.

Of course, issues that are directly essential to salvation (Trinity doctrine, salvation through Christ alone, etc.) are to remain constant, if if a church claims those are no longer in place, I would argue that it is no longer a church, but a cult or group gathering. Perhaps I'm in the minority, which is probably the case, as it usually is in any thread I'm on here, whether taking the conservative side or the liberal side (to use labels which are more eye of the beholder than abstract fact). But hopefully I have been reasonable in my minority-ness.

AngelusSax said:

I am glad that you include all those. The only question I ask is:
What about someone who unrepentantly wears a poly/cotton blend? That is a command given by God to all his followers in Israel to never do, for it too is an abomination. Jesus never repealed this as He did the dietary laws (to my knowledge).
It may seem like that example is over-used, and perhaps it is. But the Law is the Law, and to break even the slightest part of any of it, including what you eat or wear, then you break, according to Scripture, the entire Law altogether.

It is good that you would oppose ordination of an unrepentant sinner regarding sins more than just homosexuality. But since we all break at least one of the 613 commandments from God, and none of us fully love our enemies, and since we don't order our lives to do so, we aren't repentant on that sin of not fully loving our enemies, can we ordain anyone who is unrepentant on any sin?

My argument is that we already do, in all honesty. The bar for what is sin and what we need to do in order to not sin is so high, none of us ever gets over save on a few issues. And it tends to be the issues we clear the hurdle on (at least we think we clear it) that we are most adamant others not do.

This isn't a problem with you personally or anything like that. It's a trap everyone falls into, myself included.

That being said, I realize we can't ordain unrepentant pedophiles or murderers or something like that. Of course there has to be a line. The question is exactly where we draw that line?

I still maintain that this is a church issue, and if we have placed ourselves under the authority of God through the church, then for us to leave when the church decides what we don't like is being unfaithful, and it's unfaithful to stay only as long as they agree with what we want.

Of course, issues that are directly essential to salvation (Trinity doctrine, salvation through Christ alone, etc.) are to remain constant, if if a church claims those are no longer in place, I would argue that it is no longer a church, but a cult or group gathering. Perhaps I'm in the minority, which is probably the case, as it usually is in any thread I'm on here, whether taking the conservative side or the liberal side (to use labels which are more eye of the beholder than abstract fact). But hopefully I have been reasonable in my minority-ness.

Click to expand...

I understand what your saying. Really I do.
There are sins the bible mentions that will keep people from inheriting the kingdom of God. There does seem to be a line as you say. I reference 1 Cor. 6
Paul tells us to follow the law as best we can. Homosexuality is a major lifestyle element. It's not a little thing.
I try to discern not judge. Even if it doesn't sound like it.

Paul gave qualifications for church leaders.

"For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)

1 Timothy 3:1-7: "This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."
"Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 3:8-13).

The only family lifestyle listed is husband and one wife.

FWIW what was forbidden in wearing clothing was wool and linen together. Deut. 22:11 A straight forward reason is not given.


"The great Rabbinic Commentator Rashi says (on Genesis 26:5), quoting the Midrash, that the Law of shatnez is a chok, a decree that the King has passed for His subjects, for which we do not know the reason. A great many of the Commandments in the Torah are of that sort. We do not know precisely why pork is forbidden, for example. We do not understand how the Purification by means of a red heifer works.
Therefore, we can never truly understand the entire reason for this Mitzvah, but we can understand some of the concepts within it, at some level. Maimonides, in his Guide to the Perplexed, points out that ancient pagan priests used to wear wool and linen processed together, because they knew how to make use of it for occult practices, including idol worship and other terrible things, and therefore the Torah forbade us to use it for all time, and ordered us to stay far away from shatnez, as well as all other practices of the pagans. " from beingjewish.com

AngelusSax said:

I am glad that you include all those. The only question I ask is:
What about someone who unrepentantly wears a poly/cotton blend? That is a command given by God to all his followers in Israel to never do, for it too is an abomination. Jesus never repealed this as He did the dietary laws (to my knowledge).

Click to expand...

You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between the Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law. They are very distinct. Until you learn to differentiate between the two, you'll never 'get it.'

tisamy said:

FWIW what was forbidden in wearing clothing was wool and linen together. Deut. 22:11 A straight forward reason is not given.

