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

[DaRev]

Before you collect your cigar from LilLamb, let's look to the fact that the Bible nowhere defines marriage as "one man/one woman." The Patriarchs, Judges, and even Kings David and Solomon engaged in polygamy and concubinage without a word of moral condemnation. The account of Adam and Eve in Genesis describes what has always been a norm, but it does not prescribe that norm.

The basis of marriage being between man and woman if found throughout Scripture. Absolutely no where is there even the slightest hint that same sex marriage is even assumed in all of Scripture. I would say that the norm is well established.

And in light of the qualifications of the pastoral office, the Scriptures are abundantly clear that pastor's are to be the "husband of one wife", which from the Greek can also be translated "the husband of one woman." For a supposed pastor to be in a same sex "marriage" not only disqualifies him from the office for not being above reproach (by living in a state of unrepentant sin), but also being the "husband of one man" which also goes against the Biblical qualifications.

In the light of today's best understanding of homosexuality (an understanding that was not available to the authors of Scripture)...

Well, God is the author of Scripture, and God is omniscient, which means that He most certainly understood what the sin of sodomy is. It has nothing to do with what today's society has crafted, the word of God is clear on the matter. Homophile thoughts and acts are inherently sinful and not pleasing to God. Any type of "committed and non-coercive same sex relationship" is equal to unrepentant sin, which is a sign of unbelief and that's the damnable sin.

 

[Willy]

Before you collect your cigar from LilLamb, let's look to the fact that the Bible nowhere defines marriage as "one man/one woman." The Patriarchs, Judges, and even Kings David and Solomon engaged in polygamy and concubinage without a word of moral condemnation. The account of Adam and Eve in Genesis describes what has always been a norm, but it does not prescribe that norm.

To move this discussion ahead a little...at the present time, the ELCA's policy is that its pastors will be celibate in singleness and faithful in marriage. Also, the ELCA does not recognize same-sex unions. So, gay clergy are to remain celibate. There have been some extraordinary ordinations of individuals living in committed same-sex relationships. (There have also been extraordinary ordinations of individuals who object to the Call to Common Mission agreement with the Episcopal Church). I don't approve of extraordinary ordinations because they violate the rule of good order.

In what I am about to say, I represent only myself. I am not in anyway representing the ELCA.

It is well-established that a certain, small percentage of human beings have an innate homosexual orientation. This is true in every culture and society. The cause or causes for same-sex attraction are not completely understood, but it seems clear that homosexuality is not a choice.

To say that all homosexual behavior is, in and of itself, immoral makes three options available to the homosexual minority. 1. try to live as a heterosexual person, 2. live in celibacy, 3. live in "unrepentant sin."

The first is to live a lie, which is not a healthy option.

The second, celibacy, is a heavy burden to place on homosexual individuals. Even the Apostle Paul, who wished that everyone could be celibate, recognized that this was not feasible for every person.

The third is to brand homosexuals with a label that they are bound to reject. It is asking them to repent of their very nature. It would be like asking you to repent of your heterosexuality.

In the light of today's best understanding of homosexuality (an understanding that was not available to the authors of Scripture) I think a better construction to place on the argument is, "How can homosexual persons ethically express their sexuality?" And the answer I come to is, "Just like heterosexual persons: by living in faithful, committed, covenanted, non-coercive relationships."

So, I am in favor of same-sex marriage as an ethical outlet for homosexuality. And, this being the case, I am also in favor of the ordination of homosexuals according to the same standard applied to heterosexuals: celibacy outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.

Wow! What a breath of fresh air!! Thanks!

 

[Willy]

Ignoring the unnecessary sarcastic smiley...

I would say that it is similar but not the same.

The authors of the New Testament were not Trinitarians in the same sense that Athanasius was. Rather they were monotheists who recognized the one God in the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They probably would have recognized their own understanding of God's nature in the later creedal formulations.

The authors of the New Testament used the Trinitarian name. But, the Bible nowhere makes the distinction between moral, civil and ceremonial laws.

The Levitical Law was understood in its original context as applying to the people of Israel and distinguishing them from the nations. The Law governed all of their life. They did not make distinctions between civil, moral and ceremonial laws. They did not compartmentalize their lives in that way. The Law was the Law of God for the people of God.

