Sarah,

I loved this piece. I have great sympathy for our clerical staff because I project this on to them, unconsciously, also.

However, it occurred to me an attitude of "Orthodox leaders are the new Pharisees" was the sentiment on display for those that voted against statement on human sexuality and the clerical policy changes at CWA 2009. That the traditional, orthodox understanding of sexuality is outmoded, bigoted, mean spirited and un-Christlike. Even some of the orthodox believers, in their quiet moments, accuse themselves of this or worry that they are falling prey to it. Any words of wisdom for a congregation that is working its way through this issue?

PS Our congregation has contributed to CORE and are contemplating the adoption of a bylaw that rejects this new direction by the ELCA. Our Bishop isn't very happy with us right now.

pps I've also just ordered the Banff Report. I hope there are some answers/guidance in there.

"But they would have. It goes with the territory. The professionally religious suffer the constant temptation to make themselves the standard of righteousness for the community—and, as a rule, the community expects them to do so. But a church that is structured around the implicit assumption that the clergy are the most successfully religious of the whole community is bound for disaster. It’s bound to crucify the Son of God."

Doesn't this paragraph sum up so much of the anger centered around CWA09's decision? Married homosexuals are seen as directly failing the standard of righteousness the community demands, and it is specifically on those grounds they were excluded from the ministry. Aren't congregations resolving to call 'no married homosexuals' bound for disaster by this very reasoning?

Bob: The spiritual danger is real. The reality of spiritual danger doesn't eliminate right and wrong. A proper response to the CWA can only be carried out by Christians very well aware of the spiritual dangers posed to them. Take the warning to heart, and then carry on.
Peter: The fact that you used the universal failure of all spiritual leaders to support the vote of some against others last summer only demonstrates your failure to understand what I had to say. Please try again.

Sarah,

I'm not talking about the vote itself, I'm talking about the anger surrounding the vote and the issue itself. I'm not saying one group must be right, so the other one is wrong, but I'm saying that I think the expectation that the pastor is the standard of righteousness for the community is the underlying source of the amount of anger. The problem with married homosexuals in the pulpit is that for many, it is a stark demonstration that the pastor is NOT the standard of righteousness, and they can't stand that. If he's not the standard of righteousness, how can you trust the pastor at all? And if the only hope lies in a positive response to the continual prayer, "Lord have mercy", that is completely independent of the pastor's personal righteousness.

Peter,

Actually, the anger is a direct outcome of the vote. While Pastors run the risk of residing on too high of a pedestal, other than Scripture, who else do we turn to for leadership when struggling with these visceral, foundational disagreements? If we cannot trust the clergy to lead us through these woods, then we are just left to ourselves and feeling abandoned. A vast majority of the laity does not expect perfection from clergy, they just want to see them a fair bit further down the road of sanctification than they are.

One side must be right. The ELCA position that everyone is right just won't stand. The problem with "married homosexuals (allow me to go on record as deeming that term oxymoronic) in the pulpit" is that orthodox believers think it defies thousands of years of Christian Scriptural understanding, violates natural law, puts unrepentant sinners in a position to proclaim God's word AND AS SUCH, frustrates and disorientates a large segment of the laity. That's the problem.

Thank you, Sarah, for your cautious encouragement.

Bob,

This is exactly what I'm saying. If the laity desire a pastor "a fair bit further down the road of sanctification than they are", they're still desiring to put their pastor on a pedestal. Higher than them. Better than them. We pay lip service to sin, and say 'doesn't have to be perfect', but we don't really mean it. Because otherwise, they're sinners, and possibly even unrepentant ones at that. How can you trust an unrepentant sinner?

