The "victory" of the homosexual lobby and the consequent, near-inevitable crumbling of the ELCA was achieved by a very insistent, wear-them-down campaign.

Over the past eight-plus years, the revisionists never gave up, and many of the traditionalists, I believe, finally just said "heck with this" and departed for pastures new...playing right into their hands.

My (former) congregation and synod are in favour of this. Therefore, I will not stay.

I'm cashing in my chips and cutting my losses. It was hard to play fair when the deck was stacked and the dice were loaded.

Presiding Bishop Hanson and the rest of the ELCA brass are, at best, naive if they believe that the ELCA will just come together under some nebulous banner of "unity."

It always grated on me when other Lutherans said the ELCA was "no longer Lutheran." Now, I find myself sadly in agreement.

There is a fork in the road ahead for me and mine...one way is marked "LCMS" and one "TAALC."

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
1988-2009

We are told that no congregation will be forced to call an active homosexual pastor against their will, their “bound conscience.” Well, we have heard that line before: 40 years ago with women’s ordination. The words then were almost the same: the LCA/ALC would "honor the conscience" of churches which did not want to call a female pastor. That lasted a few years, until bishops started pressuring churches to call female pastors and punishing those who resisted. I know. It happened to my first parish after I left. It will happen now. It is a matter of time. Synods will elect bishops sympathetic to the revisionists’ cause. Seminaries will graduate more students in “committed, lifelong, same-sex, monogamous relationships” who will be seeking first calls. Bishops will need to find calls for them And then the pressuring will begin. (This is not a criticism of women’s ordination; I simply note how bureaucratic momentum works.)

I've read a lot of the discussion over ordaining practicing "gay" clergy, and most of it, from a "rank & file" member's perspective, is a very "inside baseball" discussion. As a rank-and-file member, I don't have the time (four kids, jobs, family etc.) to fight the "political" movements in the ELCA. So, the simplist solution and most time-effective is to vote with my feet. I am amazed that an elite leadership would be so righteous in their promotion of the gay agenda that they were willing to change a thousand years of tradition and "ignore" the view of members, clergy, and the true concensus in the church - this I find the most disturbing. So, like the commercial about your children, I don't, in fact, "Know Where My Church Is." And, I dont't have the time/energy to find out.

The following is an explanation, which I sent to my ministers, as to "why" this issue is so important to a "regular" member:

ORDAINING PRACTICING GAYS WILL REQUIRE THE ACCEPTANCE OF GAY MARRIAGE:

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

PROMOTING THE GAY LIFESTYLE AND MARRIAGE - WILL LEAD SOME PEOPLE TO "CHOOSE" THAT LIFESTYLE:

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

CANDIDATES FOR SEMINARY ARE DISCRIMINATED ON ALL KIDS OF FACTORS:

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

THE SAME ARGUMENTS WILL SUPPORT POLYGAMY EVEN BETTER:

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


SOCIETY HAS A RIGHT AND DUTY TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN:

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

OPEN MINDEDNESS IS NOT A "SAFE HARBOR" FROM CONSEQUENCE:

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


FIAT THROUGH ELITISM

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

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

THE 'ODDITY' OF PROMOTING GAY LIVING - WHILE ACCEPTING ABORTION ON DEMAND WITHOUT OPPOSTION:

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


A SIMMERING REDUCTION OF PERSPECTIVE:

When these controversies come up, some of the mainline churches eventually take what I would call the liberal path. From that, I see a continuing reduction of ideas as conservative members leave the churches, like that of a simmering sauce pan, until the only thoughts that are left are the "right" ones.

Since I'm reasonably sure that Luther's concept of "bound conscience" was not, and is not, a basis for church polity, and has been misappropriated in that respect, I'll be curious to see how the ELCA attempts to turn what was a doctrinal position into a structural basis for heterodoxy. Instead of Luther's "here I stand" speech, perhaps the ELCA should have paid more attention to Christ's admonition that "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

I agree with everything you say. I saw this coming two years ago, and my wife and I dicussed it with my pastor. His response made it clear that we would have to accept it or leave, even through our parish was conservative and orthodox Lutheran.

We cannot go against Scripture, or the teachings of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, or our personal consciences, so we have left and gone to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

What a change! All Scripture, all the time, Luther's teaching of grace through faith, and the determination to proclaim the Gospel. It's like a return to the Lutheran church of my childhood (I am 71 now).

I would strongly advise others of our persuasion to seek out and attend a WELS church; there is indeed somewhere wonderful to go!

There is absolutely no genetic scientific proof that a homosexual it born that way.
There are at least 84 studies that have verified that there are thousands who have left the gay lifestyle to find happiness in a fulfilling heterosexual relationship. There are books that have been written by former homosexuals who tell of what shaped their homosexual tendencies and how they were able to leave that lifestyle.
This plus clear biological diffences between males and females indicate clearly that a homosexual lifestyle is not not normal.
Those who are most intolerant this of this are the homosexuals who don't want to believe it is possible to change. That is also to deny the truth of the transforming power of Jesus Christ.

Prof. Hinlicky says, "The error, serious as it is, does not rise to level of apostasy or heresy."

People's salvation is in peril. This is not mere heterodoxy. Calling sin not to be so leads persons to the false conclusion that unrepentance in this case is ok. That leads to a denial of the need for God's grace. That flat out rejects God. Recall Jesus words about he who is ashamed of me and my words - of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory. It is apostasy as sure as I am living and breathing!

I wondered about that myself, but since I'm a schmuck in the pew and not learned as Professor Hinlicky, I didn't know what to think.

This isn't error. This is a deliberate act, of putting the Word of God and the direction of an entire denomination up for a vote.

If that isn't apostasy...I don't know what is.

You haven't seen the newest version of Confession in the ELW where we confess both "sins known and unknown". There's no denial of our need for Christ. There's also no requirement on 'knowing/reciting every sin that we have committed' placed on salvation... part of faith is that we trust God's promise for total forgiveness, not just forgiveness for the sins we know to name. (Another fun conundrum to consider is that by claiming to know all of our own sins, we're trying to set ourselves equal to God, which itself is a rejection of the need for God's grace.... and when we stand accused before God on Judgement Day, do you think we'll have the presence of mind to be able to even remember our names, let alone what sins we've committed throughout our life? Point is, whether or not homosexuality is ok, we're damned without Christ no matter how it is sliced).

If it was just 'the church is a little confused on what is and is not a sin', it really shouldn't be a big deal. The church isn't built on knowing sin, it's built on knowing Christ. Saying 'this is a sin' or 'this is not a sin' does not change any of the theology, especially in this instance. From this standpoint, all the bound conscience nonsense and the wishy-washiness of the resolution makes sense because it really isn't a big deal.

For those who believe the buck stops at the Bible, it still isn't necessarily a big deal. Some say the Bible says homosexuality is ok, and some say it isn't. There's still acceptance that the Bible is the final authority, even if there's some confusion over what that authority says. And really, going with the majority isn't necessarily a bad way of resolving that confusion when both sides stand firm in their belief that they're right.

In that sense, this resolution doesn't really change anything. It falls short of rooting out the biblicism in the ELCA because it does not address "liberal" biblicism. Despite this huge problem with "liberal" biblicism, how many times have people told homosexuals that they have to go along with Scripture even if homosexuals don't like it? And yet, now that you don't like the interpretation of Scripture, it's better to leave? That's entirely pride--putting yourself over God. What do you say/have you said to those homosexuals who have left the church over this issue in the past? Further, this resolution doesn't even go that far--it says that there are multiple interpretations and tries to provide machinery for both interpretations to work. For all the fear (where's your trust in God?) ruling the day over whether the compromise can work, the resolution doesn't actually compromise Biblical authority.

Fortunately, this resolution has left room for Christ. This resolution has through some miracle opened a lot of eyes to the acceptability of "conservative" biblicism. This is an opportunity to hang your hearts on Christ instead of on the Bible. Scripture derives its authority solely from its final Authority-- Jesus Christ. With faith in Christ at the helm, we can steer the ELCA away from the rocks of both "liberal" biblicism and universalism and to something we can call Lutheran.

I have an ELW, Peter.

I do not care at all for it, with its alteration of the Psalms to be completely "gender neutral," its altering of the Apostles' Creed, leaving out the Athanasian Creed, and many other issues.

Why can you not just accept what is? There are many of us who cannot, for reasons of "bound conscience" stay in the ELCA.

The ELCA has made its decision and has been fundamentally altered. It would not be good for those of us who are simply not in agreement to stay.

David,

I figured you didn't like the ELW. Parts of it annoy me, too. However, if the rule is 'you have to know/confess your sins in order to receive absolution', how do you deal with a confession of sins unknown to the confessor? (Or what about those whose memory no longer works.) This 'must know about your sins' line of logic leads straight into legalism, and a particularly ridiculous legalism at that. The requirement is properly, 'must know that Christ is the only solution for your sins'.

Whether people stay or leave the ELCA isn't a big concern to me because either way, it doesn't fix the grave problem about how they view Christ and the Bible.

However, my hope for those who do leave is that they help bring some of these other denoms closer to Christ. If the entire third of the ELCA that doesn't really like this sexuality statement left for the LCMS, it would do great things for the LCMS. In a way, I actually agree with Dr Hinlicky in that there is mission potential here to bring at least some version of the Lutheran Confessions to those who would otherwise reject it, and help correct WELS/LCMS misunderstandings of the same. It won't be perfect, but it's better than nothing.

All that said, however, I don't understand how a decision to leave because things didn't go your way is doing anything other than trying to please man in place of God. It's easy to repeat Christ's call to "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me", until the chips are down and you don't like the path ahead. It's both a claim that you know better than the ELCA (and all those within) what the correct path for the church is and a claim before God that you are in the wrong community. Those aren't claims to be made lightly and given what this resolution says after all the rhetoric from both sides is stripped away, not ones that I think can be immediately justified based on it. All this resolution really does is point out that the ELCA is of multiple opinions regarding whether homosexuality in the context of committed, monogamous, lifelong relationships is a sin. The implementing resolution tries to provide the machinery for these groups to be true to what they understand is said by Scripture. At that level, this resolution does nothing to turn back the biblicism rampant in the ELCA. The only break we get is that those who are against this solely on Scriptural grounds are so unwilling to acknowledge that they could be wrong (or that other readings of Scripture could be right) that this has turned into a large issue that has the potential to ask: why are we hanging our hearts on the Bible in the first place, instead of on Christ like we should be?

I think this is evident in some of the rhetoric used, too. It's all about the antinomians, universalists and 'liberal protestants' who fail to properly account for Scripture, and leaves out the liberal biblicists who put exactly as much faith in the Bible as you do, but understand the meaning of certain passages differently. It's easier to break away from someone labeled antinomian than someone labeled Lutheran. It also makes it important that the only ones labeled Lutheran agree with your interpretation of Scripture, and that need to keep everyone in line with exactly one interpretation of each Scriptural passage is essentially what the Pharisees did, what the Catholics of Luther's time did and more recently broke the LCMS 30 years ago.

A favourite argument of those who believe in, as I see it, all "Gospel" and no Law.

One thing to remember, that an ELCA pastor friend of mine told me over 10 years ago.

JESUS WAS QUITE POSSIBLY A PHARISEE!

Supporting evidence? There were only two major schools of Jewish thought at the time Yeshua of Nazareth conducted his Earthly ministry - the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the Sadducees did not.

Where would Rabbi Messiah Yeshua stand?

As regards confession...in my very-soon-to-be-former ELCA congregation, it was infrequent in the liturgy to have confession and absolution, and I know of no time that it was offered individually. That's not to say it wouldn't have been available for the asking, but it was something my former LCMS pastor stressed that he was always available for if you were burdened. I made use of it several times. Of course it is not possible to remember and enumerate every sin. Staupitz (I think) told Luther that. But God knows the heart and He will forgive sins known and unknown - if the sinner is repentant. But if the sinner says, "hey presto, society says this is OK, so it must not be a sin," that's a different story.

Athanasian Creed? It is on p. 54 of my good old LBW. I've got it open in front of me right now. It's long, and some of the language may seem "dry," but whattheheck, it is one of the three Ecumenical Creeds and is only used in services once a year on Trinity Sunday.

There was no reason to delete it from ELW.

I perused for the first time this morning the new Lutheran Service Book at the LCMS congregation we visited. Very well laid-out and user-friendly.

I have read your prior statements that you believe other denominations need to be brought closer to Christ, as the ELCA purportedly is. I thought it was bloody arrogant then, and I think it's bloody arrogant now.

If I weren't established here, I'd be on the first QANTAS to Melbourne and take up with the Lutheran Church of Australia, which has a midpoint between ELCA and LCMS. Since I can't do that, I'd rather err on the side of the LCMS.

No, old son, I don't claim to "know better than the ELCA." But it sounds to me like YOU are pinning YOUR theological stances on what the ELCA comes up with, instead of your repeated assistance on what you define as "through the lens of Christ."

But the facts are the facts. The ELCA is going places that I, in BOUND CONSCIENCE, cannot, and will not, go.

Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht sonst tun.
Anseo seasamh mé. Ní féidir liom a dhéanamh ar shlí eile.

David,

Trying to reduce 1st century Jewish thought to 2 schools is like trying to describe modern Christianity as either Roman Catholic or Protestant. You've left out the Essenes, who were also active during the 1st century as well as that blur of people from thoroughly Romanized Herodians to people like John the Baptist. It's possible that Jesus was trained as a Pharisee, but that only makes his repudiation of the legalist system all the more biting. Given what the Essenes believed, it's also possible Jesus was one of them. The big thing is that the primary conflict throughout all of Scripture, especially in the NT, is God's faithful/Christians vs the legal church establishment. This should demonstrate that as soon as we assert the primacy of the Law, we've lost the Gospel. That doesn't mean that we ignore the Law, but that we understand it solely in its threefold use.

