It may solve the problem. Then again, it may not. We'll see.

"The divisions in the ELCA are not going away." Sadly, Ms. Wolf, though I have enormous respect for you, I must disagree with your statement as I feel that the divisions are indeed going away - in mass. For instance, 90,000 participants of such divisions went away in 2009, and more will follow in 2010, 2011, 2012 and beyond. Yes, you can tell I'm pessimistic about the long term prognosis of the ELCA. On the other hand, I shed no tears for this since I am bullish on the eternal prospects of Christianity.

In my imediate ministry area there is at least one Confessional ELCA pastor and congregation. So far, ELCA committed "leavers" visit my (LCMS) church and then his and (all things still being equal) transfer to his church. Woe the day for the ELCA when he is gone and replaced with a new pastor from Philadelphia or Chicago or Pacific or... Then the losses will really start to add up.

Even more interesting is the number that just up and leave their ELCA church and move to the big, non-denom church with the "radical" youth ministry. These churches are more conservative than mine, completely non sacramental with very restrictive views of women in ministry, etc and yet they are receiveing key leaders from the "fallout" over last year. Go figure.

For whatever reason, the ELCA leadership has chosen to follow the liberal main-line into self-destruction. The former Episcopal Cathedral in town is now a Word of Faith Mega-church. The ELCA churches who can't preach the Atonement will soon be strict Calvinist mission plants. Please do pray and I do pray for your revitalization in the Confessions-- but you can't continue to produce pastor/theologians who are indistinguishable from their ECUSA/PCUSA/UCC counterparts. If you don't fix your seminaries you have a declining future.

An analysis of our divisions based on 1 Corinthians 3:1-7

Diagnosis- Divided over God

Surface problem: Jealousy and quarreling
Controversy is nothing new to our church, nor the jealousy and quarreling that inevitably follow any such controversy. The Corinthians' problems could as well be our own, especially with all of the anger, hurt feelings and quarreling over all things. Even speaking of "fallout from the churchwide assembly decisions" implies the division and quarreling, and "behaving according to human inclinations" (v3). And yet, even those who choose not to decide on this issue have either failed to broker a peace, or hidden from it. Whether in favor of the CWA decisions, or against them, whether staying, or leaving, we have brought quarrels and division to the church. Everyone can readily say 'if only you didn't stick to your guns, we could all get along'.

Internal problem: "People of the flesh"
As Paul readily observes, this is a deeper problem, not just an issue of one vote made at our assembly. Instead, Paul observes that the jealousy and division is a sure sign that the Corinthians, like us, are still 'of the flesh'. This observation is borne out by the depth of the emotion that all sides feel over this issue. This issue is one on which we must take our stand, and we cannot support any other side.

God problem: belonging to Paul or Apollos
We all know that being 'of the flesh' is bad news in Paul's writings. And indeed, Paul reveals the full extent of the problem in v4: in digging in to our positions-- becoming of the flesh, we have staked ourselves on our agenda. Just as the Corinthians say "I belong to Paul" or "I belong to Apollos", we take our stand-- whether that is to leave the ELCA, remain and contest the CWA decisions or even support the CWA decisions. Certainly, the Corinthians traced belonging to Paul or Apollos as an intermediary step between their side of the conflict and God's will. We do the same, and even try to one-up the Corinthians by claiming 'we belong to God' to justify our decision. And yet, our actions are not those of people belonging to God any more than the Corinthians' were. When we stand before God and must answer for ourselves, we will find ourselves coming up short-- we have not kept the whole Law with all of our heart, body and soul.

Prognosis: United by God
God's solution: belonging to God
And yet, damned as we are, God has made another claim upon us, through the waters of baptism: the foundation that is Jesus Christ. It is not the stance we take, or our justifications, or our ability to fulfill the Law that give eternal life. Instead it is our common foundation: Jesus Christ, crucified and died for our sins, and raised from the dead by God. Through the waters of baptism-- given to most of us on all sides of this debate as helpless infants-- God has indeed made a claim that surpasses all others, whether we belong to Paul or to Apollos.

Internal solution- "spiritual people"
It is not through our stances that we become a spiritual people, but through our common foundation in faith in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. From that foundation, we can see that faith has been nurtured by people on all sides of the church division, and so whether it was Paul who nurtured our faith, or Apollos, it is still the same God who grows it. For all of us in or recently in the ELCA, it is seeing the same foundation and the same God giving us all growth on all sides of this debate that forges us together as a spiritual people.

External solution: united
When we see the faith nurtured on all sides of this debate, we find that despite ethical divisions or divisions in church membership, we are all yet one. We share in the same Communion, and partake of the same Body of Christ and become one in Him. If we are all one in Him, what then remains to be jealous or angry over? We no longer need to take a stand on staying or leaving, or even on the decisions made by the CWA assembly. Stay or leave the ELCA, we remain one Body of Christ so long as we participate in Holy Communion. For or against the CWA decisions, we still participate in the same death and resurrection of our one Lord, Jesus Christ. And, trusting in that one Lord, we are driven as members of that Body of Christ to help plant, water and nurture the seeds of faith in everyone we come across, even those started by those on other sides of this issue. It is in Holy Communion that we know our church cannot be divided, and while we disagree, and sometimes quite strongly, "all things belong to us and we belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God." (v22-23). It is through our common foundation in Christ that we can act on the various calls for unity such that they will bear fruit, even as we disagree on ethical issues.

The point is that the CWA decision regarding clergy engaged in public sexual (mis)conduct (i.e. sexual relationship outside of marriage) is just a symptom of a substantive doctrinal error: the loss of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. The vote to engage in fellowship with the United Methodist Church-- and therefore compromise Sola Scriptura with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral-- is stronger evidence of the core problem. This is not about "ethics" but about a fundamental Reformation truth.

It's grace alone received through faith alone as told in Scripture alone. While there are certainly those in the ELCA who don't see any need for Sola Scriptura, the decisions are yet consistent with placing Scripture in its proper place: as the cradle carrying Christ to the world, and not just Torah, Second Edition.

I also think you're looking at the UMC full communion with too much fear. For all that a lot of people see no serious difference (and probably don't even know what the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is, much less how it would look different from Confessional Lutheranism), this is growth for the Gospel. Through these relationships, we can now share our Law/Gospel understanding with them. I think the LCMS tends to forget that Jesus specifically sent his disciples into the midst of sinners, and it is only in the midst of sinners that Christ's church is found. Not "redeemed" or "repentant" sinners, but sinning sinners.

Dear Peter,

Holy Scripture is not "the cradle carrying Christ to the world" and neither is is "Torah 2.0". It is the Word of God-- sole source and norm for deciding doctrine and life. You are creating the alternative definitions that are the cause of the twist in your theology. Where did you learn such definitions? Read Dr. Braaten's critique of the non-theology that was (not) used in the argument for last years "decision." It is very insightful.

My wife was raised in a liberal East Coast UMC congregation. One revealing comment she made when she first met me was that I was the first person she had ever met who "actually made life decisions based on his/her religious belief." Her church didn't have any doctrinal stringenncy to it and didn't preach or teach anything counter cultural or transformative in Christ. Life in Christ is not a 3D ChicFlick. Sure, she thought the LCMS was a cult for awhile-- but she married me anyway (and still refuses to eat sauerkraut.)

It is a false ecumenism to partner with groups on the assumption of creating unity-- they are absorbing you into a great sort of Hindu vague cosmic oneeness that has nothing to do with entering a house of sinners. Lutheranism is a small ship that floats in a sea of Reformed theology-- our job is to be the really tough Marines in that ship who are ready to "take that hill."

PS. Go see "the Expendables"-- get fired up to be a soldier of the Reformation and leave the Julia Roberts movie for doctrinal weenies...

My wife and I are among those who decamped ELCA for LCMS, and we do not regret it in any way, though we do miss people we met in the ELCA (who now inexplicably have nothing to do with us; one would think we'd committed high treason).

The only thing I would take mild issue with is your "sea of Reformed theology" metaphor. I wouldn't even go that far, because I doubt a good chunk of the "megachurches" wouldn't even know who Calvin is, let alone TULIP five-point Calvinism. Most of it I would call a very convoluted mix of Arminianism, Holiness, Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. Baptism is only on public profession as an adult and the Lord's Supper is just bread cubes (or crackers, or whatever) and grape juice. No means of grace, no "this is My body, this is My blood," and largely feel-good "I'm OK, you're OK" theology. At least the real Reformed (CRC, PCA, EPC) acknowledge that Christ is "spiritually present" in the elements.

OK, that's out of the way, just a mild quibble anyhow. Well, no, another one! I'm a former Air Force guy, so rather than the Marine metaphor, I would say we have to have constant Combat Air Patrols over the little Lutheran island, but using the Scriptures (yes, Sola Scriptura) and the Confessions rather than F-16's.

Scripture is the Word of God, period. No qualifiers, no modifiers. If the ELCA has lost that, then their navigator's station is empty, or else they've placed Marcion at the controls.

I am concerned for those faithful, confessional Lutherans who do remain in the ELCA, and even moreso about the seminaries. What is being taught there? What would Luther say about it? From what I've seen, it's more of a "Jesus loves you, just be nice" thing rather than Law and Gospel.

I think that probably the only solution is for the ELCA, or what's left of it, to have its own "Seminex moment," but doing just the opposite of what happened in the LCMS with Seminex. It will be difficult, but with God all things are possible.

Maybe something along the lines of the old (emphasis on "old") ALC will result, but I don't know.

Oh, if you want some cool Lutheran stuff...

http://www.zazzle.com/doctrine_mens_tshirt-235975014884988904
http://www.zazzle.com/life_of_martin_luther_poster-228451990684706831
http://www.zazzle.com/lutheran_rose_2_hier_steh_ich_ich_kann_nicht_a_tshirt-235375355183598846
http://www.zazzle.com/body_and_blood_mug-168511091313751211

and for your Confirmands...

http://www.zazzle.com/liturgical_lutheran_in_training_tshirt-235453617906454713

A bit cheesy, but still cool.

Actually a good many of the more famous megachurches are Southern Baptist. They just sort of avoid using the B word because the SBC has been so thoroughly demonized in the media for so long. The SBC itself has adopted this stealthiness by renaming their publishing arm and bookstore chain "Lifeway". So obviously, they don't do infant Baptism. And they do use crackers and grape juice, but at least they know an abomination when they see one and they will stand against it. Look at the relentless bashing Rick Warren is getting from the gay marriage advocates. That's not because of I'm OK, you're OK preaching.

And it really is the pot calling the kettle black for a Lutheran to call anyone else's theology "convoluted". One of our Synod's best known theologians just upped and joined the Catholic Church because after several decades of trying to make sense of Lutheranism, he decided that he couldn't. When your seminary professors start saying "Oops, never mind" about the Reformation, that is a problem.

Interestingly, Luther didn't use "Word of God" for Scripture; it was "die Schrift". Word of God was reserved for the Gospel. To a large extent, I would agree that arguing over just what God's final Word to us on the problem of our sin is at the heart of the issue*. Saying that Scripture is the end commingles Law and Gospel, leaving us with Jesus as just a helper, not a savior. If God's final Word is anything more Christ crucified and risen for us, we're all lost.

