Bishop Tai says,
"If the Church accepts and practices homosexual behavior, it will be a big stumbling block for the vast majority of 1.3 billion Chinese, who need the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Bishop Hanson,
Thats Billion with a B. Thats 1,300 Million.
Just who are you working for?
What a legacy!

Well, if you believe the statistics, that's 130 Million who are not only attracted to each other but should also be attracted to this new gospel. Pretty impressive numbers. How's that for mission work?

Responsible scientists do not believe the 10% statistic: Most place the number at about 1% or 2%. The 10% number comes from the Kinsey survey, which was not a representative sample--all of the people surveyed were individuals being studied for various sexual pathologies.

I do not believe the number of homosexual persons suggested to be 10%. This number comes directly from the Kinsey Report which has since been proven fraudulent. The actual number suggested by accuruate and unbiased surveys is less than 1% with perhaps the exception of the United States where homosexual practices alongw with other sexual perversity is running rampant. The higher number of homosexuals in the US would seem to indicate that such behavior, at least by some, is a choice. Do Not believe the propoganda suggesting that 10% is the number.

The Kinsey Report is discredited by myself, most behaviourists, psychologists and psychiatrists. I have yet to meet anyone in the field who gives it any credence.

As I've said before, those who are pushing for the overturn of V&E, which I believe includes Bishop Hanson, are so focussed on that they cannot (or choose not to) see the wood for the trees.

I remember back about 10-12 years ago, the ELCA had a missionary in Hong Kong.

This letter's appeal to authority isn't even to the Bible, or the Lutheran confessions or anything other than "the ELC Hong Kong's manual of discipline", the "ecumenical community of Asia" and because non-Christians also regard this behavior as immoral. Two of those 3 reasons are non-Lutheran bodies, and Bishop Tai expects us to listen to those reasons above that of Christ or our understandings of the Lutheran confessions?

If this resolution does pass, I wonder if we'll send them a letter asking them to please strike that bit about homosexuality as a sin in their manual of discipline because it is an embarrassment to us in the ELCA, and many Americans regard homosexuality as no sin.

...another church body strike something from their doctrine because it doesn't fit with official ELCA policy, or the worldview of some American Christians, is a bit of an embarrassment, don't you think?

David,

That's exactly my point. We can understand how it's embarrassing if we did it, but we're specifically ignoring that this is exactly what this bishop has just done. However you stand on the homosexual marriage issue, this letter is embarrassing.

I think it is safe to say that the writers of the JTF report made a great effort to appeal for tolerance for those who are "conscience bound" on this issue. I can't help but wonder what is Bp. Tai to do? I feel for his situation. His is an appeal of conscience and yet you stoop to criticize.
Several weeks ago, I was in central Africa working on a medical mission. The mission was sponsored by the Lutheran Bishop of that diocese as well as the sister synod here in the States.
While I did not speak to Bishop about the upcoming vote by the US church to adopt the JTF recommendations, I did have a lengthy conversation with a member of his staff.
The African churches are watching closely this process in the US. This Bishop, at least, seems to clearly understand the issues. They do not see the support of Scripture for the ordination of GLBS people. They do not see the support of Scripture to endorse their relationships. They are baffled.
As they actively work hard to promote sexual fidelity and ethics, as people are still dying of AIDS all around them, they see the American church propose this, in their view, unthinkable position. They are hurt and feel undercut.
They see that theirs is the mission field where people still have not heard the Gospel. The church is growing there. We in the ELCA shrivel in fat, self-absorbed complacency while millions still have not heard. They don't need the ELCA, but they don't need to be embarrassed by us either.
The US church in parochial hubris flouts itself as being prophetic and evidently holds no regard the world-wide Lutheran community. You want embarrassed. I was embarrassed to represent the ELCA to that African church. I was embarrassed when Bishop asked me how they could help with evangelism in the US!
It now occurs to me that perhaps Bp. Tai has some good ideas for that effort. God knows we need them.

The discussion on this forum is excellent. I went here to find out what was going on with the ELCA because our Pastor did his best to not inform the people sitting in our church pews what is has been taking place in our Northern Illinois Synod ELCA and what is being voted on at the ELCA August assembly. Our pastor told me he was on the original Human Sexuality Task Force and was not going back to the constraints of the Southern Baptist Church, of which he was once a minister. Perhaps that has something to do with his silence.

