The ELCA Requires Nothing

[Satis Est]

Without rehashing HSGT might I point out that Pr. Crandall, according to an official statement of the ELCA: HSGT of 2009, expresses a position that is intellectually credible and faithful to the Christian Faith. So, according to that statement, are you. He is expressing a position that is close in content to position 1., you  a position that is close to position 2. Two other positions are enumerated both of which suggest that what we today call "homosexuality" is not addressed in the scripture and therefore ought not be classified as or associated with the Christian concept of "sin." As far that the ELCA is concerned, you are both well within the boundaries of the teachings of the church, in this case the church ELCA.

However, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the social statements of the ELCA are not binding on members of the ELCA, nor on its clergy, nor on those who serve in elected positions in its structure.  What that effectively means is that those who are in agreement with position 4, or who agree with other decisions made in 2009 that open the roster to gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships (however that is defined) do not have to follow HSGT in honoring bound conscience. Those who hold positions 1 and 2 cannot appeal to HSGT because HSGT binds no one.  They can only hope that those who are elected to positions of authority will be willing to permit them to continue to serve without making it too difficult or onerous to bear.  But those who are in positions of authority are not required to do so; and in fact, they may believe that for the good of the wider synod or the wider ELCA that it is required to discourage those holding positions 1 &/or 2 to from continuing in the ELCA and encourage them to "move on."


Judges 17:6 

[Dadoo]

Without rehashing HSGT might I point out that Pr. Crandall, according to an official statement of the ELCA: HSGT of 2009, expresses a position that is intellectually credible and faithful to the Christian Faith. So, according to that statement, are you. He is expressing a position that is close in content to position 1., you  a position that is close to position 2. Two other positions are enumerated both of which suggest that what we today call "homosexuality" is not addressed in the scripture and therefore ought not be classified as or associated with the Christian concept of "sin." As far that the ELCA is concerned, you are both well within the boundaries of the teachings of the church, in this case the church ELCA.

However, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the social statements of the ELCA are not binding on members of the ELCA, nor on its clergy, nor on those who serve in elected positions in its structure.  What that effectively means is that those who are in agreement with position 4, or who agree with other decisions made in 2009 that open the roster to gay and lesbian persons in committed relationships (however that is defined) do not have to follow HSGT in honoring bound conscience. Those who hold positions 1 and 2 cannot appeal to HSGT because HSGT binds no one.  They can only hope that those who are elected to positions of authority will be willing to permit them to continue to serve without making it too difficult or onerous to bear.  But those who are in positions of authority are not required to do so; and in fact, they may believe that for the good of the wider synod or the wider ELCA that it is required to discourage those holding positions 1 &/or 2 to from continuing in the ELCA and encourage them to "move on."


Judges 17:6

Now go read Richard's article . .

BTW: Respect for bound conscience is enshrined in the implementing resolutions, not merely in HSGT, so, yes, those rostered are "bound," to a certain degree, to acknowledge that they must respect the bound conscience of those who disagree with them in this matter.

[Steven Tibbetts]

And no one has filed charges (nor do I believe could anyone file charges) that would seek to remove Pr. Tibbetts from the ELCA clergy roster because his bound conscience disagrees with our present policy in regards to homosexual relationships and clergy. His standing in our church has not changed. Although his position does not have the favor it once did, it is not an excluded position. It doesn't reach the level of being a disciplinary offense - as those with another position used to have.

So, this is what you meant by "bent over backwards to try to create spaces for those who disagreed with the vote..."?

I don't think you and I understand "bending over backwards" in the same way.

[Marshall_Hahn]

And no one has filed charges (nor do I believe could anyone file charges) that would seek to remove Pr. Tibbetts from the ELCA clergy roster because his bound conscience disagrees with our present policy in regards to homosexual relationships and clergy. His standing in our church has not changed. Although his position does not have the favor it once did, it is not an excluded position. It doesn't reach the level of being a disciplinary offense - as those with another position used to have.

As Dana Carvey aka The Church Lady would say:  "Isn't that special!"

Marshall

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

Although his position does not have the favor it once did, it is not an excluded position. It doesn't reach the level of being a disciplinary offense - as those with another position used to have.

Is it just me or is all this talk about various positions and discipline in the context of homosexuality...

Never mind.  I'm sure it's just me. 

[Satis Est]

Now go read Richard's article . .

As soon as the good people of the U. S. Postal Service see fit to deliver that most excellent of publications!

[Richard Johnson]

This thread and the article that caused it took up the lead article in the latest Forum Letter. I won't spoil your reading fun, but I am glad that Richard wrote it there instead of here.

 Thank you, Richard.

