If you're interested in meeting face to face to discuss options for the Nov. 7 congregational meeting at La Casa, send me an email to many.oneof@yahoo.com. You're welcome to come regardless of where you stand on the issue.
My own preference, as you know, is that the congregation would not leave the ELCA until we have had a fuller discussion of the issues that includes at least one representative who will articulate completely how and why the ELCA came to its decision to allow gay clergy in committed relationships to serve congregations who would welcome them.
If enough interest is expressed, I will let you know of the time and location of the meeting. Thanks for your consideration.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
People overall are not affirming anything
You'll find this comment in its entirety here. It's dated September 24 at 5:25 p.m. I'm sharing my thoughts about it below.
Anonymous said ...
Nice response, Pastor Garman.Sounds reasonable to me. This process has been going on for over a year, with multiple opportunities for input. The pastors have responded in person or writing to people asking questions. It is not their fault if after events have been publicized they are not well attended!
I would agree that members have to put their thoughts and words into action. I would question whether the every Sunday member recognizes how important a decision this is. We have arguably 1700 members at worship any given Sunday, and only 433 CARE enough to show up for the vote? I simply cannot accept that.
I would argue that with 10,000 estimated churches represented by ELCA as being members, and perhaps 600 of these moving away from ELCA that ELCA is hardly a dying denomination. I love La Casa as well, and I feel we do good works in some areas. However, I feel that the statement we will be making to our community is not one of Christian Love and inclusion. Therefore, I would argue we are walking away from Our Lord and Savior, and not closer to Him.
No, I do not like the results to date, and have issues with the process. However, I would argue that people overall are not affirming anything. I want a representative vote to take place and have stated so many times.
I agree, but to take it one step further, I don’t know what your last comment is meant to include, but I will add the phrase “agree with theologically” to your sentence. I like these three folks but I do disagree with them theologically, philosophically and morally with their decision to lead us away from growth and new, exciting, scriptural revelation and realization by our denominational leadership.
Alas, I hope it is not so. I’ve taken severe economic blows from this recession, but I find time to tend to my ministry, as well as contribute to Sunday services in whatever way I can both financially and spiritually.
Anonymous said ...
One final comment-no process is perfect. If our leaders really wanted to leave ELCA and not seek out the wisdom of the people, they could have done so right after the decisions when emotions were high. Instead, they chose a cooling off period, many opportunities for input, opened their doors and inboxes.
I would concur with you. Again, I am not in opposition to the leadership personally, but I am in opposition to their message and their methods.
I would argue that this may be caused by lack of exposure to the blog. The flyer campaign has been discontinued due to objections from Pastor Garman, and out of respect to him I complied. However, I will not stop in my attempts to get the word out and hopefully get a large percentage of our membership engaged in this decision.
Anonymous said ...
Nice response, Pastor Garman.Sounds reasonable to me. This process has been going on for over a year, with multiple opportunities for input. The pastors have responded in person or writing to people asking questions. It is not their fault if after events have been publicized they are not well attended!
I would agree that members have to put their thoughts and words into action. I would question whether the every Sunday member recognizes how important a decision this is. We have arguably 1700 members at worship any given Sunday, and only 433 CARE enough to show up for the vote? I simply cannot accept that.
Anonymous said ...
I think we can draw some conclusions...1) people love La Casa and all the many ministries-they don't care about a dying denomination..."all politics is local" as someone said, maybe all "church is local"
I think we can draw some conclusions...1) people love La Casa and all the many ministries-they don't care about a dying denomination..."all politics is local" as someone said, maybe all "church is local"
I would argue that with 10,000 estimated churches represented by ELCA as being members, and perhaps 600 of these moving away from ELCA that ELCA is hardly a dying denomination. I love La Casa as well, and I feel we do good works in some areas. However, I feel that the statement we will be making to our community is not one of Christian Love and inclusion. Therefore, I would argue we are walking away from Our Lord and Savior, and not closer to Him.
Anonymous said ...
2) People trust that for a year a good process was in place with lots of input from members. Sure, not everyone likes the results, like the blog author, but overall, people are affirming the decisions made.
2) People trust that for a year a good process was in place with lots of input from members. Sure, not everyone likes the results, like the blog author, but overall, people are affirming the decisions made.
No, I do not like the results to date, and have issues with the process. However, I would argue that people overall are not affirming anything. I want a representative vote to take place and have stated so many times.
Anonymous said ...
3) I think once the vote is made that people who disagree have a choice...stick with the church and focus on other issues, or leave. Once the church has spoken, however it turns out, it is time to move on. If someone does not our pastors and leaders, why would they stay?
3) I think once the vote is made that people who disagree have a choice...stick with the church and focus on other issues, or leave. Once the church has spoken, however it turns out, it is time to move on. If someone does not our pastors and leaders, why would they stay?
I agree, but to take it one step further, I don’t know what your last comment is meant to include, but I will add the phrase “agree with theologically” to your sentence. I like these three folks but I do disagree with them theologically, philosophically and morally with their decision to lead us away from growth and new, exciting, scriptural revelation and realization by our denominational leadership.
Anonymous said ...
4) People simply don't care. Maybe they should, maybe they are broke or losing their homes. This is way below the radar screen for many.
4) People simply don't care. Maybe they should, maybe they are broke or losing their homes. This is way below the radar screen for many.
Alas, I hope it is not so. I’ve taken severe economic blows from this recession, but I find time to tend to my ministry, as well as contribute to Sunday services in whatever way I can both financially and spiritually.
Anonymous said ...
One final comment-no process is perfect. If our leaders really wanted to leave ELCA and not seek out the wisdom of the people, they could have done so right after the decisions when emotions were high. Instead, they chose a cooling off period, many opportunities for input, opened their doors and inboxes.
I would concur with you. Again, I am not in opposition to the leadership personally, but I am in opposition to their message and their methods.
Anonymous said ...
Out of a congregation of 3500 or so people a total of about 50 have voted here. I think that says a lot.
Out of a congregation of 3500 or so people a total of about 50 have voted here. I think that says a lot.
I would argue that this may be caused by lack of exposure to the blog. The flyer campaign has been discontinued due to objections from Pastor Garman, and out of respect to him I complied. However, I will not stop in my attempts to get the word out and hopefully get a large percentage of our membership engaged in this decision.
More consistent to consider joining the Missouri Synod?
You'll find the comment below in its entirety here. It's dated September 25 at 12:09 p.m.
Anonymous said ...
Well, there you have it. join the “missery” (sic) synod and get rid of our female pastor.
For those of you who do not know, this responder refers to the Missouri Synod, which does not allow women to be pastors. Obviously, this is not a viable option for La Casa. I should note, however, that in this regard, La Casa has taken a stand against most of Christianity, which believes that Scripture does not allow women to be ordained as pastors.
Anonymous said ...
I vote for that. At least it would be more consistent than what we are doing.
I'm pretty sure you're saying this tongue in cheek. I believe this proposed move leads us away from Jesus Christ, rather than closer to him.
Anonymous said ...
Its also nice to know that being conservative is the test for a true Lutheran or one that is not a joke. I'll text that to Luther.
Wishing to conserve one’s traditions is not necessarily a bad thing or a joke. However, traditions such as slavery - or even refusing to ordain women - fall as the Spirit moves among us and leads us to understand Scripture and revelation in new ways. I believe we should at least have a full, open, widely publicized presentation at La Casa from an advocate of this side of the argument. Then, after hearing the other side fully, let the congregation decide. I hope we will forestall a decision to leave at least until this happens.
Anonymous said ...
Well, there you have it. join the “missery” (sic) synod and get rid of our female pastor.
For those of you who do not know, this responder refers to the Missouri Synod, which does not allow women to be pastors. Obviously, this is not a viable option for La Casa. I should note, however, that in this regard, La Casa has taken a stand against most of Christianity, which believes that Scripture does not allow women to be ordained as pastors.
Anonymous said ...
I vote for that. At least it would be more consistent than what we are doing.
I'm pretty sure you're saying this tongue in cheek. I believe this proposed move leads us away from Jesus Christ, rather than closer to him.
Anonymous said ...
Its also nice to know that being conservative is the test for a true Lutheran or one that is not a joke. I'll text that to Luther.
Wishing to conserve one’s traditions is not necessarily a bad thing or a joke. However, traditions such as slavery - or even refusing to ordain women - fall as the Spirit moves among us and leads us to understand Scripture and revelation in new ways. I believe we should at least have a full, open, widely publicized presentation at La Casa from an advocate of this side of the argument. Then, after hearing the other side fully, let the congregation decide. I hope we will forestall a decision to leave at least until this happens.
Inclusivity, the new Baal?
You'll find the comment below in its entirety here. It's dated September 26, 1:41 p.m. I wanted to highlight it here and respond.
Anonymous said ...
It seems that inclusivity is the new Baal, the god before whom everyone must bow down. The whole issue with the ELCA is much broader than a gay issue, it sets "cultural revelations" against 2000 years of Christian history. Do you consider yourself a prophet of the new Baal?
I do not consider myself a prophet, much less one of Baal. If you take a look at the 2,026 words attributed to Jesus Christ, you will find no exclusivity in them. Nor will you find any reference to the gay issue.
When in doubt, ask yourself what Jesus would do or say (humbly understanding, of course, that often the answer would be better than anything we come up with!). We know that Jesus commanded us to love one another as He loved us. He did not set parameters; He did not exclude anyone; He did not say it’s ok to love part time, or on Tuesdays only. It’s an all-the-time thing and is VERY inclusive.
I would argue this is the very commandment we are breaking in our walk away from Christ! If we profess to follow the teachings of Martin Luther on our journey to find Jesus Christ, then I would suggest we start looking to Him for direction, and not the authors of man’s testaments to God.
Luther, of course, talked about sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as well as sola fide (faith alone) and sola gratia (grace alone). When he talked about Scripture alone, he was emphasizing that it's in Scripture that we come to learn of God's love and salvation. He was urging his fellow believers to understand that heaven can't be bought or earned, as the church of his day was saying, but that it's a free gift from God who loves all people enough to undergo death and resurrection for them.
Luther's understanding of God's love led him to oppose the church's teaching that all suicide victims were damned because they died in sin. He was willing to include these people under the shelter of God's love. It's a lesson we all need to learn.
Anonymous said ...
It seems that inclusivity is the new Baal, the god before whom everyone must bow down. The whole issue with the ELCA is much broader than a gay issue, it sets "cultural revelations" against 2000 years of Christian history. Do you consider yourself a prophet of the new Baal?
I do not consider myself a prophet, much less one of Baal. If you take a look at the 2,026 words attributed to Jesus Christ, you will find no exclusivity in them. Nor will you find any reference to the gay issue.
When in doubt, ask yourself what Jesus would do or say (humbly understanding, of course, that often the answer would be better than anything we come up with!). We know that Jesus commanded us to love one another as He loved us. He did not set parameters; He did not exclude anyone; He did not say it’s ok to love part time, or on Tuesdays only. It’s an all-the-time thing and is VERY inclusive.
I would argue this is the very commandment we are breaking in our walk away from Christ! If we profess to follow the teachings of Martin Luther on our journey to find Jesus Christ, then I would suggest we start looking to Him for direction, and not the authors of man’s testaments to God.
Luther, of course, talked about sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as well as sola fide (faith alone) and sola gratia (grace alone). When he talked about Scripture alone, he was emphasizing that it's in Scripture that we come to learn of God's love and salvation. He was urging his fellow believers to understand that heaven can't be bought or earned, as the church of his day was saying, but that it's a free gift from God who loves all people enough to undergo death and resurrection for them.
Luther's understanding of God's love led him to oppose the church's teaching that all suicide victims were damned because they died in sin. He was willing to include these people under the shelter of God's love. It's a lesson we all need to learn.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Of facts, opinions and the space in between
You can see this comment in its entirety here. It's dated Sept. 22 at 2:22 p.m. I want to encourage you to click on the link and read the comment made in response to this comment. My observations are below.
Anonymous said...
A couple of points:
I would argue that the Bible is speaking to us on both sides of this issue. It is our interpretation of what it is saying that would seem to cause disparity. Further, I would argue, this is why I am urging for a complete discussion, transparency, and full disclosure of both sides of the issue.
Anonymous said...
While it may be true on issues like slavery or women different stances have been taken, the difference in this issue is that NOWHERE is anything positive said about homosexuality. God created Adam and Eve, and while you seem to indicate Jesus didn't speak of homosexuality, he gave us ONE standard for sexual relationships, and that is marriage.
As repeatedly stated there are 7 recognized passages that speak on the subject of same sex relationships. The term homosexuality did not play a role in the early Bible and surfaced as a descriptive term much later. Nowhere in the 2026 words attributed to Christ does He even address the issue, much less condemn it. .
Anonymous said...
No, we shouldn't go around pointing fingers or condemning anyone, but we can’t ignore what the bible says.
I completely concur with your thought here.
Anonymous said...
You know for a definite fact gay people are born that way? Funny, science hasn't even decided that one. Let us say someone is born with a desire to drink lots of alcohol. Should they? Does that make it right?
No one knows “for a fact”. However, there are ongoing studies that tend to acknowledge the possibility. My own ongoing study of a very specific sampling of respondents indicates a high percentage of gay men and women knew of their sexual orientation “as far back” as they could remember or before the age of 10. Only recently have researchers gained meaningful data from which to glean tendencies, trends or create hypotheses in this area. Most data available goes back to 1990 and 2000 census data which is incomplete, wrongly recorded, or insignificant due to data parameters.
Anonymous said...
Second, I am curious as to what degrees you have as the editor of this blog. Did you go to seminary like our pastors? Do you have a college or postgraduate degree? Did you study theology? All our pastors have Masters degrees and have graduated from accredited seminaries. How about you?
I’m puzzled as to why this matters to you. Yes I am degreed. No, I haven’t completed seminary but then neither did the authors of the Biblical texts. They, as I am in the process of, researched their subject matter and recorded their findings. Have I read the Bible? Yes multiple times. Have I studied ancient languages? No, I have not, but I certainly have read and spoken with many who have. Have I read and interpreted the Dead Sea Scrolls? No, I have not, but I’ve read and spoken with some who have. Do I have knowledge of the current subject matter? Yes, over 40 years worth. Simply holding a degree does not make one an expert, just as not holding a degree does not make someone an idiot.
Anonymous said...
You can do all the reading and quoting you want. Opinions are like backsides, everyone has one.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Anonymous said...
But my guess is unlike our pastors you have not studied the bible in the original languages or spent decades in school. Maybe you did, perhaps you would like to respond.
Study is engaging a subject and learning all you care to or can about it. I do not have to study auto mechanics to change a tire or spark plug, but rebuilding a transmission requires a bit more knowledge. I know of an individual whose degree is in Physics. He is a pastor and knows more theology than you and I ever will. It makes no difference. He is but one piece of the puzzle just as you and I are. When all the pieces are in place, then the complete picture will be revealed.
My point is that we all have something to add and that we all are in a constant state of growth and revelation. I am not a pastor. I am however qualified to speak on this subject matter. Now then, let me ask you a question if I may. Are our pastors the only ones who have an opinion on this subject matter or are there other pastors who hold opposing views? If so, who is right? And why can’t we hear their point of view? I have spent considerable time researching this subject over 40 years. I let that stand on its’ own.
Anonymous said...
So all this is just your opinion. You are free to do it, but don't pass yourself off as some expert.
When you determine to your satisfaction just exactly who is an expert and who is not, please share this information so that we may all learn something from you.
Thank you sir/madam for your comments. You are passionate and I appreciate the time it took for you to comment here. Please plan to attend the next congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7 2010 and please vote your conscience. This is our church and your vote matters.
Anonymous said...
A couple of points:
1) The description of the ELCA and the bible is exactly why La Casa should leave. We don't decide or judge the bible, the bible is the one that decides for us.
I would argue that the Bible is speaking to us on both sides of this issue. It is our interpretation of what it is saying that would seem to cause disparity. Further, I would argue, this is why I am urging for a complete discussion, transparency, and full disclosure of both sides of the issue.
Anonymous said...
While it may be true on issues like slavery or women different stances have been taken, the difference in this issue is that NOWHERE is anything positive said about homosexuality. God created Adam and Eve, and while you seem to indicate Jesus didn't speak of homosexuality, he gave us ONE standard for sexual relationships, and that is marriage.
As repeatedly stated there are 7 recognized passages that speak on the subject of same sex relationships. The term homosexuality did not play a role in the early Bible and surfaced as a descriptive term much later. Nowhere in the 2026 words attributed to Christ does He even address the issue, much less condemn it. .
Anonymous said...
No, we shouldn't go around pointing fingers or condemning anyone, but we can’t ignore what the bible says.
I completely concur with your thought here.
Anonymous said...
You know for a definite fact gay people are born that way? Funny, science hasn't even decided that one. Let us say someone is born with a desire to drink lots of alcohol. Should they? Does that make it right?
No one knows “for a fact”. However, there are ongoing studies that tend to acknowledge the possibility. My own ongoing study of a very specific sampling of respondents indicates a high percentage of gay men and women knew of their sexual orientation “as far back” as they could remember or before the age of 10. Only recently have researchers gained meaningful data from which to glean tendencies, trends or create hypotheses in this area. Most data available goes back to 1990 and 2000 census data which is incomplete, wrongly recorded, or insignificant due to data parameters.
Anonymous said...
Second, I am curious as to what degrees you have as the editor of this blog. Did you go to seminary like our pastors? Do you have a college or postgraduate degree? Did you study theology? All our pastors have Masters degrees and have graduated from accredited seminaries. How about you?
I’m puzzled as to why this matters to you. Yes I am degreed. No, I haven’t completed seminary but then neither did the authors of the Biblical texts. They, as I am in the process of, researched their subject matter and recorded their findings. Have I read the Bible? Yes multiple times. Have I studied ancient languages? No, I have not, but I certainly have read and spoken with many who have. Have I read and interpreted the Dead Sea Scrolls? No, I have not, but I’ve read and spoken with some who have. Do I have knowledge of the current subject matter? Yes, over 40 years worth. Simply holding a degree does not make one an expert, just as not holding a degree does not make someone an idiot.
Anonymous said...
You can do all the reading and quoting you want. Opinions are like backsides, everyone has one.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Anonymous said...
But my guess is unlike our pastors you have not studied the bible in the original languages or spent decades in school. Maybe you did, perhaps you would like to respond.
Study is engaging a subject and learning all you care to or can about it. I do not have to study auto mechanics to change a tire or spark plug, but rebuilding a transmission requires a bit more knowledge. I know of an individual whose degree is in Physics. He is a pastor and knows more theology than you and I ever will. It makes no difference. He is but one piece of the puzzle just as you and I are. When all the pieces are in place, then the complete picture will be revealed.
My point is that we all have something to add and that we all are in a constant state of growth and revelation. I am not a pastor. I am however qualified to speak on this subject matter. Now then, let me ask you a question if I may. Are our pastors the only ones who have an opinion on this subject matter or are there other pastors who hold opposing views? If so, who is right? And why can’t we hear their point of view? I have spent considerable time researching this subject over 40 years. I let that stand on its’ own.
Anonymous said...
So all this is just your opinion. You are free to do it, but don't pass yourself off as some expert.
When you determine to your satisfaction just exactly who is an expert and who is not, please share this information so that we may all learn something from you.
Thank you sir/madam for your comments. You are passionate and I appreciate the time it took for you to comment here. Please plan to attend the next congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7 2010 and please vote your conscience. This is our church and your vote matters.
ELCA not alone in its stance
You can find this comment posted in its entirety here. I wanted to make some observations about it.
Anonymous said...
Nine people DID NOT decide. There have been six open forums on this issue. Congregational input was sought, and received, not only by the task force, but by the pastors. This has not been a closed or controlled process as you seem to suggest. And of course at least 85% or more of the congregation voted to leave.
A 10 person task force with one member not in attendance made the recommendation to leadership to begin the process to withdraw from ELCA. I would argue that a decision of this magnitude requires much more than 6 forums put on by and moderated by proponents for the argument, with no representation of, written material for, or information websites provided by or for non-proponents of the idea. One cannot make an informed decision based on only one side of any argument. The process, I would argue has not been transparent.
Anonymous said...
You seem to wield conspiracy theories when this process has been open. It is not the leaders fault if only several hundred people show up at meetings. Maybe they support they leadership. Maybe they have more important things to do. Maybe to them this is a no brainer to leave as the ELCA has defied thousands of years of tradition.
I would say that tradition is fine as far as it goes, but the world is evolving, humankind is evolving, and the Bible and our ability to interpret it is evolving. Modern theological scholarship has increased dynamically the interpretations available to us, much as modern science took us from the buggy, to the Ford, to the airplane, and now to space. Would you hold us back from progressing as a species for the sole purpose of observing tradition? Or would you choose to grow, encompassing new ideas, new interpretations and revelations that the living breathing Bible has to offer. To do so sir/madam, is simply humankind expressing our arrogance at the completeness of our own vast knowledge.