However, once I found out, I decided to attend services at our local Lutheran Missouri Synod Church. What a difference! The LMSC pastor's sermons actually are taken directly out of the Bible. It is like a breath of fresh air as our ELCA pastor had been preaching compromise, getting along, diversity, those who stir up trouble in the church by not compromising, respecting others' bound conscience, etc. for the last three weeks. It was enough to drive my family and I back to the Lutheran Missouri Synod which was my childhood faith. The LMSC pastor is determined not to let the ELCA's current trends infect his church, which in my eyes makes him a very good pastor. It is hard to find people with the courage to stand up for what in right in our society.

The LMSC web site lists several ELCA churches which members of the LMSC may commune with, and many of them are overseas ELCA churches such as the African Church Dana mentions in her post. I am glad the LMSC is recognizing the faithfulness of these African ELCA churches to God's Word and encouraging shared communion with them.

Jeannette, my wife and I were forced out of our ELCA congregation back in 2001 over this issue.

We ended up in a very good LCMS congregation for several years.

However, when we moved, there were a lot of things we were starting to encounter in the LCMS that ended up with us joining a good ELCA congregation, one that you wouldn't find too different from the LCMS.

But now I'm wondering if we won't be shown the door again...especially if people like our friend Peter have their way.

Dana,

It's arrogance for one church body or representative thereof to say to another 'I don't like this so don't do it'. It's embarrassing to hear any Christian use 'non-believers won't buy it' as a reason to do or not do anything in the Christian church. The church's mission is centered on Christ, whether or not any of us like that fact. Bp Tai's letter is not centered on Christ at all. This is actually the problem with most of the dissenting letters, but this one didn't even try to hide the fact that Christ has nothing to do with his dissent. None of these dissenting letters have been centered on Christ.

The ELCA is also incorrect in its use of bound conscience on this matter. Essentially if one (on either side) "respects the bound conscience" of someone on the other side, that person is conceding the entire issue. On one hand, respecting the bound conscience is recognizing that the other person feels that this is a Gospel-issue and is called to dissent. On the other hand, respecting the bound conscience is admitting that you do not believe this is a Gospel-issue, in that you acknowledge that the opposing position is consistent with the Gospel. This isn't to say that the dialogoue on this issue should not be conducted with love and concern for one another, but it is to say that this issue is a Gospel-issue, as Lutherans we affirm ONE Gospel, and that Gospel is inconsistent with opposition to marrying homosexuals. It's also somewhat baffling how you get marriage as not promoting sexual fidelity. This proposal is specifically to recognize that homosexuals are called by God to committed, lifelong, monogamous relationships, aka marriage.

On the missionary end, it is embarrassing to acknowledge that the US is a mission field these days, as is Europe. However, we need to accept that as a judgement against the entire church (you and I included), put our trust back into Christ, and go out into that mission field to proclaim Christ.

Peter, you say much about how not marrying homosexuals is "inconsistent with the Gospel."

But, as these African churchmen and women say, you do not provide Scriptural support for your position.

And, of course, YOU know what it is to be "centred on Christ" and what is not, correct?

That is the way it seems:

Pro-"change": "Christlike"
Against "change": Not "Christlike"

David,

My biggest concern is for my children. They have been in Christian schools since Kindergarden. My oldest is now a freshman. I want stability for them and do not want to be changing Churches again for their sake. Our faith is very important to us.

I don't want to change churches again either. We like our congregation.

But if the findings of this so-called "task force" are adopted, we wonder how long it will be before we are forced out.

I was in the military (Air National Guard) when a lot of the stink about "don't ask, don't tell" was going on. It caused a lot of distrust, and people used it to their advantage. Those in Basic Training who decided they didn't like it just had to tell a sergeant or officer that they were gay, whether or not they weren't, and within 24 hours they were on a plane home with an Entry-Level Separation (neutral discharge) - and entitlement to some of the same veterans' benefits that a 20-year-plus Chief Master Sergeant would have. That was the result of trying to achieve a "compromise," and from people I know who are still in all five branches of the armed forces, it's still having an effect today.

What the "pro-change" people want would, in effect, impose a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on the call process of the ELCA. A congregation would not be allowed to use a candidate's sexual orientation as a factor in calling him/her as a pastor.

