Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cultural Revolution: The ELCA's attempt to bless same-sex marriages
Chronicles Magazine ^ | May 2004 | Aaron D. Worf

Posted on 06/03/2004 1:41:13 AM PDT by MegaSilver

“GAY MARRIAGE” may be on the political back burner for the moment, as Karl Rove is busy crafting phrases that will appease Christian-conservative Bush backers this fall while appealing to homosexual swing-voters with promises of “civil unions” (a.k.a. legalized “gay marriage”). In the Evangelical Lutheran Church of American (ELCA), however, the pot is fixing to boil.

The ELCA was founded in 1986 as a result of a merger of several formerly ethnic Lutheran synods in the United States as well as a splinter group that left the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod after an attempt to turn the LCMS liberal failed. From the beginning, the ELCA has been distinguished by a professed loyalty to Scripture and the Lutheran confessions that can be set aside freely whenever the need arises. Sadly, this reality is not apparent to some lifelong ELCA members whose country churches maintain the historic liturgy and have not had occasion to call a priestess to lead the flock. It must have come as a great shock to these faithful, then, when the wicked little booklet (with happy trees in a misty woodland on the cover) Journey Together Faithfully: The Church and Homosexuality arrived. This handy brainwashing tool is to be used by committees in ELCA churches across America, to help seminary-trained pastors lead little old ladies and young parents to discover just what the Bible says about homosexuality and the Church’s role in blessing “gay marriages.” After each church finishes the “journey,” everyone’s thoughts and feelings are to be gathered together and sent to headquarters, forming “recommendations for the church to consider in 2005,” after which a “social statement” will be drafted by 2007.

Despite all of the ELCA’s appeals for meaningful dialogue, it appears that the deck has been stacked against those who would oppose church-sanctioned sodomy—both the blessing of “gay marriage” and the ordination of pastors and bishops who are “homosexual persons who give expression to sexual intimacy only in a relationship that is mutual [sic], chaste [sic] and faithful . . . ” Wait a minute! one of the faithful writes (on the “Frequently Asked Questions” page on elca.org), “Hasn’t the outcome of this study already been decided?” Take heart, ye who adhere to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession: “There are no foregone conclusions. All involved in the conduct of our studies on sexuality are committed to an open and fair process in which all views will be heard and respected.”

There are, however, several “foregone conclusions” at work here. First, the ELCA already officially “welcome[s] gay and lesbian people to participate fully in the life of its congregations”—that means active sodomites, not repentant men and women who have renounced their unnatural behavior. This attitude has created a homosexual subculture within the ELCA which has, in turn, lobbied for a definitive decision on homosexual “marriage” and clergy. Still, despite the recent spate of court decisions and lawless civil ceremonies affirming “gay marriage,” it is difficult to imagine that this issue would have come to the fore so quickly in the ELCA were it not for the elevation of V. Eugene Robinson to the status of bishop in the Episcopal Church, U.S.A. That Bishop Robinson abandoned his wife and children (dubbed “adultery” in days of yore) to pursue a “mutual, chaste, and faithful” relationship with another man—who, in a Queer Eye for the Queer Guy moment, handed V. Eugene his mitre at the height of his elevation ceremony—is well known. That his status affects the ministerium of the ELCA may not be so obvious.

In an effort to unite the “Body of Christ,” the ELCA entered into an agreement with the Episcopal Church, U.S.A., in 2001 called A Call to Common Mission, which establishes full communion between the two bodies. In addition, CCM provided for the mutual recognition of clergy—which involved some doctrinal jiggering on the Lutheran side, as the role of bishops and “historic succession” had been understood differently by Lutherans in the past. Practically speaking, this means that the ELCA must recognize an adulterous sodomite as a legitimate bishop and that any ELCA church could call him to preside over the Sacrament of the Altar. Furthermore, according to CCM, “The churches will over time come to share in the ministry of bishops in an evangelical, historic succession.”

Not to worry, dear parishioner: If you read the accompanying supplement to the Journey (Background Study on Biblical Texts), you will see that all of those nasty Scriptures that seem to condemn homosexuality, when held in the light of recent scholarship, actually condemn “inhospitability” (Sodom and Gomorrah), that which is “against current custom” (St. Paul’s reference to “that which is unnatural” in Romans 1), or just plain don’t apply to our times, since we’re not under the law—we’re under grace!