Anonymous said...
Finally, your biblical comments about ONLY Paul and Moses writing about this are false. Jesus said marriage was between a man and women in the Gospel of Matthew, did he not?
The seven passages of scripture represented in the post from which you draw this objection were all attributed to the writings of Moses and Paul. You are of course referring to the passage attributed to Jesus Christ in Matthew 19: 1-12. I would argue that there is no place in the 2026 words attributed to Christ where he addresses same sex relationships or marriage, because as a social phenomena it was neither visible, nor was it ever asked of Him. The relationships we speak of today are completely and totally different than relationships and sociology of the first century. I view Jesus Christ as the living Word of God, and therefore I turn to Him for clarity. The issue simply is not addressed, or condemned by Jesus Christ. Paul is another matter, as is Moses. There are varied and many societal and cultural differences at the times they authored their works and their writings reflect their social conditioning A complete discussion of just these two men and their literary efforts alone takes years to complete. For some in our society, it never ends.
Anonymous said...
I suppose if you got your way our single leaders and pastor could do whatever they wanted to do in terms of morality. It is a sad commentary when people buy into culture instead of being transformed by the bible. The ELCA has chosen to join only the Episcopalians in this , and look what is happening there. Maybe we should stick with the 99.5% of Christians who believe in what Jesus, Paul, and Moses said on this issue.
Our conversation has nothing to do with “my” way. It has nothing to do with your way either. It has to do with our ongoing daily struggle by each of us to interpret what Jesus is saying to us. It is not about anything else. The ELCA has joined not only the Episcopalian church, but conservative and reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ as well as the Presbyterians in acknowledging certain relationships. I would argue that these faiths are evolving and the revelation of the Holy Spirit has allowed them to see things yet again more clearly than in past days. Just as sure as Luther evolved in his understanding of the scriptures and began the Reformation, so our faith today is evolving. And in a very good way, may I add.
Anonymous said...
Nine people DID NOT decide. There have been six open forums on this issue. Congregational input was sought, and received, not only by the task force, but by the pastors. This has not been a closed or controlled process as you seem to suggest. And of course at least 85% or more of the congregation voted to leave.
A 10 person task force with one member not in attendance made the recommendation to leadership to begin the process to withdraw from ELCA. I would argue that a decision of this magnitude requires much more than 6 forums put on by and moderated by proponents for the argument, with no representation of, written material for, or information websites provided by or for non-proponents of the idea. One cannot make an informed decision based on only one side of any argument. The process, I would argue has not been transparent.
Anonymous said...
You seem to wield conspiracy theories when this process has been open. It is not the leaders fault if only several hundred people show up at meetings. Maybe they support they leadership. Maybe they have more important things to do. Maybe to them this is a no brainer to leave as the ELCA has defied thousands of years of tradition.
I would say that tradition is fine as far as it goes, but the world is evolving, humankind is evolving, and the Bible and our ability to interpret it is evolving. Modern theological scholarship has increased dynamically the interpretations available to us, much as modern science took us from the buggy, to the Ford, to the airplane, and now to space. Would you hold us back from progressing as a species for the sole purpose of observing tradition? Or would you choose to grow, encompassing new ideas, new interpretations and revelations that the living breathing Bible has to offer. To do so sir/madam, is simply humankind expressing our arrogance at the completeness of our own vast knowledge.
Anonymous said...
Finally, your biblical comments about ONLY Paul and Moses writing about this are false. Jesus said marriage was between a man and women in the Gospel of Matthew, did he not?
The seven passages of scripture represented in the post from which you draw this objection were all attributed to the writings of Moses and Paul. You are of course referring to the passage attributed to Jesus Christ in Matthew 19: 1-12. I would argue that there is no place in the 2026 words attributed to Christ where he addresses same sex relationships or marriage, because as a social phenomena it was neither visible, nor was it ever asked of Him. The relationships we speak of today are completely and totally different than relationships and sociology of the first century. I view Jesus Christ as the living Word of God, and therefore I turn to Him for clarity. The issue simply is not addressed, or condemned by Jesus Christ. Paul is another matter, as is Moses. There are varied and many societal and cultural differences at the times they authored their works and their writings reflect their social conditioning A complete discussion of just these two men and their literary efforts alone takes years to complete. For some in our society, it never ends.
Anonymous said...
I suppose if you got your way our single leaders and pastor could do whatever they wanted to do in terms of morality. It is a sad commentary when people buy into culture instead of being transformed by the bible. The ELCA has chosen to join only the Episcopalians in this , and look what is happening there. Maybe we should stick with the 99.5% of Christians who believe in what Jesus, Paul, and Moses said on this issue.
Our conversation has nothing to do with “my” way. It has nothing to do with your way either. It has to do with our ongoing daily struggle by each of us to interpret what Jesus is saying to us. It is not about anything else. The ELCA has joined not only the Episcopalian church, but conservative and reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ as well as the Presbyterians in acknowledging certain relationships. I would argue that these faiths are evolving and the revelation of the Holy Spirit has allowed them to see things yet again more clearly than in past days. Just as sure as Luther evolved in his understanding of the scriptures and began the Reformation, so our faith today is evolving. And in a very good way, may I add.
Forget about absentee ballots; show up to vote on Nov. 7
You can find this comment in its entirety here. I want to make some additional observations about it.
Anonymous said ...
Like one of the earlier posters, I found it very difficult to glean information from the internet on this issue. It just hasn't been condensed and published to the LCdC website, and I'm not sure why.
Frankly, everyone I’ve spoken with is somewhat dismayed with this fact, including other congregations who are wrestling with this problem. Unfortunately, not having complete information available and nowhere to get it leads to distrust of the process and an uninformed voter.
Anonymous said ...
The original letter that was sent out to the congregation last March (prior to the first vote) instructed everyone to visit the LCdC website for FAQs and further information. A google search indicates that there was more information out there at one time, but it has been taken down. Why take down that information, when we are so close to the 2nd (and deciding) vote?
I would concur. We desperately need to have all the information at our fingertips at this time. Without which we will not make an informed decision. This big of a decision demands complete and total knowledge, dispensed in a transparent method.
Anonymous said ...
I did eventually find enough information through other sources, however, so that I am now completely baffled what all the hubbub is about. The resolution that was passed by the ELCA leaves the decision on whether or not to hire gay clergy of any type completely up to the individual congregations. So the pastoral staff can always decide whether or not to hire someone based on their particular sexual preference.
This is precisely the original concern I had after reading the decisions and supporting documentation. Why in the world are we in such an uproar over something that need not directly affect us, unless we so choose to address it at time of a proposed hire. What is the reasoning here?
Anonymous said ...
Regarding the votes required in order for a congregation to leave the ELCA, I am perplexed why absentee balloting isn't allowed, as it is in political elections. In the first vote, there were roughly 450 congregation members who voted. Last I checked, LCdC has over 3300 members, however.
It is stated in our constitution, that “2/3rds of the membership PRESENT” is required to pass legislation at a congregational meeting. While I agree with you that absentee balloting or on campus balloting is common sense, we are playing by the rules here.
Anonymous said ...
Surely 14% of the laity cannot possibly be representative of the entire congregation! Why not allow absentee ballots? They could be mailed out with the next bulletin, and then perhaps we could get a much better representation of the congregation as a whole in the 2nd (and deciding) vote that is coming up on Nov. 7.
I think this is a wonderful idea, but our constitution does not allow for it. I would feel a whole lot more comfortable knowing that an entire congregation is in favor or not in favor of such a seismic shift in direction. I want to share a very very scary statistic with you. Everyone by now knows that Community of Joy has withdrawn from ELCA. But did you know, that out of a rostered membership of 5500, only 112 people showed up to vote and make that decision? 112 out of 5500! Is this what we want for La Casa to duplicate? I think not!
Anonymous said ...
Like one of the earlier posters, I found it very difficult to glean information from the internet on this issue. It just hasn't been condensed and published to the LCdC website, and I'm not sure why.
Frankly, everyone I’ve spoken with is somewhat dismayed with this fact, including other congregations who are wrestling with this problem. Unfortunately, not having complete information available and nowhere to get it leads to distrust of the process and an uninformed voter.
Anonymous said ...
The original letter that was sent out to the congregation last March (prior to the first vote) instructed everyone to visit the LCdC website for FAQs and further information. A google search indicates that there was more information out there at one time, but it has been taken down. Why take down that information, when we are so close to the 2nd (and deciding) vote?
I would concur. We desperately need to have all the information at our fingertips at this time. Without which we will not make an informed decision. This big of a decision demands complete and total knowledge, dispensed in a transparent method.
Anonymous said ...
I did eventually find enough information through other sources, however, so that I am now completely baffled what all the hubbub is about. The resolution that was passed by the ELCA leaves the decision on whether or not to hire gay clergy of any type completely up to the individual congregations. So the pastoral staff can always decide whether or not to hire someone based on their particular sexual preference.
This is precisely the original concern I had after reading the decisions and supporting documentation. Why in the world are we in such an uproar over something that need not directly affect us, unless we so choose to address it at time of a proposed hire. What is the reasoning here?
Anonymous said ...
Regarding the votes required in order for a congregation to leave the ELCA, I am perplexed why absentee balloting isn't allowed, as it is in political elections. In the first vote, there were roughly 450 congregation members who voted. Last I checked, LCdC has over 3300 members, however.
It is stated in our constitution, that “2/3rds of the membership PRESENT” is required to pass legislation at a congregational meeting. While I agree with you that absentee balloting or on campus balloting is common sense, we are playing by the rules here.
Anonymous said ...
Surely 14% of the laity cannot possibly be representative of the entire congregation! Why not allow absentee ballots? They could be mailed out with the next bulletin, and then perhaps we could get a much better representation of the congregation as a whole in the 2nd (and deciding) vote that is coming up on Nov. 7.
I think this is a wonderful idea, but our constitution does not allow for it. I would feel a whole lot more comfortable knowing that an entire congregation is in favor or not in favor of such a seismic shift in direction. I want to share a very very scary statistic with you. Everyone by now knows that Community of Joy has withdrawn from ELCA. But did you know, that out of a rostered membership of 5500, only 112 people showed up to vote and make that decision? 112 out of 5500! Is this what we want for La Casa to duplicate? I think not!
The vote was overwhelming (as far as it went)
You can find the original comment below in its entirety here. It's dated Sept. 19 at 10:52 p.m.