I don't assume that unity will magically occur just because we have full communion with UMC. It establishes the relationship through which we can share our understanding of Law and Gospel. And if they have such a poor Christology as you say, this relationship is extremely important.

I'm not opposed to unity with the Catholics, but I believe they are extremely opposed to unity with me. In fact, the vast majority of their statements since the Reformation have made it clear that I am specifically NOT welcome in the Catholic church. This is actually the exact opposite from the way the ELCA is going about this-- no one is being purged because of their stance on the homosexuality issue, and they've gone to great lengths to specifically reach out to those dissatisfied.

I don't think that my analysis is at odds with Pr Wolf's post. Tomorrow I'll pray for the ELCA as well, and LC/NA is encouraging prayers: http://www.lcna.org/news/388-news-2010-08-04


*but this is also the mistake many on the "liberal" side make as well, though some also do away with needing Christ at all, and is not to be confused with cultural Christianity (do we share common ground in this article: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=8654 I wonder?)

Peter said, "...the way the ELCA is going about this-- no one is being purged because of their stance on the homosexuality issue, and they've gone to great lengths to specifically reach out to those dissatisfied."

Excuse me? The last synod assembly I attended had a Q+A session with Presiding Bishop Hanson present. There, those who said anything that remotely showed disagreement with the action of the 2009 CWA were roundly hissed, booed or mumbled against. The Presiding Bishop said nothing to discourage the crowd when this happened. Not only this, but his comments there and in his sermon for worship basically said or implied that the decision has been made, those of you who disagree, quit your whining, we need to move on. I haven't been reached out to, I've been given the cold shoulder by my Synodical Bishop and made to feel by both him and the Presiding Bishop like for those opposed to the 2009 CWA decision that I have nothing worth saying any longer because I can't go along with a "local option" policy, as if it should be enough for me that no one forces me or my congregations to personally practice the options that were not formerly allowed. I suppose I haven't been told to leave per say, but I had one pastor who didn't know my position say that for those opposed who are leaving, "Good riddance!" One doesn't need to be told to leave to feel painfully unwelcome.

Peter:

We’ve been down this road before. Given your earlier posts, it is evident you do not share the concerns of the dissidents. In fact, it appears you rather approve of what transpired at the CWA. Thus your comments are, forgive me, somewhat self-serving. Fair or not, this disqualifies your presentation from sincere consideration. This editor of this fine publication has far more standing among dissidents. (I’m sure this won’t stop you. So there it goes.)

Unanswered is my challenge that if you and our good Presiding Bishop are so committed to the unity of the Christian Church, then why do you not end your rebellion and submitted YOURSELF to Rome. The Roman Catholic Church is certainly more universal than the Lutheran Church.

Forgo your sectarian attachment to your congregation and your pastor and seek out your local Catholic parish. I am sure your priest will be quite receptive and understanding. If your want to talk about diversity within a denomination, observe the broad and actual differences among individuals within that body of Christ. Compared to many radical Catholics, you would find yourself more reasonably at home within the Catholic Church than they do. I would have more respect for you and your assertions if you did.

Heaven knows, someday I might be kissing the Pope's ring myself.

Oh also forgot one more thing: why are you dismissing any analysis by the perceived biases of the author? In a way, I think anything we say on any issue is always going to be 'self-serving' in that it will promote our viewpoint at the very least. Isn't dismissal based on perceived biases the very thing that prompts some of those who celebrate the CWA2009 decisions to call those against 'bigot' and 'homophobe'? I suspect y'all understand how that kind of dismissal hurts and destroys unity better than I do.

Is there a particular aspect with which you disagree, as Pr Sidwell did about use of 'ethics'? Is it only step 6- the external solution with which you both disagree, or is it at step 4, God's solution?

Peter:

Tell me why you will or won't submit to Rome for the sake of Christian unity and then I'll take you seriously.

I thought I addressed that after some of Pr Sidwell's concerns, but I'm happy to expound more on it.

I would have no problem being a part of the Catholic church. They, however, would have extreme problems with me being a part of the Catholic church. I think just about every major decision since the Reformation includes the statement 'whoever does not believe this is not Catholic', and by even one or two of those, I am not Catholic. I know that they manage to overlook certain issues sometimes, but even on the slim chance a priest let me become Catholic, I think it would only be a matter of time before they excommunicated me. I probably have more in common with the LCMS and NALC, but I'll bet those bodies would rather I not be there, too. LCMS already has closed communion. Given the way Bob Benne squashed Paul Hinlicky's 'maybe we should encourage that committed part of gay relationships so at least they're not promiscuous but only if they recognize they have a sinful relationship' idea, how happily would they react to someone at their conference suggesting that trust in the Gospel leads to trust that all sinners can proclaim the Gospel, or even that homosexuality is no sin?

This is the fundamental difference between what some of these groups have done in the past and what the ELCA is doing this time. We did not resolve to burn the new heretics at the stake or even suggest they go elsewhere. We resolved to bear each other in love, especially if we don't agree on this issue. Continued dialogue on this subject is still encouraged, though certain actions (fomenting schism and withholding benevolence) were never looked favorably on. It wasn't an issue before, because LC never pushed schism or withholding benevolence. It always tried to work with the church leadership, even after votes went against them.

Also, this may be a quibble, but I think 'submission' is the wrong term to use in the first place. In Scripture, submission is not what we do to God, but what we do to earthly rulers and sin. Recall in John, "The truth will set you free" and Paul's "do not again submit to the yoke of slavery". Even in 1 Corinthians 6:12, Paul affirms "'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be dominated by anything". In our freedom, given on account of Christ's suffering, death and resurrection, there is no more submission. I don't think this is a quibble, because unity with the Catholics is not a matter of doing everything they say any more than it is them doing everything I say, and 'submission' clouds that. We can share unity in Christ despite different cultures, just as we can share unity in Christ with African Lutherans or with both Republicans and Democrats.