Welcome.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Does his bound conscience really disagree?  As I understood it, the CWA 2009 took a position to *take no position*. I did not understand it to take a position contrary to that held by Pastor Tibbets (and the entire historic Christian tradition). 

Or are you saying that because his conscience is bound to any position, it is thus in disagreement with CWA 2009, which could not seem to bind itself to any position?

I didn't say that his position was in a disagreement with the ELCA's positions - of which there are four. He disagrees with our policy of ordaining homosexuals in publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships.

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Does his bound conscience really disagree?  As I understood it, the CWA 2009 took a position to *take no position*. I did not understand it to take a position contrary to that held by Pastor Tibbets (and the entire historic Christian tradition). 

Or are you saying that because his conscience is bound to any position, it is thus in disagreement with CWA 2009, which could not seem to bind itself to any position?

I didn't say that his position was in a disagreement with the ELCA's positions - of which there are four. He disagrees with our policy of ordaining homosexuals in publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships.

So you are you saying, Pr. Stoffregen, that Pr. Tibbetts (and Pr. Kruse and Pr. Charlton et al) can hold position one or two but they are not to disagree with the policy of the to ordain persons in palmsgr?  And the consequences should they continue to question and disagree with that policy...? 

[DCharlton]

Fortunately for me, it is not what Brian says that matters.  The synod in which I serve has told me that my position is acceptable.

[George Erdner]

Fortunately for me, it is not what Brian says that matters.  The synod in which I serve has told me that my position is acceptable.

What's sad is that if you were to move to a different synod, even though you remained in the ELCA, your currently acceptable position might no longer be acceptable. Or, if a new bishop is elected, your currently acceptable position might become unacceptable.

[A Catholic Lutheran]

Fortunately for me, it is not what Brian says that matters.  The synod in which I serve has told me that my position is acceptable.

What's sad is that if you were to move to a different synod, even though you remained in the ELCA, your currently acceptable position might no longer be acceptable. Or, if a new bishop is elected, your currently acceptable position might become unacceptable.

Taken from the February 2013 "The Lutheran":
"While same-sex marriages became legal in New York in 2011, there wasn't much need for internal debate in most of the city's ELCA churches.  'Many simply said "Of course,"' said Bishop Robert Rimbo of the Metropolitan New York Synod, who made it clear when he was elected tp the position in 2008 that he would act as an advocate for gay rights in the church and civic sphere." (emphasis, mine.) "To marry or not to marry..." (pg. 36)

Take it for what you will...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

[Eileen Smith]

"Taken from the February 2013 "The Lutheran":
"While same-sex marriages became legal in New York in 2011, there wasn't much need for internal debate in most of the city's ELCA churches.  'Many simply said "Of course,"' said Bishop Robert Rimbo of the Metropolitan New York Synod, who made it clear when he was elected tp the position in 2008 that he would act as an advocate for gay rights in the church and civic sphere." (emphasis, mine.) "To marry or not to marry..." (pg. 36)"

Take it for what you will...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS




Actually, that's interesting.  It really was Robert Wollenberg who spoke a bit more strongly in favor of advocacy at the 2008 assembly when question on the GBLT issue.  Robert Rimbo more or less said he would abide by the Churchwide stand (this is pre-2009).  I know of quite a few suburban pastors who found it hard to decide between the two men and this is what tipped them to Rimbo.  They were already anticipating the fallout in their congregations - and many did experience fallout as can be seen if one looks to mission support post-2009.  Of course, Rimbo also announced he was running as a one-term bishop.....

[Brian Stoffregen]

Does his bound conscience really disagree?  As I understood it, the CWA 2009 took a position to *take no position*. I did not understand it to take a position contrary to that held by Pastor Tibbets (and the entire historic Christian tradition). 

Or are you saying that because his conscience is bound to any position, it is thus in disagreement with CWA 2009, which could not seem to bind itself to any position?

I didn't say that his position was in a disagreement with the ELCA's positions - of which there are four. He disagrees with our policy of ordaining homosexuals in publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-gender relationships.

So you are you saying, Pr. Stoffregen, that Pr. Tibbetts (and Pr. Kruse and Pr. Charlton et al) can hold position one or two but they are not to disagree with the policy of the to ordain persons in palmsgr?  And the consequences should they continue to question and disagree with that policy...?

Because they are not required to agree with our policy, nothing happens.


Should their disagreements spill over into ad hominem attacks against their bishop or other clergy or the presiding bishop, there might be some repercussions. (And, likewise, should "revisionists" attack them, there should be actions taken against them.)

[DCharlton]

What about ad homonym attacks?  What if I said, "Mark my words.  Mark is off the mark?"