As a father of three adult children and a grandfather to four, experience has brought it home to me that there are plenty enough voices in the world telling our children that I am a bigot without my church telling them the same thing.

It is one thing that as adults you and I may agree to disagree while belonging to the same church. But the argument then switches to what will our children be taught? The "enlightened" within the ELCA do not tolerate "unenlightened" opinions well. As we have read in these pages and in other sources, the slow wheels of repression began to roll before the CWA delegates got their bags to go home.

No. It is only a matter of time until any reservations about homosexual behavior and racism will be spoken in the same breath. It will be so from the top of the office of the Presiding Bishop to the ground level Sunday School class. Those committed to the "liberation" of homosexuals will accept nothing less.

Unless we are sending our children to some private, isolated Christian School hundreds of miles into the Alaskan wilderness, it is next to impossible to give them a "sheltered" life. Sorry, parents need all the help they can get. The last thing a parent needs is to teach his children an unpopular moral only to have his own church cut him off at the knees.

How can an Orthodox parent or grandparent send a child to Sunday School or Conformation in the ELCA? In less than ten years there will be zero traditional Pastors remaining. The re-education has already begun by the ELCA. Two weeks ago the online "The Lutheran" had a lead article on Sexuality and Spirituality. The words we high sounding and used "The Religious Institute" as an expert opinion. That organization was directly linked to the article. One click from the ELCA publication led to their homepage which contained pro abortion information and a rainbow topped article "How Will Your Congregation Celebrate LGBT Week?" At our annual meeting this year I tried to introduce a modest resolution that our congregation adhere to previous standards. I was stopped half way through the presentation and ordered to sit down. The Pastor then stood up and began what I can only call "Bible Bashing". She held a bible up, shook it, and shouted: What else do you believe in there? - slavery, women are chattel, no divorce, and so forth. We lost and it was sad to see good people follow a person instead of the Lord's Word. It has been extremely painful but after five generations we have had to leave the church. No child should be exposed to the intolerance and hate which will increasingly be practiced by those who call themselves elightened.

The first wave came right after the CWA's action: some liked it and some didn't.
The Second wave is now breaking upon us as congregations and synods figure out how the new rules will work for those congregations that do not wish to accept the CWA's action.
The Third wave will come when it becomes apparent that every piece of literature and curriculum and article coming from the ELCA will have only one sexual ethic attached to it. At that point, those who have chosen not to accept the CWA's action, especially the smaller congregations, will find themselves on the horns of a serious dilemma. It's unavoidable.

I'm glad this subject is finally being discussed. It has been maddening to a lot of youngish families that this subject, which is of utmost importance to them, is pretty much ignored in all the discussions of what to do about the CWA. Nobody wants to explain how we are supposed to raise children in a denomination that says we are ignorant at best or bigotted at worst. Ask the average pastor about it and you are liable to just get a bunch of statistics about how safe kids are in the Lutheran Church. Good grief, we aren't worried about molestors- we are worried about what is going to be taught. Of course no pedophiles target Lutheran Churches- there aren't any kids there!

But it seems like there is this notion that it is selfish to be concerned about our kids, that the financial health of the ELCA should be our first concern. Many, many Lutheran Churches have progressed beyond a point where ministering to young families is really a priority because they only have a handful of them. The CWA won't affect the greying majority that holds sway, so while it might make them grumpy, they are OK with just passing some lame resolution that says the ELCA wears army boots and leaving it at that. Very frustrating.

With the utmost respect, I have nothing but admiration for nearly everything I've read from Sarah Wilson's pen, but this article fails on the most basic of levels. To put it as succinctly and clearly as possible, I'll suggest replacing the example with a couple of other examples to remove the ‘expectations’ of preconceived answers to the question.

First, let’s replace the church congregation with the child’s group of friends, and lets change the disagreement from sexual relations to smoking. Do we really want our children to argue from the argument Pr. Wilson presented? They are my friends, we have a disagreement about smoking so they do it and I hang out with them while they're smoking and I spend all my time reminding them that they shouldn't be doing it and they argue with me that I’m mistaken about my objections. OR, do we want our children with tearful regret, with prayers for a changed heart in their friends behaviors, with love for their friends undiminished, to stop hanging around with those friends and not be shy about why they are not hanging around anymore. "You're hurting yourself, I can't be a part of it, my heart is broken that we can't hang out together anymore, not until you change your ways, I pray that the day comes soon when you repent and our friendship can begin anew". I would rather the second than the first

Another behavior and association example might to admit that there is plenty of danger in the world, and it is also true that we can't avoid all danger (especially as we need to reach out to others and sometimes we have to put ourselves at risk to do so). But as we ride our increased risk motorcycles we should wear helmets and ride with people who aren't driving recklessly, it's common sense.

None of the arguments in the article above change the right response to the two choices above, our children would be better to learn that they shouldn’t hang out with the smokers while they do wrong, and they shouldn’t be riding their motorcycles with friends who are riding recklessly and without helmets. No, they have to learn from our example that we have to walk away and pray for those with love to change their hearts before people get permanently hurt. THAT's the testimony our children should see as we have to walk away from our ELCA congregations and find a more responsible set of friends to 'hang out' via moving to a different church.

Dear Sarah

>>1. Nowhere is a guarantee of safety. I wish it were so, but it’s not, as far too many Catholics have been learning the hard way lately. If you know your child is in real danger, physically or spiritually or emotionally, then by all means get out of there. But that is probably not the case for most people struggling with the outcome of the CWA.>>

Well, but of course. Of course parents should remove their children from "real danger." But what, exactly, do you mean by the exaple of the "Catholics"? What does that example teach us, and how is that related to "the outcome of the CWA"? It's pretty hard to tell from what you've written--although it is all too easy to speculate. Can you provide clarification?

