Renob, how much of the ELCA do you think would have to support the measure before it would be “safe” to allow it to pass? More than the two thirds needed to pass it? Less? If one in three Lutherans still consider it to be sinful, I’d say it’s still a controversial measure, even if it passes muster at the synod. Is that still too controversial, or at that point can the church stop pandering to the bigots and finally do what’s right?
Would “the side of caution” in this case be continuing the practice because it’s the “status quo,” or discontinuing the practice because the Bible appears to discourage it?
I would say so, too. I think that there should be consensus.
Of course, I am also of the mind that denominations such as this aren’t really necessary. I don’t see the need for an overarching authority to tell member churches what they can think. I’m supportive of the non-denominational route – each church decides for itself its view on doctrine. If you don’t like the way one church thinks about gay marriage, women clergy, passing the communion plate, etc., then you can go to another.
Of course the question here is exactly what is “right.” Some say that endorsing sin is wrong. Now, I’m not saying that homosexuality is sinful, but I am saying that there is a pretty strong case to be made that the Bible says it is. And if you believe in the Bible and you believe that the Bible calls it a sin, then that’s not being bigoted. It’s taking the Bible seriously.
Again, this is such a ridiculous example that I’ll let the denomination where this is an issue sort it out.
I was pretty shocked that anyone thought this could go anywhere.
I used to date a girl who was part of this sect and boy, let me tell you, they are in no way at all progressive. At least they weren’t ten years ago.
I was surprised when she told me that the women in their church get absolutely no say in anything and was quite annoyed that it took me several weeks to convince her that, no, I didn’t think that she should always walk behind me…
I think maybe you’ve got the wrong Lutheran denomination in mind. Even ten years ago, the ELCA had female clergy, and participated fully in the life of the church. There are a few Lutheran denominations who hold much more conservative views - LCMS and Wisconsin synod, to name a couple.
Don’t have much to add except to relate some current events. Recently my wife’s childhood church (member of the ECLA) dinged a candidate pastor because he’s gay. I guess it was a narrow majority that won out on that decision. My father-in-law, who is still very active in that church, expressed great disappointment, because he much preferred the gay pastor to the one they finally settled on.
I was really quite surprised. He’s a good man, and very moral in his fashion, but somewhat doctrinaire, and certainly a bit old-fashioned about some things. He’s a learned fellow, holding a doctorate in history, very well-informed about current Biblical scholarship, and aware of the debate on the status of homosexuals as defined by Scripture. When last I’d heard, he was not settled on the subject, but he certainly felt the morality of active homosexuality in a Christian context was open to serious debate. It would seem he’s moved in a direction I honestly didn’t expect. What such shifts bode for the future of the Lutheran Church I don’t know, but it’s an interesting thing to witness some aspects of what may be the seeds of a major transition in doctrine first-hand.
The ELCA isn’t remotely like the Missouri or Winsconsin Synods. I think that a lesbian pastor - using Harry Potter as a parable for the children’s sermon no less :eek: - would make a few heads explode in the branches who don’t let girls talk in church. This pastor is the friend who is essentially being forced to leave the ELCA. She is the chaplain at a local hostpital but would fill in when our regular pastor was away.
We have a terrific pastor who is really involved in our mission of inner city evangalism and ministry to the GLBT community. She’s a bit older but by no means over the hill so she’s not too green to lead and not to rigid. We consider ourselves very lucky to have her because we went nearly two years without a permanent pastor before we found the right one. The icing was that her husband found a position as pastor at another ELCA congregation a few miles away.
Renob, I once felt the way you do about denominations, particularly after I had been soured so badly by the Southern Baptists. My upbringing was nearly everything from Roman Catholic to Assembly of God and I found fault with all of them. I don’t think the ELCA is perfect and for that matter neither was Luther himself but I feel a calling to this congregation which is far stronger than any objections I had to denominations.
There will always be debate about gays in church life but I would no more send someone away from church for his sexual identity or preference than I would stone someone for wearing wool and linen together. I think Christ’s second great commandment trumps Exodous and leviticus.
However, this is not a debate about whether or not to send someone away from the church. I agree that the church should welcome all, straight or gay. However, it is a debate about whether or not church leaders who are gay can be sexually active. That is a different debate completely, and one that seems to fall in a Biblically gray area.
And it’s not simply about Exodus and Leviticus. Paul also had a few things to say about homosexuality.
Paul certainly did. I’ve also never heard anyone claim that Paul spoke as a prophet. I also don’t know of an instance where Jesus mentioned it once in the gospels.
So even if this measure had passed by the rules of the ECLA (two-third majority) you still think it should not be adopted because it’s controversial? What does the pro-gay side of this debate have to do to not automatically lose the debate just because there’s a debate?
Hogwash. Bigotry based on religion is still bigotry. There are quite a few churches out there actively preaching that white people are the favored race of God. Are they not bigots because they can hide behind a diety when called to account for their beliefs?
It’s called a “hypothetical.” I can provide a definition if you’re not familiar with the term. How about you stop ducking the question and just answer it, already?
