Lutherans to allow pastors in gay relationships

What is chaste about homo-sex?

That’s what I was wondering.  What is chaste about any kind of sex outside of marriage?  Perhaps the ELCA means that they can be in a same-sex relationship but not have sexual relations?  (We’ve seen that construction before.)

This is just the latest evidence of the tidal wave sweeping over all mainline churches,  the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, TEC, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Methodist Church,and the United Church of Christ.  I once thought the Methodists had the critical mass of organized orthodox members to perhaps reverse the tide, but no longer.  This victory will give momentum to revisionists in the UMC to roll back the efforts to impose discipline in that denomination.

One word: millstones. Lots and lots and lots of millstones.

I worked a charity event in Houston this morning sponsored by an organization supported by 37 churches in the Houston area. We provided school supplies and clothing to over 3000 low income children.  Wouldn’t you know it, the PRIDE Houston crew all had their t-shirts on. “Houston’s GLBT community cares.”

I’m glad the poor created the chance to stand on their platform.

Millstone

Where this is no discipline there is no doctrine.  Therefore the “practical” effect of this resolution is to allow homosexual pastors in the ELCA, despite what they said in any other resolution.

Greg, you may recall that none other than Frank Griswold himself stated publicly that if VGR’s lover had been female rather than male,  he (VGR) would not have been consecrated bishop due to a moral impediment.  Does this sound like a Christian theological position?  Not to me, it doesn’t.

Unfortunately, ECUSA/TEC has just been in the lead on the gay issue. The ELCA and other mainline Protestant bodies are only maybe 5 years behind TEC. I also believe that ELCA entering into full communion status with ECUSA/TEC will only hasten their decline and eventual break-up. It has only been relatively a few years ago that the Lutherans in the US began to come together. I am afraid that this unhelpful resolution will only increase the membership of the LCMS and the Wisconsin Synod, as many disgusted members of ELCA congregations will leave for the more conservative Lutheran denominations.

There is a distinction, usually poorly reported by the secular media, between “allowing,” “authorizing,” and “seeking restrain in disciplining.”

To allow is to assume a policy of tolerance. To authorize is to say that a particular action or status is acceptable. Neither of these words apply in fact to the action of the ELCA in this case. They took a third path, to seek restraint in disciplining.

Seeking restraint in disciplining assumes that discipline is due and may need to take place. Indeed, other actions of the ELCA assembly would indicate that such discipline is expected. The effect of this resolution, in the context of all the other actions of the assembly, is to encourage, and not to bind, those who are called to exercise discipline to do so in a restrained way—that is, no witch hunts, and no high-profile punishments. Where it is determined that disciplinary measures must be implemented, do so in ways that are not overly punitive.

Yes, the first option given in Bishop Landahl’s motion is “to refrain” from such disciplinary action—but again, overall, the effect of this motion is to provide guidance, not mandate. It is an urging of the majority of the assembly, not a demand for compliance that must be followed by any whom it may concern.

In short, in effect this resolution changes little—except that it makes clear that the majority of Lutherans at the assembly who voted on this item were saying that they do not want to see the two years between now and a final statement to be spent in 83 or more disciplinary actions, or even if some such actions are taken, they do not want this handled in a contentious way. It is a call to refrain from releasing the hounds… not a call to refrain from what some bishops and other judicatories may deem necessary acts of discipline for the clergy or potential clergy in their care and charge.

It is not time to panic or jump ship—for anyone. For the people of the ELCA, it is rather time to step back from the brink of any precipitous action—whether to “make examples” of clergy whose manner of life is out of step with expected norms OR to change those norms in any radical way—and instead work, talk, deliberate and develop a social teaching document by 2009 that Lutherans are ready and eager to adopt, and from there to develop the policy framework that puts that teaching into action.

The Reverend’s Spouse:

Thanks for accentuating the positive, and I enjoyed reading your thoughtful post.  I can only hope that you’re right, but I fear that you’re not.  Here’s part of why this looks like deja vu all over again to beleaguered Anglicans:

“This is a great victory,” said Emily Eastwood, executive director of Lutherans Concerned / North America and a leader in the Goodsoil coalition of groups seeking full inclusion. “We’ve put the crack in the dam that will lead to policy change, and we’ve put a process in place whereby the church has mandated that there will be recommendations regarding the policy at the next Churchwide Assembly.

“And in the meantime, we’ve got the bleeding stopped so that hopefully we will have no more trials, and our pastors will continue to come out,” added Eastwood.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=645629

And a conservative reaction:

“The Rev. Mark Chavez, director of Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Reform) and the WordAlone network, said those organizations would work to rally congregations and church members to resist changes in church policy in 2009. “In yesterday’s votes, the attempt was to open the front door to basically change the standards,” Chavez said Saturday. “The end result of today’s vote is, ‘We closed the front door, but you’re more than welcome to come in the back door.’ “

So . . . “what some bishops and other judicatories may deem necessary acts of discipline for the clergy or potential clergy in their care and charge” will be carried out in some places, some of the time . . . but presumably not in others, and not by all?

That does have a familiar ring to it.

What’s your prediction for the most likely outcome in 2009?

Sasha, let me take you up on your invitation to correct you. The Wisconsin Synod, to which my brother belongs, is more conservative than even the Missouri Synod.  The gay agenda isn’t in the cards for either the Wisconsin Synod or the Missouri Synod.

Perhaps the ELCA means that they can be in a same-sex relationship but not have sexual relations?

Exactly James Manley! This is like telling an alcoholic…“you can hve booze in the house you just can’t drink it” or a drug addict….“you can have cocaine in the house you just can’t partake of it.”
Just how stupid do these pwople think we are? Amazing!

...and instead work, talk, deliberate and develop a social teaching document by 2009 that Lutherans are ready and eager to adopt, and from there to develop the policy framework that puts that teaching into action.

Rev.‘s Spouse:
As nce as your post is I really take umridge with the above. We know what talking & deliberating means and does. If nothing else the ELCA needs to pay heed to hat is happening in TEC and not walk that path as it is a path to nowhere.
And as far as “develop a social teaching document by 2009 that Lutherans are ready and eager to adopt” What’s wrong with the Bible? God’s Word? Scriptures? and “put those into action.”

The Reverend’s Spouse:

Deja vu, part two.  I don’t mean to lay it on too thick, but here’s another scenario that Episcopalians are only too familiar with:

“The current clergy standards require ministers to ‘abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.’ Earlier this year, Bradley Schmeling, an ELCA pastor in Atlanta, was removed from the clergy roster after he told his bishop that he was in a relationship with a man. However, even before Saturday’s vote, liberal-leaning bishops had refused to enforce the rule.”

http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/08/11/ap/us/d8qv0gk02.txt

If it’s not enforced, then how is it a rule? 

And are any ELCA bishops facing disciplinary action for refusing to enforce it while it still was a rule—supposedly?

Episcopalienated:

You have pointed out the same thing I noticed about Resolution C951 of GC 2993 where it was declated that “those congregations that practice same same blessings are working within the bounds of our common life…”, or some similar weasel-worded nonsense. Basically what ELCA did was say the following;

We have a standard called Visions and Expectations which says that rostered pastors and staff will live chastely in a marriage between a man and a woman, or practice chastity in singleness. Those who are homosexually oriented are expected to live in celibacy. However, we have now decided not to enforce that standard for homosexually oriented persons. Yet non-homosexual persons still have to comply.

This is sheer nonsense and creates a double-standard. These people knew what the expectations were when they opted to be in the rostered ministry. Now they are whining and wanting special treatment because it is too much for them to “sacrifice.”  Somehow a right for homosexuals to be sexuallly gratified has been created. Of course, none of this can be supported by Scripture, but who the heck cares?

Shame of the ELCA for caving in to whims of the World, the Flesh and the Devil. That is exactly what they have done.

You want to hear a story? My wife is the organist and choir director for our local ELCA parish. She was talking to the head of the Church Council the other day. This woman has been a Lutheran all her life. What she told my wife was ” I was raised a Lutheran and have been a Lutheran all my life. I was hoping to die a Lutheran, but it looks like I will not be able to do that.” Now there is a sad story indeed!.

We have enjoyed our stay with this fine group of people. Looks like we will be moving on much sooner than we had anticipated. A good thing we have found an Anglican Catholic church in a nearby town. It’s a 45-minute drive one way, and we will not have the local connection, but at least we will have the surety of an orthodox body of believers. 

I will be praying for my orthodox ELCA Lutheran friends. They will be suffering quite a bit over the next two years as they decide what to do. For this congregation, there is no choice. The synod clearly owns title to the property, which is prime real estate in the town we live in. The synod has not been very helpful in trying to support this congregation pastorally (it is too small to call a full time pastor and they have been trying to find a retired pastor who is willing to contract on a part time basis). We have long suspected that the rason for this is the fact that the synod holds title to this prime real estate. If that congregation folds, the synod stands to profit quite a bit. What sterling and compassionate leadership and care from the synod staff! Too bad this congregation cannot stick them with a big mortgage!

TPS, I find these two statements somewhat contradictory:

The effect of this resolution, in the context of all the other actions of the assembly, is to encourage, and not to bind, those who are called to exercise discipline to do so in a restrained way.

Yes, the first option given in Bishop Landahl’s motion is “to refrain” from such disciplinary action—but again, overall, the effect of this motion is to provide guidance, not mandate.

The resolution is definitely vague, but then again you can’t deny it is recommending the option of allowing what is clearly against its rules.

It’s not time to jump ship? “Don’t worry Mr. Frog, no need to jump out of the pot. We’ve passed a resolution recommending the temperature not be raised at all, or if so, very slowly.”

If they had resolved decisively for discipline, I wonder who would benefit most by any fallout, TEC or MCC?

[Reposting my comment over at MCJ—]

Two links worth reading on the state of ELCA:

<a >Theologian Carl Braaten’s famous letter</a> of two years ago to ELCA’s PB, Mark Hanson; and

<a >Bishop Emeritus Mocko’s recent open letter</a> to Bishop Hanson. 

<font face=“Arial, Helv” size=-1 color=purple>Why [are we doing this]? Is it because some new exegetical revelation has burst upon us? No. All attempts to claim that come up against the wall that every reference to homosexual practice in our scripture gives a clear negative judgment. Yet we would pronounce it blessed.

So next we launch into a study on the authority of Scripture, which, excuse me, early signs are that it will tell us that we can continue to claim that Scripture is the “source and norm of our faith and life,” as we clearly brush aside Scripture and turn to other sources and norms. We are preparing to sell our birthright as the foremost biblical theologians of the West for the pottage of this culture’s approval, as we accommodate to its desires and demands in its extraordinary and overwhelming obsession with, and worship of, sex. What hubris possesses this generation to think it is qualified to rewrite the teaching of what has been the faith for 2,000 years, and a thousand before that.

If we succeed in doing this, we will sacrifice the credibility of all our teaching. The very thing that has made our teaching notable has been its solid rootage in Scripture. Make that optional, take it away, and who cares what we say about anything?—ELCA Bishop Mocko</font>

The Methodists, the Presbyterians, and even the Baptists are all in the same struggle (which is why I find it so hilarious to watch revisionists go on and on about “traditional Anglican inclusiveness”).  While we’re all waiting to see what happens on September 30, say a prayer for our faithful bretheren in the other denominations.