Anonymous said ...
You I heard the vote was overwhelming.
The vote tally was 364 in favor of leaving, and 69 in favor of staying. My point is do you want the future of your church to be dictated by 433 people or by the entire church family, all of whom have a stake and a say in this. Also, it takes two thirds of the congregation to ratify leaving. Granted, the first vote represents far more than two thirds, but there is a second vote to be taken.
And I would add, just as you and I will.
I would argue that the congregation has not spoken. 439 people out of 3,500 rostered members have spoken. I would not question those who were present and voted either way. I’m sure their choices were for good reason.
By “certain people”, I would assume you are referring to me. My name is Tom Weller; not “certain people.” I would argue that I first addressed this issue with Pastor Garman over a year ago, Pastor Carol and Pastor Jeff at separate times and have been working diligently gathering and dispensing information ever since. I do NOT sow seeds of dissent. This blog champions transparency, open discussion, full disclosure and intelligent conversation in order to encourage informed voting.
Anonymous said ...
I’ve seen this happen many times before in various churches of different denominations.
You have stated my point exactly. It is far better to be open and transparent with a decision of this magnitude than to allow for the slightest hint of impropriety, would you not agree? I openly disagree with Pastoral leadership and have stated so publicly. I do not publish anonymously.
Anonymous said ...
Instead of accepting the decisions of the church and supporting the church, or choosing another church home that more closely conforms to their doctrinal statement, people will do all they can to split the church, cause problems, dissention, and generally wreak havoc.
I accept the decisions of the church and support them. Mine happens to be the ELCA, of which I am currently an active member. What church would you be speaking of?
You are saying then that because I exercise my freedom, granted by the church and by the United States Constitution to speak my dissent freely and openly prior may I add to a vote that will affirm a final decision, that you would accuse me of doing all I can to split the church, cause problems, dissension, and generally wreak havoc. I am trying to save this church from making, IN MY OPINION, the mistake of walking away from our Lord and Savior and turning our backs on the only commandment in the current canon, which as you I’m sure will recall is: “A new commandment I give to you; that you shall love one another as I have loved you.” What part of Commandment do you not understand, and which part excludes parts of society? Please sir/madam, explain yourself.
Satan gains no victory here, and derives no pleasure. There are two or more of us gathered in HIS name of which we speak. And when that happens, sir/madam, there is love!
Thank you for your post. You express your passion well, and although we disagree, we are still equal in His eyes. Please remember to be in attendance at the next congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
You I heard the vote was overwhelming.
The vote tally was 364 in favor of leaving, and 69 in favor of staying. My point is do you want the future of your church to be dictated by 433 people or by the entire church family, all of whom have a stake and a say in this. Also, it takes two thirds of the congregation to ratify leaving. Granted, the first vote represents far more than two thirds, but there is a second vote to be taken.
Anonymous said ...
In any event, the Pastors are responsible for the direction of their flock and will have to answer for their decisions good and bad when they meet their maker.
In any event, the Pastors are responsible for the direction of their flock and will have to answer for their decisions good and bad when they meet their maker.
And I would add, just as you and I will.
Anonymous said ...
In the meantime the congregation has spoken, and instead of believing they are all a bunch of stupid sheep easily misled, I believe they all sought God's guidance, examined the choices carefully and voted based on how they felt the Lord was guiding them.
In the meantime the congregation has spoken, and instead of believing they are all a bunch of stupid sheep easily misled, I believe they all sought God's guidance, examined the choices carefully and voted based on how they felt the Lord was guiding them.
I would argue that the congregation has not spoken. 439 people out of 3,500 rostered members have spoken. I would not question those who were present and voted either way. I’m sure their choices were for good reason.
Anonymous said ...
It's a shame that when the vote went against the people who wanted to stay in the ELCA, certain people then turned around and started a blog to sow seeds of dissention, instead of running their concerns through the proper procedures and channels.
It's a shame that when the vote went against the people who wanted to stay in the ELCA, certain people then turned around and started a blog to sow seeds of dissention, instead of running their concerns through the proper procedures and channels.
By “certain people”, I would assume you are referring to me. My name is Tom Weller; not “certain people.” I would argue that I first addressed this issue with Pastor Garman over a year ago, Pastor Carol and Pastor Jeff at separate times and have been working diligently gathering and dispensing information ever since. I do NOT sow seeds of dissent. This blog champions transparency, open discussion, full disclosure and intelligent conversation in order to encourage informed voting.
Anonymous said ...
I’ve seen this happen many times before in various churches of different denominations.
You have stated my point exactly. It is far better to be open and transparent with a decision of this magnitude than to allow for the slightest hint of impropriety, would you not agree? I openly disagree with Pastoral leadership and have stated so publicly. I do not publish anonymously.
Anonymous said ...
Instead of accepting the decisions of the church and supporting the church, or choosing another church home that more closely conforms to their doctrinal statement, people will do all they can to split the church, cause problems, dissention, and generally wreak havoc.
I accept the decisions of the church and support them. Mine happens to be the ELCA, of which I am currently an active member. What church would you be speaking of?
You are saying then that because I exercise my freedom, granted by the church and by the United States Constitution to speak my dissent freely and openly prior may I add to a vote that will affirm a final decision, that you would accuse me of doing all I can to split the church, cause problems, dissension, and generally wreak havoc. I am trying to save this church from making, IN MY OPINION, the mistake of walking away from our Lord and Savior and turning our backs on the only commandment in the current canon, which as you I’m sure will recall is: “A new commandment I give to you; that you shall love one another as I have loved you.” What part of Commandment do you not understand, and which part excludes parts of society? Please sir/madam, explain yourself.
Anonymous said ...
Of course Satan loves every second of it.
Of course Satan loves every second of it.
Satan gains no victory here, and derives no pleasure. There are two or more of us gathered in HIS name of which we speak. And when that happens, sir/madam, there is love!
Thank you for your post. You express your passion well, and although we disagree, we are still equal in His eyes. Please remember to be in attendance at the next congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Some thoughts from Pastor Garman
Several days ago, I received a post, shown below. I informed all of you that I would be forwarding the post to Pastor Garman for a response and would post the response when it became available. I have received the response. Below is the original post, followed by my letter to Pastor, followed by his response.
Here is the blog post by, of course, anonymous, to which I responded.
Anonymous said...
The Bible is not clear on homosexuality. So you have "heard" that a group called ARCUS gave money to push this through. "Doesn't that trouble you." What troubles me is this statement in itself is part of the problem. You heard someone did this. well great, but don't you think the people of lacasa or any church can make up their own mind given all the facts. Its a rather cynical comment.
As for the blog writer choosing an article that was slanted in his direction. I don't believe so. It appears to me that, I think his name is Tom, presented another position that in fact exposed not only the weaknesses in the position you seek to defend but which represents the thinking of Luther. This is the whole point; we should openly discuss these issues. I would argue that you sir are afraid of the light of day and are afraid to discuss these issues openly and that in effect you ask the rest of us to "dumb down" our beliefs by preferring that we accept something without understanding it.
Ignorance would suggest that someone in this blog is asking that we dismiss paul and moses. that is a political statement. the blog writer is asking that we discuss the issues. the whole point here is that there are different interpretations. Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they are ignoring paul and moses. If i follow that logic then you too are dismissing paul and moses and possibly Luther. Then there is no discussion and you sir have accomplished your goal of controlling the conversation. I believe the blog writer is asking that we have an open discussion of these issues. So what's wrong with that.
Speaking of lacasa's website in an other comment. why don't the pastors put this blog up on the church's website. Why not have open discussions, and use its posting as a precursor to a broader conversation.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 6:31 AM
Tom Weller said...
I’d like to thank the last two posters for their comments. Since the two of you have a discussion in progress, I don’t want to “clutter things up”, as it were. Let me simply address both of you with a thought.
I am here in defense of transparency. I am not here to push an agenda. I have researched this question and both sides of the issue substantially. I have come to my conclusion based on research. I find that many of my fellow family members do not have the understanding or interpretation of scripture that some of us, on both sides of the issue have. What I am arguing is that we are moving too fast, without complete and total discussion and information. I would further argue that this entire process has not been transparent and that an awful lot of our family has been excluded from the decision making process. That is the position I present here in the blog. This post and responses to it will be forwarded this day to Pastor Garman, along with the recommendation that it be put up on the church web page. I will post his response when it becomes available to me.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 11:08 AM
Here is my letter to Pastor Garman.
Dear Pastor,
So that we can be clear: I oppose our move from ELCA on theological, philosophical, and moral grounds. The Lord and Savior I love with all my heart would not discriminate against any of His people regardless of color, nationality, sex, sexual persuasion, or any other anthropological characteristic. How we as Humankind can defend our propensity to do so is simply beyond me, in addition to other people involved in the struggle for human rights. On this issue we obviously disagree. That having been said, I still respect your views as a pastor, and consider you to be a friend. That is one of the challenges I face in taking an opposing viewpoint to your position.
My intent is to get people to vote; give them information with which to decide for themselves, and encourage them with full information and disclosure to vote their conscience. The outcome of the vote is inconsequential in the broader scheme of things. You will do what you must, as will I. However, I maintain that there are 3500 fully capable people here who need to hear both sides of this argument.
To that end, I authored the blog. The reason was simple: To keep discussion, argument if you will, passion, and the love we all have for Christ, and for you, centered right here where it belongs. No one outside of our family need know of our difficulties with this issue but us. It is out of respect for you and our family that I heed your admonition of yesterday to stop putting out fliers in the parking lot.
However, as you will see in the attached blog post and comments today, a question has been asked. This individual wants the blog posted on the church website to allow for discussion and interpretation of the issues that face our family. I would agree that a link should be posted to the blog and have so noted in my response and agreed to forward this particular post to you for your response.
I therefore request we put a link to the blog on our La Casa website for dissemination of information and comment to ALL who are a part of our family. This approach will solve your issue with fliers, and mine with getting people's attention to the issue, and disseminating information. I have asked questions and cited information for folks to refer to in their quest for knowledge, but have taken great steps to ensure that no one disrespects you or the other pastors. Hard questions do have to be asked and answered, but in a respectful manner, don't you agree?
You will recall that I first addressed these concerns with you a year ago. I have subsequently spoken to Jeff and to Carol, along with several hundred other clerical and lay people of various positions on the religious continuum. As I've said in my posts, I now have well over 20,000 pages of documentation, both on and off line regarding this issue. I would propose to share pieces of this information if asked to do so with our congregation before my book is published at the end of October. (Again out of respect to you, I have pushed back the publishing date so as not to confuse the issue close to the vote date.)