Such exegetical chicanery may cause a mass exodus of pastors and laity from the ELCA to the Missouri Synod and to other conservative Protestant denominations in the course of the next three years. Those bodies should be cautioned, however: Many of those within the ELCA who are raising protests about their church’s attitude toward homosexuality carry with them the hermeneutical seeds that grew into the current thorn bush. The acceptance of “gay marriage” did not happen overnight: The rejection of natural law began with the ELCA’s embracing of contraception, female “clergy,” abortion, and homosexuality as an “orientation.” And the ELCA’s rejection of the clear teaching of Scripture began when the ethnic bodies that it comprises accepted historical-critical methods of exegesis in the mid-20th century.

As for those faithful who are contemplating leaving Sodom for the plain of Mamre, there is but one admonition: Remember Lot’s wife.


TOPICS: Current Events; Mainline Protestant; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: elca; gayagenda; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: BQ91; redgolum
I don't want to hijack this thread, which is about another subject, so I will just refer you to what I have written and documented at length concerning the "A Prayer for America" interfaith prayer service and how it does not fit with our biblical, confessional, historic position. And that would be my Yankee Stadium analysis, which I linked in post 7.

In the LCMS constitution it states that under unique events, exceptions are to be made.

Where in the LCMS constitution does it state that, BQ? I have read the constitution a number of times and never seen anything that states or even implies that a national tragedy gives our clergy the license to participate in leading a unionistic and syncretistic prayer service.

21 posted on 06/04/2004 5:00:49 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (LCMS pastor, Ph.D. student in Biblical Studies, New Testament focus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Hey, it took a two-year study by the Missouri folks in the mid-fifties before they finally came to the conclusion that it was Okay to pray with other non-Missouri Lutherans as long as a disclaimer was attached that such folks were not in pulpit & altar fellowship w/other such Lutherans. Charles, I'd like your opinion on that.

I'm not familiar with the study you are referencing. Also, are you referring to a laymen leading a table prayer in his home, for example, or to an LCMS clergyman leading prayers in a service with official representatives of other church bodies (not to mention other religions)? There are distinctions to be made here.

22 posted on 06/04/2004 5:05:02 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (LCMS pastor, Ph.D. student in Biblical Studies, New Testament focus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

It's something that has come up from time to time in my congregation. We have a woman as a pastor and the main argument is that not including women was a social custom of the time rather than religious doctrine.


23 posted on 06/04/2004 8:56:37 AM PDT by BJClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BJClinton
. . . the main argument is that not including women was a social custom of the time rather than religious doctrine.

That argument does not hold water. Jesus was not a slave to social custom, was he? And the passages that prohibit women from being pastors are not based on passing social custom but rather on God's order of creation.

24 posted on 06/04/2004 9:37:57 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson (LCMS pastor, Ph.D. student in Biblical Studies, New Testament focus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Despite all of the ELCA’s appeals for meaningful dialogue ..

Anytime I hear a call for "meaningful dialogue," I reach for my gun. "Meaningful dialogue" means the fix is in. Heck, there were redundant giveaways, since they also said they'd have "an open and fair process in which all views will be heard and respected.”

25 posted on 06/04/2004 5:22:26 PM PDT by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
BAM! That nails it completely. The so called "historical-critical" method of Bible study is just a fancy way of denying the authority of Scripture! It frames the Bible as just a bunch of stories written by man; it strips the awe of divinity away from God's Word. And it's this heinous lie which is really the root cause of almost all the macro-problems in today's church.

Actually, I would argue (and I think the author would, too) that seminarians adopted false "historical-critical methods of exegesis" IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY things like contraception, female “clergy,” abortion, and homosexuality as an “orientation.” I say this because when you read Scripture in a REAL historical-critical method of exegesis (i.e., in the context of Jewish and Christian tradition), none of their arguments really hold water for very long.

They're just counting on the general public taking their word for it as "intellectuals" and not digging any deeper.

26 posted on 06/05/2004 6:20:09 PM PDT by MegaSilver (Training a child in red diapers is the cruelest and most unusual form of abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson