Comments on: Lutherans Adopt New Statement on Sexuality

By: PSUdain

PSUdain — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:34:14 +0000

As someone who has been following this for years now, who participated in the studies which lead up to the creation of this statement (and even helped to lead one on the Draft Statement), I think this is, overall, an excellent statement, and I think that the ministry policies, if passed, will serve us well.

I came out in this church, to a member of my Lutheran student community. My campus pastor also helped me along the way. I feel very strongly that we need to allow opently partnered LGBT people to officially serve in our ministries.

At the same time, the way our church is organized and the way it works is through three levels, Congregation, Synod and National. Each must have freedom to express its faith in ways that it, by the Holy Spirit, finds good.

As church we cannot act to divide one another. I am happy to share the ELCA with people who think I am sinful because I am gay. I welcome them and their perspective, and I would never dream of trying to take away their ability to express their faith. I ask they not try to do so to me.

In the end, is exactly what I wanted to see? No. But I think it is a very good way of helping each other to live together in love in Christ, and in respect of each others’ bound consciences.

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:47:01 +0000

Speaking of the tornado that damaged the convention center and the Lutheran church nearby, some of the lovely old homophobes in the Twin Cities are already talking about “God” making a statement towards the ELCA convention.

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1965_the_tornado_the_lutherans_and_homosexuality/

Nothing like head in the sandism to keep me convinced that some people are incapable of dealing with reality.

Scott

By: BentonQuest

BentonQuest — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:55:23 +0000

I always love the “clear teaching of the Bible” statement. It is just a way of shutting down dissent. If I proclaim that the teaching is “clear” then for you to question it means that you are dense. If it was so clear, why would so many theologians have so many disagreements over it?

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:26:08 +0000

I’m with october,I have to laugh a bit at the way they try to satisfy all sides. But given the theological diversity of this denomination, it’s going to be hard to come to any sort of definitive decision. I just hope they can ignore the conservatives…

By: Richard W. Fitch

Richard W. Fitch — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:25:58 +0000

The real test is going to come tomorrow, 8/21, when the real vote on accepting same-sex couples in full fellowship in their churches and acknowledging that members in faith-filled, monogamous partnerships are fully qualified for every level of pastoral leadership.

By: octobercountry

octobercountry — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:56:16 +0000

I am a member of the ELCA myself, and I’ll agree this is a step in the right direction. At the same time, the statement does make me laugh a bit—basically, they are saying “We can’t come to any agreement whatsoever on this issue, so we aren’t making a well-defined stand of any kind.”

The good thing about it, of course, is that it leaves the individual a fair amount of freedom as to what they may believe and still be a member in good standing of the Lutheran church…. I was reading up on the convention on another site, and of course (as was expected) there are quite a few idiotic comments posted, in the “You’re all going to hell” sort of vein…

By: octobercountry

octobercountry — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:37:49 +0000

“We mourn the decision by the Churchwide Assembly to reject the clear teaching of the Bible that God’s intention for marriage is the relationship of one man and one woman….”

Okay, no matter how many times I hear statements like this, and no matter who is speaking (and I’ve heard it coming from just about every denomination), I just DON’T GET IT.

Biblically-based Old Testament-style marriage could basically be defined as being between one man and as many wives as he could afford to buy. And I don’t recall God having any problem whatsoever with this arrangement. At least, polygamy was never decried in Biblical writings.

So, either God is willing to accept a broader definition of “marriage” than most Christians are willing to admit, or else the definition of what makes an acceptable marriage changes over time, according to the culture and standards in which said marriage exists… I just wish that the Biblical literalists would admit, for once, that their definition of marriage is NOT the only one sanctioned by the Bible…

By: Burr

Burr — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:12:38 +0000

Woo! Bring on the tornadoes!!

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:00:47 +0000

“It is tragic that such a large number of ELCA members were willing to overturn the clear teaching of the Bible as it has been believed and confessed by Christians for nearly 2,000 years.”

It is to laugh, were it not so sad.

We’re just the longest lasting in a long list of people and issues that The Church–not just Lutherans– has sought out to demonstrate it’s disapproval of, and later changed its mind about.

those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it– unfortunately for the victims.

50 years ago, misgenation laws were justified by people screaming out “immorality” and whipping out their bibles.

75 years ago, segregation laws. People quoting their bibles supported that.

100 years ago, women were denied the vote, justified by bibles

200 years ago, slavery justified by bibles.

300 years ago, withches and bibles.

400 years ago, Catholics and Lutherans were torturing and slaughtering eachother.

900 years ago, quoting their bibles, the Christians repsonded to the Muslim political power in THE HOLY LAND (Now there is a sarcasm!)

And we can add 2000 years of anti-semitism and 6 million dead sponsored by the Gospel of John.