I am a member of the group that is working for reform of the ELCA.  It is called Lutheran CORE (Coalition for Reform).  We were there at Chicago and worked as hard as we could.  We are not finished yet.  We are planning a gathering on September 28 at a Lutheran congregation in Chicago to plan our strategy for the next two years.  Many of those who want to jump ship now have been sitting on their hands while complaining and whining loud and long for the past few years.  If any of you want to help fight for the name of Lutheran, get ready to *work*.  Otherwise, quit your yammering and get out of our way. 
    I am an orthodox, faithful Christian of the Lutheran tradition in the ELCA.  I am not the only one.  We’re not going anywhere.  Both Chicago headquarters and Emily Eastwood better get used to that.

Greg, I suggest that the writings linked to Craig Goodrich’s comments above are worthy of appearing as individual articles here on SFIF.  These include 1) the letter by theologian Carl Braaten, 2) the statement by Lutheran Emeritus Bp. George Paul Mocko, and 3) a statement by CORE’s Steering Committee, signed by Bp. Paull Spring, Erma Wolf, and others (an item linked to the statement by Bp. Mocko).  We may possibly have had one or more of these fine pieces here previously, but they make a powerful trio!  And thanks, too, to Craig and Wittenberg for the up-to-date messages.

This is exactly where ECUSA was after General Convention 2000.  A Lutheran friend of mine at that time insisted that I should leave ECUSA and join the ELCA because “it will never happen in the ELCA.”

Craig - the Baptists?  Hadn’t heard that.

Me neither.  At least not the Southern Baptists…

(although there are dozens of tiny ‘baptist’ associations that are up to all sorts of nonsense)

RE:  Baptists
FYI: Rainbow Baptists

Thanks for the link.  Note that there are no SBC churches listed here:  http://www.rainbowbaptists.org/wachurches.htm

NOT ‘hijacking”, just a new one on me.. “Independent Fundamentalist Baptist” ??  Saw the sign yesterday..

Grannie Gloria

Lets take a moment to look at the upside.  This will create an opportunity for the impending second jurisdiction to welcome a second group of refugees.

Intriguing to see the “Rainbow Baptists” link . . .

An Episcopal friend of mine tried to insist that all the denominations—even the Baptists—are struggling with this.  He sent me print-outs of purported Baptist churches who were “inclusive” and non-celibate-gay affirming.

I looked everyone up.  All were either “Baptist” churches in organizations that had split off from the SBC—sort of like the Continuers, only in reverse [and the Continuers are much better off, of course], or had been disciplined/deleted from the SBC and had “formed their own special ‘Baptist’” association”.

It was a pleasure to go church by church and point out each one to my Episcopal priest friend.

This gets me back to one of the points in my last article.

Anybody can call themselves “classical Anglicans,” “orthodox Baptists,” “conservative Presbyterians,” “real Methodists,” “traditional Mormons,” “true Buddhists,” or whatever.

Anyone can form their teeth and lips and tongue into those syllables and vowels to describe themselves.

What matters is if they are a part of your church or association.  That’s where the church discipline part becomes important.

The SBC has held the line and I pray God that they are smart enough and courageous enough to continue to do so.  They should never doubt that, even though all the “real true inclusive and orthodox Baptists” are over there in that splinter group . . . they still fervently desire the SBC. 

I have a lot of respect for the SBC.  Three cheers.

Reverend Spouse,

There is an old saying that applies to organizations and churches: What you allow, you also teach. Imagine what would happen in our society if the government said we realize that there are laws against speeding, and we don’t yet have the votes or the gumption to overturn them. However, from now on you all can just speed away and we will not give any more tickets. But it’s still on the books, however. I sure would get to work alot faster. Everyone knows that a decision to not enforce a standard is just a back door way to get people used to there being no standard, so that pressure will then mount to remove the standard in short order.

The ELCA has just done what the PCUSA did recently. Imagine a ship with two groups of people stuggling for control of the wheel. It goes back and forth for a while, with one side and then the other side taking control of the wheel. Both sides are exhausted, but neither has the votes to seal a final victory. Eventually, one group just sends a party over the side to cut the rudder loose, so that there will be no more reason to fight for control of the wheel.

See?! Finally we have peace in our time. What a relief!

That’s where ELCA, TEC and PCUSA is. No discipline (except over property!!), just drifting about on the ocean. If the ship has become ungovernable, than there is really less and less reason to stay on board. In the case of federation style denominations that don’t retain the concept of communion like the AC, those lifeboats are looking better and better. At least you can steer one with oars!

On a sidenote, what’s interesting to speculate is what effect this ruling by the ELCA will have on:

1)  ABC Williams as he prays and deliberates about whether the Anglican Communion should discipline TEC.  And…

2)  If this will encourage TEC HOB to “hold the line”.

CONSPRACY, CONSPIRACY!!!!!
Folks, all this is the work of Communists.

Folks, all this is the work of Communists.

Would that it were so!  It’s actually far, far worse.

I think that Virg was being sarcastic - however I think we can safely assume that the corelation between socialist belief and the 500+ who voted for the resolution is quite high.  The people who are forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon Western Civ are the same people who have foisted ever other hard left crackpot idea upon us over the last 100 years.

And the here’s the downside…if there was a shred of hope that the HoB would repent and submit to DES comminique, if there was a gnat’s prayer that Rowan would rescind the invites to Lambeth…it is gone now.  It’s solidarity with a much larger mainline “church”. 

Beloved brethern, thank God for Grannie’s Shelter site.  We found our wonderful EMC parish listed there and are experiencing a revitalized walk after years of wanting to play hokey every Sunday.  With all due respect, it’s time to get your final moving plans in order if you have not already done so.  Interesting enough, this can be a good time of year for church shopping. 

With this ELCA pronouncement, we are approaching the time of Sarah’s leave-taking.  I am trusting God that we will eventually reunite in the final battle with this world’s Mordor.  It may well be that our blessed Lord is scattering us for a very good reason, that it is His purpose for us to be planted in various places, battle-hardened troops to prepare the other faithful for the battles yet to come.

It is my hope and prayer that wherever you all go, whether it’s over the Tiber, or Bosporus, or whatever, that you go with God’s prompting, direction, guidance and blessing.  And to my dear ELCA brethern I say, it’s a bad as you think it is.  NOW, is the time for pitched battle and as Holy Writ tells us, it is not flesh and blood we fight against.

Hail to Lord Jesus, our Captain and King.

</blockquote> And the here’s the downside…if there was a shred of hope that the HoB would repent and submit to DES comminique, if there was a gnat’s prayer that Rowan would rescind the invites to Lambeth…it is gone now.  It’s solidarity with a much larger mainline “church”. </blockquote>

I hear ya Gayle.  But gnats are still praying.  It’s not 9/30 yet.  And all the primates haven’t met yet.  It is a severe setback.  But the Anglican Communion hasn’t officially fractured yet.

According to a comment on MCJ, the Abib Jewish calendar places 9/29 sunset -10/6 sunset as the feast of unleavened bread/Passover. 

This coincides with the dates of the next TEC meeting and makes it an appropriate time for deciding what to do, whether to go (wherever God leads) or stay in Egypt (TEC or now ELCA). 

The Israelites were there 430 years (twice the age of USA) and it must have been hard to leave the only home (and the only identity) they knew, even with the slavery and oppression. 

Sin is slavery and bondage according to Scripture.  The danger of sin and bondage is that they become our identity, and our life. 

Anything that is above God (that we can’t leave behind) is sin (whether a person, relationship, security, place, thing, behavior, substance…whatever) and is our master, and is idolatry.  Worship is whatever we give our hearts, selves to (thought, word or deed). 

God’s covenants and requirements were always aimed to help and restore humanity, from the circumcision (putting the flesh, appearance, identity, power, prosperity, pleasure, progeny, purity, etc. back under His dominion), the Passover, the First and Second Great Commandments, the Ten Commandments and the Cross.  These were all God’s plans and lessons to teach us that He is our salvation and that obedience to Him (though self-denial, etc. seemed uncomfortable, and sin seemed more fun or pleasureable) was for our own good.

When we do the First Commandment,.in willing His will, we give God dominion over us.  He then transforms our hearts and enables us to do the Second Commandment, to love ourselves and others rightly and truly.  Otherwise, love is still defiled by our fallen nature…is really lust. 

When we renounce sin, offer ourselves to Him as slaves to Him, to be used instruments of, righteousness and He then transforms us and sets us free from our bondage and slavery to sin.

Not preaching, just a little Sunday School lesson…a call to remembrance. 

Once the flesh is crucified, once God is back on the throne of our hearts, to worship the Lord in the peace, freedom and beauty of holiness is worth the pain and far more glorious than all the destructive ‘dung’ and ‘junk’ one leaves behind.

Capn Jack, there was a time when states were required to have speed limits on their highways, but some states administered them with a $5 fuel-wasting ticket rather than an expensive fine for speeding.  Or, we might look at the immigration laws for another real-life example of what happens when laws are on the books but are seldom enforced.

In real life, ELCA has just said, “anything goes.”

Re: conspiracies

We think know the groups like Integrity and CA are connected through a group of a few dozen activists. Has anyone looked to see how the pressure groups across denominations are connected? Are these groups funded or trained by the Human Rights Campaign or some of other organization that sits at the hub of the network?

Occasionally, I have wondered what would happen IF ALL the people from the ALL the Alphabet of Anglican groups flooded back into TEC and began to out-vote, remove all the #*@$%^!  false teachers, leaders, priests and bishops, clean house, renounce and remove their nefarious agenda-based ideas and actions and put Jesus back on the Throne of HIS Church!  (picture the manly, bold,  authoritative Jesus plaiting a whip of cords and cleansing the temple)

What a wonderful thought, vision, prayer. 

Dear Floridian, I think that Passover is in the spring, around the tiume of Easter.  Dear Wittenberg, I agree with you in principle, to continue to fight, witnessing to the truth of the Gospel to the revisionists in the ELCA.  As I mentioned on a parallel thread on the Titus 19, as you move forward, it will be necssary to pay attention to the seminaries, and work to establish one that is wholly orthodox.  Without a good seminary, the institution is dead.  At least on the Anglican side, we have two in the US that are orthodox and at least one (that I know of) in Canada.  You are in my prayers.

“I looked everyone up.  All were either “Baptist” churches in organizations that had split off from the SBC—sort of like the Continuers, only in reverse [and the Continuers are much better off, of course], or had been disciplined/deleted from the SBC and had “formed their own special ‘Baptist’” association”. “

I think it is a good idea to be careful about understanding a polity before commenting on it.  The SBC has been the largest Baptist group, but never the only one.  There has been a Northern Baptist Convention since the two broke over slavery in the 1860’s.  There has been an “American Baptist” group for almost that long, basically the home for Blacks not wanted by the SBC.  And there has been for some decades the “Primitive Baptists” who are now the cultural preservers of the uniquely American “sacred harp” shape note music.  There is even a federation called the ‘independant Baptists!”    And there is a fair number of smaller groups out there.

Absent the idea of a hierarchy, and an ordaining authority, making a church “Baptist” requires enough adults to form a corporation in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing else really has to be in hand.  The congregation ordains, not the association.  As the SBC has been trying to become more authoritative, it has found itself loosing members and congregations.

All of which simply proves that we bishop—bound folk have a paradigm that they do not share.

I sing with a primitive Baptist group from time to time, they are wonderfully friendly, welcoming and consider the SBC’s attempts to control their congregations a scandal.  And yet they are very conservative in terms of church doctrine and very populist in what I know of their personal politics. 

