The ELCA Requires Nothing

[Johan Bergfest]

Well, there's that pesky little thing called an intention to amend our lives, with the help of God.

Yes, there is that pesky little thing about our promise to amend our sinful lives.  And, if we really are honest about it, who among us makes that promise without our fingers crossed?  Which sins may we intentionally commit without breaking that promise?  And, when we break that promise - which we all do - which sinners are permitted to repent, only to break it again etc. etc.?

My point is really pretty simple.  If you apply to Law as rigidly to all other sinners as you would to the homosexual, there is no hope for any of us.  But, we know there is hope and we know the source of our hope.  If God's grace is sufficient to include sinful me, God's grace is sufficient to embrace every sinner who places their trust in God's promise of forgiveness in Jesus.

John,

I'm afraid you misunderstand the point of contention in the ELCA over the last decade.

Pr. Charlton - I appreciate the explanation.  I am not taking a position in support of (or in opposition to) the decisions made at the 2009 CWA.  I am affirming your list #1 - 6. 

And, as a footnote, I would also argue that the Church ought to get out of the civil union business and the state should get out of the marriage business.  If we did that, it would be easier for Christians to support the notion of equal rights to benefits that society choose to associate with civil unions.

[DCharlton]

Well, there's that pesky little thing called an intention to amend our lives, with the help of God.

Yes, there is that pesky little thing about our promise to amend our sinful lives.  And, if we really are honest about it, who among us makes that promise without our fingers crossed?  Which sins may we intentionally commit without breaking that promise?  And, when we break that promise - which we all do - which sinners are permitted to repent, only to break it again etc. etc.?

My point is really pretty simple.  If you apply to Law as rigidly to all other sinners as you would to the homosexual, there is no hope for any of us.  But, we know there is hope and we know the source of our hope.  If God's grace is sufficient to include sinful me, God's grace is sufficient to embrace every sinner who places their trust in God's promise of forgiveness in Jesus.

Agreeing that the above is true, many do not agree that it necessarily follows that the church should bless same sex unions, change its standards for ministers, or change its teaching on marriage.

[DCharlton]

John,

I'm afraid you misunderstand the point of contention in the ELCA over the last decade.

Pr. Charlton - I appreciate the explanation.  I am not taking a position in support of (or in opposition to) the decisions made at the 2009 CWA.  I am affirming your list #1 - 6. 

And, as a footnote, I would also argue that the Church ought to get out of the civil union business and the state should get out of the marriage business.  If we did that, it would be easier for Christians to support the notion of equal rights to benefits that society choose to associate with civil unions.

I have found that adopting your position is no longer sufficient to avoid the charge of homophobia.  From the floor of synod assemblies, your position has been compared to slavery, apartheid, anti-semitism, sexism and even blasphemy. 

[George Erdner]

For the record, and for the sake of simple language, "gay" is a term co-opted by homosexuals to mean "homosexual". One can no longer use the word "gay" to mean happy. It's meaning has been perverted. The word "gay" applies to all homosexuals, male and female alike.


Lesbians are female homosexuals. To use the phrase "gay and lesbian" is like saying "humans and women". Lesbians are a subset of the category "gay". Once you say "gay", there's no need to add "and lesbians". Lesbians are already included under the euphemism "gay".


Yes, I know that a great many people use that ridiculous sounding linguistic convention. But if anyone who is tempted to use it would simply pause and think for a moment, they'd realize how redundantly silly it sounds. The only excuse I can think of for using the term is when attempting to make up a pronounceable acronym, like GLAAD. That makes leading a life of debauchery sound like a happy thing.

[George Erdner]

I am at a loss when it comes to politically correct terms these days and resent being called a hater by fringe liberal family members these days.  Cannot someone compile a central list of words we can no longer use?

This is an area in which I always attempt to lead by example. I simply refuse to play the political correctness game with regard to language. I won't use the traditional "bad" terms, such as the mispronunciation of the word "Negro".  But when it comes to words that get fringe liberals up in a lather, and prompts them to resort to such epithets as "hater", I just refuse to play that game. If it offends homosexuals to be referred to as "homosexuals", then let them be offended. Life is too short to worry about people who make a conscious and deliberate decision to be offended at things that shouldn't offend them.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And the church bent over backwards to try to create spaces for those who disagreed with the vote....

Where are these spaces, Brian? ...

I note that you have not been kicked out of the ELCA...

This must be some new form of "bending over backwards."

