One item not mentioned is activity in elections. If orthodox views are to prevail, the bishops and council must have orthodox views. Hence, identify orthodox candidates in each synod and placing them on the ballot is a key. Then, work must be done to get them elected.

Frankly, I don’t think there is the organizational ability among the dissenters to make this happen. Nor is it necessarily the case that the majority of ELCA members are of an orthodox bent, so election results are not likely to be positive.

True, Mr Schnitkey.

Dissenters within the ELCA are not nearly as well-organised - or funded - as the pro-gay lobby. But it must be remembered too that when we have tried to speak up, we have largely been shouted down as "homophobic," "intolerant," "unwelcoming," "non-inclusive," etc. Those are nasty labels and I think they've cowed a lot of people in the ELCA who don't like what's happening but don't want to be the centre of attacks. Myself, I don't care. No matter what I get called, I paraphrase former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, when President Richard Nixon called him "an SOB": "I've been called worse things, and by better people."

Also, I think too many throughout the ELCA have an attitude of "don't make waves, don't rock the boat." We don't need to just ROCK this boat. We need to leave it dead in the water before it docks.

I would really like to see the documentation referable to the claim that you have been called "homophobic" or an "SOB".

Not on this board, Kurt. On OTHER boards, such as Beliefnet, and one that doesn't exist anymore. I don't go there anymore.

And I have never been called "an SOB." That was the terminology Trudeau used. Nixon called HIM that. I used it for comparison.

I HAVE been called "homophobic," and had my views compared to the Nazis.

It might well be that those who disagree with you have used such offensive terminology. My point is that there are a great many who disagree with the view you hold on this subject who would never do that, so let's make sure we know the difference.

Believe me, Kurt, if anyone HERE were to have used such epithets toward me, you would not have to wonder about the difference. I do not permit such things.

I'm not referencing what only happens HERE. It seems there is an effort to imply that those who disagree with the traditionalist position are somehow abusive and intolerant when, in fact, it is an honest difference of opinion, albeit with high stakes, but not a gut-wrenching interpersonal matter nonetheless.

I mentioned on another thread that I have experienced these issues, as well. At Synod Assembly this year, opponents of the resolutions were called "evil" by one of the proponents.

I am not sure why anyone should love the ELCA, or any denomination for that matter. I am no Luther scholar, but I think I understand, in concept at least, his teaching on the True Church, that being, God knows whose are His. Besides, whose church is it anyway?
So by extension, why fight? Exactly what is the purpose? Which is worse, persistent turmoil or sincere error? Turmoil is worse, I think. It is my position that thinking conservatives should leave the ELCA. Please tell me why I should stay.
If the ELCA is to be Ichabod, it will be so. The Glory was never ours to bestow.

To the LCMS? Been there, done that. There is far too wide a gulf between the ELCA and LCMS for many ELCA people to be a good fit there. The LCMS has its own problems. They have never got past David Behnke and the whole 9/11 Yankee Stadium brouhaha. The ELCA is being torn between its left and right (actually centrist) wings. My former LCMS pastor said "we're like an airplane with two right wings."

A couple of very prominent ELCA theologians have already gone to Rome or Constantinople.

Why should we abandon ship?

Who STARTED the turmoil, anyway?

David, which "very prominent ELCA theologians have already gone to Rome or Constantinople"? Sorry, I have not been following that closely but would like more information on this.

Hi Rik,
An incomplete list, but:
Reinhard Huetter, Bruce Marshall, Robert Wilkin, Jaroslav Pelikan, Leonard Klein, Jay Rochelle, David Fagerberg, Mickey Mattox, and so on...

A gentle correction, Jaroslav Pelikan went East to the Orthodox church.

Having spent ten years in the Church of Rome I pity those former ELCA theologians who think they are going to find the "catholic" Church here. The revolution of Vatican II destroyed any connection Rome might have had with what went before.