So, that understanding is imposed on the text in a way that the doctrine of the Trinity is not. Also, the doctrine of the Trinity has the universal support of the Church catholic. I don't think the three-fold distinction of the Law has quite the same support.

In the book of Acts, when the Jerusalem church rules that circumcision is not to be required of Gentiles, they do not completely lift the kosher dietary laws. Gentile Christians are to refrain from eating meat offered to idols and from food that is strangled. If you divide the Law into three categories, are not the kosher dietary regulations ceremonial? I suppose that you could argue that strangling animals is immoral in some way, but that would be reading a lot into the text.

The other requirement placed upon Christians in Acts is that they refrain from sexual immorality. The question for me becomes "Are homosexual acts immoral in and of themselves? Or, are homosexual acts within a covenanted, committed, faithful and mutually exclusive relationship permissable, just as heterosexual acts are within the covenant of marriage?"

Again, thanks!

 

[BreadAlone]

an understanding that was not available to the authors of Scripture

Please enlighten me - which understanding was not available to the Omniscient One!?

ETA:

Ahh..Rev beat me to it:

Well, God is the author of Scripture, and God is omniscient, which means that He most certainly understood what the sin of sodomy is. It has nothing to do with what today's society has crafted, the word of God is clear on the matter. Homophile thoughts and acts are inherently sinful and not pleasing to God. Any type of "committed and non-coercive same sex relationship" is equal to unrepentant sin, which is a sign of unbelief and that's the damnable sin.

 

[Tofferer]

Willy and RegularGuy, why do both of you try to fight against what God has already declared? What do you possibly hope to gain? We can not nulify God's moral law for the sake of a social agenda. Genesis declared marriage as man and wife. Can you find one reference in scripture where a homosexual relationship was commended? I don't know of even one such verse. Ultimately, I feel as if you'd rather deny scripture for the sake of something else. Really, nobody here is God nor does anybody here have a right to dictate to God what the moral law should be. The Bible declares what God has said the standard will be. That is what we should follow, not the opinions of men.

 

[RadMan]

It's always so instructional to see how some people justify sins in people's lives. It's like "well here's my ideas that will help the sinners get away with as much as you can". People downplay sin and make it a "gray" area and thus mock God's GRACE as though it was just minor thing that He granted and gave to us. It mocks the very death of Christ on the cross. They make it sound as if Jesus could have just been scourged and not crucified because sin isn't that bad. The magnitude and enormity of sin is only overshadowed by Jesus' anguish on the cross and the deliverance of our sins by His action. Making light of the abomination of homosexuality is making Christ death on the cross a joke. All your higher-critical can't explain that away.

There are not only warnings to the church but also to the preachers:
“Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Ro 1:32)

 

[AngelusSax]

And in light of the qualifications of the pastoral office, the Scriptures are abundantly clear that pastor's are to be the "husband of one wife", which from the Greek can also be translated "the husband of one woman." For a supposed pastor to be in a same sex "marriage" not only disqualifies him from the office for not being above reproach (by living in a state of unrepentant sin), but also being the "husband of one man" which also goes against the Biblical qualifications.

This may come as a shock, but I actually agree with the majority of what you have said on the homosexuality issue. There may be cases to be made about the "why" of the legal bans on it being no longer relevant/misunderstood from the beginning, then again there may not be. As I don't know, I actually do err on the side of taking this as face value in my theology, despite my postings on here (what good is a debate to try and sort things out if I always take the agreeing side?). However, there is one thing that is technically true that is not espoused, generally speaking, by those prohibiting ordaining homosexuals on the basis of it being impossible to be the "husband of one wife". This would absolutely ban any and all single men from the pastoral offices, whether straight or homosexual. A widower, no longer being bound to the law of marriage, is not married, so if a married pastor dies, he becomes single, and therefore disqualified as he is no longer the husband of one wife-he is not a husband at all.

My issue here is not so much any adamant arguments against homosexuals who are non-celibate to be barred from clergy. My issue here is that to take the qualifications literally and apply them only in the context of barring homosexuals is not valid. It must be taken literally for all, or it must not be taken literally for all.

