The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America in convention went for the trifecta in affirming homosexuality. The liberal Lutherans ruled that homosexual sex is moral, allowed churches to bless gay unions, and allowed non-celibate gays to be pastors. In each case, the approval applies only to “monogamous” relationships. The new policy does not address gay marriage as such. The only church body that does affirm gay marriage is the United Church of Christ. Still, the news service Reuters, linked above, says that the ELCA now has one of the most liberal policies about homosexuality of any other American church body.
FURTHER THOUGHTS: But “monogamous” means married to one person! In setting up this standard, the ELCA is surely advocating de facto gay marriage.
The ELCA convention church smitten by a twister as the delegates were approving homosexuality.
HT: Rose
{ 1 trackback }
{ 91 comments… read them below or add one }
There’s a photo of the Central Church in Minneapolis midway down this page:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11043.
In response to the E_?A decision Rev. Henrickson has written some lyrics for a song, “E.L.C.A.”, which can be sung to the tune of “Y.M.C.A.”
If Lucas Cranach were still around he’d probably make a woodcut (as he did for Martin Luther) with some scatological depiction of the final vote.
WELS President Mark Schroeder has responded with a statement on the web-site:
You can find it at this web-site -
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=1651&contentID=95806&shortcutID=31623
With all due respect Dr. Veith, I don’t believe it matters that it applies only to monogamous relationships. While the Church accepts sinners of every type and has compassion for those who struggle with temptation, it is a dark day when the church declares good what God has called evil.
This is a total disaster. My more confessionally oriented friends in the ELCA are trying to figure out what to do. All I can do is pray for them.
Jack (#5), Congregations considering leaving ELCA have organized into Lutheran CORE which will meet in Indianapolis in September. Also into LCMC, Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ with offices in Canton, Mi. Finally, the LCMS English District, which is nongeographic, can be contacted. Contact Bishop Stechholz in Farmington, Mi.
Doesn’t appear that the “confessionals” within the ELCA will do anything. After all, what have they done? Individual pastors who to this point have not left (abandon) their congregations are to be thought well of, but what does that matter in the grand scheme of things? The pastors and laity has been trained for years to accept much that is non-christian, they will not join the more conservative/confessonal synods.
And will anyone from the LCMS hierarchy say or do anything other than issueing a short statement of concern???
In #1, the photo of the inverted cross seems to be a distress signal.
Rose, do you know how “confessional” these dissident and potential break-away ELCA groups are? For example, will they still ordain women?
Here’s what President Kieschnick said in his address to the E_CA convention about their decision on homosexuality [Note: the words were all capitalized by the convention video feed]:
“I SPEAK THESE NEXT WORDS IN DEEP HUMILITY WITH A HEAVY HEART AND NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER TO OFFEND.
“THE DECISIONS BY THIS ASSEMBLY TO GRANT NON-CELIBATE HOMOSEXUAL MINISTERS THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING AS ROSTERED LEADERS IN THE ELCA AND THE AFFIRMATION OF SAME-GENDER UNIONS AS PLEASING TO GOD WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CAUSE ADDITIONAL STRESS AND DISHARMONY WITHIN THE ELCA.
“IT WILL ALSO NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OUR TWO CHURCH BODIES. THE CURRENT DIVISION BETWEEN OUR CHURCHES THREATENS TO BECOME A CHASM.
“THIS GRIEVES MY HEART AND THE HEARTS OF ALL IN THE ELCA, THE LCMS AND OTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCH BODIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WHO DO NOT SEE THESE DECISIONS AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE WORD OF GOD OR IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONSENSUS OF 2,000 YEARS OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL AFFIRMATION REGARDING WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES ABOUT HUMAN SEXUALITY.
“SIMPLY STATED, THIS MATTER IS FUNDAMENTALLY RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN HOW WE UNDERSTAND THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AND THE INTERPRETATION OF GOD’S REVEALED AND INFALLIBLE WORD.”
Yes, as a former ELCA pastor, I saw this happening slowly but surely over the last 10 years. It is a long story but a very sad and tragic story. The church I pastored as late as 2003 will be leaving the ELCA as well as countless others. I’m grieved yet excited to be in a new leadership journey within the LC-MS…the only trouble is that the Lutheran Brand has been permanently damaged…now we’ll have to see whether the LC-MS has to change its name for the sake of “distance” and distinction.
Dr. Robin Dugall
Dr. Veith (#9): LCMC churches have ordained women in their ranks which would be a stumblingblock. Chaplaincies might be an option. As to the confessional status, I’m not entirely sure. A good contact would be Dr. Jerry Yarnell, senior pastor at St Michael’s in Canton, Mi. and a founder of LCMC. The LCMC administrative headquarters are housed at St. Michael’s. See http://www.lcmc.net.
Pastor Bill Sullivan is the LCMC Service Coordinator. He has been in touch with Bishop Stechholz, I believe.
On another topic, I believe it will become necessary for LCMS to dissociate itself from Thrivent and Lutheran World Relief. Already there is a student from the Union Theological Seminary on the LWR board. I have written to Pastor Matthew Harrison, head of LCMS World Relief, to ask him to dissociate from LWR.
LCMS President Kieschnick’s Address to ELCA Churchwide Assembly, August 22, 2009 is now posted on the LCMS website.
“…the only trouble is that the Lutheran Brand has been permanently damaged…”
The “L” in “ELCA” stands for “Lufauxran”, or “Liberal” or “Laodicean” or “Lying”… but not for a long time, even in the remotest sense, “Lutheran.”
But, in the minds of ALL, LUTHERAN IS what it’s stood for and that’s the rub. I have read 3 articles on this homosexuality situation and NONE (including the cover of the LA Times) even mentioned the LCMS…NOTHING. There IS no balance…nothing about how “Missouri Synod does not follow this thinking…” It’s sort of like politics, I guess, the mainstream media’s agenda’s too strong to allow the truth to shine through.
And yes, my Pastor told me 3 years ago there was talk that if the churches separated the ELCA would carry the LUTHERAN in it….I’m sure Martin Luther would be just THRILLED about that, huh?
As an aside, our church is having troubles and the Lutheran ‘bigwigs’ in our area have done next to nothing about helping the congregation deal with it; I wonder less after our situation and the ELCA situation about why the Lutheran church is shrinking so badly…just had to mention that.