My faith is very important to my wife and I too. It was a very hard decision to leave the LCMS and return to the ELCA, especially knowing it was still in turmoil. It took a lot of prayer and discernment to find this congregation that has been a home to us (and a home to a heck of a lot of people who oppose what's going on).

But if we have policies imposed on us that we cannot, out of personal convictions, comply with, what choice do we have?

Peter,
You boldly assert that not approving homosexual "marriage" is inconsistent with the Gospel without any evidence whatsoever and against the great weight of evidence. It appears to me that you are determined to reach this result regardless of the evidence. I do not understand how you can so cavalierly disregard the clear witness of God's written Word in favor of your own apparent desires to reach your favored outcome. I wonder what drives your agenda.

Ben, see many of my earlier comments on "tunnel vision."

On another topic I posted commentary from Luther and from an ELCIC pastor about why this is wrong on so many levels, but Peter chose to ignore it, because it wasn't "through the lens of Christ."

Give us all a break, dear brother. "Christ-centered" seems to have a pretty fuzzy definition. How would a Christ-centered dissenting letter read? Write one out for us.

Let me clarify (at the risk of over generalization), the only view of marriage the African Lutheran Church presents is as a covenant between one man and one woman. Furthermore, faithful sexuality is only to be expressed in the context of marriage. They see that as the only Biblical model. I think you knew this already.

They will not recognize same-sex couplings as marriage. Since they will not endorse same-sex couplings whatever the label, it remains sexual infidelity. Although you disagree with the position, surely you understand this reasoning.

Also, if I understand your view, I agree with you about the "respects the bound conscience" business as hollow and unworkable. Beyond the fact that we propose opposites as God's moral will, we also condemn the other view. Neither voice can be passive and be true to conviction. I don't see a reasonable middle ground. Does anyone?

It's interesting how a critique of the style deflects attention from Pr. Tai's message. Allow me to paraphrase. What the ELCA does at church-wide assembly on the issue of calling/ordaining GLBS people and the endorsement of their relationships affects detrimentally the work of the Lutheran Church in China. Why don't we talk about that? That has substance.

Surely, this is not the only missive with warnings Bp Hanson has received from a companion international Lutheran body.

I really doubt that Bishop Hanson has not received warnings and admonitions from other Lutheran bodies worldwide. LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick has stated his concern, but then again they're just those Missouri Synod non-Gospel hardliners, so what do they matter?

I also really doubt Bishop Hanson pays a lot of attention to these warnings and admonitions.

How is the particular ethic that underlies this debate Gospel-based? It is purely Law, so of course it is not Gospel-centered. We know from the Scripture account what Jesus' view of this particular ethic was: one man and one woman within the bounds of marriage for life--very simply, anything outside that ethic is unacceptable behavior (read, "sin"). Jesus didn't come to change or do away with the law. Always the Gospel call is to repent of sin and receive the forgiveness God gives us for Christ's sake; but certainly not for us creatures to declare something as "good" which God has expressly said is an abomination.

Again, Peter, if it doesn't fit your worldview, it's not "Gospel," right?

David, Peter and everyone else,

It's not quite as simple as "pro-"change": "Christlike", against "change": Not "Christlike"". There are view points in favor of this resolution that rest on other gospels. It comes down to AC4 and whether you can ground your viewpoint in Christ-- that is to say, using the measuring sticks laid out in AC4. So in my view, a dissenting letter that was properly grounded in Christ would demonstrate that homosexual relationships fail to necessitate Christ alone and only or fail to spread the benefits of Christ. I don't think it can be done. Dr Hinlicky seems to have tried this to some extent, but his arguments still rest on his interpretation of Genesis 1:26-28 rather than in Christ. Since the ELCIC has been brought up, here is one of their groups' Gospel-grounded statements on the issue:

http://www.webelieveinthegospel.org/2652.html

So far as church unity goes, if I had my way, no one would be shown the door. That isn't to say I wouldn't affirm things you might not be able to live with, but you should be treated with the same love and respect as everyone else. There will be people and pastors who fail at this on both sides. That's unfortunate, but it's sin and that is where Christ is needed the most. I do think the ELCA leadership is keeping this point in mind and while individuals may fail to live up to this goal, it is very much their goal. I do think this resolution will permit congregations that do not want to call openly homosexual pastors to not call them and in that regards, it will not have as large of an effect. Will there be some controversies? Undoubtably, but I suspect they will be the exception rather than the rule. At the least, I think pastor and congregation will have sufficiently exclusive views that the pastor won't be called. The middle ground says that hardliners on both sides (read you and I) are wrong and that homosexuality is not a Gospel issue and if we keep Christ in our hearts we can still work together despite our differences.

