The thread for info on churches voting to change affiliation & all follow-up.

[SmithL]

Where scripture is silent, we make decisions. While it speaks against same-gender sexual behaviors, none of those are within a committed relationship.

I suppose you could use that same logic to rationalize relationships with children, goats, or even wild mushrooms.
 

[Charles_Austin]

Larry writes:
I suppose you could use that same logic to rationalize relationships with children, goats, or even wild mushrooms.
I respond:
Not if one reads and follows the ELCA Social Statement on Human Sexuality. Not if one pays attention to what some of us have been saying in this forum for years.

[kls]

I suppose you could use that same logic to rationalize relationships with children, goats, or even wild mushrooms.
 

It sure seems like this is all that's left for some churches to put the stamp of approval on in this twisted world.     Lord have mercy!

[ptmccain]

Some might consider a relationship with wild mushrooms to be one of the more logical explanations of present circumstances.

 

[revklak]

If I may divert this thread from the customary Stoffregian rabbit hole back to its original purpose, I learned something today about the Board of Pensions and benefits available to pastors who have left the ELCA for LCMC, NALC, or wherever.  (I recently joined the NALC myself.)
I had been under the impression that the ELCA Board of Pensions was willing to continue to provide health benefits, pension plan, etc. to pastors who left the ELCA, their presumed motive being to keep as many customers as possible.
However, what I was told today, and this was confirmed by their website, that this only applies to pastors taking calls in former ELCA congregations.  If a pastor receives a call in a new congregation or one that had some other non-ELCA background, that pastor is not eligible to continue in the ELCA plans.
I think more people need to be aware of this wrinkle.  Any comments?

The "memo" quoted to me by a BOP rep last year indicated that congregations that were sponsoring employers on January 1, 2005, could remain sponsoring employers in the plan.  This, I think, had to do with LCMC's movement.  New congregations, then, would fall outside this particular nexus date of the space-time continuum.

[Coach-Rev]

it is because we have different interpretations of scriptures that keeps denominations apart.

Profound.

Sadly, some believe that if it is different than ours then they are wrong, God is not speaking to them, and we cannot come together as children of God.

Other see diversity as a gift from God, like different personalities in children, the wide variety of colors of flowers and leaves that change in the Fall (not that we see such leaves in Yuma).

Brian, what you (and many others on the "other side" of the issues) fail to understand is the fundamental issue at hand.  Your views, I believe, are a fundamental departure from the authority that Scripture is to have, and while I fully believe in the "inclusivity" of all within the body of the church, I do not believe in allowing such fundamentally divergent viewpoints to be taught AND accepted as doctrinal in the various congregations.  As an extreme example:  I do not believe "herchurch" in SF to have any place or role in the Christian church, let alone the ELCA, because of the paganistic ritual and worship they consistently and routinely utilize.  And yet the ELCA offers no condemnation for its heresies, and in fact, seems to offer tacit approval for what it does through its participation with its rituals.

"your" side, on the other hand (with humble apologies to you for my broad generalization, as I do not know if this would include you or not), for the most part, is militaristic in its claim to be "inclusive," but then automatically excluding anyone who does not fit the progressive worldview they espouse.

As another example:  the effort to get recognized in our synod that one possible definition of bound conscience was those who held to a traditional view of sex and marriage.  It failed by 2 to 1, after one member got up and said that she could not in good conscience accept that as any sort of possible definition of bound conscience.

The question (and the fundamental rift) has always been:  Do we interpret Scripture, or does Scripture interpret us?

[Charles_Austin]

someone writes:
I do not believe "herchurch" in SF to have any place or role in the Christian church, let alone the ELCA, because of the paganistic ritual and worship they consistently and routinely utilize.  

I wonder:
And have you been there? Heard the preaching? Talked to the pastors and the people? Discussed the congregation with the proper synodical authorities?
Now - hold off on the outrage for a moment - it may be that this congregation (or some other congregations, including a few "traditionalist" ones) is driving the wrong direction on Interstate 666. (From what I've seen, I might worry a little.)
But, you, or I or any other individual do not have the authority to - insofar as the ELCA is concerned - declare them "paganistic" or anything else. All we have is our pious opinions.
That congregation is "used" here - again and again - as an "example" of how terrible the ELCA is.
Until you start seeing clones of that congregation springing up all over the country, that is a dumb tactic.

[Coach-Rev]

someone writes:
I do not believe "herchurch" in SF to have any place or role in the Christian church, let alone the ELCA, because of the paganistic ritual and worship they consistently and routinely utilize. 

I wonder:
And have you been there? Heard the preaching? Talked to the pastors and the people? Discussed the congregation with the proper synodical authorities?
Now - hold off on the outrage for a moment - it may be that this congregation (or some other congregations, including a few "traditionalist" ones) is driving the wrong direction on Interstate 666. (From what I've seen, I might worry a little.)
But, you, or I or any other individual do not have the authority to - insofar as the ELCA is concerned - declare them "paganistic" or anything else. All we have is our pious opinions.
That congregation is "used" here - again and again - as an "example" of how terrible the ELCA is.
Until you start seeing clones of that congregation springing up all over the country, that is a dumb tactic.

Nice try, but they have a very public face on the web.  "Goddess" rosaries, prayers to "our mother who is within us" (a pagan spin on the Lord's prayer), figures of naked females, are their public face.  That they declare Jesus to be Lord doesn't fly at all with what they publicly state to the world.  I came from that synod, originally, and so yes, I have in the past discussed with synodical authorities, all to no avail.  In fact, its what got me shipped out, since my home synod did not want me when it came time to taking a first call.

[dkeener]

someone writes:
I do not believe "herchurch" in SF to have any place or role in the Christian church, let alone the ELCA, because of the paganistic ritual and worship they consistently and routinely utilize.  

I wonder:
And have you been there? Heard the preaching? Talked to the pastors and the people? Discussed the congregation with the proper synodical authorities?
Now - hold off on the outrage for a moment - it may be that this congregation (or some other congregations, including a few "traditionalist" ones) is driving the wrong direction on Interstate 666. (From what I've seen, I might worry a little.)
But, you, or I or any other individual do not have the authority to - insofar as the ELCA is concerned - declare them "paganistic" or anything else. All we have is our pious opinions.
That congregation is "used" here - again and again - as an "example" of how terrible the ELCA is.
Until you start seeing clones of that congregation springing up all over the country, that is a dumb tactic.

I believe there was that Rite of Reception thing not so long ago, with three ELCA bishops present, using resources from Herchurch. So who is dumb and who is dumber?

[Charles_Austin]

Someone writes (re protesting an ELCA congregation):
  In fact, its what got me shipped out, since my home synod did not want me when it came time to taking a first call.

I note:
Yep. Actions have consequences, occasionally unfair consequences, and we sometimes have to take the heat for acting on our convictions. It's part of the deal.

[Brian Stoffregen]

There, in one sentence, is the crux of the problem.  "WE are still seeking to define what it means . . . " 

Where scripture is silent, we make decisions. While it speaks against same-gender sexual behaviors, none of those are within a committed relationship. They are more like committing adultery than like a sexual relationship within a marriage. As such, some of us believe that we are clear about what God means. (However, others come to different meanings from the same texts.)

Only a few westerners of our generation have "discovered" that Scripture is silent regarding same-gender sexual behaviors.  Christians (and Jews) of all other times and places have heard Scripture speaking loud and clear. 

In how many of those "other times and places" was it possible for same-gender couples to legally marry?

[Brian Stoffregen]

In your thousands of posts on this forum you have denied, cast doubt upon, questioned and toyed with every significant doctrine of the Christian faith. So, when you yet again play verbal games on this issue, it is not surprising, nor are you convincing anyone of your points of view.

Yes, I raise questions and toy with doctrines of the Christian faith. Such matters of discussion are seldom my "point of view". Neither is raising a question about a doctrine or a biblical interpretation a denial of the faith.

I learned early in seminary that there needs to be a distinction between one's personal faith -- a gift from God that brings eternal salvation -- and theological, biblical, academic discussions.

In my opinion, based on what you have posted here, you are an utterly false teacher and outside the faith of the one, holy, Christian and apostolic Church. I pray God leads you to genuine repentance before it too late.

Please be specific about where you believe I have taught or expressed a belief outside the Christian faith. You're making accusations with absolutely no evidence. The most radical statement I have made -- and that I believe -- is that scriptures does not prohibit committed same-gender relationships. (There are certainly some beliefs of the LCMS that I disagree with -- but few people consider the LCMS to be the only definition of the Christian faith.)

[Brian Stoffregen]

Where scripture is silent, we make decisions. While it speaks against same-gender sexual behaviors, none of those are within a committed relationship.

I suppose you could use that same logic to rationalize relationships with children, goats, or even wild mushrooms.
 

I wouldn't. The ability to make committed relationships doesn't exist with goats, wild mushrooms; and, as our laws indicate, even young children, e.g., statutory rape.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The question (and the fundamental rift) has always been:  Do we interpret Scripture, or does Scripture interpret us?

The answer is "yes". We interpret Scriptures and Scriptures interpret us. Every time we read an English translation, we are reading someone's interpretation of Scriptures. Every time we think or wonder, "What does this mean?" we are interpreting scriptures. Every time God uses Scriptures to convict us of sin, Scriptures is interpreting us. Every time God uses Scriptures to guide and encourage us in ways to love our neighbors, Scriptures is interpreting us. Every time God uses Scriptures to assure us of his saving grace received through faith in Jesus Christ, Scriptures is interpreting us.

[gcnuss]

In how many of those "other times and places" was it possible for same-gender couples to legally marry?

Brian,

In how many times and places has civil government allowed for things that are not consonant with Christian teaching?

Just because same-gender couples are allowed a civil marriage does not mean that the Church should abandon its own teachings, held from the beginning, that same-sex behaviors are sinful and forbidden.