You can see the comment below posted in its entirety here. It’s dated October 2, 7:10 p.m. I wanted to make a few observations.
Anonymous said …
First off, instead of requiring a 2/3 vote on what was the most important issue of the life of ELCA (a vote which is required to call a pastor, by the way, because overwhelming consensus is important) , the ELCA church council manipulated it to a simple majority. That right there tells you what you need to know. In addition, if you view the tapes of the Assembly, greetings from major churches who URGED AGAINST voting for these were not done until AFTER the vote, a change from the agenda. Meanwhile, ELCA staffers and pastors and others urged pro yes votes from the PODIUM.
That is politics, sir, not a red herring.
The Missouri Synod is not shrinking faster than the ELCA. Read up on your facts. If we can't call the Bible the Bible or the Holy Scriptures than we have a bigger problem present.
If you want facts about the ELCA, see the numbers. Bible churches and non-denominational and community churches. Mainline Protestants die .
Lastly, La Casa is not split on this . The vote was 86 % in favor of leaving.
So deal with facts. I guess next we will debate the meaning of "is", like not being able to call a
bible a bible or Holy.
I’d remind people that the vote was 86 percent of the people who attended the first meeting, the actual numbers of which were 364 voting in favor of leaving the ELCA and 69 voting against; this is far fewer than seems right for a decision of this magnitude.
I think ELCA congregational constitutions require a second vote so that people have more time to pray and deliberate. I'm encouraging people to do so, and to vote against leaving in the second meeting so we have time to conduct a full, frank exploration of the major issue of how we read and interpret Scripture.
If only one third plus one of the people attending the next meeting indicate they’re not ready to leave, that will keep our split from the ELCA from happening at this time. I hope people consider seriously the damage that splits and schisms cause to the body of Christ ... and the compromise they make to our witness to the world ... and decide not to split until we have had further, widespread consideration of the issues involved.
Thank you for your comments, and please remember to be present at the CONGREGATIONAL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The ELCA promises not to force congregations to take ministers they don't want
You can see the comment below posted here. It’s dated October 1 at 8:27 p.m.. I wanted to make a few observations.
Anonymous said …
What happens when we have gay bishops, like the Episcopalians? That is the next step, and then churches will not have a choice, or if they do, they will be looked down upon as "discriminating."
I happen to know folks who have met Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and if you want to know more about this truly spiritual man, I suggest you view the documentary, “For the Bible Tells Me So.” I have but one copy, so I can only lend it out to one person at a time. Unfortunately, with regard to your second point, there is a sense within the religious community that this indeed may already be happening. There is a completely different attitude now among some when Community of Joy is mentioned.
Anonymous said …
Reality is that the whole ballgame changed. Will La Casa be opened to litigation and being sued for NOT interviewing a gay candidate?
I cannot answer this question. It is best left to the legal types. However, I repeat that nowhere in the decision is La Casa forced to hire or even interview a gay candidate. The decisions leave that avenue open for those who are open to being served by a gay minister in a committed relationship.
Anonymous said …
They can say there is no "forcing", but reality is that the traditionalists who remain in ELCA will be few and far between.
Only time can tell us the answer to that, but my research leads me to believe otherwise. Again, out of 10,000 congregations, lets argue that even as many as 20% leave. That is still an awful lot of ELCA congregations with which to continue the ELCA legacy.
Thank you for your comments. Please remember to be present and vote your conscience at the NOVEMBER 7 CONGREGATIONAL MEETING. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said …
What happens when we have gay bishops, like the Episcopalians? That is the next step, and then churches will not have a choice, or if they do, they will be looked down upon as "discriminating."
I happen to know folks who have met Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson and if you want to know more about this truly spiritual man, I suggest you view the documentary, “For the Bible Tells Me So.” I have but one copy, so I can only lend it out to one person at a time. Unfortunately, with regard to your second point, there is a sense within the religious community that this indeed may already be happening. There is a completely different attitude now among some when Community of Joy is mentioned.
Anonymous said …
Reality is that the whole ballgame changed. Will La Casa be opened to litigation and being sued for NOT interviewing a gay candidate?
I cannot answer this question. It is best left to the legal types. However, I repeat that nowhere in the decision is La Casa forced to hire or even interview a gay candidate. The decisions leave that avenue open for those who are open to being served by a gay minister in a committed relationship.
Anonymous said …
They can say there is no "forcing", but reality is that the traditionalists who remain in ELCA will be few and far between.
Only time can tell us the answer to that, but my research leads me to believe otherwise. Again, out of 10,000 congregations, lets argue that even as many as 20% leave. That is still an awful lot of ELCA congregations with which to continue the ELCA legacy.
Thank you for your comments. Please remember to be present and vote your conscience at the NOVEMBER 7 CONGREGATIONAL MEETING. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Ultimately, the Spirit will take us in the direction he wants for us
You can see the comment below posted here. It’s dated October 2 at 7:15 p.m. I made some initial comments underneath the original post, but I want to make a few more observations.
Anonymous said …
I think you mistake changes in technology and society and confuse them with God's eternal Word. of course we enjoy advances that people did not have years ago.
I would argue that I am confusing nothing. Change is a gift from God too. The difficulty is in determining how to interpret and use the change for the betterment of mankind.
