The ELCA Requires Nothing

[revreiff]

No rumor...just look at the actions of the La Crosse, Milwaukee and Minneapolis synods...

[DCharlton]

Please.  No.  This has been discussed too many times.

What has been discussed too many times?

Whether or not synods have punished congregations for not wanting to interview women.  Whether there is any evidence that attempts to rescind HSGT were ruled out of order.  Whether the is any evidence that bound conscience is respected in the ELCA, etc... 

There is probably 5 years worth of posts concerning these questions.  The request that we recapitulate the arguments of the last 5 years because someone is new to this forum is one that we should decline.  For some it may be a legitimate desire to know more.  Often, however, it is an attempt to derail the current discussion.  Furthermore, when we comply with demands that we prove again things that are well known, we then leave ourselves open to the claim that we can't let go of the past. 

Instead, you should say, "I refer the right honorable gentleman to the reply I gave 5 years ago."

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

...congregations were assured that they would never be forced to call a pastor they didn't want to call.  This rendered "bound conscience" meaningless because the synod never has had the power to force a congregation to call a pastor.  "Bound conscience" came mean simply that what has been the case since 1988 is still the case.

There is an impression from here that a congregation in the ELCA that refuses to call a lady will be vacant for a very long time -- and any congregation that refuses to call a homosexual will soon find itself simlarly tricked. 

Can we put that rumor to rest?

Some might try, but given that the rumor is true, it will be almost impossible to dispel.

Often, however, it is an attempt to derail the current discussion. 

But the current discussion is "The ELCA Requires Nothing."  Whether of not ELCA, despite talk of "bound conscience," pressures all her congregations to call homosexual or female pastors seems on topic... 

[George Erdner]

...congregations were assured that they would never be forced to call a pastor they didn't want to call.  This rendered "bound conscience" meaningless because the synod never has had the power to force a congregation to call a pastor.  "Bound conscience" came mean simply that what has been the case since 1988 is still the case.

There is an impression from here that a congregation in the ELCA that refuses to call a lady will be vacant for a very long time -- and any congregation that refuses to call a homosexual will soon find itself simlarly tricked. 

Can we put that rumor to rest?

Some might try, but given that the rumor is true, it will be almost impossible to dispel.

Often, however, it is an attempt to derail the current discussion. 

But the current discussion is "The ELCA Requires Nothing."  Whether of not ELCA, despite talk of "bound conscience," pressures all her congregations to call homosexual or female pastors seems on topic...

Sorry, but your LCMS background is showing. The relationship of individual synods to the national "expression" of the ELCA is not the same as the relationship of the Districts in the LCMS to the national synod. Pressure on congregations originates at the synod level. In some synods the pressure is weak or even non-existent. In others it is severe. The ELCA also plays its cards very close to the vest. Under the guise of "privacy" or simply poor reporting, it is difficult to impossible for outsiders (or most insiders) to learn all the details of what goes on in each of the ELCA's 65 different synods.

[LutherMan]

I recently referred to a homosexual as a homosexual at an extended family gathering, and an ELCA pastor cousin chided me and said I shouldn't use such hateful language.  What is the current term for them?

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

Sorry, but your LCMS background is showing. The relationship of individual synods to the national "expression" of the ELCA is not the same as the relationship of the Districts in the LCMS to the national synod. Pressure on congregations originates at the synod level. In some synods the pressure is weak or even non-existent. In others it is severe. The ELCA also plays its cards very close to the vest. Under the guise of "privacy" or simply poor reporting, it is difficult to impossible for outsiders (or most insiders) to learn all the details of what goes on in each of the ELCA's 65 different synods.

Thank you, George.  I didn't know that about the national expression.  So, when Rev. Hanson speaks, he is not speaking on behalf of all 65 synods? 

[George Erdner]

I recently referred to a homosexual as a homosexual at an extended family gathering, and an ELCA pastor cousin chided me and said I shouldn't use such hateful language.  What is the current term for them?

The correct term is still homosexual. The politically correct euphemism changes from day to day, so you probably need not worry about it. If someone thinks the term "homosexual" is a hateful term for a homosexual, that's their issue, not yours.

Sorry, but your LCMS background is showing. The relationship of individual synods to the national "expression" of the ELCA is not the same as the relationship of the Districts in the LCMS to the national synod. Pressure on congregations originates at the synod level. In some synods the pressure is weak or even non-existent. In others it is severe. The ELCA also plays its cards very close to the vest. Under the guise of "privacy" or simply poor reporting, it is difficult to impossible for outsiders (or most insiders) to learn all the details of what goes on in each of the ELCA's 65 different synods.

Thank you, George.  I didn't know that about the national expression.  So, when Rev. Hanson speaks, he is not speaking on behalf of all 65 synods? 

That's hard to say. Hanson speaks as the Presiding Bishop of the entire ELCA. Some in the ELCA agree with him, some do not. He doesn't seem to care much whether he chases people away from the ELCA with some of the things he says. The basic premise of the ELCA is that it is a "big tent" with room in it for all people, regardless of what they believe. Based on what some local bishops do, it would appear that it includes people in positions of authority who believe that their position on certain issues is the one that everyone else should agree with.


It's very confusing. I wish there was someone here who was really knowledgeable about how the ELCA really works, not just what their official documents say, who would actually explain those things. But no one has ever really stepped forward with those explanations. So, understanding what really goes on requires a great deal of detective work, and a certain amount of extrapolation from scant evidence.
 

[Brian Stoffregen]

...congregations were assured that they would never be forced to call a pastor they didn't want to call.  This rendered "bound conscience" meaningless because the synod never has had the power to force a congregation to call a pastor.  "Bound conscience" came mean simply that what has been the case since 1988 is still the case.