I respectfully ask for a quick answer to this question so that I can respond to our poster in an appropriate time frame.
Thank you.
Yours in service to Christ, Tom Weller
Here is Pastor Garman's response
Dear Tom,
Sorry about the problem of getting through on my e-mail address…since we changed over to a new whatever we have had problems…slowly they are being worked out but it supports my theory that the internet is demonic in nature!?!
I had not gone to the blog as I “don’t blog” mainly because I like to have conversations with people either in person or on the phone. Too much that gets printed is either wrong or partial misinformation and as it is passed on it becomes fact. Another reason I don’t particularly care for the anonymous nature either…I just like to know to whom I am speaking. As you can attest, even though we have disagreed, we have remained friends! That to me is a good example of open conversation.
In reading the blog for the first time I guess the first thing that comes to mind is what we have been doing over the last year. We have had numerous opportunities for discussion and questions…even had the Bishop here at a well-publicized meeting and had very few questions asked. We have taken over a year in our process of discernment when a lot of congregations have taken as little as three months! Pastors outside of our congregation including the Bishop have suggested an even faster time table so that it would not interfere with the ministry of the congregation.
The comment of control is always one that seems to crop up when someone wants us to do something other than what is going on. Yes, we determine what subjects are covered and who the teachers are in all of the classes held here on campus. We even require one of our Pastors to be present at any wedding done on our campus…why? Because what happens on this campus represents who we are and what we believe whether it is in a classroom or at a worship service.
From our website anyone can e-mail any one of the pastors if they have a question and as you are well aware, anyone who does gets a personal reply. The date for the second vote has been set, November 7th. There is still time for anyone to ask any question that is on their mind.
Thanks for sharing,
Pastor Garman
So folks, there you have it. Draw your own conclusions from this post and its responses, but please mark your calendars now for the NOVEMBER 7, 2010 VOTE. Please join us at the congregational meeting and remember to vote your conscience. This is our church, and your vote matters!
Here is the blog post by, of course, anonymous, to which I responded.
Anonymous said...
The Bible is not clear on homosexuality. So you have "heard" that a group called ARCUS gave money to push this through. "Doesn't that trouble you." What troubles me is this statement in itself is part of the problem. You heard someone did this. well great, but don't you think the people of lacasa or any church can make up their own mind given all the facts. Its a rather cynical comment.
As for the blog writer choosing an article that was slanted in his direction. I don't believe so. It appears to me that, I think his name is Tom, presented another position that in fact exposed not only the weaknesses in the position you seek to defend but which represents the thinking of Luther. This is the whole point; we should openly discuss these issues. I would argue that you sir are afraid of the light of day and are afraid to discuss these issues openly and that in effect you ask the rest of us to "dumb down" our beliefs by preferring that we accept something without understanding it.
Ignorance would suggest that someone in this blog is asking that we dismiss paul and moses. that is a political statement. the blog writer is asking that we discuss the issues. the whole point here is that there are different interpretations. Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they are ignoring paul and moses. If i follow that logic then you too are dismissing paul and moses and possibly Luther. Then there is no discussion and you sir have accomplished your goal of controlling the conversation. I believe the blog writer is asking that we have an open discussion of these issues. So what's wrong with that.
Speaking of lacasa's website in an other comment. why don't the pastors put this blog up on the church's website. Why not have open discussions, and use its posting as a precursor to a broader conversation.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 6:31 AM
Tom Weller said...
I’d like to thank the last two posters for their comments. Since the two of you have a discussion in progress, I don’t want to “clutter things up”, as it were. Let me simply address both of you with a thought.
I am here in defense of transparency. I am not here to push an agenda. I have researched this question and both sides of the issue substantially. I have come to my conclusion based on research. I find that many of my fellow family members do not have the understanding or interpretation of scripture that some of us, on both sides of the issue have. What I am arguing is that we are moving too fast, without complete and total discussion and information. I would further argue that this entire process has not been transparent and that an awful lot of our family has been excluded from the decision making process. That is the position I present here in the blog. This post and responses to it will be forwarded this day to Pastor Garman, along with the recommendation that it be put up on the church web page. I will post his response when it becomes available to me.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 11:08 AM
Here is my letter to Pastor Garman.
Dear Pastor,
So that we can be clear: I oppose our move from ELCA on theological, philosophical, and moral grounds. The Lord and Savior I love with all my heart would not discriminate against any of His people regardless of color, nationality, sex, sexual persuasion, or any other anthropological characteristic. How we as Humankind can defend our propensity to do so is simply beyond me, in addition to other people involved in the struggle for human rights. On this issue we obviously disagree. That having been said, I still respect your views as a pastor, and consider you to be a friend. That is one of the challenges I face in taking an opposing viewpoint to your position.
My intent is to get people to vote; give them information with which to decide for themselves, and encourage them with full information and disclosure to vote their conscience. The outcome of the vote is inconsequential in the broader scheme of things. You will do what you must, as will I. However, I maintain that there are 3500 fully capable people here who need to hear both sides of this argument.
To that end, I authored the blog. The reason was simple: To keep discussion, argument if you will, passion, and the love we all have for Christ, and for you, centered right here where it belongs. No one outside of our family need know of our difficulties with this issue but us. It is out of respect for you and our family that I heed your admonition of yesterday to stop putting out fliers in the parking lot.
However, as you will see in the attached blog post and comments today, a question has been asked. This individual wants the blog posted on the church website to allow for discussion and interpretation of the issues that face our family. I would agree that a link should be posted to the blog and have so noted in my response and agreed to forward this particular post to you for your response.
I therefore request we put a link to the blog on our La Casa website for dissemination of information and comment to ALL who are a part of our family. This approach will solve your issue with fliers, and mine with getting people's attention to the issue, and disseminating information. I have asked questions and cited information for folks to refer to in their quest for knowledge, but have taken great steps to ensure that no one disrespects you or the other pastors. Hard questions do have to be asked and answered, but in a respectful manner, don't you agree?
You will recall that I first addressed these concerns with you a year ago. I have subsequently spoken to Jeff and to Carol, along with several hundred other clerical and lay people of various positions on the religious continuum. As I've said in my posts, I now have well over 20,000 pages of documentation, both on and off line regarding this issue. I would propose to share pieces of this information if asked to do so with our congregation before my book is published at the end of October. (Again out of respect to you, I have pushed back the publishing date so as not to confuse the issue close to the vote date.)
I respectfully ask for a quick answer to this question so that I can respond to our poster in an appropriate time frame.
Thank you.
Yours in service to Christ, Tom Weller
Here is Pastor Garman's response
Dear Tom,
Sorry about the problem of getting through on my e-mail address…since we changed over to a new whatever we have had problems…slowly they are being worked out but it supports my theory that the internet is demonic in nature!?!
I had not gone to the blog as I “don’t blog” mainly because I like to have conversations with people either in person or on the phone. Too much that gets printed is either wrong or partial misinformation and as it is passed on it becomes fact. Another reason I don’t particularly care for the anonymous nature either…I just like to know to whom I am speaking. As you can attest, even though we have disagreed, we have remained friends! That to me is a good example of open conversation.
In reading the blog for the first time I guess the first thing that comes to mind is what we have been doing over the last year. We have had numerous opportunities for discussion and questions…even had the Bishop here at a well-publicized meeting and had very few questions asked. We have taken over a year in our process of discernment when a lot of congregations have taken as little as three months! Pastors outside of our congregation including the Bishop have suggested an even faster time table so that it would not interfere with the ministry of the congregation.
The comment of control is always one that seems to crop up when someone wants us to do something other than what is going on. Yes, we determine what subjects are covered and who the teachers are in all of the classes held here on campus. We even require one of our Pastors to be present at any wedding done on our campus…why? Because what happens on this campus represents who we are and what we believe whether it is in a classroom or at a worship service.
From our website anyone can e-mail any one of the pastors if they have a question and as you are well aware, anyone who does gets a personal reply. The date for the second vote has been set, November 7th. There is still time for anyone to ask any question that is on their mind.
Thanks for sharing,
Pastor Garman
So folks, there you have it. Draw your own conclusions from this post and its responses, but please mark your calendars now for the NOVEMBER 7, 2010 VOTE. Please join us at the congregational meeting and remember to vote your conscience. This is our church, and your vote matters!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
More about Scripture, Jesus and the vote before us in November
I wanted to take some extra time responding to this comment. You can find it in full here. It's dated Sept. 22 at 12:33 a.m.
Anonymous said...
You can go on about two creation stories (I don’t see two) and do your best to disparage Christians, talk about all the evil they’ve done, talk about how the word of God can’t be trusted, etc., to try to support your beliefs.
First, I will point out that this is a blog created by me to inform, field comment, respond to comment, and yes, provide some of my own opinion. This blog does not disparage anyone, purport to know the evil they’ve done or not done, and certainly not talk about how the Word of God can’t be trusted. The highest expression of the Word of God is Jesus Christ! He is the reason for this convergence of opposing viewpoints (Matthew 10: 34-36). The very fact that we as Christians struggle to define his one commandment to us is the very essence of faith.
Secondly, if you do not see two creation stories, then perhaps we should direct our attention to the birth of Christ stories. Or, for that matter, any number of other scriptural anomalies. This is NOT the fallibility of God’s Word of which we speak; it is the fallibility of the members of Humankind who wrote saw/experienced these events, some of which are corroborated by historical and sociological accounts and also of those who wrote the oral traditions and stories down.
It is the fallibility of mankind and the times in which the events reported took place. And to clarify, the BIBLE to me, as well as the Word of God Jesus Christ, is a living, breathing, evolving event, which reveals more knowledge and understanding to us as we evolve and are able to interpret it. It is not the written version of oral tradition written down thousands of years ago not having changed its meaning and message in all those 4-6000 years ago.
Thirdly, “my beliefs” are of no consequence here. I post and respond to the thoughts posted by OUR family members. Would you invite your child to leave your family because he/she disagreed with you?
Anonymous said ...
That is between you and God. But the fact still remains that the scriptures are clear with when it comes to homosexuality. That is the stance of the church.
1. The scriptures, I would argue, are not clear at all. Homosexuality is a word/concept not explored in the Bible. There are 7 verses by two authors that allude to same sex relationships. That is all. And nowhere in the 2,026 words attributed to our Lord and Savior does the issue of homosexuality or same sex relationships ever appear!