My critique of the letter isn't to style, but content. And claiming difficulty of task is not sufficient grounds. It would be easier to proclaim a false gospel of universalism or another gospel that does not necessitate Christ. That doesn't mean we should adjust church policy in that regards. If anything, it's a call to the rest of the Lutheran church-bodies to re-examine just how Lutheran they are. It may also raise the question of just what Lutheranism is. The latest LWF meeting in Augsburg gives some very chilling answers to that question.

Peter, you keep saying "Christ," "Christ," "Christ" without saying what you mean.

Christ told a woman caught in sin "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

If we follow your line, all we should look at in the Bible are those passages which are printed in red letters in some Bibles.

Like it or not, the ONLY revelation we have of Christ is the Scriptures. If you want to call that "legalism," go ahead.

You say "Gospel," "Gospel," "Gospel," and neglect Law. Lutheranism is about BOTH LAW AND GOSPEL.

I have read AC4 over and over, and I do not see ANY support for marrying homosexuals.

"...the Church is listening to the modern culture rather than to the clear teaching of the Word of God." Peter, it is clear that Bp. Nicholas Tai and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hong Kong are basing their judgements foremost on the Word of God, not "the ELC Hong Kong's manual of discipline" which no doubt is normed by the former. I wish everyone attending an ELCA congregation could read your sentence: "If this resolution does pass, I wonder if we'll send them a letter asking them to please strike that bit about homosexuality as a sin in their manual of discipline because it is an embarrassment to us in the ELCA, and many Americans regard homosexuality as no sin." That quote right there clearly shows the degree to which the ELCA has abandoned the truth of God as revealed in Holy Scripture! It is my hope that the church in Hong Kong seeks more to please God than to please man. I mean this in a loving way: take a warning from your brothers and sisters in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the world. Don't be afraid to be corrected by them. To turn your back to them is to turn your back to God who is speaking to you through their words.

I could be completely off base, since it has been almost 15 years since I read this book (on the advice of an Air Force chaplain), but what Peter seems to be advocating seems vaguely akin to a very stretched version of M Scott Peck's "The Road Less Travelled."

Rik,

I'm not afraid to be corrected by someone, but they don't have the authority to make the correction they do. If they are relying on literal readings of the Bible, they should say that, instead of their secondary source that can't even pretend to be normative for Lutherans outside of that church. This letter is entirely an appeal to 'please man'. It comes down to: 'we, as well as non-believers, don't like it so don't do it'. That's an appeal to please them. As such, you cannot realistically make any claim that God is speaking through this letter.

"Thirdly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hong Kong regards homosexual practice as a sin and expressly states this in our discipline handbook. If the ELCA accepts such practices, it will be quite an embarassment to explain to our members why our companion Church allows something which goes against the clear biblical norms of our own Church. We as part of the Lutheran Communion could not escape the accusation that the Church is listening to the modern culture rather than to the clear teaching of the Word of God." (by Bp. Nicholas Tai — August 07, 2009)