So what's the difference between "being repentant" and forgetting/not realizing something is a sin and the repentant homosexual who does not believe homosexuality to be a sin?

I asked about the Athanasian creed because I have yet to hear it in a service and didn't find it when I looked through the LBW quite a long time ago. I don't really see why it should be removed, either.

Mission to other denominations may be arrogant, but is it anything less than what happened during the Reformation? If I thought there was a better understanding of Christianity than that offered by the Lutheran Confessions, I would adopt that Christology. I do want to say that this judgment against the other denominations is at a denominational level, not an individual one. Not that it really makes it any less arrogant, but I do want to clarify. I also don't think belonging to a particular denom automatically makes you more or less right; it's more about the theology of the denom and most of those promote "gospel plus".

I think I also need to clarify about the resolution and my stance on it. I'm not happy with it because it fails to look through the lens of Christ, as you point out. As consciences are bound TO THE GOSPEL (which the ELCA forgets) and I believe this to be a Gospel-matter, I believe one exercising one's bound conscience requires that they agree with me, so I reject that part, too. If anything, the point I'm trying to make here is that while this resolution brings church practice more in-line with the Gospel as regards homosexuality, it does so more by accident than design. This resolution does not actually deny a lot of things it's been accused of denying (though were it up to me, those accusations might be more understandable). This place the ELCA is going isn't really any different than where it was. It's just an open acknowledgment that the ELCA is actually divided on whether homosexuality is a sin (as much as we both might have hoped for a definitive ruling one way or the other). While it may be perfectly clear to you that homosexuality is a sin based on Scripture, it's perfectly clear to others that homosexuality is not a sin based on Scripture. However, that distinction does not destroy the entire house of cards built on Scriptural authority or even that understanding of Luther. Interpretation of Scripture to read that homosexuality is no sin does not alter anything else. Note that this interpretation I'm talking about here is not mine-- this is what I would call "liberal" biblicism.

While I don't object to those deciding to leave, it seems a bit like leaving over this is somewhat like being a sore loser. Things didn't go your way at CWA, so you're packing your bags and leaving. While I realize it's more complicated than that and there is a lot of spiritual questioning and anguish over any such decision, the comparison that I immediately see is to those who have been (and still are) trying to convince the ELCA to fully authorize homosexual marriage for the last 20 years. Some of these people have stuck with the ELCA for decades in the face of that rejection, and now a lot of people on the other side are ready to jump ship the moment it doesn't look like it's sailing exactly in their direction. It strikes me as a complete lack of trust in the church as an institution-- far more like an annulment than separation or divorce. I don't understand how you'll be able to trust any other church, when you can just move on to the next one the moment the pastor gives difficult teachings that conflict with your worldview.

"It strikes me as a complete lack of trust in the church as an institution"

First of all, Peter, you nailed a lot of it with that sentence.

Second of all, I don't trust ANYONE on this earth completely. That includes you, and that includes me. My study in the behavioural field has shown me otherwise, along with personal experience. I don't trust myself to always do the right thing, much less large institutions with egos jockeying for position. But I own my decisions. I don't blame them on others.

Many have noted Nazi Germany as the worst example of the excesses of human free will channelled into evil purpose. I won't dispute that, along with Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, My Lai and Abu Ghraib.

However, ANY of us are capable of evil behaviour. ANYONE. You, me, whoever.

Do some research on Stanley Milgram and the Yale experiment. Following that,
do some on Philip Zimbardo and the Stanford University Experiment. It's readily available, on the net or your neighbourhood library.

When I was in the Air Force, I learnt there were three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the military way. NO organisation can be completely trusted to do the "right" thing - which leads back to original sin.

There are lot more people ready to "jump ship" than you may think.

And for you to think that exercising one's bound conscience means to "agree with you," based on YOUR flawed, human conclusion that "this is a Gospel matter?" Just because you know homosexuals at your own congregation?

Do you really believe this Bravo Sierra, or are you just trying to be funny? If the latter, don't quit your day job. If the former, you are either incredibly arrogant (as demonstrated in your belief that other church bodies should conform to the ELCA understanding of "Gospel") or possibly delusional. Do you believe God speaks directly to you?

I am just not as idealistic as you seem to be. You put a lot more trust in the ELCA than I do any human organisation.

"I don't understand how you'll be able to trust any other church, when you can just move on to the next one the moment the pastor gives difficult teachings that conflict with your worldview."

You need not understand. In fact, you cannot. You don't know me, nor do you know my worldview.

Check yourself before calling me a "sore loser" if indeed you are doing so. That flies in the face of all the platitudes about there supposedly being no "winners" or "losers."

The fact is the fact. I am out of the ELCA. You do not have to understand it. You do not have to agree.

End of story.

David,

I think you misunderstand what I was saying about bound conscience. Excluding homosexuals from marriage and then using that exclusion to keep them from the ministry is contrary to the Gospel promise of forgiveness based alone and only on Christ's death and resurrection. Given that belief, bound conscience is meaningless, since any conscience bound to that Gospel is bound to agree with me. The issue instead is one of false gospels. The ELCA does not call this a Gospel-issue, and hence can try to leave things to one's conscience. That fact-- just how timid this resolution actually is-- is why many of these reactions to this resolution seem like overreactions to me. Especially this piece by Dr Hinlicky, talking about this as "a beginning of a purge". It's not much of a purge when the only ones leaving are those leaving by choice. It's possible to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy, but as you say, we own our own decisions and can't blame others for those decisions.

I don't expect the ELCA to always do the right thing. I don't even expect it to do the right thing more often than any other church. What is different is the grounding. The Lutheran Confessions are solid grounding and that is an advantage over other churches that need to (and sometimes do) reinvent the most important aspects of that wheel. However, LCMS and WELS both demonstrate how even that grounding can be made crooked. The ELCA may also have a lot of heterdoxy within it, but it gives room for the freely coursing Word. That is its advantage.

The part of leaving over this that I don't get is how you can expect homosexuals be part of a church that believes if they sin if they ever act on falling in love, but you won't be part of a church that says it might not (not even isn't, but might not) be sin. It seems like a double-standard to me, and it also seems to deny any authority to the church. I think it's also jolting to see how quickly you've lost trust in your pastor, whom it sounded like you previously trusted. If the pastor didn't see CWA and realize he'd been mistaken, it would suggest it was a mistake to trust him in the first place. I don't mean to make light of any betrayal you feel, nor do I know how trustworthy any of his previous pastoral care/sermons have been. You do know whether or not what he's said in the past has been worthy of your trust, and I assume you've accounted for that.

I pray your search to find a congregation that will nurture you in both Law and Gospel goes well and with a minimum of pain.

And also with you, Peter.

I don't want to get too much into the issues with my soon-to-be-former pastor. Suffice to say that I did not have him read as correctly as I thought I did, and he did a 180 from where I had erroneously thought he was. It wasn't terribly friendly either. We'll leave it at that, since I'm aware of Luther's take on the Eighth Commandment and I want any remaining ties to be severed in the way I hope it can be for dissident traditionalists who leave the ELCA - as cleanly as possible, with no more rancour than has already gone down.

As abrupt as it may have sounded, this was not a spur-of-the-moment decision. My wife and I had always said from the moment we came back into the ELCA, that if the homosexual activists succeeded in overturning then-current ELCA policy, then the chances were extremely good that we could not stay, dependent on what the congregation planned to do.

I mentioned my dear wife. I have not made these decisions in isolation; her thoughts and feelings have been an integral part. She said that she is sick and tired of all this conflict, all these "studies," all these votes, all these doctrinal alterations, what have you. I am in full agreement, bearing in mind that no human church body is perfect or 100% correct.

After visiting an LCMS congregation yesterday, we felt more at peace and less tension after church than we had for a long time.

Peter, you may think what the ELCA has adopted is rather tame and a compromise. Most dissenters don't see it that way. Most see it as the ELCA's leadership being in the pocket of the homosexual lobby from the getgo, and that there was no way they were going to allow ANY measure keeping traditional teaching in place. It may be tame by your yardstick of removing any restrictions on homosexual clergy, marriage, etc. in the manner of what I know of the United Church of Christ, or the Metropolitan Community Church, but to those of us who DO hold traditionalist views, it was like a kick in the teeth.

What made it especially galling was that such a very small body made this decision for the roughly 4.5M member ELCA. In all good, bound conscience, this should have been put to a churchwide referendum, with every baptised member of every ELCA congregation voting. This quasi-Electoral College "system" (I have no use for the national Electoral College) has not served the ELCA well.

So, Peter, I hope that makes things a little more clear on my part, and sheds more light than heat.

David,

I'm sorry to hear that things went that badly with your pastor.

I think perceptions may be a large part of the problem about this issue. I don't think the ELCA leadership is being controlled or even heavily influenced by "the homosexual lobby". Were that the case, I don't think the synod votes would have gone as they did, and this resolution would not have left any room for "traditional teaching". I don't think any real compromise could have left an across-the-board denial of active homosexuals in the ministry. That's a decision clearly supporting the "traditional teaching". I can't imagine how the resolution could be more in favor of "traditional teaching" and still be a compromise. Lots of successive votes, and it leaves open the 'don't want an openly gay pastor? don't have to call one' option and makes a point of respecting "bound conscience". Is there room for those ELCA bishops who feel strongly about this to try to strong-arm a congregation into calling one anyway? Of course, just like there's room for ELCA bishops to make life extremely difficult for those openly gay pastors. Both are going to happen, and I think that's mostly going to be independent of organizations like LC/NA or CORE. But a lot of it comes down to what you hear. Rush Limbaugh, for example, paints a very different picture of America than what Obama or even Ron Paul do, and that's not even getting to a "far left" viewpoint. I think one of the very real errors that has been made by "traditionalists" is setting this resolution up as exactly what those radical "gay agenda" folks want. At the least, I hope I've made it clear that this resolution is not satisfactory to me. It's better than nothing, but it is clearly a compromise. It's not a matter of trying to sneak something past you guys with the intention of starting down a slippery slope. If anything, it will actually make the ELCA less likely to want to come into line with what I want because we have the compromise now, and we are expected to "respect bound consciences", regardless of the Gospel-issue present. In this sense, the more agitation by "traditionalists", the better. But I suspect that apart from a few bishops who are very strongly in favor of including openly gay pastors, the bishops are largely going to let churches pass the resolutions Sarah Wilson mentioned and try to leave well enough alone. I'd expect in some synods (Dakotas, SW Pennsylvania/Ohio area), the bishops are going to go the other way.

One of the problems is our tendency to focus on what could be, instead of what is. Bonhoeffer's contention that ethics must consider the concrete and real means we need to focus more on how we live in Christ exactly here and now with everything that has passed and trust God with the future. We KNOW there are going to be problems in the future no matter what happens, but they don't matter so long as we put our trust in Christ.

I think it would be interesting to see how a referendum would have gone, but I think the synod memorial resolutions are very telling (and indicative that it isn't just a minority of the ELCA that is pushing this on an unwilling church like some would have us believe). There are some synods that passed memorial resolutions calling for marriage to remain limited to one man/one woman, and a few calling for 2/3 vote on the issue, but the majority of the synods passed resolutions in favor of the sexuality statement and the resolutions. And synod assemblies include direct representation from the constituent congregations.

Peter, if you haven't done so already, I would suggest you read Luther's 1539 treatise, "Against The Antinomians."

I believe that the ELCA, with the corner it has turned, is now closer to Johannes Agricola than to Martin Luther.

David: I thought God forgave us once and for all while hanging on the cross. Check that out in the Gospels. True, we may not experience that gift of forgiveness until we receive it with repentance. But this very point of how God forgave us speaks to how we see the law and sin in our relationship to Christ day in and day out.
Also check out Romans for an even better understanding of the law of sin and death and the law of the Spirit. I mean really study it not to find a proof text but to capture Paul's meaning.

I have studied Romans, John. At least as much as you have, probably, unless you've done it in the original Greek, in which case you're one up on me.

I have read it in the KJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, REB and ESV.

My conclusions stand.

I would recommend you look at the role of the Office of the Keys in withholding absolution from an impenitent sinner.

Read Romans? Okay, lets do that.

Romans 6:12-15
"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!"

That seems pretty clear that even if we are freed from the Law we are still to resist the Sin in our flesh

Maybe people will protest that God made them that way so why would God punish them for it?

Romans 9:19-21
"You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"


Or later, it says to make no provisions for the flesh, to gratify its desires...

Romans 13:13-14
"Let us walk properly as in the daytime,not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."

The Sexuality Statement and SS clergy accomdations is nothing if it isn't accomodations to gratify earthly desires. Seems to me Romans is pretty clear on the subject, thanks for suggesting the study.

Study Romans some more but this time concentrate on the Gospel in Romans not just the law. See how Paul applies the Gospel in relation to the law. Feed me only Gospel texts this time and apply them. John

The Gospel that God is the God of the circumcised and the uncircumcised alike, that through faith we are all justified, Romans…

Romans 3:29-30
"Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."

