2007 CWA & Sexuality - What do you tell your congregation?

[Eric_Swensson]

Eric writes:

I suppose this is the "unity" we voted on in Orlando?

I comment:
Depends upon what you call "unity," doesn't it? Unity on issues relating to homosexuality? No. We do not have unity on that. But we do have unity on a lot of other things, and the spirit at Chicago was quite peaceful and congenial. Later, I heard some of the gay and lesbian folk say they felt betrayed by the bishops who did not speak out very forcefully for the memorials passed by their synodical conventions. But there can be the desire to work together in this church, I think. But that will take some work. And obviously some don't have that desire.

BTW, I know some LC-MSers who wouldn't send their kids to an LC-MS camp either; and I don't think that's the sign of an apocalyptic collapse of the LC-MS.

I see that you continue your never-ending quest to engender goodwill towards our brothers. And you continue to make fouls while doing so.Pr Jagow spoke of his own decision. I spoke of my own. However, you bring in a group of unknowns. Who are these people and why do they not want to send their kids to LCMS camps?

[Charles_Austin]

Eric writes:
Oh, you are in for some for some rough times, don't worry. In the meantime, I don't believe anyone here in this board believes that this is all about disagreeing over a few verses of Scripture, and that has to include you.

I comment:
Well, we shall see how rough the times are... I am at a loss to state with precision what "anyone" on this board believes. If I were to elucidate some (not all) of the things I think the disagreement is about, I suspect the moderator would be on my case rather quickly.

Eric writes:
I expected that what you meant by "work" was the idea from politics that everyone has to be flexible and give something, and that is what you said, right?

I comment:
Nope. Not at all. I believe people have to work with and for one another and for the sake of the Gospel; and I believe that this work will make some of us more flexible than we are right now and some of us more rigid than we are right now.

[David Charlton]

Charles writes:
Nope. Not at all. I believe people have to work with and for one another and for the sake of the Gospel; and I believe that this work will make some of us more flexible than we are right now and some of us more rigid than we are right now.

I respond:
The deeper question is whether we are "working" for the same Gospel.  I believe there are at least two, distinct understandings of the Gospel at work in the ELCA. 

[peter_speckhard]

It seems to me that idea that people have to figure out to get along despite disagreements gives up on the idea that some people will have to change their minds. It is as though the pro-change side won't even consider going back to the traditional viewpoint and is absolutely close-minded on the subject, so the only options remaining are for the traditionalists to change their minds or for the church to simply have two mutually-exclusive teachings on sexual morality.

[Brian Stoffregen]

so the only options remaining are for the traditionalists to change their minds or for the church to simply have two mutually-exclusive teachings on sexual morality.

Or, one can look at it as creating one teaching on sexual morality -- sexual behaviors are to take place within a mutual, chaste, faithful, life-long committed relationship.

[TravisW]

so the only options remaining are for the traditionalists to change their minds or for the church to simply have two mutually-exclusive teachings on sexual morality.

Or, one can look at it as creating one teaching on sexual morality -- sexual behaviors are to take place within a mutual, chaste, faithful, life-long committed relationship.

That doesn't touch the concept that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Essentially, it's still asking the conservative end of the spectrum to move left. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

That doesn't touch the concept that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Essentially, it's still asking the conservative end of the spectrum to move left. 

Are heterosexual sexual behaviors sin?

[MSchimmel]

so the only options remaining are for the traditionalists to change their minds or for the church to simply have two mutually-exclusive teachings on sexual morality.

Or, one can look at it as creating one teaching on sexual morality -- sexual behaviors are to take place within a mutual, chaste, faithful, life-long committed relationship.

Or (demonstrating the gulf between the points of view) rather than creating a new teaching - we can teach the historical morality of the Church throughout the ages that states it is God's will and intention that human sexual expression and fulfillment take place only within the boundaries of marriage between one man and one woman.

[peter_speckhard]

That doesn't touch the concept that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Essentially, it's still asking the conservative end of the spectrum to move left. 

Are heterosexual sexual behaviors sin?

All heterosexual behaviors are engaged in by sinners, but they are not in and of themselves forbidden by God like homosexual behaviors. In other words, I believe that in a perfect, unfallen world there would be heterosexual behaviors but not homosexual behaviors. Homosexual behaviors are always, in every instance, without exception, a degredation of of the true humanity of those involved, quite regardless of whether they enjoy it, consent to it, or any other factors. It is much more akin to the victimless acts of necrophilia or bestiality than it is to heterosexual sex. It cannot be "chaste" if that word has any meaning, and it makes no difference if one is "committed" to committing sin or merely does so on a whim, and there is no theological rationale for requiring only two people that doesn't also apply to them being one male and one female. The simple fact is that a normal marriage of sinner/saint Christians can embody/enact/illustrate the relationship between Christ and His Bride the Church in a way that a homosexual relationship cannot.  

