I'm very interested in hearing what our LCMS brothers and sisters think of your list and how the LCMS measures up to it. This sounds to me like you want to be the LCMS. Here are my problems with your proposal, though I understand I'm not quite your target audience.

1. CORE is defining itself as an anti-gay church. Good luck with that. One serious problem with making this a line drawn in the sand is that you're making this rather into a dividing wall of hostility. If you decide there can be no discussion on this topic, you've now got Gospel plus. There's an additional regulation required beyond trust in Christ alone and only. You're also going to be hard-pressed to prove to others in point 9 that you've got a real line in the sand, and other arbitrary regulations should not be lines in the sand.

2. While there are the dangers you mention to your so-called "Gospel of inclusion", the focus you intend is going to create an even more dangerous belief that you can redeem people. The Gospel is about Christ's work, not ours, and that is the transformative agent, not oppressive rules and regulations that the current leadership believes is orthodoxy. Incidentally, in your statement about teaching theologians, does that mean that something like Seminex could not occur because the faculty are defined to be right, so the president of the synod would be the one in error?

3. This almost sounds like you want a pope (except you won't call him that, of course, and might make it a few people so you can claim that's your difference) running the new church. There's already one of those, and those who hold to the Confessions believe that papacy is fundamentally flawed. The reasons for that problem is not that it's one man calling the shots-- it's this elevation of the theologian as a distinct kind of person who is more qualified to talk about God and Christ than everyone else, who are merely lay people and inherently inferior. That system was also tried before, except the theologians were called scribes and Pharisees. Our redemption in Christ is a personal event and we are all called to be missionaries for Him. We're not missionaries because we pay someone else to go talk about Christ, the burden lies on us, the priesthood of all believers.

4. This is a real problem with the ELCA. While it's important to diagnose the problem in general, it's even more important to turn that critical lens on ourselves. How many churches has your congregation personally started? How evangelical are the members of your congregation? Any solution that is trying to devise means to hold the national body accountable is no real solution. The real solution is that we, each of us, need to put our trust in Christ. Because of our confession in Christ, we need to be the force that are actively planting new churches. There is no time to wait for a national body, whether it is the ELCA, LCMS, CORE or whatever. Once we start building a new church, they'll catch up.

5. I think this will be an interesting one to see, assuming you mean that you want an alternative to the current 4 year system, etc and not the part where you mean 'we need to figure out how to keep the teaching theologians in line'. Again, the LCMS already ran that experiment, and it sounds like their seminaries are still in trouble.

6. Is the first way you're going to fix this overabundance of political correctness by disallowing women's ordination? Because if you're there, you're halfway to Missouri, and don't need a new church. I think in trying to define CORE in terms of being anti-ELCA, you're not closing the gate in the other direction. There is a fear of preaching God's Law in parts of the ELCA, and some of that is manifested in what we call "hypersensitivity" to some of these issues. However, we each draw the line at different points to what is hypersensitivity (I'm sure there are some who see an insistance on women's ordination as just hypersensitivity) and to a very large extent need to learn to live with people with different hypersensitivity settings. Also not being women, I would be very hesitant to conclude that our hypersensitivity settings on female issues must be the correct one. That isn't to say we ought to remove our confession of God as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", but again it sounds like you want to define some things to be wrong no matter what our understanding of Scripture or Christ is.

7. That'll be hard when you're proud of being an all-white denomination. I don't think you intend to be proud of being an all-white denom, but that's how it's going to come off. Also, I think if you could show that catholicity instead of diversity worked better at including minorities in the ELCA, they'd be all ears. To my knowledge, the ELCA has not prevented you from trying that experiment.

8. It sounds like this translates to 'the new denom should only speak out against abortion and gay marriage'. You'll still just be one more political interest group, just with a slightly different agenda. It's also coming back to Gospel plus.

9. If homosexuality is your line in the sand, and women's ordination and closed communion are the LCMS's lines in the sand, and the Pope is the Catholic's line in the sand, I hightly doubt you'll have a lot of luck among the declining, "orthodox" bodies. However, I do think this choice of ecumenical targets is consistent with everything else you're proposing. I doubt you really need to make this a "talking point". Best of luck with the ecumenism. If CORE can actually maintain its so-called confessional identity and get some of these other groups to buy into it, that's a win for everyone. Maybe if you asked nice, you could get the RCs to open the door for married ex-Lutheran clergy to become priests like they did for the ex-Episcopalians.

10. I haven't actually seen the ELCA HQ. If it is as pretentious as you say, it is disappointing, and we should push for them to renovate it as a homeless shelter or soup kitchen or housing for those who have none. One problem is that you do need some degree of infrastructure in place for the organization. Trying to make modesty the goal shortchanges the infrastructure as much as extravagance. You need to aim for a functional HQ that can readily get the resources it needs to fulfill its mission.

I don't think this will be an embodiment of Lutheranism in North America. Even in your 10 points of what you don't like about the ELCA, there's no mention of the substance of the Lutheran Confessions and the only mention of Christ is to charge that liberal Protestantism is "Christ without a cross". There's no talk about how this new church body is going to actually be Christocentric. There's plenty of lines, but none of them go all the way back to Christ. Maybe you will accomplish your ecumenical goals because there will be nothing to distinguish this new body either from so-called fundamentalists or any of the other denominations with similar views.

It also seems that most of your complaints are directed at what I'd call the "social democrat" viewpoint that predominates in the ELCA, and in its place you'd rather put "conservative values". Putting either before Christ (which you do when you say 'these beliefs have no place in our new denom) is serving the present day Zeitgeist. Right now, one of the strengths of the ELCA is precisely that we have members who value both "social democrat" and "conservative" ideas, and this puts pressure on us to live together. Splitting off only erects another dividing wall of hostility and affirms that differences like ones Paul names in Galatians 3:28 DO prevent us from all being one in Christ Jesus.

Peter, with this you are trapped in the logical fallacy of "appeal to unqualified authority."

