With all these open letters from scholars, clergy and laypeople saying DON'T CHANGE, why does such a change even have a snowball's chance in Hades of going through?

Is it because those who are pushing for it (Lutherans Concerned, Goodsoil) are so well-financed and organised and have so many compliant people in the upper echelons of the ELCA?

There have been numerous open letters drafted by supporters of the resolutions, as well. Cf. Dr. Hinlicky's posts concerning both the LSTC statement and the earlier "Teaching Theologians" statement. There is also an internet-based open letter from a host of ELCA seminarians (with an opposing letter from other ELCA seminarians).

Why are "Hispanic pastors" referenced in this headline. Why are they in a different group as distinguished from any other pastors? What does ethnicity have to do with this homosexual issue?

Why are homosexual individuals referred to by a myriad of labels, which seem to change so rapidly it's difficult to keep up?

LGBT, GLBTQ, lesbigay, LGBTQ, lipstick lesbian...are they a monolithic bloc, or are they individuals?

David,

Are you trying to address the question I posted, or are you just being silly?

...not intentionally, anyway.

I really do not understand all the different labels that have come into use for homosexual individuals, which seem very subjective and fluid. And I think of people as individuals, no matter what they do in their bedrooms.

Not to get too much into anthropology, but...

As with "African-American." Not all black people have African roots. General Colin Powell has Jamaican roots, yet he is referred to as "African-American."

I am in partial agreement with you on "Hispanic pastors." "Hispanic" implies an origin from the island of Hispaniola, and many labelled as "Hispanic" may or may not have roots on that island. I remember back in high school, 20-odd years ago, "Mexican" was the inaccurate generic term. A young lady I knew, from Puerto Rico, took GREAT exception when I used that to describe her...what she said probably can't be posted here...

I wonder if the usage in this context is because the percentage of Latinos (which I grudgingly use) in the Scandinavian/German ELCA is rather small, and they want to show solidarity, but I don't know that.

I was just considering whether the headline generated by the Lutheran Forum which contained the "Hispanic" was intended to show a connection between the "white" traditionalists and this Hispanic group as a means of firing a shot at the "liberals" who typically are considered to be more multi-cultural in their views.

The title was given by the Hispanic pastors themselves.

Apparently because they chose to identify themselves that way. Perhaps, as well, because these pastors have worked hard for several decades to establish an ELCA presence in the Hispanic communities of Florida, particularly Miami-Dade Counties and the greater Orlando area. Finally, because we are regularly admonished to be more welcoming of the voices of people from outside of our German-Scandinavian heritage.

My question asked why Lutheran Forum saw fit to lift up the ethnicity into the headline?

Read the "From" line in the letter heading. I don't know about other people, but, when I pass on a communique, I usually say, "Got a letter from Mr. X." Now that I know doing so reveals my sinister motives, I'll have to come up with something else: perhaps, "Got a letter here, but I really can't tell you the source because I wouldn't want to influence you."

Can't forget Bishop Chilstrom's, too: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2304933/posts

#4 is the most alarming one to me. Jesus Christ is our final authority, not Holy Scripture. The "However" in #2 also contradicts the earlier part of their statement.

Jesus Christ is our Saviour and Lord - the living, incarnate Word.

However, His life, teaching and will for our lives is revealed in the Holy Scriptures - the written word of God (described as such in the ELCA Constitution and my congregational constitution).

We have no authority on the living Word beyond the written Word.

I read it, as I have other statements by the former Presiding Bishop.

He keeps trying to link the issue of homosexual ordination to that of women's ordination, and there is no link, or at best a very tenuous one.

From the way it sounds to me, he is zealous for this "change" simply because he knows a few homosexual people who are nice people, and that changed his mind. I know a few homosexual people as well, and my mind is not changed.

The tenor of the letter sounds like he is deriving his position from personal, earthly secular experience and ideas of "justice," not Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

David,

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you that there is no link or at best a tenuous one between ordaining persons practicing same gender unions and the ordaining of women. Chilstrom nailed it when he said that it took the over turning of Scripture and Tradition in the case of the latter, and thus he argues what's the problem with doing it again in the case of the former. Frankly, (though I know I am obviously in a distinct minority here at this website) as I see it, the overturning of Scripture and Tradition began at the time of the so-called "Reformation" which in spite of necessary reforms of abuses of power not only thumbed its nose at Apostolic authority, overturned long held doctrine, permitted people to interpret Scripture any way they wanted regardless of what was passed on in the form of faith and morals by the Apostles, and turned schism from being something shocking and unthinkable into something so routine that not only do Protestant denominations by and large not care if they seek reconciliation with Rome but even more tragic is that now, as Chilstrom cites using his own family as evidence, it isn't thought a shame by many of this generation if they separate themselves from the Church altogether, as if one could really be a Christian all by themselves! No - Chilstrom's letter makes it even plainer to me how not just the ELCA is off the track, but all of Protestantism. God bless you and everyone else here. I will not be remaining in the ELCA - its painfully clear I cannot. God help us all to seek and obey his will.

I presume you're leaving Protestantism as well.

That's the way it seems to me, Kurt. He sounds headed to Rome. I wish him Godspeed.

To the LCMS, perhaps?

Nope, its defintely to the Catholic Church. I've read also for those who are struggling with everything, where some are arguing one ought to stay in the ELCA so as to "reform" it. The 16th century splits did bring attention to abuses of power that were rectified, but also changed doctrines and did not really lead to the "reform" that was desired. All the schisms haven't for the most part accomplished the "reform" that was sought, but just created more problems or different problems. In my discernment and study, many of the doctrinal questions that the so-called "Reformation" sought to change in Catholicism, I discover didn't need changing and in fact make it difficult to hold a fair amount of Scripture together cohesively given those changes. The further one goes out on the spectrum of Protestantism, the worse is the lack of cohesiveness doctrinally with Scripture. You won't and you shouldn't take my word for it though. You need to do more study of Catholic sources side by side with Lutheran/Protestant ones to see it. Anyway Godspeed to you all as well. I truly do hope that we can be reunited in the peace of God's heavenly kingdom if it can't be before then.

As I have not come across other people signing the name "Rik" at Lutheran Forum, I just want to make it clear that I was not the one who submitted the above comment. Anyone who has been following the posts made by Son of WMC will clearly know that he has become more and more sure he is ready for Rome. While it is not my wish for him, by someone posting using my name, it gives the appearance as though I am trying to pressure him, in this case, to the LCMS. I am doing nothing of the sort, and I'm not impressed with the LCMS when some push entertainment worship in lieu of genuine classic liturgical worship. One would probably be safer there, but people need to make up their own minds. I don't limit what God can do, and I'm here because I am praying for the ELCA. If there is another "Rik" out there, perhaps I will add a last initial. (It is obvious it was not my posting as it was short).

Lev. is about relationships. Adult men, were leaving hetersexual relationships to engage in homosexual behavior with young boys. Such object centered relationships (young boys) are frowned upon by God and rightly so. Same is true in Romans. This is far different than what we are talking about in the E.L.C.A. Show me from scripture that this is not as faithful an interpretation as any other. What makes condeming loving, commited relationship between two consenting adults correct anywhere in scrupture. Could it be that grace needs to be allowed when there are two interpretations of scripture or are we going to revert to law. In so doing we kill loving relationship rather than proclaim reconciliation as desired by Christ and Paul. John

There is no proof for your interpretation of Leviticus and Romans.

We are not just talking about Leviticus and Romans 1.

Everywhere in Scripture where homosexual behaviour is mentioned, it is NEVER in a favourable light.

What then would we do...would we start to countenance incest on the grounds that Abraham and Sarah were half-brother/sister?

"Reconciliation" does not mean approval of sin. The Church can convict of sin, point out sin, and FORGIVE sin, but NEVER APPROVE of sin. That's ANY sin.

These "two" interpretations of Scripture are likely to split the ELCA. Is it worth it?

No proof that I am in opposition to God's wishes for all loving and committed relationships either. Reconciliation has to do with healed relationships such as between God and His People. Sin is the broken relationship which Christ healed forever. This is hard to see or hear when one is hung up with the law over against grace. Which two interpretations are you talking about?

I am disappointed, David, that you had no response to the post I made above after your Aug 7th Post. I care about your thoughts about what I wrote. John

God help any Lutheran who heads to Rome thinking he/she will find "the real thing." That's exactly where the ELCA and all the other liturgical denominations got their "Vatican II for Lutherans."