When writing Assembler code for a PC, one must establish certain memory areas or use the default. To use the default, the command is, “Assume   Nothing.”  Not only is that good programming it is a good rule in comparisons. 

FWIW
jimB

jimB:

Slight correction: The American Baptists _are_ the “Northern Baptists” who are the other half of the Baptist Triennial, whose split in 1845 created the Southern Baptists and American Baptists.  As for the African American Baptist denomination, I think you have in mind the National Baptists.

Membership in the SBC is entirely voluntary, same for the state and local conventions.  Any church can elect to join 1, 2, or all 3 levels, so long as they agree to and abide by the Statement of Faith and Message.  No required dues or assessments, each church funds the larger organization as they are willing and/or able.

So jimB’s statement that “... a primitive Baptist group… consider[s] the SBC’s attempts to control their congregations a scandal.” makes no sense to me. 

I would welcome specific examples of how SBC attempts to “control” a primitive baptist congregation.  I’ve never heard of such a thing.

So on Friday the Stumme-Diers resolution was voted down 581 / 450 =  1, 031 voters.
This resolution passed Saturday by a vote of 538 / 431 = 969 voters.
It looks like the old “Wait Til the People with Families Go Home for the Weekend” ploy:  43 conservatives but only 19 progressives left before the Saturday vote.

Thanks, Physician, I stand corrected. 

Decided to look it up for myself…it’s ‘Sukkot / Shmini Atzeret’ the Feast of Tabernacles that is celebrated from Sept 27-Oct 5 in 2007. 

This Feast is somewhat analguous to the plight of orthodox Anglicans, because it commemorates the ‘wanderings’ of the Israelites and our own status as outcasts, refugees, ‘pilgrims seeking a country’, finding our only true shelter, dwelling, resting place in God, not institutions, horses, armies, wealth or men.

James Manley,

Noted.  Thanks for the information.

FWIW
jimB

Marty,

I may have written badly.  Let me restate. 

My PB friends consider the changes to the statement which I am sure SBC conservatives see as good as intrusive or worse (  ) catholic.  That is, saying a woman should not be a preacher seems to them to be sacrementalist.  I am about as far away from this as a body can be—I suppose I am best categorized as an Anglo-catholic liberal.  But that is what I hear, usually while the bases are practicing. 

FWIW
jimB

A couple random ecumenical links:

As for Baptists, check out Dennis McFadden’s blog Moderates could have been written about our House of Bishops or the guy in the pew next to you.

For really profound sort-of-Baptist lunacy, check out <a >the Pyromaniacs</a>.

An excellent CORE Lutheran blog is the Pietist’s <a >Awakenings</a>.  A good page of Lutheran links is at <a >Solid Ground (Canada)</a>.

jimB, not sure what women’s ordination has to do with sacrementalism, but then, what do I know about primitive baptists? 

FWIW, I double-checked my comment above with my father, who is a bit of an expert in SBC matters.  Here’s what he writes:

No, that’s pretty much right.  One thing I tell people is that every church is self-governing and can do anything it wishes, however the convention or association or state conv’n may decide whether it will belong to their group.  As you say, no one is trying to control them. They’re free to pull out and join the jehovah’s witnesses or mormons tomorrow if they wish, but they cannot do so and belong to the denomination.

The ELCA, which has 4.8 million members, had previously allowed gays to serve as pastors so long as they abstained from sexual relations.

I really wonder what this number will look like next year…in five years and in ten years. I suspect we’ll see an even more pre4cipitours drop that we’ve seen in TEC because there are orthodox churches available for shelter.

Perhaps the Doomsayers are right in predicting the death of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps the conspiracy theory fans are right in predicting that the GS primates are planning on creating a new orthodox denomination. I suspect we’ll know soon enough.

Wormwood and Screwtape are high-fiving each other.

One question:  what about all those pastors “who are in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationships” but were punished before this resolution was passed?  Will there be restitution and recompense?

... what about all those pastors “who are in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationships” but were punished before this resolution was passed?

And of course what about all those pastors who with the grace of God controlled their homosexual desires and lived chastely while performing their ministry?

Episcopalienated:

That there remain committed groups on the far right and the far left on any given issue—both of which will continue to do their thing—is true in nearly every denomination. I wouldn’t expect these groups to do otherwise. I wouldn’t expect pro-gay ordination groups to do anything other than paint this as a huge victory and try to make it a bigger one, or for anti-gay ordination groups to paint this as a huge capitulation and call in the troops to rally to protect against the onslaught of secularism. That’s the ethos of these groups. It’s what they do.

What’s different here, perhaps, is that the assembly itself has said it generally doesn’t want folks who are already part of the rostered clergy and those currently in process (or who may enter the process in the next two years, perhaps) to be disciplined harshly ONLY for homosexual practice IF that practice occurs in the context of a monogamous relationship. There is no comfort here at all for clergy or candidates whose sexual practice is outside of those parameters.

The vote says something else to me, as well. The sizable opposition even to this call to restraint indicates that there are many, if not a majority, of leaders who have voice in the ELCA who are more ready to continue current policies in place, and I would presume with due diligence and appropriate compassion for the lives that may be affected (whether of clergy, candidates, congregations, or others involved in these decisions) than to sign on to a call for restraint or refraining from discipline. Presumably, these voices will still have significant sway in the areas they represent. Bishop Landahl’s proposal was approved by the majority, but not a large majority. And it is binding, ultimately, on no one. The weight it properly carries is the voice of the majority at this assembly—and that voice should be taken into account, along with other factors, in making decisions about how to proceed in these cases.

Neither “side” has won very much in this resolution. though both “sides” may use it a fuel for the torches they are trying to ignite to incite their crowds. Perhaps the existing sense of community within ELCA has won something, though. Perhaps what it has won is a bit more civility in how people who are already part of the rostered clergy and who are in monogamous relationships will be treated over the next couple of years. Civility is not the same as inaction—but rather tempers how any action deemed necessary may take place.

Cap’n Jack:

It seems to me that the main thing the adoption of Bishop Landahl’s resolution allows, and so teaches, is civility.

That, and perhaps a sense of trust that Lutherans CAN take the time they really need to take to get to a social teaching document in 2009 that they are ready to support. Rancorous proceedings between now and then could foreclose or foreshorten the deliberation that the various parties in the church need to have and CAN have if they avoid a lot of rancor in however they proceed on disciplinary matters related to rostered clergy and current candidates.

Civility and trust are good things to teach. So is justice tempered with mercy. That’s what I see this resolution allowing… and so teaching.

And that’s not the same as “no discipline at all.”

Passover begins 15 Nissan 5767 and goes through to 22 Nissan.  That is, 2 April 2007 until 10 April.

September 30 (19 Tisrei) is the fourth of Sukkot.

Lindy

Craig, don’t knock team pyro: after all, they did the posters.
The mastermind behind it, Phil Johnson, is John MacArthur’s right hand man.

The weight [Bishop Landahl’s] properly carries is the voice of the majority at this assembly—and that voice should be taken into account, along with other factors, in making decisions about how to proceed in these cases.

I’m sure Athanasius would agree with you.

Civility and trust are good things to teach. So is justice tempered with mercy. That’s what I see this resolution allowing… and so teaching.

And that’s not the same as “no discipline at all.”

This would be substantially more convincing if a) ELCA had not just voted (in Orlando, if I recall) not to change the rules for ordinands, b) PCUSA had not just fallen for a similar tactic, accepting an “official interpretation” of a mandatory qualification for ordination that in effect removed the qualification, c) any rigorous, coherent theological and/or Scriptural justification for changing the Church’s teaching on homosexual conduct had ever been offered, anywhere, by anyone, and d) the discipline for which mercy is being urged involved, e.g., burning at the stake.

The rule says that active homosexuals may not serve as ordained clergy in ELCA.  The discipline is removal from office.  Either this is done or it is not, and if it is not—the only possible “mercy”—then the rule no longer exists in practice, and the resolution contravenes the Orlando vote and vitiates any “conversation” that may come out of the 2009 report, which in any case—to judge from similar reports throughout mainline Protestantism recently—will be propaganda pieces for the “progressive” faction. 

This is the popular tactic of allowing facts on the ground to be created, which then means that making an eventual decision that the existing rule should be supported and enforced would involve ejecting active (and presumably popular) pastors from office, which is impossible.  It is essentially a tactic to reduce a serious theological question to a beauty contest.  It worked in ECUSA marvelously well.

Take whatever side of the issue you prefer, Mrs. Rev, but please don’t insult our intelligence.

Allen wrote:

...Those who are homosexually oriented are expected to live in celibacy. However, we have now decided not to enforce that standard for homosexually oriented persons. Yet non-homosexual persons still have to comply….

Marriage exists in all states as a legal sanctioned option for heterosexual persons seeking to live in a monogamous, faithful, chaste lifelone relationship with each other. It exists as a legal option for homosexual couples seeking the lifestyle and so the same legal status in very few states. 

So the argument would go that the double standard exists because state laws already create it, and church policies are therefore creating a circular argument that supports the double standard. If in most states heterosexual persons are able to enter a legal arrangement called marriage and that grants them the approval of the church for their sexual relationship, but the vast majority of states do not offer the same legal status to homosexual couples who are seeking to have the same kind of lifelong commitment, then these couples are facing a double standard.

Unless, that is, we’re talking in terms of the church. The church is now in many venues really for the first time wrestling seriously with the question of whether there may be a moral equivalence between lifetime heterosexual partnerships, legally sanctioned by marriage, and lifetime homosexual partnerships, which are not yet in most jurisdictions legally sanctioned.

The church’s teaching over the years has clearly been supportive of lifetime heterosexual relationships sanctioned in some form of marriage (legally) and covenant (religiously). The church’s teaching over the years has been clearly non-supportive of any form of sexual promiscuity, bestiality, and many forms of homosexual expression. But the church’s teaching has not, until much more recently, had serious discussion about the possibility of seeing a lifetime committed, covenanted partnership between two people of the same sex as a way of life that may be compatible with Christian discipleship.

That conversation has been taking place in a number of cultural settings, including the courts and legislatures of several states, with various outcomes. A few states have legalized marriage for couples making such a commitment. Others have granted the opportunity for another status, a civil union. Still others have granted neither. 

The courts, the culture, and the church are all divided on the questions involved in these deliberations. There is no one clear right answer apparent to all in any of these arenas.

So the question before us all, perhaps, is how do we treat each other when we’re facing a situation that appears to a good many people not to have been quite covered in previous discussions as we seek to find a faithful way forward.

The church may well decide that the bans on homosexual acts described in scripture and tradition apply in every case to every person who seeks to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. This would imply no double standard—but a single standard—that Jesus requires any who wish to be his disciples not to express sexual intimacy if they are single, and only to express such intimacy if they are married to a person of the opposite sex, and then only with that marriage partner.

It may also decide that the activities that are banned are descriptions of promiscuous or exploitive behavior, and that what scripture upholds as the appropriate venue for sexual expression for faithful disciples of Jesus is covenanted lifelong monogamy. This also would not represent a double standard, even if the state does not offer the legal status of marriage or even union to such relationships. It would rather represent a single standard—covenanted lifelong monogamy. 