The ELCA worked diligently, spending thousands of dollars, to remove Ross Merkel, Steve Sabin, and Brad Schmeling from the clergy because their convictions (and actions) were at odds with the ELCA policy at the time. Countless number of seminary students were not endorsed for ordination because there was no "space" for them in the ELCA at that time. There is essentially no chance that your bishop will file disciplinary charges against you because you have a "traditionalists" conviction (one of the four in HSGT) about homosexual relationships. There is space for you that was not present for many with a different conviction prior to 2009.

No one disputes that this church has made space for those formerly excluded.  What is disputed is your earlier assertion that the ELCA "bent over backwards" to make space for Pr Tibbets.  Since, presumably, his position was the privileged position, there would have been no need to make space for it.

However, if instead of making room for a previously excluded position, the ELCA was adopting a new position, namely the one previously excluded, then the need to make room for Pr Tibbets position would make sense.

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.

[cssml]

And the church bent over backwards to try to create spaces for those who disagreed with the vote....

Where are these spaces, Brian? ...

I note that you have not been kicked out of the ELCA...

This must be some new form of "bending over backwards."

The ELCA worked diligently, spending thousands of dollars, to remove Ross Merkel, Steve Sabin, and Brad Schmeling from the clergy because their convictions (and actions) were at odds with the ELCA policy at the time. Countless number of seminary students were not endorsed for ordination because there was no "space" for them in the ELCA at that time. There is essentially no chance that your bishop will file disciplinary charges against you because you have a "traditionalists" conviction (one of the four in HSGT) about homosexual relationships. There is space for you that was not present for many with a different conviction prior to 2009.

No one disputes that this church has made space for those formerly excluded.  What is disputed is your earlier assertion that the ELCA "bent over backwards" to make space for Pr Tibbets.  Since, presumably, his position was the privileged position, there would have been no need to make space for it.

However, if instead of making room for a previously excluded position, the ELCA was adopting a new position, namely the one previously excluded, then the need to make room for Pr Tibbets position would make sense.

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.

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?

[Pastor Ted Crandall]

Well, there's that pesky little thing called an intention to amend our lives, with the help of God.

Yes, there is that pesky little thing about our promise to amend our sinful lives.  And, if we really are honest about it, who among us makes that promise without our fingers crossed?  Which sins may we intentionally commit without breaking that promise?  And, when we break that promise - which we all do - which sinners are permitted to repent, only to break it again etc. etc.?

My point is really pretty simple.  If you apply to Law as rigidly to all other sinners as you would to the homosexual, there is no hope for any of us.  But, we know there is hope and we know the source of our hope.  If God's grace is sufficient to include sinful me, God's grace is sufficient to embrace every sinner who places their trust in God's promise of forgiveness in Jesus.

Christians do (should) apply the Law to all sinners who defiantly refuse to repent, sinners who announce their intent to continue living in sin.  This Law is (should be) applied consistently, whether the impenitent is a gossip or a homosexual. 

If we are nurturing in our hearts a sin we fully intend to continue committing, we should be terrified at thoughts of the Almighty, not comforted.  God will not be mocked forever. 

[Johan Bergfest]

If we are nurturing in our hearts a sin we fully intend to continue committing, we should be terrified at thoughts of the Almighty, not comforted.  God will not be mocked forever.

Right.  And everyone of us nurtures sins in our hearts that we know we will continue to commit.  With your own words, you have pronounced God's judgment upon yourself.  None of us is saved because we have abandoned our commitment to sin.  Disagree?  Perhaps you do not take God's Law seriously enough. 

But, thanks be to God, the story does not end there.

[Dadoo]

If we are nurturing in our hearts a sin we fully intend to continue committing, we should be terrified at thoughts of the Almighty, not comforted.  God will not be mocked forever.

Right.  And everyone of us nurtures sins in our hearts that we know we will continue to commit.  With your own words, you have pronounced God's judgment upon yourself.  None of us is saved because we have abandoned our commitment to sin.  Disagree?  Perhaps you do not take God's Law seriously enough. 

But, thanks be to God, the story does not end there.

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.

If taken serious, HSGT leaves something for everyone to hate. Pr. Crandall, where he to be ELCA, would offend the advocates at LC/NA as much as they would offend him. HSGT tried to codify an impasse in the 20 year long dialog over the matter of human sexuality in the hope of making peace thereby. That peace did not happen. We "got to, yes" but that yes is really meaningless. Case in point: The arguing continues, you and Crandall are doing it here. Getting to "yes" also necessitated the introduction of schemes of theology and methods of Biblical interpretation that . .  I am rehashing HSGT and its aftermath as I hoped I would not. Ask those who left. They will be happy to send you a PM if put out the word, I suppose.