Anonymous said …
But that doesn't mean scripture changes. The fallacy of the slavery and women in leadership roles strawman argument is just that...non-existent. Yes, there are passages in scripture that favor slavery and keeping women subordinate. However, the difference is that there are OTHER passages that uphold freedom for slaves and women as leaders in church .
Yet, some would argue the Bible has no anomalies. And the overwhelming majority of Christianity sees the scriptural arguments to keep women in subordinate roles as far more dominant and convincing than other passages. (I don't, and neither does La Casa, and I'm glad.) One has to read scripture through the lens of time to appreciate why such things as Paul said were believed in their day. I would say the Spirit is leading some of Christianity to have a healthier interpretation of Scripture on this matter and that it's not just an effort to be politically correct.
Anonymous said …
And therein is the difference. In the reading I have done of original languages, there is no mistaking that it means same sex relationships of a sexual nature.
Again, I would argue that in biblical times, same sex relationships as exist today did not exist then. The question is not whether scripture addresses the issue, but in what time and place, and in what social conditions it was addressed. And I stand by my original statement: Nowhere in the 2,026 words attributed to our Lord and Savior does there appear any mention of same sex relationships. And through the lens of Christ we see no comment on the issue. Since we say we are followers of Christ, I suggest we practice what we preach.
Anonymous said …
You can say culture has changed, and we should change. You could say the issue of homosexuality may be a bit different. But you CANNOT ignore scripture on this issue and brush away seven passages, in addition to Jesus saying marriage is the ONLY place for sexual relationships.
I'm not ignoring Scripture. I've wrestled with it mightily. But I believe the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are leading us to the same kinds of new insights we've come to embrace on slavery and the role of women. The scriptures are not to be read solely as a stagnant, ancient text. Most of what it teaches are eternal truths - God created us. We fell. God redeemed and nurtures us because God loves us. Some of what it teaches comes out of strong cultural mores. Our job is to discern the difference, and sometimes we will disagree. Eventually, the Spirit will take us in one direction or the other. Until then, I think it's our job to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Anonymous said …
So be honest, and say you are arguing from science or something else, but don't mislead and say that scripture means something else
So that we may be clear: My theology and yours may disagree, but I mislead no one and neither do you. Interpretive analysis may lead us to different conclusions, but I would argue once again, that without your piece of interpretation and mine, we are no closer to the final picture than we were when we started. When two or more of us are gathered in His name, there is love. And that is what we are both talking about.
Thank you for the time it took you to argue your points. I see you are passionate, as am I, to understand more clearly what He would say to us. Please remember to be present at the congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said …
I think you mistake changes in technology and society and confuse them with God's eternal Word. of course we enjoy advances that people did not have years ago.
I would argue that I am confusing nothing. Change is a gift from God too. The difficulty is in determining how to interpret and use the change for the betterment of mankind.
Anonymous said …
But that doesn't mean scripture changes. The fallacy of the slavery and women in leadership roles strawman argument is just that...non-existent. Yes, there are passages in scripture that favor slavery and keeping women subordinate. However, the difference is that there are OTHER passages that uphold freedom for slaves and women as leaders in church .
Yet, some would argue the Bible has no anomalies. And the overwhelming majority of Christianity sees the scriptural arguments to keep women in subordinate roles as far more dominant and convincing than other passages. (I don't, and neither does La Casa, and I'm glad.) One has to read scripture through the lens of time to appreciate why such things as Paul said were believed in their day. I would say the Spirit is leading some of Christianity to have a healthier interpretation of Scripture on this matter and that it's not just an effort to be politically correct.
Anonymous said …
And therein is the difference. In the reading I have done of original languages, there is no mistaking that it means same sex relationships of a sexual nature.
Again, I would argue that in biblical times, same sex relationships as exist today did not exist then. The question is not whether scripture addresses the issue, but in what time and place, and in what social conditions it was addressed. And I stand by my original statement: Nowhere in the 2,026 words attributed to our Lord and Savior does there appear any mention of same sex relationships. And through the lens of Christ we see no comment on the issue. Since we say we are followers of Christ, I suggest we practice what we preach.
Anonymous said …
You can say culture has changed, and we should change. You could say the issue of homosexuality may be a bit different. But you CANNOT ignore scripture on this issue and brush away seven passages, in addition to Jesus saying marriage is the ONLY place for sexual relationships.
I'm not ignoring Scripture. I've wrestled with it mightily. But I believe the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are leading us to the same kinds of new insights we've come to embrace on slavery and the role of women. The scriptures are not to be read solely as a stagnant, ancient text. Most of what it teaches are eternal truths - God created us. We fell. God redeemed and nurtures us because God loves us. Some of what it teaches comes out of strong cultural mores. Our job is to discern the difference, and sometimes we will disagree. Eventually, the Spirit will take us in one direction or the other. Until then, I think it's our job to treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Anonymous said …
So be honest, and say you are arguing from science or something else, but don't mislead and say that scripture means something else
So that we may be clear: My theology and yours may disagree, but I mislead no one and neither do you. Interpretive analysis may lead us to different conclusions, but I would argue once again, that without your piece of interpretation and mine, we are no closer to the final picture than we were when we started. When two or more of us are gathered in His name, there is love. And that is what we are both talking about.