What’s clearest right now is that for a number of churches, there is no one clear set of standards yet adopted AND comfortably practiced even across the churches themselves. TEC, ELCA, UMC, PCUSA—all of these are struggling still with the questions, even though some have some fairly clear policy statements. The policies are in place, but they are NOT uniformly comfortably practiced. The existing policies aren’t enough to resolve the struggle. The struggle is notable at every major assembly of these bodies. Some, such as the UMC, are so divided that they cannot even pass a statement noting that they are divided (and the vote on such statements is pretty closely divided as well!).

Our divisions are not, I would submit, because one “side” is benighted or the other is secularized, or one side orthodox and the other liberal or heterodox. They are rather indicators of the reality that we’re struggling to work with a question we hadn’t dealt with thoroughly before. And that struggle with this question is revealing other areas of interpretation and practice where we were also divided, but hadn’t really been as open about our differences in the past.

Struggles are always hard and painful. They can be made harder if we treat each other badly along the way. They can become an opportunity for healing and deeper learning if we commit to love each other, even those we may believe to be enemies, in the process. Loving need not mean agreement. Loving can mean a parting of ways, but a parting handled with dignity, respect, and genuine compassion.

My prayer for the ELCA is that the reception of Bishop Landahl’s resolution may enable such loving discernment to take place in the coming months and years that whichever ways the body may choose to proceed come 2009, all involved may have known themselves to have been loved, respected, and where there may be a parting of ways, that the parting will be in peace.

Hmmmm…

Twice in the above TRS says “heterosexual persons” and then “homosexual couples” which leads me to suspect that she understands the distinction between orientation and configuration. 

Marriage is created by God as the union of man and woman—regardless of either one’s “sexual orientation”.  Every one of us is either male or female, and we are ALL the product of exactly one male and one female—even the children of so-called “homosexual couples”.

So don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that “homosexual couples” cannot marry, while “heterosexual persons” can!  Two men cannot marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation.  Likewise one man can marry one woman regardless of their sexual orientations.

You cannot seriously talk about “double standards” while simultaneously claiming that when it comes to men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, separate really is equal after all!

Please.

... what about all those pastors “who are in a mutual,
chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationships” but were
punished before this resolution was passed?

Hey! What about all those hetrosexual pastors who are in a mutual chaste, and faithful committed relationship living under the same roof, but are told “No way! Living together out of wedlock is a sin!” If homosexuals in committed relationships are doing it why not the hetrosexuals? Where does t end? It doesn’t! I say play by God’s rules!

“faithful committed same-gender relationships.”
*sigh*. Why do liberal Christians always lapse into the “faithful/committed/lifelong/monogamous” stuff when talking about these relationships? It really misses the whole point.
What if a thief came up to you trying to justify his actions, saying, “yeah, but whenever I do a job, I always tithe my share of the loot - I give it orphans, animal shelters, stuff like that.”
Totally irrelevant.

Reverend’s Spouse said:

That, and perhaps a sense of trust that Lutherans CAN take the time they really need to take to get to a social teaching document in 2009 that they are ready to support.

There is no middle ground upon which to build a social teaching document - no compromise which would be acceptable to both sides.  If homosexuality is to be accepted - if only the much hypothesized but virtually non-existent monogamous gay relationship - then the authority of Scripture as the fundamental norm must be altered.  If the authority of Scripture as the fundamental norm is to be maintained, then homosexuality must in every instance be rejected.  No amount of talking can bridge this divide.

carl

I completely disagree with the weasel words of “the Reverend’s Spouse.”  “Civility,” as useful a trait as it is, must always yield place to the condemnation of immorality (as well as of heresy) and the reprobation of those who advocate and/or practice immorality (as well as false belief), and here what is at issue is sodomy, and sodomites occupying the honorable position of ministers of the Word and Sacrament—a thing which is nothing other than a shameful sin.  Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans alike commemorate as heroes of the faith men such as St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Maximos the Confessor, and if there is one thing that these great saints were not, it was practitioners of “civility” towards errorists and immoralists; nor was St. Paul, as I recall.  Catholics might wish to add St. Dominic or St. Robert Bellarmine to the list; Lutherans, Luther or Chemnitz (or Walther); Anglicans, Cranmer and either William Perkins or Richard Montague (an Anglican divine whom I adore), and the same is true of them all.

Away with this milquetoastish, degenerate notion—one so stupid that only contemporary practitioners of the genteel art of self-deceit could possibily believe it—that style is more important than substance, that process is more important than result, that “the journey” is more significant than “the arrival” or that nice words can wrap foul matter in tinsel; in a word (or, rather, phrase) that “committed relationships” can gild “sanctified sodomy.”

This morning I happened to be chatting with a Missouri Synod pastor friend of mine.  He had high hopes, now that, as he said, the ELCA has revealed itself to be not so much a Lutheran denomination but a syncretistic cult, that there will soon be an exodus of hitherto “beguiled” Lutherans from the ELCA to Rome, Constantinople and the Missouri Synod.  He also added that the recent ELCA decision had confirmed his longstanding belief that the ECUSA/ELCA “concordat” was a good match indeed, even if far from one “made in Heaven.”

Respectfully affirm both the tone and content of Professor Tighe’s admonishment.

Ditto. He knocked that curve ball out of the park.

<blockqoute> Marriage exists in all states as a legal sanctioned option for heterosexual persons seeking to live in a monogamous, faithful, chaste lifelone relationship with each other. It exists as a legal option for homosexual couples seeking the lifestyle and so the same legal status in very few states. </blockquote>

I would argue this means clergy should wait at the very least until the larger society is comfortable with the notion of homosexual marriages. If secular society is not ready for this innovation, why on earth would any serious - intellectually as well as morally -clergy want to push an agenda contrary to Scripture and the average, nominally religious American doesn’t support?

On issues such as slavery, parts of the church held the moral high ground by moving ahead of the larger society. Here, parts of the church are moving ahead of the larger society, but destroying their ministries, misleading the flock and, I daresay, endangering their faith.

This just shows that the church should not take the world as its guide, but look to God and the word. Where there is no vision people cast off restraint (Prov 29:18). Just because I have something new doesn’t mean it’s a vision - much less one worth following.

Marty the Baptist asked:

So don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous to say that “homosexual couples” cannot marry, while “heterosexual persons” can!

Disingenuous? No. A bit careless in editing—more like it. I wasn’t trying to make the kind of distinction you may have been seeing or finding. Probably should have used the same term for both—“couples.”

And “One Day Closer”—given the limited availablity of marriage to homosexual couples in most states, but its universal availability to heterosexual couples, it would seem pretty reasonable, I think, to require heterosexual persons who seek ordination or rostering or continuance in rostering to be married if they are going to have a sexual relationship (and then only with the marriage partner).

IF the church discerns some moral equivalence between sexual expression in the context of heterosexual marriage and in the context of a covenanted lifelong monogamous homosexual relationship (whether a legal marriage, or not—since this status is available in very few states), THEN allowing or authorizing the ordination/rostering of persons in such relationships, while requiring those in states that offer marriage or other legal recognition to be legally married or to have their relationship receive the highest level of legal status available in their state, and who meet all other qualifications for ordination/rostering, would seem reasonable.

And IF that were to happen, that still would not sanction living together by heterosexual couples—since marriage IS universally available to heterosexual couples in the US.

As of now, ELCA has NOT adopted any teaching or policy statements that say such moral equivalence exists. Indeed, the reverse would be closer to the current case. Maybe they will in 2009. Maybe not. As Bishop Hanson noted several times in his initial press conference, no one really knows at this point what the 2009 statement will contain or how the 2009 Assembly will vote on it—either to receive, modify, refer, or reject. 

We’ll all have to wait to see what emerges there.

To SpongJohn:
“Marriage” remains a thorny issue to deal with. It’s somewhat thorny from the perspective of the biblical witness, because there appear to be a number of different cultural arrangements under which it occurred in scripture with some sanction, including polygamy. The New Testament rejects polygamy for clergy, but it does not clearly reject it wholesale. It took the later decisions of the church, East and West, to clarify that, and it still remains an accepted in some cultural settings that have received the gospel in more recent centuries. (Full disclosure here: I think the ban on polygamy for all is the right way to go!)

It’s also thorny from a legal perspective. I don’t think we’d want to make the case that because the state has granted a marriage license to a couple that that means their relationship is necessarily faithful or chaste. That’s even if we’re talking about heterosexual relationships. A marriage license offers certain incentives to staying in that legal arrangement, but it does nothing actually to guarantee faithfulness or chastity.

A marriage license signals the state’s belief that it has a compelling interest in providing sanctions that favor monogamy as beneficial to the social welfare. Some states have decided that includes monogamous relationships of gay and lesbian couples. Many have decided otherwise.

A marriage license does NOT signal the church’s determination that a couple is ready to live faithfully and chastely together for life. That determination is made usually by the church through the work of the clergy with the couple preparing for marriage. The marriage ceremony offered by churches is properly called, as the BCP puts it, a celebration and blessing of a marriage. The marriage is a legal status. The church may celebrate it, seal it legally, and offer its blessing IF and WHEN it believes that blessing is due.

But the key thing the church is doing in its ceremony isn’t to make the legal contract—but rather to establish, witness and bless the covenant of the disciples of Jesus Christ who are entering into it, and how the church will support this couple in living out this covenant as faithful disciples of Jesus. A “Christian marriage” is in this way something more and something different from a marriage per se.

Christian marriage is about the covenant primarily—and not nearly as much about the legal contract. Recognizing that fact makes the deliberation about whether homosexual couples who are Christians may enter into this covenant both more difficult AND more important for all involved.

To encourage restraint in disciplining what the scriptures clearly condemn as sin is itself a terrible sin against those living in homosexual relationships. It is harmful to their souls and bodies and facilitates their walk into the darkness. It is unconscionable that any orthodox people would make peace with such a resolution. There is absolutely no grey here and I am suprised that some on this think that there is.

Hey! What about all those hetrosexual pastors who are in a mutual chaste, and faithful committed relationship living under the same roof, but are told “No way! Living together out of wedlock is a sin!” If homosexuals in committed relationships are doing it why not the hetrosexuals? Where does t end?

It ends when they are allowed to get married.  Then we won’t have all these “unmarried” but faithful and committed gay couples living together outside of marriage.  Heterosexuals have a choice.  So far, homosexuals don’t. 

But to forbid marriage to gays and then complain that they aren’t married?? 

Please.

essef,

Of course no one is complaining that homosexual are not “married” to others of the same sex. People are upset, and rightly so, that the sin of homosexual behavior is being facilitated and blessed by the Church.

But, Rev.‘s Spouse,
Wasn’t and I believe still might be, VGR living with his “partner”? If the church is going to allow two men or two women to live together in sin with or without sex, but are committed to one another in a faithful relationship what becomes the difference of heterosexual and homosexual.? The homesexual persons be ordained or lay are living out side of marriage already and that is becuase homosexual matching for lack of a better word, is not a design of God’s will for humans. But if the church is going to say “to heck with God’s will and Word and Law we will allow whatever makes all happy and feel good” then why can’t the hetrosexual couples live in the same such manner ordained or no? This way of thinking and living is absurd! Unless of course you just like some parts of the Bible and see it as a book of great stories but have ultimately tossed it to the wind because quite frankly it doesn’t quite fit my way of living the way I want too mantra!
Please!