[Dadoo]

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.

[Johan Bergfest]

That peace did not happen. We "got to, yes" but that yes is really meaningless.

Except that we didn't get to yes - not even close.  Worse, very few persons engaged the dialog that might have arrived at yes.

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

If we are nurturing in our hearts a sin we fully intend to continue committing, we should be terrified at thoughts of the Almighty, not comforted.  God will not be mocked forever.

Right.  And everyone of us nurtures sins in our hearts that we know we will continue to commit.  With your own words, you have pronounced God's judgment upon yourself.  None of us is saved because we have abandoned our commitment to sin.  Disagree?  Perhaps you do not take God's Law seriously enough. 

But, thanks be to God, the story does not end there.

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.

If taken serious, HSGT leaves something for everyone to hate. Pr. Crandall, where he to be ELCA, would offend the advocates at LC/NA as much as they would offend him. HSGT tried to codify an impasse in the 20 year long dialog over the matter of human sexuality in the hope of making peace thereby. That peace did not happen. We "got to, yes" but that yes is really meaningless. Case in point: The arguing continues, you and Crandall are doing it here. Getting to "yes" also necessitated the introduction of schemes of theology and methods of Biblical interpretation that . .  I am rehashing HSGT and its aftermath as I hoped I would not. Ask those who left. They will be happy to send you a PM if put out the word, I suppose.

Not necessarily Peter.  Most of us who have left don't think or talk much about HSGT at all.  That's the benefit of being out from under it.  The only time that HSGT comes to mind is when I follow this thread out of interest in friends still in the ELCA like yourself and David or when I've been asked by an ELCA congregation to present on the NALC and then only if they ask me what went on in the ELCA from 2001-2010. 
Ken

[Dadoo]

If we are nurturing in our hearts a sin we fully intend to continue committing, we should be terrified at thoughts of the Almighty, not comforted.  God will not be mocked forever.

Right.  And everyone of us nurtures sins in our hearts that we know we will continue to commit.  With your own words, you have pronounced God's judgment upon yourself.  None of us is saved because we have abandoned our commitment to sin.  Disagree?  Perhaps you do not take God's Law seriously enough. 

But, thanks be to God, the story does not end there.

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.

If taken serious, HSGT leaves something for everyone to hate. Pr. Crandall, where he to be ELCA, would offend the advocates at LC/NA as much as they would offend him. HSGT tried to codify an impasse in the 20 year long dialog over the matter of human sexuality in the hope of making peace thereby. That peace did not happen. We "got to, yes" but that yes is really meaningless. Case in point: The arguing continues, you and Crandall are doing it here. Getting to "yes" also necessitated the introduction of schemes of theology and methods of Biblical interpretation that . .  I am rehashing HSGT and its aftermath as I hoped I would not. Ask those who left. They will be happy to send you a PM if put out the word, I suppose.

Not necessarily Peter.  Most of us who have left don't think or talk much about HSGT at all.  That's the benefit of being out from under it.  The only time that HSGT comes to mind is when I follow this thread out of interest in friends still in the ELCA like yourself and David or when I've been asked by an ELCA congregation to present on the NALC and then only if they ask me what went on in the ELCA from 2001-2010. 
Ken

Hi Ken,

Yes, "happy" was the wrong word. It has been my experience that most of those who moved have . . moved on. I guess that was the idea behind moving on.   

[Dadoo]

That peace did not happen. We "got to, yes" but that yes is really meaningless.

Except that we didn't get to yes - not even close.  Worse, very few persons engaged the dialog that might have arrived at yes.

Well, a meaningless yes is not a yes I would guess

In the meantime, what does one do? Pr. Crandall is expressing something that the ELCA has explicitly approved. Does one argue with him? If one was a pastor, what would one teach? Suppose Pr. Crandall was in the ELCA. Does he teach what he expresses here? Does he teach that what he teaches is what he teaches but that other pastors teach what they teach and so he really teaches that what he teaches is only what he teaches but one can teach or believe different? Does he teach all four positions as if they were all good and true because the statement after all says they are all faithful and credible?

One must think that this statement was passed because it held up a promise that all the arguing and maneuvering would stop and we could get back to our happy place. Maybe we can all agree that we don't agree and write a theological position on that? Maybe we can call it a failed yes, it matters little. What we do next does.