 

[DaRev]

This may come as a shock, but I actually agree with the majority of what you have said on the homosexuality issue. There may be cases to be made about the "why" of the legal bans on it being no longer relevant/misunderstood from the beginning, then again there may not be. As I don't know, I actually do err on the side of taking this as face value in my theology, despite my postings on here (what good is a debate to try and sort things out if I always take the agreeing side?). However, there is one thing that is technically true that is not espoused, generally speaking, by those prohibiting ordaining homosexuals on the basis of it being impossible to be the "husband of one wife". This would absolutely ban any and all single men from the pastoral offices, whether straight or homosexual. A widower, no longer being bound to the law of marriage, is not married, so if a married pastor dies, he becomes single, and therefore disqualified as he is no longer the husband of one wife-he is not a husband at all.

My issue here is not so much any adamant arguments against homosexuals who are non-celibate to be barred from clergy. My issue here is that to take the qualifications literally and apply them only in the context of barring homosexuals is not valid. It must be taken literally for all, or it must not be taken literally for all.

Remember, though, that Scripture must be taken in the context of the whole. The qualifications are not meant to say that unmarried men cannot be pastors, but that a married man must have only one wife, thus keeping with the norm of marriage being between one man and one woman, thus disqualifying both homosexuals and polygamists. You have to also keep in mind who wrote that particular passage. St. Paul himself was unmarried.

 

[AngelusSax]

Remember, though, that Scripture must be taken in the context of the whole. The qualifications are not meant to say that unmarried men cannot be pastors, but that a married man must have only one wife, thus keeping with the norm of marriage being between one man and one woman, thus disqualifying both homosexuals and polygamists. You have to also keep in mind who wrote that particular passage. St. Paul himself was unmarried

That is true. I merely meant to point out a danger of basing any argument on this issue on that passage alone, as some people out there somewhere I'm sure would do and are prone to do.

 

[DaRev]

That is true. I merely meant to point out a danger of basing any argument on this issue on that passage alone, as some people out there somewhere I'm sure would do and are prone to do.

True. It is but a part of the whole.

 

[RadMan]

So, I am in favor of same-sex marriage as an ethical outlet for homosexuality. And, this being the case, I am also in favor of the ordination of homosexuals according to the same standard applied to heterosexuals: celibacy outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.

It's interesting that you don't stress that God can cure a person of homosexuality but that God can only work within the limits of what you think He should be. And that is downgrading the sin for what it really is. An abomination

Also giving them an excuse like you have is not helping them recognize their sin but just making excuses for the sin. They can do that without your help.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

1. try to live as a heterosexual person,

Lots of people do it every day and they don't need to have sex to do it.

2. live in celibacy,

See above. There's lots of people who live with celibacy. There's a lot of people out there who fight their carnal urges.

3. live in "unrepentant sin.

That's not a choice we're forcing them into. Why would you advocate passing the buck? We're not to blame for their acts of immorality.

To put it bluntly, it's not my job as a Christian to make someone feel better or okay about their sins. It is, however, my job to tell a Christian they are going down the wrong path and here is what will happen if you continue down that path. Jesus didn't preach the gospel of what people wanted to hear and neither will I. He preached the gospel of what NEEDED to be heard, and that's what I'll continue to do.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

1. Ephesians 5:25
   Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
   Ephesians 5:24-26 (in Context) Ephesians 5 (Whole Chapter)
2. Colossians 3:19
   Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
   Colossians 3:18-20 (in Context) Colossians 3 (Whole Chapter)

The language here leaves nothing to doubt that marriage was between a man and a woman.

 

[WildStrawberry]

Regarding the "no where does the Bible state 'one man/one woman' as the norm" I give you Genesis 2 verse 20b through 24: (NIV)


But for Adam [g] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [i] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [j] '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


(The bolding is mine)




The scripture says nothing...NOTHING...about a man leaving his father and father and being united to his husband becoming one flesh. (and you may substitute feminine pronouns and nouns for the male ones here.)

I think that, from Creation, the question has been answered. It's here, point blank. Period.

Kae

 

[Melethiel]

The third is to brand homosexuals with a label that they are bound to reject. It is asking them to repent of their very nature. It would be like asking you to repent of your heterosexuality.

We all have a sinful nature, yet are called to repent of it. Why should homosexuals be any different? Yes, it might be a struggle, but it is also a struggle for people whose nature leads them toward pride, dishonesty, gluttony, etc.

 

[RadMan]

Do you have any reason to believe that ceremonial law is not present in the New Testament? I say quite the contrary, considering the episode in Acts that occasioned Paul's warnings against sexual immorality. Law is Law, and I'm absolutely certain that Luther at least would reject the notion that one has to follow some laws but not others. If you place yourself under one part of the law, you're in it for the whole ride.