Grace and peace,

Tim Fisher
Minneapolis, MN

I too have followed the Sarah Wilson aruments with good impressions until now. The question that comes up is being part of Who's Church is more important to the children, Christ's or the ELCA. Christ says "love me and keep My Word." This is where His church is and where his children are found. The ELCA makes this distinction all on its own as it continues to drift from rational, traditional morals of the Christian Church which have been normative for nearly 2,000 years. To follow this new thing is a deviation and a clear fork in the road. Seems you have Christ's Church and you have the ELCA. CWA and its supporters continue to make the choice for most of us. And if you can't have both, choose carefully.

Christ's Church stands on His Word and does not make a cesspool out of it.

As I have written elsewhere, the "progressive/reform" advance through the ELCA will not come to a halt just because "they" won this one. There is nothing so boring and out of date as last year's liberal. There is always some new cause coming over the horizon. There is always some "traditional" moral or teaching that needs to be let go or modified in light of modern times. There is always a "fresh" moral hitherto unknown that must be adopted with a vengeance. How many young men and women will be dissuaded from entering the ministry unless they get with the program?

The point is that, if you liked the changes adopted by the last CWA, rest assured there is more where those came from.

If don’t part ways now, when? Do we wait until---say---our divines decide to override the bishops ruling from the 1990’s on the Trinity and “Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter” becomes the standard formulation. Do we wait until we are told God is to be addressed “Heavenly Mother and Father”? What about if the ELCA equivocates to the public and its own members on whether Jesus “was” an actual historical person? (All these notions are alive and well in our own seminaries now.)

Lutheranism, even after nearly 500 years, has something profound to say to the world and the entire Christian Church. The day that stops’ being true is the day we should all submit to Rome. But “justification by faith alone” is a message poorly taken to heart by the Christian Church. The world needs to hear of the grace of Christ. Yet, the message gets lost in all the energy expended to make Christianity more acceptable to ourselves.

I am tired of fighting. I am tired of not being able to trust the very people who should be leading us. I am tired of the wondering if “the issue is the issue” or whether there is an undisclosed hidden agenda. I am weary of a leadership that seems to love the Church of their imagining and not the Church they have. I am alienated by an ELCA that seems to wish I was someone else.

Some will ask: “If you are leaving, just where are you going to go?” Fair question. All this talk of leaving will mean nothing if in fact there is no other place to go. To leave the Lutheran Church entirely is repugnant to me. The North American Lutheran Church may look promising; but will there be such a congregation I could go to in my neck of the woods? If the NALC is a good fit for me, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the particular local NALC congregation would be.

Nonetheless, the case for leaving has been made. Maybe there is no “safe” place for our children and grandchildren. But we can seek a “safer” place. Maybe the long roll of "reform" has run out of gas and we in the ELCA will enjoy a peace among us we have never known before. I wouldn't count on it.

Mick, your comments in the fifth paragraph describe where I am. I am not proud to say that I do not trust anyone in the Church office at Chicago. As a three time Voting member at CWA's, an avid reader of events as they have unfolded since 1994, and knowing a few very political moves by certain individuals to get this agenda moving, I can no longer trust our leaders. They truly do not care for traditional views and even though our Bishop says he wants us to feel free to admonish etc., I do not believe it. As Roy Harrisville stated above, it is the third movement that I see coming that worries me. Then what? I have spent 25 years as an ordained pastor the last number of years in ELCA have been sex, sex, and more sex. Are they obssessed (sp?) or what?

The crazy actions at CWA don't change one iota my love for Lutheranism, the religion I chose after much study and prayer(I was raised Catholic). The leadership of the ELCA are not bad or even dangerous people, they're just wrong. All of us are wrong some of the time. So, some misguided, simply wrong people, who just happen to be in power (for now) won't knock me out of the religion I love. In the meantime, I'm happy with my green book, traditional hymns, morning and evening prayer, cathechism, and traditional hermeneutics for reading scripture the right way. I can block out the noise. There are plenty of traditional Lutheran congregations with pastors that preach and teach rightly (that other minority third) - just got to find one. I thank God for mine. And God's will always prevails (in His time, not mine) so I have faith we'll get back to the right place some day.

Tony:

I would just like to add that I am not a "cradle Lutheran". My Irish name might indicate I was not exactly born in the Lutheran Church. The church of my childhood was an independent, fundementalist one. I became a Lutheran as a deliberate choice in 1965.

(I should add that it was a choice that cost me /some relationships including several in my own family. But nobody told Mick that life would be easy or other people have an obligation to approve all his goofy twists and turns.)

Having made the conscious choice to be a Lutheran, it also meant binding myself to a people. When my original congregation left the ELCA in 1989, I left for an ELCA mission congregation and have taken part in its growth and ministry. Thus, after all these things, I am troubled that I have found our leadership unworthy of my trust. These are supposed to be fellow sojourners and yet I do not have confidence they will do the right thing.

As a "convert", maybe I just don't understand those who wear their "Lutheranism" lightly. I can't stand it when one of our divines gets up and says "I'm a Christian who just happens to be a Lutheran". I don't "happen" to be anything. Christianity is what Lutheranism means. Our forebearers in the faith didn't face the point of a sword to be one option among many in the Church. The faith is a little more demanding than that. Likewise, one doesn't set aside a consistant, two thousand year old, teaching of the Church and pat himself on the back while doing so. You've done nobody any favors.

Mick,

I think your statement of 'Christianity is what Lutheranism means' leaves out the faithful Christians among the RCs and other denominations. As some of the other people here rightly corrected me, the visible and invisible churches do not share 100% overlap. It necessarily follows that there will be people who are grievously in error within the church, and I think it idolizes the church to assume those people must be hidden and/or unknown to the church leaders no matter what denomination you're talking about.

