What can we do?

[Mr_E]

It appears to be inevitable now that, barring a divine miracle, the ELCA's proposed statement on human sexuality will pass. Even at the Central States Synod Assembly, which I would assume is one of the most conservative branches of the ELCA, the recommended statement was approved by, I believe, just over two thirds of the voting members.

I am NOT going to remain a part of the ELCA if it decides to pass this social statement. I do not know whether my local ELCA church will want to break away or not. However, I know that I cannot remain part of a church that is endorsing what I believe to be the destruction of marriage, relationships, and family as God intended for them to be. I'm not going to stick around while my church decides that one of God's most wonderful Blessings is not good enough and that it is time that we throw it out for something far inferior.

I am highly involved in my church and a care deeply for my brothers and sisters in Christ at the church. I do not want to just abandon them. I'm not sure what else can be done though. As this decision gets closer and closer, I do not see a strong core emerging of people who share my beliefs. It appears as though the church is going to pass the proposed statement and those who disagree will either have to conform to the new teachings on marriage or go find a different church. This whole situation greatly saddens me. I feel like I should be doing something, but what can I do?

 

[AngelusSax]

Pray that God's will be done, and trust Him to do the rest.

 

[Mr_E]

Pray that God's will be done, and trust Him to do the rest.

That is the best advice anybody could ever give. It's just really hard to sit back and wait, but I think you are right. We do not know what is going to happen, so it does not do us any good to worry about a future that has not played out yet.

I will continue to pray that God's Will be done in what is going on in the ELCA, and I will also pray that my personal decisions following the outcome of the situation will be in line with God's Will.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Read your catechism on the Lord's Prayer, there is much strength in it for those who stand on the edge of despair or hopelessness.

And on your opinion of the issues the fortunate and unfortunate thing is the local option that is being sputtered about. It will prevent as you say others being forced to conform to it in that they do not have to change the practices in their parish. But it is unfortunate because it creates a level of divide and a security blanket that prevents either side to admonish the other in the future. So what will happen is you will have a firm division within the synod, and the division will prohibit the ability for the two sides to discuss this and (I fear) other issues because they will appeal to "bound conscience" and the right of the local option.

May our Heavenly Father have mercy on us all!

Pax

 

[Mr_E]

Read your catechism on the Lord's Prayer, there is much strength in it for those who stand on the edge of despair or hopelessness.

And on your opinion of the issues the fortunate and unfortunate thing is the local option that is being sputtered about. It will prevent as you say others being forced to conform to it in that they do not have to change the practices in their parish. But it is unfortunate because it creates a level of divide and a security blanket that prevents either side to admonish the other in the future. So what will happen is you will have a firm division within the synod, and the division will prohibit the ability for the two sides to discuss this and (I fear) other issues because they will appeal to "bound conscience" and the right of the local option.

May our Heavenly Father have mercy on us all!

Pax

Thanks for the suggested reading material! I enjoy good and inspiring Christian messages.

I do not feel like the local "option" really gives us an option. If my church is part of the ELCA, we help support the ELCA. For example, a percentage of our offering money goes to the ELCA. The ELCA uses this money to support its causes. So, whatever the ELCA decides, it's members support (whether they agree with it or not). So, I feel like the "option" is not really an option at all. It's just something to make us feel better. Also, being a member of the ELCA says something about our beliefs and that is a testimony to those who know us.

Technically speaking though, you are right. We would not have to conform, but I personally feel like remaining an ELCA member would make me a liar if I do not believe in all that the ELCA stands for.

Sorry if it sounds like I am disagreeing with you, because I really am not. I am just clarifying what I meant about having to conform or leave. I just do not see staying as an option if the social statement were to pass.

 

[AngelusSax]

Sorry if it sounds like I am disagreeing with you, because I really am not. I am just clarifying what I meant about having to conform or leave. I just do not see staying as an option if the social statement were to pass.

Could you see a scenario where the statement passes, but it becomes your role to add your voice in (through becoming a voting member, for example) to the more traditional side, and thus try to overturn the statement later? This is what many people, I think, would try to do.

Also, a Scripture passage that comes to mind is Matthew 16:17-19

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."

The reason I bring this up is that binding and loosing was seen, from what I cn gather, as a rabbinical term for deciding what laws were to be strictly adhered to, what laws were not so strict, etc. Basically, how to interpret the law to get at the heart of the matter. We tend to see it more as deciding whether or not to declare forgiveness, but I'm not entirely sure that is the best interpretation of this passage (though it may be). The question is, how do you take it? Is it possible the Church (as in, the ELCA) could be acting completely within its Biblical right in deciding how to interpret the law, to decide what's in/out, etc? Or will it have just gone off the deep end?

