I just heard on NPR that the national synod for my church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has voted down a proposal to allow gay and lesbian clergy to have parners. The current rules stand where gay clergy must be celibate while this restriction is only applied to unmarried straight clergy. The vote was remarkably divided, 490 for and 503 against but it would have required a two thirds majority to pass. This is troubling as a good friend of ours is going to be forced to leave the ELCA and likely be ordained in the UCC.
So, what’s the debate?
My emphasis is on “but there is hope.” It was a split decision this time but can you imagine what it would’ve been ten or twenty years ago? While I am disappointed it got turned down this time I still see it as an inevitability. Padeye, people like you and I are turning into the “old Norskies” (Norwegian Married Non-Farmers?) who direct the path of the Church* and pretty soon it will go where WE want it to go. 
-
- Please note that this is the FIRST time since I left the RCC that I have capitalized “Church” for any other sect. They’ll turn me into a Lutheran yet.
Perhaps there may be no debate as I doubt if many people here will take a contrary position. Not sure what other forum is more appropriate but I may leave that up to a mod later on.
Yeah drozone, I think there is hope as we repace the old guard. The folks in my congretation are not Lake Wobegone style Lutherans.
I really wish that the ELCA had voted to approve this proposal. To me, it’s the only way that Christianity can work. Everyone is accepted, as they are.
Unfortunately, any way this vote went would result in people leaving the ELCA. Last summer this subject came up at my family reunion (a whole bunch of Lutherans there) and some of them stated, flat out, that if the ELCA voted to allow non-celebate clergy they would leave the church. And it’s not just the old guard. One of those that felt the most strongly about this is in his early 40s.
Not being Lutheran, I’m not sure I should weigh in here, but no matter. I don’t think this proposal should have been approved. There are passages in the Bible that speak against homosexual behavior. Sure, I know there is a debate over what they really mean. However, it needs to be recognized that there is a debate and there are reasonable people on both sides. Since it truly is not clear that God accepts homosexual behavior, the Church is not improper to err on the side of caution. While I feel for your friend, a vote on Church policy should not be based on feelings or on the personality of the people involved. It should be based on the Bible. In this case the Bible is at best unclear and at worst it says that homosexual activity is sinful. The Church would be unwise to simply ignore this.
About a year and a half ago ELCA congregations were encouraged to hold discussion groups on whether the church should recognize same sex marriage and ordain gay clergy. About 15 or so from my congregation participated over about 4 to 6 weeknights using study guides published by ELCA. They can be found here.
http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/study01.html
Almost all the discussion revolved around the gay marriage issue, and very little on the ordination question. Opinion was definitely divided. I thought the study guides did a reasonable job of presenting differing viewpoints, while one person thought that they “shredded the bible”.
I predict that eventually the church and society at large will grant gays the same rights as straights, but probably not in the next five years. Maybe 20.
Sure, there is a debate, and there are reasonable people on both side. Why does this mean that the desires of the “reasonable people” on the side opposed to non-celibate gay ministers should be deferred to*? If there’s no clear answer in the Bible, would it not be more “reasonable” to err on the side that treats everyone equally, and not err on the side that treats some members of the church as less worthy than others?
*Aside, obviously, from the fact that they outnumbered and outvoted the non-bigots, of course. The rules of the organization need to be followed, and by those rules, the good guys lost fair and square.
Does the ELCA recognize gay marriage?
Because, for one, it’s the status quo. For two, because if it’s unclear whether or not the Bible condones homosexuality, it’s probably better to err on the side of caution. Or, to put it another way, if you’re unsure if something is sinful, then you probably shouldn’t do it.
The Bible doesn’t condone driving automobiles. Should we err on the side of caution and not drive cars?
No, though I prefer to say not yet. Individual pastors are allowed to bless same sex relationships but this carries no legal weight nor does it change the requirement of gay and lesbian clergy to remain celibate. Several amendments were proposed to change this and disallow blessing same sex relationships but none of them passed.
There is a synopsis and analysys of the assembly on the Lutherans Concerned website.
As disappointed as I am it’s encouraging to see the results we did get. The tide is clearly moving.
Don’t be ridiculous. The Bible has a handful of verses that seem to indicate that homosexuality is wrong. Personally, I’m not necessarily convinced, but there is certainly a gray area. Since homosexuality may be sinful, then it makes sense for a church not to condone it.
As soon as you can point out similar verses that pertain to automobile driving, then you can make your above assertion.
The Bible clearly states the one shouldn’t do business on the Sabbath. Since this could be extended to any handling of money, should Christians declare the Sunday passing of the collection plate a “gray area” and end the practice until it’s all sorted out?
A bit theologically unsound as most Christians don’t worship on the sabbath mentioned in Leviticus anyway, you can thank Emperorer Constantine for that. I haven’t seen much success in arguing from the bible as most people have already chosen sides either those for the absolutes of the laws in Exodous (the ones that suit them at any rate) and those of us who try to follow Christ’s second greatest commandment, not to mention the fact that he never mentioned homosexuality once in the gospels.
I also don’t think it would be very effective as Christians in support of gay inclusion in church life are probably already worshipping with congregations who feel the same.
I wasn’t aware this was a legitimate theological dispute. Could you please give me some examples of congregations or denominations that are debating this issue?
Until this becomes a dispute, I think we can safely ignore it. If it ever would, however, I would once again recommend erring on the side of caution.
I’m beginning to wish the ELCA, the PCUSA, the UMC and the other mainstream Protty churches would follow the lead of the ECUSA & the UCC instead of dancing around the issue. Honest schism is preferable to forced unity IMO.
So, really it’s a case of “All unmarried clergy must be celebate” but there’s no way for gay clergly to marry the way that straight clergy can. Wouldn’t it be easier, then, to get the ELCA to allow gay marriage (because a step has already been taken by allowing pastors to bless same sex relationships)? Once that is done, then that’ll solve the other situation.
As an ELCA congregant, I reluctantly agree with you. I feel closer to UCC congregations now than I do to some ELCA congregations with which I’m familiar.
Sexual identity looks like one of those core issues about which we may never agree; it may also be an issue that is compelling enough to cause denominations to set aside other doctrinal differences and form new groupings. That is, “liberal” ELCA congregations may feel such closer affinity to UCC congregations due to a common stance on sexuality that other issues recede in importance. Perhaps this is the beginning of a “new” Reformation.
Having just watch Luther and a previous biopic about him on PBS I hope the reformation isn’t as bloody.
I’m torn too but I try to remember that Luther’s intention wasn’t to leave the RC church but to reform it. I don’t want to leave the congregation I am in because those people are my family and we are all working for this common cause. The friend I mentioned has already had her choice to leave to the UCC forced upon her but her parents still worship with out congregation and I don’t expect that to change.