Paul makes it abundantly clear that we do not overthrow the law by this faith…But we uphold it and even though we fail we are justified by faith. But it doesn't say we don't have the law anymore, it says the exact opposite of that line of thinking.

i SEEM TO HAVE TROUBLE GETTING YOU GUYS TO READ BEYOND CHAPTER THREE IN ROMANS. PLEASE NO MORE PROOF TEXTS ABOUT LAW. NOW GIVE ME SOME PROOF TEXTS ON Gospel from chapter four through eight. Tell me what Paul writes about how the law is seen since Christ set us free from sin and death. Thats under the Gospel. Tell me why life in the Spirit is peace and life.

My first post was from Chapters 6, 9 and 13, then I posted a quote from chapter 3 and you complain that I don't quote from chapters 4 to 8? Ho about you post the verses you think disprove the verses I've already quoted.

James: I can't disprove what you have said because what you wrote is what it says, but you did not put it in the context of Romans 8. Read there about the law of sin and death and how the righteous requirement of the law has been fully fulfilled in us who are in Christ Jesus. Even though we are still sinners. Tell me about the life in the Spirit. Thats Gospel. Tell me about our new relationship to the law because of Christ out of which comes freedom. Tell me about how my spirit is alive because of righteousness granted to me through faith as a gift. Tell me about Luther and his wonderful commentary on Romans. The way you are using law and backing it up from Romans is a denial of what Paul is really saying which is Gospel. The way you are using the law has no power to change anybody or anyone. The way the Spirit uses the law leads to life and peace.If you think someone needs the law to set them straight your just going to have to trust the Spirit to do his work on the person who is in Christ. Pray for the Spirit to do His work. In so doing you are fulfilling the law Christ called us too which is above all of the others, "Love God with all your heart soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself" Thats the law we need to fulfill in our relationship towards the homosexual. And only the Spirit can grow us to that kind of love. Share the Godpel with me, please. John

You call on Luther and Paul to sustain your position, but you do not quote them. Here, I'll quote Luther talking about Paul's letter to the Romans:

" In chapter 6, St. Paul takes up the special work of faith, the struggle which the spirit wages against the flesh to kill off those sins and desires that remain after a person has been made just. He teaches us that faith doesn't so free us from sin that we can be idle, lazy and self-assured, as though there were no more sin in us. Sin is there, but, because of faith that struggles against it, God does not reckon sin as deserving damnation. Therefore we have in our own selves a lifetime of work cut out for us; we have to tame our body, kill its lusts, force its members to obey the spirit and not the lusts. We must do this so that we may conform to the death and resurrection of Christ and complete our Baptism, which signifies a death to sin and a new life of grace. Our aim is to be completely clean from sin and then to rise bodily with Christ and live forever.

St. Paul says that we can accomplish all this because we are in grace and not in the law. He explains that to be "outside the law" is not the same as having no law and being able to do what you please. No, being "under the law" means living without grace, surrounded by the works of the law. Then surely sin reigns by means of the law, since no one is naturally well-disposed toward the law. That very condition, however, is the greatest sin. But grace makes the law lovable to us, so there is then no sin any more, and the law is no longer against us but one with us.

This is true freedom from sin and from the law; St. Paul writes about this for the rest of the chapter. He says it is a freedom only to do good with eagerness and to live a good life without the coercion of the law. This freedom is, therefore, a spiritual freedom which does not suspend the law but which supplies what the law demands, namely eagerness and love. These silence the law so that it has no further cause to drive people on and make demands of them. It's as though you owed something to a moneylender and couldn't pay him. You could be rid of him in one of two ways: either he would take nothing from you and would tear up his account book, or a pious man would pay for you and give you what you needed to satisfy your debt. That's exactly how Christ freed us from the law. Therefore our freedom is not a wild, fleshy freedom that has no obligation to do anything. On the contrary, it is a freedom that does a great deal, indeed everything, yet is free of the law's demands and debts. "

Its abundantly clear that we are free from the penalties of sin, but we are NOT free to do whatever we want. Tell the people that through Jesus they can control their flesh and avoid the penalties of sin, but we must tame the flesh, "we have to tame our body, kill its lusts, force its members to obey the spirit and not the lusts. We must do this so that we may conform to the death and resurrection of Christ and complete our Baptism, which signifies a death to sin and a new life of grace."

Is getting married giving in to those lusts, or "a wild, fleshy freedom that has no obligation to do anything"?

This is the issue, not 'is promiscuous or casual sex bad?' Can you show that sex within a committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship (aka marriage) is giving into lust?

Jesus says God created us male and female so that a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife…

Matthew 19
"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

Paul says that marriage between one man and one woman is the only acceptable marriage for a Christian (ruling out all other variables), because it is the representation of Christ marrying the Church.

Ephesians 5
”Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”

And as such, Christ cannot marry Christ, and the Church will not marry the Church, anything other than one man and one woman is not in God’s design.

And Luther says, when talking about he 6th commandment:
“But since this commandment is aimed directly at the state of matrimony and gives occasion to speak of the same, you must well understand and mark, first, how gloriously God honors and extols this estate, inasmuch as by His commandment He both sanctions and guards it. He has sanctioned it above in the Fourth Commandment: Honor thy father and thy mother; but here He has (as we said ) hedged it about and protected it. Therefore He also wishes us to honor it, and to maintain and conduct it as a divine and blessed estate; because, in the first place, He has instituted it before all others, and therefore created man and woman separately (as is evident), not for lewdness, but that they should [legitimately] live together, be fruitful, beget children, and nourish and train them to the honor of God.”

As to burning,
1 Corinthians 7:2-3
“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.”

James,

In Matthew 19 Jesus is in no way affirming that it must be 1 man/1 woman. He's speaking to a case on divorce where the example at hand is 1 man and 1 woman. The other examples also don't clearly exclude 2 men as they're talking about marriage in general. Is the language they use man/woman? Sure, but many people today would use that language when talking about marriage, even if they fully intended to include homosexuals. Note how the NRSV translates the Greek "brothers" as "brothers and sisters" because those passages clearly mean 'those in Christ' and not 'only men'.

More seriously, though, this is misunderstanding of AC23 and what the Reformers had to say about the secularity of marriage. Marriage can (and has) changed over time, and this in no way means different times are more or less right about marriage. Consider the positive portrayal of polygamy of the OT. Or even consider that 1000 years ago, one got married at 14. Or, more importantly, that marriage is different in different cultures.

The rebuttal to Jesus’ position that he wasn't talking about “Marriage” in general because the topic of the question he was answering was about divorce, is a misnomer, an attempt to misdirected our attention from the words themselves and be distracted. The idea tries to insert a proposition into Jesus words that weren’t in the original statement.

But a closer reading reveals what’s really going on. Jesus was giving the 'background' of the situation before giving his answer to the question; the question of divorce was not yet being addressed at the point I quoted. The statement Jesus made was the established and agreed to surroundings of the scenario for the purpose of understanding the answer he was about to give. So when Jesus says: ""Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" he was not yet talking about divorce at all, he was describing marriage and reporting who designed it and who it was originally and purposely created for, and creating a common ground that the audience would understand and immediately have to agree to be the foundational truth of what Marriage is. And then, with that in their minds, he then says, “therefore” and gives the answer about the divorce question, and an answer that increases the inflexibility of marriage and it singular purpose.

Also of note, Jesus doesn’t loosen the laws of marriage, he doesn’t make them easier, in fact Jesus compounds the rules and makes them more stringent. Shockingly so to his contemporary audience. How then can we now try and pretend that Jesus somehow softened or relaxed God’s rules for marriage? The coming of Jesus made marriage laws more defined, not less defined.

When you said: “The other examples also don't clearly exclude 2 men as they're talking about marriage in general. Is the language they use man/woman?” But it seems you aren’t hearing what they are saying at all. Paul isn’t simply using man and woman interchangeably, he is describing specific roles in marriage for each of the to two participants in marriage to fulfill. The bride is the church, the groom represents Christ. These are not interchangeable pieces, they cannot be changed to genderless language. Christ does not marry Christ, the Church Bride does not marry another Church Bride. The roles in marriage are defined, the expectations for each participant is made clear. The language used isn’t accidental language at all. If Christ Marries Himself then the Church is damned. If the Church marries another Church instead of Christ, then the Church is damned again. Paul clearly explains that the man and woman expectations in Marriage are clearly designed by God and intentionally designed to remind us of Christ our Lords relationship with us via the Church, AND men are held to a higher expectation in personal behavior in our marriages because we are expected to behave as Christ behaves towards the Church, and for women they are held to a higher standard too as they are expected to behave as the Church behaves towards Christ as Lord. The roles described are clearly one man and one woman and there are no other variables possible.

As to marriage being viewed differently by other cultures and in different times, how is that relevant to NT Christians born of the Spirit and washed in the blood of Christ? Christ brought us into his covenant, Paul helps us understand the parameters of this new Good News and Luther helped us to understand that it all applies to us and for us for all time (or until Christ returns). But what would you have us do with such an argument as that one? Are we to change the definition of marriage because Muslims (for example) have up to four wives and they may refrain from converting because Christians have only one? Should we make new rules to allow the Muslim convert to preach from the pulpit with his four wives in the pews? Should we allow the convert from the cultures that approve of sexually open marriages to maintain their marriage expectations after converting and proclaiming the gospel from the Christian pulpit? Should we endorse and accept every type of marriage in the history of humanity? No, we should not. As Christians we should shape our definition to the definition found in scripture. As the representatives of Christ on earth we should endorse what Jesus said and taught, not what we want Jesus to say nor should we dismiss what Jesus said and taught, less we not me “Christ”ians anymore.

James,

You rightly point out that Jesus is providing context, but He is providing context for His audience, who were 1st century Jews. At the time, the concept of a Jewish homosexual was much like an orange on a seder plate, or it's like suggesting Jesus specifically spoke to the modern use of blood products in medicine. Speaking about homosexuals, even in the case of providing context for a divorce case, does not relate to the matter and hand and does nothing to provide context for his speakers. Omission is not the same as 'it must be this way', nor is 'this is A way' the same as 'this is the ONLY way'. To put it logically, if a leads to b, it is logically incorrect to say that -a leads to -b. All you can say is that -b leads to -a. All you have from Christ is a statement about a, not a statement about -a. The Reformers made this clear when they put marriage in the secular realm-- as "a way", not "the way", or even automatically "a way to Christ". Incidentally, though, permitting marriage to homosexuals is tightening marriage for them, not loosening it. Right now, there are no/very few legally acknowledged rules for married homosexuals. By extending marriage to them, we permit the Law its social use in protecting and upholding those relationships that can nurture the Christian faith.

In regards to Ephesians, the man/woman distinction is not made because of the anatomical parts, but because of gender roles. The man is compared to Christ and the woman to the church to both convey the importance of love in a marriage relationship and simultaneously convey the importance of Christ for the church. It has nothing to do whether either person was anatomically male or female and everything to do with the fact that in that culture the man was in charge and the woman was subservient to him. I suspect if you asked married homosexuals, you'd find that those exhortations speak to them as well. Do you believe in 7 literal days of creation because Genesis describes it thusly? Does not believing in 7 literal days of creation break that part of Genesis?

You do raise a good question: "how is that relevant to NT Christians born of the Spirit and washed in the blood of Christ?" However, that question is very much the same one that must be asked for us today: "how is marriage in the first few centuries AD relevant to Christians today born of the Spirit and washed in the blood of Christ?" The criterion for being a part of Christ's covenant is faith in Christ alone and only. If Paul and Luther make anything clear, it's that the moment the church tries to "decide the rules", it stops being the church because that freely given promise of Christ ceases to be free. Are there still rules? Yes, but that is God's prerogative, which we understand to be embedded in the very foundations of government, family, marriage, labor, etc. Most importantly for this discussion, marriage is ALWAYS something presupposed. Jesus starts with the presuppositions of His audience. The adultery commandment starts with the presumption that marriage exists; hence Luther can say that the commandment encourages marriage. And the role of the church with respect to these other estates is to speak God's redeeming Word to them. That's not the same as 'setting the rules for those estates'. Note especially how the church's own rules are supposed to go ala AC28: 'any set of rules that does not contradict the Gospel is ok.' However, it adds a specific reminder that requiring rules other than faith contradicts the Gospel.

On to the sticky question of other cultures' marriages. I don't see how "sexually open" marriages are marriages, let alone how that constitutes placing any trust in one's spouse and I can see how it leads to brokenness. Certainly in the US, it is a betrayal of our understanding of marriage. Similarly, I think polygamy doesn't generally end well, especially in the US. But in a predominantly Muslim culture, where polygamy is the norm? Should the man with 4 wives be forced into the choice between converting to Christianity and casting three wives into poverty and social ostracism, or remaining Muslim and properly caring for and loving all of his wives? How can he claim to be a Christian if in so doing he is condemning people he loves to a fate worse than death? And if that man is called to proclaim the Gospel, you stand opposed to God Himself if you try to keep him from proclaiming it, no matter who he is or what he's done.

For the sake of the format here I think long rebuttals are cumbersome and perhaps even unwelcome, but I will try to cut to what I think is the crux of the matter, the essence of what you and I are disagreeing about…

Peter Said: You rightly point out that Jesus is providing context, but He is providing context for His audience, who were 1st century Jews.
And later Peter said: "how is marriage in the first few centuries AD relevant to Christians today born of the Spirit and washed in the blood of Christ?"

I say:
I do not believe that Jesus was talking only to 1st century Jews. I believe that all of Jesus messages and revelations are for all people for all time. When Jesus said we are to give unto Caesar things that belong to Caesar, and to give to God things that belong to God, he didn’t mean for that to end just because the government no longer has a Caesar. When Jesus says "Take, eat; this is my body." He didn’t mean for it to end just because gentile Christians two thousand years later would have next to no concept of what a Jewish Passover Seder meal would mean to his 1st century Jewish disciples. And in the same way, when Jesus says, “God created them male and female so that…” he wasn’t only talking to 1st century Jewish culture, he was talking about thousands of years before them and extending that context to all of mankind for all time.