You are under the illusion that we are under the law when we are not. Do you totally reject God's grace and mercy to you in forgiving your sins? You seem to think that the law has to be followed to the letter when all the law is is to show us our sins and bring us to repentance. We are sinners and our flesh can no more keep the law than the devil can say he is saved. Only Jesus' resurrection can bring us to God and not one iota of our righteousness of trying to keep the law can. We try to follow the law but only because we Love God and not because we have to. If we "had to" then it would be good works or "works righteous". As Luther says we are saint and sinner at the same time. Maybe you should read Luther before you put words in his mouth.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It's always so instructional to see how some people justify sins in people's lives. It's like "well here's my ideas that will help the sinners get away with as much as you can". People downplay sin and make it a "gray" area and thus mock God's GRACE as though it was just minor thing that He grated and gave to us. It mocks the very death of Christ on the cross. They make it sound as if Jesus could have just been scourged and not crucified because sin isn't that bad. The magnitude and enormity of sin is only overshadowed by Jesus' anguish on the cross and the deliverance of our sins by His action. Making light of the abomination of homosexuality is making Christ death on the cross a joke. All your higher-critical can't explain that away.

There are not only warnings to the church but also to the preachers:
“Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Ro 1:32)

Thank you Rad. Your are correct. This society of "entitlement" we live in, the so called "me" generation wants everything too be for, and about them. All this, and yet they are not willing to accept responsibility for any of their actions... Christ took that responsibility for us right to the Cross. Society would do well to imitate our Lord a little more.

 

[Edial]

It's always so instructional to see how some people justify sins in people's lives. It's like "well here's my ideas that will help the sinners get away with as much as you can". People downplay sin and make it a "gray" area and thus mock God's GRACE as though it was just minor thing that He granted and gave to us. It mocks the very death of Christ on the cross. They make it sound as if Jesus could have just been scourged and not crucified because sin isn't that bad. The magnitude and enormity of sin is only overshadowed by Jesus' anguish on the cross and the deliverance of our sins by His action. Making light of the abomination of homosexuality is making Christ death on the cross a joke. All your higher-critical can't explain that away.

There are not only warnings to the church but also to the preachers:
“Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Ro 1:32)

I never ever in my wildest dreams even when I was a practical atheist have I ever thought that I would see a church even to entertain homosexality as an option.
Oh, I understood that there could be other problems, but homosexuality?

To a common sense mind it made no sense.

I remember in my non-Christian days there were many house parties.
Russian parties lasted a weekend ... at least.
Adults and younger crowd were together, drinking and eating all this time.
There were some problems, some fights, but usually nothing really bad.

There was also a very old priest who once came in his black robe. Friend of that family. OK.

Then a friend of mine told me that this guy was known to pinch girls' behinds. I looked at him and I immediately lost a great chunk of respect for the guy.

Oh, we were doing much worse than that, ... but for a priest to do that?

In the eyes of the practical atheist like me he lost respect.

Today's atheists practically gloat when they see homosexuality in church.

Right now I feel bad for that old priest. That disrespectful culture of the Communism in USSR swallowed up the church.

What is our excuse?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[DailyBlessings]

Only Jesus' resurrection can bring us to God and not one iota of our righteousness of trying to keep the law can. We try to follow the law but only because we Love God and not because we have to. If we "had to" then it would be good works or "works righteous". As Luther says we are saint and sinner at the same time. Maybe you should read Luther before you put words in his mouth.

My objection is that the people here are indeed insisting that one "has to" follow certain laws in order to be saved. They are picking and choosing which ones, but that isn't how it works. If you "have to" be heterosexual in order to be saved, then you are under every ell and span of Moses' Law. I know exactly what Luther wrote, it's the fact that his followers are ignoring it that disturbs me.

 

[LilLamb219]

My objection is that the people here are indeed insisting that one "has to" follow certain laws in order to be saved. They are picking and choosing which ones, but that isn't how it works. If you "have to" be heterosexual in order to be saved, then you are under every ell and span of Moses' Law. I know exactly what Luther wrote, it's the fact that his followers are ignoring it that disturbs me.

Could you point out the postings of those who insist we have to "do" something in order to be saved?