Very well written - it could have been written yesterday!

One thing it debunks very well is the groundless assertion that "but committed, loving, same-sex relationships weren't known back in Biblical times." If human nature is the same now as ever, how could these relationships not been known, and if they were supposed to be endorsed in Scripture, they would have been.

I wonder if the powers that be at CWA would allow this to be read, or if it would be shouted down?

I disagree with the basic premise of Mr. Juel's statement "But because we still remain members of a fallen creation in bondage to sin, our relationship to one another is defined by law." We are much better off as humans if we define our relationship not by law, but by Gospel, just as Paul did in his letters. (The grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.)

When our relationships are defined by law, we revert to legalism and we in effect build walls between ourselves. Christ, as Ephesians 2 says, broke down the wall between Jew and Gentile and continues to break down the walls that our legalism and "structuring" of society create, so that we may grow more fully in the one new creation or humanity that Jesus has now become.

Also, the classic love the sinner hate the sin line of argument for being welcoming is wretched, at least in this case. Most homosexuals, do not consider their sexuality a choice or something that they ever were without, just like heterosexuals. Therefore it is a gift from God. Whether you agree with this viewpoint or not isn't the point. If we are to be welcoming yet say that we reject as horribly sinful your sexuality, (in the case of homosexuals something many have been trying to reject in themselves much of their own individual lives) we are really saying stay away. We have no message of grace here for you and that you are disgusting before God.

I know that one could say that we should welcome racists just the way that they are, but it is a much different point of argument. The feelings of the racist are based upon hatred and we should be quick to point out the death that is found in those feelings. Generally, speaking the hatred I think many homosexuals feel is for themselves and for the futility of trying to suppress feelings of love that have been a part of them their whole life.

Our message to all must be one of grace. That we are brought together as a radically inclusive community, that was formed through the work of Christ and called by the Holy Spirit. Our community of faith is then called to share that light of grace with the world. To sew the love that Jesus exemplified in his death on the cross, and his inclusion of the non-structured people of society into that community.

The quote you cite from Juel:

"But because we still remain members of a fallen creation in bondage to sin, our relationship to one another is defined by law."

After reading Juel's article, I decided initially to just leave this item alone. I figured the Lutheran legalists would just jump in and push back.

But the fact that someone (Mark) would make this obversation so quickly and with such clarity caused me to want to observe my surprise that Lutheran Forum, with all of the many narratives written on this issue, would select this particular one by Juel. It represents a radicalization of the traditionalists' argument to the extent that it really isn't palatable within the mainstream understanding of Lutheran theology, especially in light of the scripture cited by Mark.

First of all, to whom are you referring as "Lutheran legalists" and why? Because they don't agree with you?

And what is the "mainstream" of Lutheran theology?

In the United States alone, there is the ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELS, Church of the Lutheran Confession, Association of Free Lutheran Congregations and many smaller ones still tied to ethnicity, with only a few congregations in northern Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. They are still Lutheran, no more or less than the ELCA. And then in Canada there is the ELCIC, LC-C (whom I have worshipped with), one ELCA congregation (Windsor, Ontario), and a handful of English District LCMS congregations who did not join the Lutheran Church-Canada. Then there is the Lutheran Church of Australia (somewhere in between ELCA and LCMS) and of course all the old European Lutheran churches in Germany, Scandinavia, Latvia, Estonia, etc. Lutherans, one and all.

Yes, of course our salvation is by God's grace. Mark is of course correct on that. However, grace does not mean licence to "do what thou wilt." That is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace."

In the ELCA, too many of us have disregarded the classically Lutheran view of Law and Gospel, propounded by Luther himself, for a "Gospel" message of "being nice" and ignoring/"reinterpreting" Scripture to suit this. Without Law there can be no Gospel, because if there is no Law, what need is there for Gospel?

Many homosexuals do believe they were born as such. Clinical evidence does not support this (disclosure: I am working on an eventual doctorate in clinical psychology). As the saying goes, among most psychiatrists and psychologists, "the jury is out" on nature v. nurture and believe that sexual orientation is a combination of the two. I could go on about the formation of neurons in early infancy and other anatomy/physiology that influences sexual orientation but there's no need to here.