Click to expand...

From the context of that entire section, which seems to begin a chapter or two earlier, it was a command given to the Levites concerning their ceremonial attire.

I'll stick my neck out on this one. This is the right move. It won't be long and this will not be thought of as unusual. WE've been ordaining gay people forever. We just haven't been honest about it. So has the Missouri Synod. And if the Roman church didn't ordain gay people they probably would have few priests left. I think that gay and straight pastors should be held to the same standard--that if they are going to be involved in sexual expression (something most people want) it should be done in the context of a committed relationship.

You still refuse to acknowledge the difference between the Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law. They are very distinct. Until you learn to differentiate between the two, you'll never 'get it.'

Click to expand...

Where does the Bible say that what we don't follow today is ceremonial law? Every time I read it it lists laws, and while the NLT sometimes says one will be ceremonially unclean, it does so regarding many different laws, some of which we still hold to today in regards to the sexual realm, and some of which we don't in regards to the food realm.

All the Law is all the Law.

Deut. 26:16-19, upon completion of the many laws and regulations, says that if "you" (the intended audience of the day) obey all these commands (which include the one about wool and linen and various other things we tend to ignore), you will be set high above all other nations he has made.

So either the Levites, being the only ones the command pertained to, would be set that high, or all Israel would, and therefore all Israel was to be under these laws as well.

Of course it's more fun to pick and choose. Just some of us are honest enough to admit that picking and choosing is what happens in any church today on any laws/regulations they follow.

Willy said:

I'll stick my neck out on this one. This is the right move. It won't be long and this will not be thought of as unusual. WE've been ordaining gay people forever. We just haven't been honest about it. So has the Missouri Synod. And if the Roman church didn't ordain gay people they probably would have few priests left. I think that gay and straight pastors should be held to the same standard--that if they are going to be involved in sexual expression (something most people want) it should be done in the context of a committed relationship.

Click to expand...

But let's ask this: If the church retains the current position, or even goes the other way all of a sudden, would you hold yourself under the authority of the church even in disagreement?

AngelusSax said:

Where does the Bible say that what we don't follow today is ceremonial law? Every time I read it it lists laws, and while the NLT sometimes says one will be ceremonially unclean, it does so regarding many different laws, some of which we still hold to today in regards to the sexual realm, and some of which we don't in regards to the food realm.

All the Law is all the Law.

Deut. 26:16-19, upon completion of the many laws and regulations, says that if "you" (the intended audience of the day) obey all these commands (which include the one about wool and linen and various other things we tend to ignore), you will be set high above all other nations he has made.

So either the Levites, being the only ones the command pertained to, would be set that high, or all Israel would, and therefore all Israel was to be under these laws as well.

Of course it's more fun to pick and choose. Just some of us are honest enough to admit that picking and choosing is what happens in any church today on any laws/regulations they follow.

Click to expand...

The Ceremonial Laws pointed ahead to the coming Christ. Christ fulfilled those. We're not under those Laws any longer. It's the Moral Law that is still adhered to in the Church, which includes the sin of sodomy. Paul speaks very clearly about this.

Willy said:

I'll stick my neck out on this one. This is the right move. It won't be long and this will not be thought of as unusual. WE've been ordaining gay people forever. We just haven't been honest about it. So has the Missouri Synod.

Click to expand...

And when they're discovered, they are immediately defrocked, as they should be.

The Ceremonial Laws pointed ahead to the coming Christ. Christ fulfilled those. We're not under those Laws any longer. It's the Moral Law that is still adhered to in the Church, which includes the sin of sodomy. Paul speaks very clearly about this.

Click to expand...

So we're under Grace for our salvation unless we disobey one of the laws that may or may not be included for Gentile Christians under the book of Acts, in which case we're under Grace until we sin then we're under law and if we don't repent, salvation is yanked away because we're still under some Law?

That seems to be what your argument is. Perhaps I've merely misread/misunderstood you though. Further clarification would be helpful, and thanks in advance.

AngelusSax said:

I've merely misread/misunderstood you though. Further clarification would be helpful, and thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

I've explained it to you numerous times on this board. I'm tired of repeating myself.