Peter, you wrote, "If they are relying on literal readings of the Bible, they should say that, instead of their secondary source that can't even pretend to be normative for Lutherans outside of that church." It would seem to me that the primary reason for Bishop Nicholas Tai's letter, based on how it is worded, is not to directly correct the ELCA. Based on how it was written, it seems he is explaining the awkward position (profound embarassment) the Lutheran Church in Asia is put into because it's sister church in the USA is clearly teaching immoral, heretical teachings. Had his primary goal been to directly correct the ELCA, I'm sure he would base his reasons directlyu on Scripure. Instead, he appeals to "our discipline handbook" as an authority to his church much in the same way I've seen many ELCA posters appeal to the ELCA constitution as an authority. No where do I see him refer to this book of discipline as their norma normans (norming norm--that is, chief authority). I take "could not escape the accusation that the Church is listening to the modern culture rather than to the clear teaching of the Word of God" to show that his norma normans is Scripture ("the Word of God") and his norma normata is the ELC Hong Kong's manual of discipline, normed by Scripture. Most obviously, he is not trying to pretend their discipline handbook is normative for all sister congregations in the world-wide communion. But I would think those in the ELCA should be smart enough to indirectly take the hint, and heed the wake-up call to return to the Lord your God. So, yes, I do make the claim that God is speaking through this letter. I don't know how many people in the ELCA don't get the hint, and I've never read their book of discipline, but based on the beliefs he has expressed in this letter, I would think the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hong Kong might be a better match for the LCMS and their international fellowship, or the ELS and WELS and their international fellowship. "Secondly, we live in a morally and ethically shaped society. Non-Christians as well as Christians regard homosexual behavior as immoral." This does not sound to me like he is putting non-Christian beliefs on par with Scripture. He is saying that the immorality being proposed in Minneapolis is so blatantly wrong that even non-Christians recognize how wrong it is. This is reminiscent of St. Paul when he writes, warning that even the unbelievers do not practice some of the sins practiced by some of those in the church. I'm sorry, but I cannot think of the reference to the passage I have in mind. I do hope that Bp. Nicholas Tai will take a look at http://www.lcms.org/ and http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl and consider broader horizons. May God keep the Church in Hong Kong and the rest of Asia in the palm of His hand, and keep them in sound doctrine (teachings). Amen.

What is happening in Minneapolis is based on emotion and and trying to assuage hurt feelings.

It is not based on the Gospel.

And I don't think the powers of the ELCA pushing this really care about how this will affect relationships with other churches.

Either that or they're so naive that they think everyone else will hail what they've done as a glorious thing.

David Pross writes, "And I don't think the powers of the ELCA pushing this really care about how this will affect relationships with other churches.

Either that or they're so naive that they think everyone else will hail what they've done as a glorious thing."

Could it be that they are expecting Satan will close their partner church's eyes and ears to the reality of what is really happening here, and the enormity of the situation, so that relations will continue as business as usual? Perhaps many at the CWA are ignorant of the theological paradigm shift about to take place (may God prevent it, nevertheless, not our will, but Thine be done). But I do not mention Satanos to be pejorative. I am keeping in mind Ephesians 6, particularly, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood (NRSV: "enemies of blood and flesh") but but against rulers, against authorities, against the powers of this dark world (NRSV: "the cosmic powers of this present darkness") and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Eph.6:12 NIV) What can we do? See Eph. 6:10,11,& 13. In his preface to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis wrote: "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them." Why would people put on the armor of God if they didn't believe in a real devil? I would think that revisionists would try to "demythologize" this passage, or pick and choose, excluding it. God has given us "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17b) and all the armor we need, but what good is that if we don't even recognize that we are at war with the devil in spiritual warfare? Oh, that those who bear His name, who bear the sign of the cross on their brows and their hearts would have eyes to see and ears to hear, that something like scales would fall from their eyes. May God in His mercy protect the elect, that they may not be snatched from His hand. Lord, in Your mercy...Hear our prayer.

Any time there is strife in the Church that sets Christians against one another, Satan is just lovin' it. I'm sure you know that "ha-shatan" (not sure how the Hebrew is spelt) means "adversary." And he is real, and active, not just some Miltonian caricature with horns and a pointy tail.

This is why when someone asserts that this mess is "Spirit-led" I counter with "how can you be sure it's the HOLY Spirit? There are other spirits at work."

But, in the ELCA church we were shown the door back in '01, the pastor did not believe in Satan.

"This is reminiscent of St. Paul when he writes, warning that even the unbelievers do not practice some of the sins practiced by some of those in the church. I'm sorry, but I cannot think of the reference to the passage I have in mind." I Corinthians 5:1-5

Rik,

The letter is addressed directly to Bp Hanson. I don't think it can be seen as anything other than corrective unless he's just whining that the task of spreading the Gospel is harder than he thought it was. That sort of complaining is not what the church should consider (as it is an appeal to please man-- 'make my job easier') when making decisions like this-- it should be considering the perpetual aim of the Gospel.

Everyone claims that the Bible supports their side in this debate. While there is some difference over whether it is the Bible vs Christ demanding a given side, I think everyone thinks they are correctly reading the Bible. That isn't to say that they aren't willing to listen to other ways of doing it, but the Bible is on everyone's side. Saying 'we're true to the Word of God' is meaningless without showing what you mean by that statement.