Are homosexuals disgusting before God? YES.

Are heterosexuals disgusting before God? YES.

We have all sinned and fallen short. The Law requires perfection, but we cannot do it. We are made acceptable to God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - nothing more, nothing less. Not being "nice," not "welcoming" (I wonder if what the ELCA becomes will still be "welcoming" to traditionalists after CWA?), but only the Cross.

But that does not mean we disregard the Law, and that's what I'm hearing too much of on this issue.

David wrote:

"Many homosexuals do believe they were born as such. Clinical evidence does not support this (disclosure: I am working on an eventual doctorate in clinical psychology)".

David, before you get yourself too far out on a limb academically on this issue, I'd suggest you check out this reference in depth: "If you seduce a straight person, can you make them gay? Issues in biological essentialism versus social constructionism in gay and lesbian identities" (Edited by John P. DeCecco and John P. Elia). New York: Harrington Park Press 1993. Especially check out Chapter IV: "Fluidity of sexual identity."

If you haven't checked out the little volume from ALPB entitled "The Jasper Commission," you might want to do so.

Joseph Nicolosi's "Why I am Not a Neutral Therapist" and Merton Strommen's "Don't Confuse Scholarly Research with Political Correctness" offer thoughtful counterpoints to some of the revisionist "science."

OK, so "experts" disagree. Try befriending a gay or lesbian Lutheran and ask whether he or she believes his or her feelings were "natural" for as far into the past as they can remember.

Kurt,
Whether homosexuals feel that their desires are "natural" for as far into the past as they can remember is absolutely irrelevant to the nature vs. nurture question. People cannot know the source of their desires simply because they have them. In any event, focusing on the source of desires is a diversion, because the source of desires is irrelevant to the question of whether acting on those desires is moral.

Ben, you actually need to talk to Pross and Zumwalt about that. Pross raised the issue--he seems to want to hang learned behavior or choice onto the equation. I was just responding to the both of them referable to the theology they were chasing.

Though those promoting your position want to ignore the monogamous, committed relationship dimension, that is where the discussion should focus in light of the scriptural resourse. Unfortunately, getting at that issue objectively is the problem.

Kurt, another way of expressing the concept you mentioned is to ask what would happen if heterosexuals would take one month out of their lives to try to become homosexual. The answer: nothing. Impossible! David wrote: "Many homosexuals do believe they were born as such." Many! How about most! I often think of Tchaikovsky, tormented over his homosexuality, who wrote after the disaster of his marriage: "Only now, especially after the tale of my marriage, have I finally begun to understand that there is nothing more fruitless than not wanting to be that which I am by nature." Listen to his Sixth - Pathetique - to get a little of the feeling... And I wonder what advice all the heterosexual fundamentalists here would give to a twenty-two year old homosexual Lutheran man. How should he live his life? Should he marry just for the "form" and satisfy his family, making a sham out of marriage, creating potential unhappiness for wife, children, himself? What should he do when he meets another gay guy and forms an intitial bond and maybe even falls in love? How should he feel when he is asked to read the Genesis verses at his brother's or sister's wedding? How should he feel when all the family are gathered after Christmas services, husbands with their wives, children, all aglow in their loving relationships? How should he respond when co-workers crack the gay jokes, when he reads that one out of three Hispanic and Black gay men are HIV positive in no small part the result of condemnation by the church and community, when listening to a sermon in church he sees the loving embrace of a husband's arm around his wife, or when he recites in the Pledge of Allegiance one nation under God...with liberty and justice for all? What advice would you give this man - this homosexual Lutheran - when he feels the entire pulse of God's creation, the God who controls all life, the cells, the hormones, the gender creation and orientation - how should he feel about living in God's world?

Very well put.

It's not just about Lutherans, or men.

It's not about being "fundamentalist." That is a particular type of Christian belief, one which has little to do with even the most conservative strains of Lutheranism. In the sense you're using it, it comes off as a pejorative.

