Posted on 08/27/2009 7:31:14 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
Let us detour for a moment from the recent death of Senator Ted Kennedy and the continuing debate over health care reform to consider a bizarre little happening in the Twin Cities that occurred last week. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America convened for an annual meeting at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Among the items on its agenda was a vote to decide whether to allow non-celibate homosexuals to be ordained as pastors. On Wednesday, the day of the vote, a freak storm unexpectedly swept through town without warning, bringing a tornado that damaged both the convention center and the neighboring Central Lutheran Church. The cross atop the church was ripped off. Some half-joked that Jesus did it. Later in the week, at least one Minnesota pastor openly declared the storm had been a divine warning. That sentiment was ridiculed by liberals as ludicrous. Strangely, there was no similar criticism of lesbian minister Lauren Wendt's assertion that the two-thirds supermajority, which passed the resolution allowing actively gay pastors by a single vote, was "divine intervention" and "the Holy Spirit at work."
Regardless of whether the storm or the supermajority-by-one had divine origins, the question I have for affected Lutherans is... really? I mean, really? I am not a Lutheran. This is not my church. I have no stake in the issue aside from morbid curiosity and the potential ripple effect through the larger Christian community. But... really?
Here's the question I have, if you are one of these Lutherans who voted to allow actively homosexual pastors, or if you agree with the vote; would you have passed a similar resolution to allow raging alcoholics to pastor your congregations? How about avowed unrepentant kleptomaniacs? Blatant womanizing adulterers? Active serial killers?
(Excerpt) Read more at rightnation.us ...
...
Sin has no need to be ‘demonized’ it is what it is...[/i]
Yes, sin is what it is. That is my point. Homosexuality is perceived and portrayed by many as somehow more sinful than other sin. You and I agree there are no degrees of sin. It is therefore odd that some Christians focus so much on homosexuality as opposed to drunkenness, theft, lying, etc. I'm talking about Westboro Baptist type focus, the “God hates fags” crowd. It seems an odd position to take, that one particular kind of sin is more “evil” than another, as if the world would less fallen if all the homosexuals were rounded up and disappeared. It is an apostasy, in my view, as harmful as any other.
I'll assume the comment was meant to provoke, because the fallacy of your proposition is too glaring to overlook, too towering to ignore.
There's no organized presence in the church seeking to argue that Scripture doesn't really condemn the thief, that Scripture has somehow been superceded by a “New Thing.
There's also no organized presence in the church advocating for thieves to be pastors.”
The only thing I intend to provoke is discussion in a spirit of goodwill with the goal of understanding. I am not sure what you object to. My “argument” in the section you quoted is simply that homosexuality receives disproportionate focus as sin, while many other sins tend to be sympathized with. I don't think that is a radical notion. I understand your point that no one is trying to ordain drunks and thieves. I am supposing that the movement to ordain homosexuals has been able to gain traction because in recognition of and response to that disproportionate focus. I don't know if I'm right. It may be simpler than that. It may just be that people don't know or care about scripture. I'm just trying to understand it.
It is odd, but that is the point, after years of shifting the debate, homosexuality is now considered a 'life-choice' on par with any other. Its proponents have managed to 'de-sin' it. Your outlook in this essay I think strengthens that position by proposing a moral equivalency of sin for lack of a better word. As you rightly point out, adulterous, drunken, larcenous behavior would/should not be tolerated in the clergy, but practicing homosexuality shouldn't be either. All are sinful acts, and man can't escape his sinful nature by himself.
I forgot to add, those other behaviors are not tolerated. They don’t have a constituency, but the way the homo lobby has worked, perhaps the drunks could get together and remove the stigma from that as well.
The moment I found out that my pastor was an active homosexual he/she would cease being my pastor.
I haven’t seen Bible verses which state that women shouldn’t be clergy. I’ll research it. Even if I oppose female clergy, my wife wouldn’t change her mind.
from another thread:
A bit late but see here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/WOMENPASTORS.html
16 posted on Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:44:15 PM by daniel1212 ( For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: - Prv. 28:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
[Homosexuality's] proponents have managed to 'de-sin' it. Your outlook in this essay I think strengthens that position by proposing a moral equivalency of sin for lack of a better word.
It's certainly not my intent to strengthen the "de-sinning" of homosexuality. I think coming away from my statements believing the pro-homosexual position has been strengthened requires a misunderstanding. I blatantly affirm homosexuality as sin. As far as moral equivalency, we certainly agree with scripture that the wages of all sin are death. In that sense, all sin is certainly equal. Drawing a moral equivalency does not take pressure off homosexuals. Indeed, it highlights the pressure which remains on the rest of us, regardless of which sins we harbor.
I forgot to add, those other behaviors are not tolerated. They don’t have a constituency, but the way the homo lobby has worked, perhaps the drunks could get together and remove the stigma from that as well.
Well put. That is precisely the absurdity I mean to point out. Indeed, for one to be consistent and advocate for Christian acceptance of homosexuality, they would need to advocate for acceptance of all other sin as well, and therefore cease being Christian.
Hi —
Modernism, postmodernism, political correctness — perhaps fear of man has replaced the fear of God in the ELCA.
I grew up as a Lutheran (ELC, then ALC, then ELCA), so I am on the inside looking at it. To me, the idea of having blatantly unrepentant sinners as church leaders is very sad. It looks like the ELCA has decided that whatever the world condones should also be condoned by the church, and that looks to me like a walk down the wide road, not the narrow... I am also afraid that this behavior on the part of those who should know better or do know better will bring judgement (more than just a broken cross on a steeple) from God.
This is really a much bigger issue in the ELCA than just ordaining unrepentant, practicing homosexuals. That was just another example of the general movement of the ELCA away from accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God, and I fear that the ELCA is trying to reinvent God in the image of man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.