Thank you for the time it took you to argue your points. I see you are passionate, as am I, to understand more clearly what He would say to us. Please remember to be present at the congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Former member came out at La Casa
You'll find the comment below originally posted here. It's dated October 1 at 1:16 a.m. I wanted to make a few observations.
KCGOODYEAR said ...
Just a point of clarification. If you read my comment from 9/30, I didn't say that the Pastors were throwing stones. It is my opinion based on my history at La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church, that the Pastors have failed in their Spiritual leadership of a congregation throwing stones.
I am keenly aware of the many things Pastor Garman and Pastor Peters have done. Never did I say that they were bad persons for taking a stand. My great disappointment in the Pastors, comes also with the great Christian love and leadership that they had when I was a member of La Casa de Cristo. My link to membership at La Casa de Cristo was unique and much longer than you could ever know. Also, while I was a member, I came out to the Pastor Carol before anyone else I knew, because I felt that my faith and love of God and the church were more important than anything else. At the time I was assured that I would be welcome, and was encouraged to keep my roles and involvement in La Casa de Cristo.
Yes indeed, all sinners may be welcome at La Casa de Cristo, but the distinction to be made is that if you want to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ at Lutheran through, music, fellowship, teaching, or leadership, the congregation is making a judgment for God, in who is worth of spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ and who is not.
Your comment that I am bearing false witness against our leaders is an interesting one. Shouldn't you be asking yourself the following questions: Are you sure that I am? Are you personally condemning me as a breaking one of the ten commandments? Who am I to judge? Is my faith in Jesus and God so small, that I cannot trust in God to make judgement upon me or this person?
I think if you are able to answer any of these questions in all honesty with a yes, then you understand why I feel disappointed and ashamed in the Spiritual Guidance of the Pastors.
This is my last post on this blog. To the Pastors of La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church. Please review the history of the church and realize the destruction that a schism can cause. The harm it can do to families, society, community and the church itself.
To the members of La Casa de Cristo. Please remember that in less than 50 years ago women were not deemed worthy to be ordained. Divorced people, a non-married man and woman were not welcome to teach, preach or be actively in the Lutheran Church. Many members of the church now are actively involved in leadership roles that live within this lifestyle. Please don't ask them to give up their voice for God. How far to you want to stray from a Christ centered life of everyone being able to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ, to a life unlike Jesus Christ where only a few are privileged enough to spread that word.
God Bless you all in your journey from the ELCA.
Thank you, KC, for your heartfelt comments. Having been in our family for as long a time as you apparently were, and watching the situation up close and personal, you of all folk probably know why I am so passionate about trying to save this family from taking what I consider to be the wrong path, without at least having full knowledge of what this path and its consequences really are. There are a couple of things I’d prefer to share with you privately, so if you wish, drop me an email at many.oneof@yahoo.com, and I’ll discuss them with you there. Peace be with you KC and thanks for your blessings. I’m sure we are going to need them.
KCGOODYEAR said ...
Just a point of clarification. If you read my comment from 9/30, I didn't say that the Pastors were throwing stones. It is my opinion based on my history at La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church, that the Pastors have failed in their Spiritual leadership of a congregation throwing stones.
I am keenly aware of the many things Pastor Garman and Pastor Peters have done. Never did I say that they were bad persons for taking a stand. My great disappointment in the Pastors, comes also with the great Christian love and leadership that they had when I was a member of La Casa de Cristo. My link to membership at La Casa de Cristo was unique and much longer than you could ever know. Also, while I was a member, I came out to the Pastor Carol before anyone else I knew, because I felt that my faith and love of God and the church were more important than anything else. At the time I was assured that I would be welcome, and was encouraged to keep my roles and involvement in La Casa de Cristo.
Yes indeed, all sinners may be welcome at La Casa de Cristo, but the distinction to be made is that if you want to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ at Lutheran through, music, fellowship, teaching, or leadership, the congregation is making a judgment for God, in who is worth of spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ and who is not.
Your comment that I am bearing false witness against our leaders is an interesting one. Shouldn't you be asking yourself the following questions: Are you sure that I am? Are you personally condemning me as a breaking one of the ten commandments? Who am I to judge? Is my faith in Jesus and God so small, that I cannot trust in God to make judgement upon me or this person?
I think if you are able to answer any of these questions in all honesty with a yes, then you understand why I feel disappointed and ashamed in the Spiritual Guidance of the Pastors.
This is my last post on this blog. To the Pastors of La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church. Please review the history of the church and realize the destruction that a schism can cause. The harm it can do to families, society, community and the church itself.
To the members of La Casa de Cristo. Please remember that in less than 50 years ago women were not deemed worthy to be ordained. Divorced people, a non-married man and woman were not welcome to teach, preach or be actively in the Lutheran Church. Many members of the church now are actively involved in leadership roles that live within this lifestyle. Please don't ask them to give up their voice for God. How far to you want to stray from a Christ centered life of everyone being able to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ, to a life unlike Jesus Christ where only a few are privileged enough to spread that word.
God Bless you all in your journey from the ELCA.
