ELCA changes stance on gay pastors

[Soxy]

Linkage per Reuters

 

Lutherans to allow pastors in gay relationships

 

Sat Aug 11, 2:00 PM ET

 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Homosexual Lutheran clergy who are in sexual relationships will be able to serve as pastors, the largest U.S. Lutheran body said on Saturday.

 

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) passed a resolution at its annual assembly urging bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors who are in "faithful committed same-gender relationships."

 

The resolution passed by a vote of 538-431.

 

"The Church ... has just said 'Do not do punishments'," said Phil Soucy, spokesman for Lutherans Concerned, a gay-lesbian rights group within the church. "That is huge."

 

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

 

The conference also instructed a committee that is developing a social statement on sexuality to further investigate the issue. The committee is scheduled to release its report in 2009.

 

Since the ELCA was founded in 1988, the group has ordered three pastors in gay relationships to be removed from their ministries. The most recent case was decided in July when the ELCA's committee on appeals voted to remove an openly gay pastor from St. John's Lutheran Church in Atlanta.

 

The gay clergy issue has become a flashpoint in other faiths, including the Anglican Church.

[FlaSoxxJim]

A bright spot in the darkness of American Christian leadership woes. Whatever version of the Bible the ELCA is using, it must be the only version that hasn't had that bit about "love your neighbor" redacted.

[Soxy]

A bright spot in the darkness of American Christian leadership woes. Whatever version of the Bible the ELCA is using, it must be the only version that hasn't had that bit about "love your neighbor" redacted.

Hey, hey, the Anglicans are quite progressive too. I imagine the rest of the "mainline" protestant churches will soon follow. My money is on the Methodists being next.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hey, hey, the Anglicans are quite progressive too. I imagine the rest of the "mainline" protestant churches will soon follow. My money is on the Methodists being next.

Methodists? I've found that the methodists in the south particularly are pretty damn conservative. I have a hard time seeing them make that shift anytime soon.

 

Anyone know the Jewish stand on this issue? Just curious. If they haven't already, I'd bet them next to accept gay clergy/rabbi's.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Hey, hey, the Anglicans are quite progressive too.

 

You're right, I spoke too quickly. With the Canadian Anglican bishops recently rejecting same-sex marriage blessings, I think the U.S. Anglican bishops are showing a lot of bravery in their support of same-sex marriage blessings and the ordination of gay ministers. I guess they have until the end of September to back down or the Archbishop of Canterbury says they'll be kicked out of the international union, so I applaud them for standing up for what they believe in and standing against church-condoned bigotry.

[Soxy]

Methodists? I've found that the methodists in the south particularly are pretty damn conservative. I have a hard time seeing them make that shift anytime soon.

 

Anyone know the Jewish stand on this issue? Just curious. If they haven't already, I'd bet them next to accept gay clergy/rabbi's.

I believe the "Reformed Judaism" allows the ordination of gays and women.

 

I know there are some branches of Methodists that are more conservative than others (I think it's the Free Methodists that are the most conservative)--but I think that this change by the Lutherans is going to change the dialogue in many protestant churches.

 

Although it should be noted that this doesn't change the ELCA's stance on ORDAINING gays, but rather not disciplining gay pastors in committed relationships. Odd, but true.

[Soxy]

You're right, I spoke too quickly. With the Canadian Anglican bishops recently rejecting same-sex marriage blessings, I think the U.S. Anglican bishops are showing a lot of bravery in their support of same-sex marriage blessings and the ordination of gay ministers. I guess they have until the end of September to back down or the Archbishop of Canterbury says they'll be kicked out of the international union, so I applaud them for standing up for what they believe in and standing against church-condoned bigotry.

I don't know what the Archbishop Canterbury can do, if they kick out the American Anglicans I believe they will lose about 1/3 ( or 1/4) of their world wide budget. But I know some of the African churches are also choosing to not acknowledge the American branch of the communion because Jefferts-Schori is a woman. In short, this could get very interesting.

 

I know the Canadian Anglican church was in much the same boat as the American, so it is dissappointing for them to back down. I vaguely remember the Australian or New Zealand branch also accepting a more tolerant bent, but I should check that.

[FlaSoxxJim]

. . . disciplining gay pastors. . .

 

Must. . . fight urge. . . to make bondage joke. . .

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Proud to be LCMS

[HuskyCaucasian]

A bright spot in the darkness of American Christian leadership woes. Whatever version of the Bible the ELCA is using, it must be the only version that hasn't had that bit about "love your neighbor" redacted.

Hate the sin... love the sin. But dont condone the sin. That's my issue.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Hate the sin... love the sin. But dont condone the sin. That's my issue.

 

What sin? That's my issue.

 

I'm figuring your God isn't a narrow-minded homophobe and it's people who have it wrong.

[HuskyCaucasian]

What sin? That's my issue.

 

I'm figuring your God isn't a narrow-minded homophobe and it's people who have it wrong.

To me it's pretty clear...

Leviticus 18:22,24

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable....

" 'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.

 

Romans 1:26-27

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

Leviticus 20:13

" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.

