Posted on 06/17/2005 8:19:51 PM PDT by lightman
One can certainly appreciate the hard work the ELCA Church Council performed in trying to strike an acceptable compromise in a conflicted church. It recognized that a large portion of the ELCA firmly believes in the traditional moral teachings of the church that proscribe homosexual behavior and that another smaller portion believes homosexual sex in the context of committed relationships is morally acceptable.
The council tried to give the traditionalists their due by apparently maintaining the official teachings and practices of the church for the time being and to give the revisionists their due by allowing for the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy in committed relationships through certain carefully defined processes. The council strived mightily to strike an acceptable compromise.
But can such a compromise be acceptable in a church that is grounded in biblical and confessional authority? Indeed, can such a compromise be faithful?
Compromise not faithful
I think not, for several important reasons (each listed below corresponds (each listed below corresponds to one of the three council recommendations summarized in the box on this page).
The first recommendationconcentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreementsis the most difficult to accept because a church that stands on biblical and confessional authority cant maintain its identity and mission with two opposing views on such an important issue. As Matthew says: No city or house divided against itself will stand (12:25).
Its recommendation that two opposing viewpoints coexist means the ELCA has no authoritative teaching on homosexual behavior. A compromise in such a situation is already a movement toward revision of classical Christian teaching.
For many this is intolerable, although the task force, bishops and council would have us think otherwise by asserting that this disagreement over homosexual conduct is not church-dividing. They all assert that our unity in Christ far transcends our disunity or diversity on this issue.
Indeed, the council goes so far as to deem this diversity as God-given. This is perhaps the end result of the celebration of diversity and inclusivity. This emphasis on inclusivitythe doctrine upon which our church has taken its standgoes beyond race, ethnicity, class and gender.
The church also has carelessly invited, even promoted, diversity in biblical and theological perspectives. That diversity has now undermined authoritative teaching in the ELCA. And it pronounces that this diversity isnt church-dividing and is even God-pleasing.
The ELCA claims a false unity by isolating the doctrine of justification (our unity in Christ) as not only the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls but as the only one of importance. It has moved toward a gospel reductionism in which the Fathers commandments and the Spirit-inspired life of obedience are reduced to second-order importance.
Its as if we could have the true gospel and at the same time revise the commandments against adultery or murder. Or its as if, as it once was proposed in the formation of the Lutheran Book of Worship, we could change the wedding vows from until death us do part to until love ends. Or its as if, as it almost came to pass in the deliberations of the Committee for a New Lutheran Church, the name of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit be banished in favor of Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier.
Would such tinkering with Christian teaching be church-dividing? Of course, even though these revisions dont deny that we are reconciled in Christ. Would we consider such tinkering God-pleasing?
Of course not. Orthodox Christianity is a trinitarian faith that holds law, gospel and discipleship together. It doesnt offer a gospel of cheap grace without the necessity of repentance and amendment of life. (By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love
God and keep his commandments1 John 5:2.) Lutherans above all should know that the gospel makes no sense without the law, including, as Martin Luther taught, its guidance for the Christian life.
Orthodox Christians worldwide from New Testament times until now have held that homosexual conduct violates Gods clear commandments. Traditional Lutherans within the ELCA hold that belief with great intensity. They cant live faithfully in the midst of disagreements when they involve matters essential to the faith. Appeals to unity amid such disagreements arent persuasive. The church will have to come down on one side or the other.
Another reason why the councils proposal isnt an acceptable compromise is that its second recommendation isnt sufficiently clear. It urges that we should respect the guidance of the Conference of Bishops (which finds no scriptural or traditional grounds for an official ceremony of this church for the blessing of homosexual relationships) but trust pastors and congregations to discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care to same-sex couples.
Some believe this recommendation prohibits formal blessings anywhere in the church. But it can and has been taken by others to mean that although we have no official ELCA-sanctioned churchwide rite, there is plenty of room for local rites that could be private (in the home) or public (before the altar).
Such local rites are already being performed in the ELCA, and this recommendation seems to open the door for many more. Indeed, how could partnered gays and lesbians presenting themselves for ordination under the councils third recommendation certify their formal commitment except by pointing to such a rite of blessing?
For this compromise to beacceptable, the ELCA would need clear guidelines for faithful pastoral care. They would have to set limits and offer stipulations for such pastoral care. Without adequate guidelines the door is open to whatever pastors and congregations decide is faithful pastoral care.
The third reason the councils recommendations arent acceptable is that the exceptional ordinations in its third recommendation would soon become normal.
Exceptional or normal?
The third recommendation would permit implementation of this limited process for exceptions to the normative policies of this church. This process would allow for noncelibate, partnered gays and lesbians to be ordained through a carefully defined process involving various levels of authority, including the Conference of Bishops.
Under this recommendation the council outlines the churchs two opposing perspectives on homosexual conduct. By setting up a careful process for allowing exceptions, the council seems to be bowing to those who hold to the traditional Christian teaching on homosexual conduct.