Thank you, KC, for your heartfelt comments. Having been in our family for as long a time as you apparently were, and watching the situation up close and personal, you of all folk probably know why I am so passionate about trying to save this family from taking what I consider to be the wrong path, without at least having full knowledge of what this path and its consequences really are. There are a couple of things I’d prefer to share with you privately, so if you wish, drop me an email at many.oneof@yahoo.com, and I’ll discuss them with you there. Peace be with you KC and thanks for your blessings. I’m sure we are going to need them.
Not besmirching
The comment below can be found in its entirety here. It's dated October 7 at 7:58 a.m. I want to make a couple of observations.
Anonymous said ...
I don't think it is right that you headline a post that says someone is ashamed of our pastors. You are free to disagree, but you are besmirching their names and their work by doing this.
I appreciate your comments. Let me clarify one issue here: I am not besmirching anyone. I am posting everything, with the exception of some pretty nasty emails that I personally have received, to be transparent. I’ll not post the stuff that contains profanity or name calling, and I’ve been called some whoppers since this blog began! But that’s ok; not everyone will agree with me and this I know all too well. The pastors know how I much I respect them from personal discussions we have had, so to post someone’s opinion will not hurt their reputation in the least. I do feel it necessary to expose the feelings that are present in this discussion, however.
Not, mind you, by this blog, but allowing a post that prominently says things that are against Christian charity.
If you re-read KC’s posts, I think this is what they are complaining about as well. And in their opinion, having been a member of La Casa, I think they have a right to express it in this blog.
Anonymous said ...
This person is not even a member. If the purpose of your blog is promote discussion, good will, and understanding, you won't achieve it by featuring posts like this. I am sure this is hurtful to our pastors.
I think the more important issue is why this person felt compelled to leave our family. What was the specific issue is what I would like to know, and is it relevant to our discussion. We will never know that answer, however, I do think that any member past or present should be welcome here. Certainly only members should be allowed to attend the congregational meetings and vote on the issue, but I welcome conversation from whomever this issue affects.
Thank you for your comments. I take them to heart, I want you to know. And please remember to be present at the CONGREGATIONAL MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
I don't think it is right that you headline a post that says someone is ashamed of our pastors. You are free to disagree, but you are besmirching their names and their work by doing this.
I appreciate your comments. Let me clarify one issue here: I am not besmirching anyone. I am posting everything, with the exception of some pretty nasty emails that I personally have received, to be transparent. I’ll not post the stuff that contains profanity or name calling, and I’ve been called some whoppers since this blog began! But that’s ok; not everyone will agree with me and this I know all too well. The pastors know how I much I respect them from personal discussions we have had, so to post someone’s opinion will not hurt their reputation in the least. I do feel it necessary to expose the feelings that are present in this discussion, however.
Not, mind you, by this blog, but allowing a post that prominently says things that are against Christian charity.
If you re-read KC’s posts, I think this is what they are complaining about as well. And in their opinion, having been a member of La Casa, I think they have a right to express it in this blog.
Anonymous said ...
This person is not even a member. If the purpose of your blog is promote discussion, good will, and understanding, you won't achieve it by featuring posts like this. I am sure this is hurtful to our pastors.
I think the more important issue is why this person felt compelled to leave our family. What was the specific issue is what I would like to know, and is it relevant to our discussion. We will never know that answer, however, I do think that any member past or present should be welcome here. Certainly only members should be allowed to attend the congregational meetings and vote on the issue, but I welcome conversation from whomever this issue affects.
Thank you for your comments. I take them to heart, I want you to know. And please remember to be present at the CONGREGATIONAL MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Some thoughts from an ex-member of La Casa
You'll find the comment excerpted below in its entirety here. It's dated September 30 at 10:33 a.m. I'll make a few observations here.
KCGOODYEAR said ...
Thanks Tom for providing this forum. It is a good way for everyone to express their ideas.
My statement about being ashamed of the pastors of La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church comes not from a parliamentary, democratic or Roberts Rules of Order view of by-laws, but from a spiritual point.
Spiritually, I cannot understand how any Christian person can usurp God's authority over another person's sin. The doubt alone that I would not be making the right judgment for God, would be enough to shake my faith in the ability of God's wisdom.
Jesus has told us that he who is without sin cast the first stone...further he has told us that it is he and the Father who will judge.
Yes, La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church may be welcoming to all sinners. But if your sin is not judged by the congregation to be acceptable, you will not be allowed to spread the word and Good News of Jesus Christ through music, ministry or teaching.
Thanks Tom once again for providing this forum. As a former member of La Casa de Cristo, perhaps it isn't appropriate for me to post here. However, it does hurt my heart to see where the congregation is going and I appreciate you allowing me to post.
Glad to have you as a part of the discussion KC. Your points are well taken and shared by several in this discussion including me. I feel we are missing the most important Commandment given to us by Jesus Christ contained in John 13: 34-35. He didn’t specify who or when to love; just that we love. I fail to see how we can do that by being exclusionary or prejudicial in our relationships with other human beings. I view leaving ELCA will brand our Church and lead us away from our walk with Jesus Christ.
Thank you so much for expressing your views, KC. We appreciate the time you took to comment on our situation. Peace be with you! Yours in Christ, Tom.