 

[GoSox05]

I believe that we are all god's little angel's and we are all loved by him.

[FlaSoxxJim]

To me it's pretty clear...

 

Then to you it is also pretty clear that it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and it's OK to own slaves as long as you buy them from a neighboring nation (Leviticus 25:44), and that you can of course kill your neighbor if you find he has been working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).

 

Likewise, you're crystal clear about it being better for you to give your daughter up to be raped if it keeps two men from sinning by lying together (Genesis 19:1-9 - a personal favorite of mine).

 

If you are clear about all of these things, and a boatload of others taken right from the Bible, then you are somewhat of a misanthrope in modern society. If you only think God's word as recorded in the Bible is only eternally binding when it condones bigotry against gays but less so regarding these other ancient dictates, then certainly you are in good company. But your interpretation of the Bible and which of God's laws should be heeded nonetheless remains distressingly selective.

[Soxy]

To me it's pretty clear...

Galatians 3:28

There is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

Matthew 7:5

First take the plank from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's.

 

Also, if you've looked at the whole chapter of Romans (which I'm sure you have) you know that it is much more about worshipping other gods before God. Most scholars believe that they Paul was taking about ritualistic sex.

 

I guess, that I in some ways I am envious of christians who can spend so much time worrying about other people's lives; I have to spend most of my time trying make sure that I am righteous and I haven't time to make sure everyone else is. Maybe someday I'll become that good so I can spend all my time looking for the faults in others rather than myself. . .

 

 

[Soxy]

If you are clear about all of these things, and a boatload of others taken right from the Bible, then you are somewhat of a misanthrope in modern society. If you only think God's word as recorded in the Bible is only eternally binding when it condones bigotry against gays but less so regarding these other ancient dictates, then certainly you are in good company. But your interpretation of the Bible and which of God's laws should be heeded nonetheless remains distressingly selective.

An excellent point my atheistic/agnostic friend. I think that when people focus on the Bible so thoroughly they really do act as though God is dead--and that the spirit of the creator no longer speaks to us. I think that spirit should move us to be compassionate and loving to all God's creatures.

[CanOfCorn]

I guess, that I in some ways I am envious of christians who can spend so much time worrying about other people's lives; I have to spend most of my time trying make sure that I am righteous and I haven't time to make sure everyone else is. Maybe someday I'll become that good so I can spend all my time looking for the faults in others rather than myself. . .

Yeah...good luck with aaaaaaallllllllll that.

[Soxy]

Yeah...good luck with aaaaaaallllllllll that.

See, being a trainwreck has its advantages.

[GoSox05]

Then to you it is also pretty clear that it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and it's OK to own slaves as long as you buy them from a neighboring nation (Leviticus 25:44), and that you can of course kill your neighbor if you find he has been working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).

 

Likewise, you're crystal clear about it being better for you to give your daughter up to be raped if it keeps two men from sinning by lying together (Genesis 19:1-9 - a personal favorite of mine).

 

If you are clear about all of these things, and a boatload of others taken right from the Bible, then you are somewhat of a misanthrope in modern society. If you only think God's word as recorded in the Bible is only eternally binding when it condones bigotry against gays but less so regarding these other ancient dictates, then certainly you are in good company. But your interpretation of the Bible and which of God's laws should be heeded nonetheless remains distressingly selective.

 

 

I hate when my neighbor works on the Sabbath. It's like "dude stop working on the Sabbath or I'll have to come over there and hurt you".

 

 

Now that I think about it. Wouldn't killing your neighbor on the Sabbath be like working yourself. You have to "work" at killing someone. So do you have to kill yourself than for working at killing your neighbor for working on the Sabbath or does like another neighbor have to come over and kill you? Cause killing yourself is a sin and I'd hate to go to hell on a day that I did a good deed by killing my neighbor for working on the Sabbath.

[vandy125]

Then to you it is also pretty clear that it's OK to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and it's OK to own slaves as long as you buy them from a neighboring nation (Leviticus 25:44), and that you can of course kill your neighbor if you find he has been working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).

 

Likewise, you're crystal clear about it being better for you to give your daughter up to be raped if it keeps two men from sinning by lying together (Genesis 19:1-9 - a personal favorite of mine).

 

If you are clear about all of these things, and a boatload of others taken right from the Bible, then you are somewhat of a misanthrope in modern society. If you only think God's word as recorded in the Bible is only eternally binding when it condones bigotry against gays but less so regarding these other ancient dictates, then certainly you are in good company. But your interpretation of the Bible and which of God's laws should be heeded nonetheless remains distressingly selective.

Aahh. The pick and choose what you want to believe and what is convenient attack. You might as well throw the whole thing out when you start doing that. I think that Benedict Spinoza

 

First Exodus 21, it is not saying it is good or bad, but is merely putting down restrictions for a common practice at the time. Again, the same thing with Leviticus.

 

The Exodus 35 one that you brought up is interesting because Jesus addresses that when he is confronted with an adulterous woman (notice that the creeps did not bring the man before him too, but that is a different thing). If he followed the law of Moses, she would be stoned. If he followed the law of the land, she could not be stoned. It was a nice trap. He, the only one who could, forgave her and told her to sin no more. So, the sin was condemned, but could now be forgiven in a way that was not before. There was no more need for sacriifices on the altar, etc, but a new way of forgiveness.