Peter Said: Omission is not the same as 'it must be this way', nor is 'this is A way' the same as 'this is the ONLY way'.

I say: There is no possible way for God to have created more than one “in the beginning God created them so-and-so…” And as such, Jesus isn’t saying this is “A way”, no, he is saying this is “The way”. This is THE way God created it, and as such any other possible variables are eliminated because they weren’t the way God created it. There was one way created and Jesus told us what that was.

Nevertheless, what I think is the real contention between us, is that you seem to be implying that you think what was right for the 1st Century Christian is not right for us, what is right for us is not ‘right’ for Muslims, what is right for Muslims is not right for the Hindu etc., etc., etc. But I disagree. When I put on the baptism of Christ, and I consume the flesh and blood of Christ and I proclaim the Good News of Christ, I am no longer my own. I am not European, I am not African nor Asian, I am not young or old, I am not male nor female, but I AM representative of Christ in me and Christ’s message is timeless. Neither Christ’s message nor Christ’s salvation cannot be bottled up into a dichotomy of differences between then and now. What Jesus said then is true then and true now, what the NT teaches then continues to be true now, and will always continue to be true, or else God is not faithful. IF it were otherwise, where would the promises of our salvation through Christ be? IF Christ is abbreviated and condensed because he is ‘out-of-date’ then Christ is not our God and our hope for Life is lost.

But praise be to God, God does not change, God is not fickle, God is Faithful and Jesus Faithfully reveals God to us, he didn’t reveal God only for 1st century Jews.

James,

I think this is part of our disagreement. The words of Christ are just as the rest of the Bible. That is to say that there are certainly ideas and statements that are eternal and apply to all of us. But there are also statements and ideas that apply to their specific time. As you point out, Caesar in the 'render unto Caesar' does not literally mean Caesar and only Caesar, but speaks instead about gov't and the Christian's relationship to gov't. Likewise with marriage, He is not saying that it literally must only be 1 man/1 woman, but is speaking to the marriage relationship between two people and that marriage is one of God's ordainings.

The other part comes to what is "right" for Christians. On one hand, I totally agree that when proclaiming Christ all other distinctions are unimportant. However, it sounds like you're applying that to mean the European must act exactly as an African must act exactly as a man must act exactly as a woman. We're a lot more diverse than that, and what those distinctions being unimportant means is that differences are ok so long as they do not obscure the Gospel. For example, the rules on ordained pastors. HE is fine here, but no HE is also fine, and people in Africa are ministering God's Word and Sacrament without any ordination. They're all part of the same eternal Word. That means Christ's message can fully apply and is truly eternal in any society, no matter how it is ordered.

Unless you can show in scripture that I am disproved in thinking Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said OR you can by clear arguments of scripture show how Jesus didn’t mean what he said, my assessment is that we need to stand with the word of God. You have said repeatedly that Jesus did NOT mean what he said about God creating Man and Woman and you would have us believe that Jesus can not speak clearly and or Jesus changes his mind when he’s talking to a different audiences, but you have not stated WHY you think Jesus wasn’t actually talking about a man and a woman when he said he made them man and woman. Do you have any reason to think that Jesus didn’t mean it besides you don’t, and we can plainly see that we are still men and women, why would we have cause to think Jesus didn't mean it for us?

I think Jesus meant governemnt when he said Caesar because he was talking about the government that collects taxes. Its a clear move from one to the other. But when Jesus says, God created them male and female, there is no interconnection to what you are saying.

Regardless of our race and cultures, there is one gospel, there is one Christ, there is one version of marriage described by Jesus as original and created by God for us.

James,

Look to 1 Timothy 4, especially verse 3a. AC 23 and 28 (esp 65-70) also indicate that human customs (such as marriage) need to fulfill the needs of God's people in the current age.

I think Jesus said 1 man/1 woman both out of clarity (he was not giving a lecture on human sexuality, but reminding them marriage was a divine institution) and because the example at hand was a heterosexual union. What's important is the union and that it is a divine institution. I think the importance He attaches to marriage should make it clear that marriage is for everybody. That is certainly the take of the AC, especially in Article XXIII. It's similar to your explanation of the 'render unto Caesar'-- you're focusing on taxation rather than specifically who is authorized to collect taxes. A democracy is much different than an Imperial government, and you won't find Scripture addressing the authority of a democracy, either.

More importantly, marriage isn't a divine sacrament, and that means the church is not the regulator of that estate. Note in Corinthians where Paul says that marriages to and between non-believers fully count as marriage. There is no such thing as "Christian marriage", but rather there is marriage between two Christians.

I think that your are running circles around your own position. You said about Marriage that "it is a divine institution" but then you say it's not a sacrament so the Church has nothing to do with it. You said Jesus reminded them that "marriage was a divine institution" but you also said that you don't think there is any such thing as a Christian Marriage.

You seem to have forgotten all the verses we've already covered, where Christian Marriage is directed by scripture to be the same expression of Christ and his Church relationship for the Husband and Wife relationship. The very essence of Christ's self sacrificing love for his Bride is the same Love that the Christian Husband is to have for his wife, and yet now you say there is no such thing as Christian marriage? Sceular marraige and non-Christians could not be expected to act like Christ when they aren't even Christians, scripture would have no point is talking or addressing secular marriage.

How you argue that a "Divine Institution", by your own admission, can be defined for the church by only the outside Secular world I do not know, it seems like a dysteleological argument to me rather than a theological or scripturally based position, to suggest that the Church disregard the scripture in favor of the secular opinion.

You argue that marriage should be for all, and the AC clearly agrees. You now though want us to redefine what marriage is so that non-described relationships are included as well. But there is no biblical precedent for such manuevering, there is no scriptural need or biblical standard by which we can add to the scriptural definitions already provided in the scripture. All Christians are already allwed to marry, but only to one other and of one of the oppossite sex. Your previous arguments have made it abundantly clear that you don't think a persons genetalia is of any importance, then if that is so, the requirement that our spouses have different genetalia than our own should be an easy enough direction for us to obey, but I suspect you will argue otherwise.

James,

Marriage is a divine institution in that it is ordained by God, not that it takes its orders from the church. Similarly government is a divine institution ordained by God, but separation of church and state is explicitly outlined in AC28 where it clarifies that the power of the sword is NEVER an ecclesial right. Those institutions have specific functions, but are part of God's left-hand work which means they're malleable. When Christ says "Render unto Caeser" does that mean the ideal gov't is Imperial Rome? When Paul is affirming legal authorities, does he really mean we ought to have rulers like Nero? There's no Scriptural precedent for democracy! Similarly, we see with marriage that God's people have viewed this institution differently over time. Although the clearest contrast is between the polygamy of the OT and the request in Timothy that bishops only keep 1 wife, marriage has also changed a lot between the 1st century and now. For example, how old is old enough to be married?

Ephesians speaks to an example of how Christians could behave together in marriage. If anything, it applies the law of love to marriage. That's ethos under the Law, which incidentally means non-believers are also expected to live up to it, since the Law is for everyone.

Biblical precedent for changing secular rules starts in the OT, but is most clearly emphasized by Jesus and later Paul in his arguments against the Judaizing Christians. If the rules Paul threw out as 'no longer relevant' aren't enough, the AC admits to this practice as well. Check out AC 28, especially 65 where it points out the abstention from blood no longer holds.

I agree when you point out that God’s people have viewed marriage differently over time. Since then though Jesus has clarified for us the foundation of marriage and God’s intent for it. Then Paul clarified the methodology of how Christians are to institute marriage and how it is to by applied for those in the church and he made it clear. Only now some try to obfuscate the issue by taking other stuff Paul said and think that somehow this makes Paul fight against himself. Rather, I think one does not apply to the other.

Paul’s writing are how we know that we don’t have to first become Jews before becoming Christians, and Paul is also the one that clarified the Christian rules for marriage for us. What is written in one of Paul’s epistles does not invalidate Paul’s other epistles, they work together not against each other. Expecting Christians to maintain and keep in line with what the NT says about marriage is not Judaizing Christians, it IS Christian. Jesus and Paul explained marriage for us, and for thousands of years the church has taught what the NT teaches, now suddenly the clear language means something opposite of what it’s always said? I think not.

James,

But how did Paul argue that becoming Jewish was not necessary for Christians? He used the Gospel and applied it to the current situation. What you have in Ephesians is not a rulebook, but an application of the Gospel to marriage as it was understood at the time. Now that we understand marriage differently, we must apply the Gospel to marriage once again.

I think the big problem is that you're looking for a superficial application of the Law. The Bible says do this, so I do it is NOT an appropriate application of the Law. The problem with this is that faith is equated with obedience to the Bible and then our corresponding definition of sin is disobedience. These are inadequate definitions of faith and sin. Of faith, because it obscures the need for Christ's death and resurrection and leaves no room for trust. Of sin, because our sin is not a result of our failure to be obedient. Obedience is a surface level problem (called D1 if you're familiar with the Crossings matrix), that is, it's the outward manifestation of sin. Sin isn't even a D2 problem like the wickedness of the human heart from which that disobedience comes. Instead, sin is our fundamental problem with God the judge (D3). We do not trust Him to be the sole arbiter of the Law. We are judged sinners, and hence everything that we do is sin. We cannot be obedient at all. If faith is obedience, that means none of us can be faithful no matter how hard we try. And if none of us can be faithful, where does that leave Christianity? Hence, faith= obedience is a false gospel. Faith instead is trust in God's promise that on Jesus' account, we will be spared from God's wrath. Furthermore, that trust creates in us new hearts. It is from that foundation that we must work out our own marriages. There is no one-size-fits-all, because we are each in unique places in time and culture, and a one-size-fits-all is an abstraction. Although it works out that there are lots of similar cases, that does not make specific regulations for how marriage is to be universal. The witness we receive from the Christian homosexuals today is that they are called by Christ to be in lifelong, monogamous sexual relationships with each other. Really, they're not calling for a dramatic overhaul of marriage at all. They're not calling for any fundamentally different understanding of marriage. All they're saying is that marriage is a universal estate and they would like the other estates to recognize this and help them live within these estates.

I can see how the analogy in Ephesians is appealing, especially to us men. But does that analogy really fit even the heterosexual relationships where the Christian woman is the dominant person in the relationship? You see that there's immediate trouble in a homosexual relationship who is "Christ" and who is "the Church", but I'd bet most of them would have no more problem figuring out how that applies than heterosexuals. They know which one of the two is the more dominant partner, even if it's not immediately apparent to you. The other problem with analogies is that they are not perfect.

The thousands of years argument is also highly suspect. Crusades, Inquisition, papacy, monastaries, slavery, role of women... there are lots of church traditions that are contrary to the Gospel.

We ARE meant to follow God’s commands:
1 John 2:3-6
And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

John 14:21
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.


We are NOT supposed to go around condoning the practice of sin…or looking the other way because we are all sinners anyway.
1 John 3:4-10
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.

Jude 1:4-8
For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day — just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

James,

I would agree that obedience follows from faith. However, even those without faith have obeyed God's commands. Obedience isn't the acid test nor the requirement-- it's faith. Our test for sin cannot be obedience, but rather must be faith-- which is what AC4 is all about. Note that perfect adherence to the Bible is NOT in the AC at all-- instead, they acknowledge that some parts of the Bible no longer apply--like abstention from blood.

So I would say it's clear that homosexuality is no sin because it is a practice that people of faith can engage in faith and it is a practice that can deepen and uphold their faith when practiced in the context of marriage, much as heterosexual sex does.

The other problem with obedience as an acid test is original sin. Original sin is something we have for life and we stand guilty before God because of that. Not to mention that obedience as the acid test for faith is exactly what the Old Covenant was... were that the case, there would be nothing "new" in the New Covenant, except some of the rules have been changed around a bit.

Peter says: “So I would say it's clear that homosexuality is no sin because it is a practice that people of faith can engage in faith and it is a practice that can deepen and uphold their faith when practiced in the context of marriage, much as heterosexual sex does”

And that’s the crux of it then, isn’t it? You believe the scripture doesn’t really mean what it says, or it can’t say what is says in the translation for (insert your reason here). So the homosexuality of the Bible is not the homosexuality of today. People were so different then, we have nothing in common with them, we are so much better educated now and so on and so forth.

But of course, the exact same argument can be made for marrying your Father’s wife*, or maybe your step-sibling, or maybe your step-child or maybe an adopted child like Woody Allen did. Who’s to say what we can and what we cannot do to [I]deepen and uphold their faith when practiced in the context of marriage[/I]? Oh that’s right, the Scripture and tradition, that’s why we have it, to clarify these issues.

The performance of a formal marriage ritual does NOT remove the error of a sinful relationship…
Matthew 14:3-4
“For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been saying to him, "It is not lawful for you to have her.”

We cannot marry whoever we want…
1 Corinthians 5:1
“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.”

Where does it say that these men didn’t marry each other?
Romans 1:27
“and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Consumed with passion for each other? That sounds an awful lot like what you are describing, and yet you also say they didn’t understand modern understanding of homosexual orientation.

Sexual Immorality Defiles the Church, and what does the NT say about sexual immorality in the church? ! Corinthians 5:4-5
“When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”

That sure doesn’t sound like, “redefine marriage so that people can marry anyone they want because we are all sinners anyway”.