He also doesn't cite the Corinthians text you mention in concordance with the appeal to listen to non-believers. What I dislike about this letter is not the side he's chosen, but the evidence (or more properly lack thereof) that he's used to support that side.

Even using embarrassment as an appeal is cringe-worthy in the context of Mark 8:38.

"it can be seen as anything other than corrective unless he's just whining that the task of spreading the Gospel is harder than he thought it was." I cannot believe the way in which you speak of your sister church, devoid of any respect. If you are representative of the ELCA as a whole, it would be my clear recommendation that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Hong Kong and other Asian Lutheran churches seriously reconsider their alignment with the ELCA. Your attitude towards the bishop and the church he represents, and the decisions of the ELCA to trump Law & Gospel with a CWA vote is deploreable, and perhaps a foretaste of the unraveling of world-wide ecumenism to come.

Rik,

Claiming someone is whining is now deplorable? Or is it that I'm daring to criticize a bishop's letter because I expect better out of seminary students, let alone bishops? For all this emphasis some 'homosexuality is a sin' folks place on 'the ELCA is abandoning its standards' and whatnot, if this letter is acceptable without any concern for the false gospel it proclaims*, there really aren't any standards left so far as theology or even grounding in the Scripture is concerned. I could have tried to sugar-coat this, but I feel that cheapens real praise and is meaningless talk.

*I don't even mean the anti-homosexuality aspect here. I mean the logic and the basis of the appeal (to please man) within the letter. Seriously, what would your response be if that exact same letter had been written except that the position he was espousing was the opposite side? No change in the reasons, just the position.

I am not here to critique the bishop's letter. Could it have been written more clearly, to prevent the concern you raise? Sure, I believe so. But the more pressing matter (from my perspective anyway), is that these churches are following what is happening in Minneapolis. What affects the church in the USA is bound to affect them as well. Rather than recognizing their valid concerns and loving them as Christ loves them, instead I detect an attitude which seems to send a message such as "deal with it." This uncharitable attitude appears to also be present in your exaggerations of the bishop proclaiming a "false gospel." I certainly do not see a connection between his pastoral concern for members of his church who are left explaining themselves because an internationally related church embarassed Lutheranism as a whole, and your charges against him for seeking to please man rather than God. If this is truly your concern, I would encourage you to write him directly, but it might be wise to re-read I Cor. 13 first (IMO). Were it simply for a personal exercise to re-write his letter as I perhaps feel it might have been written, that would be one thing. But rather than treating the bishop as a seminary student, I find it far more important at this significant time to express concern with their state of disallusionment due to poor choices made by their sister church. That is the more pressing matter here. It is most unfortunate that the reason for his letter ever came up. That is an issue for the taskforce and those who directed it. Also, if the Asian Churches have read Lutheran Forum online, your comments have already raised the concern you expressed sufficiently. I have nothing more to add.

Rik,

I do not think my charge of a false gospel is an exaggeration. So far as I'm aware, embarrassment is not a reason for a church to do or not do something or really grounds to ask for anything. If anything, Mark 8:38 suggests we dare not be embarrassed. Asking that we make a gospel decision because it makes their life easier is asking us to set them on par with Christ. It's one thing to say 'we have a difficult task ahead of us, please help' and quite another to say 'don't embarrass us'. That isn't a letter asking for help, it's one saying 'don't vote for the ministry policies'. If the intent is 'don't vote for the ministry policies', the reasoning should be Gospel-grounded. Even the statement that it goes against 'clear teaching' completely fails to account for the liberal biblicists who argue that the "clear teaching" is something else. I also don't recall where in Scripture it says you will always be happy following the Gospel. In fact, Matthew 16:24 suggests the opposite, and both Jonah and Jeremiah attest to dissatisfaction with carrying out God's will.

As to 'uncharitable attitude', I think John 6:48-60 is especially relevant here. It's a difficult teaching, as are most of Christ's. If he wants help with that difficult teaching, there are many in the ELCA who can/will help. I suspect that he doesn't want the help, though. Were Bp Hanson to reply with a letter noting Bp Tai's concern and offering to help provide resources and see what could be done to help them similarly welcome homosexuals, I think Bp Tai'd be offended.