Homosexuality and the ELCA Churchwide Assembly

Great Debates
1

What does everyone think of this news: Lutherans move toward more open view on gays

There will be a series of votes on Friday dealing with the permissibility of same-sex blessings and clergy in same-sex relationships.

I think the social statement has some flaws, having been written by a committee. It does not have a solid foundation, nor does it speak clearly in certain cases. Yet, I reluctantly am pleased that the statement passed, because it paves the way for a more gay-friendly reality in the church.

2

Look at the Episcopal Church. If this passes, the ELCA will experience the same results- and influx of more GLBT&F parishioners and an exodus of more traditional members, even entire congregations. UMC & PCUSA will experience the same if & when they enact greater gay-acceptance policies.

3

Probably. Although one can pretty much guarantee that the number of gays who join will be greatly outnumbered by the number of current members who leave.

Regards,
Shodan

4

I’m not a religious person at all, but at the same time, there’s a vested interest I had and hoped that this passed. And with the slimmest of margins at 66.67% of the votes (2/3 needed) the ELCA validate(d) ‘chaste’ same-sex relationships.

What bothered me is the scrambling done by the churches right-leaning sect called theLutheranCORE:

So, is it part of God’s teachings to think about the bottom line dollar?

And then this part:

The ELCA also released a document called “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” (PDF will download) which which fulfilled "the 2001 Churchwide Assembly mandate “to develop a social statement on human sexuality.” This goes on to use the basis of trust in its social construct meaning. The second part from the CORE is rebutted in one of the footnotes which states;

5

So, of the seven objections raised, you pick out one and talk as if it were the only one.

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Shodan

6

Of the two main objections I had about CORE, you chose to comment on one?

:rolleyes:

And how did I talk about it as “only one”, since I not only:[ol]
[li]gave a link[/li][li]left the #3 in the quote[/li][li]and showed another reason from a different source about CORE’s activities.[/li][/ol]

7

And even that objection does not stand alone but is paired with the potential loss of members/congregation- because of course- the less people, the less funds.

Now, if one does believe, as I’m sure the gay-inclusion people do, that such inclusion is mandated by Christian love and social justice, then the loss of dissenting members/congregations and their donations should indeed be seen as a risk that is worth taking. However, it should also be a risk they should acknowledge & prepare to deal with.

8

Can someone please explain to me the point of blessing “chaste” homosexual unions? Who exactly is this designed to make happy?

9

I think in this context, it means “faithful”, not “abstinent”.

10

As I recall from my confirmation class days, a chaste relationship is an exclusive, intimate relationship whose primary aspect is not sexual. The word was used to describe the type of relationship that one would want to turn into a marriage, with the main point being that such a relationship needs a better foundation than how much fun fucking each other is. A point was made in the discussion that sexual compatiblity is required for such a relationship to work, but being midwestren Lutherans, squaring that with the ideal that one not have sex before marriage was left as an exersize for the students.

11

Ah, of course. See what happens when I post before coffee?

12

That is probably true for most of the mainline churches. ELCA is self-selected for being the “liberal” Lutheran church, though, with LCMS and WELS having staked out the conservative end.

However, I am wondering to what extent people like the majority of Dopers with Christian beliefs who would favor a denomination supportive of GBLT people might offset the exodus. In the Episcopal Church, this has been a relatively small phenomenon – but that may not be true across the denominations. (Note that your comment, Shodan, does not match Friar Ted’s – he included GBLT and Friends; you singled out gay people.

13

Quakerism is different enough from Lutheranism that I don’t think it’s going to be much of a draw.

14

Remember when the church was strictly against mixed-race marriage?

Or pants on women?

Or the idea that the earth revolves around the sun?

They adapt. Slowly, very slowly, but they adapt.

I expect they’ll come around on evolution sometime around AD2101.

15

I don’t know if the Lutherans use the same definitions, but to Catholics, “chaste” means not having sex with anyone but one’s spouse. Thus, for instance, I can say that my grandmother was chaste (or so I trust), despite the fact that she had eleven children.

16

I don’t think that any major Christian sect has any objection to evolution any more.

17

:shrugs:

The number of gays and their friends who join will be greatly outnumbered by the number of current members who leave.

Regards,
Shodan

18

The majority of Americans reject evolution.

19

Catholicism, Orthodoxy & mainline Protestantism don’t but many (not all) conservative Protestant/Evangelical/Charismatic groups do and they are not minor, especially as they get a lot of the members leaving the mainline churches.

I kinda mix Old-Earth Day-Age Creationism with Theistic Evolution, and while I concede God might have evolved Adam & Eve from apelike creatures, I’m not settled on it. My O-E D-A C’ism doesn’t give my Assembly of God church any problems with me, but my T-E’ism might.

20

While the United Church of Christ has had openly LGBT people in ordained ministry for decades, when the General Synod passed a resolution supporting equal marriage, many of our hold-out conservative churches and members left (about 250 or so, I think, of our then 5,500 congregations, including many more Puerto Rican congregations) so that we went from 1.5 million members to about 1.1 million.

However, we’ve since gained many members and many of our congregations that had previously been dying have been rejuvenated. Shodan is right, however, the number of conservatives who left and went to other denominations have greatly outnumbered, so far, the number of LGBT people and more-progressive thinking straight folks, particularly nationally-speaking.

Regionally, however, many of conferences have grown. The Northern California/Nevada Conference has grown substantially and many new congregations, particularly Asian-American churches, have joined since. I know that the South Central Conference pretty much doubled in size after the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas, (which self-identifies as the “world’s largest LGBT liberal church”) joined.

If the ELCA does indeed allow for the ordination of LGBT clergy, it will certainly result in many churches leaving and perhaps the formation of a new denomination. Both the LCMS and the WELS are very, very conservative, and I don’t know how many previously ELCA congregants that disagree with the ordination of gays and lesbians would still feel comfortable in either denomination. For one thing, the ordination of women within the ELCA is pretty much noncontroversial now; it is definitely not okay with either the LCMS or WELS.

However, it will be, in my opinion, a moral victory and a victory for the future of the church. GLBT people already contribute plenty to the church (this cite shows that there are plenty of gay Christians out there, and they are even “churchier” than straight people), and it’s about time mainline denominations figured out the just thing to do and acknowledge everyone who serves their congregations with passion and dedication.