You are not an authority on the LCMS. By your own admission, you have no direct knowledge of the LCMS.

Therefore, you are not qualified to draw conclusions that congregations/individuals that are part of Lutheran CORE must automatically gravitate toward the LCMS.

That is also a logical fallacy, actually "argument from fallacy."

David,

I think I phrased the beginning of my post poorly. I wasn't trying to say that this MUST be the LCMS position, or even speak to the LCMS position. I'm saying that I see no difference, not that there is no difference, and this is probably the result of my unfamiliarity with the LCMS. However, I think there may be a lot of common ground that both groups do share. In fact, since I think prejudice is a large factor in keeping the two groups apart, the two groups could actually be identical for all I know and still remain separate factions. I know closed communion and women's ordination are the two big differences from the ELCA, but I could see both of those things being covered by some of the points he enumerates. Are they?

I am very interested in learning which, if any, of these guidelines would be rejected by the LCMS. Are any of these actually deal-breakers? If the answer is no, why isn't the LCMS reaching out to them? Likewise, if these points are really the only points of contention CORE has and the LCMS is ok with them all, why doesn't CORE want to be a part of the LCMS? CORE would need a few more points to explain why it wants to go through all the time, money and hassle of starting a new denom, especially given how few churches have broken away so far. If CORE partnered with the LCMS, maybe they could use that redundant seminary the LCMS has...

Has CORE dealt with the issues of biblical inerrancy and Historical Criticism. Is the bible the Word of God (LCMS), or does it merely contain the Word of God (ELCA). Furthermore, what about lodge membership: Allowed (ELCA, LCMC); Verboten (LCMS). Unless I am missing something, these issues were not addressed in the article by Robert Benne.

Among the disaffected ELCA laymen that want to leave the ELCA and join a more confessional denomination (LCMS), why are the issues of women's ordination and closed communion stopping points.
Unless you happen to be a woman that wants to become a pastor, then why should a "men only" pastorate bother you. Why should closed communion bother you. It is very easy to become a member of the LCMS. As an adult, simply attend eight one hour class sessions for eight weeks, and you are in. Impenetrable force field around the altar, indeed!

Who is qualified to draw conclusions that congregations/individuals that are part of Lutheran CORE must automatically gravitate toward the LCMC? I suspect that ELCA splinter groups such as CORE and LCMC are very careful NOT to become too confessional. Otherwise, they might as well join the LCMS. Spend some time visiting an LCMS church. You may find it refreshingly confessional.

As a self-identified social democrat, I can tell you that what the ELCA promotes, for the most part, is NOT "social democracy."

Nor are the positions contrary to the ELCA necessarily "conservative values." That is a broad brush that can mean anything from biblical inerrancy to anti-abortion positions.

David,

Yes, those are very broad brushes, but I think even phrasing it as "liberal" vs "conservative" conveys many of the differences I'm trying to get at. I don't mean that only conservatives will be attracted to the new denom or that everyone in the ELCA is a liberal or even that those are the two best words to use here. It just feels to me like he would rather the church change the focus of its social mission to fighting abortion and homosexuality and letting everything else be secondary/nonexistent. This is especially clear where he says the church must pick one or two issues, and specifically identifies those two issues as ones critical to the new denom. Also, where he says "Most of its ministry should take place as a ministry to its own public servants." sounds a lot like 'let's focus on preventing our members from having abortions' than 'let's remember the poor'. Identification of environmentalism as a problem sounds to me like the church should neglect what stewardship it has of creation.

David,

Actually, upon reading Kurt's essay below, he nailed exactly what I was trying to say with the "social democrat" vs "conservative values" thing.

I read his essay.

It sounds much more to me like the church getting on board with secular culture than the reverse.

David,

My point is that Benne is not offering a solution here to "too much secular culture". He just wants a different secular culture, and thinks that is so important that it should be the cornerstone of this new organization. I think that neither aspect of secular culture should be our cornerstone, and instead it needs to rest on the Gospel. Because of that Gospel some will work to reduce the number of abortions. Others will work for this "social action". Either way, this remains left-hand work unless the Gospel is also proclaimed.

Dr. Benne's article first appeared on the Lutheran CORE website a couple of weeks ago. In response, I offered a blog post on my own blog (http://www.theliberalspirit.com/?p=2008) on January 5th. The post included the following summary and paraphrase of Benne's ten points:

return to orthodoxy
strict interpretation of law and gospel
less democracy and less lay influence
greater emphasis on converting non-Christians
seminaries that are distinctively Lutheran
less feminist, less environmental, less inclusive, less diverse
greater appreciation of white, middle class, Euro-Americans
less support for progressive causes
turn away from Protestant mainstream toward LCMS, Roman Catholicism, & Evangelicals
a streamlined organizational structure that doesn’t waste time and money on social ministries

A dose of reality is also appropriate. Despite CORE's ambition to accomplish a "Reconfiguration of American Lutheranism", the actual number of congregations that have withdrawn from the ELCA to date is around 100--out of over ten thousand. For comparison purposes, the Wisconsin Synod (WELS) has approximately one thousand congregations. Certainly, there will be more withdrawals, but the current trickle is hardly a torrent.

The number of departures of congregations which have left are small. The number of members who have left are large. I have a "one foot" rule in effect now. Anyone getting "one foot" on Confessional soil is automatically accepted as a refugee!

Most of the the ELCA congregations around me have declined significantly.

A response to Dr. Benne's essay has been posted at http://www.kurtjohnsonbooks.com

Paragraph 3 of Dr. Benne's post seems to me to be problematic. I fully agree with his position that the structure of ELCA governance is flawed. The quota system is foolish and leads to results that discounts merit and experience. I have seen in my own Synod how the necessity of picking a lay female from Conference X has gotten in the way of choosing the most qualified candidate. Selection to leadership positions often seems more to revolve around where one lives and whether one is male or female than one's qualifications for the position. Also, there is an emphasis on ignoring candidates' views on particular issues to the point that it is only in rare cases that I have actually known where candidates stood on particular issues prior to having to guess whether a candidate holds orthodox views based upon a biographical paragraph.