“But the church’s teaching has not, until much more recently, had serious discussion about the possibility of seeing a lifetime committed, covenanted partnership between two people of the same sex as a way of life that may be compatible with Christian discipleship.”—TRS

There is a reason for this, Reverend’s Spouse, and you know what it is.  The church’s teaching used to be based on the Holy Scripture—but more recently, not so.  It doesn’t matter what “the courts” and “the culture” may decide about this practice; the church can not bless it, anyway—not even if ordered to do so by the courts and the culture: not while remaining true to Holy Scripture.  (Any other reading of Scripture is sophistry and rationalization.  The courts and the culture do not claim to be subject to Scripture, but the church does.)  Enough said?  What does this tell you about your modern church—and about your cause?  Does this really give you no pause?  It will not matter what new statement your church committee makes in 2009.

TRS, I would not have noticed your error had you not made it twice in consecutive paragraphs. 

Essef, gays are as free to marry as straights are, and under the exact same rules.  Sexual orientation is not asked, it is not checked, and it is not relevant.  But if you really want to insist that separate IS equal, then by all means, allow two men to marry each other.

Who could have imagined that in the year 2007, progressives would be arguing that separate really is equal after all!?!  Amazing!

To encourage restraint in disciplining what the scriptures clearly condemn as sin is itself a terrible sin against those living in homosexual relationships. It is harmful to their souls and bodies and facilitates their walk into the darkness. It is unconscionable that any orthodox people would make peace with such a resolution. There is absolutely no grey here and I am surprised that some on this [blog] think that there is.

Fr. Matt, that is a great post!

Teensy-weensy quibble.  I know you’re not really surprised that there are folks, lots of them actually, who really think there’s grey on this issue of same-sex behavior and what the Bible declares.

Fr. Matt,
I whole heartedly agree with you on this one…...There is only black and white on the homosexual issue and anyone who believes in a grey area is still in the “listening process” with blinders on.

Of course no one is complaining that homosexual are not “married” to others of the same sex. People are upset, and rightly so, that the sin of homosexual behavior is being facilitated and blessed by the Church

Thank you again Fr. Matt - Exactly and essef my above ppost was a metaphor of seeing the whole thing in regards to wht has been and still is happening….two men & two women living under the same roof having ssex of some kind and that is a sin just like a man & a woman living under the same roof having sex of some kind. And if anyone thinks that two men or two women living under the same roof in a committed gay relationship are not having some kind of sex is just being naive! Please!

Does anyone on this blog site besides the highly educated ones (that does not included me BTW) remember that homosexual behavior has been around since Biblical day and that only now it seems it has become so much in and around our daily living, out in the open more than any other time in history! And I ask myself why is that….the only reason I can come up with is that we as a society have become way to tolerant of this behavior and lazy & fearful of sticking to the higher moral standard of God’s teaching and word. Possibly also we have become to “enlightened” as some would like to say. And possibly because we have become a society of “live and let live as long as it doesn’t affect my life I’m all good with it.” But, ultimately it does affect your life! Look at where we are and what is happening everywhere people!

There’s no gray here—they are merely telling each other what their itching ears want to hear.

Marty,

Also notice they want to draw the line juuuuust beyond what they want to do. If it’s not monogamous or committed (whatever that means) it would be out of bounds.

... church policies are therefore creating a circular argument that supports the double standard.

This is precisely backwards; the state supports marriage because of the society’s religious beliefs, rather than the other way around.  The current political confusion is occurring because the society has lost its religious and moral consensus.

The church may well decide that the bans on homosexual acts described in scripture and tradition apply in every case to every person who seeks to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. This would imply no double standard—but a single standard—that Jesus requires any who wish to be his disciples not to express sexual intimacy if they are single, and only to express such intimacy if they are married to a person of the opposite sex, and then only with that marriage partner.

The church already decided that some two thousand years ago. 

... the church’s teaching has not, until much more recently, had serious discussion about the possibility of seeing a lifetime committed, covenanted partnership between two people of the same sex as a way of life that may be compatible with Christian discipleship.

No, it has not, because it has been universally understood that if the same-sex “partnership” includes sexual activity, then any commitments are as relevant to its moral status in the Church as the color of the partners’ socks.  Contrary to the propaganda, committed and (mostly) monogamous homosexual relationships were well-known in the Classical world, and were included in both Jewish and Christian condemnation of all homosexual acts.  Note St. Paul’s condemnation of lesbian activity—typically far less promiscuous and more likely to involve long-term relationships—as well as specific mention of both active and passive partners in male homsexual activity.

The church is now in many venues really for the first time wrestling seriously with the question of whether there may be a moral equivalence between lifetime heterosexual partnerships, legally sanctioned by marriage, and lifetime homosexual partnerships ...

The Church is not “wrestling with a question”, the Church is wrestling with an areligious political faction which wants some kind of “official” social approval for its lifestyle and believes that taking over the churches is an avenue to that approval.  But the question does not exist, and has not for over three thousand years—only, as Bishop Mocko observes above, this is the first generation with sufficient hubris (and foolishness) to allow itself to be talked into revising the universal teaching of millennia.

The Church is not “wrestling with a question”, the Church is wrestling with an areligious political faction which wants some kind of “official” social approval for its lifestyle and believes that taking over the churches is an avenue to that approval.

Perception is reality.  Or so the saying goes.  But seriously, I do think your perception or analysis of the reality is accurate.

The Reverend’s Spouse:

You will have to pardon my ignorance of the Lutheran Church.  I know very little about it, except for the fact that ELCA is now in full communion with the Episcopal Church.  But as I look further into the points you’ve raised, the resemblance between your Church’s situation and that of the Anglican Communion becomes more uncanny.

A “Christian Century” article which covered a meeting of the Lutheran World Federation in March of this year noted this similarity:

“As with the divisions among Anglicans, Lutheran churches in the global North tend to be more accepting of same-gender partnerships, and most of the opposition comes from the global South, including African countries.”

It went on to mention that the Lutheran Church of Sweden announced that “matrimony should be reserved for heterosexual couples, but that the church would give blessings to same-sex couples in committed, faithful relationships.”

This was followed by a very negative reaction from Lutherans in the Global South:

“Bishop Munib Younan, leader of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land, hinted that decisions such as the one by the Swedish church would make life difficult for Christian leaders in the Middle East.

“‘We need to have more debate on what we mean by the family,’ said Younan. He said the issue could cause an ecumenical crisis.

“Lutheran leaders heard church representatives, especially from Africa, speak out strongly about the dangers of giving blessings to people in same-sex relationships. ‘If God had wanted people from the same sex to have relationships he would have created Adam and Adam, not Adam and Eve,’ said Satou Marthe, a woman delegate from Cameroon.”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_8_124/ai_n19328388

Further comment about parallels between our situation and yours would be superfluous, but I’m wondering . . . are you folks really going into what will almost certainly be a severely wrenching experience with your eyes wide open?  Can you reasonably believe that a fate similar to that of TEC can be avoided by your own Church, efforts at civility notwithstanding?  Frankly, I don’t see how.

In your earlier reply to me you made reference to “committed groups on the far right and the far left,” representing opposite extremes in this debate.  Very well, but one of these “committed groups” has behind it the authority of Holy Scripture and the unvarying teaching of the Christian Church for the past twenty centuries.  If those who hold this orthodox (or, if you prefer, conservative) position are now essentially in sharp competition, along with their polar opposites, for the attention and support of the broad middle, then I think there is a much deeper and unresolved conflict at work here than this or that understanding of human sexuality.

The besetting problems of the Episcopal Church didn’t begin with the decision to ordain and consecrate non-celibate gay people, or to bless same sex unions.  I think I need to know more about what status the Lutheran Church accords to the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the early undivided Church.  And perhaps this is something Lutherans themselves need to consider carefully before going forward in other areas, especially one as contentious as this.

This comment is in response to OneDayCloser.  I’ll apologize in advance if this posting offends anyone’s sensibilities, but it is something that needs to be said.  And if the elves see fit to delete this post, I respectfully understand their reasons and their decision.

It varies from difficult to impossible to have a meaningful discussion on this issue with most people, for the simple reason that they have become so accustomed to their access to modern western medicine, that they, quite literally, can’t imagine what a world would be like without it.  Just about all of the medical advances that we take so for granted were only invented in the last century.  One only has to go back a few generations to find a world where there were no immunizations, no antibiotics or anti-viral drugs.  If you got sick, your body either dealt with the infection on its own or you died.  The only way to stay well was to avoid getting sick in the first place, and the only way to do that was to avoid as much as possible, those situations where one might be exposed to an infection. 

The general public is aware that HIV/AIDS is a problem afflicting the Gay male community, but there is apparently far less awareness of all of the STDs and the alphabet soup of hepatitis viruses that also afflict that community as well. 

So for an educational exercise in what life would have been like in “Biblical” times, go to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov, and click on “A-Z Index”. Take a look at diseases such as Cholera, Typhoid and Polio, just to name a few, and notice how they are transmitted.  But don’t stop there; look up bacterial infections such as E. coli and hemorrhagic fevers, such as Ebola or Marburg.  Next go to Shellfish and Pork Tapeworm Infection.  From the Pork Tapeworm Infection page, look to the top of the page and under the heading Parasitic Diseases, click on Alphabetical Listing and have a field day looking at all of the parasites that are carried either in feces or in blood.

Now that you have been exposed to more information about disease control than you probably ever wanted to know, imagine the practice of anal intercourse in a world where the sanitation and washroom facilities that we find today, in our houses and public buildings, was nonexistent.  Imagine that practice in a world where the medical technologies of antibiotic, anti-viral and anti-inflammatory drugs didn’t exist.  And imagine that practice in a world where the extraordinary amount of resources available to devote to the medical care of sick individuals, that we in the western world take so for granted, didn’t exist. 

Of course, Gay men have always been part of society and the communities where they lived have always known who these individuals were.  But what was observed by past generations, which is hidden to us today by modern medicine, was that these were a group of men that were often sick and died young.  I would speculate further that the reason that Gay-Marriage is such a prominent issue nowadays is that, for the first time in human history, a critical mass of Gay men have finally been able to live to middle age, a point in a man’s life where the testosterone levels drop, and he becomes less interested in sex and starts to look for companionship instead.  The bottom line is that the sexually promiscuous Gay male lifestyle is only sustainable thanks to modern western medicine. 

It doesn’t seem either logically consistent or intellectually honest that what society considers moral and/or immoral behavior should be set on a sliding scale, adjusted up or down depending on the availability of the latest medical technologies.

One of the overriding themes behind the Old Testament Mosaic Laws was the answering of the question, “What behaviors are best for society as a whole”.  Of course, what’s best for society as a whole is not always going to be in the best interests of the individual.  The converse of the statement is also true.  Something that may be in the best interest of a particular individual will not necessarily be something that is beneficial for society as a whole.  But these are the kinds of questions that the proponents of the GLBTQAO lifestyles have yet to address. But for now,that is a topic of discussion that deserves its own thread and probably does not belong here.  (Regarding the acronym, did I get all of the letters correct?)

One Day Closer, I believe there have been other such times: isn’t it getting to be “as it was in the days of Noah” or Lot—and as it was in late Greek culture and later Roman?  I know this is an old “saw,” but perhaps the increased visibility of same-sex activity really is part of a civilization’s aging process.  (It seems to me that there is much more involved in the current situation than desire or homosexuality.)  According to some contemporary cultural theory, there is a stage of society in which creativity and initiative are imagined to lie entirely in what is “transgressive” of the norms that went before.  Many of the sophisticated turn against the prior standards—and what more intimate and total way of proving it than a sexual way?  Such times have been called Decadent (yes, I know that’s not the p.c. vocabulary).  It may be that homosexual activism, such as we see, is almost like a metaphor of rebellion in general.  It would help to explain why so many of the “Integrity” group take their theology from the inverted nihilism of Spong and company—why so many of these activists are devoted, deep down, to the destruction of the traditional church. 