Unity? Apostolic authority? The Catholic church is no longer the catholic church. Institutional unity at all costs is maintained while the RC becomes ever more syncretistic in its life of faith and practice.

I left the ECLA for ten years to sojourn in the Church of Rome. There's nothing like experience in the field, so to speak, to open one's eyes.

We left the ELCA and sojourned in St Louis and Fort Wayne for roughly seven years.

Parts of it we really liked - faithfulness to Scripture, maintenance of the traditional liturgy,

Parts of it we really didn't - the sometimes-unspoken assumption of "of course you're a Republican" (we're not), having to clear communing with the pastor when travelling, and general isolation from other Christians.

We plan to stand and fight in the ELCA this time, if there's anything left to fight for.

"We plan to stand and fight in the ELCA this time, if there's anything left to fight for."

I wish you every blessing in that endeavor. I still have family in the ELCA.

Myself, I've returned to the Missouri Synod. For all its drawbacks I have no qualms that I am receiving Word and Sacrament according to the Lutheran Confessions.

Thank you for your words of encouragement, Christine.

Being half Swiss-German and half Scots-Irish, stubbornness is kind of in my genes. My wife will testify to that.

I think our time in the LCMS has influenced us on the importance of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, whereas the "change" proponents seem to be focussed on what would be "just" in the eyes of society at large.

Oh...please don't look at this as "ELCA v. Missouri." We're on the same team as far as I'm concerned.

<i>Oh...please don't look at this as "ELCA v. Missouri." We're on the same team as far as I'm concerned.</i>

I agree, David. I know there are still many Lutherans faithful to their heritage in the ELCA. We in the LCMS will be praying for you.

Christine

"Oh...please don't look at this as "ELCA v. Missouri." We're on the same team as far as I'm concerned."


I agree, David. I know there are still many Lutherans faithful to their heritage in the ELCA. We in the LCMS will be praying for you.

Christine

David,

If you thought there was a link between the issues of women ordinations and homosexual ordinations, would you buy his arguments?

I also think you're shortchanging the Bishop by characterizing him as knowing homosexuals as "nice" people. He's not saying that. He's saying that he knows them as FAITHFUL people.

Faithful and obedient are not synonyms. We are not faithful by doing everything written in the Bible, or even by trusting that Bible = Christ. The only time we can truly talk about the Bible as the written Word is when Christ's death and resurrection is proclaimed through it-- something that the statement 'we should not do this because the Bible says not to in Romans 1' does not do. Even worse, that sort of statement sets the Bible up in place of Christ, since obedience to the Bible becomes more important than trust in Christ.

So says the Constitution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - the Bible is the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. Not just when proclaiming Christ. We recognise the 66 canonical books of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) and New Testament. Martin Luther also called the Apocrypha "useful and good for reading" but did not consider it equal to Scripture.

No, I would not "buy" Bp Chilstrom's arguments if I thought there to be a link between homosexual and female ordination (full disclosure: my wife and I were married by a female pastor, which caused some eyebrow-raising when we were in the LCMS), because, as a behaviourist, any link would be a form of pseudoscience.

You will disagree with me to the end about this, but from a behavioural point of view, there is a great difference in being female and being a homosexual.

Being female is the result, scientifically, of two copies of the X chromosome (yes, a process created by God), which cannot be fundamentally altered. It is impossible for a female to not be a female. That's as far as I'll take it without entering into the realms of transgender, feminism, etc., to say nothing of niceties like recombinant DNA and misogyny/misandry.

Again I repeat that the jury is out (scientifically) on whether or not homosexuals are hard-wired from conception. You will find some behaviourists/geneticists who believe so, others not. Most believe, as I do, in a nature/nurture combination.

Biblically, there is no proscription against being female. That does not say that in Biblical times, women were very restricted, although Jesus notably reached out to women, and it was a woman that proclaimed His Resurrection. Nonetheless, nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is against God's design to be a woman.

However, I would also say that there is nowhere in the Bible saying that it is against God's design to have homosexual desire. What IS proscribed is acting on those desires, just as much as divorce and heterosexual immorality. It would be just as much a sin for me, a married man, to go out and hire a hooker as it is for a gay man to go cruising the gay bars. Sin is sin is sin.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that homosexuals are outside God's grace. Christ died for all.

However, it is possible for one not to act upon homosexual urges, just as it is possible for one not to act upon heterosexual urges.

Nowhere in Scripture is homosexual behaviour presented in a favourable light.

I quit drinking many years ago. Had to. That does not mean I am never tempted when I see a bottle of Johnnie Walker Black on the shelf at the party store, but I have a choice not to buy it and drink it.

Nowhere in Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions are there allowances made for "committed and loving same-sex relationships."

If, Peter, we discard "obedience" as ostensibly being "more important than trust in Christ," and we start picking and choosing about what we consider binding from the Scriptures, we go down the road of Marcion and other antinomians. We cheapen God's grace, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer would say. It is one thing for all to have sinned and fallen short. It is quite another to say "because these are modern times, this doesn't matter anymore."

WRT Bishop Chilstrom: If he meant that "faithful" means living in a mutually chaste same-gender relationship with both individuals trusting in Christ as Lord and Saviour on the level of making such relationships "OK," then I respectfully question his theology. I would also ask what his source of revelation is.

WRT ordination: We already ordain gays, as does the LCMS. I'm not sure about WELS. But there is a requirement of celibacy. Not everyone can be ordained, nor should everyone be ordained. I would not be equipped for it. There is no "right" to ordination, as I seem to hear a lot from the LC/Goodsoil bunch.

If we discard Scriptural witness, then what do we claim as a source of revelation?

David, you have written, "However, I would also say that there is nowhere in the Bible saying that it is against God's design to have homosexual desire." By "desire" do you mean "lust" or "temptation"? Jesus was tempted in every way that is common to man, yet was/is without sin. And we are told by Jesus that "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Mt.5:28 NIV)" By analogia fidei it would appear that that would go also for looking at a man (same gender) lustfully. The difference, it seems, is that in the latter example (lust), one is acting on the temptation rather than instantly resisting it.

I was thinking of sustained, wilful lust.

I think it's one thing to have an attraction - like if a heterosexual man sees an attractive woman in a string bikini sunbathing - and then purposefully averts his eyes with Mt. 5:28 in mind, as you said.

It's entirely another to just look at her and let one's mind go to fantasies that should not be. That is lust.

It is lust to buy a pornographic magazine or view Internet porn, because you're doing that for an explicit purpose.

It is also acting on lust to have an affair when you are married or to have premarital sexual relations.

As I see it, those are examples of violation of Christ's proscription against "lusting in one's heart" from a heterosexual point of view.

As regards homosexual desire, the desire may be there, but if acted upon, that is sin, just as much as the heterosexual examples I've cited - no more, no less.

David,

I think we read the Bible slightly differently. It proclaims Christ crucified in every twist and turn within. That's why the ELCA constitution can affirm that it is the written Word of God. However, it also talks about sin, death and plenty of actions that are contrary to faith in Christ. Many of those statements assist in proclaiming Christ, but it is a mistake to say that they are the proclamation.

You make a big deal out of whether homosexuality is nature/nurture or a mix and say this is different than being born a woman (which requires forgetting about transgendered people). It does not matter. God can use both "nature" and "nurture" to make us into the people we are today.

You also reduce homosexuality to lust. This resolution is not about lust. It is talking about sex within marriage and understanding marriage as a divine institution that upholds a couple together in faith in Christ, whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman. I also think affirmation of committed, monogamous homosexual relationships follows both from AC4 and AC23, as well as AC28. This isn't to say those homosexuals are less of a sinner than you or I. We all fall short, as you say. Also, were this explicit in the Lutheran Confessions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, at the time the Lutheran Confessions were made, those documents weren't explicitly understood to follow from Scripture.

Also, you are already "picking and choosing" in Scripture. When's the last time you've heard a sermon exhorting us against mixtures of polyester and cotton? Or the uncleanliness laws? Furthermore, I'm not picking and choosing. AC4 is our guideline for what is in Christ and what is not. It doesn't detail every last situation, but it does provide for every situation. It is also our key to understanding Scripture (which I'm not arguing we need to discard, merely that its authority derives solely from Christ. When you read a contradiction between Christ and Scripture, you're reading Scripture wrong).