I look at the issue in a secular way from a behaviourist point of view. When I said "many," it is because that ethically I am conscious of painting with too broad a brush. Plus, I don't particularly like generalisations. Also, there are heterosexual people who have gone through a phase of experimenting with homosexuality, sometimes for an extended period, and then return to heterosexuality with no further homosexual desires.

Then, of course, there is situational homosexuality, most obviously prison. However, it also happens in single-gender college environments. I've seen it. Have you ever heard of the term "LUG?" It means "lesbian until graduation." Out of reasons of companionship, or to fit in, often young women will experiment and maybe self-identify, as lesbians, while they are in that particular environment. I don't know the statistics, but once out of the environment, most revert to heterosexuality.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky is one of my favourite composers. He is universally thought of as a tormented man, one who entered into a sham marriage to conform to the societal mores of the Tsarist, Orthodox Russia of his day. It is thought he was so tormented he tried to kill himself at least twice, with maybe the second time succeeding.

I would be very surprised if you would find anyone in Christendom outside of the thoroughly-repulsive Fred Phelps who would approve of a tormented homosexual person committing suicide, or being abused in any way. And, no, not ordaining them doesn't count as abuse. I'm thinking Matthew Shepard.

Phil, much of your post is about "feelings." Feelings are not applicable to one's salvation. If I based my salvation on how I feel from day to day (keep in mind I suffer from clinical depression and PTSD), I'd have consigned myself to Hell long ago. My salvation is dependent on God's grace. However, that does not mean that I disregard the Law (Law and Gospel, remember?). To do that would be, in part, what Bonhoeffer meant by "cheap grace": "OK, I'm saved, Jesus took care of that, so I'll just do what I want and it won't matter because I'm saved" (though that veers close to Calvinism).

Those homosexuals who can remain celibate have a self-control that I find amazing. Before zeroing in on that, I didn't marry until I was in my thirties, and virtually lived the life of a monk. I was prepared for a lifetime of celibacy.

Gay jokes are becoming rapidly more unacceptable, and in some places can get you sued. HIV affects everyone, not just gay men of whatever ethnicity. Ever hear of Ryan White? How about Magic Johnson? HIV/AIDS is a blood-borne pathogen (and teratogen) that will eat you alive, no matter if you're hetero, homo, bi, white, black, Latino, or whatever.

But from a theological point of view, just "being nice" or "welcoming" doesn't cut it. The fact is, the Bible says what it says about homosexuality, and never speaks in favour of it. What I see in many denominations (not just ELCA) is a sort of Marcionism, where the "nasty" parts of Scripture are disregarded and we only focus on the "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" bits.

A Lutheran pastor once told me "the church can comfort a repentant sinner, the church can forgive sin, but the church can never condone sin."

It would be unethical for me to say what sort of "advice" I would give your hypothetical 22-year-old Lutheran man, other than to tell him that God loves him and sent his Son to die for him. Beyond that delves into the realm of professional ethics, which I won't go into here.

...the reason I can't explain my preference for mint chip ice cream. Is it wrong to eat it?

The question of nature vs nurture in regards to homosexuality is actually irrelevant. Whether God created them homosexual from the beginning (nature) or created them homosexual during their life (nurture), it is still God doing the creating.

God does the creating, yes.

But there are many factors, internal and external, biological and behavioural, that mould all human beings, especially in the first five years of life.

David,

God creates throughout our lives, including many of those factors you have named. That some of our wiring comes about post-birth makes God no less the electrician.