But by allowing exceptions at all it bows to those who believe traditional teaching should be revised. It uses the acceptance of divorced and remarried clergy as a parallel to the acceptance of partnered gay clergy. (This is a dubious analogy because divorced clergy dont argue that divorce is right and therefore keep divorcing.)
And such exceptions might well lead, as the recommendation ominously suggests, to the opportunity for continued discernment of where the Holy Spirit is leading this church.
But this approach will set up two tiers of ordained ministry. (Would the ordinations of these exceptional candidates be recognized churchwide? How painful would it be to
go through such a process?) And such an arrangement would only be temporary.
Once the ELCA provides for this process, few bishops are likely to resist pastors and congregations who request such ordinations. Few gays and lesbians will tolerate exceptional status for long.
In time the limits and processes will become perfunctory and then all distinctions will dissolve. The distinction between the marriages of heterosexual pairs and the blessings of gay unions will follow a similar trajectory.
All this hard striving after compromise is beside the point until and unless the fundamental disagreement is definitively addressed: Is homosexual conduct consonant with Gods willor not.
Until the ELCA clarifies its mind on this matter all these compromises are distractions. Recall Matthews warning: No city or house divided against itself will stand.
And, in my judgment, the consensus of the church throughout the ages is clear on these matters. The only question is whether the ELCA will recognize that and properly set its house in order.
He properly exposes the false "gospel" of inclusivity and "unity at any price".
The concept, "You have to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything" sadly applies to many of our churches these days. Moral realitism has no place in the church.
How would Paul advise this congregation?
http://www.cgslc.org/page12.html
I'll be the hate-filled conservative and state, what a mockery. What next, a fish symbol for adulterers? Pedophiles??? Jesus welcomes everyone into his fold (praise the Lord) but I don't think He has much use for the unrepentant sinner.
Lutheran Ping.
Jesus indeed saves us from our sins; he does not enable us to remain in them.
The calling of Zaccheus (Luke 19:1-10) is the pattern of turning repentant sinners into faithful disciples; and it is this proclamation that has been lost by the false "Gospel" of inclusivity.
Thank you for the ping, Tony.
Unfortunately, in their constant crusade for "balanced" reporting and not wishing to appear to favor one side, Benne's essay will not be the only one on this topic in the July Lutheran
Benne's orthodoxy is countered with a piece by Larry Rassmusen in which he asserts:
Is ours not another moment of bold Reformation freedom, this time for a nondiscriminating and nonberating gospel favorable to same-sex unions and the ordination of partnered gay and lesbian Christians in the life of a church whose very identity is centered in the ministry of word and sacrament?
To be sure, neither the Bible nor tradition in its dominant streams of interpretation and practice support any of thesenot the emancipation of slaves, not the ordination of women, not divorce and remarriage, and not the blessing and ordination of gay and lesbian Christians called by God to ministry.
Some other rendering of the good news of both Scripture and prevailing practice must be grappled withheart, soul and mindif divorced Christians, or partnered gay or lesbian Christians, or female Christians are ever to celebrate the sacraments or be blessed in their marriages (and remarriages) or have their consciences released from tragic conflicts. (Do I, as a gay Lutheran in a committed love relationship, answer the Spirits call to ministry or do I abide by the ELCAs standards for ministers in Vision and Expectations? Do I seek out a truly welcoming church elsewhere or do I remain as other and exception in the ELCA?)
If someone else wishes to post the entire article, fine. I prefer to give his filth as little exposure as possible.
The Luthern Reformation was not a "freedom" movement.
Even worse is the editorial by David Miller in the same issue, at http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article_buy.cfm?article_id=4858
Although it starts out as a discussion of "Justice Sunday", its main them is that majorty ELCA members who oppose the "progressive" ELCA agenda of "gay" pastors, "gay" "unions", a new feminazi hymnal, and "full communion" with liberal Protestants should stifle themselves and go along with the program, or else they are guilty of "peevish", "joyless" Christianity. He even quotes Luther in support of this thesis. As every Lutheran knows, if Martin Luther were alive today, he would be leading the charge against the revisionists, gaysbians, feminazis, etc. And he woudn't be polite or "nice" in his choice of words to describe them, either!!!
CO Gal, God is actually very patient with unrepentant sinners, waiting and pleading with them to repent. Remember the "seventy times seven" in the Scriptures? But he absolutely does NOT want unrepentent, open, and proud sinners to serve as pastors or other leaders. Nor does he want false "pastors" and pseudo-"bishops" who teach false doctrines (such as the one that homosexuality is not a sin, or that it's OK to call God "Mother"), or who despise and disregard the orthodox laity as the ELCA mis-leaders do!!!
LOL!
Never say nor heard that amalgamation before but it deserver further use. Easier to say and write than "homosexualists".
later pingout.
Now if I can only get large numbers of people to call the Hildebeast Hillary Rodham Izetbegovic Khomeini!!!! Or, on a more positive note, to convince large numbers of people that June is Serbian-American Heritage Month.
Please, Lord, may his wisdom stand!
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.