[bmj]

so the only options remaining are for the traditionalists to change their minds or for the church to simply have two mutually-exclusive teachings on sexual morality.

Or, one can look at it as creating one teaching on sexual morality -- sexual behaviors are to take place within a mutual, chaste, faithful, life-long committed relationship.

And in order to create this new "one teaching on sexual morality", what Christians must be convinced and "in unity"?  Those who remain in the ELCA at the time the simple majority is reached at a future CWA?  Those who are in full communion with the ELCA at that time?  The one holy catholic and apostolic church? 

By what justification does one small part of the body create such a bold new teachings so vastly at odds with the rest of the body?  I see this as either an organization being called and led by the Holy Spirit to make bold new changes in Christian teaching, or institutional arrogance and selfishness at a grand scale.  If it is the former, I hope the organization that is being led by the Holy Spirit is ready and willing to lead the rest of the body in that direction.  If it is the latter, I would hope that organization is willing to be obedient and to live, breathe, teach, and embrace God's word with all its heart, no matter how challenging it may be in the year 2007 in Western culture.

I hear many voices here that are in the latter category.  I do not hear many voices here who are boldly proclaiming that God, through the ELCA and some others is prophetically proclaiming a new revealed truth.  For those who support change, why think so small as the ELCA?  Why not make this a required point of agreement in all future ecumenical dialogs?

[TravisW]

That doesn't touch the concept that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Essentially, it's still asking the conservative end of the spectrum to move left. 

Are heterosexual sexual behaviors sin?

In Marriage, no.  The people involved are sinners, but that particular action is not intrinsically sin. 

The difference is; in order to bring any sort of consensus to the issue, people who believe that the act of a person having sex with another of the same gender is sin, must be led to believe that it's only sin in some circumstances.  There's your paradigm shift.  This is the mountain that many, myself included, cannot climb. 

To address BMJ's statement; I definitely agree.  If the Holy Spirit is leading this, why did he wait until secular western culture had already largely accepted the concept of same-sex union before saying "Hey Church, c'mon over here!  Oh, hey homosexuals, sorry for the last couple thousand odd years of oppression.  My bad." 

[Steven Tibbetts]

The Conference of Bishops will need to determine how the assembly action is to be played out, as there is a process to be considered if someone who is gay or lesbian and non-celibate is to be put into the ELCA ministry.

I know it has been several days since this post, Charles, but just what "process to be considered" are you referring to?

PAx, Steven+

[Steven Tibbetts]

After '05, Sarah Hinlicky Wilson (upcoming editor of Lutheran Forum) and Bp. Carol Hendrix, outgoing bishop of the Lower Susquehanna Synod, were invited on, for the appearance of or for the purpose of balance.

Alas, brother Frontz, Pr. Wilson resigned from the Task Force last year.  Not that this, nor the appointment of a replacement, were deemed worthy of an announcement of some sort.  

Pax, Steven+

[Eric_Swensson]

so the only options remaining are for the traditionalists to change their minds or for the church to simply have two mutually-exclusive teachings on sexual morality.

Or, one can look at it as creating one teaching on sexual morality -- sexual behaviors are to take place within a mutual, chaste, faithful, life-long committed relationship.

That doesn't touch the concept that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Essentially, it's still asking the conservative end of the spectrum to move left. 

Travis is right, Brian. Why don't we welcome all these new people? Seems to me that a whole raft of people have joined this discussion since the Chicago assembly began. Too bad so many of the delagates bought into the idea that people's minds change and so sooner or later this will all become the new normal. We are in for a schism. It won't be a clean break, but a long, slow tearing of the fabric.

In the meantime, for all those who won't settle for the new normal, prepare yourselves.

[Charles_Austin]

Yes, the ELCA will have some difficulties with people who have blithely ignored our studies, conversations, ecumenical engagements, synod and churchwide assemblies, for 20 years; people whose pastors have not kept them informed about the broader mission and activity of the church; people who haven't engaged in Bible study since confirmation class, and people who have ignored the wider discussions in church and society (God is at work "out there" too) about a whole host of things. Suddenly they see something - often one thing - that surprises them and say "Where did that come from?"
I know some of those people and have hopes that, with patient prayer, study and counsel, they can catch up. Now I will duck for cover.