Read those 2,026 words! Tell me what you see and what you find. The bottom line is L O V E. And the commandment He gives to us is just that. (John 13:34-35) I would say that we as Humankind have yet to embrace that one simple Commandment. Notice I capitalized Commandment? Because that is what it is: a commandment! Jesus did not say you can love part time, or part of the people. He said “love one another as I have loved you”. Now that I would argue, my friend is both cut and dried!
2. And just exactly what church would that be to which you refer?
Anonymous said ...
Again, if you disagree with this then by all means show up and vote.
I enjoy the privilege of serving young people. That is my ministry to His service. I attended the meetings and was unable to be at the first congregational vote due to the specifics of my ministry. Pastor Jeff informed me at that point there were no absentee ballots, but graciously reported the results to me later in the day. And, “by all means” I will be there on NOVEMBER 6-7 when the next congregational vote is to be taken.
Anonymous said ...
If the vote does not go the direction you think it should then, again, you are welcome to put that behind you and support the direction the majority have decided to go, or find a church that more closely resembles your doctrinal statement.
Thank you for advising me as to my options. That is very gracious of you.
Anonymous said ...
Of course hanging around and doing Satan’s work, sowing seeds of dissention, talking about how the pastoral staff are evil, don’t have the membership’s best interest at heart, and generally talk down the church in every way possible, is an option, but we would prefer you didn’t.
Specifically who is “we,” sir/madam? You know who I am because I have told you who I am. You have me at a disadvantage, sir/madam, because I do not know who you/we are sir/madam. Would you care to share with me? You have my email address, but if you have misplaced it here it is again: many.oneof@yahoo.com.
Secondly, I do not “hang around”. I engage and learn from each experience, constantly meeting new faces and entertaining new viewpoints.
Thirdly, the “seeds” to which you refer have been sown. And most certainly not by me, have they been. I encourage you to read the blog again and take note of the fact that the opinions to which you refer are posted by “anonymous” as are yours. My comments and responses are posted boldly and proudly over my signature in service to Christ. I have stated repeatedly my personal view of and respect for our pastors. I need not do so again! Please read more carefully sir/madam; as you are spreading the very misconceptions of which you accuse me.
And lastly, this is an attempt at open honest all inclusive discussion. If you do not like what you see and hear here, perhaps it is because you do not know our church as well as you think you do. These are our family members speaking here, and whether you agree with them or not, I would suggest dignity and respect be reciprocal!
Anonymous said ...
Again, there should not be absentee ballots. There is no way to control them. The process has been clear from the beginning. If you are concerned about this issue and direction of La Casa in general, then show up and vote.
Even if absentee ballots were a good idea, why would we want to trust the direction of the church to people who haven’t attended in months, if not years? If they don’t feel that attending regularly is important, how can we take their opinion on this matter seriously?
I've researched this, and I understand now that the rules for the vote are set and can't be changed. Fair enough. This also safeguards against changing the ratio needed to ratify leaving the ELCA, so it's good to have the rules spelled out in advance, as our constitution and bylaws do.
To your second point, I would respond by asking what criteria exist as to what voting membership is. I concur that folks who haven’t been inside the church in months/years probably do not have the concerns of our family at heart. But if they are recognized as members, then certainly they should be allowed to vote as are we all. Perhaps if the vote goes one way rather than the other, more of these people would feel engaged with their church and return to full-time attendance. We simply do not know, now do we?
Anonymous said ...
The people who are concerned showed up for all the discussion on the subject and then showed up to vote and will be there for the final vote.
I see. Only those who attend the meeting can vote, and I know those are the rules. What of those whose work or personal situation precludes them from being at the meeting? What about the sick, or the disabled? The rules preclude them, and I accept them, but it seems we should revisit this issue at a future time.
Anonymous said ...
We invite you to show up and vote also, provided you are a member. Or is limiting the vote to membership also ludicrous?
You know my name sir/madam. You choose not to share yours. You have my contact information. You choose not to share yours. To discover that I am in fact a long time member of La Casa de Cristo, you are free to check the church records should you desire to do so.
The main purpose of this blog is to inform, field comment and respond, but above all to encourage people to vote in the NOVEMBER 6-7 election. I want to encourage people not to approve withdrawal from the ELCA at this time. I want a fuller discussion of the issues, and I want to hear the other side presented by an advocate for that side, not an opponent. Read my first entry again if you wish to review why I am offering this blog to our membership.
Anonymous said...
You can go on about two creation stories (I don’t see two) and do your best to disparage Christians, talk about all the evil they’ve done, talk about how the word of God can’t be trusted, etc., to try to support your beliefs.
First, I will point out that this is a blog created by me to inform, field comment, respond to comment, and yes, provide some of my own opinion. This blog does not disparage anyone, purport to know the evil they’ve done or not done, and certainly not talk about how the Word of God can’t be trusted. The highest expression of the Word of God is Jesus Christ! He is the reason for this convergence of opposing viewpoints (Matthew 10: 34-36). The very fact that we as Christians struggle to define his one commandment to us is the very essence of faith.
Secondly, if you do not see two creation stories, then perhaps we should direct our attention to the birth of Christ stories. Or, for that matter, any number of other scriptural anomalies. This is NOT the fallibility of God’s Word of which we speak; it is the fallibility of the members of Humankind who wrote saw/experienced these events, some of which are corroborated by historical and sociological accounts and also of those who wrote the oral traditions and stories down.
It is the fallibility of mankind and the times in which the events reported took place. And to clarify, the BIBLE to me, as well as the Word of God Jesus Christ, is a living, breathing, evolving event, which reveals more knowledge and understanding to us as we evolve and are able to interpret it. It is not the written version of oral tradition written down thousands of years ago not having changed its meaning and message in all those 4-6000 years ago.
Thirdly, “my beliefs” are of no consequence here. I post and respond to the thoughts posted by OUR family members. Would you invite your child to leave your family because he/she disagreed with you?
Anonymous said ...
That is between you and God. But the fact still remains that the scriptures are clear with when it comes to homosexuality. That is the stance of the church.
1. The scriptures, I would argue, are not clear at all. Homosexuality is a word/concept not explored in the Bible. There are 7 verses by two authors that allude to same sex relationships. That is all. And nowhere in the 2,026 words attributed to our Lord and Savior does the issue of homosexuality or same sex relationships ever appear!
Read those 2,026 words! Tell me what you see and what you find. The bottom line is L O V E. And the commandment He gives to us is just that. (John 13:34-35) I would say that we as Humankind have yet to embrace that one simple Commandment. Notice I capitalized Commandment? Because that is what it is: a commandment! Jesus did not say you can love part time, or part of the people. He said “love one another as I have loved you”. Now that I would argue, my friend is both cut and dried!
2. And just exactly what church would that be to which you refer?
Anonymous said ...
Again, if you disagree with this then by all means show up and vote.
I enjoy the privilege of serving young people. That is my ministry to His service. I attended the meetings and was unable to be at the first congregational vote due to the specifics of my ministry. Pastor Jeff informed me at that point there were no absentee ballots, but graciously reported the results to me later in the day. And, “by all means” I will be there on NOVEMBER 6-7 when the next congregational vote is to be taken.
Anonymous said ...
If the vote does not go the direction you think it should then, again, you are welcome to put that behind you and support the direction the majority have decided to go, or find a church that more closely resembles your doctrinal statement.
Thank you for advising me as to my options. That is very gracious of you.
Anonymous said ...
Of course hanging around and doing Satan’s work, sowing seeds of dissention, talking about how the pastoral staff are evil, don’t have the membership’s best interest at heart, and generally talk down the church in every way possible, is an option, but we would prefer you didn’t.
Specifically who is “we,” sir/madam? You know who I am because I have told you who I am. You have me at a disadvantage, sir/madam, because I do not know who you/we are sir/madam. Would you care to share with me? You have my email address, but if you have misplaced it here it is again: many.oneof@yahoo.com.
Secondly, I do not “hang around”. I engage and learn from each experience, constantly meeting new faces and entertaining new viewpoints.
Thirdly, the “seeds” to which you refer have been sown. And most certainly not by me, have they been. I encourage you to read the blog again and take note of the fact that the opinions to which you refer are posted by “anonymous” as are yours. My comments and responses are posted boldly and proudly over my signature in service to Christ. I have stated repeatedly my personal view of and respect for our pastors. I need not do so again! Please read more carefully sir/madam; as you are spreading the very misconceptions of which you accuse me.
And lastly, this is an attempt at open honest all inclusive discussion. If you do not like what you see and hear here, perhaps it is because you do not know our church as well as you think you do. These are our family members speaking here, and whether you agree with them or not, I would suggest dignity and respect be reciprocal!
Anonymous said ...
Again, there should not be absentee ballots. There is no way to control them. The process has been clear from the beginning. If you are concerned about this issue and direction of La Casa in general, then show up and vote.
Even if absentee ballots were a good idea, why would we want to trust the direction of the church to people who haven’t attended in months, if not years? If they don’t feel that attending regularly is important, how can we take their opinion on this matter seriously?
I've researched this, and I understand now that the rules for the vote are set and can't be changed. Fair enough. This also safeguards against changing the ratio needed to ratify leaving the ELCA, so it's good to have the rules spelled out in advance, as our constitution and bylaws do.
To your second point, I would respond by asking what criteria exist as to what voting membership is. I concur that folks who haven’t been inside the church in months/years probably do not have the concerns of our family at heart. But if they are recognized as members, then certainly they should be allowed to vote as are we all. Perhaps if the vote goes one way rather than the other, more of these people would feel engaged with their church and return to full-time attendance. We simply do not know, now do we?
Anonymous said ...
The people who are concerned showed up for all the discussion on the subject and then showed up to vote and will be there for the final vote.
I see. Only those who attend the meeting can vote, and I know those are the rules. What of those whose work or personal situation precludes them from being at the meeting? What about the sick, or the disabled? The rules preclude them, and I accept them, but it seems we should revisit this issue at a future time.
Anonymous said ...
We invite you to show up and vote also, provided you are a member. Or is limiting the vote to membership also ludicrous?
You know my name sir/madam. You choose not to share yours. You have my contact information. You choose not to share yours. To discover that I am in fact a long time member of La Casa de Cristo, you are free to check the church records should you desire to do so.
The main purpose of this blog is to inform, field comment and respond, but above all to encourage people to vote in the NOVEMBER 6-7 election. I want to encourage people not to approve withdrawal from the ELCA at this time. I want a fuller discussion of the issues, and I want to hear the other side presented by an advocate for that side, not an opponent. Read my first entry again if you wish to review why I am offering this blog to our membership.