You can trust the unrepentant sinners (allow me to go on record as deeming that term redundant), married homosexuals and all of the other pastors exactly insofar as they proclaim God's Word. It doesn't matter if they're unrepentant sinners of any stripe, what matters is that they proclaim God's holy and redeeming Word. We're fond of that Luther quote about one small child proclaiming the Gospel is greater than all the popes, princes, powers, etc, but we don't actually believe it. We wouldn't trust a small child on the grounds that she is a small child, and probably even tell the child that when she changed (here, grew up), we would trust her then. Yet this is our problem, our trust-issue here-- we only want to trust people with certain legal credentials. We can't rely on the legal credentials at all-- those with the best legal credentials of Christ's day killed Him, and even Paul with his extensive legal credentials counts them as loss. Instead we have to trust Christ and His promise.

Peter,

No, I didn't say exactly what you said. Perhaps a better description of the laity's expectations are that their pastors need to actually go out of their way to interpret God Word and teach according to it (I am blessed with a terrific pastoral team that does a great job of walking this talk). If the laity cannot expect their seminary-educated, called clergy to be a resource for how to walk the "narrow path" then we should shutter all the seminaries. I believe this is one of the ELCA's great curses. There was a parallel "bad batch" of clergy to enter the Catholic Church in the mid '70's and the Catholics have been "reaping what they sowed" now for the last 10 or so years.

Forgive this decidedly un-pastoral response but you are absolutely NUTS to suggest that we can "trust the unrepentant sinners" to preach God's Word. How can they faithfully preach God's Word when they openly and willing refuse to atone for their failures, according to His Word? Christ showed little to zero tolerance for those unwilling to repent. Your line of reasoning (which stretches the definition of that word a bit) is a perfect example of the "willing suspension of disbelief" that too many ELCA CWA 09 attendees fell into in the name of social justice.

I'm not sure where your comments about legal credentials came from but they are pretty incoherent to me. You seem to have your own "trust issues" (and are projecting those on the greater church) and those seem to be with the church intelligensia (too bad because I am really enjoying the mining of a rich vein of Lutheran Theology of late). You propose a process in which we hear a duck, see a duck and then call it a pig. Throughout my entire adult Christian life, which has spanned more decades than I want to admit, I have found it easy to spot unrepentant sinners teaching bad theology and to send them packing. This list includes Lutheran clergy, Catholic priests and evangelical ministers all wandering from scriptural fidelity to promote their own issues.

That is my frustration with clergy of all stripes that leave their flocks to wallow in moral quicksand without so much as offering a hand (this hand can be overplayed but isn't that where the seminaries should come in?). This is where we expect them to exhibit leadership based in God's Word. While I have great sympathy for the overblown expectations of many clergy, I also give voice to the failure of many to lead us back to the basic call of God's Word. This isn't a fad. The modern conceit of "new knowledge" is so thunderously puerile that I just must laugh and cry in my frustration. Go read proverbs as there really is "nothing new under the sun".

Sorry if I off-loaded some pent-up frustration but my post Easter attitude is a bit militant for reasons unknown.

Bob,

I think this statement: "pastors need to actually go out of their way to interpret God Word and teach according to it" is right on the money. There's one very important word in that statement, though, and that is "interpret". I hold that as Lutherans, we are called to interpret Scripture as both Law and Gospel. There is a large proportion of the clergy who are doing exactly that when they state not only that married homosexuals should serve but that homosexuality is no more of a sin than heterosexuality. See, for example:

http://www.webelieveinthegospel.org/media/We_believe_in_the_gospel_April_21.pdf

http://www.crossings.org/archive/ed/ReformationResources.pdf

http://columbiadeclaration.wordpress.com/

The thing with unrepentant sinners is that we're all in that category. None of us can truly repent of what we've done and turn to Christ with our entire heart, body and soul for the remainder of our lives. There's no point at which we can say 'we've ceased being sinners'. This was what I was trying to get at by my statement about 'legal credentials'. Legal credentials are your ability to follow the Law. The Pharisees had the most impressive legal credentials of Christ's day-- especially compared to the sinners and publicans following Jesus around. This is why it is essential that the church cling to our Law/Gospel distinction rather than insist either on perfect obedience to the Law or say that we do not need to trust Christ's promise of forgiveness/become merely an instrument of social justice.

I think discussion is one of the more constructive outlets for pent-up frustration. It does not feel to me like you're lashing out in anger.