Also, it is clear that the CWA feels free to ignore the Conference of Bishops when deemed convenient. I can understand this to some degree concerning matters that are not strictly theological; however, it is troublesome that CWA would approve by 2/3 majority a theologican statement that the Conference of Bishops rejected by an even wider majority.

On the other hand, my own sense is that had voting membership at CWA been restricted to clergy only the result would have been even more lopsided in favor of the revisionist position. I think that there is no question that this would have been defeated if the CWA actually represented the views of ELCA laity.

In other words, I believe that the problems in the ELCA start with the ordained clergy. Our clergy have been educated inadequately in our seminaries because our seminaries no longer teach that the Bible says what it means and means what it says and no longer teach that Lutheran orthodoxy requires a firm understanding of and adherence to the letter and spirit of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.

On top of that, as an institution ELCA deserves a grade of "F-" when it comes to educating laity. In my experience, our laity know little to nothing about what it means to be a Lutheran. Meaningful Christian and Lutheran education has been sadly neglected in many congregations, as evidenced by what our "leaders" say and do and our reactions to the same.

Finally, I have previously stated and continue to believe firmly that the root of our problems can be found in ELCA's emphasis on social gospel over and above the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I attended CWA in 2007 and have attended many of the Assemblies in my home Synod over the last 15 years or so. At every single one of those assemblies I found that there was more discussion about saving the world (e.g., sex, the death penalty, economic "justice", etc. ad nauseum) than there was discussion about saving souls. The primary focus of our organization ought to be the latter, while it always seemed to me to be the former.

Ben,

I think the memorial resolutions passed at the various synod assemblies demonstrate that the sexuality statement would NOT have been soundly defeated if it had been voted on by the laity. Most of the synods supported this document, and CWA is merely reflective of that fact.

The ELCA did start an initiative to improve lay education and familiarity with the Bible, so I think some of these problems are recognized at a higher level. The trick lies in successfully implementing a solution to these problems, and while stating the problem is a start, it isn't sufficient to manage a solution. I'm sure there's plenty of room for you to get involved in helping people gain a deeper understanding of Lutheran theology, possibly even in your own synod.

Synod Assemblies are no more representative than CWA. Delegates to Synod Assembly are chosen in much the same way as delegates to CWA. I believe that the only way we can really know how the laity feel about this is to put the matter to a vote in individual congregations.

The closest we have to good information on this is the very flawed survey done in one of the previous studies (around 2005, if I recall correctly), which found 56% opposed to the revisionist position. There were a lot of problems with that survey, and there is reason to believe that it was biased toward the revisionists, meaning that the number is probably much higher than 56%.

In my own experience, the laity is more traditionalist than the clergy. Of course, this is no more than anecdotal and may be a local phenomenon; however, in my home Synod, the clergy is significantly more revisionist than the laity. Although I do not have actual numbers to back up these assertions, I am relatively confident that I am correct based upon my observation of how this dispute has played out over the last few years.

Ben,

Selection of delegates for synod assembly is largely up to the individual congregations. The only restriction that I have seen is that the delegates must be able to travel to synod assembly, and it must be one male and one female. Given that the church is split roughtly 50-50 between men and women, really shouldn't be that tight of a constraint. Maybe you should revisit how this is done in your congregation. Even if it was put to a vote in individual congregations, people would complain that it isn't fair. Would each congregation be a winner takes all, and you tally the number of congregations? Or go a second step and the majority of congregations decides for the entire synod? Or would it just be raw popular vote? Whichever route you take, people will complain when the vote doesn't go their way.

Data from 2005 is also outdated in this issue as more congregations have discussed it and considered it in the last 4 years, especially with the publication of the Sexuality Statement.

Interestingly, I would say that in my synod it is the opposite. The clergy are dead set against this change, and it is the laity that are not very pleased with this state of affairs. Maybe we should set up an exchange program.

1. I am not necessarily speaking about my congregation. Just as an example, after a few seconds of thought I have identified at least three congregations with traditionalist-leaning membership in my home Synod that sent delegates to Synod Assembly who were strong advocates for the revisionist position.

2. Neither I nor anyone else really knows where either the laity or the clergy stand on this issue. The national church has deliberately avoided any efforts to obtain an honest accounting. I am not advocating either for or against a vote by congregations, so the mechanics of a vote are irrelevant. Rather, I am merely pointing out that the result of the vote at CWA was not reflective of the attitudes of the membership.

3. The only data that exist are from 2005, so that is the data we must use until better data become available. I suspect that a small minority favor change, a somewhat larger minority oppose change, and the largest number just wish this issue would go away. This is only a guess, however.

4. Regardless of where people stand, this issue has torn apart the ELCA. No honest assessment of the fall out of this can ignore the efforts of an increasing number of churches to leave ELCA and the sharp drops in attendance and giving across the board. If the experience of The Episcopal Church is a guide, declines will continue for the foreseeable future.

5. I suspect that these losses are at least partially attributable to the reluctance of people to affiliate with a denomination that is experiencing a significant amount of infighting. People are not drawn to churches because there is a lot of internal strife.

6. From a purely institutional perspective, the vote at CWA was grossly irresponsible. CWA foisted a decision on a controversial matter on a reluctant group of people, and the result was all too predictable. There is a reason for the 2/3 majority requirement on controversial issues - consensus must be built before a controversial decision can be taken.

7. The revisionists treated the matter as political rather than theological. They focused on winning the vote and did not lay the theological and institutional work necessary to build the consensus necessary for adoption of this radical new agenda. Political winners exist only when there are political losers, and political losers in a volunteer organization have the option to vote with their feet and leave the organization.

