Today, at its national convention in Minneapolis, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to allow individual churches and pastors to bless monogamous, same-gender relationships. It further voted to allow pastors who are in monogamous, same-gender relationships that have been blessed by the church to serve as pastors.
Earlier in the week, the convention adopted, by a 2/3rd majority, a social statement on human sexuality that, among many other things, somewhat liberalized the church's official attitude toward homosexuality.
I heard secondhand that the church also added "gender identity" to its nondiscrimination language, and affirmed its support for LGBT civil rights legislation.
Now, I'm not saying this just because I'm an ELCA-affiliated Lutheran, but I think that advocates for equal rights for LGBT people (especially within the church) need to broadcast this with megaphones, from rooftops, whatever. These decisions bring L, G, B, and T people further into the mainstream of religious life. Differences of opinion will obviously always exist, but no "religious" argument against civil rights or LGBT involvement in Christianity should be allowed to go unchallenged after the ELCA's actions this week.
It was inspiring to me to watch the debate over the resolutions that allowed same-gender blessings and monogamous gay pastors. Cory (can't locate the original posts), among others, seemed to suggest that arguments in favor of the social statement and the resolutions were not based in Scripture, but the debate I watched illustrated something quite different. Advocates of equality for LGBT people argued from Scripture and Lutheran theology as well as from their own consciences and senses of justice and fairness. What does it mean to say that God loves all of us, that we are saved only by His grace, and that we're all sinners, if the church continues to suggest that some sinners (in this instance, non-celibate gays) are worse than others? Opponents of the resolution simply could not come up with arguments that were compelling enough to convince a majority of the voting delegates to join them in voting no. It was something to see.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Here's the link you were looking for:
SD Synod Vote on Sexuality Stement: More than Fairness
My wife and I remain uneasy with the decision, but we're not reading tornados as signs of God's wrath.
I think there's plenty to be uneasy about. People are clearly upset and I hope the ELCA keeps its promise to respect their opinions and works to keep those people in the church (as, by the way, those of us who wholeheartedly supported equality for LGBT people stayed for decades when we were unhappy with church doctrine).
The theological basis of the decision is sound, as I said in the link above, and I believe that even more strongly after watching the opposing sides air their differences on the floor of the ELCA convention.
Did the ECLA, by chance, decide to stop using the Bible as their guide? If so, then it is definitely a big day. As a Christian, I do following the teachings of Christ, which are found in the Bible. Christianity is an all or nothing faith. You can't just pick and choose what you want to belive and piece-mail a religion together. If you choose to do so, you are no longer a Christian, rather a humanist, who has formed his/her own religion. So, if the ECLA decides to ignore the Bible, I guess that is their choice, but they may want to remove any reverence to Christ. There is a enormous difference between accepting sinful, REPENTANT people who are working to be better, and condoning BLGT lifestyle as something that is completely okay.
"Over the years, as society’s beliefs about absolute moral standards have changed concerning abortion and other issues, the laws have changed accordingly. So while the majority might agree on particular standards and laws today, they can be overturned by the next generation. What may appear to be absolute for one generation might not be absolute for another.
Increasingly, people are becoming more tolerant, not only of abortion but also of gay marriage. Given the abortion example above, what is to prevent a majority of society declaring one day that same-sex marriage is permissible? And then what about polygamy, or even pedophilia? Indeed, a shifting morality can be a slippery slope, to the point that one day society might determine that polygamy and sex between adults and children are not wrong—as long as most people believe that they are acceptable. Now, some might object and say that these now-illegal things would never be allowed in America. But who in the 1960s would have believed that America would one day allow abortions and see gay marriages performed?
Without an absolute moral standard, people are free to make up their own morals (and change them as the majority dictates). Should we be surprised when some Western nations will one day allow parents to kill their newborns because there might be a defect in the child? The majority might be lulled into sympathizing with the anguished parent, and also piously thinking something like: “Who wants to have a child go through life in that kind of condition?”"
From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/how-respond-to-gay-marriage
Or, if you are still interested in the Bible, you could always just read: Romans 1:26 (or MANY others)which says:
"For this reason God gave them up to ovile passions. For even their 9women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the 1men, leaving the natural use of the 2woman, burned in their lust for one another, 1men with 1men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
When will the ELCA be renoucing the Bible? That will be an interesting day, too. Bottom line: if you suscribe to Christianity, you might want to follow the teachings of Christ. If not, we live in a free country and few will mock you if you're not a Christian. All these "liberated" women on here always claim to have unwavering opinions; such clear paradoxes make you look like a fool.
Unless you're going to actually address the theological arguments advanced by the ELCA (i.e. actually bother to read anything about this particular news story), I would prefer you stop turding up our blog with your uninformed, homophobic (also long, boring, incoherent) ranting. Nice Christian Attitude, though!
Hi "Kelsy"
Not at all surprised that you come back with no defense and resort to name-calling once again. That's what immature and uneducated people do. You did help prove my point, however, so thank you. You pointed to the "theological debate" on the floor of the ELCA conference and NOT to the Bible. All I'm saying is that if people don't want to follow the teachings of Christ, quit calling themselves Christians. Since you're so good with the names, maybe you can come up with something.
The irony of this site is just too much! You're all about "equality for all" but if I come on and talk about the Bible, the bashing begins!
You are all so mean-spirited, I'm really not sure how you sleep at night. I disagree with most of your views, but would never resort to the nastiness you girls embrace.
You're inability to understand big words like theology (or read other commenters' names) is not really my problem.
I'm not surprised you wouldn't unload your 'nastiness' on us -- you apparently need to save it all up for the gays!
Kelsey,
I'm sorry you're such a sad person.
What can I do -- homophobes, racists, and assorted bigots make me sad.
Hi Kelsey!