Neither am I contending that there is a "right" to ordination. However, we are silencing witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection by denying otherwise-qualified candidates ordination. We're also calling God a liar when we deny that they are called by Christ to serve in the ministry.

Peter wrote, "You also reduce homosexuality to lust. This resolution is not about lust. It is talking about sex within marriage and understanding marriage as a divine institution that upholds a couple together in faith in Christ, Whoa!!! Where did that last part come from?! "It is talking about sex within marriage..." Okay, that part sounds orthodox. SEX refers to sexual intercourse, the reason why sexuality was created between two different yet compatible genders, reserved for marriage. WITHIN means just that--within. Not before marriage, not outside of marriage--but within. Such a marriage is "a divine institution that upholds a couple together in faith in Christ..." Here again, properly understood, this is correct. Sex Within Marriage--We looked at the first two words. MARRIAGE (gamos) is between a man and a woman. Period. That is how God created it. That is how He created and shaped us biologically. He made us biologically, etc. compatable to the opposite gender, not competing. Now, one can call "marriage" anything they want to, but that doesn't make it so. "...whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman." Quite simply, this is heresy and seeks to twist the meaning of Scripture. We should not take heresy lightly. In "An Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism" (Lutheran Synod Book Co., Mankato, MN), on page 63 it states "Marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman into one flesh, entered into by mutual consent and promise." Scripturally, they are right on. In the introduction at the top of the page it includes: In this commandment He forbids any improper relationship between the sexes and requires conduct that will preserve the institution of marriage and the home." You'll want to read Genesis 2.18-24--don't just rely on your memory. Now if we can focus in on St. Matthew 19:4-6(NRSV): "He (Jesus) answered, 'Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." You'll note that God united the male (arsen=male; man) and female (thēlu= female; woman), NOT "whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman." In Gen. 2:18 "The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. (RSV) You'll note it was Adam and Eve in the garden--Not Adam and Steve. Ephesians 5:25 says "Husbands (andres), love (agapate) your wives (gunaikas), just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it." You'll notice the Greek doesn't say "significant other." The ELS catechism asks "What does God mean by adultery?" (p. 65). "By adultery God means not only the actual breaking of the marriage vow, but also every unchaste desire, word or deed in matters of sex." Quoted are Matt. 19:9; Matt. 5:28; and Eph. 4:29. How many changes can we make to the Bible before it is no longer God's Word? How many changes can we make in interpretation, that is, making the text say what it does not say, before a church ceases to be a Christian church? -Just some questions I have pondered. "I think we read the Bible slightly differently." While I am not David, to whom you replied in your post, I would take issue with your word "slightly." In reference to your comments "When's the last time you've heard a sermon exhorting us against mixtures of polyester and cotton? Or the uncleanliness laws?" it is obvious you do not understand the difference between the laws that were meant for the Israelites at that time and the moral laws that are for all people and all times. Peter, might I suggest you try a different key to understanding Scripture? Your key doesn't seem to be working. "We should fear and love God so that we lead a sexually pure and decent life in what we say and do, and husband and wife love and honor each other." SC Luther's expl. to the Sixth Commandment, (CPH 1986). See this in German and Latin on p. 540 of Concordia Triglotta, (CPH 1921, reprinted by Northwestern Publishing House in 1988). Do we fear and love God? http://home.earthlink.net/~rikeischen/

"Whoa!!! Where did that last part come from?!" is a reference to Peter's phrase, " whether it is two men, two women or a man and a woman."

Rik,

Genesis 1 or 2 can hardly be normative for encompassing all of human sexuality when it is talking about exactly 2 individuals (Adam and Eve) with discrete sexual identities. At best, you can say that marriage is intended for heterosexuals. That it says man and woman further does not mean that is the only definition God intended for marriage. Also, Christ's explanation in Mark is not a statement of the breadth of marriage but rather a statement of scope. He says 'man and woman' there specifically because it is a man and a woman involved in the divorce case. What He says about marriage is not that there can't be two men involved, but that marriage is a divine institution and that the commitment is 'forever' because God Himself has joined those people together.

All of those exhortations given about marriage apply just as much to a homosexual couple as they do to a heterosexual couple. The relationship they have is exactly the same, and the precise way the institution of marriage must be preserved is through including homosexuals.

Talking about God's good creation should give you pause. God is the one who ordained these people homosexual and denying homosexuality is denying God's good gift. Telling people not to love and care for each other is similarly against God. That's war on God, and I think we all agree on how that ends.

Peter, "marriage" and "heterosexual marriage" are one and the same. There is no difference. The references with marriage referring to a man and a woman are countless. The references to the marriage of homosexuals, etc. simply aren't there. Your argument from silence is exxtremely weak, and it is eisogesis, not exogesis. We do not start from "I would like the Bible to say..." and proceed to fish around for passages to make a case. Instead, we approach Scripture, asking what God intended to speak to us. We seek the testimony of the whole revelation of Scripture without trying to prove a bias of our own making. If Genesis 1 & 2 worked for Jesus, and for St. Paul, I'm honored to be in their company. Oh, but "All of those exhortations given about marriage apply just as much to a homosexual couple as they do to a heterosexual couple." Says you. I desire to say nothing more than what Scripture reveals, and nothing less. Where I have failed, may God forgive me. May you be open to the Spirit's direction, which will always be in agreement with Christ Jesus.

Peter, I'm sorry, but I forgot to address another point or two you made: "God is the one who ordained these people homosexual and denying homosexuality is denying God's good gift. Telling people not to love and care for each other is similarly against God." Regarding sentence #1, I contend that yes, God created the people referred to as "homosexuality", yet the disorder called "homosexuality" was not ordained by God, but rather was part of the corrupting of the creation as a result of original sin. There are countless other disorders in our world from this same cause, I write that homosexuality is one among all of them. I believe that acting on homosexual desires is sinful, but also that acting on heterosexual sinful desires is likewise sinful. Oh, that God would remove these disorders and fill all our lives with His healing, His fullness, His shalom. Regarding sentence #2: "Telling people not to love and care for each other is similarly against God", I am in no way telling anyone not to love and care for each other. Men should love and care for women. Women should love and care for men. Men should love and care for other men. Women should love and care for other women. The problem is with the English language: as you must know, there are different words for the English word "love" in the Koine Greek, differing types of love for different types of relationships. My four general statements above, regarding who should love and care for whom, should not be read with the thought of eros (erotic love) as being the synonym to the English word. The place for such intimate love is not simply between men and women, but between one man and one woman in a God-ordained marriage. But there is a place for the other forms of love, too. I've posted about this previously in a different L.F. blog. The deep friendship between David and Jonathon is a beautiful thing. Caring for others deeply recalls to me the passage in Phillipians 2 "Each of you should look, not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus..." (verse 4 & 5?)(NIV). Commitment and loyalty to others is commendable. But sinful desires including envy, impurity, degrading passions, unnatural intercourse, being consumed with lust/passion for one of the same gender, shameful acts (what about Gen. 9:20-27?), a man living with his father's wife (1 Cor.5.1), fornication, adultery, prostitution, sodomy, et al. "And this is what som of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor.6.11 NRSV). You also wrote, "At best, you can say that marriage is intended for heterosexuals. That it says man and woman further does not mean that is the only definition God intended for marriage." So should the USA lift the restriction it had on Utah when the Mormons were openly practicing polygomy? If you're going to extend marriage to include same-sex, why not throw in multiple wives, and to be fair, multiple husbands, and why limit marital relations to human and human? Your argument for Scripture not sufficiently limiting the definition of marriage to ONLY one man and one woman is reminiscent of a lawyer looking for loopholes. Should we not humbly seek God's will rather than trying to tell Him the way things should be in your mind? Romans 12:2 (NIV) says: "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." Are we truly seeking God's will for us, or are we asking us to confirm and bless our will and actions as we conform to the society around us? He stands at the door and knocks.

Please forgive me for my many gramatical errors and typos this morning. Here are some corrections (in uppercase): "I contend that yes, God created the people referred to as "HOMOSEXUALS" and
"or are we asking HIM to confirm and bless our will and actions" and ""And this is what SOME of you used to be." I have not had my first cup of coffee yet, this morning.