As to original Sin, I think its time to go reread your own posts, once you've accepted God Mercy and Grace through the Blood of Jesus Christ, your sin is gone. YOu don't "have for life", as you said. You spend the rest of your life trying to kill of the old Adam, but you're sins are covered by the blood, God remembers your sins no more. And no one said obiedience is a test, not an acid test either, but your red herring continues all the same.

AS to your reference of who is saved or not, faith or obedient, Paul doesn't say the sexually immoral would not be saved by their faith, he just said not to condone their sin or associate with them, but to leave it out in the world for the destruction of the flesh so that their soul might be saved... I know you don't like it, but that's what it says.

James,

I think you're misunderstanding the 'upholds faith' portion of my argument when you think it would automatically apply to some of the situations you mention. While in some cases, it is in the realm of possibility that such unions would not be sinful, in most, these unions are sinful. Our rule is NOT tradition, nor the Bible-as-rulebook, but the understanding of salvation we are given through that Bible which is best articulated in AC4. I think you have to actually decide the question on a case-by-case basis as regards to 'through this relationship do you strengthen and nurture faith in Christ' to answer whether or not you are behaving appropriately in a relationship. I certainly think there are certain types of relationships that are going to be sinful way, way, way more often than not (to the extent of 1 in 10000 or 1 in 1000000 or more, but the behaviorists are better equipped to tell you just what proportion and what way they are sinful, even if they don't use the word 'sin'. My guess is that someone like David Pross would say for incest 'every single one I've seen/heard about' would be sinful, and I don't disagree with that assessment). My point is that relationships are sinful not because the Bible says so, but because they lead one away from Christ. At certain places in time and culture, homosexual relationships were thought to lead one straight away from Christ because that was something only idolators did. Homosexual Christian was an oxymoron then. Today, it's not, and we must be true to Christ, not the diagnosis given to an ancient people. That diagnosis can still help us-- sexual immorality faces us as much today as in the past-- but we need to be careful not to make that diagnosis into a prognosis, which is what happens when you try to apply that diagnosis without regard to the culture in which it was given.

Back to Original Sin and obedience. No one has come out and said 'obedience is the acid test', but that's what you're making it to be when you use 'not following the "clear" meaning of what the Bible says' as your reason for disallowing it. Bob Bertram pointed out that Biblical hermeneutics is inextricably linked to your soteriology. For all that you may profess salvation by faith alone and only, in practice your Biblical hermeneutic more closely resembles that of Scholasticism professed by the Catholics, and that is not salvation by faith alone and only. The reason Original Sin is relevant is that it isn't just Adam's sin. Original sin is something that is with us for life-- we continue in our original sin day in and day out, and that original sin makes us unrepentant sinners. Original sin is also the sin attributed to us by our membership in a community, family, and nation. So long as we support those structures, we participate in the sins those structures bring about. It's also a sin to try to live without these structures, so we're pretty thoroughly ensnared. We cannot escape it, and for all that we're supposed to 'repent of our sins', have you truly repented of your involvement in the government or community that sins against God? And yet, despite the fact that we all unrepentantly sin every single day, we're going to single out homosexuality as a reason to forbid people to spread Word of God's solution to our sinfulness? 'Sin no more' is impossible for us. Christ didn't say 'try to sin no more', He said 'sin no more'. There's no partial credit. We fail. It is not the place of the church to try to enforce 'sin no more'... that's the place of government. The place of the church is to spread the Gospel to every person on this planet and share with them the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection. Part of our faith is trust that God's Promise is as redemptive as promised, and that Christ's blood will wash away our sins.

You are kidding yourself -- this is just the beginning. first it was woman's ordination -- specifically forbidden by Paul as it leads to women in charge of men in the church -- now it's the gay thing. What's next?

Do yourself a favor -- go visit a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod parish (WELS) and learn that truth and Scripture are alive and well in the historical Lutheran tradition.

My wife and I have left the ELCA for good even though it was my church from age 5 until age 70. But some error cannot be tolerated. In truth, "fighting" will not work. You will either "give in" and accept these unscriptural terachingts or leave. But you will find that out for yourself as time goes by.

Good luck, and may the Sirit guide you!

While I find this an excellent article with much food for thought, I feel I need to raise one question about one statement early in the article.

Dr. Hinlicky, you wrote: "The widely reported statement of Goodsoil says it all: "If our gifts are not accepted, justice demands that we burn it to the ground.'" Yes, that statement has been widely reported. I have heard it attributed to Goodsoil. I have also heard it attributed to an unnamed proponent of acceptance of Gays and Lesbians in relationships in one of the California synods. I have heard it attributed to a pastor, unnamed, in the New England Synod. I have even heard it attributed to Soul Force, an organization that includes activists on this issue from many religious traditions, not just ELCA, Lutheran or Christian. And I have heard several members of Goodsoil deny that any representative of Goodsoil ever made such a statement.

I believe that at some time, this statement was made. But by now tracing it back and nailing it down as to speaker, place and time is probably impossible. (Unless, that is, someone wishes to step forward and take credit for actually saying it.) It is a mean, ugly, destructive, and evil statement, and unless it can be quoted accurately, not with a vague attribution to an entire organization, I do not think it is appropriate to use in an article such as this.

I admit to being angry about the situation my church body is now in. I want to blame people and feel righteous about it. But giving in to that desire is itself wicked, and will not help anything. Repeating "widely reported statements" -- reported where and by whom? stated when and by whom? this is important information that you do not provide -- without proof or solid attribution is irresponsible. You, we, have a serious argument to make, about the heterodox state of the ELCA. Let's not cast doubt on those most important matters by repeating incendiary statements that we cannot prove were ever said by those on the other side of this matter. It only makes us look small, petty and vindictive. And it encourages others to believe the worst of those who have worked for the passage of these measures, with little or no evidence to go on.

Let's not go to that style of name-calling. It does not serve Jesus Christ or his church to do so.

Erma Wolf

Pr Wolf, whoever made the mistake (and it may be difficult getting anyone to own up to it, as nasty as it is) of saying this, it is nonetheless an evil statement.

I think most can agree on that, except perhaps the herchurch lot.

My own hypothesis is that it could be attributed to Soulforce, as they are quite vocal and militant.

And you just illustrated my point.

We don't like Soul Force. We experience them as "quite vocal and militant." So let's lay that quote at their door.
Or we don't approve of Ebenezer Lutheran's website (among other things). So let's attribute the quote to them; or at least make a nasty swipe at them.
I think someone, at some time, probably said it. But that doesn't give me the moral authority to start saying "So-and-so probably said it, because we all know that is how driven they are on this issue."

I'm not naive about church fights. I know they are bitter and nasty. All I'm saying is we don't have to encourage that. We must fight with weapons of the Spirit; and that includes fighting our own temptations to break the 8th commandment. I think Jesus said something about prayer and fasting being needed to drive out those demons; and we must begin with our own demons.

I simply made hypotheses, based on my own interpretation of available information.

A hypothesis is not conclusive, though it can often sound accusatory.

I have had personal experience with radical (yes, I'll call it that) feminists - direct, personal, NOT through the media.

The "burning down the house" quote, wherever it came from, is very close to much of what I have heard from radical feminists.

Surely it is better, at this point, to stay away from condemnatory speculation about who said what if no one is really sure.

Erma, you are quite right in principle and I thank you for making a point of this. I can't footnote this quotation. I simply relied on the reporting I absorbed (can't myself reconstruct who, where, when and how). Maybe other readers can help out here, since, as you also say, it must have been said somewhere, by someone.
Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Needless to say, I confess that much personal experience over the years inclined me to credit the "widely reported" words, going back to my student days at Seminex, when I was quite the liberal on these questions.
In 1978, in my own living rooom, a radical gay seminarian told me, with hate glowering in his eyes that frightened me then and which I have never forgotten, that he wouldn't rest until the whole f*&@*% heterosexist system burned to the ground.
That sentiment was reinforced to me during my years at Union Theological Seminary (1978-83), when I yet remained a liberal on these question. As both tutor and pastor of many gay and lesbian students in those years, I strove to understand the anger I was hearing and understand it sympathetically. The "rage of the oppressed," and all that.
In some ways, I still do. My problem has never been with self-identified homosexuals, though I don't concede that their self-understanding is some kind of theological non-negotiable. My problem is with theological revisionism, and with the milquetoast pastors and bishops of the ELCA, who don't have the theological backbone to stand up against what privately they will admit to you is a crock.
In church today, a prominent wife of a local Lutheran leader spoke more plainly and more truthfully about this shipwreck than her husband has. Why are the pastors and bishops such cowards, when everyone can see what a fraud has been perpetuated?
Anyway, I think the substance of the case I made stands, whether or not we can track down the quotation which I, following the media, attributed to Goodsoil. The acceptance of gay marriage and ordination is not a "live and let live" compromise, but acceptance of a narrative which will become increasingly radical in its demand for total theological and ecclesial transformation. That point stands by the logic I exposed, not the fact of the quotation, which merely illustrates the logic.

Which media or medium, in what article, attributed it to GoodSoil?

What you report Pr. Hinlicky is just fundamrntalism of the left. I don't know if the Union seminary-Barbara Lundblad crew are the only factor (forget herchurch). There are some who just see these decisions as "being nice" or even as the result of biblical interpretation. But I agree that the religious left has been tthe main instigators of these changes. That's why it won't end in these changes. The only thing to do is to resist the fundamentalism of the left and also that of the right. I just don't know that moderates are particularly good at organizing, rousiing people's enthusiasm or anything else to stop what is happening. The loss of a center is the real tragedy in all this and I don't know who can put it all together again.

Peter,

You said,"You haven't seen the newest version of Confession in the ELW where we confess both 'sins known and unknown'. There's no denial of our need for Christ. There's also no requirement on 'knowing/reciting every sin that we have committed' placed on salvation... part of faith is that we trust God's promise for total forgiveness, not just forgiveness for the sins we know to name."

Several responses:
1) We're not arguing here about the language in the ELW in the Brief Order. We are arguing about specific language passed in policy changes by the ELCA CWA.
2) Remembering what I have done/left undone is one thing, but openly sanctioning something as even potentially not sinful when throughout the history of the Church it has always and everywhere been understood as sinful is another animal completely. Remembering every time I have gossiped might be a stretch, but I think if I knew without a shaddow of a doubt that gossiping is a sin, at least I could try to remember the times I sinned and confess those, and given the possibility that I might not recall other times, yes I can and should confess that there may be other sins against the 8th Commandment that I can't recall, but if there are any, I beg God's forgiveness. At the very least, I would know that God calls me by his grace to fight gossip coming out of my mouth with all of my heart, mind, and strength! The decision of the ELCA CWA is in effect akin to saying, "Go ahead, gossip all you want. Who cares if it destroys your neighbor's reputation and leads to him/her being ostracized within the community. And furthermore, don't worry about if it is a sin or not. Since some tell us we can't be sure, even though the cumulative history of the Church says otherwise, that indeed it is a sin - we'll just live in the grey area. Don't listen to those legalists over there. Their argument that such a change doesn't grant freedom but promotes license that further promotes enslavement to one's own desires which leads to sin and a broken relationship with God if unrepented of - that's just fundamentalism at its worst. Never mind that when Jesus preached the Gospel his first words were both law and gospel, "Repent and believe in the good news." And don't listen to those folks who quote Bonhoeffer when he refers to cheap grace. In fact, you just go ahead and do whatever it is you want to - because that's what justification is, unbridled, unmitigated freedom to do whatever you want. God will forgive you even if you know its wrong because somebody somewhere probably argued that we couldn't be sure - so you're off the hook. Isn't it great! We can do anything we want, especially the things we think don't hurt others or ourselves because love and commitment are involved. Don't listen to those fools over there who would tell you that Scripture says something is forbidden and that it isn't love at all to lead someone else into sin and unrepentance; that it isn't love of God to sin against one's own body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit, should you be baptized; and that commitment cannot sanctify anything that Scripture says is sinful. They don't know what they are talking about - for the very reason that others have said they are wrong, and claimed that the Spirit is speaking through them (never mind that the Spirit is doing a 180 turn and makes God look confused or hypocritical), we just can't be sure about anything really - except of course that God's grace covers all things no matter what. That we can be sure of.
3) And perhaps this is the most galling of all - that indeed the Social Statement (a document putting forth official teaching of the ELCA, mind you) said in effect, there is no consensus in the ELCA on same gender unions and the ordaining of persons practicing the same, so we cannot be sure either way of what God's will is on this matter - and yet with policy changes decided not to err on the side of caution and the side of the historical teaching of the Church, but instead went ahead and slipped through the back door a major doctrinal change and apostasy by a simple majority that if put forth in a Social Statement would have failed to pass by a two-thirds vote. [Which by the way betrays the twisted nature of the whole enterprise given that we have no right to vote to contradict anything as official teaching long held by the Church since that is to negate the line in the creed that we believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. In fact, the last time I checked, the Kingdom of God isn't a democracy at all! Jesus did what he did without our votes, gave his teaching without our votes, and appointed Apostles, who in turn appointed successors (not elected by the whole Church) to oversee the Church and to hold stewardship over Word and Sacrament, binding them in the Great Commission, to "...teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." And included in this is everything found within Scripture since it is surely the Word of God sanctioned by Christ Jesus himself through the gift of the Holy Spirit who was given to remind us of everything he taught, plus things that he said in Johns Gospel that the Apostles couldn't handle until after Pentecost. That includes, among other things Romans 1:24-32 which says in part, "...God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator...Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error...They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die (spiritually, eternally) yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."]