When you have the answers to those questions, you'll be much closer to your answer on whether or not to stay within the ELCA if this statement passes. I know you're pretty much at a decision now, but this may help cement whatever decision you make.

 

[Mr_E]

Could you see a scenario where the statement passes, but it becomes your role to add your voice in (through becoming a voting member, for example) to the more traditional side, and thus try to overturn the statement later? This is what many people, I think, would try to do.

Also, a Scripture passage that comes to mind is Matthew 16:17-19

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."

The reason I bring this up is that binding and loosing was seen, from what I cn gather, as a rabbinical term for deciding what laws were to be strictly adhered to, what laws were not so strict, etc. Basically, how to interpret the law to get at the heart of the matter. We tend to see it more as deciding whether or not to declare forgiveness, but I'm not entirely sure that is the best interpretation of this passage (though it may be). The question is, how do you take it? Is it possible the Church (as in, the ELCA) could be acting completely within its Biblical right in deciding how to interpret the law, to decide what's in/out, etc? Or will it have just gone off the deep end?

When you have the answers to those questions, you'll be much closer to your answer on whether or not to stay within the ELCA if this statement passes. I know you're pretty much at a decision now, but this may help cement whatever decision you make.

I definitely could see myself sticking around to try do my part in getting the decision reversed (if it is passed), but only if I believe it is God's Will for me to do so. Without him, my efforts would be in vein. At some point, however, the church will choose one side or the other and the debate will be over. At that point, if the social statement as is turns out to be the agreed upon decision, I do not believe I would be right for me to remain a part of the ELCA.

I understand your point in the verses you quoted. I think the following, taken from Acts 10:10-15, is an example of what Jesus was talking about...

10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."


Jesus gave Peter the authority to deliver this kind of message to other members of the Church. This was not something Peter just decided to change. He had a divine revelation in a dream from God. It had nothing to do with the way Peter felt, or how society had changed.


I may be wrong (I am not a theologian or a pastor), but I view the law about not eating pork as a ceremonial law that was part of the Old Covenant, and not something as central to the Law, as we know it today, as the commandment on adultery is.


Today, not only are homosexual relationships common, but so are premarital sexual relationships. In fact, premarital sexual relationships are accepted in our society. Sexual relationships are no longer reserved for married people in the general public. Most Christians still believe that such relationships should be saved for marriage, but society in generally does not see the point. If we decide that homosexual relationships are to be permitted, how long until sex outside of marriage in general is permitted? What about other commandments? If our economy does not recover and we become a much less prosperous nation, would it be OK to steal if it becomes a common means of survival? I think our church is headed down a very dangerous road.



John 15:19 says, "19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you."


By throwing out God's commandments, we are choosing the world over God because we are uncomfortable with the world hating us. I do not wish to have any part of that.


By the way AngelusSax, I think you disagree with me to some extent, but I really appreciate the fact that you are being helpful despite that. And you are using scripture to back up your statements, not anger.

 

[AngelusSax]

By the way AngelusSax, I think you disagree with me to some extent, but I really appreciate the fact that you are being helpful despite that. And you are using scripture to back up your statements, not anger.

Well, I am somewhat on the fence on the issue as a whole, but I have decided to remain in the ELCA, simply because I can see how some would read the prohibitions against homosexual acts in the Bible as being about non-consensual, committed, loving homosexual couples. I do not have sufficient knowledge to know for sure, of course, and I can see validity on both sides of this argument/debate. So for me, my decision is I will stay, accepting the church's doctrine as authority.

Of course, I have a line in the sand, so to speak. If the church tells me I must become gay (which I highly highly doubt they will), then I don't think I'd be able to remain in the church.

But if the church decides that the laws against homosexual relations were more ceremonial, or were about pederasty/rape/paganism/what-have-you, I can live with that and accept that as authority in my life. Perhaps the blessing of being on the fence, and not having an extremely strong conviction about "absolutely yes" or "absolutely no" is that I can, for now anyway, live with whatever decision the church makes on this issue, and accept either as authority in my life.

One thing I do think, though, is that the church isn't deciding simply based on what they feel. People on all sides believe they have at least a part of the truth given to them by God on this issue, and even if I do wind up disagreeing with the end decision, I still trust the motives behind the decision being made as being honorable ones.

And I'm happy to help in any civil discussion about this or most any other issue I have even the slightest knowledge in, whatever way I can.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

A real issue at hand for people on both sides of the "fence" is to determine the proper use of the Law, its limits, and its distinction from the gospel.

What is unfortunate for me is that I did not think the social statement dealt with that well enough, nor did they deal with much of any of the theological issues that people on both sides raised.

Mr. E, I pray God's will comes about "in and among us" as our Catechism puts it. And that God keeps us in Word and Faith until the end of our lives. How that will leads you is one I hope you continue to discern in community and prayer.

pax