Taking a breather - on the lighter side
This has been getting pretty intense lately, which is fine. I think our discussion has to be frank and open, and I appreciate that. But if you're looking to take a little breather, I hope you enjoy this.
The nature of Scripture
I wanted to take some time to engage this commenter in detail. You can see the original comment in full. Look for the comment posted here and dated September 19 at 9:02 p.m.
Anonymous said ...
Either Scripture is the inspired word of God, totally inspired by God, or it's not.
Anonymous said ...
Either Scripture is the inspired word of God, totally inspired by God, or it's not.
If you don't believe that God can have his hand in the translation of scripture then you are placing limits on God's power.
If you believe that the scripture is fallible, then all bets are off and Christianity is no more than a religious movement. I believe that God's word is as infallible today as it was when it was written.
I think the ELCA's website does a nice job in summarizing a traditional Lutheran approach to Scripture. Check it out in full here.
Here are a few relevant passages from the website:
"Lutherans believe that the Bible is the most important of all the ways God’s person and presence are revealed to humanity. That is because it is in reading the biblical books that we most reliably hear and encounter the living Word of God, who is the risen Jesus.
Here are a few relevant passages from the website:
"Lutherans believe that the Bible is the most important of all the ways God’s person and presence are revealed to humanity. That is because it is in reading the biblical books that we most reliably hear and encounter the living Word of God, who is the risen Jesus.
"The Bible’s very name begins to tell us what we have between its covers. In Greek "the Bible" literally means "the books." The Bible that Lutherans use is a collection of 66 books produced over a period of as much as 1,000 years. Each of these books had a life and use of its own prior to its incorporation into what we know as the "sacred canon."
"The Bible contains the story of God’s interaction with humankind, first through the understanding of the Jewish people (Old Testament, 39 books), and subsequently to all people through God’s self revelation in Jesus (New Testament, 27 books).
"Lutherans believe that people meet God in Scripture, where God’s heart, mind, relationship to - and intention for - humankind are revealed. Through an ongoing dialogue with the God revealed in the Bible, people in every age are called to a living faith.
The Bible’s authority rests in God
"ELCA Lutherans confidently proclaim with all Christians that the authority of the Bible rests in God. We believe that God inspired the Bible’s many writers, editors and compilers. As they heard God speaking and discerned God’s activity in events around them in their own times and places, the Bible’s content took shape. Among other things, the literature they produced includes history, legal code, parables, letters of instruction, persuasion and encouragement, tales of heroism, love poetry and hymns of praise. The varying types and styles of literature found here all testify to faith in a God who acts by personally engaging men and women in human history.
"At the same time, we also find in the Bible human emotion, testimony, opinion, cultural limitation and bias. ELCA Lutherans recognize that human testimony and writing are related to and often limited by culture, customs and world view. Today we know that the earth is not flat and that rabbits do not chew their cud (Leviticus 11:6 ). These are examples of time-bound cultural understandings or practices. Christians do not follow biblically prescribed dietary laws such as eliminating pork from one’s diet (Leviticus 11:7) because the new covenant we have with God has replaced the Old Testament covenant God had with his people. Because Biblical writers, editors and compilers were limited by their times and world views, even as we are, the Bible contains material wedded to those times and places. It also means that writers sometimes provide differing and even contradictory views of God’s word, ways and will.
"Listening to the living Jesus in the context of the church, we therefore have the task of deciding among these. Having done this listening, we sometimes conclude either that the writer’s culture or personal experience (e.g., subordination of women or keeping of slaves) seems to have prompted his missing what God was saying or doing, or that God now is saying or doing something new."
I would argue that no bets are off at all. As a matter of fact, speaking for myself the mystery and Glory of God is these very inconsistencies. Different authors writing in different times, often telling a story differently results in these inconsistencies. This simply reflects, again to me, the fact that many had a hand in the biblical scripture. God’s word is infallible. However, man is not; the scribes certainly not; and the witnesses to the events themselves do not necessarily remember the event exactly, or remember it differently than another. Explore the story of the birth of Christ according to Matthew, and then according to Luke. I don’t know about you, but I like the tidy little story we have been brought to believe, and that is how I choose to know the story. However, the two stories do have glaring differences and since they were written within 10-15 years of each other, it makes you wonder, does it not? But you and I share the combined stories as our description, and that is nothing to fear or run from.
Anonymous said ...
And I believe that the scripture’s points on homosexual relations are clear, and I for one have never seen any evidence to the contrary.
And I believe that the scripture’s points on homosexual relations are clear, and I for one have never seen any evidence to the contrary.
Nowhere in the bible is the homosexual relations issue, as we know it today, addressed. Taken in context, which of course we must do, there are the 7 recognized admonitions regarding male relationships and 1, if memory serves, regarding female relationships. Advanced study of modern biblical scholars will clarify this issue for you.
Anonymous said ...
Luther was all about scripture. From what I understand his problem with the church was that the church started teaching things that were not supported by scripture. We are trying to keep the church from doing that again.
Luther was all about scripture. From what I understand his problem with the church was that the church started teaching things that were not supported by scripture. We are trying to keep the church from doing that again.
And this brings up the point that you and I simply disagree with the meaning of the scripture involved. That is why I urge much more discussion specific to the issues at hand.
Anonymous said...
God’s character is the final truth and I think his word is clear on how he feels about homosexual relations. You may choose to disagree but I don’t think you have a leg to stand on. Again, that’s between you and God.
God’s character is the final truth and I think his word is clear on how he feels about homosexual relations. You may choose to disagree but I don’t think you have a leg to stand on. Again, that’s between you and God.
I would suggest that Jesus Christ is the Word of God, as revealed in the Gospel of John, and is therefore the Absolute Truth of which we seek. It is to Him and Him alone that I turn to answer these types of issues. And nowhere in the 2026 words attributed to Jesus Christ is the issue of homosexuality even mentioned.
Anonymous said...
Comparing my beliefs with Nazi sympathizers, slavery, and the persecution of women is the typical response by today’s society. If we believe that homosexual relations are a sin, we must be homophobes. It’s so typical and so wrong. But I would never expect a non-believer to understand. In this case I mean a non-believer in the inspired word of God.
Comparing my beliefs with Nazi sympathizers, slavery, and the persecution of women is the typical response by today’s society. If we believe that homosexual relations are a sin, we must be homophobes. It’s so typical and so wrong. But I would never expect a non-believer to understand. In this case I mean a non-believer in the inspired word of God.
I would urge you to take the post’s reference to be the reflection of the use of scripture by humankind to defend a position, not a comment directed at you. I do not view your beliefs as condoning anything however, you have to admit that scripture has been used throughout history to defend certain positions. Let me be clear: Homosexuality is not a sin. Same sex behavior is as natural to some as heterosexual behavior is to others. A person does not “acquire” homosexuality; it is not a disease. He/she is created the same way as you and I and sexual persuasion has nothing to do with the creation. You either are or are not, but God does not love you any less, and neither therefore, should we.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Looking for more openness - and absentee ballots!
Here's a comment from someone looking for more openness in our discussion of issues at La Casa. I've added my observations as well.
Anonymous said ...
The word of God is infallible but human interpretation is not. Women do not wear scarves in church etc, etc,. we know that some of scripture is culturally bound and we do not give it the weight that we might others. The idea that somehow our "society" is what causes these issues in the church is a tad ludicrous.
The differences with interpretation have been with the church for over 50 years. And certainly the Nazi regime was supported by good Christians that thought they understood scripture and were well meaning. That is not the response of society but actually happened.
Your interpretation of scripture may in fact be as off target as the Lutheran church's was in Germany. The point of this blog, it seems to me, is to point out that to avoid those same mistakes we need to have more open discussion.
So if the word of god is infallible could you give me a short explanation as to why we have two creation stories? and, by all means please let me know which one is infallible. I've never understood which one actually took place.
Thank you for your post. I believe that you have hit on the very questions that we deal with every day in our attempts to walk with Christ. Humankind is flawed. Members of humankind have been inspired by God to create the scriptures from events and revelation in the form of oral stories that have been handed down generation to generation perhaps for thousands of years.
As Reverend Watkins points out in his article below, there are certain differences contained within scripture that cannot be ignored, this being one of them. To say that the scripture can be flawed is common sense. It was written down by scribes who were human. To say that the Word of God is flawed is just not so. So how then, are we as humankind, to know which path is the correct one? We associate ourselves with a spiritual leader and follow his educated lead. However, as we progress in our stewardship to the Lord, we evolve and ask questions and our faith constantly grows to encompass more and more information.
In the situation in which we find ourselves now, we are being forced down a path by leadership and although that little voice in each of us is screaming out to take another look and discuss and learn more, we are not being allowed the privilege of doing so. We have not been given adequate tools, both pro and con, to discern for ourselves which interpretation to follow. To answer your question directly, I submit the following interpretation by Rev. James W. Watkins.
Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe?
For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.
The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.
The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.
Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literal, pre-history type literature, with Abram in Genesis. 12:1 being the first literal historical figure in the Bible. This understanding of Genesis causes an uproar in some quarters. In most church communities, little of this textual study has filtered down to the pew. But, in their professional training, vast numbers of clergy have been exposed to this type of literary scriptural analysis.
In my over 28 years as a pastor, I have encountered many people who are unnecessarily conflicted because they have been made to believe that, to be faithfully religious, one must take a literal view of the Genesis creation accounts. Faced with their scientific understandings going one direction and their spiritual search another, many have felt compelled to give up their spiritual search altogether. This all too common reaction is an unnecessary shame!
So, the next time someone asks you if you believe the Biblical story of creation, just remember the correct reply: "To which Biblical creation story do you refer?"
Rev. James W. Watkins has been pastor of Old South Church, United Church of Christ, Kirtland, OH, since November of 1993. Over a 28-year ministerial career, Rev. Watkins has been pastor of six churches. In addition to his pastoral work, Rev. Watkins is an author, educator, and community activist.
Anonymous said ...
We should be allowed absentee ballots. This process has been controlled and managed and biased from the beginning.
I agree most wholeheartedly! A previous poster maintains that this is unmanageable. It seems to work just fine for Government to have absentee or early voting. I would argue that that assumption is simply not true. It can be and would be a most useful tool in this and other events regarding congregational direction. However, I am forced to agree with your final statement. What are we so afraid of that we can’t submit ourselves and scriptural interpretations to closer scrutiny?
Anonymous said ...