Nevertheless, I would respectfully disagree with David's assessment of the LCMS. Are we having struggles? To be sure. But there are still sound Confessional LCMS congregations and some very orthodox young pastors are coming out of the seminaries and Concordia Publishing House continues to release new and classic confessional materials.

When I left the ELCA I had been well prepared for my Roman sojourn. Thanks to the changes made at the Council the ELCA and Protestant mainstream underwent its own "Vatican II for Lutherans."

I have found peace and spiritual nourishment back in the LCMS that I hadn't known since my Lutheran childhood.

I will be praying for all of my brothers and sisters in the ECLA during the convention.

Christine

Thank you, as ever was, for all your prayers.

However, it seems that the only prayers now appropriate will be a final requiem for what was once the ELCA.

DP

"Thank you, as ever was, for all your prayers.

However, it seems that the only prayers now appropriate will be a final requiem for what was once the ELCA."

David, the Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. That's not a guarantee for any particular Christian body in any particular time or place.

The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church will survive in one form or another. Even if the ELCA implodes organizationally and institutionally those who hear their Shepherd's voice will continue elsewhere.

The ELCA once existed in three former, separate bodies. She could do so again if necessary. The Gospel will go on.

Christine

DP

The LCMS has its problems, to be sure, but remains solid in the most important matters. I think a lot of Lutherans will be looking to Dr. Kieschnik for leadership in the days ahead, and will be grateful for a clear voice.

Thank you, Christine, but I believe that Rick's question asked about theologians going to Rome OR Constantinople. Hence, Pelikan's journey eastward would be included.

although I see that my original title to my reply might have been confusing. So, the fault's probably mine. No worries.

Rob, right you are, I didn't read carefully, Rome and Constantinople ARE mentioned which would certainly pertain to Pelikan.

My apologies!

Because there are many in Christ people their and in that we should be showing unity. I know you would say that there are people there that disagree with you about what is sin and what is not. But as in Christ people we need to support each other wherever they are. This is what is meant by our Unity being in Christ not some disagreement about what is sin and what is not. By parting with the ELCA you are parting company with many in Christ people that need you. Satan wins again not when we disagree but when we allow a disagree ment to tear apart the Body of Christ in this place. In fact I believe it is almost a denial of Christ by our actions.

Quoth Dana: Which is worse, persistent turmoil or sincere error? Turmoil is worse, I think. It is my position that thinking conservatives should leave the ELCA. Please tell me why I should stay.

My answer: As one who left over a decade ago, when it became clear to anybody who was paying attention that this day was inevitable, I say by all means leave the ELCA. Its ecumenical relationships treat the Real Presence as no big deal. Its website touts its committment to universalism. And in view of what happened at Minneapolis last summer, Wolfhart Pannenberg is right in saying that it is no longer a part of the Church catholic.

But if ELCA conservatives had been willing to create some turmoil while there was still a chance of changing the course of events, this moment may never have come. Persistent turmoil is always better than error, sincere or otherwise.