Peter,

Wow, talk about theological gymnastics! Let me make a brief list:

So, heterosexuality is a sin? Mind giving me a scriptural reference on that one? Your inference here borders on absurd.

No, we are not "all in that category" re: unrepentant sinners. While I'll concede we laspe into "unrepentantness" (is that a word?) when we sin, we recognize our failures and ask for forgiveness. This is the glory of the Gospel and is (perhaps) the focal point of the discussion about homosexuality (i.e. trying to make sin, not sin). Legal credentials have nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. You can't paint orthodox believer as Pharisees. The label just doesn't fit.

That "large proportion of clergy" (which is an overstatement on your part) are simply ignoring the law and are practicing "cafeteria theology" (I'll have some of this but no, none of that, etc.)

I'm paraphrasing here but didn't Luther say, "Present the Gospel to a person that understands the Law and you create a repentant, joyful believer. Give the Gospel to a person that doesn't understand the law and you create a very overconfident sinner."

In His Service

Sorry, it looks like I'm being unclear. When I say homosexuality is no more sinful than heterosexuality, I mean that neither are inherently sinful in and of themselves, but that we can use either to sin. Adultery comes most readily to mind, but sexual sin is really a large net covering everything from objectifying women and reducing sexuality to a commodity which sells products on and up to rape, and child abuse.

I completely disagree with you about unrepentant sin. Do you really believe that you know every single one of your sins? Can you read hearts and minds well enough to KNOW that you are loving every single one of your neighbors as fully as you are required? Can you possibly navigate American politics in a manner that is truly repentant? And what do you make of confessing 'sins known and unknown'? Or more direct to this issue, how much unrepentant sin is going around in all the anger and schism? Are you content with what you are doing to heal the rifts that have been laid bare since CWA? And if you are really repentant, how can you commit the same sin again?

Peter,

To state the obvious, one must be aware of one's sin, in order to be able to repent of them. Hence,the prayer asking for forgiveness for "sins known and unknown". And the main point being that, as a known sin, an active homosexual lifestyle is defined very clearly as sin in the Scriptures. So, to ignore these scriptural directives is the definition of being "unrepentant".

From the website of Lutheran Core, I am in full agreement with this: The International Lutheran Council‘s concern for the pastoral care of homosexuals: [W]e declare our resolve to approach those with homosexual inclinations with the deepest possible Christian love and pastoral concern, in whatever situation they may be living. Though we affirm the demands of God‘s Law without reservation, we Christians confess that the sins of the world have been forgiven through Christ´s suffering and death on the cross. As the redeemed children of God, we lead our lives as ―saints and sinners at the same time. We hope for full renewal and sanctification, but realize that these hopes are not completely fulfilled in this life. This applies to countless temptations. Our sinful condition calls for a lifetime of prayer and struggle.”

Your definition of anger as unrepentant sin is another huge mis-step. All anger is not sin (i.e. Jesus cleansing the temple of money changers). I am deeply frustrated (angry?) with being witness to the ELCA getting hijacked by the left wing, social justice crowd. Elements of this just drip from much of what comes from Higgins Road. This frustration gives me energy and keeps me engaged and working toward "righting the ship" in whatever form that takes.

Do I sin shorty after taking my first breath in the morning? Probably. Do I ask forgiveness every night? Most of the time. Do I have confidence in that forgiveness? Yes. Christ's sacrifice dealt with our sins (known and unknown), once and for all, when we repent of them.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was Roman Catholic for the first 38 years of my life and I won't bore you with my decision to become Lutheran (of late, Higgins Road has made me miss the Catholic church). Frankly, I am less concerned with "healing the rifts" in the ELCA than I am with holding it accountable to God's word and Luther's confessions. In spite of my respect for Paul Hinlicky (and I hope I don't misrepresent him here), I disagree with him about staying in the ELCA no matter what. If Lutheranism needs to be reconfigured in North America in order to save it, then I am all in. I have no interest in compromising scriptural fidelity for some feel-good social justice cause(s).