Don’t misunderstand me.  I am not speaking of those who may experience same-sex attraction but who choose celibacy and transformation of life through Jesus Christ.  I am speaking of all those who delight in transgression of the Biblical standards and then rationalize and finesse their choices as if they were not rebellion against the sacred.

Regarding WildIris’s very relevant post, I am going to try to provide links to an interesting story from today’s NY Times on new cases of syphilis and a previous story on same subject from a regional. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/nyregion/12syphilis.html?ref=nyregion
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=19&aid=71677
I included this second story because it says:

While there’s been a slight increase among women, men make up the majority – 96 percent of new cases. And officials say most of those cases are among men who have sex with men in the Chelsea area of Manhattan. Half of those newly diagnosed are also infected with HIV.

Friends, go back and read Bishop Mocko’s letter in its entirety; part of it is quoted in a comment w-a-a-y back up this line.  The man says it all about this sort of so-called “gray area” and how one can even begin to see it as gray.  This is not about inclusion, or equal rights, or fairness, or “civility” - it is about whether one chooses to follow Scripture, or be a cafeteria Christian, which is none at all.

TRS,

The New Testament rejects polygamy for clergy, but it does not clearly reject it wholesale. It took the later decisions of the church, East and West, to clarify that, and it still remains an accepted in some cultural settings that have received the gospel in more recent centuries. (Full disclosure here: I think the ban on polygamy for all is the right way to go!)

I agree with your last sentence, but I disagree it’s not clearly banned. In the OT we have Gen 2:24. After that, the cases of polygamy that appear in narratives usually have negative consequences (Abraham, Solomon), or arise because of negative circumstances (Jacob, Gen 29- 30).
In the NT Jesus in Mt 19:5 reiterates Gen 2:24 while at the same time forbidding frivolous divorce. At this point it can be said to be rejected. But even if you were right, all you’ve done is show polygamy is not clearly addressed. You haven’t shown homosexuality as you perceive it isn’t clearly addressed.

A marriage license does NOT signal the church’s determination that a couple is ready to live faithfully and chastely together for life…But the key thing the church is doing in its ceremony isn’t to make the legal contract—but rather to establish, witness and bless the covenant of the disciples of Jesus Christ who are entering into it, and how the church will support this couple in living out this covenant as faithful disciples of Jesus. A “Christian marriage” is in this way something more and something different from a marriage per se.

Christian marriage is about the covenant primarily—and not nearly as much about the legal contract.

True. But I disagree with

Recognizing that fact makes the deliberation about whether homosexual couples who are Christians may enter into this covenant both more difficult AND more important for all involved.

because although fidelity, and a covenant between two Christians is a necessary condition for marriage, it is not a sufficient condition. Again, I direct you to Mt 19:5.

1 more thing - in an earlier post you say

[The church] may also decide that the activities that are banned are descriptions of promiscuous or exploitive behavior, and that what scripture upholds as the appropriate venue for sexual expression for faithful disciples of Jesus is covenanted lifelong monogamy

Can I just ask you to consider the following?

Sometimes in the Bible, actions are sinful in themselves and are condemned, such as in the 10 commandments, or the prohibitions against homosexuality.

Other times, an action stated in the text is sinful with regards to circumstances. So, for example, circumcision in Gal 5:2 is sinful because the Galatians thought that this act could justify them, but it is not sinful in Acts 16:3. In these cases it is not really the act itself being condemned.

But whether a passage corresponds to the former or the latter is always clearly discernible in the context.

It seems you are trying to force homosexuality into the latter category, but surely you should see this is incorrect. The passages are not saying “if a man has a abusive, promiscuous relationships it is abomination”, or “be ye not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolators, ... nor people having promiscuous, abusive relationships…”. There is nothing in the context to allow a reading in of special circumstances that would allow you to redefine what the passage is saying.

You cannot force these passages into the type of passage you wish.

Greg,
It appears that my original forward to you from the Tribune was premature.  Perhaps it was wishful thinking.  Still, it is with great sadness that my husband and I review our original, prayerfully made decision not to attend the (very close by) ELCA church near our home.  If so, we would be looking to leave, again. 

Come quickly, Lord.

Matt said: “There is absolutely no grey here and I am suprised that some on this think that there is.” (italics mine)

You are? Really? Why are you surprized?

Dr. Tighe is right and the following also says it all…everyone should read it; it’s not very long. 

Were I Christian clergy, I would consider it an obligation to be Scripturally-based, and, as such, I could not get around the content of the link below, with regards to SSU’s, or SS"M”, or endorsing the behaviors through ecclesial(at least in a true Christian church), ordination or consecration. 

The liturgical Unitarians are simply trying to make it into something it’s not, and that’s not “revelation”, or “prophecy”, it’s DECEPTION, plain and simple. 

God help us all…

TS

http://www.anglicansunited.com/2006/03/homosexuality_calling_right_wh.html

it’s DECEPTION, plain and simple.

God help us all…

We’re not gonna take it! (sorry )

RE: “The SBC has been the largest Baptist group, but never the only one.”

Hi JimB, I was aware of that.

RE: “Absent the idea of a hierarchy, and an ordaining authority, making a church “Baptist” requires enough adults to form a corporation in the relevant jurisdiction.  Nothing else really has to be in hand.”

Right.  Pretty much anybody can claim to be Baptist.  But that was sort of my point.

What matters is organizational discipline, not whether someone can form their mouth into the shape of the word “Baptist” or “Anglican.”

I see that my sentence was incomplete. In my mind, I said “I am suprised that some on this blog think that there is…” but apparently something happened to the sentence on the way from my brain to the keyboard

Would someone give some suggestions wrt Lutheran blogs to provide the outsider an understanding comparable to what one gets here regarding Anglican politics?

Thanks Griswold, Robinson, Schori, HOB and revisionists for providing the the example of how to lead your brothers and sisters into a life of sin. The lies have been crafty and well-woven into society. Now they have even contaminated the teachings of the church. We are being dragged through the gates of the modern Sodom and Gomorrah. “If only ten faithful can be found”, I hope they don’t look back on the way out of town.

Lutheran friends here in the midwest (where Episcoplians are viewed as something of an extinct species by Lutherans) are waking up this morning to emails from me with the link to the (PMS)MSNBC story, and universally….the response is shock and a feeling of betrayal. 

No doubts, this organization:  http://wordalone.org/  will begin to grow significantly…

Over the past few years, when my ELCA friends invited me to join the ELCA - my response has always been:  “Why?  The Lutheran Church is really only 3-5 years behind TEC”.  They never believed me….now they do….

midwestnorwegian, your local Southern Baptist church welcomes you.

And we’re at least 15 years behind on this kind of mess.  Probably much more.

Dear The Reverend’s Spouse
I presume you realize that Martin Luther is rolling over in his
grave.  I’m really sorry you don’t read scripture. May I send
you a Bible?
Grannie Kay
about to be an ex lutheran…...  The ELCE no longer has my
respect to even use a upper case letter.

Dear Grannie Kay, is LCMS an option for you, to not have to give up on Lutheranism?

The Reverend’s Spouse:

The church’s teaching over the years has clearly been supportive of lifetime heterosexual relationships sanctioned in some form of marriage (legally) and covenant (religiously). The church’s teaching over the years has been clearly non-supportive of any form of sexual promiscuity, bestiality, and many forms of homosexual expression. But the church’s teaching has not, until much more recently, had serious discussion about the possibility of seeing a lifetime committed, covenanted partnership between two people of the same sex as a way of life that may be compatible with Christian discipleship. ...

The courts, the culture, and the church are all divided on the questions involved in these deliberations. There is no one clear right answer apparent to all in any of these arenas.

Two points.

1) The Church has never supported sexual activity between two persons of the same sex. Using the phrase <strong” a lifetime committed, covenanted partnership between two people of the same sex “</strong> is merely an attempt to hide the fact that part of that relationship is going to consist of sexual activity between two persons of the same sex. Same sex activity was quite common in St. Paul’s day and generally accepted within the Roman culture of the time. Surely you know this and surely you know that it made no difference to St. Paul. He roundly condemned such activity as being acceptable for those who wish to be citizens of the Kingdom of God. I will not bother to cite the relevant passages, because I know you already know what they are.

2) The Courts and the culture are basically the same, except that the Courts usually lag the culture since they must deal with the Law as it is, rather than as the citizens, in their practice, wish it to be. But eventually either the culture conforms to the Law - an exceedingly rare event! - or the Law is changed. Nevertheless, the two are essentially one. The Church has for close to 2000 years been opposed to the culture - aka the World, the Flesh and the Devil.  It is only since the dawn of post-Enlightenment moral relativism that the attempt has been made to have the Church conform to the culture instead of the other way around.  For 2000 years, the Church has certainly taught that there was one clear right answer..  The only thing which is different today is that some people, yourself obviously included, no longer accept that answer.

So the question before us all, perhaps, is how do we treat each other when we’re facing a situation that appears to a good many people not to have been quite covered in previous discussions as we seek to find a faithful way forward.

No. That is not the question. While I must confess that I have failed more than once to treat other people with respect and charity, that is really not the issue. There is already a “faithful way forward” and has been for 2000 years. It is found in “the faith once delivered to the saints”.  I cannot help it that some poeple do not want to accept that way. That is just part of the cross that Jesus calls all faithful disciples to bear. We will be scorned for not conforming to the culture. That is just one of the realites that Christians within the US of A need to understand. We will always be seen as outside the norm and counter to the culture if we are truly faithful.

Nice Post Allen Lewis.

I would add my 2 cents worth in a different direction.  If the much bally-hooed Listening Process (where visible nausea will not stop the process) is so important because we humans change our understanding as we learn more, then I suggest that we immediately start the Listening Process for the Roe v. Wade decision.  This decision is not fixed for all time either and it’s way past time that we start the Listening Process on abortion.

Fair’s fair.

The church’s teaching over the years has been clearly non-supportive of any form of sexual promiscuity, bestiality, and many forms of homosexual expression.

Sneaky, sneaky, slipping in the “m” there. We don’t buy it.

A minor footnote to Allen’s superb post:

... eventually either the culture conforms to the Law - an exceedingly rare event! ...

Exceedingly rare indeed, luckily, and the counterexamples are not particularly encouraging.  Two that spring to mind are the Turkish occupation of the Balkans (roughly 1400—1900) and the Sovietization of Russia.

We can see an attempt in this direction in the so-called “human rights” laws of e.g. Sweden (and Britain and Canada?), where in the name of suppressing “hate speech” any sort of public resistance to gay propaganda has been criminalized, or at least made subject to civil action.  In the US, “workplace harassment” laws are coming perilously close.

Episopalienated and others:

It’s interesting to me that the assumption is being made that I am ELCA. I’m not. Or that I may be lesbian or gay. I’m not. Or that I have chosen sides in how the ELCA should decide in its social teaching. I haven’t. And I wouldn’t. I think they really do have to work that out.