Rik,

You can't avoid bias when coming to Scripture. That bias is properly understood as hermeneutics. The hermeneutics we need when coming to Scripture is Christ. To read Scripture without Christ is not Christian. It can be done, and some HCM people tend to do it that way (and like you, they insist they're trying to 'let Scripture speak for itself'). Your desire to put Scripture foremost is also contrary to the Lutheran Confessions. Christ, not Scripture, comes first. Or why do you not give the Koran the same weight as the Bible? It understands itself as God's continuing revelation, too.

This brings us to your interpretation of Scripture that homosexuality is a consequence of original sin. That interpretation is based on entirely different cultural ideas of homosexuality (and a legalist reading of the Bible on top of that, which loses Christ-- put simply, if the Bible tells you everything you need to know, Christ's death and resurrection is in vain because you don't need Christ alone and only, but the Bible). You also rely on defining marriage as 'must be' between one man and one woman, where there that fails to take into account Christ's redemption of that institution and the purposes of said institution.

I don't think the definition of love is as much of a problem that you think it is. Eros is something we are nearly all called to, and marriage is the institution in which it finds the proper expression. Homosexuals are given that eros by God, and yet we deny them the proper expression for it. That means those who deny them marriage are going contrary to God.

Finally, to polygamy. It was pretty commonly practiced in OT times, so how do you understand it as sin today in the first place? Given that those polygamous societies also had Genesis, (and Genesis itself goes on to describe Israel's patriarch as polygamous) how do you reconcile THAT with claiming that Genesis specifically ordained 1 man/1 woman only? Personally, I think polygamy runs contrary to the Gospel, but that's by the same lens that shows homosexuality as affirmed by the Gospel. As to legal solutions in the US, government is distinct from church, and our discussion concerns the church. From a gov't end, the Supreme Court case upholding marriage as a civil right (1962, upholdng interracial marriage) means that denying legal martial rights to homosexuals is discrimination, which is specifically forbidden by the 14th amendment.

Peter, you wrote, "Eros is something we are nearly all called to, and marriage is the institution in which it finds the proper expression. Homosexuals are given that eros by God, and yet we deny them the proper expression for it. That means those who deny them marriage are going contrary to God." We do not deny them the proper expression for it. Same-gender sexual attraction is a perversion of the eros given us by God. No one is denying them marriage: It is between a man and a woman. We are denying them the improper expression of their perverted eros. Likewise, we have perverted desires in other areas of our lives. Those who deny us "proper expression" for a desire to steal (or, fill in any other sin here) is not going contrary to God. For all of us, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:9 NIV) Peter: "To read Scripture without Christ is not Christian." I do not read Scripture without Christ. To read Scripture seeing the Gospel as the default which trumps all law, indicating that we can and should "sin all the more that grace might abound"...This hermeneutic is not Christian. See Matt. 5:19,20 And John the Baptizer was not the only one who called sinners to repentance--Jesus did as well. He didn't say, "Go and sin some more, I've got it covered." Nor did he replace the word "sin" with "disorder" or "slight mistake." Our sins deserve nothing short of eternal separation from God in the torments of hell, but greater still, God offers complete forgiveness and robes of righteousness to repentant sinners, advising "Go and sin no more." We are to live as a new creation, seeking His help to live in God-pleasing ways, not living any way we choose and expecting God to not regard sin as sin.

Rik,

Stealing for personal gain is contrary to the Gospel. That behavior does not increase faith in Christ, and in fact, is a failure on part of the thief to trust God to give him his daily bread. The sexual love expressed in marriage between two homosexuals does increase faith in Christ in that it supports and strengthens the two people exactly as sex in a heterosexual relationship does. "A bad tree cannot bear good fruit" and all that. Even if you believe that their eros has been perverted, you must consider Bonhoeffer's caveat that ethics must deal with concrete situations in the real world and not with abstractions. That means the question of homosexuals and marriage cannot rest on some perversion of their God-given eros that they cannot change. The question is how do they fit into marriage, especially considering the idea contained in AC23, which is that celibacy is the exception rather than the rule. I think there is one very clear solution to fitting them into marriage.

You also misunderstand being in Christ. So long as you're trusting Christ, you cannot sin. That's not 'sin all you want, it's ok', it's a statement of fact. The problem is that we don't trust Christ with our lives and choose to remain under the Law. That Law shows us how we fail to trust Christ so that we can once again hang our hearts on Him alone and only, which is where our salvation lies. Nor am I saying that sin has consequences less than eternal hellfire. Quite the contrary... I'm saying that if you don't completely trust only Christ alone, the Law will bring very dire consquences.

And Christ's 'Go and sin no more' was addressed to an unrepentent adulteress caught in the very act of adultery. How can you take repentance as a requirement out of that story? Repentance follows in that story from trusting Christ's words that she is not condemned. Instead, that story focused on the sins of her accusers. Can you see parallels to the current homosexuality debate?

I am not "reducing" homosexual desire in all cases to just "lust." If anything, I'm being overly clinical, again approaching from a behaviourist point of view. In my field one has to develop a degree of detachment.

I was wondering when someone would bring up the issue of fabrics, shellfish, stoning children, etc. How many other places in Scripture are those presented (in fact St Peter learnt all foods are "clean"), whereas in every explicit instance, homosexuality is in an unfavourable light.

I currently have the Book Of Concord (Kolb/Wengert) open on my desk.

ACIV has to do with classical Lutheran justification by faith. I don't think anyone here has suggested that homosexuals are outside of sola fide and/or sola gratia.

ACXXIII has to do with the marriage of priests. Homosexuality was known in Luther's day. If he had countenanced homosexuality, I certainly think ACXXIII would have made provision for it.

ACXXVIII has to do with the bishopric and clerical power in the secular world. It also says "God is to be served in those commands he himself has handed down, not in commands invented by human beings. The good and perfect kind of life is one that has God's command." Nowhere do I read that God's command includes a "committed, monogamous same-gender relationship," just as I nowhere read what some churches do to make a long list of "don'ts"; i.e., don't go to movies, don't play cards, etc. I've experienced that (in a "Holiness" denomination).

Yes, we do read Scripture differently, but I don't think any two people do read it identically, not even in denominations claiming doctrinal uniformity.

Also, what is your source of revelation that states Christ calls noncelibate gays to the ministry?

David,

I don't think fabrics makes it anywhere else besides those Levitical provisions. The point is that you don't know that homosexuality is one of those 'for all time' laws. The big problems (even assuming Paul meant homosexuality with arsenokoites and malakoi) is how homosexuality was understood in Paul's cultural context and how we understand it now. It's entirely different, and that leads us to reevaluate it. See esp, Drs Kilcrease's and Tanis's replies to me in Contentless Step #1... (search for "History of Homosexual Identity" on that page). Similarly during the Reformation, homosexuality was a non-issue.

Which brings us to the AC. AC4 is our key to understanding everything, especially Scripture. It lays out Christ as our center, and sin is what does not proceed from faith. That is how we must evaluate homosexuality and everything the Bible says-- by asking how it leads one to/from trust in Christ alone and only and how homosexuality helps/hinders communication of the Gospel to comfort devout consciences. AC4 is also a reminder that we are not made holy by doing everything the Bible says, but only through faith in Christ alone. Doing anything the Bible says does not get you any closer to salvation.

Marriage is taken up in ACXXIII, and their rationale for priest marriage is equally valid for homosexual marriage. Yes, the specific language says 'man and woman', but that is similarly locked into a different understanding of sexual orientation much as many parts of the NT that specifically say "brothers" in the Greek are now translated as "brothers and sisters" because both genders are clearly meant to be included. Also, if homosexuality WERE an issue 500 years ago, it would be specifically mentioned negatively, instead of side references to what certain monks may do in monastaries. But again, they understood homosexuality differently.

ACXXVIII brings us full circle back to the beginning of this, too. In among those rules for the church is the acknowledgement that many things in Scripture, both OT and NT, were specifically not intended for all time. (see 28:62-65) One NT example was the prohibition of blood which had been relaxed by Luther's time. Slavery is one we know more recently, as is women's ordination. Now it's marrying homosexuals.

Finally, "committed, monogamous same-gender relationships" DO have a place. It's called marriage. Two people of the same gender can reap the same benefits of marriage that a heterosexual couple can. As a divine institution, homosexuals are called to marriage by God just as much as are heterosexuals. Christ's call to married homosexuals for ministry is the same call that married heterosexuals called to ministry hear. Matthew 28:19 sums it up pretty well. Also, more generally, the call of sinners to ministry can be found in the parables of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) and wedding banquet (Matthew 22:1-14).