I think Summer has a point worth thinking about...
I mean, I think we should love ALL people as Christ loved us; gay, strait, transgender...it doesn't matter. Let's face it, none of us are any better or worse than the other. We all fall short of the glory of God!! Because of the business I'm in, I know a MANY gay people and can honestly say that I love them no less than heterosexuals!! (Maybe I love them even more?)
But here's where I struggle with allowing homosexuals to openly be gay and preach...the Bible is very clear about it's view of homosexuality being against God's desire for us; unfortunately, that would make it a sin. Does that mean we hate the sinner? NO! We are to love the sinner but hate the sin!!
I don't think this issue really is just about being gay...because if a pastor was having sex with someone other than his/her wife (heterosexually), the same principles apply. The pastor should no longer be able to be a pastor, until he repents for what he is doing.
Maybe it's because a person who is in bondage to sin, and does not call it for what it is, is unable to preach truth. And maybe once truth isn't being spoken, then it's really not Christianity. I don't know, just my thoughts.
So I guess my question for you would be why do you believe that it is okay to allow homosexuals, who are openly going against God's will for us and think that's okay, to preach against his Word? Isn't that kinda going against God?
Thanks!
the Bible is very clear about it's view of homosexuality being against God's desire for us
I think you're missing the fundamental point of disagreement here.
Kelsey,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I can see quite clearly what the arguement is.
You believe that people who are homosexual, and don't think it's against God's Word to be homosexual, should be able to be ordained pastors and teach about God's Word.
Summer believes that people who are homosexuals, and are practicing as such, should not be able to be pastors and teach people about God's Word.
I could only imagine how hard it would be to be homosexual, feel unloved, feel outcasted, hated, etc. by the church. It shouldn't be that way. At the same time, truth about God's desires for us still need to be taught, not ignored for fear of hurting someone's feelings.
I read (most) of the ELCA report and I can see where they are coming from...but I believe they are missing the boat.
Yes, the ELCA is right, there is nothing that we humans can do to be saved. It is by Christ's grace alone that we are justified. But that doesn't mean that we are to keep on going on in our sinful ways as Paul talks about in Galatians and Corinthians. We are still called to be sanctified (to become more like Christ). And pastors are to teach others how to be justified and sanctified. But if a homosexual pastor doesn't believe that being homosexual is not against God's desire for us, how can they really be preaching God's truth?
So basically, it really does come down to whether or not one believes that God believes being homosexual is sinful or not.
And that, Kelsey, is where I was asking your opinion...as someone who seems to be knowledgeable in this area. Do you believe that God's desire for us is to be heterosexual and homosexual?
Thanks,
I think anyone who believes that God is concerned with something so petty has a narrow and sad concept of God.
If homosexuality is petty, then why did God mentioned it at in the Bible?
Do you think that means that God has a narrow and sad concept of himself?
opps, I meant at all. :) sorry.
*headdesk* Alright, I think I'm done here. Thanks for stopping by.
Really? You can't comment at all about whether you think God's desire for us is to be homosexual as well as heterosexual?
Huh, well, okay. Take care then!
Lori -- Wow. You said it so perfectly! Thank you for explaining this so well. After Kelsy ran out of nasty names, she knew you were right and had nothing left to say.
Lori and Summer,
I would guess that Kelsey just doesn't want to bother entertaining trolls such as yourselves.
Zhuge Liang XLII for the win! :)
Ladies,
I completely respect that you have a different point of view than Summer and I. That's okay. Just because we don't agree with each other, does that really mean we need to get nasty? I've read quite a bit from this site and sometimes agree with what is being said, and sometimes I don't.
What I find disheartening is that you are a feminist blog, and a political blog. That's great! We need women to speak out politically! But isn't the point of a feminist, political blog to get your point of view out there and try to persuade people of your opinions? What other function would such a blog have if it's sole purpose was to just entertain like-minded people? If you are trying to get people to change their opinions, which you could do be debating with people, why don't you do it? Many times I've read people trying to debate a point with you, but you don't debate back...instead you resort to name calling and insults. Do you really think that is helping your cause?
Don't be afraid to debate. You never know who's mind you may change!
Ladies,
I completely respect that you have a different point of view than Summer and I. That's okay. Just because we don't agree with each other, does that really mean we need to get nasty? I've read quite a bit from this site and sometimes agree with what is being said, and sometimes I don't.
What I find disheartening is that you are a feminist blog, and a political blog. That's great! We need women to speak out politically! But isn't the point of a feminist, political blog to get your point of view out there and try to persuade people of your opinions? What other function would such a blog have if it's sole purpose was to just entertain like-minded people? If you are trying to get people to change their opinions, which you could do be debating with people, why don't you do it? Many times I've read people trying to debate a point with you, but you don't debate back...instead you resort to name calling and insults. Do you really think that is helping your cause?
Don't be afraid to debate. You never know who's mind you may change!
Man, sorry I just sent that twice...my computer's being a pain. :}
Lori -- What you said is worth saying twice! I think what you and I have done is called, "taking the high road."
And again, I point out that the blog authors stand for equal treatment of all indivuals, unless you quote the Bible. Then it's a free for all with the name calling, mud slinging and prejudice.
And yet, neither of you have provided any indication that you know or understand the ELCA's position on gay clergy. So "debating" you is pointless.
Anna,
Thanks for your reply. I have read most of the ELCA's position. Maybe I misinterpreted their position, but aren't they saying that a person is saved by grace alone, not actions, and so being homosexual should have nothing do do with whether or not someone can be a pastor? Maybe I misread it, and if so, could you please clarify it for me? I know the ELCA also spoke of the importance of trust within a relationship, etc, but I didn't understand how that relates to the whole picture. Is that what you are referring too?
Thanks,
Post a Comment