However poorly I’ve done it, what I’ve tried to do is offer some commentary on the value of their adoption of Bishop Landahl’s proposal in the light of the context they seem to be addressing—namely one in which they really are struggling with at least three questions: 1) Whether there is a moral equivalency between homosexual monogamy and heterosexual monogamy, 2) how the authority and interpretation of scripture plays into that determination, and 3) whether or how sexual practice plays into who may exercise ordained ministry in their midst.

Those are real questions for them, and not just for a small faction of their church. Those questions, among others relating to human sexuality and Christian discipleship, need to be decided before they go much further down any path. ELCA has in place policies for the discipline of clergy and candidates whose “manner of life” (to use an unpopular term from GC 2006) is deemed unacceptable. I have no doubt that a good number of bishops and others responsible for clergy and candidate accountability will continue to follow the existing policies. That they would exercise restraint in so doing seems, from my angle (as a non Lutheran), to be reasonable assuming that what everyone really wants (as the votes to refer nearly all the other legislation on such issues to the study committee would seem to indicate—votes that were won with a very wide margin) is to get to a working statement on human sexuality by 2009.

I have also suggested that the ELCA is not alone in struggling with these questions, and that the struggle in several denominations (I cited ELCA, PCUSA, UMC and TEC) does not appear to be only by or between entrenched groups on the far right or the far left in any of these denominations. The fact of the magnitude of the struggle makes it all the more difficult, and all the more important, to find a way forward.

And I’ve tried to lay out the issues and the questions being considered in ways that they seem actually to be framed by those who put the questions.

It is reasonable that persons who believe that the Bible absolutely rejects any possible form of homosexual activity would argue (as several of you have done) that the possibility of understanding biblical marriage on the basis of a covenant relationship between two people for life which could include two persons of the same sex is an unbiblical and therefore non-Christian interpretation. That is logical, consistent, and agrees with the mainstream of Christian interpretation. 

The problem is that not everyone in the ELCA, or TEC, or some other churches happens to agree that that is a proper theological interpretation of biblical marriage or of the rejection of homosexual practice as described in the scriptures. Indeed, the majority of those who attended GC 2003 and GC 2006 whether as deputies or bishops did not agree with that interpretation of scripture.

It remains unclear what the majority of folks who attended the 2007 ELCA assembly believe about these issues. What is clear is that they’ll have an opportunity to make a decision—by majority vote—on some sort of statement on human sexuality in 2009 that probably will become the basis for policy statements in that denomination going forward.

One of the things it seems to me we all have to deal with is that whether we are Lutherans or Episcopalians or Presbyterians or Methodists or Baptists or even Unitarian Universalists (I’m trying to catch all of the Protestant denominations already mentioned in this thread)—the reality is that we are all deciding doctrinal and disciplinary issues by means of mechanisms involving some sort of majority vote. That’s how all of these churches decide these things, like it or not. None of us non-Roman Catholics and non-Orthodox can make much of a serious claim that our decision processes are grounded solely in ancient ecumenical councils, and none of us has a magisterium that decides these issues for us. We’re all making these decisions ourselves, by majority votes, with or without regard to previous councils or positions taken by our ecclesial bodies, acting, I suppose, on some sort of premise that we have the authority from God to decide such things this way, else, I suppose, we would have something more like a magisterium, or perhaps a patriarch or a pope.

Perhaps that is the sort of direction that an Anglican Covenant might be heading—toward the establishment of either the Primates Meeting or resolves at Lambeth or some combinations of these as a kind of magisterial authority on issues it or they address to which all the churches will agree to submit.

That’s not in place at this point—perhaps something like it will be at some point. If so, it would seem odd (though perhaps refreshingly countercultural) for an American Protestant church to submit to it given our very long history of avoiding that very thing across several centuries and many denominations. 

But until something like that exists, and only in the cases where churches would submit to an arrangement like that, we’re all still deciding these things by majority votes in our own denominations. Which means if any “side” of an issue can’t get the majority, that side’s position can’t possibly prevail, no matter how biblical or unbiblical, sensible or senseless, faithful or apostate anyone may believe it to be.

And since that’s the way we’re actually making decisions, by majority vote, which implies some sort of trust as well that the majority is correct, then any claims any minority may make to being right becomes irrelevant in the final analysis… unless, that is, the minority eventually becomes the majority, or unless the minority leaves and establishes a new church or denomination with people who share their views, so that what was a minority position in the previous denomination is now the majority position.

I’m not suggesting here that minorities should leave their current denominations. Nor am I suggesting that “majority rules” is good or helpful ecclesiology or polity. I am suggesting that so long as those remain the rules of the game, claims to rightness will always be subsumed by who has or can get the most votes.

That’s just the way it is.

But I don’t think that’s the way it has to be, or even should be, if we’re serious about seeking to be the body of Christ, even in our deliberative and decision processes.

The Reverand’s Spouse,

Christian marriage is about the covenant primarily—and not nearly as much about the legal contract. Recognizing that fact makes the deliberation about whether homosexual couples who are Christians may enter into this covenant both more difficult AND more important for all involved.

But ma’am, the right to define the “Covenant of marriage,” belongs to Him Who authored it.  What’s evident from the data we see in Scripture, is that the covenant refers to a relationship between a man and a woman. 

It is an error of the create-d creature to infer that the same covenant applies to same-sex sexual relationships. 

The proscriptions against breaking the covenant aren’t at all concerned with same-sex relationships.  Really - they aren’t.  Therefore, there’s no difference between a homosexual “marriage,” and an anonymous homosexual encounter in a public restroom.

I defy you to prove otherwise.

... the reality is that we are all deciding doctrinal and disciplinary issues by means of mechanisms involving some sort of majority vote….

.. the establishment of either the primates meeting or resolves at Lambeth or some combinations of these as a kind of magisterial authority on issues it or they address to which all the churches will agree to submit… [I]t would seem odd (though perhaps refreshingly countercultural) for an American Protestant church to submit to it given our very long history of avoiding that very thing across several centuries and many denominations.

This is an excellent point, and what it speaks to is the gradual usurpation of power by activist “church rats” in all of these denominations.  The sessions, synods, and so on, like the General Convention of the Domestic & Foreign Missions Society, were originally understood to have a principally, if not exclusively, secular administrative role; all their activities touching doctrine were assumed to be governed by the <a >Westminster Confession</a>, the <a >Augsburg Confession</a>, the Thirty-Nine Articles, or the like, all pointing to Scripture as the ultimate source of their authority, and all agreeing on the overwhelming body of Christian teaching. 

[It is perhaps one of the saddest commentaries on contemporary Christendom that it has taken this desperate struggle with what would have been regarded at any other point in Church history as pagan lunacy for us to realize how overwhelmingly much theology we all share, from Roman Catholics to TULIP Calvinists.]

But now, of course, with all of the mainline denominations having long since relegated their confessions to the status of “quaint historical documents”—as ECUSA has, and as the legendary Presbyterian theologian J. Gresham Machen <a > predicted </a> we all would, we now find Christian doctrine in all the mainline churches regarded as something to be reinvented and “reformed” every time the appropriate body meets, just as our political institutions now regard our society as something to be tinkered with endlessly.  Any Scripture that cannot be interpreted away will be relegated to quaintness by our advanced thinkers—even those sections which are so plain and so easily understood and so totally unambiguous that we simpleminded folk might think misinterpretation or revision was impossible. 

Nothing is impossible, however, for those with sufficient hubris and a couple of Public Relations courses.  The morals and metaphysics to be taught to our children are now to be determined by the same political processes that have given us the IRS, the Zoning Commission, the Iraq War, the Neighborhood Homeowner’s Association, and other blessings.

Social Engineering, meet Theological Engineering.  I’m sure your cooperation will be long and fruitful.  For Screwtape.

A Professor of philosophy was writing an article for an academic journal entitled, ‘Pleasure and Leisure: Are There Grounds for Moral Constraints?’

So he attended a fraternity function on a Friday.  He interviewed a student who had attended his ‘Introduction to Western Philosophy’ class the previous year. Though the student had failed the class, the optimistic Professor decided to ask the student about his views on the subject of pleasure, specifically whether there were objective moral limits.

The student frowned. The Professor was heartened, hoping the erstwhile student’s countenance hinted at serious reflection.

Sadly, the student vomited on the professor’s shoes.

There is a time and place for logic. Surely nobody in this forum seriously thinks convocations of mainline Protestant bodies would qualify.

Indeed, the majority of those who attended GC 2003 and GC 2006 whether as deputies or bishops did not agree with that interpretation of scripture.

I most certainly disagree.  For almost two decades now there has been a general consensus among critical biblical scholars about what the texts actually say—a consensus that is shared not only by theologically conservative scholars, but also by progressives.  It is exegetical dishonesty to suggest that there is substantial disagreement about the interpretation of the texts.

Accordingly, there has been a shift in focus in the last decade.  The reason why we encounter so many variations of the shellfish argument, and appeals to Gentile inclusion in Acts 15, and slavery and divorce, and appeals to new movements of the Spirit, is that the revisionists now recognize that their position has no objective basis in what the Scriptural texts actually say.  So there is a scramble for loopholes, for ways to go beyond what the texts actually say to find a way of endorsing what the text clearly does not say.

The majority of those who voted at GC2003 and GC2006 did not disagree with an “interpretation” of Scripture.  They disagreed with Scripture.

I agree with William Witt’s immediately preceeding comment without reservations, but it does not really address the (likewise factually accurate) assertions of “The Reverend’s Spouse” in her most recent posting, either.  William Witt invokes the current consensus (as well-founded one, so far as I can tell, but consensuses do change) of “experts” as regards what the Scriptures teach about homosexual activity, while Craig Goodrich draws attention to the way that, in most mainline (and some conservative) Protestant denominations (among which I include ECUSA) confessions of faith have been relegated to the status of “quaint historical documents.”

But where does, and should, ultimate authority lie: with the consensus of experts or with denominational confessional documents and, if the latter, not themselves as interpreted by the same “experts,” but by the ascertainable historical and “traditional” interpretations of these confessions by denominational theologians over the centuries?  Frankly, if it is “the experts” that are to bear the sway, and if there is disagreement among the experts, or even the appearance of disagreement, then the situation that “The Reverend’s Spouse” so clearly adumbrates—resolution by majority voting, even if such voting goes against all Christian Tradition (with a capital “T”) or even particular denominational tradition(s), and even if the stark political, subjective and revisionist nature of such a process attempts to clothe its nakedness in rhetoric about the “guidance of the Holy Spirit” and “periods of reception” and similar absurdities—will always and everywhere remain the norm, for s she herself points out:

“None of us non-Roman Catholics and non-Orthodox can make much of a serious claim that our decision processes are grounded solely in ancient ecumenical councils, and none of us has a magisterium that decides these issues for us. We’re all making these decisions ourselves, by majority votes, with or without regard to previous councils or positions taken by our ecclesial bodies, acting, I suppose, on some sort of premise that we have the authority from God to decide such things this way ...”