That said, the only thing you should trust any church leader to do is sin. We're all in bondage to sin, and they're no exception. The people directing CORE, LC and the ELCA each acknowledge the power of sin, but believe their stance directly follows from the Lutheran Confessions. While I disagree with the ELCA's stance on the sexuality issue, I can see some of the merits of their stance, and it may well be that I am wrong in this matter. If I am wrong, I hope to see the errors of my ways prior to Judgment Day, but as it stands I am either still blind or mostly right. I think you can guess which option I believe.

The "traditionalism" thing probably gets me as much as the lightly wearing Lutheranism does you. If Paul hadn't overturned some consistent, 2000 year old traditions (esp circumcision), we'd likely not be Christian. If Luther hadn't overturned some other consistent 1200 year old traditions, we'd still be Catholic. More recently, we've overturned a consistent 3800+ year tradition (slavery) and another consistent 2000 year old tradition (ordination of women). The reasoning is always the same-- we are saved by Christ alone and only. Hence we do not need to first become Jews nor observe all of the legal minutiae required by Catholicism, or require our females to become male in order to proclaim the Gospel (and note well that's in the Gospel of Thomas, specifically designated as 'not Scripture'), or require our LGBT siblings in Christ to conform to a 1st century zeitgeist before they can proclaim the Gospel. The value of the Reformation is precisely that the Reformers explicitly spelled this out in the Augsburg Confession (just like Paul tried to spell it out in his time, especially in Romans and Galatians)-- it is Christ alone and only who justifies us, and not any of our traditions, no matter how old they may be.

At the risk of being tedious, I’d like to point out that when I say “'Christianity is what Lutheranism means'” I am not speaking of a denomination as such. Instead, Lutheranism is a faithful expression of the message of Christianity. As “expressions” go, some are more faithful and perceptive than others. Lutheranism is simply the most of these qualities. Decades or centuries from today, an even more faithful development in doctrine may occur (I do take John Henry Newman seriously); but we concretely live in this historical moment and Lutheranism is the best we have.

Having said all this, I fully expect a Roman Catholic or Baptist to think along the same lines about their own expressions. Are we all sinners? Yes. Do I live up to everything Lutheranism holds? No. Do I fall short of “being a Lutheran”? Yes. To each in their own respective expressions of faith the same is true. My poor example does not reflect on the fidelity of Lutheranism to Christianity. Perhaps I would be what others would call “tough-minded” about how I go about this matter. Whether that is necessarily a good thing is another question.

That Christ loves each of us and will take us as His own however imperfect or unfaithful our “church” might be says more about Him rather than insisting that which “pew” each of us sits in is an unimportant matter

However, I profoundly disagree the notion that “the only thing you should trust any church leader to do is sin”. This exploits an ambiguity as if to say that one can expect a leader to sin and expect nothing else of them. That simply ignores the anthropology of human societies. Trust—social trust—is the glue that holds societies and organizations together and allows social cooperation. Members of a society must be able to hold leaders accountable to the morals and customs of that society. They must be able to predict by what stars a leader will decide and choose a course. When a leader leads by standards other than the touchstones of the community, the result will be a loss of social trust.

This is the essence of our current crisis. Whatever may be said of the movement toward the “liberation” of homosexuals, the truth is that it had nothing to do with the Gospel nor did it result from a new reading of Scripture. The wellspring of this liberation is our contemporary enthusiasms for radical egalitarianism. This means that the commitment to admitting practicing homosexuals into the ministry and allowing homosexual to marry is cultural in origin. The theological justifications were reverse engineered from a basically secular conclusion.

All this leads to a horrible realization. If “they” can see their way to do this, what will they see their way to do next?

Your discussion of “traditionalism” would require another long response which we might take up another time. I would like it noted that in all my replies above I only used the word “tradition” once. I usually avoid using the word in theological discussions because it is such a loaded term that it is easy to misunderstand what the writer is trying to say.

Finally, I have never written, said or implied homosexuals must repent and give up their sexual behavior before they can become Christians. That is obviously untrue just from a cursory reading of Scripture. I fully expect many homosexuals will walk into heaven before I will because their love for Christ and suffering for His sake is more pure. This I am certain. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean homosexual behavior isn’t a serious moral matter.

It looks like you're trying to get a range of options out of what is essentially a binary system. For all that you (or I) may think Lutheranism is the best expression of Christianity, best does not matter. All that matters is that sinners are connected with Christ, and if Anglicanism does that or the Roman Catholicism does that, they are the best expression of Christianity for those sinners. I think it is in the sense of acknowledging that other Christian denoms can and do connect sinners to Christ that our church leaders may describe themselves as 'Christians who happen to be Lutheran'. It affirms Christ first, which matters beyond how many good qualities we see in our denom. Also, since we're not privy to the knowledge of who is and is not saved, best is not something we can actually test. I think it's good to be able to lay out why we may think that way so long as it doesn't give us tunnel vision into seeing it as the only possible way.

With all the talk of trust, it almost sounds like the sexuality social statement. I do agree that the church is a human institution, which puts running it squarely in the legal realm, meaning we have rules to which we can hold members and especially leaders of the organization responsible. So far, everything's been 'by the rules'. What I think is surprising is that 'no homosexuality in our rostered ministers' is considered one of the "touchstones of the community", in largely heterosexual communities. It would be like if 'no black pastors' was considered a touchstone of the overwhelmingly white ELCA community. It's certainly a very big deal for those whose lives are directly affected, but homosexuality really isn't a big deal for heterosexuals. I suspect you are going to reply that Scripture is the touchstone we are meddling with here, for which I want to say 2 things. First, I refer you back to what I said about traditionalism and 2000-year old teachings. Second, Scripture is only a touchstone of Lutheranism insofar as we read it with a Lutheran perspective, which requires distinguishing Law and Gospel. Clinging to anything solely on the grounds that 'it's in Scripture' completely fails on that account.