I've explained it to you numerous times on this board. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Click to expand...

Yes, and your explanations have always seemed to be saying Grace just isn't enough, we have to obey parts of the law we particularly like in order to earn the rest of our salvation or maintain it, which sounds more Catholic than Lutheran. Of course, since you come from the Catholic church (I believe you mentioned once leaving Catholicism), that isn't too surprising.

In short: It seems like you have no problem saying to someone who disobeys a law you happen to not disobey, that they need to obey or else there'll be hell to pay, and most probably in the literal sense of the phrase.

Either Grace sets us free and saves us, or it doesn't. Obeying the law doesn't do jack regards to that, and any suggestion otherwise is antithetical to the Gospel message.

AngelusSax said:

Yes, and your explanations have always seemed to be saying Grace just isn't enough, we have to obey parts of the law we particularly like in order to earn the rest of our salvation or maintain it, which sounds more Catholic than Lutheran. Of course, since you come from the Catholic church (I believe you mentioned once leaving Catholicism), that isn't too surprising.

In short: It seems like you have no problem saying to someone who disobeys a law you happen to not disobey, that they need to obey or else there'll be hell to pay, and most probably in the literal sense of the phrase.

Either Grace sets us free and saves us, or it doesn't. Obeying the law doesn't do jack regards to that, and any suggestion otherwise is antithetical to the Gospel message.

Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read anything that I've posted on this board you would know that's not true. I have never said any such thing. So, either you're ignorant or illiterate, I'm not sure which.

The Moral Law most certainly still applies today. Obeying it doesn't get us saved. Breaking it and being unrepentant gets us damned.

I truly have nothing more to say to you about this matter. You don't listen to anyone other than yourself anyway.

Ciao.

Instead of looking at it as to whether or not we should obey a law, how about looking instead to how God views homosexuality and take his concerns into consideration? Does God love the practice of homosexuality?

The Moral Law most certainly still applies today. Obeying it doesn't get us saved. Breaking it and being unrepentant gets us damned.

Click to expand...

Then we're all damned because we all break some part of it somewhere and none of us is truly repentant, or we wouldn't commit the same sin more than once or twice. Repentance isn't just being sorry and "trying to do better". It's ordering your life so actually do do better, right then and there.

Instead of looking at it as to whether or not we should obey a law, how about looking instead to how God views homosexuality and take his concerns into consideration? Does God love the practice of homosexuality?

Click to expand...

A much better argument. Of course, one could argue God does not love it, or one could argue that He does not, though He didn't then (history is full of precedent of God amending His laws/conditions/whatevers, as God no longer wants genocide but at one point commanded it).

And of course, as with so many other things, we can then get into "well is it the act itself or the intent that is the problem?" If it's the act, then the act is indeed a problem. If it's the intent, we need to know what intent is actually there that is the problem. Idol worship done through homosexual acts (as has been suggested by some, but I don't know I buy into it, or that I don't buy into it), or just the intent to have homosexual sex? If a man lusting after a woman is adultery, and it is, then how can we draw the line on homosexuals at acting on it? Shouldn't we condemn the lust that happens as well, and say if they exhibit signs of oogling a same-gendered person, they're out? Lots of questions arise, which would be nice to delve into elsewhere, perhaps.

I truly have nothing more to say to you about this matter. You don't listen to anyone other than yourself anyway.

Click to expand...

Actually I do. I just find you arrogant and the antithesis of God's love and mercy, so I find it hard to listen to you, specifically. But other people come off as humbly offering advice, rather than haughtily so. Them, I listen to, and even in disagreement, I can respect.

And just because I disagree does not mean I don't listen. It just means I disagree with what I'm listening to, because that's the way the usage of a brain works sometimes. People disagree. Get over it.

If you had bothered to read anything that I've posted on this board you would know that's not true. I have never said any such thing. So, either you're ignorant or illiterate, I'm not sure which.

Click to expand...

If breaking a law and being unrepentant means we are damned, then that means the grace of the act on the cross simply WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. There is NO other interpretation than that. You can argue that it is grace which allows us to repent and that repentence is itself grace, but that means that those who don't repent don't receive that grace, which leads us to Calvinism and double-predestination.