Ben,

I think there are too many caveats to put a lot of faith in the 2005 data, and if the national HQ did come out with new data saying anything other than 'more people are against it than for it', the "traditionalists" would be claiming that the study was flawed. I think all of the synod data and previous CWA data show that this is a movement that has been gaining momentum and wide-spread acceptance. At previous CWAs, the 'ordain married homosexual' proposals had failed, but it was not because they didn't have a 50% majority, it was because they fell short of the 67%. I think if a majority really does not support this measure, it will be rescinded at CWA2011. I do not think that will happen.

For all that this issue has been a divisive one, it is always the "traditionalists" trying to make it so. The national folks in the ELCA have pledged unity and are working for that-- they're trying to make this NOT divisive. That's also why there's this push for unity now-- it's not "shut up and start lovin all teh gays", but it's trying to break down this dividing wall of hostility that has risen in the denomination. It started even at CWA with that "let's love each other and move forward as a church together even if we disagree on an issue" which we all promptly ignored, and has been continuing. Where has LC/NA ever said 'if you vote against us, we're leaving the denomination and going to try to tear it apart in the process'? If anything, the question largely rests with those "traditionalists": will you work to maintain unity even now that you didn't get your way? There are only political losers here because one faction has declared that they are the losers unless they get exactly and entirely what they want. This CWA was a compromise between both sides-- neither one was declared unfaithful, and the church structure was altered to make room for both groups, even if it isn't willing to actually call same-gendered relationships marriage.

Theologically, there has been a lot of thought in all directions on this issue. While two directions say that this is a Gospel-issue, that is something the Sexuality statement has said is NOT the case. It places this at the matter of conscience and says that one can be a faithful Lutheran and take either side in this issue. While we may disagree with that statement, I don't think we can just dismiss it as 'no theology'. To reduce the issue to 'we don't accept the Secret Gospel of Mark as canon' is to reduce Christ to Mohammed or Moses. The only difference between Judaism, Christianity and Islam becomes which book is your legal manual, and no longer a fundamental difference in how God saves us. Reclaiming that difference is exactly what the Reformation was about.

...is not going to happen.

There has been a significant shift in the nexus of control of the ELCA.

Those who now have power (LC/Goodsoil) will not be willing to give it up.

Plus, too many traditionalists have left (and are still leaving) to make up enough of a bloc to counter the current power structure.

I think the biggest shift in the "nexus of control" is in the minds of those leaving over CWA.

I don't know if those wanting to overturn this decision will be able to successfully organize in time. It doesn't help that there's a split between staying and leaving, but that's their problem. At least those who want to encourage people will be able to find ready support from the rest of the ELCA (lol, even LC/NA), whether they like it or not.

Read your post again and then try to tell me with a straight face that the revisionists really want unity.

Whoops, left out two important words (to stay) that should make it a lot clearer. I meant the ELCA and even LC/NA are committed to unity and those trying to encourage people to stay do have access to resources from both groups. One of the things that is rapidly obscured by the separtists is that the ELCA's statement is a very far cry from full equality and leaves room for those who stand against full inclusion of the LGBT community in the church.

Wrong. It is not the traditionalists who have made this into a divisive issue. It is the issue itself that is divisive. Traditionalists view homosexual conduct as something that is sinful and absolutely prohibited by the Bible. Those who pushed for it did so knowing this -- they knew that they would divide the ELCA, and they apparently do not care. The revisionists cannot have reasonably expected that they could turn thousands of years of Biblical understanding on its head without resistance.

No I will not work for unity. As long as I believe that homosexual conduct is a sin according to God's Word, I will not work to make it into something else. I believe that ELCA has become a heterodox organization and I will not be in unity with it until the heterodoxy is removed. For me, there are two options: (1) change my mind by convincing me that my view of theology is wrong; or (2) change the ELCA's mind.

As I indicated previously but will state again for purposes of emphasis, the revisionists treated this as a political matter. When they had enough votes, they made the change. They did not lay the groundwork for the decision: they did not make the overwhelming theological case necessary to overcome thousands of years of tradition, and they did not prepare the membership for the change. The revisionists sowed the wind, and, ironically, they now claim to be aggrieved that they have reaped the whirlwind.

Most importantly, however, ELCA acted with hubris. The revisionists were so utterly convinced of the rectitude of their position that they have failed to account for the possibility that they may be wrong. The church catholic has had an understanding of this matter for two thousand years that is contrary to the position embraced by the revisionists. Without ANY new evidence, the revisionists have simply concluded that generations of theologians before them and a considerable number of their contemporaries are simply wrong. If the revisionists are wrong, however, they have risked destroying their own institution and potentially imperiled the salvation of its members by falsely leading them to believe that unrepentent sin will be rewarded.

In its current form, I will not, and can not, accept what ELCA has done. In other words, if the traditionalists really want unity, they will spend more time on theology and less time on politics.

Ben,

How long ago was it that the Historic Episcopate was THE big divisive issue in the ELCA? None of these issues in and of themselves are divisive, it's how people deal with these issues. First of all, it gets forgotten that many on the side of full inclusion who see exclusion as sinful. That means there are people on both sides who see each other as in mortal error. And yet, both groups have dealt with the other side differently. One has stayed committed to working with the organization even when things haven't gone their way and the other wants to dump the organization the moment there is an unfavorable decision. Which group is guilty of hubris?

Your contention mostly seems to boil down to: "they didn't convince you, so it's just a political thing". From the point of view of someone who is unconvinced, maybe you can't/don't want to believe that many people in the ELCA disagree with you. Hence, vote-buying and politics come into it. However, another possibility is that many people at all levels of the ELCA support the CWA decision and believe that it was not an error. There has been theology published supporting same-gendered marriage. It's only not enough because you do not agree with it. I think we do all long for the world where we can all agree on all the issues. Failing that, we have to trust to the tools we've been given: Scripture and the Confessions. The only clear case against homosexuality in Scripture is inextricably linked to the 1st century Zeitgeist that it cannot be taken as normative today, and the Confessions clearly indicate that we cannot take exerpts of Scripture over and against the main message therein. The 2000 years argument is also very flawed, considering that our track record on slavery is ~1800 years and women's ordination about 1950, and that overwhelming theological case in favor of women's ordination that makes it acceptable to the ELCA apparently failed to convince our Missouri brothers and sisters. In fact, under closer scrutiny, that "overwhelming theological case" in favor of women's ordination is suspiciously similar to that supporting homosexual marriage.