Back to trust in humans, I stand by saying that we can only trust that they will sin. If that were not so, we would not require any laws or regulations. It should not surprise us when anyone fails in their appointed task. We would like it to be otherwise, and we punish those who do so, but in the end, that does not solve the problem. The only solution to that problem is Christ, who takes our failures upon Himself and recreates us anew. When we put our trust in Christ, and not in our human leaders, it gives us a new perspective. They can fail, be completely wrong or whatever, but it will not destroy our trust, or our love. If your eyes are on Christ, and my eyes are on Christ, what are we going to let get between that?

I think you're treading dangerous ground with suggesting that acceptance of homosexuality has nothing to do with Scripture. Dangerous not in the sense of causing me offense, but because it forces you into a difficult situation. Either you must assume that only part of the church falls prey to secular culture, or it directly implies that rejection of homosexuality also has nothing to do with Scripture. The problem with the former is hubris and Donatism. You end up making an idol out of your ideal culture and in so doing, lose sight of Christ. The latter suggests we're all on the same playing field in regards to Scripture, at which point the only objection I can think of is outright homophobia.

I also wonder about your final paragraph. If you truly believe that many homosexuals will walk into heaven before you, homosexual behavior is not a serious moral matter for the church. The church has one concern: connecting sinners with Christ. There aren't degrees of connection to Christ; either you are or you aren't. How a Christian lives springs directly from the Christian's outlook on life, which is made right by Christ in His suffering, death and resurrection. If you have Christ's righteousness, you will live appropriately. If you don't have Christ's righteousness, you're damned and it doesn't matter how you live.

Christians across the entire “universal” church are loved by God and will enter into His Heaven. This means that one doesn’t carry an exclusive membership card from one denomination to be saved. On that I think we can safely agree. Where I differ is with your particular statement: “All that matters is that sinners are connected with Christ, and if Anglicanism does that or the Roman Catholicism does that, they are the best expression of Christianity for those sinners.”

Leaving aside that this smacks of a kind of relativism, my own experience is that Christians from other denominations labor under a number of burdens because “saved by grace alone” is not clearly understood and “works righteousness” is very much alive. You wouldn’t believe how many Christians I meet who have doubts they will go to heaven. I’ve even met a lot of Christians who believe they are going to hell because they breakout in profanity in certain situations. So, no, I will not accept the proposition that particular denominations are the best “fit” for particular individuals. Being a Christian in this world is hard; but there is no need to make it hard for the wrong reasons.

I assume that what you mean by “traditionalism” is the mindset of some which basically boils down to “tradition for tradition’s sake”. This implied allegation against the CWA dissidents misses the mark. It must be remembered that Luther himself did not reject tradition altogether as some would have it. Tradition is useful and a guide; but it is only beneficial if it is congruent with Scripture. With “Sola Scriptura”, Luther rejected the familiar model of a three legged stool in which doctrine is settled by tradition, reason and Scripture—all three being more or less equal. Instead, Scripture judges tradition and not the other way around... But to cast tradition as immediately suspect is unjustified.

I agree with you that it is important to read Scripture clearly distinguishing Law and Gospel. The problem is many in our church reduce the Law as a pure legalism to be dispensed with in light of the Gospel. What is forgotten or deliberately ignored is that the Law is also the Word of God. It must be read and listened to with utmost seriousness. The key, however, is that the Law is not a channel of Grace. Instead, among its uses, the Law shows us our poverty and our need for redemption. Even after we are reconciled to Christ and become a “new creation”, however, our sinful nature lives on. As Luther pointed out, we are both Christian and creature. The Christian has no need of the Law. But the creature, because we are sinners, needs the Law.

Luther reminds us that the Law must continue to be heard and not silenced. If the Law is taken away, no one would know what Christ is or what He did when He fulfilled the Law for us. For if we want to know the fulfilling of the Law, that is, Christ, we must necessarily know what the Law and its fulfilling are.

It is for these reasons an instruction that has been steadily taught for two thousand years (four thousand if you care to consider pre-Christian Judaism) should not be set aside lightly. For one thing, we are often blinded by the transitory wisdom of our own age. It is a logical error to assume our time is wiser in all things than those before. Thus it is not enough to suggest another “way of looking at it” as if that were enough to set a historic teaching aside. The argument must concretely be made. It needs to be more than persuasive. It must be resoundingly clear and convincing. It is not enough to suggest that the Church’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior are “like” its instructions on slavery or women in the ministry in times gone by. The case must be made on the merits in and of itself.

It is on these grounds that, in my judgment, the arguments for “liberation and reform” so far have been unsatisfactory and I have publicly criticized the failings of these arguments. Some assume facts not in hand. Others are really speculative in nature. Others do not show what the advocate thinks they do. Still others are really just “forms of an argument”—much like the forms a builder uses into which he pours concrete as part of constructing a structure—molds to build an argument but not the argument itself.

In my wanderings going to and fro among church conferences, I have met many individuals—gays as well as straights—who are genuinely perplexed in discerning any reason why anyone would “stand in the way” of the “liberation” of homosexuals and the transgendered. Most, while may not understand, make an honest attempt to listen. Some, however, wonder aloud if my authentic reasons for remaining unconvinced are that I am mean or deathly afraid of gays. At the very least, my interlopers are reflecting a lack of sympathetic imagination toward the worldview of others. At the worst, they are ungenerous and are acting in bad faith. At my old age, I have no patience any longer for those who would rather stoop to make personal attacks rather than engage in the discussion. As to whether my assessment stems from malice or homophobia, I will let that question stand for others to answer for themselves.