Son of WMC,

A few points:

I raised the 'sins known and unknown' as a point against the concern that people who trust the church and who don't know better were in danger of losing salvation over this, even assuming that you need confess every single sin. Confessing sins unknown satisfies such a legal requirement and is already built into the ELW.

The social statement did require a 2/3 majority to pass, and it got exactly the 2/3 majority it needed. The implementing resolutions only required a majority and the previous resolution to have passed.

That line in the creed about the church, and Christian unity in general does not mean "the church cannot be wrong or ever contradict itself." It means that we have our unity in the one doctrine of the church, and that one doctrine is the Gospel. In fact, AC28 makes it very clear that not only can the church be wrong about things, or contradict itself, that this is perfectly fine so long as it does not result in an other Gospel.

With gossip, you can clearly point to the bad fruits (such as the destruction of a neighbor's reputation) that come from it. Can you point to any such fruits coming from two homosexuals who are married (or in 'committed, lifelong, monogamous relationships')? There ARE plenty of examples where good fruit-- active ministry, trust in Christ, helping each other remain in Christ-- do come out of the full marriage relationship between two homosexuals. Can a bad tree bear good fruit?

Given the Inquisition, the Crusades, and slavery, the "tradition of the church" is a pretty poor metric to judge anything by. A better one might be staying true to the Gospel proclamation.

Romans 1:24-32 is where Paul is describing homosexuality as the consequence of idolatry which in turn arises from a lack of trust in Christ. That view requires the idea that homosexual == idolator. For the committed, lifelong, monogamous relationships we're talking about, there is no more underlying idolatry than there is in marriage.

James said, "i SEEM TO HAVE TROUBLE GETTING YOU GUYS TO READ BEYOND CHAPTER THREE IN ROMANS. PLEASE NO MORE PROOF TEXTS ABOUT LAW. NOW GIVE ME SOME PROOF TEXTS ON Gospel from chapter four through eight. Tell me what Paul writes about how the law is seen since Christ set us free from sin and death."

How about Romans 6:1-2, 12-13, 15-16, 20-22! "What then are we to say? 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?...Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness...What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?...When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. So what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life."

There it is in black and white. You can't deny it! Grace doesn't cover the unrepentant. Grace does not give license to do whatever you want after you are batpized and learn to say "I believe in Jesus." This makes my point as clearly as anything can that the advocates of the apostasy that occurred at the ELCA CWA have taken scissors to their Bibles or never bothered to read them in the first place.

Peter above doesn't think to much of Biblical authority but then argues, that even for that, there are people on both sides who hold up the Bible in defense of their position, only with different interpretations, so in reality Biblical authority is upheld. Poppycock! Scripture is not authoritative if it can be read to mean anything you want it to. In such a case Scripture is not authoritative but rather it is personal opinion and "bound conscience" that is authoritative however poorly formed they might be. I submit that neither personal opinion nor "bound conscience" were ordained by Christ to be determinitive. Rather it was to be the Church as Jesus founded it on the Apostles and their governance (and that of their appointed successors) by the Holy Spirit. Thus we see in I Timothy 3:15 a description of the Church which says, "...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." By the ELCA CWA decision on these issues regarding the blessing of same gender unions and the ordaining of persons practicing such, the ELCA has effectively denied the Creedal statement that we believe in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" and thus has ceased to be a part of it, period. No denomination can contradict the Holy Spirit and the teaching of his Church that has held for 2,000 years on such basic matters as regards what is and isn't sin (and thus what does and doesn't require repentance as well as God's forgiveness) and seriously be considered Christian any longer.

Where does Jesus address the issue of homosexuality?

If you look strictly at the words of Jesus, He does not do so explicitly.

However, does that mean everything else in the Bible is null and void except for the words of Christ? That is very drastic Gospel reductionism.

Jesus on many, many occasions affirms the authority of the OT scriptures which do condemn homosexuality. He also authorized the authority of the Apostles who do so as well. It's irrelevant if he never directly said anything about it. He could only address things in his context which were objects of controversy. No Jew in the first century would have considered homosexual practice alright or God pleasing. It is actually a stock criticism of the Gentiles among Jews during that period.

I don't believe Conservative and Orthodox Jews' stance on the matter has changed, though Reform Judaism has.

Forgive me for parachuting in on this discussion... I'm no biblical scholar, but my Christian and Lutheran education has led me to understand that the Apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he penned the following in a letter to the Corinthians:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

If that is indeed the case, my fundamental understanding of the Triune God would reason that the Holy Spirit condemns the homosexual act, and so does the Father and the Son. For the Son would never contradict the Father and the Holy Spirit ... and so on.

If I'm mistaken, feel free to correct (and re-educate) me.

An additional point: Because there is a Triune God, we cannot attach more weight to what Jesus says. All Scripture is equally authoritative, because all Scripture is from the Triune God.

I think you knew that, Julie.

If we start getting into deciding what is/isn't written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we've gone into dangerous waters.

It sounds like you're quoting from the NIV. Nothing wrong with that, the NIV was the first Bible that ever spoke to me, but the NASB makes it even clearer:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (footnote: "effeminate by perversion"), nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

to my thoughts, Ben and David.

I've been trying to make this argument to the masses (even some Christians and Lutherans) who keep insisting that Jesus never directly condemned homosexuality. They just don't get it and it's making me crazy!

Julie, those who keep advancing that (at best) flawed viewpoint have a myopic view, which they use to advance a personal agenda.

Jesus also never said anything about:
Child molestation
Shooting smack
Snorting coke
Huffing glue
Bestiality

On and on and on.

But does that mean He is OK with any of those things?

Don't let it/them make you crazy, Julie. It's not worth the money you'll shell out on headache/stomachache medicine.

Julie and David,

Note the difference between NASB and NIV. Those words translated as 'effeminate' and 'homosexual' in the NASB are in the original Greek 'arsenokoites' and 'malakoi'. Neither of those words clearly mean 'homosexual' and certainly not in the sense we understand it today. For David's benefit, this is how my 1912 Luther Bibel reads 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder"

It is not clear at all that the Holy Spirit condemns homosexuality any more than it promotes slavery, condemns working on the Sabbath or condemns failing to keep the cleanliness laws. If you lived in 1st century Judea, Scripture had some very clear things to say about touching unclean people and working on the Sabbath. And yet Jesus openly contradicted those teachings and asserted that what He was doing was God's work. (Consider John 8:1-11. If the Spirit condemns adultery, isn't it a contradiction for Christ to not also condemn adultery? There's no repentence on the adultress' part described in the story-- she never asks Christ for mercy or anything) The problem with reading the Bible as revelationist is that it gives a parallel notion of salvation. If you believe you please God by doing everything written in the Bible, you have lost the Gospel, which says that we please God only when we put our trust in Christ alone. That means neither 'do what you want', nor 'do everything in the Bible'. Yes, we honor and respect Scripture, but to properly honor Scripture we need the right hermeneutics, such as the one proposed by the Reformers in AC4 which they got from Paul who got it from Christ.

Also, Christ does condemn child molestation in Mark 9:42. The others (as well as child molestation), on your list follow from John 15:12.

Julie: Put the text you wrote in to the context of all of scriptures. In fear of being boring I encourage you to study Romans eight. What you wrote is before Romans eight. Romans eight tells us what Christ did for people like us that can't be anything but sinners. Some people above talk about we got to do this and we got to do that to fulfill our baptism. I know from my own life that I can't do anything withot sinning. Therefore, you can read the law to me all one wants but the law does not have the power to change me. Wretched man that I am who will help me. See Romans eight to see what my new relationship is to the Spirit, sin, and the law. Thank God for His mercy the Gospel. John

Again, I am not a biblical scholar... merely a layperson in my local congregation.

But I'm confused. I don't see how I am to live out my life under Romans 8 only. For me, it doesn't square with other Scriptural passages like Matthew 4:17 ("Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is near") and John 8:3-11 (“Go and sin no more”).

I know that I will never achieve the perfection Jesus did on earth. I will always fall short. Only by God's unfailing grace and mercy, am I saved and redeemed.

But does that mean that I need not confess and repent, and at the very least, strive to live my life as Jesus did and obey God's law?

This is a quote of what Luther said about Romans chapter 8, he tells us Paul is telling us to kill the old adam and constrain the flesh... not my words hereafter:
"In chapter 8, St. Paul comforts fighters such as these and tells them that this flesh will not bring them condemnation. He goes on to show what the nature of flesh and spirit are. Spirit, he says, comes from Christ, who has given us his Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit makes us spiritual and restrains the flesh. The Holy Spirit assures us that we are God's children no matter how furiously sin may rage within us, so long as we follow the Spirit and struggle against sin in order to kill it. Because nothing is so effective in deadening the flesh as the cross and suffering, Paul comforts us in our suffering. He says that the Spirit, [cf. previous note about the meaning of "spirit."] love and all creatures will stand by us; the Spirit in us groans and all creatures long with us that we be freed from the flesh and from sin. Thus we see that these three chapters, 6, 7 and 8, all deal with the one work of faith, which is to kill the old Adam and to constrain the flesh."

James: Point out to me where "one work of faith" comes from. Is it a verse or what?

It came from Martin Luther's preface to his translation of Romans. I quoted the section he wrote about chapter 8. The "one work of faith" is Luther's terminology.

BTW: Aren't you the same John that posted earlier (but below this box) about agreeing with what Luther said about Romans Chapter 8? Why don't you tell us what you like and agree with what he said about Romans Chapter 8 then? Seems he's pretty clear that we are to constrain the flesh and kill the old Adam, but he assures us that we are forgiven of our fleshly sins, or, "so long as we follow the Spirit and struggle against sin in order to kill it" as Martin Luther said in regards to Romans chapter 8.

And online english translation of what Luther wrote can be read at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, or; http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

The one work of faith is trust in God's promise to forgive sinners on account of Christ's suffering, death and resurrection. In John 6:29 Christ sums it up: "The work of God is this: that you believe in His Messiah".

Julie: Confess and repent to remember before God who you are, but not to plug into God's grace.You already have God's grace. Romans 8 tells you that you have been accounted as righteousness. The Spirit is now working in you to make you righteous. Just give yourself to Him. You cannot live your life as Jesus did and obey God's law.We do not have that ability. The Spirit will see to it that "the rightious requirements of the law are fully met in you.", in His time and in His way. Thats His promise to you. Trust him to sanctify you. Through the power of the Holy Spirit the law will be fulfilled in you.(future) In the meantime you are accounted as righteous as Abraham was through faith. You are set free from the law because the law failed to change anyone. So the Spirit becomes the power that can fulfill the law in you. Rejoice and be glad in it. John

Please interpret Romans eight for me. I agree with Luther on Romans eight it seems you do not, James. Put everything that comes before Romans eight into a Romans eight context and tell me how you understand Paul"s gospel message here. John PS "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness" "In the same way count yourself dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Romans Six) I am going to honor Christ and what he accomplished by considering myself dead to sin. Put that theology together with Romns eight and you have the Gospel. John

James 2:13

It's funny that you say it seems I don't agree with Luther on Romans. I've quoted Paul from Romans 4 times, I've quoted Luther about Romans twice and once extensively, and I agree with all those quotes. How is it then that you think it seems I don't agree with him? I keep quoting him because I do agree. Rather it just seems you don't like the quotes I'm presenting...

James: I'm trying to get you to do an indepth look at Romans eight. Explain to me what Romans eight is saying in relation to sin and law. Please, Romans eight. What you are using the other quotes and readings for are fine. But I need to read your understanding of Romans eight. I have asked this of two or three posters and no one touches Romans eight seriously. Could there be something there that threatens? John

I already posted what Luther said about chapter 8, as my answer for chapter 8. I quoted him instead of using my words because if I said what he said, I believe you would have claimed I didn't read it still because it's not what you wanted to hear. But my answer is his answer.

Chapter 8 is telling us that we live through the Spirit of God, and as such we can overcome the world's attacks against us. We overcome the world of the flesh we suffer in and we conquer it by living in the world of the Spirit where God lives in us.

Romans 8:12-13
"So then, brothers,we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live."

We need to put away the deeds and desires of the flesh, then we will live. Christians need not worry about the world's attacks against us, even if they put us to death.

Romans 8:35-39
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

"For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered."

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

And as such, we can overcome the world's perils, Paul's telling us to overcome the dangers of giving in to the flesh and instead live in the spirit, we need to put the fears and desires of the flesh behind us and live in the Spirit and then we shall overcome. As Luther said, and I already quoted once but it's due again, chapter 8 tells us to “deal with the one work of faith, which is to kill the old Adam and to constrain the flesh”.