KCGOODYEAR said ...
Thanks Tom for providing this forum. It is a good way for everyone to express their ideas.
My statement about being ashamed of the pastors of La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church comes not from a parliamentary, democratic or Roberts Rules of Order view of by-laws, but from a spiritual point.
Spiritually, I cannot understand how any Christian person can usurp God's authority over another person's sin. The doubt alone that I would not be making the right judgment for God, would be enough to shake my faith in the ability of God's wisdom.
Jesus has told us that he who is without sin cast the first stone...further he has told us that it is he and the Father who will judge.
Yes, La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church may be welcoming to all sinners. But if your sin is not judged by the congregation to be acceptable, you will not be allowed to spread the word and Good News of Jesus Christ through music, ministry or teaching.
Thanks Tom once again for providing this forum. As a former member of La Casa de Cristo, perhaps it isn't appropriate for me to post here. However, it does hurt my heart to see where the congregation is going and I appreciate you allowing me to post.
Glad to have you as a part of the discussion KC. Your points are well taken and shared by several in this discussion including me. I feel we are missing the most important Commandment given to us by Jesus Christ contained in John 13: 34-35. He didn’t specify who or when to love; just that we love. I fail to see how we can do that by being exclusionary or prejudicial in our relationships with other human beings. I view leaving ELCA will brand our Church and lead us away from our walk with Jesus Christ.
Thank you so much for expressing your views, KC. We appreciate the time you took to comment on our situation. Peace be with you! Yours in Christ, Tom.
Let's study before we make an irrevocable decision
You'll find the comment excerpted below in its entirety here. It's dated September 30 at 12:32 p.m. Let me make a few observations here.
Anonymous said ...
Saying "you twist words" is a great way to poison the well. We don't want to follow everything Luther said. He also said some pretty unsightly things about Jews that if I follow your logic would have been based in scripture. When you say the bible is clear it is confusing to me. There are interpretations on both sides of this issue that appear to be clear. Both sides have their own biases if you will. There is no way to say which one is right.
Luther used the one of the philosophies of the day to help him articulate his understanding of his Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. This philosophy helped him understand how God could be in the world but not of the world.
We do not have, in the Lutheran church, a corresponding anthropology that helps us interpret human beings as they appear and act in scripture. We just read and say, "that's clear." But so does the other side. This is why Tom's attempt to generate conversation here is so important. Important because we live in a different world than Luther and our anthropology would be different than Luther’s.
Of course the problem with what I am suggesting is that anthropology is a science and the fundamentalist branch of the Lutheran denomination rejects science as having anything positive to say with regard to faith. There is no evolution etc, etc. Consequently we end up in circular conversation as we have in this blog. It seems inevitable that the fundamentalists would have to split away from the ELCA and form their own church. Its unfortunate but it seems to be the only answer.
This post identifies some of the problems we face in this discussion. The problem remains that prior to a vote that will change the direction we as a church family take, we must have full and complete information with which to make such a decision. This can only come from ongoing and in-depth conversation with those in favor of and those opposed to such a move. We need to know why we should stay and why we should leave ELCA. We need information before we make an irrevocable decision!
Thank you for expressing your concerns so well. Please remember to be present at the NOVEMBER 7 2010 congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
Saying "you twist words" is a great way to poison the well. We don't want to follow everything Luther said. He also said some pretty unsightly things about Jews that if I follow your logic would have been based in scripture. When you say the bible is clear it is confusing to me. There are interpretations on both sides of this issue that appear to be clear. Both sides have their own biases if you will. There is no way to say which one is right.
Luther used the one of the philosophies of the day to help him articulate his understanding of his Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. This philosophy helped him understand how God could be in the world but not of the world.
We do not have, in the Lutheran church, a corresponding anthropology that helps us interpret human beings as they appear and act in scripture. We just read and say, "that's clear." But so does the other side. This is why Tom's attempt to generate conversation here is so important. Important because we live in a different world than Luther and our anthropology would be different than Luther’s.
Of course the problem with what I am suggesting is that anthropology is a science and the fundamentalist branch of the Lutheran denomination rejects science as having anything positive to say with regard to faith. There is no evolution etc, etc. Consequently we end up in circular conversation as we have in this blog. It seems inevitable that the fundamentalists would have to split away from the ELCA and form their own church. Its unfortunate but it seems to be the only answer.
This post identifies some of the problems we face in this discussion. The problem remains that prior to a vote that will change the direction we as a church family take, we must have full and complete information with which to make such a decision. This can only come from ongoing and in-depth conversation with those in favor of and those opposed to such a move. We need to know why we should stay and why we should leave ELCA. We need information before we make an irrevocable decision!
Thank you for expressing your concerns so well. Please remember to be present at the NOVEMBER 7 2010 congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
This is why I began this blog
You can find the comment excerpted below in its entirety here. It's dated September 29 at 8:05 p.m. I wanted to make a few comments here.
Anonymous said ...
Thank you for the scriptural links and article on-line. I have since found many more articles. There appears to be a real schism on the interpretation of these 7 verses of scripture, with many strong arguments on both sides.
This is the very reason I initiated this blog. I’m thankful that these links helped. To some of your other questions, I will also point out certain links which may be of help.