I stand by my assertion that the movement for the “liberation” of homosexuals with the Church had nothing to do with the Gospel nor did it result from a new reading of Scripture. I further emphasize: “The wellspring of this liberation is our contemporary enthusiasm for radical egalitarianism. This means that the commitment to admitting practicing homosexuals into the ministry and allowing homosexual to marry is cultural in origin. The theological justifications were reverse engineered from a basically secular conclusion.” In other words, the conclusion for “gay liberation” came first and the theological justifications were penciled in later.

You have taken great exception with me on this score and proposed that this puts me into a logical double bind for which if I go in one direction I suffer from arrogant pride or heretical error with the other direction. The problem with your “double bind” is that it is based on claims I have never made nor would I ever make.

Your charge that “Either you must assume that only part of the church falls prey to secular culture” is silly. No part of the Church is “immune” to the culture. But the important reality is neither the Church nor the culture are homogenous wholes. The culture rarely speaks with one voice. Instead, several currents flow through different parts of the culture at different times. Much of the time, these currents oppose each other or at least say very different things. At the same time, Christians even in the same denomination come in different varieties receptive to different influences and notions—they are also consciously resistant to a number of movements. Thus one Christian can find an affinity with one voice within the culture while the other Christians may never “catch the tune” or may find himself vigorously opposed to that same voice. Any kind of suggestion that this part of the Church is drowning in the “spirit of the age” and the other stands above it unstained is not worth serious thought. This is a long way, however, from saying that all truth-claims are merely culture bound. Sometimes we mistake the “spirit of the age” for the voice of God. Sometimes--but more than some would have it—sometimes in spite of the “spirit of the age” we hear the Word of God.

The asserted association of objections to practicing homosexuals into the clergy and Donatism has never been coherent except in a shallow sense. That superficial meaning being the charge that the CWA dissidents want a “pure” clergy. No one believes that the clergy will ever be “pure” no matter how one takes a pair of scissors and trims a gaggle of Pastors. At the same time, no one has held forth that “sin is sin” and therefore anyone should be admitted into the ministry. Indeed, if one takes 1 Timothy chapter 3 somewhat seriously, we at least in principle come away with the notion that not everyone is qualified for the clergy. The question is just where the lines are drawn.

Interestingly, when one contrasts our present controversy with the Donatist heresy, two salient differences jump out. The first being that no one claims the sacraments administered by a homosexual pastor are invalid. More significantly, no one on either side of the Donatist controversy denied that what the traditors had done was profoundly evil. No one defended the actions of those priests who had surrendered the Holy Scriptures to the Roman authorities and, in some cases, handed over their Christian brothers and sisters to their Roman persecutors. In our case, we do not agree over the sinfulness-or lack therefore—of homosexual behavior. The traditors were repentant. Gay clergy and their advocates claim there is no cause for homosexuals to repent their sexual deeds —at least when it is confined within a committed relationship.

I have been told on many occasions and in several ways that the issue of homosexuality and the church should not matter to me if I were a real Christian. Oddly, it means a great deal to them but it is not supposed to matter to me. Many, our Presiding Bishop among them, tell us that because Christ loves us all we should let it all go and let love smooth things over. That doesn’t stop them from pressing their agenda; but the dissidents are instructed to drop it and wait by the campfire to sing “Kumbaya”. Seems rather asymmetrical to me.

In turn, many, like the Presiding Bishop, wax poetic alluding to some lofty spiritually: “If your eyes are on Christ, and my eyes are on Christ, what are we going to let get between that?” The simple answer is one of families and households. I love my own brother and sister but we cannot live under the same roof together. We have too many differences and over time our values have grown to be not the same. It is not that we don’t love each other. It is that our differences get in our way when at close quarters. We are human beings—not angels. We cannot presuppose we can do all the time that which we can only do some of the time. Forcing ourselves to live under the same roof will only lead to conflicts and confrontations in how we will order lives together. Battles which would be sometimes bitter. Battles which would not be necessary if we would live independently.

The Presiding Bishop has appealed to the dissidents saying let’s just love the Lord together and let the world marvel and see that in spite of our differences the power of love triumphs over all. But one can help retort that, if you believed in this sentiment half as much as you say you do, you would put away your Lutheran things and return to the embrace of the Catholic Church. Of course, he won’t--.we won’t—because we cannot stand behind much of what the Catholic Church teaches and stands for. Many if not most ELCA Lutherans (including our bishop) would not even consider joining the Missouri Synod let alone the Catholic Church just on the relatively minor issue of women in the “priesthood” alone.

Finally, you have written: “. If you truly believe that many homosexuals will walk into heaven before you, homosexual behavior is not a serious moral matter for the church.” I’ve heard and read several versions of this argument before and I can’t understand why so many sincerely believe in it. I wonder: do they believe the same argument applies to other sins? I also believe many members (maybe not many but a few) of the Waffen S.S. will enter into Heaven. The Waffen S.S. was a notorious, cruel Nazi army who were vicious warriors and among the worst of war criminals during WW II. Captured wounded American soldiers and airmen desperately hoped that they would be taken to a regular German army hospital and not that of the S.S. Thousands of Jews lost their lives at the hand of the Waffen S.S. Yet, many of these soldiers could have been saved in a last minute repentance. Some might have met their repentance earlier and actually covertly tried to save those they were to kill. By Christ’s love, these were surely saved. Perhaps some in the later group came to be martyred for “being as Christ” to their appointed victims. It is entirely possible that these may walk into Heaven before either you or me. But it does not follow that the war crimes and the murder of Jews would be not be a grave moral matter for the church. Now, homosexuals are not soldiers of the Waffen S.S. But the purpose is not to equate them. The point is that as an argument it does not work. It does not follow that if “X” is received into Heaven then what “X” did is of little moment to the Church.