You too quickly forget, try reading the entire sentence, "having been set free from sin," notice that the comma is used, the sentence isn't finished, it continues;' "have become slaves of righteousness." We are "slaves" to righteousness, our freedom from sin makes us submissive to righteousness, slaves to it, not partners, not equality, slaves.

That's a good point. Paul does talk about slavery to righteousness there. But look at how he talks about it. There's no choice in the matter, like 'submitting' conveys. We were slaves to sin, and now are slaves to righteousness. One important thing to also note is of the 'two kinds of righteousness' this is not righteousness under the law. This is the righteousness given to us through Christ's death and resurrection alone and only. Luther says it with 'where you hang your heart, there your treasure lies' But we hang our hearts on the Gospel, which is has become our righteousness and the new creation within cannot help but serve the Gospel, just as the old Adam within cannot help but sin, regardless of sexual orientation.

In a way, this is the division between us. Is the problem sexual orientation, or even outwardly acting on sexual orientation, or deeper, to what is in our heart, or to the very fact that our hearts are poisoned by our rebellion against God, which is precisely what keeps us enslaved to sin? Reconciliation with God cleanses our hearts from which we perform 'good' actions. The witness we have from many homosexuals is not a denial of sin that eats at their hearts, but that one of good actions springing from the Gospel's cleansing power is intimate love and care for another person of the same gender. Is it any different from a Jewish audience being told that instead of their holy priest or Levites, salvation comes from a Samaritan?

Rome has a world of housecleaning problems to solve. Two words that will keep me away for as long as I live: Papal Authority.

GLBT... wait, I thought the politically correct way to refer to this movement now is LGBT.

Well, since the "movement" has chosen to play with words, I'd like to have a little fun doing the same. Take the letters LGBT, re-arrange them to BLGT, now add a vowel, "I" and this spells BLIGHT.

There are many attacks against Christianity today, and HERE WE ARE as a denomination celebrating the rostering of a man who became a woman who is now a lesbian.... In plain language, someone be good enough to explain to me how on earth this could be considered to be normal.

Oh yeah, before you attack me, I dropped the "H"... just like my denomination has dropped the Holy Spirit.

Peter, it is not normal. It is perversion. The ELCA has endorsed perversion and we need to stand up to this movement and confront it at every opportunity.

Dave, I join you in the sentiment that we need to stand up and push back against the hijacking of our church.

Peter,

"Normal" tends to be what we're used to. Even if you go to Africa or Europe, the way of life is going to be rather different, and yet those ways of life are perfectly normal for the people living there. Or even look 100 years ago in the US, and their life, though radically different, is normal. God's law of 'love God and love neighbor' must come out to different practices in each culture because each culture has different ways of expressing that law. Consider even greetings. You violate God's command if you refuse to greet someone properly. It's standard in the US to shake people's hands when you meet, especially for the first time, so you do so. However, when you come across an orthodox Jewish woman who is not permitted to touch men and does not want to shake your hand on that account, you don't shake her hand, because trying to force the issue would not show love for that woman. One law, but two different ways of fulfilling it, depending on the culture.

What do gender or sexual orientation mean for Christianity? So far as we are concerned, we're called to love our neighbor as ourself. Just as the words 'bigot' and 'homophobe' fail to express that love, so does 'perversion'. You may be neither transgendered nor homosexual, but that doesn't mean no one else is. Is there one correct race? Isn't the main problem of racism these days not that we claim people commit the sin of being born the wrong color, but that they act "black", and while we don't believe ourselves to be racist, we just completely disapprove of "black culture".

In plain language, try to answer the question: What relevance do sexual orientation or gender identity have to God's freely given promise that our sins are forgiven solely on account of Christ's death and resurrection alone?

What a sad and self-rationalizing answer. Of course homosexuality is a sexual deviation, not unlike child pornography, pedophilia, beastiality, and the like. Sure, other cultures are different - no duh! But, to my knowledge, not too many healthy societies anywhere consistently embrace sexual deviations. Why is this? I believe that it is because most societies believe that such actions are poisonous to the long term viability of their societies.

Now that I'm done with the mostly unimportant secular diatribe, on to the biblical. You know, I really could care less about the so called "clobber verses" that gays/lesbians despise. Why? Because for me, what really seals the fate of homosexuals (and polygamists, pedophiles, child porno lovers, etc., etc) from a biblical perspective is when Jesus talks of a man and woman becoming one in marriage. So there you go, game over for those considering themselves Christians as well as unrepentant, practicing homosexuals.

Now, how should we (who are not homosexual) embrace those to whom we know to be afflicted with homosexuality (because, I'm not so sure that homosexuality isn't somewhat biological in the same way that cancer is biological)? Simple, because Christ expects us to love one another, he expects us to treat any affliction with love and compassion. Lucky for us, we have a multitude of examples of how we should treat them in the way that we treat any disease (cancer, diabetes), ailment, mental illness or affliction. Sure, we show them love and compassion. But to the point, what is love and compassion? Is it love and compassion to tell someone that their affliction is not real and that it presents them no danger? Is that healthy? Is that Christian? Is that spiritually mature? Really? Of course not! Love and compassion are best exhibited in the honesty needed to be mature and firm and to have the resolve to not let the afflicted tail wag the unafflicted dog - all the while, helping, loving, assisting, and seeking cures (through God given talents) for those who have been presented with Adam/Eve illnesses. That is true assistance and mature love, that is the essence of loving one's neighbor, and that is the message of Christ.