And all of this forgets that no one is requiring that you change your beliefs on homosexuality. Only that yours is not the only one the ELCA will call faithful (as much as I may disagree), and that does not prevent us from living as one body in Christ.

Please give this "no one is requiring that you change your beliefs on homosexuality" a rest. In case you haven't noticed, a number of revisionists are openly calling those, who remain voicing traditional views, heritics and stating that those who are less than "welcoming" (meaning never saying one negative word about homosexuality) are committing the sin against the Holy Spirit.

While most will not go as far as voicing these hostile attacks. the plain fact is that in the name inclusivity certain things will not tolerated in "polite company". We are perfectly entitled to our own views; just don't make them plain during "fellowship".

The slow wheels of repression are already rolling. Yes, we can all be in the sweet and sunshine "love" company together; but rest assured there are a number of things you will never hear coming from the mouth of the ELCA ever again.

Some middle ground.

I agree that it is time to leave the ELCA for a lot of your reasons and more. I'm wrote and blogged about it here http://www.exposingtheelca.com

And how is leaving the ELCA for the ELCA splinter groups CORE or LCMC a departure from ELCA theology. If everything in CORE and LCMC doctrine is the the same tired ELCA minus support of homosexuality/social justice activism, then why bother.

It isn't a clean break from ELCA doctrine.

There are many other underlying problems doctrinally in the ELCA.

It's kind of like a boil: you only see what's come to a head (homosexuality), while the infection is under the skin and causing pain.

The ELCA now is kind of a "make up your own theology and we won't say anything because we want to be nice and inclusive and don't want to be seen as legalistic." A bit like the way the Episcopalians have gone, and the way the UCC went long ago.

There weren't any LCMC congregations anywhere near me, but it would have been interesting to sit down face-to-face with one of their pastors and see where they stood on other issues, such as Biblical authority/inerrancy.

It was difficult to leave our former congregation, but not the pastor or the ELCA in general.

The inerrancy discussion effectively ended with Rudolph Bultmann quite awhile back. Yes, there are some who have been inDOCTRINated otherwise, but it no longer is a cutting edge issue. Did you see INHERIT THE WIND?

Could a sub-part of #3 in the essay be leaving behind our "full communion" endeavors and agreements? While it's popular to take shots at "Called to Common Mission" (which sought to improve our polity, perhaps in a misguided fashion) the poison is found in "A Formula of Agreement," our pulpit/altar fellowship with the Reformed, Presbyterians, & Church of Christ. Rather than engaging in mission with those outside our walls, we spend literally hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars to publish something like AFOA that says Jesus is both present and absent in the sacrament and that's ok just as long as you feel included in the sacrament. Ugh.

The below e-mail was exchanged with another member of my church. The reason I forwarded it to my pastors is that I believe they should know what some of us are thinking and what our issues are. I feel strongly about how the leadership of the ELCA handled the controversial action, as does the other member; I see no reason for the pastors to be blindsided.

I'm curious as to the timing of everyone's awareness of this issue. As noted below, I really didn't understand what was about to happen until the week before the actual vote. So, are people becoming more aware as time goes on? Let me know what you think!

The letter/e-mail I sent our pastors the "day after" he first announced in church that the ELCA's CWA (Church Wide Assembly) would be considering the ordination of practicing gays is located half way down this e-mail. It was the first public announcement, in the church's sanctuary, in which I had heard the ELCA's CWA was seriously considering the ordination of practicing homosexuals. In that announcement, our senior pastor noted the issue would be voted on by the CWA that coming week.

Both Marilyn and I were taken back by that "first announcement" by our pastor that indicated it was likely the CWA would be approving the ordination of practicing gays. Our senior pastor noted we had been informed of this possibility by the fact there were "pamphlets" in the narthex and there had been local sexuality studies. However, I believe many of the clergy in the ELCA didn't want to cause a ruckus by "openly" discussing this issue with their congregations. In fact, the clergy still does not seem to want to openly discuss "what" has caused a schism in the church and has undermined the church's dual missions of spreading the Word of God and "reaching out to the poor." I find this tactic wholly dishonest in the sense that if the ELCA leadership and liberal clergy weren't willingly to openly express and defend their position, then they shouldn't have been willing to overturn two-thousand years of Christian teaching/Western culture, and at the same time, claim that scripture needed to be "re-interpreted" in a modern context. I say if you don't have the guts to have your views challenged by others then the ground you're on isn't as "solid" as you think. One possibility is that they didn't need a "consensus" or see the necessity of considering other viewpoints was, from their perspective, that those opposing viewpoints simply wouldn't have been sufficiently enlightened.

At this point, I believe the elitist leadership (the labeling as "elitist" is supported below) of the ELCA in Chicago, particularly Presiding Bishop Hanson and the liberal clergy, owe the traditional "pew-sitters" an apology for "using" the church to promote their political agenda. Their gay agenda has had the effect of equating "homosexual" relationships with heterosexual relationships and thereby undermining our morality, our children's understanding of sexuality, and discounting the success of Western cultural norms. I believe a "global apology" is due since they "used" the church for their purposes while, it is obvious to me, the church isn't theirs to do with as they wish. The church, in some sense, belongs to the body of members who have supported it for years, attended for generations, supported it financially, given their time, and provided gifts. Yet, the leadership viewed the "ELCA" as theirs for the purpose of promoting their agenda without regard to the views of most, if not a large minority, of the members. Included in those who need to apologize are the members of the leadership and clergy who were not proponents of the radical departure form scripture yet remained publically silent.