God is love. But not all love is of God. Too often, when we in the church try to justify dismissing God’s Law in a moral matter, we descend into antinomianism—a distortion of Sola Fide. Other times we confuse soteriology at the expense of sanctification. We should at all times be wary of ourselves falling into a cafeteria Christianity in which we pick-and-choose our beliefs. We should also fear championing religious convictions that are actually proxies for our personal opinions rather than an acceptance of Christian doctrines.

Thousands within the ELCA have appointed themselves as prophets claiming they have heard this “new thing” from God. But Paul instructs us to discern by which spirit any such “word from God” come from. We have prayed, spoken long among us, listened, and consulted the Scriptures only to conclude these spirits are false. To proclaim a false word in the name of God is no small thing. The results may be deadly to body and soul. Our leaders in the ELCA are not merely wrong; they are on a campaign for the hearts and minds of not only Lutherans but the whole world. Yet, our leaders do not have the resources nor the wisdom to make whole those who will bear the misery and suffering in the wake of this “mistake”. We should love and pray for the ELCA and her leaders. But in love we must also stand on one path at the fork in the road and say to them “this way you shall not pass”.

There is a season to greet our brothers and sisters saying “peace be with you”. There is also a season when we must ask: “Have you no fear of God?!”

I see my statement about being connected to Christ as synonymous with your first two statements. If Christ is the only way into Heaven, then everyone who gets there goes by that Way. Some may get there in spite of their denom, but generally without the denom in question, they'd never go to church in the first place. I see saying the denom doesn't matter if one is connected to Christ as one ramification of sola fide. It's not relativism, but grounding in the one Source of our faith. I do agree that many other denoms openly proclaim works-righteousness, and I think it would be better if they didn't. I also think some denoms may be terrible choices for some people, but I that some non-Lutheran ones are the right choice for other people. The bottom line is Christ. If they are connected to Christ, they're on the right path, even if they're in a denom like Roman Catholicism. Also, in my experience, Lutherans tend to espouse works-righteousness as well, though it's usually far more subtle because officially we all know the right answer on this one. Incidentally, I see works-righteousness at work in the homosexuality issue when one is limiting the clergy to one subset of sinners, or actively excluding one set of sinners or another, and one thing this controversy is doing is revealing the extent of works-righteousness in the ELCA.

While I mostly agree with what you say about Law (though note in Luther 'Word of God' is always God's final Word on the problem of human sinfulness, aka Jesus Christ crucified for us, and never the Law), I don't see how your argument sides with Paul on the issue of circumcision. If anything, I can just as easily see the Judaizing Christians making the argument for why Christians must become practicing Jews and absolutely be circumcized.

I am disappointed that you only state that not 'all truth-claims are merely culture bound' without demonstrating how one side automatically must be making up theology to justify a cultural decision while the other has a valid culture-free claim. This is actually why I do think tradition is automatically suspect-- tradition by its very nature is a part of our culture. When decisions get made because it is 'tradition', new theologies arise either challenging those decisions or upholding them. The problem is that trusting tradition is no longer sola fide. Any and every tradition must stand up to that test-- does it necessitate Christ? If it doesn't, it's for the trashbin, no matter how old it is. If it did, with the Reformation, that became the new theology for keeping it around. Even after the Reformation, it took 400-500 years for the church to realize that encouraging slavery and barring women from ministry in no way necessitates Christ, and actually deprives people of Him. So I think you cannot dismiss any pro-inclusion argument as made up to suit culture nor argue that tradition is automatically important by virtue of being tradition.

Also, the 'no homosexuality thing' is itself a cultural norm from first century Judaism. Paul isn't making up new laws in Romans 1; he's talking about something his audience culturally understands as sinful and actually saying that it is a consequence of idolatry. This is part of the reason why we must reevaluate our tradition of barring same-gender couples from the ministry. Not only are we free of the first century Zeitgeist, but we understand more about homosexuality than they did in the first century. It's not a complete understanding by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it does rule out the 'homosexuality is the fruits of idolatry' that Paul espouses. I think you misunderstood what I said about homophobia. A better way of what I was trying to ask is this: would you support rostering of same-gendered couples if there was nothing in the Bible regarding homosexuality, even if the church had taught against it for the last 2000 years. If not, why not, with the added statement that while there may be other reasons for why not, I do not know them, and the only one I can come up with is homophobia.

Your SS model fails to support your argument. You'd said earlier that "I have never written, said or implied homosexuals must repent and give up their sexual behavior before they can become Christians" while your SS model clearly requires repentance on the part of the SS.

I think what you'd said earlier about 'touchstones of the community' gets more at why Bp Hanson and others have suggested this should not be a big deal for us heterosexuals. For homosexuals, I think it's pretty clear how it could be a touchstone of the community to them. Since homosexuality is likely something that will never be a personal issue for either of us or the majority of ELCA parishoners, it really isn't a touchstone of the community for most churches. We have all made it so at this point, but in so doing we have forgotten our community's cornerstone, which is Christ. Here I also disagree with your example of families as why we cannot trust that in Christ we can overcome human sin. You've already given up your siblings; in practice what you are saying is that your differences in close quarters are greater than your love for each other, even if that's not what you believe. Love means bearing with them and bearing them in all things. It's very hard-- so hard that we WILL fail, and yet it also means that we forgive those trespasses as Christ forgives us.