James: I appreciate what you wrote.
I read chapter seven of Romans as Paul describing his struggle with sin. He is saying he cannot keep the law. He cries out "What a wretched man I am" The law had no power to change him but yet he was required to be 100% righteous. He received that righteousnees through faith (Chapter 3 and four)He received it through baptism. (Chapter six) "Therefore he is to consider himself dead to sin and alive in Christ Jesus"(Chapter six verse 11) However, in chapter seven he is still struggling with his slavery to sin, law, and death. How does his righteousness through faith, and his baptism change things. (Romans eight) For the person in Christ "there is no condemnation" For being in Christ the law of the Spirit of life has set the person who is in Christ free from the law of sin and death. The law is powerless to make a person righteous because it cannot change our sinful nature. Therefore God sent His son as a human being to take care of sin once and for all. He condemned sin (took away its power) himself, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might fully met in us.(Verse 4) (Notice the in order that) This ia accomplished in us who are in Christ not through our sinful nature(law and sin) but according to the Spirit.(life and peace)(Verse 4) What the law could not do(overcome sin) Christ did, and now the Holy Spirit does in us. He sanctifies us. In this new life we are to set our mind on the Spirit not on the law and sin. In such a relationship to the Spirit in our minds "consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus"(chapter six)we begin to experience new life. With such a mind set the Spirit controls our mind and its not a life centered in sin and death its a life in the Spirit of life and peace. Verse 9 describes this new life in the Spirit. We are not controled by our sinful nature (such things as sin and law) but we are controled by the Spirit as long as the Spirit lives in us. This Spirit will give us life in our mortal bodies. So we don't concern our selves with sin and law to give us life (it failed to do so as shown in the old covenant) but rather we trust the Spirit who lives in us.The Spirit puts to death the mis deeds of the body and we are alive with joy and peace.This is God's answer to the "wretched man cry" and we trust Him. But Paul encourages us by saying "You did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship." This Spirit testifies to God that we are his children even though we are not yet sinless but are in Christ through faith. Therefore, the person in Christ does not need our judements about sin and the law. To encourage that person in Christ one shares again and again the Gospel of Gods love. We don't harp on and on about sin and law because they have no power to change us. Rather we trust that the Spirit is doing what He promised to sanctify our neighbor and we encourage our neighbor to stay with the Spirit by sharing the Gospel with them. Therefore it is wrong to keep using law on our neighbor and harping about sin. Thats the Spirits business and not ours. Its not that I think the law is bad, I do not, but I do believe that through the Spirit we have a different relationship to the law. The law is no longer allowed to condemn and make slaves of us. The Spirit uses the law to sanctify us and I trust Him to do that. Therefore freedom is God's gift. Not freedom to insult the Spirit but freedom to become God's full creation and learn how to keep the greatest of all laws. That of love for God neighbor, and creation.
I encourage you, James, to look at this from the vantage point of Gospel and not law. Lets not give anymore influence to sin and law for it will only be used again us. Rather give praise to God for doing (this moment)through the Spirit what we cannot do for ourselves. He is keeping the law in us. I shall trust him and consider myself dead to sin and alive in Christ. John

John:
You may be surprised, but I agree with everything you've said there and I’ve been agreeing with it all along. Only you've ended your theological proclamation too soon. Paul and Luther are both preaching the forgiveness and the mercy of God, how we can not achieve a satisfactory condition under the law, and I agree with them, but you’ve stopped there and ended all further revelation. Paul and Luther both answered the nest logical question that you’ve gotten stuck at, “Does that mean we are free to do whatever we want thereafter?” And both of them have positively and irrefutably cried out NO, we are NOT free to do what ever we want after accepting Mercy and Grace and being covered by the blood of Jesus.

What does mercy and forgiveness look like when it's accomplished in a person? What does the believer behave like when they've believed the gospel and received the Good News? We are not saved by the Law nor are we saved by our good Works, but the saved person will be driven by the spirit to both follow the law and do good works. I’ve already quoted Paul in the book of Romans saying the very same thing I’m saying. I’ve quoted more than one verse that tells us that if a fellow believer continues to live in sin, that we are to try and correct them and if that fails, we are to not associate with them.

James:You pose a real question for me. Let me try to think out loud (?)First, we know that a person living in Christ is going to live in sin for he/she is still a sinner. Second, being the Spirit is sanctifing them I'm not sure I want to second guess the Spirit. How do I know what is sin in that persons life in the Spirit. If it is its covered by Christ. Forgiveness is real not only if we repent but sence the cross. Therefore, sense weare dead to sin and alive to God I would not judge another persons behavior with law and punishment. I would continue to speak the Godpel in love and let the Spirit do what He sees fit. I surely would not separate from the person because that would play right into the hands of Satan who wants separation. I guess I can't decide who is living in sin under the Spirit. I think of the woman that stole bread to feed her dying children. Is she no longer in Christ. I have no way of knowing. Is it a cope out to leave it with the Spirit. Trusting that He loves the sinner more than I can and is about the business of sanctifing. Some thoughts, as you can see I am not clear about how two people who are in Christ should behave when it comes to sin.I guess we just contiune to love oneanother.

I find "wishful thinking" in Prof. Hinlicky's statement about "a realignment in American Protestantism, bringing together those of catholic and orthodox tendency in all the liberal Protestant North American denominations and uniting them with evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox." As for being "together" with Catholics and Orthodox, at least, one must JOIN them in order to be received into (especially) the sacramental life of their churches. But then, having followed the Evangelical Catholic movement within American Lutheranism for quite some time, I've found that there have been a lot of people who either can't cross the Tiber (or Bosporous, as the case may be) or are waiting for the Tiber to meander their way to bring them in. As for the latter, I can't help but remember all the talk about a potential "uniate rite" in which Evangelical Catholics could somehow remain Lutheran and yet be in communion with Rome. But then what would all the Evangelical Catholic female clergy do? That would be just one issue that Rome would have to make a heckuva concession on, and, as everyone knows, they don't move very fast.

I think it is much too early to begin charting American Protestantism's future course. I've seen all the analysis of "mainline decline" and, depending on who you listen to, it'll sometimes seem as if the ELCA will be down to a couple thousand members by midcentury. Where will all of us have gone? Is all the talk of a post-denominational age what it's cracked up to be? I don't know. Certainly, those who appreciate centralized teaching authority that rests in episcopacy (like Evangelical Catholics) won't be flocking to "post-denominational" bodies like Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ. I wouldn't see any benefit in joining one of those micro-synods that has bishops in apostolic succession but holds their ordinations at the Ramada Inn. Nor would I see how, logistically, a non-geographical "confessing synod" within the ELCA would work. Those who WANT to remain part of the whole without becoming their own splinter group need to realize that the "whole" is going to say and do things that they don't always agree with, and any idealization of, say, Rome is a house of cards. If a centralized, "orthodox" teaching authority is so much better, then why have I met so many disenchanted ex-Catholics?

I just don't see how "catholicism" (small "c") or "orthodoxy" or whatever word you want to use will make American Protestantism any better or any more faithful, just as I also don't see how liberalizing policies on ordination or same-sex relationships will make the ELCA any better or any more faithful. Before we tie ourselves up further, it might be best to sit back, take a deep breath, and recite the Serenity Prayer. (And I actually mean that!)

If you're looking for the perfect church, or if you're wanting your imperfect church to get better...well...our departed neighbor from my hometown once said: "You can wish in one hand and *#@% in the other and see which one fills up faster!" You don't have to accept everything the ELCA approves or adopts, but you can find ways of re-focusing yourself, and one way to do that might be to give the whole human sexuality issue a rest...at least for a few minutes.

And if some sort of realignment IS on the way, as Prof. Hinlicky suggests, I would hope that the "catholic" and "orthodox" leaning folks have more to contribute than their resentments toward their predecessor church bodies.

As usual, what I say seems to draw both interest and fire. Some brief responses to various criticisms then:
First, to the lay people I would say that the word of Jesus, "my sheep hear my voice and will not harken to the voice of a stranger," fully authorizes the baptized to reject an unfaithful ministry and go there, where they hear the "gospel's thrilling sound." Only I would urge that any who decide that they must leave the ELCA to make a public witness for the sake of other lay people, even for the sake of a faithless pastor.
To my fellow pastors: as I have repeatedly said over these months, I will not go anywhere that ordained women cannot also go. If I am to be accused of "wishful thinking," let me remind the critics that by the foregoing principle of solidarity with ordained women I am forced soberly to face the reality that there is little room for manouver. But, I am not in control! That is plain! One simply has to bear witness to the truth one has, let the chips fall where they may. What I do see is that the faithful in all the liberal Protestant denominations might over the next decade discover each other and allign practically with the Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative. Where that will lead, who knows? I also agree with Mike Root (see his new blog, lutheranspersisting, that we should sustain whatever degree of fellowship is conscientiously possible within the confused and heterodox ELCA. This is hardly a clear vision and is not meant to be.
To the bishops: I think almost all of you, i.e. at least of the 44 of you who voted for the 2/3rds majority but failed to fight for it at the CWA, are cowards. You are bishops in name only. You are in reality nothing but politicians up for re-election, and you act like that. You do not lead, you follow. You sniff the wind, and are blown about like leaves. You are not real bishops, and all the liturgical smoke and mirrors does not make you bishops. Why don't you re-read Augsburg Confession Article 28 on what an evangelical episcopacy is supposed to be and do? And repent.
To the real conservatives: some noticed with dismay that I wrote that the error in the now heterodox ELCA does not rise to the level of heresy or apostasy. I repeat then what I have repeatedly said in these months: homosexual orientation (a modern construct) is to be interpreted theologically not as sin but as disorder, which becomes sinful deed only when, like any other sexual desire, it is practiced apart from God's Word, Command and Blessing for marriage (Mark 10, Genesis 1). It is crude and pastorally harmful to call a psychological orientation sinful, especially in our puritanical (and anti-puritantical) culture where people normally thing that "sin" is something in their power to do or not do, rather than a power which overtakes and leads to spiritual ruin.
To the Crossing Community Lutherans: I don't disagree with you that fog rather than clarity attends the CWA decisions, and that we really have a dispute about the gospel. This is and will prove eventually to be a dispute about what the gospel is and what it means for us. On that we agree. What I disagree with you about is 1) what the gospel is, and 2) what it means for us. On the first point I find the opposition made between Christ and the Bible Nestorian, anti-Judaic, and epistemically question-begging. Bluntly, I don't know any other Jesus than the one who lifts up Genesis 1 against human traditions in Mark 10. Your consistent playing of Jesus as Savior against the Jesus of the Bible will by its inner logic lead you to separate the Son of God from the Son of Mary; you will turn Jesus Christ into a Christ-idea, a cipher for whatever you deem "liberating." And second, in agreement with the Joint Declaration on Justification, I disagree with you about what the gospel means for us. I find your version of Lutheranism materially antinomian, Galatians without Chapter Six, let alone Romans. Bluntly: if we do not know what sin and disorder are in the light of the gospel, then neither do we know what righteousness and life in Jesus Christ are. Notice please, that neither of these disagreements with you derive from the question about homosexuality, but from the way you misread both the Bible and the Lutheran Confession.
Well, I have tried to be brief, but responding across so many fronts has run this on too long. Peace, Paul

It is EXTREMELY dangerous to accuse ELCA bishops of being cowards, given the fact that a "real" bishop would not be very kind to someone who accused HIM (or HER, pardon the omission) of being a coward. You can rant and rave in the ELCA all you want to, but under tighter ecclesiastical control, you wouldn't be able to do that! Of course, if bishops were "real" bishops, you'd agree with them anyway, so everything would be hunky-dory. Right?

If you're to the point that you're calling bishops cowards, it's pretty clear that you can no longer respect them, and if you can no longer respect your bishops, then it is no longer clear to me why you're still hanging in there. Of course, protest is a birthright of Protestantism, but historical precedent leans more strongly toward schism than it does toward renewal of the mother church.

I live with people who, so it seems, use their Reformation heritage as a way of dismissing bishops as clowns, politicians, whatever...but even then, I don't see how this can be of any benefit in the long run. In a "liberal" Protestant context, some things just aren't going to go "your" way. No matter how "right" you might be, your efforts will only perpetuate the disillusionment, mistrust, and resentment that has been brewing in the ELCA since its inception. My last post brought up the Serenity Prayer, and I applaud Reinhold Niebuhr for his wisdom, but now it might be time to look at the prayer attributed to Francis of Assisi -- for some reason, I'm not hearing many of THOSE values being lifted up on this website.

But then again, I may be just another bleeding-heart-open-faced liberal Protestant who invokes the spirit of come-on-people-now-smile-on-your-brother-everybody-get-together-try-and-love-one-another-right-now instead of caring about the truth.

I can understand, as someone with mediation experience, your desire to try and lower the temperature and bring all sides together, which you described in the lyrics of the old song "Get Together."

And, as a recovering adult child of alcoholism, I certainly appreciate the recommendation of the Serenity Prayer, which I say (the full version) each morning, along with Luther's Morning Prayer.

However, as I've said before, some conflicts just cannot be mediated. In that case, I have usually advised the adversaries to try and make a clean break as soon as possible. Even though that is often hurtful, the damage usually heals sooner.

The longer a conflict brews, the longer it festers. As I see it, the ELCA is currently a diseased body beyond mediation or healing. Further "dialogue" will just make it moreso.

I really think that trying to turn the tide in the ELCA borders on "when you wish upon a star" misplaced optimism.

The only way the "majority party" (to use another parliamentary metaphor) will listen to backbenchers in the "opposition party" is when the "dialogue" is conducted on THEIR terms.

I really, honestly believe there is no going back on this one, but further "studies," "resolutions," what have you, will erode the few remaining (mostly symbolic) restrictions on homosexuality in the ELCA.

I also would not be at all surprised if the ELCA entered into full union with the United Church of Christ, since they seem to be very much on the same page.

There is no real momentum for a new Lutheran synod in my area, so my options are going to be either LCMS or TAALC.

My wife and I are sick, sick, sick and exhausted with all this.

Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and go.

David: I invite you to read Sept. 9:09:23 and following few posts. You might find it interesting. John

John, I have been following the discussions you mention, i.e., about Romans 8.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm just not that much of an optimist, given what I know about human behaviour and original sin.

David: Good bye and travel light.

