Gay Pastor Loses Ruling, But Not His Flock -- Yet (Lutheran flock says he's lovely)

The Washington Post ^ | Saturday, February 17, 2007 | Giovanna Dell'Orto

[Mrs. Don-o]

ATLANTA --... Members of St. John's Lutheran Church last weekend filed by their pastor, hugging him and exchanging jokes. Many in the 350-member Atlanta congregation say they don't plan to let the Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling leave the pulpit Aug. 15, as ordered last week by an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) disciplinary committee because he is in a gay relationship.

... "We are not an activist church, even though we can stand for issues of justice," said Charles Fox, who occasionally assists Schmeling at Sunday worship. "He exemplifies the kind of love and empathy I envision Christ to have had."

The committee, which basically served as the jury in a closed-door trial, found Schmeling guilty of breaking the denomination's rules for having a same-sex relationship. However, the committee also called those rules "at least bad policy" and recommended changing them, which the ELCA could consider doing at its biennial meeting.

...

"It hasn't been a problem to explain Brad or his relationship to our children as much as what the church wants to do," said Fox, a married father of a 10-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl.

The ELCA, which has 4.9 million members, allows openly gay clergy... The same debate over how biblical verses on gay relationships should be interpreted is tearing at many mainline Protestant groups.

...Much like a trial, a closed-door disciplinary hearing committee of 12 ELCA members, both lay and clergy, heard evidence for nearly a week in January. Seven of them felt the rule as stated left them no choice but to defrock Schmeling. But the committee also wrote that, if not bound by the church's rules, they "would find almost unanimously that Pastor Schmeling is not engaged in conduct that is incompatible with the ministerial office" and would order no discipline.

[PAR35]

If they want to split off and define their own church - fine.

But they don't want to split off and start their own church (at least the MCC crowd had that much integrity). They want to take off other folks churches.

[callofduty]

Everyone here is saying to throw this guy out, but I'm not so sure. You wouldn't kick out a regular worshiper, and we are all equal no matter what man made titles such as pastor, nun or pope may imply.

So the question is, would Jesus tell this man to stop preaching the word of God? If so, considering all sins are equal in the eyes of God wouldn't that mean nobody is fit to be a pastor since we are all sinners?

[word_warrior_bob]

Let's have a look at that "flock", shall we.

[gcruse]

The concensus seems to be that maintaining a gay relationship, which he appears to be doing, would be his undoing. Being celibate is the key.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Probably the same thing he tells them about male on female vaginal penetration: nothing."

Oh, I don't know. My mother certainly told me about normal intercourse when I was younger than 12. Most do, don't they? (Serious question: don't they?)

I'd say the subject usually comes up before the girl's first menstruation. Since I have only sons, no daughters, my husband has been talking to the boys about normal sexuality. I don't think either of us would volunteer information about perverse sex acts --- unless, of course, we were assked, and --- we both have the same philosophy about this --- we consider ourselves obliged to answer any direct question.

[Emrys]

Actually, the key is that the synod would not allow a heterosexual pastor to have sex outside of marriage and still remain a pastor. Gay pastors should be held to the same standard. You can't have sex outside of marriage gay, straight or whatever and pastor a church. Period.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Freedom to pursue your own religion, or even lack thereof, is not even a contestable idea. So - let a thousand flowers bloom, as the good Chairman used to say. If they want to split off and define their own church - fine."

Hmm. There's nothing in the article about anybody disputing their right to organize and define their own church; such a challenge is almost unthinkable in America. The burden of the discussion would not be, "Is it legal?" (assuredly it is) but "From the point of view of Christianity --- of which Lutheranism is a subset ---- is it right?

[gcruse]

"Serious question: don't they?"

My mother did when I was maybe eight. The closest she came to graphic language was, "the place where she goes to the bathroom." I pictured a toilet bowl. Eventually figured out sex on my own. Thanks for nothing, mom.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Considering all sins are equal in the eyes of God wouldn't that mean nobody is fit to be a pastor since we are all sinners?"

On the contrary: we're all sinners, but not one of us is free to define a sin as being OK. It's not just a behavioral thing: it's a doctrinal thing. A person who says that sexual perversion is OK is teaching something at variance with Christian faith and morals. In other words: religious fraud.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Thank goodness this foolishness hasn't touched us in the Missouri Synod yet. At least publicly. Who knows who's touching who behind closed doors these days? Yeesh!

I was raised Missouri Synod, and of late have been a member of a Wisconsin Synod church. When I switched, you would've thought I had converted to Islam, my folks were so upset.

However, they were right. Too much goofin' around in the Wisconsin Synod, and I'm in the process of finding another "home."

Just give me that Old Time Religion. :)

[Old Professer]

C...s....r; say that out loud and get banned!

[Mrs. Don-o]

"According to Jesus, hell will be full of religious people who don't believe John 6:29 but are convinced that justification is by Christian character and works."

Ah, but here's the paradox: this Lutheran group could well believe that (1) a gay man in a "committed relationship" is not acting "lawlessly", since they interpret the Biblicical prohibitions as being against rape and prostitution only, and not against gay sex in a "committed relationship"; and/or (2)that one is not saved by one's own righteousness. but simply by accepting Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior.

They arrive at conclusion #1 by asserting a right to interpret Scripture independently of what Church Fathers and Councils have taught through the centuries (this they reject as mere "tradition") --- a fairly typical Protestant notion; and they arrive at conclusion #2 by saying sola fide--- faith only, independent of "works"; also a fairly typical Protestant notion.

Pinging you to this, iscool, since you may have an interesting perspective on this.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hey, come on over to the Catholics! It's Old Time, that's for sure. And we've got plenty of sinners, of which I am one, but at least we know that a sin is a sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays it all out in a way that is unavoidably explicit and clear.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, there are a number of lexicons to choose from: the clinical, the vulgar, or the euphemistic.

[Old Professer]

We're not talking about stacking cork or sacking coke here.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

"17": Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

They tore out the first two chapters of Genesis.

Hey, why not just chuck the whole thing after that?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Remember when Nixon sacked Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox? And people said Nixon was a Cox ..uh... nevermind.

[BenLurkin]

I Cor. 5:9-13

[vigilo]

I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Yes, I'm sure they have various ways of justifying their ideas, but I see nothing Protestant about them in the least.

To get from marrige to 'gay sex in a "committed relationship" requires intellectual perversion and anyone who believes sola fide justifies licentious living understands nothing and is slandering Paul and David and a host of other Biblical writers.