Now, as a Catholic—an Eastern Catholic, to be sure, but one in communion with and submission to, the Roman magisterium—I think that she identifies a problem that you guys will never get around unless you, too, submit to the authority, the magisterial authority if you will, of your own denominational/confessional tradition, as traditionally interpreted by your own theologians, teachers and practices.  Such a reverent submission would, of course, rule out such absurdities as SS (= Sanctified Sodomy), but it would also rule out WO and (in the case of Anglicans) the acceptability of contraceptive practice (an innovation of the 1930 Lambeth Conference which ran against all previous Christian and Anglican tradition alike, as well as the statements of previous Lambeth Conferences) and of virtually all instances of remarriage after divorce in the lifetime of one’s previous spouse, or at least the exclusion from the Sacrament of all who should “remarry” (sic) under such circumstances.  From my point of view, this would be “a consummation devoutly to be wished and sought” but I am also aware that more than one of the regular “conservative Anglican” commentators on this website embrace and support one or another or many of the innovations that I have just mentioned.  So in the end, if (as I suspect) return to an adhesion to denominational confessional tradition and practice is impossible (even for many purported conservatives) and in practice upholding “the Truth as it is in Jesus” amounts in practice to a “dialogue” (whether with others or among one’s own wits) between “what the experts say” and “my own private judgment,” then “The Reverend’s Spouse” gets the prize, for only by such “voting procedures” as she describes can denominations big or small maintain institutional unity of a sort, even if only a Potemkin-Village-like facade of unity.

WT: I concur.  As “mainline” protestant denominations expand their embrace to include more worldly teaching that stands in fundamental conflict with their historic authorities, they become riddled with incoherence.  A potemkin village of such a denomination is not a bad outcome.

But where does, and should, ultimate authority lie: with the consensus of experts or with denominational confessional documents and, if the latter, not themselves as interpreted by the same “experts,” but by the ascertainable historical and “traditional” interpretations of these confessions by denominational theologians over the centuries?

Dr. Tighe,

You are asking as question to which I was not responding.  The post to which I was responding stated baldly that the issue was one of a difference of interpretation of scripture.  It is not.  Those who advocate the new thing do not do so based on new and improved understanding of what the texts actually say.  They do so based on a rejection of what the texts actually say.

The experts do not create the texts, nor do they create the authority of the text.  In a critically realist epistemology, language refers to realities to which the words refer.  The experts can at most clear up misunderstandings about what the text does not say, and arrive at a consensus about what it does say.

To use a secular example about which no one would dispute:  Experts can examine the texts of a play by Shakespeare or a symphony by Mozart, and reach a fair consensus of what Shakespear meant to communicate or Mozart meant to play.  A new interpreter who suggested that it was merely a matter of “interpretation” about whether Hamlet was a tragedy, and that it might indeed be a comedy would be laughed off the state.  A new interpreter of Mozart who suggested that Mozart’s symphonies were really a highly ingenuous anticipation of hip hop would meet the same fate.

One does not need an infallible magisterium to know that the canonical scriptures condemn homosexual activity.  I’m sorry, but I find the use of every issue as an excuse to bring in the same old tired Tridentine apologetics to be rather monotonous after awhile.

Dr Tighe quite properly identifies

... a problem that you guys will never get around unless you, too, submit to the authority, the magisterial authority if you will, of your own denominational/confessional tradition, as traditionally interpreted by your own theologians, teachers and practices.

[Emphasis added.]  It comes back once again to the problem of keeping control of the seminaries, it seems, which in the case of the American Protestant denominations most successful in maintaining their theological integrity—SBC and LCMS—has involved bitter fights and faculty purges in the past.  (A discussion of the background of the Missouri Synod’s 1973 dismissal of a large number of faculty from Concordia can be found [url=“http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_4_119/ai_83666816”> here </a>; the issue was use of “the historical - critical method” in LCMS’ seminary.)

When we moderns approach such issues, with resonances not only of Reformation heresy persecution but also suppression of free speech and denial of academic freedom, we instinctively recoil:  “Well, gee, sure, Christianity has always been countercultural, but do we really have to be that countercultural?”

Apparently we do.  The whole messy Concordia business—still <a ]reviled[/url] by LCMS progressives (yes, there are some)—has protected a church which can still produce rigorous Christian statements on [url=“http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ToSetOurHopeOnChrist.pdf”>contraception</a> and <a >divorce</a>.

(I am of course unqualified to judge whether the theological conclusions of these statements are correct or not, but the Scriptural rigor of their reasoning is a marvelously refreshing change from the <a ]PR-using-God-talk[/url] of nearly all mainline US protestantism’s recent work.)

Dr. Tighe is quite right to imply the question, “really, now, just how ‘orthodox’ are ‘orthodox Anglicans’ willing to be?”  This is a subject deserving deep introspection—a useful way to pass the time between now and September 30.

Craig,

In regard to the Missouri Synod, you might find the following comment and ensuing thread of interest:

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/08/the-elca-anothe.html#comments

There are still in the Missouri Synod organizations that exist to promote WO (“Daystar”) and a kind of low church/congregationalist/pietist/anticlerical/individualistic generic Protestantism (“Jesus First”) that lends itself to a kind of practical “inclusion” or errorists and antinomians.  These organizations are, happily, small and marginal, but the bedrock congregationalism of the MS (it is actually easier for a congregation to secede from the MS than from the ELCA) and a still widespread anticlericalism (or a desire to minimize the authority of the ordained) lends itself to exploitation by organizations such as those that I have mentioned.

Marty the Baptist said . . . .

“midwestnorwegian, your local Southern Baptist church welcomes you.
And we’re at least 15 years behind on this kind of mess.  Probably much more. “

I am Orthodox, Antiochian jurisdiction.  We’re 1600 years behind on this, and we’re staying there.

TRS:
“It is reasonable that persons who believe that the Bible absolutely rejects any possible form of homosexual activity . . .”
The word is not “believe,” the word is “acknowledge;” as in “We acknowledge that the Bible absolutely rejects any possible form of homosexual activity.”

Dr Tighe,
Thanks for the informative and thought-provoking link.

It would appear that the typical ELCA pew-sitter, not surprisingly like the typical ECUSA pew-sitter, will one day wake up and ask, “Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?”—only to discover that what awakened him was the sound of the gates slamming shut behind him…

Dear Pilgrim,

I’ve had the pleasure of attending a Baptism, Chrismation and Eucharist at an Antiochian Western Rite parish, ie traditional language. The Liturgy was Divine!

Cheers!

I think it worth pointing out that the split among both the Southern Baptists and the LCMS occurred because of a rejection of the kind of historical-critical interpretation of the Bible that is commonplace for Evangelicals like N.T. Wright or Richard Hays, and is assumed in Pope Benedict’s new book on Jesus.  Biblical scholars like Christopher Seitz and Stephen Noll (to mention two who have graced our conversation recently) would be unwelcome to both the Southern Baptists and the LCMS because of their “weak” views on Scripture.  When I left the Southern Baptists as a young man, friends were praying for my soul because I was reading rank liberals like Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg.

Excellent posts, all, with lots of “money quotes”, including Craig Goodrich’s below: 

“Nothing is impossible, however, for those with sufficient hubris and a couple of Public Relations courses”.

This seems to be the root of a lot of TEC’s success. And, Craig is right, that eventually, the only one who is going to be pleased about it is Screwtape. 

Both Craig and Dr. Tighe are exactly right in their mutual question of, “how orthodox are the orthodox willing to be”?  Which is a pronounced aspect of my own (lay) discernment. 

Dr. Witt’s posts have much merit, too—more “money”: 

“The reason why we encounter so many variations of the shellfish argument, and appeals to Gentile inclusion in Acts 15, and slavery and divorce, and appeals to new movements of the Spirit, is that the revisionists now recognize that their position has no objective basis in what the Scriptural texts actually say.  So there is a scramble for loopholes, for ways to go beyond what the texts actually say to find a way of endorsing what the text clearly does not say”.

Yes, and that “loophole”, at least in TEC’s case, is to assume a mantle of “prophecy”, or new revelation. 

Well, we all know what happens when we “ass-u-me”...

Dr. Tighe, I get more orthodox by the day….

Thank you all—

Blessings,

TS

GrannyKay, midwestnorwegian, et al;
The President of LCMS, the Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, issued a statement yesterday that reinterated that LCMS’s position regarding homosexuality is based solely on what Scripture teaches, and that ELCA’s actions may have serious and lasting negative impact upon relations between ELCA and LCMS.  So please don’t think all Lutherans are going the way of TEC and ELCA.  Because LCMS will never even consider walking that same path…thanks be to God!
-Jeff

Dr Tighe:

Thanks for taking my point seriously regarding how decisions on all manner of things get done in Protestant Churches, including a good number of them (maybe all of them?) in the Anglican Communion.

As a thought experiment, I wonder how the process of submitting to the authority of the established teaching found in documents such as the Thirty-Nine Articles (American Version, I would presume, for Americans at least) and the consensus of teachers of the faith, past and present, on issues on which there is general consensus (such as, it would appear, homosexual practice) would actually take place. Would there be a majority vote of some sort that would establish that such submission would take place? (Which would, of course, sort create the precedent for repeating the faults of the current system!) Or might there be something more like a religious order created whose vows of membership, voluntary on the part of those who seek to be part of the order, would include such submission?

To be sure, most clergy in most denominations make such vows at their ordinations. Trouble is, since decisions in those denominations get made by majority votes, including decisions about what will be included in the vows of ordination, that hardly creates a guarantee for the churches themselves.

Which, by the way, Mr Witt, is the reason that controlling the seminaries turns out not to work very well in the final analysis, either.  It’s a delaying tactic perhaps, but still not a solution to the core polity/ecclesiology/authority problem. Both the LCMS and the SBC still create doctrine and discipline on the floor by majority vote—and in the case of the SBC, that can happen every year in an assembly of people where laity, without any theological education, tend to outnumber the clergy by a pretty sizable margin, and the clergy themselves may or may not have gone to SBC controlled seminaries since the congregations can call as pastor and ordain as pastor whomever they please with whatever credentials or no credentials.

So, short of swimming the Tiber or the Mediterranean (over to Antioch) or the Bering Strait (over to Moscow) or name your Orthodox patriarchate, or short of something like “cuius regio, eius religio”—a submission to the whims of secular power I’d imagine none of us is quite willing to grant—what kind of process of discernment and decision around matters of doctrine and discipline are we actually willing to work for other than what appears to be the default US Protestant policy of majority rules?

create doctrine and discipline on the floor by majority vote—and in the case of the SBC, that can happen every year in an assembly of people where laity, without any theological education, tend to outnumber the clergy by a pretty sizable margin

Unfortunately, in almost every SBC church I’ve attended (quite a good number, in fact), “theological education of the laity” is the order of the day, every Sunday morning, and every Wednesday night. 

I understand that this is often not the case in many “mainline” protestant churches, where the weekly “education” often comes from the opinion pages of the daily news, or whatever feelgood self-help novel Oprah happens to be shilling for this month.

Just my observation…

I said “unfortunately” as in “unfortunately your assumption is mistaken”.  It’s actually quite fortunate indeed that SBC laity is very well educated in theological matters—and we intend to keep it that way. 

Just so no one is confused by my poor use of language.

MartyTheBabtist.  I couldn’t agree with you more.  The events in Chicago are indicative of a church body whose members are no longer grounded in scripture or even in their own Lutheran heritage.  Many people date the start of the slippery-slope down to same-sex (marriage, ordination, adoption, and etc.) to Women’s Ordination.  I would place it at that point in time when the mainline protestant churches stopped teaching the Law and started placing all of their emphasis on the Gospel instead.  Without the Law as a brake, the NT Gospel by itself can be easily morphed, into the new gospel of social justice, with a person’s own personal “Me” at its center instead of God.