Obviously, an apology is not going to be made. The simple reason is that the leadership and the members of the liberal clergy do not see that they've done as anything wrong. In fact, the more mean-spirited traditionalists, like myself, oppose their action of "caring and empathy," the more certain they are of the "righteousness" of their position. So, how can this be? How can we have such divergent views of the ELCA's actions? The answer may be partially found in the following paraphrase of a famous Ayn Rand quote: An "altruist" believes anything done for someone else (particularly some identified minority group) is good and anything done for oneself is wrong (selfish). Therefore, the measurement of whether an action is good or bad simply depends on who's receiving the benefit. In this case, the actions by the CWA provided further societal acceptance of gay marriage for the benefit of the gay community, so it is obviously "good," and therefore, the right position to take. Of course, this does not consider the effect of the ELCA's action on: the authority of scripture, society's view of marriage, our children's understanding of marriage, and the protection of marriage as a commitment between a woman and a man. It also doesn't consider the controversial action's effect of undermining the "true mission" of the church due to the loss of members, people who simply will become unaffiliated with any church, and the loss of resources for the church to do its real work. Related to the altruistic impulse is the idea that a "progressive stand" is not a political issue that needs to be "tested" against conflicting perspectives and negative consequences. In other words, if the idea is progressive it is not really a "political issue," but merely an attempt to make the world a better place. In the eyes of Bishop Hanson and his like-minded brothers and sisters, if something is progressively "right," it is "right" beyond any doubt. Notwithstanding what I've just said, I do believe there can be "times" when a church needs to make a social/political stand, but those situations should obviously have the overwhelming support of the church's membership to ensure that a broad range of perspectives truly support the church's position and that it isn't just a narrow agenda held by some group including liberal members of the clergy. My guess is that this was the original intent of requiring a 2/3rds Super Majority for Social Statements as specified in the ELCA constitution, a requirement that was side-stepped by Presiding Bishop Hanson and the elitist leadership in Chicago.

There was, of course, a huge miscalculation by the ELCA leadership in this "debacle." Pushing through this radical agenda brought "into focus," for many members, just how dedicated the leadership has become to liberal activism. Historically, most rank-and-file members do not pay much attention to the activities of the main denomination. Instead, they identify with their local congregation, their clergy, church community, activities in a Christian's life, and their families. In other words, they do not go out of their way to find out what the "denomination" is up to. Unfortunately, this has allowed the denomination's activities to become an "playground" for left-leaning social activism that has excluded opposing views from traditionalist and conservatives. My family falls into that camp of "inattentiveness." I always knew most of the clergy was certainly left-leaning, but I also knew most of them did a great service to their church and community. While often disagreeing with their viewpoints, I didn't feel this should be the driving force for deciding which church to attend and financially support. We all have viewpoints. However, what I didn't know was how involved with social activism the church had become. As a result of this latest radical departure from Christian tradition and an increased awareness on my part, I realize the elitist leadership and liberal members of the clergy are using substantial resources from the church body to promote political activities to which I personally disagree and many of the rank-and-file members would disagree. This fact leaves traditionalist and conservatives only two possible outcomes and really only one alternative: i) if there is an apology from the leadership with a commitment to limit its social activism, there may be a home for traditionalist and conservatives in the Lutheran Church (this will never happen), or ii) traditionalist and conservatives simply need to find another church home. After this experience with the ELCA, I'm thinking a "non-denominational" church is a better choice.

When I say the leadership and liberal clergy "used the church," I mean the elitist in Chicago manipulated the governing process to accomplish their political goal specifically by: i) avoiding direct input by the rank-and-file, ii) leaving an "agenda-driven" Task Force in place for over eight years until the "right" recommendation was forth coming, iii) using a non-democratic body, the CWA, to achieve their purpose (Chicago politics - vote for whoever you like, but I'll pick the candidates), iv) side-stepping the ELCA's constitution and the recommendation of the Bishops to subject the controversial issue to a 2/3rds vote, v) manipulating the process so the least controversial proposal, the nebulous Sexuality Statement (pasted by 66%), would be subjected to a Super Majority requirement while the more controversial issue, ordaining practicing gays (passed by only 54% to 46%), would "not" be subjected to a Super Majority requirement, vi) ignoring the recommendation of the prior Task Force to take no action since there was "no general consensus," vii) ignoring a 2005 survey of church members that reflected clear opposition to the proposal, and finally viii) not requiring a referendum from the members of the church to determine whether or not there was a "real consensus" for such a drastic change. This body of actions clearly demonstrates that the leadership of the ELCA, aided by liberal-minded clergy, has acted in a very "elitist manner." Another aspect of this debacle was the "failure" of the leadership in Chicago and individual clergy members to speak out against the "use" of the church for a political purpose while they intentionally limited input from the larger body of church members. How much better would the acts of the ELCA been perceived if they had had an open discussion with the members of the church and then held a church-wide referendum over the issue? But that wasn’t likely to occur since the 2005 survey made it clear that an all-inclusive referendum to approve the ordination of practicing gays would not have passed anytime soon.

Unfortunately, the ELCA has developed a tradition that believes spreading the word of God is, to a large extent, represented by "progressive social activism." A reading of the ELCA's news releases and Policy Statements indicate the leadership is wholly in the liberal camp, and does not consider dissenting opinions from the traditionalist/conservative perspectives. A clear example of this one-sided, left-leaning political view was a recent news release in which the ELCA accused several well-known conservative commentators, by name, of "hate speech" for opposing "illegal" immigration. I've listened to several of these speakers (not all), and I've never heard them refer in a demeaning manner to illegal immigrants, but they do strongly oppose illegal immigration and blanket amnesty for the 15 to 20 million people who have entered the country illegally. Furthermore, they usually voice support of American's generous legal immigration policy that allows over one million legal immigrants to enter the country each and every year. The ELCA's willingness to issue a national news release that defamed, without clear examples, individuals just because they disagree with the ELCA's political views most certainly demonstrates a particular, left-leaning political orientation by the leadership of the ELCA. Please note - when I refer to the leadership of the ELCA as acting in an "elitist" manner, I've provided at least eight specific examples of "elitist" acts by that leadership involving the promotion of their agenda to allow practicing gays to be ordained. In other words, it isn't just a "feeling," but labeling them as "elitist" is based on their specific "actions." The fact, no doubt, that their hearts are in the right place, does not change the reality of their elitism. The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.