Kevin,

There are a lot of reasons why homosexuality fails to compare to something like cancer. To my knowledge, there really isn't anyone around affirming that cancer is a good and welcome thing for themselves nor that it makes one's life better in any way, shape or form. With homosexuality, we hear a completely different witness. Those who have found loving relationships find in them all of the things heterosexuals find in their loving relationships. Homosexual unions are every bit as much supportive, loving, comforting, caring and uplifting as heterosexual ones. They're exactly as mutually beneficial as heterosexual relationships. Look to the fruits of the Spirit Paul describes and see that all of them can be fulfilled in a homosexual relationship.

Even using that inaccurate analogy, you still completely ignore basic medical ethics to support it. If someone has cancer and they ask not to be treated, the ethical thing to do is to not treat them. If someone has a DNR, you get in big trouble if you try to revive them. The role of the doctor is to give the diagnosis, but also to respect the patient's decision, no matter what that decision is. There comes a point where you have to call something what it is. When you call a comforting, uplifting, nurturing, loving relationship as evil, it's going to make anyone wonder what exactly you think 'love' or 'compassion' mean.

Peter,

I see you have seniority here so, to avoid confusion I'll participate in this dialog as "Peter (II)".

Perversion isn't too complicated a word to understand, it describes behavior that is outside what is generally accepted as "normal". A man can't become a woman without a surgeon, a woman can't become a man without hormones and a surgeon too. Neither can reproduce without medical intervention. Heck, I could call myself a rhinoceros if I want, but it wouldn't make it so.

To think in a civil context, that gay people should have the right to inherit property, participate in health decisions on behalf of partners as next of kin, receive survivor benefits and EVEN PAY THE MARRIAGE PENALTY TAX and a whole host of other rationales, I'm on your side a thousand percent.

However, the church should not be teaching that gay behavior is "normal".

Imagine a "kleptomaniac" who could only find fulfillment by stealing from other people. How would society respond? Although we'd be sympathetic and concerned for the individual, we still would not be able to tolerate behavior that's destructive to society. This behavior is wrong and, with effort controllable.

Best regards,

Peter (II)

Peter,

Seniority at age 30 is kind of a scary thought, but thank you.

A question for you. If two of the Law's uses are to order society and drive sinners to Christ, and you affirm that Law should affirm and protect gay couple's rights, how can that same Law simultaneously convict them as sinners for exercising those very rights?

The other problem with your analogy is that a kleptomaniac hurts others and does not help them at all. The witness we get from some of those in same-gendered relationships is that they've been happily married for 20, 30 or even 40 years, even without the legal protection civil marriage gives to their relationship.

The other danger with normalcy/perversion language is that in this day in age, it is probably now a perversion in your use for anyone to be married for more than 10 years.

Sorry Peter, but your logic is seriously flawed. That homosexuality is basically just a victimless sin or crime - not unlike prostitution, gambling, etc. - doesn't make it right. Your views in this instance are not unlike the hedonistic, lustful attitudes of a young man waiting to get his first "lay" at a Vegas whorehouse. Sure, he's going to rationalize that no one is getting hurt. After all, he'll assert that the prostitute is going to get paid good money for this event - which could of course possibly take care of her or an ailing family member. Heck, he'll perhaps even posit that the action is legal in Nv. What he won't propose - unless he's as pompous and audacious as ELCA Christian revisionists - is that the Holy Scriptures not only don't condemn his actions but instead condone his sexual lust. Peter, the gyrations that you and your ELCA cohorts must go through to reconcile to everlasting scripture must be just surreal. Thankfully, most potential new members are smart enough to recognize the absurdity of these gyrations which means that after the mid-to-older generation of ELCA members passes (with their personal ties to the property and facilities of their individual congregations), the ELCA will die a pretty rapid death.

When he answers, Peter is going to tell you you that he doesn't see anything wrong with the guy going to the prostitute. I've been through all of this before and Peter doesn't think we should have any expectations whatsoever for how Christians should behave. If the guy stays away from the prostitute, he is trying to save himself and not trusting in the gospel. So going to the prostitute is actually an act of faith. Get it? There is only one sin and that is to withhold money from the ELCA. That is EVIL.

I think you are pretty much on the money. I am not seeing any sort of mass Exodus mainly because most people in ELCA congregations are 65+ and they just don't like change. But the congregations I'm familiar with were already on a slide toward extinction before any of this happened, so even the relatively minor defections seen thus far have pretty much sealed the ELCA's fate. The only hope was some sort of revival of interest from young families and any hope of that has now been nuked.
But the really scary thing is that there are so few options out there. We are really down to 2 in my area: Catholic or Baptist.

Kevin,

I'm not saying homosexuality is a "victimless" crime, I'm saying that it directly improves quality of life for both parties involved in not only short but also long term. In the 'hedonistic and lustful' example, there is no love present. In the case of same-gender relationships under discussion, there is as much love as between any other married couple, and it directly satisfies the command we get both from the Torah and Christ: love of neighbor.

The other thing that you must consider is merely being lustful is a death sentence under the Law. That's not even getting to the prostitute, that's simply looking on any woman with lust in your heart. This also reveals the deeper problem. The outward actions are largely unimportant because they just reflect what is in your heart. If you have an evil heart, you will do evil deeds. Should that be a surprise? Saying 'don't do evil deeds' doesn't appreciably fix the problem. Trying to change hearts is better, but even that is problematic. It's problematic because our evil hearts are a result of our rebellion against God. That means both that we can't fix the problem ourselves and that we face eternal damnation as a result.

This is why we absolutely require Christ's live-giving death and resurrection-- it is that forgiveness alone and only that ends our rebellion against God and brings us back into the fold. That forgiveness heals our evil hearts, and with good hearts, we do good deeds.

