Staying with the ELCA

[Lutheranteach]

Almost right. I did some searching and folks from CORE and some who weren’t involved with CORE are forming the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). CORE and the NALC are going to work together as an alternative for disaffected ELCA members.

Gods’ peace, Oldtimer, as you have a tough road ahead of you.

I’ve no idea where either group is going to get its clergy.

 

[Contarini]

To apply this to what you wrote above, Luther in fact tried to reform the Roman Church, true. Ask yourself this question, how likely is it that there were some in the RCC during Luthers time who stayed thinking that the RCC would reform itself?

Indeed–my alias Cardinal Contarini for instance. And quite right they were too.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

To me, it is hard to condemn a behavior which is hard-wired into some individual’s genetic/biochemical makeup. If it leads to crimes, maybe. But consenting homosexual behavior amongst adults isn’t criminal, and shouldn’t be, as, among other things, such a law can’t be enforced.

This is a rather muddled argument, for the following reasons:

1. Do you really think that only criminal behavior is morally wrong?
2. If there is immoral behavior that is not criminal, and if criminal behavior that is hardwired is still morally wrong (which you admit as a possibility–why only a possibility? isn’t it obvious that if someone is hardwired to commit rape, say, rape is still wrong?), then why rule out the possibility that some “hardwired” non-criminal behavior may be immoral? For instance, suppose someone is “hardwired” to be a pathological liar. Is this only wrong if they commit perjury or default on a contract?
3. I’m not sure what you mean by saying that a law against consensual homosexual behavior “can’t be enforced.” If you mean that the behavior in question can’t be wiped out by such a law, then I question whether any law is enforceable. After all, lots of criminal behaviors go on all the time–should stop passing laws against them? Laws against homosexual behavior certainly do have an effect. That doesn’t make them good laws–but your argument is a bad one.
4. When you say “condemn,” you don’t make it clear if you are talking about the ascription of guilt or simply disapproval of the behavior. If someone is genuinely “hardwired” in such a way that they have no free will (something I believe to be quite rare), then they are indeed not responsible for what they do. But that doesn’t mean that we approve of or legitimize the action.
5. Finally, you seem to have confused being truly “hardwired” (in such a way that one’s actions are determined) with simply having a predisposition toward a certain kind of action. Clearly gay people are “hardwired” only in the second, weaker sense. Gay people, just like heterosexuals, can choose to abstain from sexual activity, though this is extremely difficult. And gay people can in fact engage in heterosexual behavior, though in some cases this may be difficult and disgusting for them.

Many social behaviors in the Old Testament was condemned and others approved–women had to prove they were raped, or they were stoned to death

Not exactly. According to the written Torah, betrothed women were assumed to have been raped if the act happened in the field, and to have consented if it happened in the city. They didn’t have any requirement–or opportunity–to prove anything. Following the literal text, it would appear that married women were stoned no matter what (presumably because married women didn’t normally wander off on their own, so it’s assumed that they wouldn’t let themselves be in a position where they could be raped). Unmarried women were not stoned for sexual misbehavior unless they deceptively entered into a marriage with another man while pretending to be virgins.

slavery and concubinage, of course, were approved

Slavery was “approved” in the case of foreigners, yes.

mutilation of corpses was acceptable. Rape wasn’t even mentioned and I’m sure, condoned or ignored–especially rape of non-believers.

I’m rather baffled by this. You correctly indicated earlier that rape was discussed, though you got your details wrong. However, you’re right inasmuch as rape only seems to have been considered an important legal factor in the case of betrothed women.

I’m not sure what you mean by “rape of nonbelievers” being condoned or ignored, unless you’re talking about the enslavement of non-Hebrew women. It’s true that Hebrew men were allowed to take such women as concubines, though there were some regulations to protect these women–the captor had to give them a mourning period first, and could not subsequently sell them.

At any rate, if your point is that we can’t simply take over OT sexual morality as the standard for Christians, then I thoroughly disagree with it. The case against homosexuality does not depend on Leviticus, although unfortunately many conservatives go there first.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think the poster was trying to say there is a difference between the actions two adults undertake willingly, with love, and total consent with one another and the predatory behavior of others although both behaviors may have some underlying genetic cause.

Right, but the fact that some clearly evil behavior may have a biological cause is enough to disprove the claim “because this behavior has a biological cause, it is not evil.”

What 1234 and others who take this position really seem to be arguing is

“If a behavior has a biological cause, it should not be considered wrong unless it obviously harms people.”

But then, why not put it that way? The hidden premise seems to be

“A behavior is only really wrong if it obviously harms other people.” That’s the real point on which the debate turns (and, of course, “harm” is being defined in terms of violence or fraud–there is a further assumption that consensual behavior can’t be said to be harmful). The question of whether the behavior is somehow “hardwired” (in the sense that the person has a predisposition to it based on genetics or brain chemistry or whatever) is at most a secondary factor, as the example of predatory, criminal “hardwired” behavior shows.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well then the term “Lutheran” is meaningless. You have to add, LCMS, ELCA, etc. onto your denomination.