On my first trip to Hawaii, I, Rik, was swimming in the Pacific Ocean one day last week. On the shoreline, two flags seemed to mark where a stretch of beach began and ended, at least to this Midwesterner. I used them like the North Star to keep from getting to far away from the resort. Then my brother called me in, which I resented, as I was enjoying my challenging swim. It was quite a struggle to swim back, as the cross-current was strong, yet I made it back successfully, nonetheless. "Didn't you see the red flags?" "You don't swim in the ocean when the red flags are out!" Perhaps I should have known better, but the waves didn't look too bad. "Speak the Truth in Love." Sarah, I appreciate your quote from Ephesians 4:15. I also appreciate the way you have continually tried to point out the red warning flags to the ELCA, speaking the truth in love. You have been a persistent witness, and I , for one have been appreciative of your concern for the flocks in need of shepherding. On my vacation, I heard the epistle reading from Eph. 4:1-16 last Sunday. If there is one thing I love in the interpretation of Scripture, it is context, context, context! While I will not quote the whole epistle lesson here (knowing full well many will not take the time to look it up), I will strongly encourage readers to back up, at least to verse nine to understand the context of the following: "Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." (Eph. 4:14-16). Hurricane Felicia did not overcome Maui, but became a tropical depression and went on its way. It is my prayer that Hurricanes "Gift and Trust" and "Report and Recommendations" do not overcome the ELCA, but rather that their forces will lessen and they will blow over. Not only must the truth be spoken in love, but the truth must be spoken. The warning must be announced, and to some, explained (of course, in love). God has promised that His church will continue to exist, but He has not told us it will continue in the ELCA. I applaud your desire to not want to leave sheep without a shepherd, but the warning must be sounded loud and clear as the ship ELCA is tossed about by "every wind of doctrine." May God have mercy. May we not encourage others to cast their anchor into the ELCA or any other church or synod, for these organizations can loose their moorings, as church history teaches us from when other well-meaning Christians led denominations away from Biblical teachings, constructing new doctrines and other "gospels." By all means, send out the lifeboats to those in need, but IMO, if the ship is sinking, don't send the survivors back to a sinking ship. May we be anchored in the secure faith in Christ Jesus our Lord, revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, and may we then assemble with others who are likewise anchored in the one true faith, building them up in that faith and being built up by others. Let us also beware that "a little leaven leaveneth the whole." The flags are out--take warning!

I believe that the two votes last night (not affirming a two thirds vote and not stopping if the first vote should not pass-just a refresher for anyone who may not be up to speed) were two BIG RED FLAGS. Of course, we can keep praying that a tsunami of good sense may course over the voters.

Since the unthinkable may actually occur, I have been pondering what might be an interim course for those of us who will not be able to continue on in this rotten, sinking boat. There comes a time in the life of a boat owner, where you quit patching your craft up, and for safety's sake, put her on the beach, as we would say. Since it will take some time to research the next craft to put our family into, I propose that those who may be left high and dry by the cwa (lower case letters are not accidental). This action:

May I suggest that those who do not want to pay more for the ruined craft, should put their offering into an envelope-stamped,addressed and into the offering plate on Sunday. Be sure to put on a return address also. Address the envelope to Lutheran Core, Word Alone, Lutheran Would Relief or some other group which you trust to use you offering in a Godly way. Someone will have to mail it (US Mail can't be tampered with). I hope that your point will be made.

Don't put in your usual offering marking it to not go to the ELCA, or for World Hunger etc. Yours will only be designated and a greater percent of someone else's offering will go off to the Synod.

I have not had long to formulate this plan, so perhaps it has a fatal flaw...if things go the way they might, I will not be able to fund the immediate flood of "rostered" candidates which will certainly apply for Pastoral openings!

Keep praying, God Has a Plan for ALL of This !!!

As of today, you can call me an ex-Lutheran. That's my answer to this nonsense. I'll never step into an ELCA sanctuary again as long as I live.

Julie, I would say (and I'll catch it for this, que sera sera) that you are more authentically Lutheran than what happened in Minneapolis.

The ELCA in its current form ended today.

Yes, the ELCA in its current form ended today.

Julie, please don't give up. As for not stepping into an ELCA sanctuary again, I can't argue. I left several years ago and am back in the LCMS.

The fact that there are still so many faithful Lutherans in the ELCA gives me hope that they may either find new homes in other Lutheran bodies or band together to form a new body. The ELCA was formed from several predecessor bodies so why couldn't it work in reverse again.

Please, all of you faithful ELCA brothers and sisters, support each other and help each other through this sad time. The phoenix can rise again from the ashes.

David,

Thanks for your comforting words. I'm simply heart-broken. The church that baptized and confirmed me has lost its way, and I'm not sure where I'll end up. I do know one thing, though. I cannot, in good conscience, accept this decision and commune with the ELCA. Call me bigoted, homophobic. I don't care.

...then so am I, Julie, so is my wife, and so is the biggest part of my congregation.

The ELCA did not lose its way. It charted its course straight off the deep end.

I am a mixture of heartbroken, angry, and bitter. I feel like we've been had. This really was a foregone conclusion at least as far back as 2001.