As one who doesn’t really believe in denominations, I would say that they should simply form their own church.
There is really very little debate over this in Christian circles. No legitimate church preaches that God favors certain races. The issue was settled years ago. I’ll admit that some may preach it (although I think it’s mainly preached in so-called Christian Identity churches, which really have very little to do with Christianity. Their religion is a blend of Christianity, paganism, and their own made up ideology).
The homosexual issue, however, is much more complex. It involves scriptural passages that seem to pretty clearly condemn homosexuality. Most Christians take the Bible seriously. If the Bible seems to condemn something, then it’s unfair to call the condemnation of that simple bigotry. Sure, bigotry may be involved, but you can’t escape the scriptural passages that talk about it. And since there are passages that seem to condemn it, there needs to be a serious discussion of the issue and consensus needs to be achieved. If not, a number of people will simply think that their fellow church members are ignoring the Bible.
No shit. I know what hypothetical means, smart ass.
Because it’s a stupid question. I’m not espousing an ideology here that solves the world’s problems. I’m simply saying that if there is a doctrinal issue that divides churches, they need to come to a consensus about it. If your stupid example actually were dividing a church, I wouldn’t care one way or another which way they handled it. It’s up to them. I would only wish that they would respect each other’s views on this and come to a consensus. I would also say that if there are Bible verses that seem to indicate that one position is superior, then you should err on the side of the Bible.
Paul’s writings are canonical. Christianity accepts them as the word of God as written by Paul. While he wasn’t a prophet (there was no need for prophets after Jesus came) he was an apostle. That gives him a significant amount of authority. Are you saying that we can ignore Paul? If so, what else in the Bible can we ignore?
Renob, not all Christians see the bible the same way. I’m not the only one who doesn’t take all of Paul’s writing as the absolute word of God. We also don’t all read Paul’s words and Leviticus exactly the same way as you might. If you try to take every word of the bible (oh, and which canon and translation ar you using?) at face value and try to reconcile them all with each other you’re going to have a very tough time of it.
I’m not sure how we should come to a consensus over this. I would rather fight for what I think is just. Almost exactly half the deligates at the synod council voted to let gay clergy be in committed sexual relationships. A few folks may think we should follow the old testament and stone them to death. When you choose to follow every verse in the bible you need to be prepared for the consequences. I don’t find the middle ground any more acceptable.
True, but for me the question becomes difficult. If we are going to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are canonical, then where do we stop? If we are going to exclude Paul because we dislike some things he says, then why can’t we exclude, say, the Gospel of Mark because we don’t like the way he writes? And since we don’t have an exact record of what Jesus said, simply versions by four different authors, then why do we have to believe His words when we disagree with them?
You may be surprised at how liberal I am on this issue. . .
True, but that does not mean that we can simply disregard the parts of the Bible with which we disagree. We need to struggle with it. And if we do find a reason to disagree with the seemingly clear message in Scripture, we at least need a good reason for it.
It reminds me of a guest pastor we had in our church. He was preaching on women clergy and gave a long rambling sermon which basically ended up with him concluding that Paul was having a bad day when he wrote that passage and therefore we can ignore it. As someone who has few problems with the concept of women clergy, I was very dissatisfied with this “answer.” I think you can disagree with what Paul was saying in his “anti-women” passages, but you need to appeal to other scripture, context, etc. You can’t simply ignore it because you disagree with it.
And the people who oppose you think they are fighting for what is just, too.
I would be interested to hear why they did so. Was it because it is “right” by human standards or because it is Biblically justified?
Of course one can think homosexuality is a sin and neither appeal to the Old Testament nor want to stone homosexuals to death.
Certainly. I think that is the essence of Christian living.
Why should the pro-gay faction be forced out of their own church? Why don’t the bigots go and form their own church, instead?
It’s awfully easy to avoid uncomfortable questions if you get to define what is and is not a “legitimate” church, isn’t it? How about fifty years ago, when it was a mainstream belief? All those preachers down South going on about how God pre-ordained the seperation of the races? Bigots, or not? The pre-bellum Biblical scholars who used Christian verses to legitimize slavery. Bigots, or not?
This is such a bullshit argument. People are presented with a belief system that holds that certain people are less worthy because of an inborn trait beyond their control, and that those people should be treated differently and denied the same rights and opportunities as the mainstream population. They have a choice to follow that belief system, or find a different one. If they choose to follow it, they’re bigots. God isn’t a “get out of being a dick free” card. People are responsible for what they choose to believe, and if they choose to follow bigotted beliefs, then they are bigots.
Good for you. Then answer the question. Should be easy, if it’s so “stupid.”
How do you think the canon was decided in the first place? A committe picked and chose which books which would be excluded and there is still disagreement.
I have no intention to win over you or anyone else by quoting chapter and verse of the bible not simply because I don’t think I’ll win you over but becaue I think that path misses the greater truth of God’s word. That is probably a little too postmodern for many Christians and I don’t mean that we shouldn’t stop reading our bibles. I am always struggling to understand the word better but I don’t think it comes from reading the bible as a legal text. I’ve seen what can happen then and how damaging it can be.