Dan, this is also why you think I have no expectations for Christians. I have exactly one expectation: that they trust God's forgiving Word alone and only. I believe that as long as we cling to that Word, our actions will be appropriate because they will stem from new hearts, which have been given through God's reconciliation to us in Christ Jesus. As it says in Matthew 7:17-18, a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. Not 'doesn't want to' but 'cannot'. I suspect you will protest this, but it seems like you don't trust the Gospel's power to change lives. You want the Law to help out, and it can't without detracting from the Gospel's life-giving power.

Peter,

You write:

"The other danger with normalcy/perversion language is that in this day in age, it is probably now a perversion in your use for anyone to be married for more than 10 years"

I say:

BALONEY

You are 30, I'm 53.... I had already paid for two years of therapy as a result of being repetitively "hit on" by a GAY pastor before you were born.

Now, as to perversion and normalcy, lets cut to the ugly but factual and straight up chase:

TRANSGENDER.... to accomplish this involves surgical mutilation. If a man wants to castrate and emasculate himself to become what in his mind he sees to be a woman, good for him, but don't compel my church to tell me that this is right.

BISEXUAL.... if all our arguments center about a "committed monogamous relationship", how could a BI ever fit into this... or does the church intend to allow a special dispensation to allow one man and one woman? How would this work, male / female on alternating weeks??

I am not by any means "convicting" anyone of being a sinner. I am merely challenging my denomination's current position of teaching that sin is right.

Peter,

My point with normalcy and perversion is that you're using normal essentially as 'cultural', and the number of people married for over 10 years is rapidly dwindling.

Sexual harassment is never appropriate, regardless of genders or sexual orientations of the people involved. The abuse of one's position of authority for such purposes is also dispicable.

As to transgendered and bisexual people, I think there's a lot you're missing. First of all, for bisexuals, it does not mean 'one male and one female simultaneously'. It means that person is sexually attracted to and can fall in love with people of either gender. If someone is bringing a new partner to church each week, the partner's gender is not the issue.

For transgendered people, the line isn't surgery. Whether a transgendered person has had surgery is mostly a question of money. Someone who hasn't had surgery isn't less of a transgendered person than someone who has. While you changing your gender would be mutilation, for a transgendered person electively undergoing the surgery, it is corrective surgery, fixing a problem they've had since birth.

It's also worth pointing out that bisexual doesn't automatically mean equally attracted to people of either gender. In fact, it's probably more useful to think of a sexuality spectrum, with being only attracted to men at one end, being only attracted to women at the other end, and equally attracted to both right in the middle. Most people don't end up completely at one end or the other, and that doesn't mean they're partially evil or partially perverse.

Peter,

Just love your funny comments. For instance,

"Most people don't end up completely at one end or the other"

Uh, hate to rain on your parade, but nearly all people are attracted to the opposite sex. Though your cadre of friends may include some straight folks that feel compelled to accept and to market the normality of homosexuality, I can assure you that these same straights are neither attracted to your gay friends nor are they even normal for hanging with your gay friends in general. In fact, your statement reminds me of a comment uttered years ago by one of my college professors. That this was a human sexuality class, he boldly asserted that all of the students within his class would have or had had a homosexual thought within their lifetime. Funny thing was, it just wasn't even close to being true (as friends discussing this over some beers after the class had a good chuckle with). Sure, I can't see into other people's minds, but the level of disgust (not fear by the way) that so many people I know hold toward despicable and immoral homosexual actions pretty much cancels out these theories in my book. And please, don't suggest that all of the people I know are just closet gays repressing their sexuality.

and secondly, "fixing a problem they've had since birth"

Ah classic, just a super tolerant loving "Christian" complaining to the Lord for the mistakes of his creation. In fact, that statement alone made me realize that ALL homosexual "Christians" basically have a problem with the way that they were made. Well to quote an old Old Milwaukee commercial, "It doesn't get any better than this..." And to think this crowd won control of the ELCA, wow!

Kevin,

I didn't say anything about lack of attraction to the opposite sex. My point is that in many cases it isn't 100% one way only. Whether people will act on or even admit it depends very much on the social conditions they are in. Note well all of those who identify as gay or lesbian who were married when they came out. And in some places, there may be pressure the other way, to encourage one to be gay to fit in. One reason the church needs to welcome people of all sexual orientations is to encourage honesty, and allow people to be themselves, whether gay, straight or somewhere in between.

As to problems since birth, do you apply the same logic to congenital heart defects, cystic fibrosis, other congenital defects or even predispositions to cancer or poor eyesight? God created people with all of those, too, yet the church encourages correcting these as well. If anything, Law on this matter is pretty clear: love them. Value them as human beings, treat them like people and do what you can to improve their lives.

So true, Kevin. . .Rather than face a God who's ways might not be one's own, it is much easier to remain in denial over one's rebellion over His ways, project one's hatred onto people, and pressure a "tolerant" church denomination to adopt its self-inflated sense victimhood and entitlement. Despite changes in cultural attitudes, the resentment remains, albeit hidden, and Christ's Mercy is once again abandoned in favor of a popularized legal remedy.

