A blue-ribbon panel has recommended that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lift its ban on partnered gay and lesbian clergy, but only after the church agrees in principle on gay relationships and agrees to respect the consciences of those who dissent.
A majority of the 15-member Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality believes that “it is possible to devise guidelines and policies that would allow . . . some flexibility” in its ordination standards.
The 4.7-million-member ELCA currently allows gay or lesbian clergy who pledge to be celibate; partnered or sexually active homosexual clergy are technically not allowed in ELCA pulpits, though some buck the rules without punishment.
Well, why not? It’s been such a unity-inducing move and tool for successful evangelism in TEC.
A sad day for the ELCA. Here is a response from the President of the LCMS:
“http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Office of the President/Statement_on_ELCA_Report.pdf”
And one from Rev. Matthew Harrison, Executive Director of LCMS World Relief and Human Care:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=14818
Which contains a great paragraph:
E.L.C.A. — well, it [i]is[/i] in America. I guess one out of four isn’t too bad.
Perhaps it is time for a new church to combine Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist conservatives like the Church of South India
http://www.pwcweb.com/ecw
Obviously this is a bad decision in a lot of ways. But out of charity and honesty, I’d like to note one way it’s far better than what TEC did. The article states:
That’s far superior to what TEC did with creating facts on the ground first. We can also pray that they will remain respectful of dissident opinion, which TEC could have done and did NOT do.
This is a truly sad day. Right after General Convention 2003, an ELCA friend of mine and I had a serious falling out because he insisted I had a moral duty at that time to leave ECUSA, and he suggested the ELCA as a safe haven. I responded that the ELCA was only five years or so behind ECUSA, which he resisted vigorously. The historic Lutheran insistence on Sola Scriptura would make any such aberration impossible. Lutherans wouldn’t stand for it. I receive no pressure from having been correct.
Sorry, that should be “no pleasure,” not “no pressure.” The excitement of having T19 back has no doubt produced spastic typing.
Unfortunately the ELCA gave up a meaningful “Sola Scriptura” a long time ago.
“… and agrees to respect the consciences of those who dissent.”
I’ve become convinced that, once something like this is seen as a justice issue, there is no room for tolerance of “the consciences of those who dissent.” It would be considered the same as tolerating racism.
There are a large number in the ELCA who still insist on a Lutheran understanding of “Sola Scriptura” and have [b]not[/b] “bowed the knee to Baal.” As one who is part of Lutheran CORE, I intend to remain in the ELCA and resist. But I have no illusions about the odds of the revisionists remaining “respectful” of those of us holding orthodox, Confessional Lutheran beliefs. Neuhaus’s law will hold true.
This idea of holding diametrically opposed views of Scripture, and “remaining respectful” is a bunch of garbage. Either God sanctions homosexuality, or He does not. There is no way to stay in the same church body with such opposite views – the heterodox will always win in that situation. You either ask them to leave, or you leave yourself.
[i] This idea of holding diametrically opposed views of Scripture, and “remaining respectful†is a bunch of garbage [/i]
It’s classic revisionist process-talk. In this case it’s also double-talk.
Please be aware this is a suggested change and that the ELCA Churchwide Assembly rejected a similar suggested change in 2005. While there is no quarantee it will be rejected again this year, it is certainly not a “done deal”! Please pray for your brothers and sisters in the ELCA. Valuable commentary on these recommendations (by Carl Braaten and others) is available here:
http://www.lutheranforum.org/