God created Adam and Eve, but He did not create their desire to eat that which was forbidden them. This whole "God created me that way" argument sounds like what a woman in a Christian Science reading room once told me: She had no problem believing that God created all that He created. But she refused to believe Genesis 3. She told me that those in Christian Science refer to the fall of mankind as "the lie." From her perspective, she never had to deal with the consequences of sin (death, sickness, etc.) because it became merely a problem of perception for her. If she were ill, or had a broken arm, she would only have to remind herself that God created her and everything perfectly, and it was good. If she thought she was sick, in her mind, she only had to talk herself into believing she wasn't really sick.
........................
In the beginning, we were right with God, and all really was good: Our first parents loved God, and knew He loved them. Their hormones were wired correctly, and husbands and wives actually communicated with one another in a loving and meaningful way, yet men were no less men for it. (I'm reading an interesting & insightful book: "Why Men Hate Going to Church" by David Murrow (Nelson Books, 2005)--it looked interesting. When Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, everything went out of kilter: Their relationship with God--they tried to hide from Him, their relationship with each other, and their relationship with their world around them. When we anno Domine 2009 see that things in life are not as they should be (e.g. erotic feelings directed toward the wrong gender), do we blame our Creator, or do we make ourselves believe that what is out of kilter is really how our Creator intended it, back when he evaluated His creation "and it was very good"? Or do we recognize that we, too, continue in the rebellion of our first parents? Now in light of God coming down to earth from heaven to be born in a manger, living a perfect, sinless life, being crucified, dead and buried, and rising again, how does that affect the equation, with Christ Jesus being the second Adam. Sure there is restoration, but now or later? And how does God undo the corruption of His creation? By saying that what was once sin is no longer sin? I don't see that in my Bible? Satan is called the "Father of lies" and the deceiver. It sounds more like one of his tricks. "Yes, God had called this an abomination some time ago in "pre-history", but lighten up...he changed his mind on that years ago, so long as its in a monagamous, committed, life-long relationship." That one is not in my exhaustive concordance.

Mark, in your post of July 26, 2009, you disagreed with one of Mr. Juel’s premises in his article “Homosexuality and Church Tradition” which stated that “…our relationship to one another is defined by law.” You countered with the thought that as humans we were much better off to define “our relationship(s) not by law, but by Gospel…” My question would be this, is it possible for the grace that we express and even extend as humans to be sinful? (You could substitute the word “grace” with “love” or “reconciliation”, “justice”, etc.) I would say yes. It lead Bonhoeffer after all to speak of the distinction between “grace” – the grace which comes from God – and “cheap grace” – the kind we humans have a propensity to extend and exhibit. What prompted me to pose that question and the few other’s I’ll post was the following comment in that same July 26th post: “Also, the classic love the sinner hate the sin line of argument for being welcoming is wretched, at least in this case. Most homosexuals, do not consider their sexuality a choice of something that they ever were without, just like heterosexuals. Therefore it is a gift from God.” I’m presuming from your quote that you also disagree with the first part of the sentence you quoted from Mr. Juel’s article, “But because we still remain members of a fallen creation in bondage to sin….”? My question would be, are we still born into sin, a genetic condition that none of us could change as much as we could not the color of our eyes or hair or our gender? (Some might also include “sexual orientation”.) Does sin still corrupt or “disorder” God’s good creation or does Christ’s death and resurrection now make that null and void?” Just because someone feels or believes themselves to be homosexual in their orientation – because they “do not consider their sexuality a choice of something that they ever were without, just like heterosexuals” - doesn’t mean that it is a gift from God. It may not make homosexual orientation (and science is still out on nature/nurture question to sexual identity) “sinful” in and of itself but the choice to act upon the love and desire that come with that orientation/nature is sinful according to scripture. In the end, ALL sexuality does come down to choice… the choice of whether or not we act upon it. Scripture defines some of the choices we make with our sexuality more acceptable than others. Is it fair that some would be born with an orientation that is, which if they acted upon – no matter how consensual, loving, caring it might be – sinful? No. I’m I saying that homosexuals live without the benefit of the sexual relationships with which married heterosexuals live? Yes. Is that fair? No. It’s the result of creation which is still marred by sin. Is it a tremendously difficult burden to bear? I bet it is. Does it mean that homosexuals live without meaningful, caring, and loving relationships? No. (I would hope that sexually relating isn’t the only aspect of our lives that make them meaningful.) I would hope the church is that place where the burdens of our lives – albeit sometimes different from one another - may be shared and carried by one another, by all of us who have been driven by God’s law to see our redemption and the redemption of all creation, in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. We are a radically inclusive community when it comes to the law and our sin under it. We are all racists, bigots, defamers, liars, thieves, adulterers, gossips, cheats, etc. But I would hope, as the church, that our human relationships are defined both by the law and gospel. For if defined simply by the law, than our relationships are defined solely by a works/righteousness and quid pro quo. If defined by grace alone, than a cheap grace at that. As Bonhoeffer said of cheap grace, it is, “the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits, a grace we bestow on ourselves…through the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... it’s a grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”. (Cost of Discipleship)

Some of us do actually confess that there is a Third Use of the Law. Hotly contested among us Lutheran's, I know, but a salutary bulwark against the excesses of Agricola and von Amsdorf. Too bad it only ranked a footnote in the study documents.

Why won't his blog allow us to correct our typographical and spelling errors? :(

Juel concludes by writing, "In our deliberations, the wisdom of Scripture and the tradition cannot be cited as “God’s
answer” to the matter, but neither ought that wisdom be summarily dismissed as irrelevant or
outdated. And if we cannot find compelling reasons to dismiss such views about homosexual
practice, the church is obligated out of concern for the well-being of society to refuse to ordain
homosexual persons to public ministry and to refuse to endorse homosexual practice as a
legitimate expression of one’s sexuality."

I find two things objectional in regard to this conclusion of Juel. 1) How can he say the wisom of Scripture and Tradition cannot be cited as God's answer even while saying it cannot be summarily dismissed? Doesn't this toss out reliance upon the Word of God as authoritative, or at least put a large dent in its authority? 2) The premise Juel offers, "...if we cannot find compelling reasons to dismiss such views about homosexual
practice..." obviously cannot rest within the wisdom of Scripture and Tradition given how Juel writes the sentence and the paragraph within which it lies - so therefore Juel lays open the possibility that something from some other source (personal experience, philosophy, science, or whatevcer else) can trump the clear meaning of God's Word and Tradidion. No way! We're not talking about whether or not the world is round or flat here. This is a question of faith and morals, period. Juel has created, with this conclusion, the wedge by which the advocates of the Task Force recommendations can get their foot in the door and get their agenda passed. Alas, Dr. Juel is no longer with us so we cannot know. But given that he left the door unlocked and even open a crack, one wonders where he would be standing on these issues today. What possible something could he have foreseen that could ever trump the Word of God and Tradition regarding this issue? To even suggest such a possibility leaves one believing that he would have been amenable to a change in position, which God's Word and Tradition would not in and of themselves allow.

As I trudge through all of this rhetoric, the experience must be like what it feels to hear arguments about how many angels can inhabit the head of a pin, and in that process NOBODY has addressed (or even come close to addressing) the issues raised by Phil, and it seems very likely to me that the issues raised by Phil would be the ones that would be at the top of Jesus Christ's list.

Help me Kurt, let's see if I am understanding Phil's point. Is it about Tchaikovsky's failed marriage? That can't be it. Because Tchaikovsky is not the one anyone would turn to understand God's will for His people.
Then is this all about how a twenty-two year old homosexual Lutheran man feels about his painful situation… missing meaningful relationships, parental expectations, etc. How should he feel? How should anyone feel?
Do you mean we are going through this terrible trial of polarization in the ELCA, all the resources expended, all the angst and turmoil, all because gay Lutheran people don't want to feel really bad anymore?
What advice would I give for the terrible pain they feel? I have none, but that is entirely a different issue. I don't deny the pain. I don't deny the church's ineptitude for addressing that real condition.
Yet this issue, it seems to me, is what does scripture plainly teach us about God's moral will for the proper place of sex in human relationships… not how anyone is suppose to feel about it.

To this point, I have appreciated the exchange. What I need is a compelling argument from Scripture. Let's keep working. Please.

One of the problems here is that scripture doesn't provide a "compelling" argument either way. In such a case, it makes sense to be less authoritarian about it.

I responded to Phil.

None of us can know what issues are on Jesus' "list," or if He even has a "list."