By the way, a twister knocked the cross down during the ELCA meetings? Is that RIGHT? WOW!
LCMS needs to write up and distribute its statement of beliefs and the differences from ELCA.
Good point, Rose..but they probably won’t.
I so love everything about the Lutheran church except I don’t see much outreach and I don’t see any help when a congregation calls for it; But, I digress.
GOOD idea…I hope someone does do that. And, I wish we had a media curious enough to really delve into all the aspects of every story.
It is, Z. See the first comment by Rose and click the link for details.
Thanks, Mr. Veith, I really appreciate your pointing that out to me… I think that’s magnificent! I told a friend on the phone just now and she said “Well, it looks like GOD VOTED!”
I’m enjoying your site.
the LCMS is equally culpable in this because they have no clear and biblical message on homosexuality .
The only sin here is sex outside the bounds of male/female marriage. there is nothing sinful, inherently or otherwise, about being homosexual AND celebate/chaste.
The LCMS has done a very very poor job of asserting this biblical position.
The LCMS has had a silent policy for some time of quietly allowing celibate gay pastors to continue to serve as pastors as long as their homosexuality does not become a public matter. I say : let there be truth and light and let it be a public matter and let those LCMS celibate pastors be an active witness against the error now threatening the ELCA.
BTW there is no such thing as “homosexual sex”
what would that be defined as?
ANY sex a homosexual would have, including sex with a female? OR any same gender sex, even when done by a heterosexual (as in prison sex)?
there is simply human sex. and any of that that happens outside of marriage the scripture says is wrong. No need to even mention homosexuality to proclaim this complete truth about sexual morality. is there?
the ELCA seems totally unteathered to holy scripture now. It is up to the LCMS to reach out to gays and lesbians now with the clear message of forgiveness in christ, and with a clear message of EXACTLY what is immoral as opposed to a blanket reference to homosexuality as being sinful for some reason beyond the sin of sex outside of marriage when that happens. I repeat, there is nothing sinful inherently or otherwise about being celebate and gay. nothing. prove this wrong from holy scriptures someone.
There is an interesting blog post at GetReligion regarding the varying definitions of “monogamous” within the Christian gay community. See it here: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=16757
Briefly, since the term is not consistently understood, it ends up being rendered meaningless.
FW @24 “I repeat, there is nothing sinful inherently or otherwise about being celebate and gay. nothing. prove this wrong from holy scriptures someone.”
I am an alcoholic. . . but I’ve been “dry” for nearly 10 years. Would you say that there is now nothing sinful about my condition/disease/affliction? I view it as an indication of my brokenness, my need for a Savior just as any state or condition apart from God’s intention for my life is sin-full. It is something I expect to be freed of at the Resurrection.
I guess I’m looking for your definition of gay – physical attraction to the same sex? Or no attraction to the opposite sex? Or am I missing something? I understand that celebacy for a gay man is a gift just as I see my own sobriety as the power of the Holy Spirit overcoming my sinful self; i.e., how I would be in this particular regard without the Spirit’s power.
I agree that there is no sin of commission in “being” an alcoholic unless I lose control. But isn’t my addiction an “inherited” sin or the result of original sin?
FW: as to proving this from Scripture, I would think of St. Paul’s unknown affliction for which God said His grace was sufficient for him.
Upon further thought, I also view this as evidence of my own iniquity – that is, the guilt I bear because of my “sinful nature.”
I keep thinking of more – trying to anticipate your response: I also expect that I will agree with you that the very same thing concerning iniquity and our sinful nature can be said for heterosexuals. However, even though it can be said about both heterosexuals and homosexuals does not mean that the two cancel each other out: both form of iniquity are “sinful” I would say. Perhaps that’s what you mean by saying that it isn’t spoken particularly to homosexuals. Ah, but it is . . . and it is also spoken particularly to heterosexuals; would you agree?
More Scripture: Jesus said (I paraphrase) “If you so much as look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have already committed adultery.” I would extend this to include the lust which a homosexual would feel — whether or not he acts upon it.
If I’m proving your point, then terrific. However, there is a way in which a heterosexual can enjoy sex without sin. But there is no way that a homosexual can do so; am I correct in this assumption?
Okay, so Bob isn’t my real name. Perhaps the LCMS has an unspoken “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for sober alcoholics as it does for celebate homosexuals? I’m not trying to be funny or insulting. I do think that we have not done enough to truly confess our sins and our sinfulness to one another. As a result, we probably foster a twisted culture of all of us being better than others. “I thank you, O God, that I am not like other men. . . . ” and all that.
Belonged to an LCA which became an ELCA –Loved it there – but knew that things were going to spiral downward when they affiliated w/ the WCC —an et al…
When the leadership started bringing in homosexuals to the Sunday School to teach tolerance-I knew that we had to leave-I did not want my six year old to be subjected to that …and that was 20 years ago….
We found an LCMS Church–
BTW-NKBKJ = No King But King Jesus-motto of the Revolution…
Hope you gave Mike Farris my good wishes….
C-CS
Bob, I don’t know what you’re trying to say…are LUtherans who don’t celebrate sinful behavior to be chided for it? I hate to over simplify but I’d like to know. And why would we consider ourselves ‘better than others’ when our hearts bleed for those with heavy afflications? Or is not celebrating them by allowing them to go against Scriptural admonition hateful to you? I am not challenging, I find your comments thought provoking and wonder how you’d handle it were you the LCMS, for example.
Christian Soldier…fancy running into you here!!
This is quite a dangerous decision. Allowing homosexuals to serve as clergy will confuse a lot of people.
Z:
“Celebrate” sinful behavior? Never! But the Law must have it’s day which leads to repentance: sorrow over sin. Do our children know that we have sorrow over our own sins when we don’t let on that we sin? “Chief of sinners though I be.” Does the Preacher apply the Law to me but not to himself? Does he speak of the sweatness of the Gospel as God’s undeserved gift by his own admission of guilt? Does he lead us in the confession of sins only because he is leading the liturgy, or does he confess his own sins even as I am confessing mine?
I am not at all suggesting that we should parade our sins before men so that God’s grace may abound. Never! But letting it be known, when the time calls for it, that we too have felt the hammer of God only to be revived by the Gospel of Jesus Christ can lend a whole lot of weight to our message. This need not even be stated openly, but can be seen in the parent or pastor who confesses general sins or the Creed with sincerity rather than monotony.