 

The Genesis 19 one, I was actually just reading the other day. Again, the text just puts what happened in black and white. Just because the Bible states what happened, it does not mean that it is condoned. Why didn't you go a little farther and talk about Lot's own daughters sleeping with him as it says in the script? It isn't condoning that either. It even states that the Moabites and Ammonites came as a result of that. Which were two nations that the Israelites seemed to constantly be at war with.

 

The difference between these texts and the one's that were sited is that there is condemnation of the practice. It is not merely writing down what happened. I know that is not PC to say, but it is what I believe, but I also believe that I do not have any ability to judge anyone. That is between each person and their maker. I cannot know someone's heart. I can bring the sin before the Christians that are doing it, but what common ground is there for me to appeal to with a non-Christian? To put it another way, the Bible clearly condemns it, but if you are not a Christian, that should not matter to you.

[Rex Kickass]

The Genesis 19 one, I was actually just reading the other day. Again, the text just puts what happened in black and white. Just because the Bible states what happened, it does not mean that it is condoned. Why didn't you go a little farther and talk about Lot's own daughters sleeping with him as it says in the script? It isn't condoning that either. It even states that the Moabites and Ammonites came as a result of that. Which were two nations that the Israelites seemed to constantly be at war with.

 

I'm at a bit of a loss here. I'm no biblical scholar, but Lot's family was saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah. These two cities were destroyed for not honoring God correctly, yes? So if that's the case - why did God spare a family who's father molested his daughters? How is that honoring God's law?

[vandy125]

I'm at a bit of a loss here. I'm no biblical scholar, but Lot's family was saved from the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah. These two cities were destroyed for not honoring God correctly, yes? So if that's the case - why did God spare a family who's father molested his daughters? How is that honoring God's law?

The only reason Lot was saved was because of Abraham, but they did pay a big price by him being saved.

So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

Lot was Abraham's nephew, and was kind of like the nephew that always finds himself in trouble because he just is always getting into bad situations due to poor decisions. I'm not sure what you would call what happened because it says that they got him drunk and basically passed out.

From Genesis Chapter 19

He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

What happened did end up being a punishment. Because it led to the Moabites and the Ammonites, and they were at war several times with the Israelites. An ironic note about the Moabites is that later on they were a part of causing some judgement to occur on some of the Israelites for sexual immorality in Numbers 25

1 While Israel was staying in s***tim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2 who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate and bowed down before these gods. 3 So Israel joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor. And the LORD's anger burned against them.

4 The LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the LORD, so that the LORD's fierce anger may turn away from Israel."

 

That was probably a bit more than you were looking for, but there is your answer. I'm not sure why exactly it was done for Abraham, but that is what the text says.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The difference between these texts and the one's that were sited is that there is condemnation of the practice. It is not merely writing down what happened. I know that is not PC to say, but it is what I believe, but I also believe that I do not have any ability to judge anyone. That is between each person and their maker. I cannot know someone's heart. I can bring the sin before the Christians that are doing it, but what common ground is there for me to appeal to with a non-Christian? To put it another way, the Bible clearly condemns it, but if you are not a Christian, that should not matter to you.

 

Well, the OT condemns it, and the NT not so much. By extension of your reference to the cast the first stone Gospel refence in which Jesus supplants the Law of Moses, I should take Jesus' apparent lack of concern over homosexuality (he never mentions it) as an unspoken dismissal of the uptight OT dictums, yes?

 

Your drawing the distinction between condemnation of a practice versus writing down what happened I can accept on its face, but, I know I can draw out other OT examples where practices that are quite normal today were explicitly condemned. I can't recall the book or verse at the moment, but the one about men with poor eyesight being unworthy to approach God's alter comes to mind. I'll have to find it.

 

But, I'll use your own acid test and discount one of the rare NT references to homosexuality, from Paul in Romans 1:

 

and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error (Romans 1:27).

 

This is a verse commonly pulled out to demonstrate that, yes, homosexuality is bad by NT standards too. But, this is one of the examples you are talking about that is "merely writing down what happened":

 

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:21).

 

As for common ground and appealing to with a non-Christian. . . this is the sort of discourse that must occur in a society where not everyone shares the same belief system yet we still try to seek understanding of where our operspectives come from. More to the point, the but about the Bible clearly condemning homosexuality, but that shouldn't matter to non-Christians is an illogical statement. There are lots of non-Christians whose rights are compromised because they are gay and therefore not allowed to enter into civil unions, adopt, share parental custody, enjoy spousal hospital visitation priveledges, etc. If vestigial belief in the condemnation of homosexuality by conservative Christians is holding our society back from correcting this injustice, then it should matter and does matter to me.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So, How long did Cain hate his brother?

 

Answer: As long as he was Able!

 

Thanks, I'm here through Thursday. Tip your wine bearer and try the loaves and fishes.

[Rex Kickass]

2 Samuel 1:26 (King David speaks)

 

I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.