Anonymous said ...
I did not participate in the first vote, as I am conflicted on this issue. Many people at church appear to be comfortable with their decisions. I decided to let the majority speak and determine whether or not to stay in the church, depending on any ensuing changes. I was dismayed when only a minority of members voted.
Folks, this is a “YOU” issue, not a him or her issue. Our church is coming to a crossroads in making this decision. It is a decision that we need to make together, all of us, and be as informed as we can be when we cast our vote at the congregational meeting of November 7, 2010. As most of you are now seeing, this is not a cut-and-dried situation as to leaving ELCA. It has many facets, and we simply have not explored everything there is to learn.
Anonymous said ...
During the church meeting I attended, our pastors effectively communicated their positions. I respect them all, but I couldn't really articulate my concerns at that time. It was easier for me to let someone else make the decision, and then react to it later. Now I find myself confronting my concerns once again, but certainly don't want to "sow any seeds of discontent."
This is precisely my point, and why this blog was established. None of us might feel comfortable standing in a public forum and asking questions or expressing an opinion contrary to what we perceive the general consensus to be. It is important that we all know and understand that there are others just like us, who feel as we do, and want simply to be heard and the issue explained more fully.
Anonymous said ...
One thing that concerns me--are gay people genetically predisposed or is their lifestyle merely a choice? I've read articles indicating that the brain scans of gay men resemble scans of women's brains. There seem to be questions as to whether the hormonal balances in utero of gay people are different from those of the "straight" population. (Those of us who raised teenagers know the havoc hormones can create.) I don't know, however, if anyone in the scientific community has taken a stance one way or the other on this subject? Is this lifestyle merely one of choice? I'm not gay so I don't have experience in this regard. However, I can't imagine why anyone would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to so much ridicule, discrimination, and at times open hatred, without there being some predisposition.
This fall, I have a book coming out that discusses this issue in its relation to the bigger issue of religion and the GLBT community (The letters stand for Gay, Lesbian, Bi Sexual and Transgender). This is not a simple question to answer, and the scientific community has just as much problem with it as do you and I. One of the survey interviews that I conducted expressed one person’s feelings and I feel is worth sharing:
……“Let’s look more closely at the personal side of what it means to be gay in this world. First, to the issue of this being a “chosen lifestyle” or the result of a “fall from grace into sin.” I am often stunned by how quickly those who would argue that people like me have “chosen” this “sick” life are so quick to argue something they truly know so little about. My knowing (and indeed, the knowing of most of my gay brothers and sisters) is that I was born to be this way with absolutely no choice in the matter. My very earliest memories support this fact.”……
The study that I did is not meant to be scientific. It is a blind study, insofar, as none of the responders to the survey are known to me. I am familiar with this particular responder as they chose to comment outside of the actual survey,and know this is how they perceive of themselves. There are two links I will provide to you for further study.
www.soulforce.com is a faith based group of GLBT and non GLBT members which discusses issues of this type among many other subjects.
www.avert.org/being-gay.html is a second site from which you can gather information.
To be transparent, which is of course what this blog espouses, an opposing opinion is provided at this site:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html.
As is obvious after reading all the information, there is at present no better source to which to turn than those who are GLBT. And the brief snippet above does as good a job of clarifying that issue as exists at the present time. I have heard and read the same opinions from many others.
Anonymous said ...
Another concern - If our congregation makes this decision, will gay people feel they are welcome in the congregation? The current stance of the church, I believe, is that they should live a celibate life to avoid sin. If that works, great. However, this stance has certainly backfired in the Catholic church community as some men (who apparently had gay tendencies) entered the priesthood to live a life of service to God in a celibate lifestyle. I guess what I am asking-is this a realistic expectation? If a gay person tried to live a celibate life and then couldn't, would they feel like they could remain in the congregation? Jesus reached out to the unacceptable members of society in His time--would He want us to push these people away?
The title of my book is “What Would He Say”. And that is how I choose to live my life. To answer your first question, you have to walk, with your imagination, in the shoes of a GLBT person, to feel what it would be like. And of course, no two people are alike, and therefore, no example is all inclusive. However, just ask yourself how you would feel, and what you think, Jesus might say. The greatest commandment, the one that I argue is the reason for the before, during and after story of Christ being told in the biblical texts, is contained in the Gospel of John 13: 34-35. That is where I feel that we as Christians misinterpret what we are being taught.
Anonymous said ...
Another concern - It is my understanding that ELCA is allowing member churches to decide not to adopt this new particular viewpoint and not to call pastors who do. So why leave the ELCA? Staying allows a dialogue on this issue to continue; leaving ends the dialogue. I am concerned that continued divisions within the Christian faith causes more people to question their faith rather than living it.
ELCA has repeatedly stated and it is expressed continuously that no congregation will be forced to hire someone whom they the congregation, does not want to hire. This is an expression of inclusion by ELCA, not forced upon individual church families. I am working on posting an email that I received from Marcus Kunz, who is the assistant to Presiding Bishop Hansen that spells this out.
Folks, now you see why I began this blog. Regardless of what some might think, I’m not the enemy here, nor is ELCA. I am concerned that all of us have complete and total information before being asked to make such an important decision. I have been researching this topic and its dynamics for many years. I certainly do not have all the answers, and neither, I would argue does our congregation without total transparent, all inclusive discussion and reference material.