BTW: Where did you come up with the word “hateful” in regard to my comments? Not my word or my idea. You made that part up.
fws,
I appreciate your honesty and tenacity!!! Your words always point me to Christ crucified! And remind me of what I am because of him!
I do wish the Church was more honest about our struggle against particular sins. Then we might not feel so alone and beaten down by the enemy but rather sure of who we are and will be in Christ, knowing that our fellow brothers and sisters struggle just like us!
Z,
Who is not letting on to their Children that they sin? The Christians I know are quite honest about being sinners, if not by obvious sinful behavior during the week, by the fact that on Sunday they confess to being sinners, and not only in the confession of sins, but also by the fact that they approach the Altar seeking the forgiveness of sins to be found there in the Body and Blood of Christ. Why would they need forgiveness if they were not sinners?
Now, I might agree that the Gay Rights agenda, and the issue of Homosexuality, does become a whipping boy of an issue at times. And in some circles you might even get the notion that that is the only sin. But condoning, and indeed celebrating, sinful behavior is not the answer to that particular problem.
Personally, I don’t know that I would ever have much to say about the subject publicly, if there wasn’t such a public push for “acceptance” and so forth. My congregation has among them enough sins to deal with, without focusing on those outside the church. But it is an issue that effects them. So I do have to address it.
We in The LCMS are not trying to indicate that we are not sinners also. But just because we are all in the same boat so to speak, (We are all sinners,) does not mean we should be turning a blind eye, or condoning anothers sin. I don’t want people ignoring my sin, I want them to point it out and bring me to repentance. That is the loving thing to do. I want to be forgiven, it is so much better than being excused.
Bob, I didn’t say you are being hateful, it’s just a general question….my position is it can’t be in hate that we at LCMS don’t have openly gay clergy…it’s done because the Scripture advises it’s something we ought not do, not to ‘celebrate’ or honor it in this way.
WE ALL have sins and only through Christ are we forgiven…We can “let our sins be known” (though I think that’s sometimes highly overrated) but I’m ONLY talking about gay clergy here! Since he’s openly gay, for example, do we have him as a pastor only because his ’sins are known’ if it’s against Scripture?…sole;y (should I say SOULY!!? heh!) because it’s known?
Bror, I don’t know where I suggested anything close to your first sentence..? You bring up a good point…Because there’s a “push” in society about this topic is that why ELCA voted like this? To go against Scripture because of the public’s ‘push’?
The sin of homosexuality, by the Grace of God, is not my sin, but we ALL have sin! All I’m trying to say here is I don’t think it’s right to have gay pastors who are non celibate in the pulpit! And I pray to God they’re forgiven their sins through their repentence.
I’m sorry if I’ve bred confusion….the responses are making me see I’m not being too clear. Sorry.
Bror,
“My congregation has among them enough sins to deal with, without focusing on those outside the church.”
Did you mean that this particular sin (men acting sexually with men or women acting sexually with women) isn’t a sin INSIDE the church?
Van, your previous point about “I do wish the Church was more honest about our struggle against particular sins” is an interesting one relative to the ELCA decision.
It’s quite clear to me that ELCA does not regard homosexuality as a sin or, as I said earlier, they ‘celebrate’ the sin by honoring the sinner with pastorship…….maybe this is the point I’m stuck on when I suggest I’m breeding confusion?
We should welcome all sinners to any church.
It’s pastorship of open sinners I question.
Would ELCA hire a falling-down drunk or heterosexual philanderer as the Shepherd of their flock?
This is in Rose’s link (above) about the cross knocked from the steeple while the ELCA was voting the way they did. I thought it applied to our discussion here:
2. The church has always embraced those who forsake sexual sin but who still struggle with homosexual desires, rejoicing with them that all our fallen, sinful, disordered lives (all of us, no exceptions) are forgiven if we turn to Christ in faith. Such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)
Z,
I don’t agree with the ECLA’s decision AT ALL.
I was commenting to FWS’s #22 comment. Please read again.
I agree with him that if gay CELIBATE LCMS pastors were honest about who they are then we would be a healthier church. The same would be true if DRY alchoholic pastors were honest about being alchoholic.
Van, thanks…I agree to a point. I like the concept VERY much. It would be a ‘healthier church’, perhaps…. but would it be a healthier and reassuring church for parents with confirmation age children who might meet alone with their pastor for instruction? I’d feel safer with a married pastor meeting with my children, but maybe that’s just me.
I am a bible study leader and we have a children’s department; even in that situation we must have two women take the children to the toilet..just in case one woman suddenly feels the need to molest one of them!! I guess you can never be too safe, or TOO utterly ridiculous~!?
FWS,
Tell me, friend, if I have this right.
A man can be gay and because he knows he is forbidden to have sexual relations outside of a male/female MARRIAGE he does not act on his homosexuality.
This is a VERY DIFFERENT situation than that described in Veith’s above post.
I understand your concern, Z, about being more comfortable with your children meeting alone with a married pastor. I really do.
BUT, be honest!!!
You think that because a Pastor is married to a woman means that your children are safe with him??? Can he not be a pedofile?
Unfortunately, we live in a society where sexual sin is rampant.
Yes, and I’d written exactly that and then deleted it…who can know for sure? You can’t trust ANYBODY but you don’t have to ASK for trouble, you see what I mean?
I guess I’ll just leave it with my truth that I don’t approve of the ELCA decision and, at least, the provision says this:
The resolution that won approval gives local Lutheran leaders “structured flexibility” to make decisions but does not require congregations to pick candidates they do not want.
Dear brother bob: you are a great guy.
here is my answer. bear with me here.
there are labels that are behavioral. they ONLY have meaning when connected to a behavioral issue. (eg: alcoholic, liar, gossip,etc).
There are labels that are “ontological” meaning that the label is absolutely true independent of any behavior. (eg white man, black man. heterosexual. albino, and you guessed it… homosexual.)
