I don't see any evolution on marriage. It's still pretty much what it's always been: a publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous relationship.
Long before 2009 people were having sex outside of marriages. That's become more acceptable. There's been a change in society's views about that.
Context, context, context. I had already said that our culture had changed 40 years ago, or before. I was talking about how our current discussion in the ELCA (context, remember?) was evolving.
You talked about the evolution of marriage. I disagree that marriage had evolved. I agree that our discussion and culture and attitudes about sexual relationships have changed. Our understanding of marriage is still the same as it was 40 years ago when I got married.
No. I talked about the evolution of attitudes within the ELCA regarding the requirement of marriage for clergy. It was the rapid evolution of opinions among ELCA clergy regarding V&E. Everyone but you seemed to know exactly what I was talking about.
I'm an ELCA clergy. I don't know what you're talking about. Marriage was and is the standard for clergy who are in a sexual relationship. After 2009, we also included "PALMS" for same-sex couples when they were not able to marry in all states. I believe V&E should be rewritten to remove that language and use "marriage" since same-sex marriages are legal in all states. The guidelines for candidacy committees stated that where same-sex couples could legally marry, that was the expected relationship for same-sex candidates in a relationship.
No kidding. It is the standard today. But you and Charles are already arguing that marriage/PALMSGR is not the only way. Nadia Bolz-Weber and friends are arguing that it is not the best way, but only one way, and that to say it is the best way is oppressive. All that we are awaiting is a compromise akin to HSGT that will permit congregations who so choose to call pastors who are in relationships other than marriang/PAMSGR.
You are employing the same mode of argument to undermine the standard of marriage that you employed to undermine the standard of heterosexuality. You are not the only one, as Nadia Bolz-Weber and Friends are doing the same. In 30 years, since the beginning of the ELCA to today, the belief that heterosexuality is the only option for pastors has gone from the official policy to being considered a dangerous form of bigotry akin to White Supremacy and Nazism. I don't think it will take any longer for the consensus of HSGT, that sex belongs in marriage/PALMGR, to be overturned and cast aside as a form of bigotry. 2039 at the latest is my prediction.
The ELCA did not start with a commitment to follow Scripture wherever it leads. Instead, it picked a desired outcome, realized that Scripture does not support that outcome, and therefore crafted a mostly Scripture-free justification. Without Scripture as a guide, we are left to follow the cultural winds. The ELCA will get to the destination you predict well before 2039.
That said, resistance and backlash eventually will come. I think that people will tolerate and even support same-sex marriage. But attacks on marriage as an institution are another matter. In my experience, young, urban, socially liberal, affluent couples place a high value on marriage and raising children as a couple. Many of them don't see same-sex marriage as a threat to that notion. Full-on attacks against marriage obviously are a different matter.
Moreover, social liberalism must confront internal inconsistencies that ultimately will collapse upon one another. For example, the sexual liberation movement advanced the notion that women are every bit as able as men to take the lead in sexual relationships. Women don't need men or parents or anyone else to take care of them. Today we see on college campuses and elsewhere a return to the notion that women in fact need protecting from men and from "rape-culture." Similarly, many on the left instinctively support the notion of trans-gender rights. However, parents among their ranks are at best ambivalent about government mandates requiring middle-school girls to share locker-room showers with biological boys who "identify" as female.
Eventually, the revisionist movements will weaken one another and the stigma against advocating natural-law principles will fade. But that could take many years.