I agree that if you cannot hang in any longer, it's best to go . . . it sounds like you [David] have some real possibilities in LCMS or TAALC. You write, "My wife and I are sick, sick, sick and exhausted with all this." That is a common sentiment, even from folks such as myself who have no plans of leaving. What makes things tough for everyone is the fact that it won't always be a case of "good riddance" or "don't let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out!" There may be people whom I actually LIKE who will leave . . . not just people whom I find annoying or shrill. But if you see an end to the "issue fatigue" somewhere else, I hope that you will be blessed and, dare I say, happy wherever you may be in the future.
--Ryan Fischer

Read Augsburg Confession Article 28 on what a bishop's true calling is, and we can talk. We elect them like CEOs, like politicians, and call them "bishops." Calling them "bishops" doesn't make them overseers of pastors and churches, whose minister is to the church's unity by means of the Word of God alone. They acted like cowards because in the safety of their conference they voted 44-15 for the super-majority rule, but when exposed to the stacked deck of an ELCA CWA, they caved. Not surprizing. My analysis: they were cowardly because they are not real (i.e. according to the Augsburg Confession) bishops.

Bishops doing something politically expedient as opposed to doing the right thing...hmmmm. Okay, if CA XXVIII binds bishops to Word and Sacrament, their decisions should be grounded in Scripture [and confessions, creeds, etc.]; thus we come to the judgment of cowardice because of their about-face. Getting an ELCA bishop to admit to cowardice (and repent of it) would be an impressive accomplishment. And it would be even more impressive (and gutsy) to request a call in the synod he/she serves. So when it comes right down to it, anyone who doesn't want to risk everything on challenging the system is a coward. On the other hand, if one wants to follow in Brother Martin's footsteps and end up excommunicated, defrocked, and jobless, one can stand up for the truth.

Robert S. McNamara, of [recent] blessed memory, offered some brilliant insights in the semi-autobiographical film "The Fog Of War." We are in McNamara's "fog" right now, when so many things are coming at us from so many different directions and there's much too much for any sane person to figure out that even the most mediocre options aren't exactly clear. I'll never forget what McNamara said about "empathizing with one's enemy." When you're faced with an opponent, fierce or not, try to get into his mind and the way he thinks. Basically a fancy way of saying "put yourself in HIS shoes." I don't see how we're going to get anywhere before we start taking McNamara's advice. We came to the brink of nuclear war in '62 and averted it (watch the film if you need more background -- it's great!). Now why can't we do something even REMOTELY similar in a freakin' church?

Dr Hinlicky,

I find it curious that while you make several accusations about what you don't think the Gospel is (ie Nestorian, anti-Judaic, etc), you don't confess the gospel to which you hold. I also don't think there's much playing off "Jesus the Savior" vs "Jesus of the Bible"... the Jesus of the Bible IS the Savior. There is no Christ vs the Bible except when one tries to elevate the Bible to the position of Christ. That's what happens when on the rebound from freed in the Gospel, you tell others that the shackles of the Law are the way to go. The Law does have a third use, but its third use makes people dead.

The Law certainly points to our malady, but if the malady were only superficial, anything could fix it. The Gospel is about cleansing our deepest malady, which is our rebellion against God. An overinsistence on law neglects this healing.

Professor Hinlickey, you wrote, "The error, serious as it is, does not rise to level of apostasy or heresy. The classical term for an erring Church is heterodoxy." As a teaching theologian, would you please explain to me and to others just what does "rise to the level of apostasy or heresy"? What more would need to take place before it would meet those milestones?

A heretic is classically someone who willfully and cognizantly holds to teaching contrary to the faith as something legitimate within the ranks of the church. One must be aware and know that one's teaching contradicts the faith, and one must affirm that contradiction, and one must insist on the right to teach it in the church to be judged a heretic. The ELCA is more confused, more amvialent, more characterized by a lack of teaching than any one teaching at all. In other words, the battle for hearts and minds, congregations and synods has just begun. Calling the whole denomination heretical and walking away just hands victory to the religious Left, who can then feed themselves for years off the carcass they capture. To be sure, if the analogy I made with the behavior of the Episcopal Church USA holds, and the narrative of LGBT exclusion drives future behaviour, it won't be long before the above criteria are fulfilled.

Prof. Hinlicky wrote, "...some noticed with dismay that I wrote that the error in the now heterodox ELCA does not rise to the level of heresy or apostasy. I repeat then what I have repeatedly said in these months: homosexual orientation (a modern construct) is to be interpreted theologically not as sin but as disorder, which becomes sinful deed only when, like any other sexual desire, it is practiced apart from God's Word, Command and Blessing for marriage (Mark 10, Genesis 1). It is crude and pastorally harmful to call a psychological orientation sinful, especially in our puritanical (and anti-puritantical) culture where people normally thing that "sin" is something in their power to do or not do, rather than a power which overtakes and leads to spiritual ruin."

Indeed homosexual orientation is a disorder an not a sin - agreed. But I did not confuse the two in my critique. The policy changes approved a local option for same sex unions which (I can't believe I'm saying this) in order to be consumated would require a sinful act. Nobody credibly can argue that the rule for such unions will be that both parties to the union will be celibate. The CWA also approved a local option ordaining persons in such unions. In both cases we are not talking about merely having persons of homosexual orientation be a part of the Church or even serving as pastors. We are talking about sanctioning the sinful behaviors and giving them the Lutheran seal of approval. Thus, through the policy changes, sin is now called not sin, and this is quite clearly, apostasy. I don't know how much clearer this can be!

Son of WMC: What makes you think everyone agrees on what is sin and what is not. When others see it different than you do does that disagreement make it apostasy. I think not.

"Son of WMC: What makes you think everyone agrees on what is sin and what is not. When others see it different than you do does that disagreement make it apostasy. I think not."

Even though I am not "Son of WMC" (actually I am Son of RPE & PAE), please let me offer clarification: It is entirely meaningless to look for agreement in what is sin and what is not. You are approaching it from the wrong way. The truth of God's Word is not decided by majority rule. God alone defines what is sin and what is not, and even if 99.9% of those who call themselves "Christians" disagree with Him, that doesn't change what is and is not sin one bit. We need to learn from God's revelation what He considers sin, not to try to assert what we think should pass for sin & what shouldn't, in hopes that God might endorse our views, hopefully. Our culture seems to have lost its fear of God, hence false-prophets seem to think they can speak on God's behalf without any fear of accountability. God will hold them responsible. Should I desire to know what is sinful, I need only look to God's revealed Holy Word. If others who call themselves "Christians" disagree with what I have read, that is there option, but it does not effect me, as I will not be swayed by wolves in sheep's clothing. Should a Christian correct me on a Biblical teaching, showing me my error from Scripture, I will thank him, and I will seek to live in unity with those who likewise believe God's revealed word, avoiding those who approach the Bible like a crooked lawyer, trying to turn God's words around to make them say what they clearly do not say. I need no pope. I have the Holy Spirit of God, who will not speak contrary to what has been revealed in Holy Scripture. Which side are you on?

Im on Christ's side and trust the Spirit. I believe, in faith, that how understand these texts are correct. Are you telling me that if I disagree with you and your understanding that I am a wolf
in sheeps clothing", "a crooked lawyer". That is pure legalism and is contrary to how the Holy Spirit operates in us who are in Christ. Sounds like a Pharisee to me.

Son of WMC: What makes you think everyone agrees on what is sin and what is not. When others see it different than you do does that disagreement make it apostasy. I think not.

John,

Your response to me is very telling. One of the "Lutheran" (you do remember Lutheran) solas was (I say was because it is rapidly falling by the wayside) Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). If Scripture is going to be authoritative for Christians, much less Lutherans according to Sola Scriptura then what it says must have the final word in deciding these questions about what is sin and not sin. You bring up the point that there isn't consensus among Lutherans so how then can we get into questions of apostasy? Therein lies the problem with Sola Scriptura because as much as the fiercest Lutheran traditionalists want you to believe that Scripture interprets itself, the fact of the matter is, that when we have these disputes over the meaning of Scripture the Bible doesn't just jump up and declare who is correct and who is not. And because of the Protestant-wide general misinterpretation of the priesthood of all believers allowing for everyone pretty much to read and interpret for themselves as if there has never been anything resolved (or that can be resolved) as to what is true - and because of the essentially congregational polity of church governance in the ELCA and virtually all Protestant denominations, there is no authority to appeal to when such divisions of interpretation occur. Do you then see how such a lack of consensus on the issues chiefly in question at the CWA in Minneapolis is only the tip of the iceberg? Essentially any group of folks could say they believe in the opposite of whatever standard teaching there is, and thus claim discrimination and push and push until we have local option to believe anything anybody wants. This is chaos! We have creeds, ancient creeds that delineate what is the faith that has been handed down. Part of that faith is declaring belief in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. That church was founded on the Apostles who were given oversight authority and whose successors were to retain and exercise that authority in order to provide stewardship over doctrine and moral teaching. If we allow the change in policy that occured at the ELCA CWA to stand on something as fundamental as the definition of what is sin that has been so clear over 2,000 years, then everything is up for grabs and we may as well strike out that line of the creed. And in fact, since the Reformation, according to history that I've been privileged to read, it has become increasingly clear to me that that is exactly what has happened on an ever greater basis. Sin divides us from God. Unrepented sin condemns us and indicates our choosing personal pleasure over our relationship with God, which is in essence saying, "I don't want God but I want to be a god so if hell is where I wind up, oh well." I can't stick around in an ELCA that will permit the kind of confusion or eventually outright contradiction that the actions of the recent ELCA CWA will in fact lead to. I cannot be a strong witness in opposition to these actions by staying in an apostate ELCA, but I sure can be such a witness by leaving it and voting with my feet. But my vote isn't one of personal opinion. Its a vote to go back to the authority that preserves teaching on faith and morals like it was established by Jesus in the first place, when he gave the keys singularly to Peter and the oversight to the bishops succeeding from the Apostles. It is a vote to submit to the actual Lordship of Jesus Christ and not to one of my own making for the sake of momentary personal desire and pleasure.

WMC: If I read you correctly you feel that we human being have sole responsibioity to protect the truth. I would rather believe that it is God that protects His truth and has done so down through the centuries. I believe that it is truth that is inspired and God through the Spirit sees to it that it remains in tact. It also meaans that understanding of the truth may be enhanced over the years as the Spirit presents and protects His truth as needed in every generation. I trust Him to do that and therefore my approach to the scriptues is to try to listen in faith what the Spirit is saying in the lives of his people. I do not believe that our understanding of truth is static. That why we talk about the matter of respect each other conscience when it comes to truth. Sorry we have to give up control when it comes to truth and thats not easy is it?

John,

Thanks for asking if you are reading me correctly. The answer is no, I do not believe human beings alone are responsible for preserving the teaching on faith and morals of the Church. Rather I believe Christ founded an incarnational Church with an incarnational leadership through which the Holy Spirit works and thus keeps the promise of Christ that the gates of hades shall never prevail against the Church. Thus I referred in my previous post to the following: a) "...the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. That church was founded on the Apostles who were given oversight authority and whose successors were to retain and exercise that authority in order to provide stewardship over doctrine and moral teaching."; and b)"...the authority that preserves teaching on faith and morals like it was established by Jesus in the first place, when he gave the keys singularly to Peter and the oversight to the bishops succeeding from the Apostles." If the Holy Spirit does not work through these incarnational means that Jesus set up, then there is nothing that we can point to that will keep the promise of Jesus I referred to earlier - for then everything is always up for grabs. Note how often Rome is accused of not "keeping up with the times" and that "it is too strict". Its because it maintains what was taught from the time of the Apostles regarding both faith and morals. Its because it retains at its core the mission of Christ to redeem people created in the image of God from sin and death that have plagued those very same people since the time of the "Fall". Furthermore I am not the one who has trouble giving up control. I am perfectly willing to submit to the magisterial authority Jesus established. Contrarily, the way the ELCA was set up, not to mention the rest of Protestantism, lends to either democratic processes allowing me and anyone else who wishes to be organized to play politics with the faith and morals of the Church, or to congregationalism so that there is no consistent teaching across the whole body of Christ, or to the misinterpretation of the priesthood of all believers which then gives each person "control" over what he or she believes as if Jesus set up a smorgasboard for each one of us to pick and choose from allowing us to take say 6 of the 10 commandments, two of three articles of the creed, half of the petitions of the Lord's Prayer, and to take a scissors to Scripture if we so choose. No, the magisterium is what Jesus set up for the kingdom of God on earth, that retains the authority in the place that Jesus delegated it to, and not with me. I have no control in that scenario at all. You are the one who does not wish to give up control.

John,

By the way, as to your comment believing that truth is not static - if you are suggesting that doctrine develops over time, I agree with you. That was the chief point of John Henry Cardinal Newman's Treatise on the Development of Doctrine. But if you are suggesting that what is true 2,000 years ago might in some way, shape or form not be true today - I cannot share such a belief. If something can be true in one age and not in another, then it was never true to begin with. Jesus who is the way and the truth and the life cannot and will not contradict himself - and given that he is one person of the Holy Trinity, it stands to reason that neither the Father, nor the Holy Spirit will be self-contradictory either. To say that the Holy Spirit is doing a "new thing" when that thing is in direct contradiction to an old thing the Spirit did, is in effect to charge the Holy Spirit, and thus God with being confused, being a liar, being inconsistent, or being a myth. I cannot defend such an absurdity. You ought not to either.

WMC I don't believe what I am suggesting about "new Thing" is in direct contradiction to and "old thing". That has to do with how we interpret scripture. Because we interpret it differently for you it is a contradiction for me it is the Spirit enlightening us further.