Thank you so much for joining our discussion. It is important for you to know that we are all family here, and what is best for our entire family is the issue here. I hope this information is helpful to you.
Please plan to attend the congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and please vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
Thank you for the scriptural links and article on-line. I have since found many more articles. There appears to be a real schism on the interpretation of these 7 verses of scripture, with many strong arguments on both sides.
This is the very reason I initiated this blog. I’m thankful that these links helped. To some of your other questions, I will also point out certain links which may be of help.
Anonymous said ...
I did not participate in the first vote, as I am conflicted on this issue. Many people at church appear to be comfortable with their decisions. I decided to let the majority speak and determine whether or not to stay in the church, depending on any ensuing changes. I was dismayed when only a minority of members voted.
Folks, this is a “YOU” issue, not a him or her issue. Our church is coming to a crossroads in making this decision. It is a decision that we need to make together, all of us, and be as informed as we can be when we cast our vote at the congregational meeting of November 7, 2010. As most of you are now seeing, this is not a cut-and-dried situation as to leaving ELCA. It has many facets, and we simply have not explored everything there is to learn.
Anonymous said ...
During the church meeting I attended, our pastors effectively communicated their positions. I respect them all, but I couldn't really articulate my concerns at that time. It was easier for me to let someone else make the decision, and then react to it later. Now I find myself confronting my concerns once again, but certainly don't want to "sow any seeds of discontent."
This is precisely my point, and why this blog was established. None of us might feel comfortable standing in a public forum and asking questions or expressing an opinion contrary to what we perceive the general consensus to be. It is important that we all know and understand that there are others just like us, who feel as we do, and want simply to be heard and the issue explained more fully.
Anonymous said ...
One thing that concerns me--are gay people genetically predisposed or is their lifestyle merely a choice? I've read articles indicating that the brain scans of gay men resemble scans of women's brains. There seem to be questions as to whether the hormonal balances in utero of gay people are different from those of the "straight" population. (Those of us who raised teenagers know the havoc hormones can create.) I don't know, however, if anyone in the scientific community has taken a stance one way or the other on this subject? Is this lifestyle merely one of choice? I'm not gay so I don't have experience in this regard. However, I can't imagine why anyone would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to so much ridicule, discrimination, and at times open hatred, without there being some predisposition.
This fall, I have a book coming out that discusses this issue in its relation to the bigger issue of religion and the GLBT community (The letters stand for Gay, Lesbian, Bi Sexual and Transgender). This is not a simple question to answer, and the scientific community has just as much problem with it as do you and I. One of the survey interviews that I conducted expressed one person’s feelings and I feel is worth sharing:
……“Let’s look more closely at the personal side of what it means to be gay in this world. First, to the issue of this being a “chosen lifestyle” or the result of a “fall from grace into sin.” I am often stunned by how quickly those who would argue that people like me have “chosen” this “sick” life are so quick to argue something they truly know so little about. My knowing (and indeed, the knowing of most of my gay brothers and sisters) is that I was born to be this way with absolutely no choice in the matter. My very earliest memories support this fact.”……
The study that I did is not meant to be scientific. It is a blind study, insofar, as none of the responders to the survey are known to me. I am familiar with this particular responder as they chose to comment outside of the actual survey,and know this is how they perceive of themselves. There are two links I will provide to you for further study.
www.soulforce.com is a faith based group of GLBT and non GLBT members which discusses issues of this type among many other subjects.
www.avert.org/being-gay.html is a second site from which you can gather information.
To be transparent, which is of course what this blog espouses, an opposing opinion is provided at this site:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html.
As is obvious after reading all the information, there is at present no better source to which to turn than those who are GLBT. And the brief snippet above does as good a job of clarifying that issue as exists at the present time. I have heard and read the same opinions from many others.
Anonymous said ...
Another concern - If our congregation makes this decision, will gay people feel they are welcome in the congregation? The current stance of the church, I believe, is that they should live a celibate life to avoid sin. If that works, great. However, this stance has certainly backfired in the Catholic church community as some men (who apparently had gay tendencies) entered the priesthood to live a life of service to God in a celibate lifestyle. I guess what I am asking-is this a realistic expectation? If a gay person tried to live a celibate life and then couldn't, would they feel like they could remain in the congregation? Jesus reached out to the unacceptable members of society in His time--would He want us to push these people away?
The title of my book is “What Would He Say”. And that is how I choose to live my life. To answer your first question, you have to walk, with your imagination, in the shoes of a GLBT person, to feel what it would be like. And of course, no two people are alike, and therefore, no example is all inclusive. However, just ask yourself how you would feel, and what you think, Jesus might say. The greatest commandment, the one that I argue is the reason for the before, during and after story of Christ being told in the biblical texts, is contained in the Gospel of John 13: 34-35. That is where I feel that we as Christians misinterpret what we are being taught.
Anonymous said ...
Another concern - It is my understanding that ELCA is allowing member churches to decide not to adopt this new particular viewpoint and not to call pastors who do. So why leave the ELCA? Staying allows a dialogue on this issue to continue; leaving ends the dialogue. I am concerned that continued divisions within the Christian faith causes more people to question their faith rather than living it.