I am a homosexual whether I have sex or not. I was a homosexual before I could have sex and acted as a homosexual in thought word and deed before I could have sex or had sexual thoughts. All THOSE prepuberty characteristics are what I identify as being “Gay”.
further. I am celebate AND impotent. no sex drive. no sin of sexual thoughts. I am still gay gay gay. homo homo homo. my sexuality is not sinful per se or categoricaly or intrinsically. prove me wrong from holy scripture and not from speculation as to whether my condition is of the fall or not…..
yes I AM a sinner . Yes the entire bible applies to me AS a sinner and as a human being. No There is not a single passage that applies to me specifically as a homosexual.
the word homosexual did not even exist prior to around 1900. the modern clinical concept of homosexuality as an “identity” or even for you diehards as “pathology” is only about 60 years old or so. so the idea that the bible speaks to homosexuality is pretty obviously a very very modern and recent overlay isn´t it. it is not a traditional understanding. The bible does not have a single word that directly addresses what is understood as homosexuality. none. zip. I hasten to add that it DOES speak to me AS A SINNER and as human being.
The passage used as referring to homo sex acts describe a form of sex that would be utterly repugnant and abhorent to any homosexual. as in “yuck! I find that sex repulsive!” that means something does it not?
I would not speculate whether being gay is part of the fall or not. when Jesus was asked if being blind was the sin of the parents or the blind man, he said neither, it was so that God would be glorified. Ergo, I would not say blindness is part of the fall. maybe our blindness to seeing a blind man as without defect IS part of the fall. interesting thing to speculate on. but the scripture does not invite us to speculate thusly bob.
Brother Bob: thank you very much for your thoughtful responses.
I repeat: sex outside of marriage, as christians understand marriage, is forbidden by scripture. gays cannot (and should not get married to a female)get married and so cannot have sex. true.
ok. I also repeat:being gay is in no way sinful. sex outside of marriage (man/woman) IS always sinful.
so a CLEAR and BIBLICAL response of the LCMS would be to say homosexuality is not a sin. to encourage honesty on the part of LCMS gay clergy actively. Dont ask dont tell is dishonesty. it is a sin! those who participate in that sin do the church at large no favor at all!
the LCMS is as complicit as the ELCA in this whole mess I am saying by their duplicity here!
by the way. every human can and does have ontological AND behavioral labels….
fws, you address yourself to bob, but I’m fascinated by the subject and wonder why you would consider homosexuality not in the Bible?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
and why would you consider the following as “repugnant”?
Leviticus 18:22 (New International Version)
22 ” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Trust me, if you’re a gay man you know all of this and I don’t in any way mean to insult your obvious intelligence!, but I haven’t ever heard any man who’s homosexual consider lying with a man repugnant. How’s that not reference to homosexuality?
I admire your honesty and many of your opinions, but this part of your comment got me curious. Thanks.
fws, out of curiosity, if you are “impotent” with “no sex drive,” then how can you call yourself homosexual? Is it just a preference, in which case you can’t call yourself “ontologically” homosexual? Not to be crude, but if you have desires neither for males nor females, shouldn’t you be termed asexual (not in the anatomical sense, obviously)?
Ultimately, I don’t find the use of the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” to be useful in this case. Quite simply, man is a sexual being, and he is heterosexual in that he is created with the ontological status of either male or female. As such (and as is the case elsewhere in nature), he is intended/designed to have sexual relations exclusively with members of the opposite sex, as is demonstrated anatomically, whether he actually has sex with members of the opposite sex, the same sex, animals, or nonliving objects or is possessed by mere sexual desires towards a category of humans different than the opposite gender. Homosexuality, on the other hand, (perhaps contrary to the popular orthodoxy?) is a completely behavioral issue; the fact that one is born with homosexual desires that cannot be voluntarily changed (and I grant that this is the truth) does not change one’s ontological status as a male or female member of the human race who is biologically and ethically designed to copulate only with members of the opposite gender. In other words, homosexuality does, in fact, fall into the same category as alcoholism, pedophilia, hoarding, and any number of other behavioral deficiencies or aberrations which may be both congenital and deeply rooted in one’s psyche, shaping the very way in which one approaches the world and his place in it. They are still behavioral. You do not have ontological status in the universe as a “homosexual,” only as a human being and thus intrinsically heterosexual being, even if your desires, whether involuntarily or no, are oriented another direction: that is a deficiency, not a presence, i.e. ontologically positive being. As Augustine made abundantly clear from Scripture, sinful desires or actions do not contribute to our ontological substance and properties, but rather detract from them. Homosexuality, like all other sinful dispositions, is a perversion and subtraction from our intended being.
In short, I am highly skeptical towards your particular usage of “behavioral” and “ontological,” and your consequent attempt to explain, justify, or otherwise normalize your alleged homosexuality.
Van,
I did not mean to imply that homosexual behavior is not a sin that members of the church do not deal with. However, it is not a temptation that I am very aware of among the members of my small congregation. And very often it is not dealt with as a sin that plagues the members of any congregation even if there may be a couple in the congregation dealing with the sin, but as a sin that those people out there do.
fws:
We have talked about this before, and I know I may be being obtuse, but I too could use a little clarification.
You have frequently said that you ARE gay in an ontological sense. And by this I gather that you mean that there is some intrinsic component of your nature that makes you “gay”, but this component is in no way able to be separated from your nature as a whole. ok…I think I get that.
But I have to join Cincinnatus in struggling with the idea of how someone with no sex drive at all, or a child with no sexual thoughts or inclinations, can be considered “gay”. I search my memory for our previous conversations. And I really don’t want to put words in your mouth. But based on what we have discussed in the past, I think you would say that someone who has never had sex with someone of the same gender can be considerd “gay” purely on the basis of his ontological sexual nature. Whereas someone who, for example in a prison setting, actually DOES have sex with other members of the same gender can be considered “not gay”.
I also observe (I grant you, from the outside) that a great many (perhaps the majority of) people who are sexually attracted to their own sex are sufficiently attracted to the opposite sex to engage in sexual activity with (and even be married to) their opposites. This causes many to take the position that there is at least some element of choice involved. I mean, if it is possible to have sex with both, why would it be wrong to suggest that a person choose to have sex only with his/her opposite, and in a marraige setting?
kerner asks valid questions except that I continue to insist that homosexuality is emphatically not an ontological part of anyone’s nature, only a deeply rooted behavioral disposition.
#49 Z
excellent question and I commend the polite way you posed it!
First some unpacking of scripture:
The word used in the sin list in 1 Corinthians is “arsenokoitiai”. This is the only place in all of greek literature where this word appears. It appears to have been coined by St Paul. Since the context is that this word appears in a list, it is quite impossible to know what this word means from the context. Etymology you say? shaky ground. example: What would the word “lady killer” mean if you only had etymology to work with.