By the end of this weekend, I can only PRAY that all this talk will have ended, and with the formation of the NAPLC (North American Pharasaic Lutheran Church) all those folks who delusionally think THEY are the only ones who have "got it right" (at least "right" enough to feel empowered to call the rest of us heretics or apostate) can go off to their little corner of Heaven and pretend they are the ONLY ones God allowed to be there. (Remember the story about Peter asking new guests to be quiet as they passed a group of folks who thought they were the only ones there--now we can add the NAPLC to that list!)
The Bible talks about the presence of the Holy Spirit being evidenced by the fruit produced. Lets chat again in 5 years and see what's what. There's a 50-60% chance the new "come-outer" church will have split at least once by that time, as the "repeal women's sufferage" closet hiders will have come "out" and demand the REAL church get back to the Bible-and to putting women back in their proper place. Just look at how many of the new denomination's churches pondered whether joining the LC-Missouri OR the NAPLC!!!!!!!!!
God's blessing to the come-outers.......it will be interesting to see how this new church does.....I think it's going to be a bitter end for small churches that join the NAPLC, once they discover in the new church there will be no safety nets--its every individual church for themselves!!!!!!!!! WHY share your money with a national or synodical expression, (who in turn shares it with small rural or urban churches) when you can keep it home, and do what YOU want to do with it! It's "american individualism" at its best. (LOL-its also Darwinism at its best-survival of only the financially fittest!) Have a nice life NAPLC-- Im off to feed the homeless.........remember that Matthew 25 passage........dont remember anything about gay people in that passage when it came to who was a goat, and going to hell, but then again, Im just...how do you folks label me...oh yes, a heretic and apostate church member.
God loves you, and so do I.......

Look, for a good many years I've given more than 10% of my gross income to charity, most of that to an ELCA church, but some to the United Way,Special Olympics, Samaritan's Purse, Exchange Club etc. There was a time when I was concerned that our church didn't give enough to the ELCA. I was raised by a Baptist preacher who implored the congregation to give as much as possible to the SBC's Cooperative Program, so that type thinking is ingrained in me. But there was a problem. I knew what the Cooperative Program did. I know what the United Way, Special Olympics and Samaritan's Purse do. But what in the world did my Synod office do? It mostly preserves itself and sends along the leftover funds to Chicago where they seem to spend much of it trying to convince people to disagree with me on matters I consider to be pretty important.
Why should I fund them to fight with me when I can send that same money to people who really do feed the hungry instead of just bragging about it?

I am probably not the most educated person here, however it begins to become really dicey when we talk about from birth. I personally struggle with the accepted idea that we can somehow look at our sexual identity as something "from birth" or how we are created. An arguement once offered to me was that 'brain scans' were done identifying a common variance among homosexuals. My common sense response based on my education and experience is that the brain scans were to my knowledge not done on the test groups when they were children/infants. Were they done longitudenally? Environmental factors, stress, etc etc can cause variances in brain scans also. The reality we face in our sinfulness is that sexuality is a lot more complicated issue. Probably most of us had to 'experiment' in our sexuality to find where we are at today. To explain myself, I think about the time when I was a young boy and grabbed the family radio a screwdriver, pliers, and a wire cutter and took it apart to see if I could put it back together again. We all don't have to guess that after a few groundings and some radios to the junk pile, I eventually learned how to put them back together or learned there was a much bigger framework that I must be in to experiment with the gift of technology. The sad and sick thing is that society has looked at sexuality in much the same way. But what about all those "radios" that we broke and couldn't fix along the way just to find "my" sexuality. Just as much as sexuality can be life giving, it can also be a bomb leaving oftentimes life long devastation. Maybe that is why God gives us the gift of sexuality within the framework of marriage. Hmmmmm. My redneck 2 cents.

Rodney,

I fully agree that God gave us marriage as a framework to help protect our sexuality. Unfortunately, that framework is currently denied to same-gendered couples in the vast majority of the US and elsewhere. There is a further denial that sexuality is a good gift given by God to each of us and that this gift is given in different measures to different people. Today, I think most people understand that sex between interracial couples is no different than sex betweeen couples of the same race, despite the considerable Biblical injunctions not to marry outside of your race, all of which were raised back in the 1960's and '70's. We need to get to that understanding with same-gendered marriage as well and let marriage protect them just like it protects heterosexual marriage.

Also, I do need to clarify what I'm talking about 'since birth'. There are lots of ideas about how sexual identity is formed, and a lot of them posit that it does happen after birth. However, I was speaking about gender identity, which is not the gender you're attracted to, but the gender you are. For many, it may take years of discernment to come to terms with being transgendered. However, a gender identification is usually made at birth ("It's a boy!" "It's a girl!" "Give me a moment with my scissors, and you'll have a girl."). Many times the doctor will make the decision when it's somewhere in between, and may not even bother telling the parents. Especially when the doctor's guess is completely wrong, it's not hard to see how this identity is incorrect.

Peter,

I thank you very much for your clarification. I think your clarification and many of the comments in this thread point out the problem that was created with the CWA vote. Issues like gender identity and sexual preference were lumped together in one big catch-all social statement. It is hard to debate and discuss these issues because society has meshed them together so tightly that ELCA may have failed to separate them effectivly. I've been working in the health care field in various positions for 12 years and your comment that "Many times the doctor will make the decision when it's somewhere in between, and may not even bother telling the parents" is not entirely accurate. Was there a time in healthcare when such things did happen, probably yes, but that has been a much longer time ago then we realize. As with religion and government, the institution of healthcare has suffered some dark days. Parents are informed in those decisions and have been for some time. Are there holes in my statement, yes, but we've manage to plug a lot of them up over the past 30 years plus.

Every situtuation is different and while we have theologians battling it all out, we can look at Christ and His life and see that He treated many situations differently. Some required a gospel treatment and others require a law treatment. I do believe we are in error to make a social statement that blesses something contrary to scripture. It would appear that the CWA social statement was born out of scriptural loopholes than scriptural foundations. If we present a social argument that places its foundation that the experience of authentic love should be validated in a union, well then it has to apply to all, not just an exclusive group. Maybe we could have blessings for heterosexual couple who do not wish to be married but want to live together (sarcastic point).
My point is that it is easy to advocate for social justice for a particular group, yet at the same time we may be neglecting yet another. What about all the men and women that want to experience love but are regected by those around them due to one quirk or another. And we have the nerve to tell them we "maybe God wants to be you to be single".