Lutherans Concerned can run the rainbow flag up the pole, but they delude themselves if they think I'll salute.

LETTER SENT TO MY PASTORS ON 8-17-09. I AM DEEPLY BOTHERED BYTHE DECISION TO REQJUIRE ONLY A 50% VOTE:

After being surprised by the announcement, this last Sunday, that the ELCA will vote on whether to ordain "practicing" gays as clergy, I felt compelled to outline my "views "of that possible action by the church. Like most people, this is the last thing I would like to be doing I this evening; I've had a hard day and I'm extremely tired. But I don't want this decision, made by my church, to pass without speaking up. If you think it will make the slightest difference to the people making this momentous decision, please feel free to pass this e-mail on.

Ordaining Practicing Gays Will Require the Acceptance of Gay Marriage:

It is a clear and irrefutable truth that ordaining "practicing" gay clergy will also require the church to bless and support gay marriage. Obviously, the church cannot sanction two people being sexually involved without permitting them to be married within the church. That, of course, will lead to the promotion of the gay lifestyle as part of church's life and activities.

Promoting the Gay Lifestyle and Marriage - Will Lead to Some People "Choosing" that Lifestyle:

Some people are truly gay as a result of how God made them. And, that is one of the strongest reasons for not condemning anyone who is gay, practicing or not. However, people can choose to be gay. In history, there have been societies that have fully accepted the gay life style with a substantial portion of their population practicing homosexuality. However, is this what God wants for his world? It would appear that both the natural world and the practical world indicate that the preferable lifestyle for a family is to be headed by one mother and one father. The marriage of one woman and one man has also been the western world's model for family life and society for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Could there possibly be "wisdom" in that preference or have all the good people who came before us simply been blinded by pointless bigotry? I believe most children benefit from having both a masculine and a feminine influence in their lives. Unfortunately, promoting homosexuality will lead people, who are not necessarily gay, to experiment with it, and perhaps make a conscious decision to go down that path in their life. Currently, we are having a national debate as to what the proper place for homosexuality is in America. Ordaining practicing gays will, of course, be a step closer to normalizing that lifestyle and equating a gay marriage to a heterosexual marriage. Once that is accepted as "truth," our children will be taught in school that there is no difference between the two and anyone should be able to choose the path they're most comfortable with. Of course, anyone who would finds fault with that "truth," will be labeled a bigot.

Candidates for Seminary are Discriminated on All Kinds of Factors:

Gay candidates are not discriminated because they're gay. As I understand the current policy, adopted not that long ago, a gay person can be ordained as a Lutheran pastor as long as he's committed to the church to the extent that they will not to be a practicing gay. This does not seem to be far from the Catholic's request that priest show the same dedication by not being a practicing heterosexual. I'm sure the church looks at many factors concerning a candidate to determine if they should pursue the ministry: aptitude, dedication, talents, and even age. If it's permissible to discern appropriate candidates by those factors, why shouldn't their commitment and dedication be sought through a pledge to not practice homosexuality?

The Same Arguments Support Polygamy Even Better:

One of my concerns is that once you start "redefining thousands" of years of wisdom and tradition, e.g. one woman and one man make a marriage, there really is no reason to stop. Every argument for approving practicing gay clergy in the name of "justice" can also be made for accepting polygamy. While no world religion has ever promoted homosexuality, Polygamy has been accepted by several. Closest to home, of course, were the Mormons who practiced polygamy in the 19th century. The United States "discriminated" against the polygamist by requiring Utah to outlaw the practice in order to join the Union. In recent media interviews, polygamists have stated their belief that they are in a "loving" and supporting relationship. (By the way, there is no reason that polygamy can't involve one woman with multiple husbands.) As far as nature's verdict/inclination goes, most people would acknowledge that men are naturally polygamist. It is by social norms and personal commitments that they monogamist. One could easily argue that a many-parent family would even do a better job of raising children.

