Archived Boards > ELCA Churchwide Assembly 2007

Sexuality Matters Concluded, Sort of

<< < (3/75) > >>

Bergs:
So any bishop who actually upheld the current V&E could have her/his decision appealed.  At such a hearing this CWA motion would have a huge effect and allow the appeals committee the right to overturn the bishop.  Sound like a mess to this humble guy in the pew.

Christ have mercy
Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

EENGELBRECHT:

--- Quote from: Charles_Austin on August 11, 2007, 12:21:17 PM ---There is nothing in our constitution about this particular issue. Nor is there anything in our by-laws; and the policies of this church are frequently amended and altered by Assemblies and by the Church Council because the Assembly and Church Council has the authority to do so.

--- End quote ---

Thanks for clarification, Charles. So they are allowed to violate the policies, which the constitution and by-laws provide for, right?  ;)

To state it more positively, "We've not figured this out yet, so just keep doing what you're doing---gently."

In Christ,
EE

EENGELBRECHT:

--- Quote from: GoCubsGo! on August 11, 2007, 12:29:40 PM ---I, for one, do not see a way the the ELCA can continue together under the conditions now in place.  . . . I think it may be time to seriously consider the formation of a new Lutheran body!  May the Lord have mercy on our souls!

--- End quote ---

I'm curious. How would this work? Do the synods own church properties? Would dissent have to happen (practically speaking) by synod, congregation, or individual?

In Christ,
EE

MaddogLutheran:

--- Quote from: Charles_Austin on August 11, 2007, 12:21:17 PM ---There is nothing in our constitution about this particular issue. Nor is there anything in our by-laws; and the policies of this church are frequently amended and altered by Assemblies and by the Church Council because the Assembly and Church Council has the authority to do so.

--- End quote ---
Well, neither is there anything specifically in the constitution about, say, adultery, another disciplinary issue for pastors covered by V&E/D&G.  But why is that issue covered?  Merely for "niceness"?  No, of course not.  It's because there is a Scriptural prohibition against it, and the constitution puts the Bible at the top of the list of our "governing documents".

Many of us have the assumption that the prohibitions against homosexual relations (by pastors or anyone) has a Scriptural basis.  At least I think that's the assumption as the basis for our current Council written policy, inheriting the positions of the predecessor bodies while not "officially" adopting them.  That would be the point of the Task Force.

So back to my original point, for those who believe these prohibitions are sourced in the Bible, they are in our constitution.  But the constitution (and the Bible) is what the CWA and the task force say it is.  I like Pr. Y's line:  "dead people get to vote in the Church."  But not necessarily in the ELCA.  We're more Jeffersonian--there should be a revolution every 20 years or so, so the tyranny of the dead does not rule us.

Sterling Spatz

Charles_Austin:
EEENGEBRECHT WRITES
So they are allowed to violate the policies, which the constitution and by-laws provide for, right?

And then writes:
I'm curious. How would this work? Do the synods own church properties? Would dissent have to happen (practically speaking) by synod, congregation, or individual?

I note:
No, and you are obviously not familiar with the complex relationship in the ELCA involving our constitution, by-laws and ownership of property. It would be fruitless to try and explain it here; and probably not necessary. Let's see just how many congregations decide to flee. I'll bet we will all be surprised.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version