Actually, as to returning to Catholicism or the LCMS, I used to think that it would only happen over my dead body. Now, I would have no problem if our congregation became Catholic or Missouri Synod. The thing is that *they* would have an extreme problem with this, since I am a part of the theological traditions that have been explicitly thrown out of both denominations. For the congregation, exclusion from those denoms would be a tossup between our married, female pastor, or because she would commune unrepentent sinners, or because she would bless gay unions, or because we believe in sola fide, or because we do not quietly do these things. Interestingly, the social statement and ministry policy changes doesn't ask any parties to 'give up' anything to remain within the ELCA. What they say is 'if you want to call a married homosexual' you can, and if you do not want to, you do not have to. They go further and describe both stances as faithful responses to Christ, and while you or I may have trouble seeing the faithfulness of the opposite understanding, that may be part of the difficult task of loving each other, and letting love, rather than anger triumph from either side.

The Donatist parallels hold primarily for CORE. One of the things forming a new church body accomplishes is allowing them to specifically prevent those ordained, married homosexuals from administering the sacraments to congregations in that church body. CORE is also using the same strategy that the Donatists tried-- purity by schism. As you say, there is awareness that it isn't a 'perfect' purity, but that comes back to the culture and traditions. Certain impurities are perfectly ok because we understand that everyone will sin from time to time, forgetting that we are all repeat offenders and will be until the time of our deaths.

Peter:
In a sort of embarrassment of riches, the more you write the more I disagree. Rather than flesh it all out, I’ll just jot out some notes on two areas we disagree at the root.

The first concerns the Law: I should have thought by now that Christians of all stripes recognize a twofold division in the Law—one which applies and one which no longer applies. Christians are not obligated to observe the ceremonial (“civic” or political) laws. But as for the moral laws, these Christians are not to set aside. Many advocates of “liberation and reform” deliberately ignore this distinction—mostly as a debating tactic rather than out of real conviction.

Until about thirty years ago, the laws against homosexual behavior were universally understood to belong under moral law. In recent years, some argue that these laws belong under the ceremonial, no longer applicable, laws. You belong to this camp and thus ascribe prohibitions against homosexual behavior to mere tradition and custom. This is why you are able to put these laws in the same basket as circumcision and make the tedious comparison to the Judaizing Christians. In a similar way, you allude to the conjecture that when the Law talks about homosexual acts it is really concerned with idolatry. This also allows you to reduce opposition to practicing homosexuals in the ministry to unsupported and mere tradition.

The prohibitions against homosexual behavior, however, correctly belong under moral law. The reasons for this have been plainly stated. The teaching is valid because it is based on a faithful, Scriptural moral judgment. The burden of proof rests on those who wish to revise the Church’s teaching. They must make their case and make their case on its own merits in and of itself. So far, our revisionists have failed to meet the challenge—although not without hundreds of valiant attempts throwing whatever against the wall and seeing if it would stick. Instead, a strategy has been to subtly argue as if the revisionist assertions were in fact the default setting.

(Others do not bother to refute the testimony of Scripture regarding prohibitions against same-sex behavior. Instead, they charge that the only reason “I” don’t treat homosexuality like divorce is because of malice and homophobia. They assume too much. As far as “I” have anything to do with the subject of divorce in the Church, I think we are far to “understanding” of ourselves in divorce and give ourselves a “pass” far too easily. I believe, if you prick below the surface among Lutherans in general, the acceptance of divorce in the Church is a sore spot that troubles many.)

The second root disagreement concerns 1 Timothy chapter 3: , I have had written “ if one takes [Timothy]somewhat seriously, we at least in principle come away with the notion that not everyone is qualified for the clergy.” On review, you don’t directly accept or reject this statement. I find it difficult to believe you may think there is nothing to disqualify anyone from ordained ministry; but on the subject on practicing homosexuals in the ministry you seem to suggest in various places three different arguments against their exclusion. The first is you suggest it is an unjust discrimination to admit one group of sinners to the clergy and rule out another. A second is the odd charge that somehow barring any class of people from ministry “deprives them Christ”. And, finally, barring practicing homosexuals from ordained ministry does not “necessitate Christ”.

In short, I agree keeping one group of sinners in and the other out is discrimination. Whether such discrimination is just or not depends. Those who stand before the Church and the larger community and teach that an evil is good deserve no place in shepherding the flock. Those who persist sinning in malice despite instruction and church discipline likewise are not fit to be pastors. Those who commit crimes against those in the church and the larger community “need discriminatin’”.

The notion that barring anyone from ordained ministry denies them Christ is so anti-Gospel that anyone who proposes it should go back to catechism class and do the three years all over again.

The problem with saying “barring practicing homosexuals from ordained ministry does not necessitate Christ” is that the phrase “necessitate(s) Christ” is ambiguous. Given how it is used within the Lutheran Church, it could mean “is it commanded by Christ”, “does it require Christ”, “does it proclaim or call forth Christ”, or “does it aid in the proclamation”. Putting it negatively may better get at what you mean: “does it get in the way of the proclamation of Christ?”

This last meaning recalls the claim many revisionists put forth to the effect that homosexuals get turned off Christianity because of the Church’s prohibitions against same-sex behavior. That many homosexuals reject Christianity because it pronounces same-sex behavior a sin is beyond a doubt. But lots of folk reject Christianity for a whole lot of things it maintains. Are they all warranted in doing so? Are adulterous heterosexuals justified in the animus against Christianity because it is less than “understanding” toward their frustrations with monogamy? (For that matter, is the Church’s “tradition” of monogamy only deserving the “trash bin”?)

