I wonder also how many married people live in sexual celibacy because a mate is either unable or unwilling to engage in sexual activity. Is this a burden? Probably. Was it freely chosen? Probably not. But it a burden that must be born if one is to remain faithful to one's promises.

“[T]he ELCA currently allows people who are homosexual in their self-understanding to serve as rostered leaders in the church if they remain celibate."

Actually, *Vision and Expectations* does *not* say "celibate." It says "chaste." And that is all that is being required of anyone -- straight, gay, whatever -- seeking to be on one of the ELCA lay or clergy rosters -- chastity, not celibacy.

A good point in terminology. It is hard to imagine what exactly chastity could be, understood biblically, other than celibacy outside of marriage and fidelity inside of marriage. Unless, to put the worst construction on things, the ambiguity of the word "chaste" was planted long ago as an out.

I tried to suggest the significance of this distinction several years ago now, and I still think it is a distinction we must be making, particularly in the ecumenical context. See my comments at http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=63.0

Yes, there are people who live celibate though married because of his/her spouse's inability to engage in sexual activity. It is most certainly not an ideal situation and certainly not one that I would have ever anticipated finding myself in for the past four years, but it is a necessary deprivation given my husband's health concerns. It is livable and doable. The culture is constantly telling us that we humans need sex just like water, air and food, but this is simply not true. It is possible, and at times necessary, to live without relations. In marriage we are challenged to put the needs of the other above our own.

Nowhere in Scripture is sexual activity outside of monogamous marriage condoned or encouraged, and even when in Old Testament times men had multiple wives and concubines these arrangements always led to problems within the family, i.e. the conflicts between the descendents of Isaac and Ishmael, the turmoil in David's family, etc. The Scriptural definition and ideal for marriage is one man and one woman for life.

Granted we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God- but as a standard and norm of behavior and living out our sexuality, Scripture never offers homosexual activity as an alternative even between two "committed, monogamous individuals." In fact, every time when homosexual behavior is mentioned in Scripture, both New and Old Testaments, it is vigorously condemned. The only acceptable expression of sexual love is between a man and a woman who are married according to Scripture- a gift from God for the creation of new life as well as a flesh-to-flesh connection that is often used as a metaphor for Christ and the church.

I do think it is wrong for the church to condone a lifestyle that is clearly condemned in Scripture and that is statistically proven to be detrimental to those who practice it. Should we neglect to speak out against lifestyle choices that are harmful to those who practice them? Failing to be honest about the physical and emotional health hazards inherent to homosexual behavior is by default condemning people to the consequences of that behavior. Part of the Good News of the Gospel is that in Christ we are free to live according to His will for us, and to avoid the temptation to use the gift of sex outside of its proper boundaries.

I have a dear friend who is homosexual and it saddens me to know that she keeps going through serial relationships and engaging in behavior I know is destructive to her. Those who are struggling with this lifestyle need the help and clear guidance of the church- what does Scripture say? - and not a rubber stamp on behavior that can only lead to sorrow and death.

The church however must be clear that while there are behaviors we cannot condone that our heart is always for people. We are all sinners and no one sin is "worse" than any other. The church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners. Those who are in rostered clergy positions are not sinless by any means, but their lifestyle and character should reflect Scriptural norms and set a good example for those who they are called to shepherd. Clergy are expected to set the standard for the proper expression of sexuality (i.e. celibacy if not married to a person of the opposite sex, and chastity and fidelity within marriage) as well as to set other standards of moral conduct such as responsible stewardship and service.

Clear doctrine and teaching comes from the Word alone, and not by popular demand. We don't get to pick and choose which of God's standards we like and don't like based on what the rest of the world is currently doing. The church is called to be a light to the world, not to sink into the depravity of the world. May God help us maintain the Confessions, stick to the clear teaching of His Word, and to be an instrument of compassion and healing for those who are struggling with temptations including the temptation to indulge in sexual activity outside of the boundaries God has given us for it.

Dear Tonya, thank you for your eloquent and brave testimony. I am especially appreciative of your loving commendation of the law of God in its liberative function for our lives. Surely it is not the prerequisite of our relationship with God, but insofar as we live in faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the law then becomes a guide to living and flourishing--even in the midst of suffering.

“[T]he ELCA currently allows people who are homosexual in their self-understanding to serve as rostered leaders in the church if they remain celibate. However, Luther himself considered celibacy to be a special gift of the Spirit granted to few people” (Recommendations 796-798).

Where is the documentation that Luther, himself, said this? That is, in which writings of his is this found? Does it appear in one of our Lutheran Confessions, to make a point, or does it appear in...say...Table Talk. It makes a difference. Lutheranism doesn't go back to Martinus Lutherus, it goes back to Christ Jesus our Lord. The sayings of Messiah Jesus are normative for the church. The sayings of Martin Luther (1483-1546) are not. Where Luther is quoted from our confessional writings contained in the Book of Concord, those words are normative as a normed norm (that is, normed by the Holy Scriptures themselves, which are the norming norm).

It might be interesing to see what Luther and other reformers and church fathers said concerning celibacy of priests (and in Luther's case, WHEN he said it, as his thought evolved over the years), but ultimately it doesn't matter. None of Luther's words should be considered a "possible basis for allowing sexually active gay clergy" unless he were quoting God's Holy Word itself.

We do well to go back to St. Paul, who wrote to Titus the following words of wisdom (under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost): "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Titus 1:5-9 NIV. See also what St. Paul wrote in I Timothy 3. Are we to assume that God's standards for ELCA pastors are much lower? Even the phrase "sexually active gay clergy" is an oxymoron. Whether people are tempted by homosexual desires, or whether they are tempted by any other sinful, unnatural desires, does not give them license to disobey God by giving into the "sinful desires of their hearts (Rom. 1:24)." And to refer to such people as Christian "clergy?" It is most assuredly a contradiction in terms. One would need to take scripture out of context, or better yet, bypass Scripture entirely to force an interpretation that allows for such an outrageous practise. God has not hid from his people what He considers to be holy and what He considers to be unholy: It is clearly spelled out from Genesis to Revelation. If the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America accepts the taskforce's statement and recommendations at its Churchwide Assembly, it will be only distancing the ELCA further from orthodox, catholic, apostolic Christianity. Behold, it's time to WAKE UP, folks, you know!

Thanks, Rik. We Lutherans do have a tend to quote Luther as if he is in himself the final authority, rather than a reliable guide pointing us to true authority of Scripture.