Peter,
You wrote,"Even worse, that sort of statement sets the Bible up in place of Christ, since obedience to the Bible becomes more important than trust in Christ." that quote is one of the most ridiculous things I have read! Trust in Christ? The Spirit spoke through holy men of God in writing the Bible. The Spirit does not speak apart from Jesus (St. John 16:13f). If one trusts Christ, he will also trust the Bible which Jesus Himself defended. The Law shows us our sin, hence our need for a savior. The Gospel (euangelion) shows us our Savior. Where is the "good news" (gospel) if you try to minimalize or deny the Law contained in Holy Scripture? What good is it to be "saved" if there is nothing to be saved from, hence no need for salvation. Yet Jesus did not deny the Law, or see the Scriptures as a challenge to His rightful place. Rather than denying the Law (as some are in the habit of doing) and its penalty, instead he stood in our stead by suffering the penalty for our breaking His law in His once-for-all sacrifice. He was that ram in the thicket that Isaac might live. Jesus did not see the Holy Scriptures as a challenge to Himself and His proper place, threatening to take his place. Rather, He came not to condemn the Law, but rather to fulfill the Law. "Obedience to the Bible" is rather obedience to God and what He has revealed to us in the Bible. Christ, our atoning Sacrifice, fulfilled the Law's demands for repentant sinners. The Bible, which testifies to the Christ, is not a rival to the importance of Christ, but rather is the source of our understanding Of who He is and what He has done on our behalf.

"The only time we can truly talk about the Bible as the written Word is when Christ's death and resurrection is proclaimed through it--" What good is a messiah's death and resurrection to those who imagine the law as irrelevant to them? St. Paul asks, "Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? (Rom.6:1f.NRSV)." God's revelation to mankind through His written Word does not allow for your anti-nomian position. What good is a messiah's death and resurrection to those who believe that there is salvation outside of faith in Christ Jesus? What good is a messiah's death and resurrection to those who believe they can pick and choose what they care to believe from Scripture, and what they would rather consider myth. Why are some so afraid to consider that God is speaking to us in Romans chapter one? Because they know that they do not have a leg to stand on, and must re-fashion the Bible to fit their so-called theology, rather than letting God's Word in Holy Scripture interpret itself.

Interesting thought about Lutherans Concerned and Goodsoil being well funded, I wish it was true! I am flying to CWA from California on my own dime. It is hard for me to believe that those who support change are compliant. That is a term generally used for those who don't want change.

I meant "compliant" in the context that LC/Goodsoil have a lot of people in the upper echelons of the ELCA in favour of what they/you want.

Presiding Bishop Hanson (I saw him interviewed on Indianapolis TV in 2001; he left little doubt as to where he stood)

Bishop Peter Rogness

Presiding Bishop Emeritus Chilstrom

Those are some heavy hitters.

With all due respect, this "study" has been stacked from the beginning, as I see it.

I would never accuse "those who want change" as being "compliant." I lived near Indianapolis in 2001 and saw the demonstrations outside CWA turn into outright hooliganism, with many of "those who want change" taken away by the Indianapolis Police Department, and others screaming into the cameras about "spiritual abuse."

I was never so ashamed to be a member of the ELCA as on that day.

David,

If the study had been stacked from the beginning, we would never have seen that first draft statement (recall it condemned homosexuality) and this one would not be the middle-ground, wishy-washy, let's-vote-4-more-times-on-the-issue-before-maybe-possibly-allowing-congregations-that-really,-really-want-to-call-married-homosexuals-but-we-respect-your-bound-conscience sort of thing that it is. Instead it would lay out the Gospel, show how calling what God has created and called good a sin is itself a sin, and from there authorize ELCA clergy to marry homosexuals, ordain married homosexuals and exhort Christians to stand up for equal legal rights for homosexual couples.

This study is NOT the product of a stacked taskforce. Instead, I think it's probably the best they could do, given that people like you and people like me were both on the Task Force. If you and I were forced to sit down and come up with a draft sexuality statement, what do you think would happen?

On that we agree, about it being "wishy-washy."

However, I do think that the powers-that-be behind this are hardly objective (and no human being can be totally objective). What bothers me is the facade of "neutrality" that seems to be projected. If you're for or against, just say so, OK?

If you and I were forced to sit down and come up with a draft sexuality statement? I don't know what you'd be doing, old son, but they'd probably be showing me the door! Why? Because I would take an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude for ordination/marriage. However, I would (and do) fully support anti-discrimination/anti-violence measures in secular society. I was horrified by what happened to Matthew Shepard, and Fred Phelps and his lot nauseate me (partially because of what he does at veterans' funerals).

David,

I don't think the neutrality is a facade. I think there is a significant portion of the ELCA that believes allowances for homosexuals should be made, but still believe that those against the measure are not standing against God when they oppose this measure and think that both groups are together in Christ, even if they have this minor disagreement. There is a large chunk of middle-grounders, and those are the ones who have this compromise. This is not just a ploy by some ethereal "gay agenda" to sneak one past everyone. Lots of the middle-grounders don't want to commit one way or another, and as long as they can have it both ways, they will.

I also disagree that visions and expectations/the old sexuality statement isn't broken. It is very much in need of reform. I'm sure there were many on the Task Force that didn't want to do more than superficial change (if even that) and tried to keep things that way. However, I'm not sure they could entirely do that given the realities of the situation (at the very least, leaving means the middle-grounders and those like me hash it out).

Is it broken simply because, as written, it does not allow sexually active homosexuals to be called to the pastorate?

Of course (wink wink) we know how it has been enforced (wink wink) since the 2001 CWA (wink wink) and how "restraint" has been called for in its implementation (meaning: ignore it) since February of this year.

Peter, I saw Bishop Hanson interviewed on local Indianapolis TV right after 2001 CWA (an exercise in how NOT to conduct protests!), which most in the ELCA didn't see, since I lived near Indianapolis and most others didn't. He left little doubt as to where he stood on the issue. There was no neutrality at all.

I would dispute that the "middle-grounders" are the ones who want this so-called "compromise." And if this is a "minor" disagreement...well, again, I think that this CWA could well be the ELCA's "Seminex moment." Look at the congregations who have left for the LCMC and elsewhere over the past eight years, and the individuals who have left for the LCMS, WELS, Rome, evangelical nondenoms, Constantinople, etc. My wife and I spent almost eight years in the LCMS. The reason we finally came back to the ELCA was not really theological, but the (sometimes) unspoken assumption that all non-Lutherans (and some Lutherans) were "heterodox," and the almost-requirement to clear it with your pastor to attend things like community Christmas services. Also, they are STILL fighting over the 9/11 Yankee Stadium thing and how much of a flaming heterodox liberal President Gerald Kieschnick supposedly is.

We really like our congregation, and I can tell you that most of us are like-minded on this issue. Even our pastor (who went through Seminex) is expressing concerns about will we still be able to "walk together?" This time we don't plan to leave (actually, we were more or less "shown the door" from our congregation in '01), but neither will we comply with any directive or policy we believe to be contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.

Even the fact that the word "compromise" is being used shows that we are not really "journeying together faithfully."

David,

It's broken most clearly in that it does not acknowledge the participation of homosexuals in the divine institution of marriage and instead uses their participation as grounds for NOT rostering them. That is a failure to trust in God and hence contrary to the Gospel. When V&E is brought back into line with the Gospel, there won't be a conflict between obeying V&E and trusting the Gospel.

If you don't like this compromise, and I don't like it, and the middle-grounders don't like it, then who does?

I don't think it will be a "Seminex moment". For one, I think you identify those against homosexual marriage with those who formed Seminex. The profs I know who marched back in the 1970s have very clear feelings on this issue, and they are not congruent with yours. For another, no one is going to tell you to leave the ELCA. There may be policies you don't like, but the ELCA isn't going to even try to exert the authority the LCMS did in the 1970s. In fact, this resolution offers compromise in the hopes that people don't leave. Personally, I think congruence with the Gospel is more important than who does or does not leave, but as said before, this isn't anything approaching what I would like the resolution to be.

The other thing is that we're already 'all together' in the ELCA and we already have these disparate views regarding homosexuality. Insofar as we've been journeying faithfully together up to now, we're probably going to keep going.

