ELCA Draft Sexuality Report

[Eric_Swensson]

Then we have unsubstantiated allegations that this document - which we haven't actually read yet - negates the confessions.

What are you talking about? I read it when it came out. I, too, have been waiting for someone to begin a thread, though I haven't looked forward to it. For the most part it is just as Chavez says, locates ethics in the gospel, seperating law from gospel.

Charles, can you attempt to actually talk about some points in it or do you just want to make quips about how you see people communicating?

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

And among those to leap critically on the contents of a draft of a report which has as yet no standing in the ELCA but is meant for discussion in the ELCA is Peter, who is a fine fellow in many ways, but is simply not a part of this ELCA discussion.

As far as I know, I have never met Pastor Speckhard.  My opinion of him is based solely upon having read his various postings here on ALPB Forum Online.  He may very well be "a fine fellow" as Pastor Austin states.  Pastor Speckhard does seem to me to be educated, articulate and Lutheran.  I therefore, appreciate any comments that Pastor Speckhard might offer about issues being discussed in the ELCA.

(I somehow doubt that Pastor Austin meant to suggest that we in the ELCA should only take into consideration the ideas and opinions of other members of the ELCA and of members of church bodies with which we are in "Full Communion".)

Mel Harris

Id hope that is not what he meant?   After all it would not make any sense to ignore the opinions of fellow Lutherans on common confessional understandings while some how discussing such with "Communion Partners" (see AP AC XXIV (68)) who may not even be of Lutheran origen about the Epitome?  The BOC? The 3rd use of the law?   Or maybe thats why we are having this conversation in the first place?

Funny Isnt it 

Rob Moskowitz

[Charles_Austin]

Mel Harris wrote:

(I somehow doubt that Pastor Austin meant to suggest that we in the ELCA should only take into consideration the ideas and opinions of other members of the ELCA and of members of church bodies with which we are in "Full Communion".)

I comment:
That's not quite what I meant, but I do believe that there are matters that the ELCA needs to discuss on its own terms and involving those with whom we are most closely partnered in mission and ministry. We have no canonical or juridical requirement to bring the LC-MS into our discussions; and most of us see little point in doing so. (But remember I'm willing to be in full fellowship with the LC-MS.) It's like telling the U.S. State Department that in considering our policies and work in the Middle East, we should involve Mexico or Venezuela. Or Saxony.

Eric asks if I can ...
attempt to actually talk about some points in it or do you just want to make quips about how you see people communicating?

I note:
I wouldn't call my comments "quips," but nonetheless.... How we communicate is indeed part of the discussion. As noted above, in this forum I hear only hostility or suspicion for the ELCA and its policies, laments that we are abandoning the Lutheran Confessions, and attitudes suggesting that virtually all discussion on major issues of sexuality is hopeless because all matters under discussion are already closed, settled, decided and explained once for all. I do not hear a love for the church or our part of it, a desire to "live together" despite differences or a willingness to consider that what some here call the "orthodox" position might need some reinterpretation or re-thinking.

I respect the position of the LC-MS as expressed quite well by Peter and Scott; but this is not how the ELCA thinks, explains its doctrine or interprets scripture. And it is not likely to be how we do so in the future.

So, yes, I will likely absent myself from this discussion and the people here can pile on the report and the plan for serious consideration of a major issue. I have no doubt you will find a great deal to criticize in the plan for discussion. And it is only a matter of time before we get the charges of stacking the study teams, bias in the discussion guides and suspicion that everything is pre-determined by some cabal of "revisionists."

CMA
(Actually in a rather good mood tonight, having just come from the New York Gilbert and Sullivan Players production of "THe Rose of Persia," a little-performed work of G&S that is quite amusing.)

[scott3]

So, yes, I will likely absent myself from this discussion and the people here can pile on the report and the plan for serious consideration of a major issue.

Anyone giving odds?


[Oops.  Sorry.  Private ELCA discussion.  Missed that section of the guidelines.  I'll just tip-toe down the hall to the pub.  Lot's of LCMS'ers in there.]

[Brian Stoffregen]

Are you talking about his critque of the sexuality study or your critique of his article?     Or are you saying that if he does not agree with the portion you chose to quote than he must not agree with anything at all?

My critique of his article. While he states at the beginning of the article: "To me it's a smorgasbord that includes a few good dishes, a number of mediocre dishes and several dishes tainted with food poisoning;" nearly all of the article is about the "food poisoning". He does not delve into the "few good dishes" that he finds there. Why not?

[peter_speckhard]

Are you talking about his critque of the sexuality study or your critique of his article?     Or are you saying that if he does not agree with the portion you chose to quote than he must not agree with anything at all?

My critique of his article. While he states at the beginning of the article: "To me it's a smorgasbord that includes a few good dishes, a number of mediocre dishes and several dishes tainted with food poisoning;" nearly all of the article is about the "food poisoning". He does not delve into the "few good dishes" that he finds there. Why not?

I read a lot of news reports about tainted Taco Bell food last month. None of the national news accounts included coverage of the plentiful, perfectly good food also sold at those locations. Perfectly good food is the default expectation and therefore not newsworthy. "Taco Bell offers cheap Mexican food" is not news the way "Taco Bell sells poisonous Mexican food" is news. And when it come to such news, it is pointless to put a positive spin on it. "Taco Bell boasts ninety-nine percent customer survival rate" is silly. "Hundreds afflicted by tainted Taco Bell food" is actually news focused on the newsworthy part, which, in the case of a sexuality study, would be the parts that likely generate controversy. "Most of Lutheran Church study found to be solidly Lutheran" is just spin. "Claim: Lutheran Church study deviates from Lutheranism on some points" is worth discussing.   

On another point, thanks to Mel and the others who had nice things to say about my participation in discussions of ELCA matters, and thanks to Charles for calling me a fine fellow, which I am much of the time. ("Serial killer perfectly decent man six days a week") I chime in on non-LCMS topics because I find them interesting, and sometimes have what I think are interesting things to say about them, and I do think there is at least tangential impact for all churches when one church does something noteworthy. But by all means consider the source of my comments and take them for what they're worth, and if that turns out to be not much, then skip them. It isn't like there is a shortage of space here, and I'm not asking to have my comments read from the floor of ELCA conventions or anything. But going back to my first post on this thread, is there any part of it that is affected by whether the author is ELCA or not? Let it stand or fall on the merits.     

[Eric_Swensson]

Eric asks if I can ...
attempt to actually talk about some points in it or do you just want to make quips about how you see people communicating?

I note:
I wouldn't call my comments "quips," but nonetheless.... How we communicate is indeed part of the discussion. As noted above, in this forum I hear only hostility or suspicion for the ELCA and its policies, laments that we are abandoning the Lutheran Confessions, and attitudes suggesting that virtually all discussion on major issues of sexuality is hopeless because all matters under discussion are already closed, settled, decided and explained once for all. I do not hear a love for the church or our part of it, a desire to "live together" despite differences or a willingness to consider that what some here call the "orthodox" position might need some reinterpretation or re-thinking.

Charles, you seem to have ignored my criticism 24 hours ago of your methadology of silencing.

Now that Brian and Charles have both accused us as well as Chavez of not highlighting the merits of the church....

How was the Reformation carried out? Did pious people only pray that the Lord would remove false teaching from the lips of the Pope, that he would convert Tetzel, that the Archbishop of Mainz would cease and desist in raising huge sums of money off the conscience of the ignorant? Or did Luther and a host of others take advantage of the new medium available to them.

Actually, guys, if you would look at what most of us write for general consumption, listen to the speeches we make on the floor, the way we talk to our parishoneers, colleagues and bishops wou wouil here the raising of the merits in the context of wanting to remove false teaching.

Anyway, Charles, the mask is off. If you cannot discuss ideas but only criticize the fact that we are critical, you do have nothing to say. However, I think you do so I invite you to discuss theological ideas.

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

I comment:
That's not quite what I meant, but I do believe that there are matters that the ELCA needs to discuss on its own terms and involving those with whom we are most closely partnered in mission and ministry. We have no canonical or juridical requirement to bring the LC-MS into our discussions; and most of us see little point in doing so. (But remember I'm willing to be in full fellowship with the LC-MS.) It's like telling the U.S. State Department that in considering our policies and work in the Middle East, we should involve Mexico or Venezuela. Or Saxony.

First its not your report.   You have no right to say who can or cannot discuss it period!   It was made with money from my congregation (among others) and sent to mine and all in the ELCA for discussion.   If I as a pastor serving an ELCA congregation choose to discuss it with Peter or anyone else you have nothing to say about it.   I dont remember the study having your ELCA exclusive gag order implied or stated.

Second your analogy is erronious at best.   Or maybe thats why I have not purchased a Kolbe-Wengert BOC.   By your logic since I believe Kolbe is LCMS then that would be like "we should involve Mexico or Venezuela. Or Saxony" in US mid east policies.   Now attempting to compare the BOC  I.E. our confessions with those you declare are "closely partnered in mission and ministry" may be another story.   Hum what does the BOC is the definition of our church AC VII?   What does it say cannot be the basis for unity or agreement AP AC XXIV?    Ya know those books the ELCA constitution defines it self by as right expressions of the Word?

I personally find your beliefs far more foriegn to my own and that of my congregation than Peters ect.

Once again if you dont like the discussion sign off.    Dont for a moment pretend to represent the ELCA and declare this discussion off limits to any ELCA folk even if they desire to discuss it openly with non ELCA folk.

Rob Moskowitz

[Pilgrim]

Charles Austin wrote:
As noted above, in this forum I hear only hostility or suspicion for the ELCA and its policies, laments that we are abandoning the Lutheran Confessions, and attitudes suggesting that virtually all discussion on major issues of sexuality is hopeless because all matters under discussion are already closed, settled, decided and explained once for all. I do not hear a love for the church or our part of it, a desire to "live together" despite differences or a willingness to consider that what some here call the "orthodox" position might need some reinterpretation or re-thinking.

I muse:
I mostly lurk in these discussions, occasionally attempting to comment, and sometimes experiencing the aforementioned hostility you reference, Charles, even from you! And that's alright. For me the ultimate frustration is the difficult, and perhaps nearly impossible task for those of us raised in what has become such a visual culture, to communicate clearly iwith the written word sans the benefit of vocal inflection, facial and bodily cues and such.

I hear (because what one "hears" even in the written word, is largely a matter of choice) considerable love for the Church and our part of it in most of the posts in this forum. Explicitly, no. But the passions that are aroused would not be as intense, it seems to me, if such love, commitment and dedication were not present in those participating in this forum. The shape of that passion may be misguided, neglected or abused, but it is present. Or so it seems to me.

Tim Christ 

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

How was the Reformation carried out? Did pious people only pray that the Lord would remove false teaching from the lips of the Pope, that he would convert Tetzel, that the Archbishop of Mainz would cease and desist in raising huge sums of money off the conscience of the ignorant? Or did Luther and a host of others take advantage of the new medium available to them.

I got a funny picture of a modern day Lutheran Pastor bereading Luther and ripping the thesis of the red door while declaring that he should use the proper channels and that the Holy Spirit was working though the Church and that as long as Tetzel and the Archbishop of Mainnz where in good standing Luther had nothing to say.

I dare say I then picture said Pastor on the ground seeing stars and birdies 


Yours In Christ
Rob Moskowitz

[Eric_Swensson]

Now, Rob, don't let Charles upset you to the point that you tell him to take a hike since he told us that a walk in the woods is what he wants to do. See, what he really wants you to do is to tell him to take a hike so that he can come back ans say "See, you really are all just a nasty bunch." Besides that, remember, if we didn't have Charles and Brian we would have to invent them (that's not the only reason Richard is so nice to them and hardly ever tells them to stop attacking people personally but that has to be part of it). And since only God can invent people, we would have to hire them and I am much to cheap for that.

Tim, thank you for your thoughful post. My thoughts exactly, but then if I said that it would not have the same impact.

I would remind everyone that the only point to this is the good of the church. There is no surprise in there being a disagreement about what is good for the church. Clearly Charles thinks that displaying disagreement over ELCA policy on the internet should 1) be only open to ELCA members and 2) should be proportionate to the extollment of the virtues of the ELCA. Of course, he also believes that we cannot speak of the theology of public figures un;ess they are logged in here. He also believes that petting cats is the cure for theological red flags and that eating mushrooms and listening to Sillibert & Gullivan is the cure for whatever else ails you.

But then this isn't about that is it...

[Gary Hatcher]

I would remind everyone that the only point to this is the good of the church. There is no surprise in there being a disagreement about what is good for the church. Clearly Charles thinks that displaying disagreement over ELCA policy on the internet should 1) be only open to ELCA members and 2) should be proportionate to the extollment of the virtues of the ELCA. Of course, he also believes that we cannot speak of the theology of public figures un;ess they are logged in here. He also believes that petting cats is the cure for theological red flags and that eating mushrooms and listening to pansy Brits is the cure for whatever else ails you.

But then this isn't about that is it...

Eric, I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek, if not I would suggest a deep breath, some good single malt, or what ever you need to get a grip.   I do not generally agree with Charles on all things ELCA, we don't gain much from sniping at each other.  I am very much interested in the study and what this forum will have to say about it. I haven't had time to read it so I can't offer any intelligent comments.  I hope it will be a useful thing that will move us forward as a church.  I fear it may be more of the same postmodern drift. 
Gary

[janielou13]

"pansy Brits"........ Oh, no the man uttered an ethnic slur !  Quick someone call the thought police,,,,,,,,, or better yet, Monty Python.

[Eric_Swensson]

Gary, there you go, thinking hedonistically. Booze never solved anything. Actually, it hit me while doing dishes what I had wrote and that probably no one would thing that this fundamentalist Lutheran ever watched Monty Python when he was younger (if you remember they did their fair amoount of breaking into a farcical G & S chorus). So, I changed it.

And now, for something completely serious...

[Eric_Swensson]

You know a lot has been said about this: where do I get a grip? Ebay?