THE FOLLOWING IS THE LETTER I HAD SENT TO MY CLERGY JUST BEFORE THE ELCA VOTE. THE LETTER NOTES MY OPPOSITION TO THE CHANGE IN POLICY THAT WOULD ALLOW THE ORDINATION OF PRACTICING GAY CLERGY:

After being surprised by the announcement, this last Sunday, that the ELCA will vote on whether to ordain "practicing" gays as clergy, I felt compelled to outline my "views "of that possible action by the church. Like most people, this is the last thing I would like to be doing this evening; I've had a hard day and I'm extremely tired. But I don't want this decision, made by my church, to pass without speaking up. If you think it will make the slightest difference to the people making this momentous decision, please feel free to pass this e-mail on.

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 to Some People "Choosing" 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 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 this 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 life. 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 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 Kinds 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 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 Consequences:

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 ECLA 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 the Killing of the Unborn Without Opposition:

I truly find it odd, that the leadership in the ECLA 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:

Well this is my perspective. I hope you'll consider it, and please pass it on if you think it will help. When these controversies come up, 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.


Sincerely,

Don

Don,

It's unfortunate that you were not aware of this until the week prior to CWA. It's a little surprising that you didn't notice it around the time for synod assembly, where just about all of the synods discussed and passed memorial resolutions concerning the subject. Even earlier, the ELCA tried to publicize both the sexuality statement and ministry policy recommendations as well as it could, and recommended that congregations discuss the matter and offer feedback. These things were online, and it was not difficult to send a response to the statement. Even more so, the document was revised to take into account all of the responses that they had received. That there was not a single person in your congregation who suggested that this is a matter that should be discussed is not a failing of the ELCA. I don't think anything short of a vote like this COULD have provoked discussion in some churches. Now that it's passed, they have to consider it. It's not over. This will be an issue at CWA2011. If this is truly something that everyone is against, it will be overturned then.

I also took the liberty of re-writing your email as it might have appeared 50 years ago to put it in perspective:

After being surprised by the announcement, this last Sunday, that the ELCA will vote on whether to ordain those in interracial relationships as clergy, I felt compelled to outline my "views "of that possible action by the church. Like most people, this is the last thing I would like to be doing this evening; I've had a hard day and I'm extremely tired. But I don't want this decision, made by my church, to pass without speaking up. If you think it will make the slightest difference to the people making this momentous decision, please feel free to pass this e-mail on.

Ordaining Those in Interracial Relationships Will Require the Acceptance of Interracial Marriage:

It is a clear and irrefutable truth that ordaining those in interracial relaionships as clergy will also require the church to bless and support interracial 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 interracial lifestyle as part of church's life and activities.

Promoting the Interracial Lifestyle and Marriage - Will Lead to Some People "Choosing" that Lifestyle:

Some people are truly attracted to those of another race as a result of how God made them. And, that is one of the strongest reasons for not condemning anyone who is attracted to other races, practicing or not. However, people can choose to be involved with those of another race. In history, there have been societies that have fully accepted the interracial life style with a substantial portion of their population practicing interracial relationships. However, is this 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 a couple of the same race. The marriage of whites to whites and blacks to blacks 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 parents of the same race influence in their lives. Unfortunately, promoting interracial relationships will lead people, who are not necessarily interested in other races, to experiment with it, and perhaps make a conscious decision to go down that path in their life. Currently, we are having a national debate as to what the proper place for interracial marriage is in America. Ordaining those in interracial relationships will, of course, be a step closer to normalizing that lifestyle and equating a interracial marriage to an intraracial 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 Kinds of Factors:

Candidates interested in those of another race are not discriminated because of this. As I understand the current policy, adopted not that long ago, such a person can be ordained as a Lutheran pastor as long as he's committed to the church to the extent that they will not have an interracial relationship. This does not seem to be far from the Catholic's request that priest show the same dedication by not engaging in any relationships. 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 pursue interracial relationships?

The Same Arguments Support Polygamy Even Better:

One of my concerns is that once you start "redefining" thousands of years of wisdom and tradition, e.g. only two people of the same race make a marriage, there really is no reason to stop. Every argument for approving those in interracial relationships as clergy in the name of "justice" can also be made for accepting polygamy. While no world religion has ever promoted interracial marriage, 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 Limit Marriage by Race

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 an interracial 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 interracial unions should not be put on the same plain with a union of two whites or two blacks and that society and children, in general, benefit from intraracial commitments.

Open Mindedness is not a "Safe Harbor" from Consequences:

I'm not sure what would drive the clergy, the church, and individuals to promote the interracial agenda. My guess is a feeling that it is unjust to request that a person interested in those of another race 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 interracial marriage don't do so because of an innate dislike of mingling races. We believe, however, there are real consequences to equating interracial relationships with intraracial ones. 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 interracial relationships in American life, why would the ECLA choose, at this time, to enter the fray on the side of approving interracial marriage? The current policy of ordaining those who promise not to pursue interracial relationships appears completely reasonable - a policy the church had previously accepted not that long ago. The vast majority of Americans are opposed to equating interracial marriage and intraracial marriage. Yet, the church feels compelled to push the interracial agenda further by changing a reasonable policy to one that promotes the practice of mingling races and interracial 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.

<as Roe vs Wade had not yet been decided in 1960, these two paragraphs likely would not have been there>

A Simmering Reduction of Perspective:

Well this is my perspective. I hope you'll consider it, and please pass it on if you think it will help. When these controversies come up, 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.