Even if those in the ELCA do leave for other denomoniations, there's hope that they'll reform those denominations. A large influx of ELCAers into the LCMS could do them a world of good. The label isn't important; trusting Christ's promise alone and only and communicating that promise to others is.

I also know those who have gone through Seminex and its aftermath. My congregation was one of those LCMS-AELC-ELCA migrations.

What I mean is that because of Seminex, this denomination could lose a significant chunk of its membership and congregations just as the LCMS did back in the 1970s. There could also very well be someone assuming a similar position to Preus if V&E is overturned saying "it's policy, get behind it."

I say that partially because I've been there. Back in 2001, we had a pastor very much in favour of this "study." My wife and I questioned him repeatedly as to particulars on his own positions and how would this impact the Church and our congregation. His response was to preach a very venomous sermon against us basically saying "get on board or get out." We got out (it is the only time we have ever left a church service in progress) and were not invited to return.

You keep referring to "the Gospel." What "Gospel" do you mean and what is your source of revelation? How is not ordaining/marrying homosexuals "contrary to the Gospel?" What Biblical support do you have for your conclusions?

Remember what St Paul has said about "those who preach a different Gospel."

I know I'm stretching here, but what then is to stop blood relatives who want to "marry" from doing so, and have their "marriage" recognised by the Church?

Coming from a behavioural point of view, there has been so much time spent on this, and so much resentment, that I think it is at best overly optimistic and at worst extremely naive, to think that we'll just "muddle through" as if nothing has happened. I have done mediation and almost always I take the position to end the conflict as soon as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more resentment takes root, and resentment poisons reconciliation. There is more resentment within the ELCA over this than you seem willing to acknowledge.

At some point in a conflict like this, someone is going to think they got a "raw deal."

David,

While the ELCA might say "this is policy now and we're not changing it", I don't think they're going to force married homosexual pastors on any congregation that doesn't want it. That's the whole point of the wishy-washiness of the resolution... it's a commitment to try to keep people despite their objections to the changes. I think the leadership is trying to keep the Wars of Missouri in mind as they move forward
(hence the we'll vote 4 more times before we actually do anything about it nonsense). They're not going to say 'get out'. But they will say 'this is how we're doing things' and those who cannot tolerate that way of doing things will likely leave on their own. Even if we passed the resolution and all 4 votes in a couple weeks, there are going to be plenty of churches that don't follow it. Look at the historic episcopate stuff. I think there are very few people in the ELCA who put serious stock into that principle. People will leave over the homosexuality thing, but we're committed to Christ, not numbers. It is my hope that those people will help reform some of the chuches to which they go. It's high time we sent missionaries to those churches anyways. Alternatively, you can look to the Episcopalian denom, where they didn't have that large of a rift. Separtists did break away, but the Episcopals didn't throw them out. They left on their own.

Of course, that does not excuse venom, and reconciliation between people involves both parties. That's also why LC/NA and others speak more about dialogue instead of debate. It's an attempt to remember that we are all sinners together trying to live the Gospel.

It's funny that you bring up Paul's warning about false-gospellers. That is exactly why I think the ELCA must go further than its wishy-washy resolution and affirm homosexual marriage.

My Gospel is thus: Jesus Christ, though He was sinless, died on account of our sins and was raised from the dead by God. Out of mercy on Christ's behalf, God promises to forgive us our sins.

So, sinners are not made righteous by doing things "under the Law". Sinners are made righteous by trusting Christ's promise. Trusting that promise is a life-changing event. There is new life in Christ. This also gives us a new definition of sin. Sin is not 'failing to do the law', but it is lack of trust in Christ. (The Law certainly is useful in all three uses, but none of those uses are 'provide salvation'. The closest use is 'push sinners to Christ', which it does by revealing where we do not trust Christ and what the penalty war on God brings) John's Gospel (16:9) lays out sin clearly: "Sin is that they do not believe in me". Paul also points this out (Romans 14:23) "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin". In AC4, the Reformers laid out the measuring sticks by which we know if something is Christian, ie "in Christ". Summed up, those measuring sticks are: does the thing in question require faith in Christ alone and only? and: does the thing in question spread the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences comforted?

So, let's turn to the issue of two people of the same gender who are in lifelong, committed, monogamous relationships. That relationship has the exact same potential to help both of them uplift and maintain each other in Christian faith as does a heterosexual one. Also, it needs to be shown that a lifelong, committed, monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender fails to meet AC4 in order for it to be called sinful.

Although the jury is still out on the nature vs nurture, homosexuality is still something created by God. The one thing the sexuality statement is correct on is that sexuality is a gift from God. It is not something to be considered inherently evil or unclean.

Furthermore, Bonhoeffer's concept of the divine institution of marriage carries with it the implication that all save those few called to celibacy are called to participate in it. Luther similarly reflected on this in his explanation on the adultery commandment, and AC23 really lays out the universality of marriage.

So, how then does one live both acknowledging his homosexuality as God's gift and God's institution of marriage? To me, the only way out is marriage. Once we get to this idea that homosexuals are called by Christ to live in marriage with each other, standing in the way of that is standing in the way of Christ. By saying that homosexuals should not be married, one is denying the divine institution of marriage and trying to contradict God. When homosexuality is perceived as a sin, it's calling something that God has made bad, which is not trusting God. Pots backtalking the Potter wind up smashed pots.

It certainly wasn't "dialogue" outside the 2001 CWA when this process was initiated. It was not logic, and it was not reason. It was a load of screaming people demanding their "right" and some of them ending up with police records for it. I tried to find video on YouTube of it, but I was unable.

With all due respect, I think your idea that people who may leave the ELCA for whatever other denomination be "missionaries" is quite arrogant. Do you honestly believe that we in the ELCA are so "right" in our beliefs that we have to reform OTHERS? As I found out when we went from ELCA to LCMS eight years ago, you are joining THEM, they are not joining YOU. If one becomes a member of another church - LCMS, WELS, PCUSA, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodist - one agrees to accept THEIR doctrines, not to force YOUR personal doctrinal assumptions on them. Try joining the Roman Catholic Church and then telling Pope Benedict XVI that you're going to use birth control or have an abortion anytime you jolly well please.

A more extreme example is that when I joined the Air Force, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, obey the orders of the President, my State Governor (I was Air National Guard) and the officers appointed over me. If, on my first day of basic training, I would have suggested to one of my Military Training Instructors that "I think that the Air Force needs to reform X,Y,Z, and I'm here to do it," well, my life would have taken a turn for the worse: "PROSS, JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?"

Your appeal to AC is well thought-out, though I certainly wonder where you get your very wide interpretation of AC23. However, and others on this board have said this as well, we must go to the Bible first, and the Lutheran Confessions second.

If you believe that God created homosexuality and regards it favourably, then you have a vastly different interpretation of Scripture than any I have ever heard in the ELCA, LCMS or UMC. Homosexuality is one among many reflections of our fallen nature.

To appeal to science again, without getting too much into anatomy & physiology, the human body was not designed for homosexuality. The male body was not designed to copulate with another male, and the female was not designed to copulate with another female. It is impossible for a homosexual couple to reproduce by natural means.

Luther also had plenty to say about homosexuality (and before you say it, I am quite aware of what he also said about the Jews who refused to convert to Christianity and its horrible misuse by Nazi Germany):

http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~hankley/ChristEd/Collegian/Lutheran%20Church082307.html
(She even uses "wishy-washy")

http://www.elcic.ca/Same-Sex-Blessings/documents/eriksson2.pdf
This is from a pastor of the ELCIC in Alberta.

>>We have seen that Luther and the Lutheran Confessions do not have much sympathy for the notion that it is permissible to deliberately persist in sin. Since this is the case, we also then cannot justify the deliberate decision to persist in homosexual behaviour. If we allowed same-sex blessings, we as a church would in effect be saying that deliberate persistence in homosexual sin is acceptable. And if we did this we would be violating our ELCIC constitution and our ordination vows as pastors to teach and preach according to the Scriptures and the Confessions. We may not always like this fact, but this is the reality our
situation and the vows that we have taken as pastors. Luther and the Confessions state that one can lose one’s salvation for persisting in sin. This fact then has to inform not just our approach to homosexuality, but to other issues as well.<<

>>In the same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to “the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom as extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.<<

And then, where do we go after that? Do we allow/promote incest, since Abraham and Sarah were half-brother/sister?