But one statement of Christ comes to mind:

Jesus again sat up and said to the woman, "Where are they? Has no-one condemned you?" She answered, "No-one, Sir." "Neither do I condemn you," Jesus said. "Go, do not sin again." (REB) Both Law and Gospel there.

Yes, David, that's what we all proof-texting. It isn't the only thing Jesus ever said. And was "she" a lesbian in a committed relationship?

I'm sure you could find your own Scripture passages in support of your POV.

"In a committed relationship" has seemed to be the battle cry of Lutherans Concerned on this issue.

Scripture does not speak in favour of homosexual relationships anywhere (I don't count David and Jonathan). When it does speak of homosexuality, it is uniformly negative.

The problem is that scripture can be understood both ways, as opposed to "proving" a POV. Is condemnation appropriate with such subjectivity in the balance. especially in the context of Phil's prior post?

And so, why do you not "count" David and Jonathan?

I do not count them (nor Ruth and Naomi), because it is a very tenuous reach based on a couple of verses, mostly about "love surpassing that of women." If an intimate/sexual relationship was indicated, the Scripture would be plainer, especially given that there are other parts of Scripture that are quite explicit, both with sex and violence.

And who's talking about "condemnation?" The passage from John I quoted has Jesus telling the woman in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go and do not sin again."

The pro-LC/RIC lot always come back to this "committed relationships" canard, without clearly defining it. There can be heterosexual "committed relationships" where a man and a woman are cohabiting, which is no less and no more sinful than a homosexual "committed relationship." The "committed relationship" hypothesis has no basis in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.

Notably, one of our full-communion partners, the Presbyterian Church USA, has affirmed the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage and kept its standards of ordination. But I don't think, based on conversations with a Presbyterian minister down the street, they have drug it out so long and as ad nauseam as we have.

Well, you're right about the ad nauseum. And what has it gained us?
Back in the 1960s, I had a seminary classmate who was gay and was in a committed, monogamous relationship with another man. (It was an LCA seminary.) He was ordained and received a call to an LCA congregation, and he was very effective and accepted by the congregation. The pastor and his partner lived in the parsonage. They served for year after year. The congregation prospered spiritually and even materially. The LCA, which may have had some enforcement provisions on the books, took no action. Everything was running along fine until the ELCA merger. With the passage of THOSE guidelines on this subject, the pastor was out of the ministry. The church deteriorated to virtually nothing. During the time of his ministry there, there were no adverse events, and insofar as is known, nobody went to hell or threatened to pass judgment that anyone in that lifestyle would be headed there. Much good work was done in the congregation.
And so now we have this lingering, ongoing, divisive controversy. And for what? To short-circuit such success stories as I have just described? Issues and events which only God should judge?
You're right. It is ad nauseum.

Kurt, I would be willing to bet that even if the LCA had enforcement standards on its books at that time, that they were infrequently used. The LCA was probably the most left-leaning of Lutheran churches prior to the ELCA merger. I would also think that the ALC did have the enforcement provisions, and that they were used. The ALC was more old-line and German, and was once in fellowship with the LCMS. I would think the AELC (my congregation is former AELC, and our pastor came through Seminex) was somewhere in the middle. I would guess that what disciplinary standards the ELCA does have came mostly from the ALC end of things.

The ELCA has become more like the LCA than many originally thought; one wag has said ELCA means "Everything LCA," which I find a bit uncharitable.

But, good sir, it appears that we are in firm agreement on one thing: this has gone on too long. It has cost a lot of time and money, and has engendered a lot of bad, resentful feelings among confessing Christians. If, back in 2001, the ELCA would have said, "we're going to discuss this over the next two years, until 2003 CWA, and then there will be an up-or-down binding vote, and that will be the end of it," I think it would have been better. Still painful, but quick surgery is better than death by a thousand cuts, which is what has happened with the ELCA basically talking this to death and LC seeing which way the wind blows until they think they can get a favourable vote.