I am equally satisfied worshiping in a wide variety of Christian Churches (Baptist, Methodist, Open Bible, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic church - I took communion at RC church with my mother in Phoenix over Easter) as I am in a Lutheran Church. Perhaps as a lay person I have more freedom to distance myself from the "picking doctrinal fly poop out of the ecclesiastical pepper" that some people (lay and clergy) get lost in and just focus on the main thing's - God's Word, Christ's Resurrection and living as Christ would direct us. Although, even at 58, I am barely started on my road to Sanctification, I have great peace in my relationship with Christ and His eternal promise to those who "run the good race".

Is confession of "sins known and unknown" actual repentance? Can you really turn away from sins you don't even realize you're committing? Is repentance merely the utterance of a string of words, or is there more to it than that? If there's more to it than that, how much more is required? Even if it's something like 'truly feel like you'd never want to do it again', how can you repent of an unknown sin? There's also the small problem that there will be some sins of which we have not repented we die (or can we preemptively ask for forgiveness- sins known and unknown, committed and yet to be committed). The shortest route for Lutherans to fall into Pelagianism is to start getting into this 'repentant/unrepentant sin' business. We start believing that there are things you must do in order to be forgiven, when there is one thing only-- trust Christ's promise of forgiveness. And that promise is incredibly radical-- not only is it a promise that our separation from God is at an end, but that with our healed God-connection, we will come to repentance, confess the risen Christ and bring God's healing into the world.

We have different understandings of what God's Law says. You see homosexuality as proscribed. I, and a large portion of the ELCA, do not see it so, largely for the same reasons neither of us see the laws of the ancient Hebrew theocracy as binding. Now, the big question is, how important is our disagreement over what the Law says? Or, phrased another way, what are the consequences of getting God's Law wrong? If we can confess "sins known and unknown", how does it hurt anyone to not know the Law? And if getting God's Law right is important, doesn't that destroy justification by Christ's death and resurrection alone and only?

The other problem with needing to have God's Law perfectly right is that we can't pick and choose our issues. Take our discussion about anger, for example. Is that discussion worth breaking fellowship over, even if we cannot agree on if/when anger is a sin?

Speaking of the anger, I am specifically thinking of Matthew 5:21-26. Anger at a brother is sufficient for judgment. And more tellingly, the directions are to be reconciled to your brother before going to worship. I'm not sure how you can read that and still come away with 'it's not a sin to act in anger', or that the anger tearing some churches apart is a good thing. Matthew 5:21-26 doesn't leave much room for simply leaving, or for doing nothing. It also doesn't leave room for 'whatever it takes'-- certain actions are counterproductive. LC learned this the hard way, and CORE seems determined to prove that they'll learn it harder, if ever. In the body of Christ, holding people accountable does not work, because we are not the head of that body. Our option is love-- going two miles with the person who wants us to go one mile. Reconciling ourselves to our siblings in Christ. It's hard, because it makes about as much sense as dying to save your life. And yet, that's how Christ triumphed.

Yes, with a "repentant heart" you can repent of all sins but that does not mean you won't commit them again and we both know that repentance does not consist of lip service, but rather a change of heart. Spare me these rhetorical questions. Your reference to Pelagius is ill-used. "Lutheranism 101" is that we need, by grace through faith, to repent via acceptance of Christ's sacrifice for us and that is all, period. Your response attempts to change the debate to faith vs works and that has been settled. Accept Christ as your Lord and Savior then let the fruit of the Holy Spirit bloom in your life.

If you read and understand the New Testament, you see that you can't isolate our disagreement to the old testament. As I have matured in my understanding of Scripture, I was humbled to see it revealed as a very tightly integrated whole document. If you separate the two, neither make any sense.