There is much pain a hurt floating around within and around the ELCA. So we continue to debate and argue out of deep hurts and desparation, we argue with the "flesh" speaking that can possibly cloud the Holy Spirit's guidance within us. Does God want to reach everybody... yes. Did God want to fracture the ELCA and provide a home for some and displace other.... well maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows where the tide will come to rest. I do have concerns that the ELCA has opened it's doors to ideas that will grandually deconstruct Christ right before our very eyes. That is another discussion.

Rodney,

I do agree that great strides have been made in health care, and the days of doctors making certain health decisions for patients has declined greatly. I don't know that it's quite over yet, though that probably depends on region, socioeconomic status and doctor more than anything else. Also, I think a lot of the transgendered people actively speaking now, and seeking leadership roles in the church were born 30+ years ago when this was more of an issue.

I also think the sexuality statement left some things to be desired. The biggest problem (aside from a failure to apply the theology outlined in the beginning to the issues at hand discussed later on) is that it needed to be a comprehensive statement on sexuality, and yet something anyone would ever read and understand. There were a lot of issues that could have stood more clarification, and they only got a line or two. Transgender issues were one of those.

I am concerned about your statement that some things require "a law treatment", because that seems to conflict with the doctrine of justification. The law cannot treat anything; it can only accuse and point out where we have failed. The gospel is the only treatment. This also bears directly on the issue of "blessing" unions, hetero or otherwise. I know you were being sarcastic about 'blessing' people living together who are not married, but I want to ask you: outside of purely legal protections, what is the difference between unmarried people living together in a relationship, but asking the community's recognition and blessing, and married people living together in a relationship and asking the community's recognition and blessing. Or, put another way: 'what is marriage and what does it mean?' Although Scripture has a lot of answers to that question, the consistent one is: 'marriage is the protection of sex in a given culture'. Seen that way, the polygamy of the patriarchs and early NT Christians fits alongside heterosexual monogamy, even as it affirms polygamy is not appropriate for all people in all times and places. Read in that light, though, it also means that even if homosexual marriages were not appropriate for 1st century Jews or Christians, it may be fine now for our culture. The guiding rule of law for us is 'love one another as Christ has loved us', and more importantly, the Gospel is 'God promises forgiveness of sins on account of Christ's death and resurrection alone and only'. Neither of those are threatened by permitting homosexual marriage. In fact, I would say that it is the proper understanding of the Law for our culture. Also, barring people from ministry on account of certain putative sins seems quite contrary to both the belief that we are all sinners and that salvation is by Christ alone and only.

Specifically as to blessing, I only see one blessing a pastor can pronounce on any couple, married, unmarried, hetero or homo: the forgiveness of sins solely on account of Christ's death and resurrection alone. Given that blessing, what other blessing does anyone need?

I do agree that there are a lot of people who need to be reached with God's Word, and that it does work better when we coordinate than go our separate ways. I think that's why the ELCA is trying to commit to not rejecting anyone over this, regardless of their stance on sexuality.

Peter said, "In plain language, try to answer the question: What relevance do sexual orientation or gender identity have to (do with) God's freely given promise that our sins are forgiven solely on account of Christ's death and resurrection alone?"

Peter, perhaps you should ask God that question. All of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, so God, God mind you insisted on passages like I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:8-11 where in both cases the word "arsenokoitai/s" which is translated in the BAGD Greek-English Lexicon, "...a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite..." and thus committed relationship or not, such behavior is strictly sin and thus forbidden by God himself. Furthermore to the unrepentant - their "sin" or "sins" in this case will not be forgiven, for the death and resurrection of Christ and the resultant offer of the forgiveness of sins is to those who will repent and only to those who will repent. I don't know how much more obvious this could be. The sin isn't in what "sexual orientation" one has, nor is it in one's "gender identity" - it is in the unrepentant practice of behavior that God forbids. Sin, unrepented of leads to death and ultimately eternal separation from God. Just because someone has a "sexual orientation" or a "gender identity" that causes them to struggle with this Godly prohibition against homosexual sex, doesn't mean that they don't have the ability to choose to be celibate, nor are they restricted from seeking and obtaining the grace from God to resist this particular temptation. Forgiveness is linked to the desire to be forgiven and the desire to stop sinning as well as the effort in fighting the sin. The proponents of the 2009 CWA decision in controversy, in contrast are arguing that homosexual sex is not a sin, that there is no need to be forgiven for practicing it (at least in "committed, life-long, publicly accountable relationships" whatever that means) and that they who practice such need not fight the desire to practice such behavior. And in your above comments you want to base this on change in culural norms, as if that somehow gives us a clue that God has changed his mind on what behavior for the people of God has always previously been considered a sin. Since when does culture speak for God? Isn't it God who speaks through prophets, through his Son, through Scripture, quite often in opposition to culture? I fail to see any merit in your argumentation, and I am amazed that you do.

Two reasons for those who wonder why some of us are leaving, first, dissent is not welcomed. If you disagree with the decisions of last August, you should just sit and be quiet. That is what we were told.

The second, and most important reason is the all of this back and forth nonsense is taking us away from our true mission on this earth. I'm tired of arguing the point and having this discussion occupy our time. I'm here as a Christian servant, on earth to fulfill His purpose.

Your reasons for leaving the ELCA were almost exactly the same as ours.

We were told last August by our now-former ELCA pastor, "the ELCA is going places that maybe you can't go," and then proceeded to point out a litany of our theological "errors" (mostly dealing with "welcoming").

So we left and are established in a very good LCMS congregation. It's by no means perfect, but at least we can just WORSHIP and not be caught in this constant conflagration of "what resolution will be next?" or "what 'study' are they going to do next, and how many years will it drag on..."