But wait. It appears that St. Paul is actually referencing the wording of the Greek septuagint. What passage in the septuagint? Leviticus 18!
So we can safely conclude that St paul is referring to the same practices happening in his day as were happening among the pagans around israel in OT times.
So ok, since you asked, what is the context of leviticus? It appears to be a list proscribing the proscribing the religious things that the nations around israel were doing. One of those practices was for pagan temple workers to be castrated males who presented themselves as females to other males for ritual sex acts.
The exact same practice existed in St Paul´s time. This is the context of both texts then.
Ok. Now. Why would a gay may be repulsed by what is described here, beyond the wierd idea of imagining being one of those castrated temple workers (which is repulsive)?
The text says (I paraphrase) ” men should not have sex with another man treating the other man as a woman.” Fair paraphrase? Yes. Bingo.
The vast majority of gay men, even those who tend to be passive sexually, would throw up at the idea of being treated like, or turned into a woman or treated as a woman in ANY way. They would, in fact, FLEE from any hint of this. They would be repulsed by the very idea of this.
#50 cincinatus
I was gay from as far back as I can remember. starting at age four. This is quite typical you will find of homosexuals.
Before puberty I did not have a sex drive or a desire to have sex.
I was still gay. What I DO or DID sexually did not define that in any way. after puberty it became one of many consequences.
Those characteristics that marked me as gay pre puberty are exactly the characteristics that have gay men self-identify as being gay.
Labels do not creat truth. they merely describe it.
I came to know I was gay in EXACLY the same way you came to know that you were heterosexual. Reflect on how that looked for you with your puppy loves and attractions and affinities pre puberty cincinatus.
whether you accept whatever label, ontological. behavioral, gay, heterosexual … the facts remains that homosexuality is not defined by what one does sexually.
if you become celebate cincinatus you are still heterosexual. your sexuality and how you identify yourself sexually is wayyyy more than what you do or think about doing with your sex organs.
Your error is to reduce sexuality to a set of thoughts or behaviors. It is way more.
#52 Kerner
You are approaching the heart of the matter with your questions.
To answer i will present you with the same facts I know and not insist that you draw the same conclusions that I do or would. fair enough?
A gay person can have sex with the opposite gender and still be gay. a heterosexual can have sex with the same gender and still be heterosexual.
(1) This happens all the time with prostitution. A very high percentage of prostitutes are lesbian. Here in brasil there are male whore houses. the men there often will make money having sex with men and then blow that money on female prostitutes. Crazy stuff huh? What KIND of attraction is it? sexual? or romantic? or? sex feels good so one can be hetero or gay and still perform sex acts with the same gender. This indicates NOTHING certain about the ontological indentity of the actors in a sex act.
(2) Sex DOES feel good, and it does not mean that someone is gay of they get a woody with another guy. This is important to know when you consider that alot of boys and girls experiment with the same gender but end up being heterosexual without a second thought.
(3) Gay men who are immoral hedonists who have sex with other men do not assume that the man having sex with them is gay. They might be experimenting. or they might just be doing it for the physical pleasure of it. or they might be doing it to advance their career if the location is hollywood. Now, if that other man starts to do romantic things, say romantic things. send love notes. leave messages that they can´t stop thinking about that other person… then maybe they are gay….
(4)If you were to present various situations of same gender sex from history, the greeks the romans, the bible, I would probably not identify or feel an afinity to ANY of those as a gay man. I would look for love poems and such between men and women of the same gender. Like we find with Catullus. I WOULD feel an afinity to the story of David and Jonathan. David: “His [jonathan´s] love exceeded that of a woman”. THAT would look like what it means to be gay. I identify with that. My point is not to assert or prove that david and jonathan had a gay thing going on. I hope you understand my point here….
(5) the best suggestion is to ask you to think deeply as to how you discovered to your surprise and awkward discomfort that you were a heterosexual. This process started way before puberty. it was a process of discovery, not really choice. Did you have puppy love for girl? for a teacher? was it sexual? yes it was. but not in the way “sexual” would mean for an adult. THIS is where both heteros and gays identify their sexuality. and if you stop having sex right now, you are still heterosexual in your orientation. you do not become “a-sexual”.
I hope that helps.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
you have a keen mind Kerner. I am impressed with your questions. Keep at it. please. you are almost getting the complete picture.
#52 kerner
to complicate the picture:
persons who are gay fall into a spectrum. some are say 10% gay. others would yetch at the idea of having sex with the opposite gender. they are 100% gay.
I suspect that some in the exodux ex-gay movement have a slight proclivity to being gay that looks and feels similar to a behavioral/compulsive issue. they are able therefore to overcome this issue with fasting, prayer or a 12 step style program.
Their error is to assume that others who are “more gay” are in the same situation.
in addition I know men who marry to “straighten out”. people do desparate things if they truly believe the alternative is eternity in hell. You would even find a way to be gay if you believed your eternity depended on being so.
This is truly a sinful situation. To use another female human being, even to avoid hell, in this most intimate way, is so very and sadly wrong. the men often have to fantasize about having sex with a man to be able to perform with their wives. sad. for all. for the wives. for the kids.for the men.
#44 van
hi! nice to hear from you. bingo. but i would add that I act as a gay man in other ways than having sex or thinking about having sex. our sexuality affects everything we think or do.
Apart from the very interesting thread of fws and others, I have to say that the whole sad situation is just the ELCA bus arriving at its logical destination. They departed from fidelity to Scripture decades ago, and now they’re getting to the point where cultural habits are no longer strong enough to stop them.
#39 Z
“It’s quite clear to me that ELCA does not regard homosexuality as a sin”
Good! homosexuality is as much a sin as left handedness or being overly intelligent.
” or, as I said earlier, they ‘celebrate’ the sin by honoring the sinner with pastorship…….”
Exactly how is inviting a celebate gay LCMS pastor to be honest and open “celebrating sin” Z?
“We should welcome all sinners to any church.”
YES!
“It’s pastorship of open sinners I question.
Would ELCA hire a falling-down drunk or heterosexual philanderer as the Shepherd of their flock?”
Apparently yes! Give them more time!
You, dear friend make the opposite error and sin: you equate merely being gay with being a drunk or being a philanderer. Why do you do that? Where can you point me to in the bible to tell me that being gay and celebate is a sin? what part of “homosexual behavior” is sin? are we talking sex here? Why not use the word sex then? is gay sex any different than heterosexual sex? how so? they are both human sex.