It is interesting that you said "...a large portion of the ELCA..." because you know it is not a majority that think as you do. To your big question, the importance is huge. If Christians cannot agree on what is proscribed by Scripture in such clear and unambiguous terms, then we have "broken communion". Paul said, "the wages of sin is death". Are those consequences important enough for you? Don't change the basis of this discussion from "intentionally ignoring the law" to "getting God's law wrong" which implies some form of an innocent mistake. Therein is the issue -- intentionality. And no, this doesn't interfere with Christ's sacrifice for us in any way whatsoever. In fact, making every effort to get God's law right, and to atone for our unknown and known failings, is to Christ's glory "I have not come to abolish the law but to perfect it".

The anger issue is a nit pick, and a favorite one of the kum-bye-ya crowd -- "We all fail all the time so just love the one you are with". I've never said it is not a sin to act in anger. I have said anger (or frustration) can be a motivating force to a formerly ambivalent person (me). Because the majority of Lutherans have not embraced a larger, active role in the life of the church, the lefties have high-jacked Luther. We want our Church back.

Unfortunately, the faith vs works debate has not been settled. It's rearing its ugly head here, again. How do you get from "Accept Christ as your Lord and Savior then let the fruit of the Holy Spirit bloom in your life." to refusing to honor the fruits of homosexual marriage and the gifts married homosexuals bring to the ordained ministry? You are attaching a string to that basic tenet, and it's no longer 'accepting Christ as Lord and Savior', but it's 'accepting Christ as Lord and Savior AND never consummating the love you feel for a person of your gender'. That's not a string Christ, Paul or the Confessions let us add.

I'm not clear on what you mean about isolating our disagreement to the OT. I was assuming that you have no problem with wearing cotton and polyester together, working on Saturday, you do not honor slavery, and all of those other laws that are generally understood as relics of the Hebrew theocracy. I really don't mean to imply that there is an OT/NT dichotomy on which laws are important, or that our disagreement breaks along those lines.

I was vague about the number of people in the ELCA supporting the measure because I don't have hard numbers that I can cite, not because I believe it is a minority. Given how the memorial resolutions went at Synod assemblies last year, if you don't live in North Dakota or West/central Pennsylvania/eastern Ohio, you are probably in a minority. Of course, all of us have our thinking clouded by what's happening in our congregation and in our synod, myself included. Plus we tend to automatically disbelieve numbers that don't favor us. So I'm content to leave it at an indefinite 'large number'.

I think you are also misunderstanding the full import of communion. That isn't about agreement on what the Law says, but consensus on the Gospel and participating in the Body of Christ. So long as that is intact, we are joined as brothers in Christ, whether we like it or not.

The issue is precisely over 'getting God's Law wrong', and not ignoring it. While it is plain as day to you that there is no possible way that God could in any way, shape or form ever, possibly, or even maybe condone homosexuality, it isn't that way to all Christians. Consider that each church that has joined the RIC program does not assert 'homosexuality is a sin, but we're ok with it', rather they make both the social and theological statements that homosexuality is not a sin, and that they welcome people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to fully participate in the life and service of the church. Again, the anger stuff is a good parallel. To you, it's a 'nit pick', but I see that anger condemning far more people than homosexuality ever could. Also, I am not talking in generalities, ie anger is good/bad. I am talking specifically about the anger that is present in some congregations and evinced by some pastors specifically in regard to this issue. I have yet to see CORE condemn anger or declare that they are going to make dealing with the anger their supporters feel a priority. Is our disagreement over anger sufficient grounds for 'broken communion'.

Similarly, we could pick another issue, say smoking. Given what that does to the temple that is your body, what it does to the people all around you, and the fact that money could spent more productively, how can anyone think that smoking is not sinful? Shouldn't CORE's position on smoking thus be that unless you are actively trying to quit, smokers should not hold pastoral responsibilities, and any clergy who do take up smoking need to be promptly removed? And yet, how many smokers believe that smoking is sinful?

Peter,

Your last post reveals you fully. Perhaps I was just slow on the uptake. You folks that are making the argument for acceptance of homosexuals in the clergy (and to de-commission homosexuality as sin) have no end to your theological and scriptural gymnastics and our conversation has lost its purpose. Unfortunately, you haven't added to my body of knowledge and I'm betting I haven't added to yours.

Here are my answers to your questions and you don't need to respond:
"consummating the love you feel for someone" isn't a right given to anyone, other than through the blessing of a heterosexual marriage granted by scripture (start in Genesis and read forward). Lots of (heterosexual and homosexual) people lead fulfilled, chaste lives. This isn't impossible, it isn't unfair, but to use one of your arguments, is just how God made some people. This is a "string" that Scripture ties to us. Don't get mad at me. I'm just the messenger.

My reference to the OT is that prohibition against homosexual acts exist in both books, ergo Scripture as an integrated whole, not to be piece-mealed which your side is continuously doing. Arguments about ancient Hebrew law are just ignorant.

I'm not sure where you live but, yes, I live in "fly-over country". We are very quaint our here with our traditional, common-sense understanding of God's Word. The percentage of active, involved Christians that agree with your position on this issue is in the 20% range. For too long, the Synod assemblies have been an artificial environment where lay people and clergy go to make a point or out of guilt from having been elected to serve. This is a reality that orthodox believers have come to regret and are now paying the price for.

I resent the implication of my lack of understanding of the "full import of communion". I've never implied that we are anything other that brothers in Christ, as I am with the saved and the fallen. It saddens me deeply this issue has ruptured the Christian church and this genie won't go back into the bottle. But I cannot share communion with you because we have a very different understanding of the Gospel, to the point where I believe you are guilty of heresy. It is precisely because those RIC churches fail to recognize homosexuality as sin that our bonds are broken.

Your focus on anger is confusing. I have been witness to none of what you reference. I believe it is another straw man of yours. People are very motivated to the point of actually thinking very hard about their faith so in some ways it is a blessing. Lutheranism will be reconfigured. The Catholic church will regain some members that left long ago. LCMS will grow. Other Evangelical churches will welcome some of our flock. And, those who agree with you will be among those they agree with.

Finally, in another lame analogy, you stretch this disagreement into a gumby-like contortion that simply weakens your position. I don't have enough ink to cover all the angles from which this is inappropriate.

Repent and Go in peace.

I'm sorry it took 7 posts to reveal myself clearly. I'll try for one next time. I have a very clear aim in sight: proclamation to the world that it is through faith in Christ's death alone and only that we are forgiven of all our sins.

When I'm talking about "consummation of love", that does mean sex, but not all sex is consummation of love. The consummation I speak of is a physical expression of the unity that already exists emotionally and spiritually. That unity is the marriage that already exists.

I don't mean to call you ignorant when I suggest you don't understand the full import of communion, but some of your statements are inconsistent with the full importance of communion. For one, you jump from difference in Law to difference in Gospel without any actual justification, unless you can demonstrate how the Gospel falls upon acceptance of homosexuality. Given that the Gospel is not contingent on the Law, I don't believe you can do it. Being brothers in Christ is also incompatible with refusing shared communion. It is also interesting that we now go from 'there's a difference between an honest disagreement over what the Law says and ignoring the Law' to 'since we disagree, you're guilty of heresy'.

My focus on anger reflects some of the problems observed both here (perhaps you've read Dr Hinlicky's angry rant) and those present in our synod. I'm also in one of 'those' parts of the country, and there are churches in the area where the pastor's anger over the CWA decision is destroying congregations. So far all of churches that have voted on leaving have failed, but there are people leaving some of these churches on both sides of the spectrum. The other point you try to avoid is that there are other divides as serious over what Scripture says, but none them cut quite as deep as this, and a lot become accepted as soon as it applies directly to us.

"One side must be right. The ELCA position that everyone is right just won't stand."

Just a short comment. You are correct that both sides can't be right, but they could both be wrong. We might still need to search for better answers to the questions or even ask better questions of ourselves. A great deal more of the self-examination which seems to be called for in Sarah's post is in order, even as we might want to hear the questions of those with whom we find ourselves in disagreement. I think that the problem for all the "bad guys" in the account of Jesus passion is that they, like we got it wrong and the truth got crucified. It is grace that the vote that matters was an empty tomb.