There is an impression from here that a congregation in the ELCA that refuses to call a lady will be vacant for a very long time -- and any congregation that refuses to call a homosexual will soon find itself simlarly tricked. 

Can we put that rumor to rest?

Some might try, but given that the rumor is true, it will be almost impossible to dispel.

The rumor is false. What may be true is that at times, there may be more women seeking calls, so bishops have more female candidates to put before a Call Committee. The last congregation I served, had stated that they did not want a female. There were given some female names - even interviewed some; but in the end, they called a male pastor.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I recently referred to a homosexual as a homosexual at an extended family gathering, and an ELCA pastor cousin chided me and said I shouldn't use such hateful language.  What is the current term for them?

Probably, "Bob," or "Steve," or "Tom," or "Cheryl," or "Dianne," or "Theresa," or whatever name their friends call them.

[LutherMan]

I recently referred to a homosexual as a homosexual at an extended family gathering, and an ELCA pastor cousin chided me and said I shouldn't use such hateful language.  What is the current term for them?

Probably, "Bob," or "Steve," or "Tom," or "Cheryl," or "Dianne," or "Theresa," or whatever name their friends call them.

His friends call him girlfriend, which I find to be most interesting...

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

I recently referred to a homosexual as a homosexual at an extended family gathering, and an ELCA pastor cousin chided me and said I shouldn't use such hateful language.  What is the current term for them?

Probably, "Bob," or "Steve," or "Tom," or "Cheryl," or "Dianne," or "Theresa," or whatever name their friends call them.

His friends call him girlfriend, which I find to be most interesting...

Is your cousin quia, too?   

[D. Engebretson]

I recently referred to a homosexual as a homosexual at an extended family gathering, and an ELCA pastor cousin chided me and said I shouldn't use such hateful language.  What is the current term for them?

Probably, "Bob," or "Steve," or "Tom," or "Cheryl," or "Dianne," or "Theresa," or whatever name their friends call them.

According to GLADD, "homosexual" is considered offensive, mainly because of how it has been used by those opposed to homosexuality and based on its prior clinical usage.  They say the preferred reference is: "gay" (adj.); "gay man" or "lesbian" (n.); "gay person/people."  So if you wish to use current politically correct terminology, this seems to be the official word. 

Reference: http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive, which contains other politically correct terminology in reference to homosexuality. 

[Dadoo]

And the church bent over backwards to try to create spaces for those who disagreed with the vote. So it feels like a slap in the face for all our efforts to respect and continue to welcome the "traditionalists" in our church when the can no longer stand to be with us. (Granted, there were perhaps more than a few who were not so respectful and welcoming.)

Where are these spaces, Brian?  I'm serious, for I would really like to find one of them.

But I can't help but contrast your aassertion above with the action of the 2009 CWA, which was to "find a way" for those disagreed with the earlier teaching.

But I appreciate your recognition that, having found a way for the revisionists, there are now only a few spaces available for traditionalists in the ELCA.  If only someone could show us where they are....

I know that this note is somewhat older but I noted it last week but did not reply.

It seems to be my memory that HSGT and its implementing resolutions did not create "spaces" for those who thought and taught traditionally. Instead it created a space for those who wanted to think and live with the innovation assuming the space for those who thought traditionally to be a given and secure. Without rehashing or demanding a rehash of the "why then did they leave/disagree . . " it might just interest us all that Pr. Christian could be read in a way that suggests that a place has been created for the traditionalists instead. He would be wrong on that count on top of being wrong on previously noted details.

I might remind all of us that this shift in attitude on who needed their own space was one of the concerns in 2009.

[Coach-Rev]

I recently referred to a homosexual as a homosexual at an extended family gathering, and an ELCA pastor cousin chided me and said I shouldn't use such hateful language.  What is the current term for them?

Probably, "Bob," or "Steve," or "Tom," or "Cheryl," or "Dianne," or "Theresa," or whatever name their friends call them.

I'm going to have to agree with Brian on this one.  While I stand firmly opposed to homosexuality as a departure from God's naturally created order and a sin, I also  think that to ask the bolded question or to joke about it as some posts have done only furthers the left's belief of a hateful, bigoted attitude, whether or not such an attitude was intended or even implied.  I do not believe you intended it to be hateful as the ELCA pastor suggested, but it will be perceived by many and used by many as such. 

We must never forget that anyone who is homosexual, like all of us, is a sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness.

[DCharlton]

One of the reasons I opposed HSGT, and earlier attempts at "structured flexibility" is that I did not want to create another situation similar to that faced by women during the early days of women's ordination.  In my opinion, a man or woman on the roster of the ELCA, or one approved for ordination, ought to be eligible to serve in any congregation in the ELCA.  "Structured flexibility" as proposed in 2005, or adopted in 2009, creates a division on the ELCA roster, between those able to serve in some places and those able to serve everywhere.  Furthermore, it creates the situation that Charles found so offensive earlier on this thread where congregations dictate what a pastor may or may not teach, preach, etc...

I think the ELCA should have said either Yes or No.  If we choose to approve partnered gays and lesbians for ordination, and place them on the roster, then there should be no limitations as to where they may serve.  Telling congregations that they may choose to exclude a certain class of rostered leaders recreates the problems experienced around women's ordination.*

*It was and is unfair to women pastors to approve them for ordination, but then allow congregations to refuse to interview them.  That's what historically caused tension between synods and congregations.   Whether the ELCA ever granted congregations the right to refuse a candidate on the basis of her sex is something I can't remember.  There was apparently the perception among some congregations that they had such a right.