Gay marriage is not in any way comparable to inter-racial marriage. Marriage is about children. A black man and a white woman can have children, while two men cannot. Moreover, the Bible speaks directly about homosexual relationships and is silent on inter-racial relationships.

...were made back in the 1960's about interracial marriage when THAT was the explosive and divisive issue. The procreation argument also argues against infertile (heterosexual) couples, who currently are not forbidden to marry.

Moreover, the Bible does speak quite often about interracial relationships, and that they are bad for the people of Israel, because it invariably leads to idolatry (which is what Paul claims is the underlying sin in the case of homosexuality...).

I've heard that argument made (idolatry) several times about Paul's proscription of homosexuality, and it is a very loose reading of the Greek.

I restate what I have said many times: there is no positive description, explicit or implicit (unless one really stretches the definition) of homosexuality in the Bible. Period.

As for interracial (more accurately, interfaith) marriage, the proscriptions on it in the Old Testament were invariably linked to adopting the spouse's tribal religion. Even to this day, interracial relationships are difficult. I was involved in one about 20+ years ago and I learnt a lot of ugly things about racialism through that.

I don't think seeing idolatry in Romans 1 is loose at all. Even assuming that it is not specifically idolatry, Paul is still assigning opposition to God as the reason for homosexuality. The Crossings model actually fits this pericope very well, though here Paul goes from problem with God down to external problems to demonstrate the causality.

There are positive depictions of homosexual relationships discussed in the Bible. Look to most passages on marriage. That gives a far better picture of the relationships CWA affirmed than temple prostitution.

Are there any positive depictions of consuming blood in the Bible? For that matter, the Bible is also surprisingly silent on the subject of abortion (compare especially to the Epistle of Barnabas where "aborting a fetus" is specifically proscribed).

I never said that Romans 1 excludes idolatry. It doesn't.

However, if Paul had intended to provide a positive picture of the false construct of "publicly accountable same-sex relationships," he would have done so. However, he condemns homosexual behaviour, along with such passages as Jude 7. I am purposefully avoiding any OT references.

If you can point to passages on marriage, and give explicit examples without any sort of grey area that they also apply to homosexuals, I would be very surprised. Not your opinion on the passages, but an objective plain-text reading.

David,

We all bring an agenda to Scripture, and the Jesus Seminar is proof that it's not too hard to find support for our agenda. I think you know better than others that we cannot be objective, and the arguments of scholars over the text (not to mention textual variants themselves) suggests there's no such thing as plain. I think we need to bring exactly 2 questions to Scripture: how does it reveal our condemnation under God's law and how does it reveal our salvation under God's gospel?

That said, I think Paul was probably informed by his 1st century culture, which included viewing homosexuality as something radically different from how we view it today.

To the specific passages on marriage, I think they all apply. Much like us married heterosexuals, some of them have more meaning for certain couples than others. I think that's a question best answered by those homosexuals who are married to each other.

Are you suggesting that heterosexual couples be tested for fertility before being married? The gift of children is up to God, but we are created male and female for a reason.

Homosexual behavior is proscribed because it is not in keeping with the created order. Isn't sexual obsession of any variety a form of idolatry?

Homosexual behavior is entirely a part of the created order. Like it or not, many homosexuals are stuck with those feelings for life. This isn't sexual obsession any more than heterosexual relations are obsession.

Theft is also part of the created order. Like homosexual conduct, it is an example of sin. Neither is forgiven simply because it exists. Both are examples of original sin. Both can be forgiven but are not automatically forgiven. One must repent and ask for forgiveness. Forgiveness entails turning away (or attempting to turn away) from sinful conduct.

So, Peter, you feel homosexual behavior is "entirely a part of the created order." So is every other type of behavior you care to mention, including bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, coprophagy, and anything else you care to name. While none of these activities are specifically mentioned (or forbidden) in the Old Testament either, are you suggesting we should also accept those for whom this behavior is typical? I'm just wondering where you want to draw that line in the sand. Let me finish the second sentence of your post in a different way - "Like it or not, many child molesters are stuck with those feelings for life." In fact, Kraft-Ebbing maintains that sexual predators are the least likely to be rehabilitated. Of course, if your position is that these other sexual perversions (and that's what they are, like it or not) are not the fault of the sinner, and should be accepted, then by all means open your doors and have at it. We are talking about abnormal behavior, as defined by any stretch of the imagination. Don't try to win this debate by twisting that fact.

My point is that while many view homosexuality as victimless, we are in fact changing our views to adapt to society's wonts. Of course, society is ever-changing....but the last time I checked, my God is the same as Moses' God, or Abraham's, or....

Whew. I am an economist, not a theologian. At this point, all I know is that I am so thankful that I am redeemed by Christ's sacrifice, as are the members of my family, that I thank the Lord for every breath I am afforded. May the Spirit guide deliberations.

As summarily stated by another who posted here, Benne essentially says, "less democracy and less lay influence". Perhaps this is an oversimplification as he is against "inclusivity" being more important than faithfulness to orthodox teaching. Nonetheless, the summation by another is what will be perceived and given the very hostile reaction to CCM, and the "exception" that was passed which in effect sowed the seeds for "local option" on the sexuality issues, I see no possible way that Lutheran Core will adopt a polity that is more top down, more reliant upon our Bishops to defend the faith, etc. In fact, many will argue that those at the top were the ones who orchestrated the mess we are in now. As for lay delegates being representative of the congregations they come from, my perspective is that most of the time it takes some arm twisting to get people to go to assemblies at the synodical level and rarely do they get "instructions" from their council or pastor on the issues. So they are left to figure it out for themselves. If they are poorly catechized, the culture will win out. And that's what has happened both at the synodical level and at the churchwide level. I don't believe its possible to recreate a magisterium once the people have desired to throw it off and they've been allowed to do it. That's like trying to put the genie back into the bottle. Ain't happening.