You still have not shown Scriptural support for any sort of homosexual relations. The "lifelong, committed monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender" is not Scriptural in any way.

I really doubt Dietrich Bonhoeffer would have countenanced homosexuality.

I agree with you that because "out of mercy on Christ's behalf, God promises to forgive us our sins." However, Christ does not say to CONTINUE in sin. St Paul also says "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" Romans 6:1-2, NASB

I would also dispute that LC wants "dialogue." What they want is V&E overturned. I think they are making a lot of dangerous assumptions that they'll get what they want at CWA, and then we'll continue as one happy bunch singing "Kum Ba Ya."

I think you are sadly mistaken when you say that the ELCA won't tell anyone to leave over this. As I've related, what happened to my wife and I was very close to getting a boot in the tush. It says in my church's constitution that one can fall under church discipline for being a "troublemaker." I imagine other church constitutions say much the same. If there are those of us who refuse to comply with these revisionist doctrines, how long before we are labelled "troublemakers" and told to zip it or "there's the door?"

David,

One problem with this issue is that it reduces many factions down to 2 or maybe 3 sides. Not all of those factions have the right reasons, even if they're supporting the right decision by the ELCA.

As to missionaries, yes, I am so arrogant as to believe that the ELCA is closer to understanding Christ's truth than most other denominations, and certainly those that people would be joining. That doesn't mean there aren't individuals in other denoms (or even LOTS of them) who have faith, but other denoms do proclaim 'other' gospels. One or two people may not make a huge difference, but if a church gets a bunch at once, it will change to absorb them. I'm not saying that new people will (or need to) instantly start agitating for change in their new chruch, but if the issue of something like women's ordination does come up, I think they'll be more likely to support such a change. There is diversity within the other denoms, too, and my hope is that this will tilt the balance more towards the Gospel.

So to that Gospel. The Bible is useless to us without the proper lens through which we can read it. This is the problem many atheists have, for example, when they try to argue with Christians why Christians must try to follow cherry-picked sections of Levitical law. Our proper lens is the AC, specifically AC4. That lens does have Biblical support. It is Christ's lens and the one that he gave to Paul on the road to Damascus. Misunderstanding of sin is the very heart of Christ's mission. Look at the cleansing of the Temple, for example. The people Chrst drove out were performing useful services for pilgrims coming to make sacrifices. He drove them out because He rejected the entire Temple system (doing the Law) as a means to pleasing God. And look just how many Levitical laws He violated during His ministry. Those Levitcal laws WERE "the Law". There was no second cannon (NT) saying you could selectively ignore parts of the first (the OT). Then move on to Paul's letters, especially Galatians and Romans. The whole argument Paul dealt with there was whether one was under "the Law" once one was in Christ. Gentiles weren't just ignoring one aspect of the Torah, they were not doing ANY of it. Of course, this led to the problems Paul had to address later in Corinthians and elsewhere, where people read freedom in Christ as freedom from Christ. The difference there, though, is Christ. So the question becomes, 'do homosexuals in lifelong, committed, monogamous relationships walk in Christ?'. And we can see that answer in their ministry, as Christ's answer to John the Baptist in Matthew 11:4-5, as well as in Christ's statement in John 13:35: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another"

The LC/NA folks are quite content to play by the rules. They would like V&E overturned, but for the most part, they accept the rules. For example, how many gay couples have Lutheran pastors married thus far? That resistance isn't at the CORE level... even people within LC/NA aren't willing to rock the boat that much.

And I don't think there won't be hurt feelings out of this, but I think that comes far more from individuals losing Christ than from the policy decisions. Your pastor should not have preached a venomous sermon nor should any of us generally try to throw out false gospellers.

David,

Homosexuals can have kids just as easily, if not more easily, as barren couples. I don't think that works as an argument against homosexuality. It also doesn't mean much to try to argue from biology that people are designed for specifically heterosexual sex. That needs to relate to Christ. If we're looking to biology for God's ordainings, I'd say we're looking in the wrong spot. Studies in Drosophila show this best, I think. Male Drosophila will injure females during copulation, and there is no beneft to fitness for this injury. Can we conclude from that violent sex is something that God ordains? Or to look at sparrows, I think it's the seaside sparrow that uses 'scramble competition polygyny' as a mating strategy. Basically, that amounts to the males wandering around and copulating with any female they find, forced or not. That is hardly something ordained for us by God, and yet there's evidence in biology for it.

Good night nurse...believing that the ELCA is closer to Christ's truth than most and that an efflux of ELCA people into other denominations will help them "change"...that is the height of arrogance. At least you admit it.

I suppose then you also think the positions of LC are the "proper lens of which to look through Scripture."

The hurt feelings come from losing Christ? Come on! Don't be juvenile, man! That's tantamount to saying that those who hold to current (past) ELCA standards don't have Christ and the people seeking "change" do! Are you so naive to believe that what is going on will not have wide-ranging repercussions? Again, I approach this as a behaviourist. A lot of people in the ELCA feel this is being forced on them, and when something is forced on human beings, they usually dig their heels in and often take an adversarial posture. I've been mediating conflicts for too long to believe that this is going to have an easy resolution just by appealing to your idea of "Christ."

I won't even get into your biological rebuttal, except to say that if I'd used it in any of my biology theses, I wouldn't have passed the class. There is no way that a human male, having sexual relations with another human male, will produce children. Not unless you've seen Billy Crystal's movie "Rabbit Test" too many times.

I say this quite bluntly: You use "Christ" as an easy way out to advance your arguments. If what someone presents to you doesn't agree with your worldview, you say "we have to look at it through Christ." Do you honestly think that your "lens" is the only way to look "through Christ?"

Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the fact that Holy Scripture (which takes precedence BEFORE the Lutheran Confessions) NEVER presents homosexuality in a favourable light.

You haven't convinced me, and you are not likely to. I know that there are others in the ELCA who believe as I do, and we will fight against having this so-called "compromise" imposed on us. If that means we have "lost Christ" in YOUR eyes, so be it.

I have not asked your sexual orientation, and I won't, but somehow you must have a dog in the fight.

If this CWA produces a backlash - which often happens when a position is advocated too far - goes against what LC wants, will LC continue to "abide by the rules?" Somehow I think not.

David: You forget that scripture speaks negatively about homosexual behavior in a negative light because they had no idea of homosexuals. To speak of homosexual behavior negatively when all they knew of it was destructive behaviors between adult men and young boys was a fair conclusion. They could see the pain and suffering. Today, however, we are talking about homosexuality as a orientation for an individual. That orientation, we realize not can be expressed in a loving, committed relationship between two people. In that relationship the only one that sees the behaviors expressed there are the to same gender people and they see them as beautiful. Some people out side of that relationship don't like those behaviors and judge the homosexual relationship as evil because of the behavior. Oh, the problem of humans thinking or even trying to judge relationships let alone behaviors.
We just cannot grasp good and evil and make sense of it. We need to give up trying. Llet just evangelize for loving, caring, compassionate relationships and let behaviors come to that relationship as they will. God is glorified by such relationships and many of the behaviors that go with them.

David: You forget that scripture speaks negatively about homosexual behavior in a negative light because they had no idea of homosexuals. To speak of homosexual behavior negatively when all they knew of it was destructive behaviors between adult men and young boys was a fair conclusion. They could see the pain and suffering. Today, however, we are talking about homosexuality as a orientation for an individual. That orientation, we realize not can be expressed in a loving, committed relationship between two people. In that relationship the only one that sees the behaviors expressed there are the to same gender people and they see them as beautiful. Some people out side of that relationship don't like those behaviors and judge the homosexual relationship as evil because of the behavior. Oh, the problem of humans thinking or even trying to judge relationships let alone behaviors.
We just cannot grasp good and evil and make sense of it. We need to give up trying. Llet just evangelize for loving, caring, compassionate relationships and let behaviors come to that relationship as they will. God is glorified by such relationships and many of the behaviors that go with them.

David,

Out of curiousity, is it arrogance to say that I think the ELCA is closer to Christ's truth than atheism? How about Islam? Than Catholicism? A large part of the Lutheran confessions deal specifically with how Catholicism proclaims an other gospel. They've reformed some, but they're still not in-line with the Lutheran Confessions. Just to be clear, I'm talking about the church of these denoms, not individuals within the denoms.