Let´s, for argument´s sake, agree that homosexuality is a defect and part of the fall. like cancer or left handedness or albinoism. or being blind. great. Read John 9:2 please for the biblical understanding of this issue. This still does not make homosexuality a moral issue does it?
#59 bike bubba
I am suggesting that we conservatives take ownership of the sin of the ELCA. it is OUR fault. why?
because our exegesis of leviticus 18, the sodom and gomorrah story, romans 1 , 1 cor, and I tim cry to heaven as an injustice. as something wildy off the mark and evil.
The ELCA has pushed back against this error with the opposite and equal error. The opposite of an error IS the opposite error.
Who loses? we ALL lose. especially though, gay men and women lose. The clear witness of the Holy Gospel of forgiveness in Jesus Christ loses a clear proclamation by those who SHOULD know better and should do better!
gays are not into group rape. how is the sodom and gomorrah story being connected to being gay anything less than vile slander of a group?
Does anyone imagine here that the “they” in romans one is homosexuals? then verses 28ff describes me and every other homosexual UNIQUELY AS HOMOSEXUALS. If i believed this, I would not want my children around gay men and women either! not even close! more slander and mistruth.
The truth is that romans one condemns ALL for a God who has mercy on ALL in the following chapters. It says nothing at all, specifically about homosexuality or even same gender sex explicitly does it? Read the text. Please.
Let´s all declare the clear truth of God´s unchanging Word. Only then will we be able to help the ELCA. not before.
#3 pastor Jon Kehren:
example of what NOT to say courtesy of the WELS:
“To view same-sex relationships as acceptable to God is to place cultural viewpoint and human opinions above the clear Word of God,”
So I can not be friends with another guy? My pastor is the same gender as me. I can´t have a relationship with him.
Ok we KNOW what he means…why doesn´t he SAY it with a clear voice? it is the SEX part that is the problem. I get that. that still does not forgive that this statement is unclear.
“the clear teaching of the Bible that homosexuality is not in keeping with God’s design and is sinful in God’s eyes”
No. Again we can guess at what he means. I am guessing he is objecting to gay men and women having sex with each other or contemplating doing it. so. it is not “homosexuality” that is sinful is it? It is homosexuals having sex in thought or deed that is sinful. right? why doesn´t he just say THAT then.
Is “homosexuality” wrong because homos don´t fit a design? THIS is saying something quite different isn´t it? where is THIS in the bible?
And we are surprised that the ELCA is confused and screwed up when we can´t even proclaim the truth with clear and certain words but instead are so very sloppy and speak in such an uncertain way?
We all need to repent and get this right. souls are at stake here.
The ELCA uses our errors to justify their own.
Get that?
finally…
“Schroeder says WELS congregations stand READY to support those struggling with same-sex attractions.”
doesn´t LOOK like they are close to being ready if they can´t even know what they mean by the words they use…. the word for this is hubris. a posture of repentance would be in order.
FWS, I’ve read through your comments, and maybe I missed it, but what, specifically, do you consider to be ELCA’s error(s) here? I’m not sure I know what you think they are, though you are clear that they’re in error.
#52 kerner
“I mean, if it is possible to have sex with both, why would it be wrong to suggest that a person choose to have sex only with his/her opposite, and in a marraige setting?”
well. some are able to do that Kerner actually.
at the same time, if your wife could function fully at having sex with you but had to honestly tell you that she was not at all attracted to you physically or sexually and loved you at the level of a deep friendship but had not romantic stirrings for you whatsoever, then why would you want to marry her Kerner? You got me curious now buddy!
what if this was all true about her but she never told you but married you to avoid going to hell? how would that change things for you and her?
What if you knew that whenever she had sex with you she quietly closed her eyes and imagined that she was having sex with a female to make the sex with you endurable? how would that change things for you and her if you found that out to be true?
#63. Todd
the ELCA seems to be clear that they think that sex outside of marriage is ok.
They assume that romans 1 IS about homosexuality, and that that IS the biblical position, so they simply overcome this by rejecting biblical authority.
instead they should insist on celebacy and question the bogus exegesis of romans 1 that has it being in any way about homosexuality and cling to the truth of scripture!
This is just appalling. If Luther, the late German Christian protester, would still be here…where the denomination “Lutherans” derived from, he would be stunned and completely disappointed in this horrible abomination to the Word of God and the Gospel. I totally am against this election. When God created “man” he created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and STEVE!!! Hello people. This is a direct form of disobedience to God. And this is happening in a Church, a denomination that professes to know the Word of God???? Please, God will have to deal with you guys…and it won’t be pretty.
Jason, no need to condemn US! “pretty” or not is up to God, not man. Missouri Synod Lutherans (yes, we know who Martin Luther is!) are not ELCA and don’t agree with much of ELCA’s tenets.
I’m not sure I agree with all the above comments totally but it might help you to read through it; there’s much to consider with love, an open mind, and strict scriptural adherence.
What’s sad is the rift grows wider between ELCA and LCMS and the word’s been out for years that should they split, it’s ELCA which will probably keep the Lutheran name….that saddens me because I believe it would sadden the great man whose name our faith bears.
Isn’t it ironic that the steeple of Central Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, pictured used to be straight?
fws: Wrong. You apparently failed to read or understand the entirety of my argument. Heterosexuality is an ontological property, regardless of whether one acts upon it or desires accordingly; even homosexuals are heterosexuals because heterosexuality is the teleologically and ontologically natural condition of the human being. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is purely behavioral. “Behavior” I am not using the sense of only acts that are physically and outwardly demonstrated. Please read the rest of my comments to understand why, in fact, homosexuality does not contribute to one’s ontological composition, but is rather a detraction from it, a corruption of it (as are any other behavioral aberrations).