Society Has a Right and Duty to Define Marriage as One Man and One Woman

While not likely tomorrow or the day after, the scenario that polygamy becomes legalized in the name of "fairness," clarifies the obvious fact that society has a right and even a duty to define what a marriage is and what the ideal family structure should be. That, of course, does not deny that a gay couple can have a loving and beautiful family with children. However, for the reasons we are all aware of in our daily lives, it is obvious that gay unions should not be put on the same plain with a union of one-man and one-woman and that society and children, in general, benefit from heterosexual commitments.

Open Mindedness is not a "Safe Harbor" from Consequences:

I'm not sure what would drive the clergy, the church, and individuals to promote the homosexual agenda. My guess is a feeling that it is unjust to request that a gay person be asked to deny who they really are. Possibly, it's a question of fairness. While it is right to oppose perceived injustice, there also should be thinking beyond one's feelings. As I tried to explain above, most of us that oppose gay marriage don't do so because of an innate dislike of gay people. We believe, however, there are real consequences to equating homosexuality with heterosexuality. There are also real consequences for determining that society cannot discriminate in this area, e.g., the acceptance of polygamy. I would hope that those who want this change would take a moment and think of what it will mean.


Fiat by Elitism

With a national debate going on as to the proper place for homosexuality in American life, why would the ECLA choose, at this time, to enter the fray on the side of approving gay marriage? The current policy of ordaining gays who promise not to practice homosexuality appears completely reasonable - a policy the church had previously accepted not that long ago. The vast majority of Americans are opposed to equating homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage. Yet, the church feels compelled to push the gay agenda further by changing a reasonable policy to one that promotes the practice of homosexuality and gay marriage. There is no doubt in my mind, that if the proposal were put before the rank-and-file members of the church, it would not be accepted. But my guess is that will never happen. It's also amazing that this issue was not discussed with congregations. I can only think of a couple of possible explanations for leaving members out, and none of them are good.

There have been several times in American history when elitism prevailed over common sense with disastrous results. Most notably, in the Supreme Court's decision Roe Vs Wade, five judges decided they knew the moral and social answer to abortion and decided that a woman's right was "unconditional." Since that decision in the early 1970s, millions of children have been murdered. What was the outdated, outrageous Georgia law that was overturned? The overturned state law allowed a woman to have an abortion in the case of incest, rape, or a threat to her life. Which represents true humanity, the Supreme Court's decision (five judges) or the old Georgia law? In any case, my point is that when a few people presume they have the wisdom and insight to speak for a much larger body of people, thereby denying the larger group the opportunity to debate and consider the issue, we've often had very bad decisions with terrible unintended consequences.

The Oddity of Promoting Gay Living - While Accepting the Killing of the Unborn without Opposition:

I truly find it odd, that the leadership in the ECLA wants to "tackle" the gay issue, but are mute concerning abortion on demand. It really wasn't surprising to learn that one of the country's few abortionist who would conduct late term abortions for any reason was a member of a Lutheran Church. Years ago I looked into issues concerning abortion. I was amazed to learn that one of the two large Lutheran churches, before they merged, had actually passed a social statement declaring that abortion was permissible (it was later rescinded) as long as the couple prayerfully considered the action. One of the things to consider according to the statement was their economic situation. No doubt the congregations were also left out of that discussion and final decision. As a side point, the bottom-line explanation in the statement for accepting abortion, under any circumstance was with respect to "evangelical ethic." I never did find out what those crucial words meant - words that would defend the murder of thousands. So, this oddity, for what ever reason, speaks to me that there is a political agenda behind these stands by the church. I don't believe they are, in fact, scripturally driven.


A Simmering Reduction of Perspective:

Well this is my perspective. I hope you'll consider it, and please pass it on if you think it will help. When these controversies come up, the mainline churches eventually take what I would call the liberal path. From that, I see a continuing reduction of ideas as conservative members leave the churches, like that of a simmering sauce pan, until the only thoughts that are left are the "right" ones.


Sincerely,

Don

Please read my post way up in this blog on Sept.11:9:06. I would like to read your thoughts.