The positions of LC is not the lens I'm advocating- it's considering things through AC4. There are plenty of LC and other folks urging the ELCA to adopt this resolution who are grounded in other gospels.

I was also less clear than I should have been about the fallout. What I should have said was that the problem is not any hurt feelings by themselves, but people using their hurt feelings as justificaton for acting in a manner contrary to Christ. Yes, that is human nature, but that makes it no less sin. One thing the resolution does correctly note is that we need to bear that in mind constantly during this entire discussion.

My position is that standing against homosexual marriage is contrary to the Gospel. You are correct that this is a very serious charge, and that it is an accusation that the ELCA currently does not adhere to the Gospel it is charged to proclaim.

So far as the biology goes, there's no way a barren heterosexual couple will ever have kids either. My point is that the church already does not require any ability to procreate in sex. And being a behaviorist, I'm sure you can understand that a homosexual couple can just as desparately want kids as that sterile heterosexual couple does.

As to lenses, I believe the one I have proposed is the one that the Reformers used and is the very thing that makes us Lutheran. Other denoms use different lenses, though I do not think they are the correct lenses. And without the correct lenses, we cannot clearly see Christ.

This lens doesn't trump Scripture, but is how we read Scripture. Abstention from blood was one of the things the Apostles forbade, but even by Luther's time had been relaxed (see AC 28:65). I don't think there are any portrayals of eating blood in a positive light in Scripture either.

I know that there are many who are going to fight this. I also know that this "compromise" isn't acceptable to me, either, and I will continue to press on. Really, all we can do is proclaim the Gospel and rely on that. Your statement-- "If that means we have "lost Christ" in YOUR eyes, so be it" could just as easily be mine. Funnily enough, I think we can both agree that we need to pray for trust in Christ, no matter which direction that ultimately is, or even if it doesn't matter.

As to what LC will do if this one goes against them, I think most of them will stick with the rules. They'll take it as one more defeat, and prepare for next time. The RIC program has been growing steadily, and realistically, there'll be even a 2/3 majority in favor eventually. A defeat here might galvanize the LC/NA folks to get behind a more confessional movement. Will church leadership discipline ELCA pastors who start marrying homosexuals, especially in states that provide legal protections?

PS Believe it or not, I'm actually a happily married (4 years) heterosexual. Most homosexuals I know, I've met at church. No homosexuals in the immediate family. I'd say that the Spirit has been stirred up in me, and I'm now along for that ride. I think this fight is illustrating the heterodoxy present in the ELCA, and I'd like to see the ELCA become more Lutheran.

I don't get it. Really. You say that this issue has exposed the heterodoxy present in the ELCA, and that you would like to see the ELCA become "more Lutheran."

Yet what you advocate is heterodoxy of the worst kind in that we disregard clear Biblical witness AGAINST homosexual behaviour.

You said that many who would leave the ELCA would likely go to denominations who don't (in your view) have a clear understanding of the Gospel. Most will likely gravitate to other Lutheran churches (LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCMC), virtually all of whom would challenge your view of what is "Gospel" and what is not. Also, I have seen examples in other denominations (PCUSA, UMC) who are currently doing a heck of a lot better in finding the balance between Law and Gospel than we in the ELCA have done.

I will never get your use of AC4 as justification for homosexual marriage. You seem to have completely ignored my quotes from Luther and from other Lutheran theologians.

Whether or not a state provides legal protections for homosexuals is irrelevant in the matter of an ELCA (or any other) pastor performing a homosexual "marriage." A state will not get involved, because of the First Amendment clause of "free exercise of religion." Otherwise, the state would have long ago intervened against Fred Phelps, or against churches who refuse to ordain women.

Believe it or not, I have no problems with civil unions. That is the kingdom of the left hand, and it would not involve the Church contravening Scripture and 2,000 years of Church teaching.

What you say about LC's future "tactics" again mirrors what I said about Quebec separatists in Canada. They've lost three referenda (1970, 1980, 1995), though the 1995 one was very close. The separatists openly admit that they are waiting for more "favourable conditions" to hold another referendum, despite the fact that the percentage of Quebecois in favour of separation is dropping.

Another parallel is Australia. They held a referendum in 1999 on whether or not to cut ties with the British Crown and become a republic. It was defeated. Even though the current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, favours a republic, he knows that to push it is not a good thing, because of backlash, and he has said that republicanism is not on his agenda.

Yes, I know that there are many homosexuals who want children. However, all the ones I have ever encountered in such a situation usually have children from a previous heterosexual relationship. No way do I countenance breaking that up. But I am also not in favour of a homosexual couple adopting a child. From a developmental psychology point of view, it is important for a child to have both a mother and a father figure.

You say that "the Spirit" has been stirred up in you. I would caution as to WHAT KIND of "Spirit." At the risk of sounding like Yoda, there are darker forces at work whose aim is to "divide and conquer" among Christians.

Given your own admission that "compromise" is not going to be acceptable to people like you or people like me, and that neither of us is likely to change, multiply that attitude exponentially. Doing so, I see very little chance that the ELCA will survive intact in its current form.

David,

Orthodoxy isn't doing everything the Bible says as exactly as we can. Orthodoxy is trusting in the Gospel promise alone and only. You cannot require anything of the Law once you are trusting the Gospel. Fulfillment of the Law follows from being in the Gospel but it doesn't go the other way around. The Law is certainly useful as a curb and as a mirror to reveal where we have fallen away from Christ, but note that it reveals the root sin--lack of trust in God. Sins are not against the Bible, but against God. Things like the Decalgoue DO prohibit things that lead to rebellion against God, but the problem is rebellion against God, not 'the Bible says it'. The test for what is and is not rebellion against God is AC4. Homosexuality in the context of a committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship is not contrary to AC4. In fact, being in such a relationship helps the faithful stay faithful to Christ in that they encourage and support each other in the faith and spread that promise to others. Those are the measuring sticks of AC4, and that means marriage is the proper Creator's ordaining for homosexuals.

Peter: I like what you have written in this post. I would be interested in what you think of my post made earlier. I believe what I write expands on what you wrote. What do you think. John

John,

I think the posts do complement each other and your point that Genesis demonstrates death is tied to our knowledge of good and evil is very important to remember when we talk about sin. The other important thing is to remember that the we die-- we are all still under the Law because of our sin. That Law further has a place in revealing where we sin-- I think you'd say where our relationship with God is broken-- and also in maintaining creation and preventing its abuse.

Peter:
I would life to describe sin like this: When Eve decided in the one "instant" before eating of the tree to turn against God that decision broke her relatioship with God. She was now separated from God, neighbor, and creation. That separation is sin. When she then ate of the tree in the desire to gain wisdom and gave some to Adam and then realized that they were naked, these three behaviors were sin(s) because they were expressions of unloving relationships (separation). . Notice the s on sins.
The separation (broken relatioships) is my description of sin. These three behaviors are sin(s) that express the separation. (sin) I would like to read your thoughts about this description of sin and sin(s) so far.I would then like to discuss further with you. Would you be open to that? John

Then I would like to discuss further with you.

John,

I'm up for further discussion.

I think sin goes further than just separation from God. I think at the root sin is war on God. It is our declaration of rebellion against our Creator. That rebellion manifests itself in many forms in our hearts and from there in our outward behavior and dealings with God and other men. For that rebellion, we are judged by God, and the outcome of that judgement is death and damnation. Given that we are all in rebellion against God, Christ is very Good News indeed.

I do think the relationship language is very useful, as it reminds us that sin does not arise because an action is contrary to some text saying 'this is a sin' but that sin arises out of our rebellion against God and failing to trust in Him alone and only.

I find the Crossings matrix- http://www.crossings.org/newsletr/lent96/lent96.shtml very helpful for keeping Law and Gospel (and hence sin) in proper perspective.

To the pastors who signed this open letter: Thank You for your faithful witness. It is my prayer that your words will not fall upon deaf ears. May God bless you as you continue to contend for the true faith set forth in the Holy Scriptures! Without them a church ceases to be church.

When a denomination willfully chooses to enter into apostasy, hasn't it walked away from the believers in Christ? How can they then "stay?"

We can "stay" grounded in the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions.

We can pray, including for those who disagree with us.

We can refuse to take part in and/or give assent to theological practices that are clearly unscriptural.

We can make known where we stand and not remain silent for the sake of organisational "unity."

Neither should we judge relationships that Christ may have died to heal.