The human being properly-defined is a collection of ontological properties without which he is not complete, of which one is heterosexuality: we are designed as gendered beings which intrinsically and inseparably entails copulation with members of the opposite gender exclusively (even if one chooses celibacy). All humans fall short of being completely human: some of us pervert our sexuality (which is inseparable from our being) or are born with perverted sexualities; some of us are physically disabled; some of us are born with a predisposition to murder or greed, which severely impairs our ability to live as social creatures (another intrinsic aspect of humanness). Do you see what I am saying? You “discover” the truth of your heterosexuality when you notice that there are differences between boys and girls, a natural and unchangeable, fundamental law of nature; you learn you are homosexual when you begin having romantic/sexual feelings for members of the same gender, which is obviously aberrant and ontologically degenerating, just like any sinful disposition. One is natural and “ontological,” which is the word you broached; the other is purely behavioral, rooted merely in desires and/or acts (which themselves may be deeply rooted in the psyche or what have you, leading perhaps to your mistaking it for something that contributes rather than detracts from the totality of your humanness, just as selfish people are wont to say “that’s just how I am,” not realizing that being human requires a normative conception of what is properly human rather than just experiential or empirical).
#69 cincinatus.
interesting theories for some I suppose.
I did actually read rather carefully what you wrote. You don´t have anyone close to you who is a homosexual is what everything you write tells me.
There is nothing here from sacred Holy Scripture.
so these are all purely your personal opinions, not based on scripture or even scientific or anecdotal observations. Ok. I am cool with all that such as it is.
I don´t know what your opinions are based upon since you cite no references.
#69 cincinatus
why do any of your “arguments” matter? how do they matter?
Cincinnatus (@69), I’ll admit that I have to look up “ontologically” and “teleologically” when they’re used to remember what they mean, but when you’ve come to the point where you can argue that “homosexuals are heterosexuals” and “all humans fall short of being completely human,” you may have out-clevered yourself. Those phrases are pretty much meaningless, as are, I would assert, the arguments around them. You are no longer using “human” or “heterosexual” in a way that most people — including humans and heterosexuals — would recognize.
They matter because the attempt to define certain deviations as positive ontological characteristics has elevated sin (in short) and made it much harder to make a normative distinction between various behaviors and dispositions. Thus, the ELCA, buying the untested assumption that people simply are homosexual and thus cannot meaningfully change except perhaps on a purely external level, find it difficult to find satisfying arguments for why homosexuals (active or otherwise) ought not to serve as clergy or be accepted on an as-is basis into leadership. This has already happened on the societal level. It is difficult to tell someone that he should not be something that he simply is. Historic opposition to homosexuality within the church recognized that it was a behavioral manner, a perverted disposition that could be corrected with loving discipline, a desire turned awry from its proper end that could be gently re-oriented, a detraction from full human-ness that could be gradually “filled in” with ever-increasing sanctification. My arguments thus matter very, very much. Yours, on the other hand, are the same ones that have left a gaping hole in our ability to combat various sinful practices and dispositions both within the culture at large and the church body in general.
I don’t “cite references” because I’m not writing a term paper or article, but framing an argument for informal consumption; but again you are wrong, because I cited Augustine. I can refer you to specific works of his (and others) if you’re truly interested, though you seem not to be, having refused to deal with my arguments with that old standard cop-out (which does nothing to address the substance of my contentions) that it’s “just my theory.” I offered plenty of evidence in the form of logical arguments, but if that’s how you wish to conduct this little exercise, and since I did not notice any scientific, philosophic, or anecdotal evidence in your argument, then I’m going to have to conclude that it’s just your theory.
And for the record, I have multiple gay friends and colleagues. I live in Madison, Wisconsin, for pity’s sake.
Actually, tODD, I’m using the term “human,” and by extension “heterosexual,” in the exact manner that they were used by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and all other philosophers who have been significantly influenced by their thought, which includes the entirety of Christianity (in particular the Catholic church) until the last century or so. Unless you want to argue that the great Dominican out-clevered himself, I think I’m fairly confident on the validity of my philosophical ground.
You do, however, indirectly reveal the silliness of the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” which are not at all opposite but rather the result of an attempt to elevate homosexuality to the status of a positive ontological quality.
In short, no one is meets the qualifications for being “fully human” as intended in Creation and as fulfilled in the person of Christ. Homosexuality is one of the named aberrations that detracts from one’s humanity.
As proof of my linguistic point, “heterosexuality” didn’t come into common use as a word until the 1960s, after homosexuality had been recognized as something other than a mental illness and/or sinful disposition, as it had been prior. Now, obviously, it is, in the church and elsewhere, recognized on the same level as heterosexuality, as evidenced by the very use of the words.
Hence my point.
#73 cincinatus
“And for the record, I have multiple gay friends and colleagues. I live in Madison, Wisconsin, for pity’s sake.”
I am very sure they hold you and your existence and who you are in the same very high esteem that you hold them cincinatus.
“They matter because the attempt to define certain deviations as positive ontological characteristics has elevated sin…”
Example: a little boy at age 8 who experiences puppy love for another little boy you label as clearly being sin. where do you get that from in any of scripture cincinatus? this is logic and not scripture. even if you argue that this is a condition of the fall or a disfunction, I have a hard time finding how you would tell that boy that he is sinning and base your assertion on holy scripture.
some things are not positive or negative. they simply are. like left handedness. and we probably will not ever know why these things are as they are. why does that matter?
fws, now you’re just getting silly. I conclude that you are arguing one or both of two things, both of which are absurd and indefensible:
a) That children are incapable or sinning or
b) That a deviant disposition, a misplaced love (which is the point of St. Augustine’s entire philosophical project!–the misplaced love of mankind), an aberrant psyche is somehow morally neutral.
If either of those are true of your argument (and they ultimately are), you have some explaining to do. Nothing simply “is,” fws; in man’s existence, every “is” beyond something merely physical (such as being left-handed) is laced with profound normative consequences.
Oh, you’re also basing your argument on a third highly problematic assumption:
c) That every sin is listed or explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Last time I checked, the command to “love thy neighbor,” for instance, opens an entire realm of behavioral expectations which depend upon individual prudence (not on explicit scriptural guidelines) and which may not be met (=sin).
So you have even more explaining to do. Is a child who needlessly kills a snail sinning according to Scripture? Arguably not, but such actions in childhood have been “scientifically” linked with future cruelty to humans, including serial killing and rape. (And I would further argue that the child is sinning even without those latter considerations). In short, your argument just doesn’t make sense. See if you can respond to a, b, and c.
#77 cincinatus
“Nothing simply “is,” fws; in man’s existence, every “is” beyond something merely physical (such as being left-handed) is laced with profound normative consequences.”
isn´t this a contradiction?
a new category seems to be lurking the category “merely physical” that IS morally neutral.
Please unpack this for me.
#78 cincinatus
the Book of concord asserts (and I agree) that sin clings to human nature so very profoundly that it looks like it is human nature. And it is not.