No, it’s not meaningless just because it requires further clarification.

ELCA and LCMS/WELS are completely incompatible.

Depends what you mean by that. As someone else pointed out, there are individual ELCA pastors who may hold basically the same beliefs as individual LCMS pastors.

I wonder how these compare with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany.

The EKD (which is a coalition of regional churches, some of them historically Lutheran, some Reformed, some mixed) generally corresponds more closely to the ELCA. But the situation is not quite the same. Because the church retains some ties to the state in Germany, it is the “default option” in a way that no American church is (the same is true of the C of E compared to the Episcopal Church, or the Church of Scotland compared to PCUSA). So a confessional Lutheran would be more likely to stay in the national church than in America. While I was doing dissertation research in Germany, I attended a confessional Lutheran church that was part of the EKD (though making it clear that they dissented from much of what was going on). They occupied a beautiful medieval church building, which of course they would have had to abandon if they had left. Schism is just much easier and much more attractive in the American context than in the European.

Edwin

 

[qui_est_ce]

The EKD (which is a coalition of regional churches, some of them historically Lutheran, some Reformed, some mixed) generally corresponds more closely to the ELCA. But the situation is not quite the same. Because the church retains some ties to the state in Germany, it is the “default option” in a way that no American church is (the same is true of the C of E compared to the Episcopal Church, or the Church of Scotland compared to PCUSA). So a confessional Lutheran would be more likely to stay in the national church than in America. While I was doing dissertation research in Germany, I attended a confessional Lutheran church that was part of the EKD (though making it clear that they dissented from much of what was going on). They occupied a beautiful medieval church building, which of course they would have had to abandon if they had left. Schism is just much easier and much more attractive in the American context than in the European.

Edwin

Thanks for your reply, Edwin.

My only experience with the EKD is in a little town, Blankeneses, which is a suburb of Hamburg. The entire service was like a Catholic mass, except for the Consecration. There were candles, and they even sang a a song in English, “'Tis a Gift to be Simple.” I wondered if the ritual was specific to that parish, or if it was the norm.

 

[Contarini]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

From my perspective, it makes no sense whatsoever to remain in communion with someone who teaches contrary to what my church teaches. It’s pure relativism and it’s this same relativism that is leading to the breakdown of our society.

The word “relativism” has been ridiculously overused. Saying that not all differences need to be church-dividing–and in particular that individuals ought not to break communion with their churches over every single doctrinal difference–is not relativism.

The whole “you do what’s ‘right’ for you and I’ll do what’s ‘right’ for me and we’ll be happy together” nonsense

But that has nothing to do with why I remain Episcopalian, and I would not assume that it has anything to do with why Lutherans remain the ELCA.

The ones that actually stand for something become Roman Catholic or Orthodox.

No, the ones who stand for the particular things stood for by those estimable Communions do this!

Today it is the ordination of practicing homosexuals and women, tomorrow they will be denying more Christian truths. How long before the ELCA or any other Lutheran sect starts denying the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or other “essentials?”

This “slippery slope” argument is just plain strange in light of the history of the past couple of years. There have been people in all the major Protestant traditions denying these essentials for several hundred years now. Where do you (and others) get the idea that people start out by ordaining women and legitimizing homosexual relationships and then “move on” to denying the Virgin Birth? What is this assumption based on? That doesn’t seem to be how it works at all. For the past several centuries there have been heretics in Protestant churches who denied these essential doctrines, and there have been a much larger group of people who watered down historic Christian teaching to fit the cultural patterns of their day. Nothing has changed–it’s just that the cultural patterns have changed.

There are portions of the ECUSA have clergy that are “bi-religious” (claiming to practice Christianity with another religion and it is in full harmony with their Christianity) without any uproar from the wider denomination–at least that I have seen.

I can think of three such instances, all of which did provoke an uproar and led to negative consequences for the clergy in question.
The two clergy who appeared to be practicing some form of Neo-Paganism were disciplined by their bishop, and I believe have now left the Episcopal Church.
The “Muslim priest” has been defrocked by her canonical bishop (the bishop on the West Coast in whose jurisdiction she was serving did not have a problem with her being a Muslim, but her bishop back East did).
Fr. Thew Forrester was not confirmed as bishop of Northern Michigan precisely because some of his doctrines were more in keeping with Zen Buddhism than with Chrsitianity.

The question of being “bireligious” has to be dealt with on a case by case basis, because there is no univocal category called “religion.” In each case, one has to ask what doctrine the clergyperson in question is denying. I’m open to the possibility that one could practice Zen Buddhism and be an orthodox Christian, but it turned out that Fr. Forrester was not an orthodox Christian. That being said, there was an outcry simply because of his identification as a Buddhist (though I thought that was mistaken and premature), before the specifics of his views became known.

So you are misinformed, and frankly I am suspicious as to why you are better informed of the fact that some Episcopal clergy have identified themselves with other religions than of the fact that this has generally had bad consequences for their standing in the Episcopal Church.

That being said, I believe that everything true and good comes from God, and Christians need to be open to everything true and good wherever it is found.

Edwin