In my opinion, all this begs the question. To me, it all goes back to the Law. Are the prohibitions against same-sex behavior part of the ceremonial or moral Mosaic Law? Or, even if one posits such behavior belongs under moral law, does it matter? If what is really being said is that “love overrules the Law, prohibitions to the trashcan,and that is that”, then say it plainly. You’ll have plenty of arguments with Luther over that; but at least we would have something solid to grapple with.

Mick,

Actually, I think we have deeper underlying differences about the use of the Law. I recognize three 'divisions' of the Law-- the first political use (which you call ceremonial?), second drive sinners to Christ use (moral, I presume) and third kill sinners use (which I presume as the infamous Third Use, you interpret as the moral rule by which Christians should live). I believe they all apply all of the time; no sinner is exempt from the political use of the law, and it is precisely sinners in need of Christ, and it is on account of our sins that we shall die.

Christ's coming is something entirely apart from the Law. It is new life, specifically life that has been set free from the Law's curse of retribution and death. The Law has no role in a Christian's new life because the Christian has something immensely better-- eternal life in Christ. That new life is what works miracles in the believer's life... it is being attached to the True Vine and being nourished solely by that Vine and not by any legal vine.

This isn't to say that the Law gets thrown out, or that human 'love overrules the law' (though technically I would agree with the statement that God's love is greater than His Law, but as that's exactly what Good Friday and Easter are all about, I don't expect disagreement there) but that Law and Gospel must be applied in the correct order, and that all Law is equally valid and equally capable of fulfilling its three-fold function. There isn't 'major' and 'minor' laws, there is law. This point is clearly made in the OT. Note Leviticus 22:3 among others. It doesn't matter if it's ceremonial or moral-- either 'ceremonial' or 'moral' law always rewards the holy and punishes the wicked-- which is bad news to us wicked.

This is why, even assuming (which I do not) two homosexuals are guilty before the law on account of their commitment to vows to love, comfort, protect and defend each other until death do them part, it matters no more than the fact that both you and I are also guilty before the law. We don't get partial credit and trying isn't enough. We all 'persist in sinning' even though we all know ALL of the rules. Saying 'no pastor is perfect' does not just mean 'sinned once', but 'sinned once, will do it again and keep doing it or 'persist in sinning' until God finally terminates the pastor in question. None of us are fit to be pastors except by God's grace, and it is in proclaiming that very grace (received on account of Christ crucified and risen) that they are qualified to preach. It is not at all on their own merit, or ability to fulfill any aspect of the law. We know that they fall short.

To fitness for ministry, I do agree that not everyone is called to be a pastor. The criterion for being called to the ministry is God's patient and enduring grace. How do we as sinners measure that? Short answer is that we can't, but that we also don't need to. What we need to do with ordained ministry is teach people how to proclaim to a Law-burdened people Christ crucified and risen such that it comes out Gospel and not more Law. We can also help them try to discern their vocation and if it is in the ordained ministry, and if so what aspect or if not where their gifts can be used.

What I meant about barring people from the ordained ministry denies people access to Christ is not for the person whose ordination is in question. It's all the people to whom he would have proclaimed the Gospel had the church not stood in his way. I think there are a few congregations in San Francisco and Atlanta among that could tell you exactly how their pastor living in a same-gendered relationship has proclaimed Christ crucified to them in Word and Sacrament and what that has done for their faith lives.

Not that I think you necessarily believe otherwise, but the Gospel is very much the living thing that transforms us into the children of God. Just as we say that the Sacrament is still valid even if it is performed by someone unworthy, so too with the Gospel, except that you can't proclaim the Gospel without faith and that no one survives and encounter with Christ unchanged. This is something our writings, rules and regulations all fall short of achieving and measuring, but that God and God alone can achieve through Christ's life-giving death and resurrection. Trusting God's life-giving promise in Christ reconciles us to God, which cleanses our hearts which leads us in mission and behavior. We don't get there going the other way (trying to do the mission and behavior in hopes that we have cleansed hearts and if we can cleanse our outward and inward being God will forgive us on that account). This is also why I make no distinction between ceremonial and moral law-- both are diagnostic tools -- you have incorrect behavior because your heart is evil, which is evil because you've declared war on God, and war on God means our death. It is that war on God that God ends NOT by our death, but by His death, which reconciles us to God, as above. I'm sorry if this paragraph is incoherent or redundant, but I just don't have the words to convey the enormity of the Gospel's power, and I think we lose sight of that as a result. God always wins.

By 'necessitating Christ' I mean doing the systematic theology that anchors any theological statement firmly in Christianity. Confessionally, is a given statement consisten with Article IV of the Augsburg Confession? In other words, how does a certain belief follow directly from the Gospel? Does the belief hinge on Christ's suffering, death and resurrection, or can Christ be removed with no deleterious consequence for that belief. Is Christ crucified and risen the ONLY foundation for that belief; ie there is no Hebrew, American or other law, tradition or culture that says we must do things a certain way? Does the belief bring life to the hearers and the other benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted?

As one has two very faithful adult children who are double PKS, both my wife and I are pastors, I can report that they have very happily made the transition from being members of the ELCA to being almost members of the LCMC (it will be official in late September.) They are people of integrity they are people of vision and they know that you cannot put new wine into rotten old wine skin denominations. What a thrill it is for them and us to be thrilled again, to be in a denomination that takes the Great Commission seriously, it seems to me their are a,ot of great lessons in that. It seems. Anyone who has gotten out of the ELCA has seen mroe than their share of conflict many who stay in love to avoid it, although not all by any means. Keep grasping for every possible straw Sarah it is a good exercise for sure, but as a very intelligent and faithful woman my guess is that in the end you will say good riddance to bad rubbish about the ELCA.