The Incarnation is proof that NOTHING is “merely physical.”
EVERYTHING is pregnant with moral possibilities and choices. Even if the thing itself is morally neutral. I include left-handedness!
” profound normative consequences.” What in the heck are “normative consequences?!”
#78 cincinatus
so I don´t want to twist your words. you telling me that an 8 year old boy´s puppy love for another little boy is clearly a sin.
show me this from Holy Scripture.
fws, with all due respect, and I do respect you and your opinions and how you discuss them, many people do not look at those Scriptures about homosexuality as you do…there are differing interpretations and some of us see it another way.
Yes, I absolutely DO believe little children can feel more of an early pull to the same sex than the opposite sex and sometimes that appears not to go away…I know it, actually, from observing a young man I know. No, that’s not sin, they’re not acting on it.
THEREIN lies the rub, I think?
#82 Z I appreciate your respect.
We “act” on things in thought word and deed. So yes they DO act on it.
When I had a crush on my female first grade teacher , Ms. Eiseman, I brought her stale christmas candy where I had washed off the cat hairs and put them, lovingly, into a paper bag before waiting for the candy to dry. She LOVED getting it.
that puppy love you mention is innocent. it probably means the boy is gay. not certainly. and he may outgrow it, or not.
young boys masturbate together and experiment sexually in other ways. some end up being gay. the vast majority do not. young men have a high sex drive. the mechanical/physical part of sex feels good. it is an outlet.
for those experimenting young men who do NOT end up being gay, the experimental sex is purely physical and mechanical. there is nothing that looks like that “puppy love” part.
then there is that admiration for an older brother or teacher. you want to be like that person. you start to immitate them. this too does not look like “puppy love”. heterosexuals here can ponder their own histories and make the same distinctions I am making.
#78 cincinatus
for the record, i do NOT think that every sin is listed explicitly, in scripture.
example: “don´t kill” has the negative order to not take another life and the positive order to do everything to protect and preserve the health and life of our neighbor. That second part is not detailed but it is also clear from scripture.
the contrary view you say I hold (I do not) would be pharisaic and also would mean that whatever is NOT specifically listed is NOT sin. what a crazy world that would be! (good for attorneys maybe! kerner are you with me on this buddy?)
I also, as a Lutheran, think it is critical and utterly important for the very sake of the Holy Gospel to never ever call something sin that the bible does not call sin. we should constantly reevaluate what we say to meticulously avoid this. eg: to drink is not sinful, to get drunk is. We should take care not to push the envelope in the direction of either license or judgement. dancing. yes it can lead to impure thoughts. no it is not sin per se. Best I say not to forbid it. this tolerant attitude is precisely for the sake of the Holy Gospel.
#82 Z
I think we actually do look at scripture the same way. it is what is not in the scriptures where we disagree.
example:
lev 18
the text is about two men having sex. the point of that sex, according to the text seems to be to have one man treated like or turned into a woman sexually.
we also agree that what that behavior is is wrong and st paul condemns the exact same behavior and references it in 1 corinthians.
am I subtracting anything from the text or attempting to evade it´s meaning? I think not.
Our difference then? The clinical definition represented by that word “homosexual”. I do not think this text says anything about “homosexuality” as that term is nearly universally deployed by health care professionals in 2009
More importantly maybe, the current view IS how Homosexuals/gays self identify and see themselves.
Gays simply do not see their behaviors or “preferences” mirrored or reflected in any of the passages that “conservative” christians say describe them and their behaviors.
Gays are NOT saying “wow the bible nails our behaviors and preferences. Our behaviors and lives DO look exactly like what those passages describe. BUT we don´t think any of that is wrong or sinful!”
I and other gay christians are saying that what is described there is obviously wrong and sinful, but those passages do not describe typical homosexuality or lifestyle or anything a typical gay person would recognize as being reflective of something they would be attracted to doing.
When these homos object for THAT reason, “conservative” christians conclude that gays are merely trying to turn what the bible calls a sin into something that is not a sin. This view is myopic at best.
If you reject the current understanding of homosexuality and think it is important for some reason to cling to the definition of that word circa 1930 for whatever reason, then according to the 1930s definition the text mirrors what was understood in 1930 by the word I think probably.THEN the text DOES DESCRIBE homosexuality…. as it was understood in 1930.
This difference of opinion is not a scriptural difference, it is a philosophical, sociological, medical, and scientific difference of opinion.
There is no perfect church. However, the
lutheran church needed another reformation.
And God is bringing one about following the
ELCA sexuality decision. I think that Lutheran CORE & LCMC are excellant choices
for confessional ELCA pastors & congregations. I cannot recommend either
LCMS or WELS, they have their own problems.
Plus in the Missouri Synod they are not always very welcoming, but rather rigid,
political & very controling. I would suggest
look elsewhere & pray to God for guidance.
God will guide & protect you.
Hello! There is another choice, the ELS. The president of our synod had a great opportunity in our city’s paper after an article in the paper made no difference between the Lutheran churches here. He clearly stated our belief in the matter and cleared up the initial problem, ELCA and ELS. God works good out of evil. It would be a very bad idea to take the Lutheran out of the name of the Missouri Synod. Too many churches are changing names and hiding their denominational backgrounds.
Regrettably, the ELS teaches false doctrine regarding the pastoral office and defrocks those who insist on the truth.
And FWS… the words to which you refer are in fact used throughout Greek literature to refer to the active and passive partners, respectively, in purely consensual homosexual activity.
It is true that it is not a sin to be of homosexual orientation; this is not chosen. Engaging in sex with another person of the same gender is voluntary, is condemned by every strata of both Testaments, and according to St. Paul is something which, absent repentance, excludes one from the Kingdom of God.
As a former ELCA pastor, I doubt that there will be any real split in that apostate church body. And there are precious few “confessionals” in the ELCA in any case; the conservatives there have a strong tendency to be either “Evangelical Catholics” or Pietists.
Why do these posters disregard medical research that has proven that sexual orientation is a given at birrh and not a choice. Are we moving back to the dark ages?
Some people are disregarding such claims, some aren’t. If homosexuality is “a given at birth,” so is alcoholism, pedophilia, and, for that matter, autism and multiple sclerosis, so what’s your point?
Our sinful nature is a given at birth. That does not mean sinning is permissible because it’s not our fault.