The word of God is infallible but human interpretation is not. Women do not wear scarves in church etc, etc,. we know that some of scripture is culturally bound and we do not give it the weight that we might others. The idea that somehow our "society" is what causes these issues in the church is a tad ludicrous.
The differences with interpretation have been with the church for over 50 years. And certainly the Nazi regime was supported by good Christians that thought they understood scripture and were well meaning. That is not the response of society but actually happened.
Your interpretation of scripture may in fact be as off target as the Lutheran church's was in Germany. The point of this blog, it seems to me, is to point out that to avoid those same mistakes we need to have more open discussion.
So if the word of god is infallible could you give me a short explanation as to why we have two creation stories? and, by all means please let me know which one is infallible. I've never understood which one actually took place.
Thank you for your post. I believe that you have hit on the very questions that we deal with every day in our attempts to walk with Christ. Humankind is flawed. Members of humankind have been inspired by God to create the scriptures from events and revelation in the form of oral stories that have been handed down generation to generation perhaps for thousands of years.
As Reverend Watkins points out in his article below, there are certain differences contained within scripture that cannot be ignored, this being one of them. To say that the scripture can be flawed is common sense. It was written down by scribes who were human. To say that the Word of God is flawed is just not so. So how then, are we as humankind, to know which path is the correct one? We associate ourselves with a spiritual leader and follow his educated lead. However, as we progress in our stewardship to the Lord, we evolve and ask questions and our faith constantly grows to encompass more and more information.
In the situation in which we find ourselves now, we are being forced down a path by leadership and although that little voice in each of us is screaming out to take another look and discuss and learn more, we are not being allowed the privilege of doing so. We have not been given adequate tools, both pro and con, to discern for ourselves which interpretation to follow. To answer your question directly, I submit the following interpretation by Rev. James W. Watkins.
WHICH CREATION STORY?
The Rev. James W. Watkins
The Rev. James W. Watkins
Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe?
For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.
The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.
The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.
Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literal, pre-history type literature, with Abram in Genesis. 12:1 being the first literal historical figure in the Bible. This understanding of Genesis causes an uproar in some quarters. In most church communities, little of this textual study has filtered down to the pew. But, in their professional training, vast numbers of clergy have been exposed to this type of literary scriptural analysis.
In my over 28 years as a pastor, I have encountered many people who are unnecessarily conflicted because they have been made to believe that, to be faithfully religious, one must take a literal view of the Genesis creation accounts. Faced with their scientific understandings going one direction and their spiritual search another, many have felt compelled to give up their spiritual search altogether. This all too common reaction is an unnecessary shame!
So, the next time someone asks you if you believe the Biblical story of creation, just remember the correct reply: "To which Biblical creation story do you refer?"
Rev. James W. Watkins has been pastor of Old South Church, United Church of Christ, Kirtland, OH, since November of 1993. Over a 28-year ministerial career, Rev. Watkins has been pastor of six churches. In addition to his pastoral work, Rev. Watkins is an author, educator, and community activist.
Anonymous said ...
We should be allowed absentee ballots. This process has been controlled and managed and biased from the beginning.
I agree most wholeheartedly! A previous poster maintains that this is unmanageable. It seems to work just fine for Government to have absentee or early voting. I would argue that that assumption is simply not true. It can be and would be a most useful tool in this and other events regarding congregational direction. However, I am forced to agree with your final statement. What are we so afraid of that we can’t submit ourselves and scriptural interpretations to closer scrutiny?
Comments from a passionate poster
I appreciate this person's passion. Here are my thoughts about his or her comments:
Anonymous said ...
Here we go with more conspiracy theories. The March newsletter was sent out detailing all that was happening with this issue and pointing people to the website to checkout FAQs and the letter from the ELCA, etc. That was back in MARCH. The only reason it was taken down was because it had been up for MONTHS and was stale. It was replaced with pertinent information about the process and what’s happening now.
I'm not exactly sure how you know the reason for taking the information down, but I would ask: As the time for the vote draws near, where is the information now? Stale? Hardly, a topic of this nature requires constant updating not just a singular posting. If it becomes stale, freshen it!
Anonymous said ...
It’s very simple. If you are an involved member, you would have seen and heard what was happening with this issue and could have attended the meetings, classes, and discussions on the subject. Then you could have decided to talk to the Pastors, church members, held your own meetings, and come up with an action plan to help influence members to look at things from your point of view.
I consider myself an involved member, and have been so for many years. I attended the meetings and several discussions. I spoke with all three pastors, and several dozen more! I talked to over 200 lay people all over the country regarding this issue. I heard the “company line” but never was exposed to “informed dissent.” That information I had to uncover on my own. Also, I'm less confident than you that anyone with a different point of view would have been granted support for publicizing and holding their own meetings.
Anonymous said ...
There has been a lot of time allocated for people to make up their minds on this issue. AND THERE IS STILL ONE MORE VOTE. If you feel the congregation is not accurately represented, then by all means please make sure people TURN OUT AND VOTE.
Right you are! And that's what I'm trying to do. You will note that at the end of each of my replies to posts, I encourage people not only to attend, but to vote their conscience. With the exception of one other person, I am also the only one on this blog who has chosen to identify myself.
Anonymous said ...
If the people are really concerned about this issue then surely they can take an hour out of their schedule to vote. If they are new to this issue and this is the first they are hearing of it then that calls their commitment to the church into question.
I agree that they can and should take an hour out of their schedule to vote. It is their responsibility if they are indeed engaged with the church family. I would suggest that those who do not have complete and full knowledge should not have their commitment called into question; rather they should be encouraged to find the answers to their questions attend and vote their conscience as well.
Anonymous said ...
This issue has NOT been hidden, hushed up, or anything of the sort. I’ve heard enough discussion on the topic that I’m tired of it and wish they’d move on and get it over with already so the church can move on and reach the community with God’s word and do what they were put here by God to do. Not quarrel over internal matters that take the focus away from God and Christ and saving souls.
You have and are entitled to have your opinion. I do not happen to share it with you. A quarrel over internal matters may well be the best thing to happen within a family.
Anonymous said ...
There is no way to control an absentee ballot process. Again, if you are concerned about the future of the church, put your priorities in order and SHOW UP FOR THE VOTE.
I hope you put yours in order as well. Get out and vote, but encourage all the members you know to vote as well. This is not some kind of game we are playing; this is a dynamic change in direction for us. I suggest that 400 and some people are not the only involved people in this church family.
Thank you for your comments. You are passionate and I appreciate that passion. Now let’s work together to get information disseminated where it is requested, and get everyone we can to be there and vote their conscience. Thanks for your response.
Anonymous said ...
Here we go with more conspiracy theories. The March newsletter was sent out detailing all that was happening with this issue and pointing people to the website to checkout FAQs and the letter from the ELCA, etc. That was back in MARCH. The only reason it was taken down was because it had been up for MONTHS and was stale. It was replaced with pertinent information about the process and what’s happening now.
I'm not exactly sure how you know the reason for taking the information down, but I would ask: As the time for the vote draws near, where is the information now? Stale? Hardly, a topic of this nature requires constant updating not just a singular posting. If it becomes stale, freshen it!
Anonymous said ...
It’s very simple. If you are an involved member, you would have seen and heard what was happening with this issue and could have attended the meetings, classes, and discussions on the subject. Then you could have decided to talk to the Pastors, church members, held your own meetings, and come up with an action plan to help influence members to look at things from your point of view.
I consider myself an involved member, and have been so for many years. I attended the meetings and several discussions. I spoke with all three pastors, and several dozen more! I talked to over 200 lay people all over the country regarding this issue. I heard the “company line” but never was exposed to “informed dissent.” That information I had to uncover on my own. Also, I'm less confident than you that anyone with a different point of view would have been granted support for publicizing and holding their own meetings.
Anonymous said ...
There has been a lot of time allocated for people to make up their minds on this issue. AND THERE IS STILL ONE MORE VOTE. If you feel the congregation is not accurately represented, then by all means please make sure people TURN OUT AND VOTE.
Right you are! And that's what I'm trying to do. You will note that at the end of each of my replies to posts, I encourage people not only to attend, but to vote their conscience. With the exception of one other person, I am also the only one on this blog who has chosen to identify myself.
Anonymous said ...
If the people are really concerned about this issue then surely they can take an hour out of their schedule to vote. If they are new to this issue and this is the first they are hearing of it then that calls their commitment to the church into question.
I agree that they can and should take an hour out of their schedule to vote. It is their responsibility if they are indeed engaged with the church family. I would suggest that those who do not have complete and full knowledge should not have their commitment called into question; rather they should be encouraged to find the answers to their questions attend and vote their conscience as well.
Anonymous said ...
This issue has NOT been hidden, hushed up, or anything of the sort. I’ve heard enough discussion on the topic that I’m tired of it and wish they’d move on and get it over with already so the church can move on and reach the community with God’s word and do what they were put here by God to do. Not quarrel over internal matters that take the focus away from God and Christ and saving souls.
You have and are entitled to have your opinion. I do not happen to share it with you. A quarrel over internal matters may well be the best thing to happen within a family.
Anonymous said ...
There is no way to control an absentee ballot process. Again, if you are concerned about the future of the church, put your priorities in order and SHOW UP FOR THE VOTE.
I hope you put yours in order as well. Get out and vote, but encourage all the members you know to vote as well. This is not some kind of game we are playing; this is a dynamic change in direction for us. I suggest that 400 and some people are not the only involved people in this church family.
Thank you for your comments. You are passionate and I appreciate that passion. Now let’s work together to get information disseminated where it is requested, and get everyone we can to be there and vote their conscience. Thanks for your response.
Don't misinterpret my feelings about our pastors
This came in as a comment recently, and here are my responses:
Anonymous said ...
It is amazing to me, and I feel evil, to hear somebody say the pastors of La Casa aren't Christ centric. The last I heard it's up to God to make those kind of judgments.
I have never said, either publicly or privately, that the pastors of La Casa aren’t Christ-centered. I'm simply asking why are we left in the dark over such an important issue? Why are 9 speaking for 3,500 of us? I want an answer to that question. I also would like to know who the 9 are, who appointed them, and why I was never invited to any meeting of any kind until such time as the 9 had made their decision. I’ve said before I have a great deal of respect for our pastors.
Anonymous said ...
Satan is again laughing.
No sir/madam. Satan is not laughing. Satan knows he is beaten whether it be on this issue or the next one in line. We gather in love to make a very important decision. Satan has no room here. As Luther taught us, "One little word can fell him." I think that word is Jesus, and it's the word that, like love, casts out fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