They were bigots as well as deluded on what the Bible actually said, for the most part.
True, but completely separate from this debate. One can hold the view that homosexual activity is sinful while at the same time opposing efforts to deny them their civil rights.
The question we are dealing with here is whether or not homosexual activity is sinful. Since it may indeed be sinful (the Bible seems to indicate this) then it stands to reason that church leaders should not be engaged in it. It’s similar to whether or not a church leader should be an alcoholic, have a mistress, or be divorced and remarried. This is not an issue of rights being denied.
The separate issue is whether or not homosexuals should be afforded the same priviliges (marriage, etc.) as heterosexual couples. You can still think homosexuality is a sin and support these priviliges for homosexual couples. I’ll admit it’s rare, but there are folks out there who hold these beliefs in common. Thinking that homosexuality is a sin does not automatically lead one to believe that homosexuals should be denied rights and priviliges available to heterosexuals.
If you are going to make up a hypothetical, then do it right. It needs to be similar to the situation we’re talking about here. Please provide information on how many people in a denomination or church who hold these beliefs, why it became an issue to them, the Biblical justifications they use to support it, and the Biblical justifications their opponents use. Just simply presenting an idiotic situation and thinking that it can be compared to this debate is quite superficial. Church debates have history, personalities, and scriptural bases, and to ignore those when discussing an issue is to miss the point completely. So if you want to make up a hypothetical situation, supply the necessary information.
I realize this. I also realize that accepting the canon is a matter of faith. However, if you don’t take this step of faith, then it’s hard to see what your broader faith is based on. The main way we have of knowing God is through the canon.
I’m not saying read it as a legal or scientific text. I am saying treat its words seriously. When there is something in it that one disagrees with, it’s not treating it seriously to simply ignore it. If you simply ignore what you don’t like, then what is the point of Christianity? What is to stop me from saying, “well, I don’t like it when Jesus said love my neighbor, so my brand of Christianity will be based on hating my neighbor”?
And this is different from people who use the Bible to condemn homosexuality how, exactly?
And one can be a bigot without being discriminatory.
Because, of course, homosexuality is just like drug abuse and maritial infidelity. That’s not an even remotely insulting comparison!
But we’re not really talking about that, are we? We’re talking about the fact that over half the ELCA feels that homosexuals should be treated differently. Even if it’s only within their church, how is that not bigoted? If want to start a private country club that doesn’t allow blacks, but I don’t in any way oppose blacks having all the same legal rights and protections as everyone else, just so long as they don’t come and hang out on my golf course, am I not still a racist?
I’m going to have to make note of this technique. If I don’t want to answer a question, I’ll just say it’s “stupid” and refuse to further address it. Bulletproof!
Kinda makes one wonder why God bothered with all that free will and individual conscience crap, doesn’t it?
The condemnations of homosexuality is much clearer than verses that condone racial discrimination, for one.
Insulting or not, that’s how some view it. Some people see homosexual activity as an activity condemned by the Bible. That makes it comparable in their minds to alcoholism or infidelity. The Bible seems to place them on the same plane. If you don’t like that, then don’t immediately call the people who believe this bigoted. Attempt to find out where they are coming from and approach them on their level. People can think homosexuality is sinful and not be bigots. Don’t go around judging everyone’s motivation.
Because to many people the Bible says that homosexual activity is wrong. Therefore, the people who do this should be treated differently by not being in positions of authority.
Sure, but that’s not what we are talking about. The church would still allow homosexuals as members and as clergy. However, as clergy they would have to remain celibate.
When asked a question as dumb as the one you asked me, I would certainly advise you to use this method.
Shall we get into the debate over free will here, too?
So what? People believed, honestly and truly, that the Bible supported racism. Other people believe, honestly and truly, that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Why does the second group get a pass on their biblically-founded bigotry, and not the first, except that society has evolved beyond institutional racism and not institutional homophobia?
And guess what term applies to people who make that comparison?
Bigotry isn’t a motivation, it’s an attitude. People don’t hate gays because of bigotry, they hate gays and are therefore bigoted. If you think that homosexuality is in anyway less worthy than heterosexuality, then you are a bigot. “Why” doesn’t enter into the equation, except as apologia.
Getting a bigoted attitude out of a holy book does not make the attitude any less bigoted than if you get it from your parents, or from a misunderstanding of Darwinism, or out of a box of Crackerjacks. Bigotry is bigotry: the reasons for it vary, but they never excuse it.
But the heterosexual clergy does not. So the official position of the ELCA towards homosexuality is still bigoted, even if it’s not as bigoted compared to the attitudes of most other mainstream Christian denominations.
Actually, cwthree asked you the question. I was (and still am) just annoyed by your evasions.
Seems to be necessary, as your argument boils down to “They can’t help being homophobic because it’s in the Bible!” If they’ve got free will, they sure as hell can help it, and need to be held responsible for their attitudes, regardless of where they originated.