I do believe there will be a split of some sort, and I just hope it isn't nasty. Perhaps the two (?) churches can take the names Lutheran Church USA and Lutheran Church America (kind of like how the Presbyterians have; PCUSA and PCA), both of which are neutral theologically, rather than hanging names like "confessional," "orthodox" or even "evangelical" on them.

David Pross, you pointed out, "Perhaps the two (?) churches can take the names Lutheran Church USA and Lutheran Church America (kind of like how the Presbyterians have; PCUSA and PCA), both of which are neutral theologically, rather than hanging names like 'confessional,' 'orthodox' or even 'evangelical' on them." My suggestion would be to simplify things a little more, and for the sake of ecumenism and not offending other traditions, using the names "Church USA" (CUSA) and Church in America (CA). That way you remove the offense of Luther's name, and those who seek to live out liberal Protestantism, or embrace a dream of someday joining with the Eastern Orthodox or making Rome's Pope their Pope, will have less hurdles toward seeking future organizational unity. I guess "Melanchthonite Church in America" (MCA) could work, but who could spell it correctly? Has it been used before? Heritage-wise, there's always the Variata for those offended by the U.A.C. Yet that becomes unnecessary with the quatenus and revisionist approaches, right?

David,

The ''committed relationship' canard' is a concession to those who want to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, but are willing to consider homosexual relationships up to that. What is mean by a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship is best understood by the word 'marriage'. However, rather than fight over the word, many feel confessing over a word is secondary to confessing over the relationship itself. The ELCA avoids the word, because it is too spineless to proclaim the Gospel and wanted to avoid the sort of uproar we currently have over the resolution.

I'm willing to call a monogamous, committed relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage, but the government is not, and that's why such same-sex relationships are not characterized that way. But for all intents and purposes, the level of commitment is not distinguishable within the characterization.

I, sometimes, wonder if revisionists think that traditionalist pastors don't know any gay or lesbian people including fellow pastors. Is the tacit assumption that we have no relatives or friends or even dear parishioners that are gay or lesbian? Is it assumed that we have never had deep conversations on these matters and know nothing about the struggles and experiences of those that are gay or lesbian or bi-sexual? Is it assumed we haven't read anything contrary to our own traditionalist views, have carried on no theological disputations within an academic setting, have never knowingly matriculated with or had gay or lesbian professors?

That traditionalists stand with 2,000 years of Christian teaching and practice does not mean that we have no experience of the cry of the heart of people we know and love and have studied and worked and served with.

The classic care of souls, the careful application of Law and Gospel, and indeed the practice of pastoral ministry deals with how the people of God live their Baptism daily within the context of real sin and real grace.

Luther's classic words on personal experience offer, I believe, an important caveat on the limits of Christian experience: "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or understanding believe in my Lord Jesus Christ or come to Him...."

I am coming up on my 10th wedding anniversary. One of the people in our wedding is a young gay man who is a very skilled musician. He is a very nice person and no way would I want anything to happen to him. However, I have real problems with his behaviour/lifestyle. He would "cruise" the gay bars "scoping out" men on Friday and Saturday night and then come to church (not a Lutheran church) to receive Communion on Sunday morning. He saw no dichotomy.

In my field of endeavour, a big part of learning behaviourism is to learn about the behaviour of individuals, which includes homosexual and bisexual individuals. When one chooses a "caring profession," as I have, it is unthinkable to me that anyone should be persecuted, regardless of colour, creed, gender or sexuality.

Yet that is what those like me who hold traditionalist theological views are accused of, usually with the term "spiritual abuse."

I know several openly gay professors. No doubt some of my fellow students have been gay. I don't know the statistics. I don't ask them about what they do in their bedroom.

It is quite likely that I served with gay colleagues in the United States Air Force. I always have gone by what Senator Barry Goldwater said: "I don't care if they are straight, just as long as they can shoot straight."

Wow, well, if that young gay man you mentioned were my ONLY foray into the lives of gays and lesbians in the church, I would be against the human sexuality porposal, too.

Fortunately, not all gay and lesbian folks in the church are like that. I happen to be one.

And not to toot my own horn, because bottom-line, God's grace is not something I can earn. Thank God for that.