ELCA has repeatedly stated and it is expressed continuously that no congregation will be forced to hire someone whom they the congregation, does not want to hire. This is an expression of inclusion by ELCA, not forced upon individual church families. I am working on posting an email that I received from Marcus Kunz, who is the assistant to Presiding Bishop Hansen that spells this out.
Folks, now you see why I began this blog. Regardless of what some might think, I’m not the enemy here, nor is ELCA. I am concerned that all of us have complete and total information before being asked to make such an important decision. I have been researching this topic and its dynamics for many years. I certainly do not have all the answers, and neither, I would argue does our congregation without total transparent, all inclusive discussion and reference material.
Thank you so much for joining our discussion. It is important for you to know that we are all family here, and what is best for our entire family is the issue here. I hope this information is helpful to you.
Please plan to attend the congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and please vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
A thoughtful, welcome comment
You can find the comment excerpted below in its entirety here. It's dated October 5 at 7:26 a.m. I wanted to make a few comments.
Anonymous said ...
Sorry, I don't understand all the choices with a Google or Wordpress or whatever but my name is Robert Smith and I joined La Casa after all the problems with ELCA in my parish in Fountain Hills. I have been a member a little over a year. The congregation I used to be a part of is now split ,with people who believe the ELCA stance in one place and others another.
One reason I am reluctant to identify myself is that so often those folks who are more traditional are attacked as fundamentalists. I finally decided that it was time to step forward and state the following:
1) I do not agree La Casa is a fundamentalist church in worship or class offerings. It is the most traditional Lutheran church I have ever been a part of . I have taken several classes and men's studies and been very impressed. At least in what I have been a part of , free and open discussion is encouraged and people do disagree. I was part of a class last year that was controversial and some viewed the book studied as too liberal. As I said above, it seems our leaders are getting it from both sides, for some too liberal, for some too conservative.
2) As for the argument above about the Truth Project, Peter, I can't say as I have not attended. I guess if you feel so strongly La Casa is wrong in what they teach, then why do you stay ? There are plenty of revisionist ELCA congregations that teach the bible is myth and only symbolic out there to choose from .
3) In my home congregation I saw some folks on the liberal end of the spectrum do hideous things in the name of being "progressive" and against the ones they saw as "fundamentalist". Both extremes really bother me. Yes there are closed minded and nasty fundamentalists but the same is true of so called "enlightened" progressives or liberals or whatever they want to be called.
People can be closed minded on all ends of the spectrum.
Thank you, Robert, for joining our conversation and getting involved. We are not here to judge, or as you say so specifically, engage in one extreme or the other. You are definitely preaching to the choir on that topic.
We are here to try to avoid the situation that you describe as having happened at your former congregation. Make no mistake, here we love and respect the good that La Casa and its leadership has done. We only want full disclosure, a balanced open discussion of the issues from both protagonists and antagonists, and complete education of the congregation resulting in a representative vote.
I've heard that only a fraction of your former church family voted, as did a minute fraction of Community of Joy. I feel that a fraction of our congregation should not be relied upon to speak for 3,500 members. It is not so much about staying or going, as it is allowing for full, open, and informed discussion members. Having been involved not only here, but in many other different scenarios where the argument gets caught up in personal attacks and disrespect of the opposing side of an argument, I do not wish for us to revisit what you have been through; nor do I want us to rush to judgment when there is so much information on both sides of the discussion yet to be heard.
La Casa has been my home for 20 years. I have every hope that we come through this period of our history stronger for having a deeper understanding and revelation of the Glory of Christ’s teachings.
Please be present at the NOVEMBER 7, 2010, congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Thank you for your input, and peace be with you. Yours in service of Christ, Tom
Anonymous said ...
Sorry, I don't understand all the choices with a Google or Wordpress or whatever but my name is Robert Smith and I joined La Casa after all the problems with ELCA in my parish in Fountain Hills. I have been a member a little over a year. The congregation I used to be a part of is now split ,with people who believe the ELCA stance in one place and others another.
One reason I am reluctant to identify myself is that so often those folks who are more traditional are attacked as fundamentalists. I finally decided that it was time to step forward and state the following:
1) I do not agree La Casa is a fundamentalist church in worship or class offerings. It is the most traditional Lutheran church I have ever been a part of . I have taken several classes and men's studies and been very impressed. At least in what I have been a part of , free and open discussion is encouraged and people do disagree. I was part of a class last year that was controversial and some viewed the book studied as too liberal. As I said above, it seems our leaders are getting it from both sides, for some too liberal, for some too conservative.
2) As for the argument above about the Truth Project, Peter, I can't say as I have not attended. I guess if you feel so strongly La Casa is wrong in what they teach, then why do you stay ? There are plenty of revisionist ELCA congregations that teach the bible is myth and only symbolic out there to choose from .
3) In my home congregation I saw some folks on the liberal end of the spectrum do hideous things in the name of being "progressive" and against the ones they saw as "fundamentalist". Both extremes really bother me. Yes there are closed minded and nasty fundamentalists but the same is true of so called "enlightened" progressives or liberals or whatever they want to be called.
People can be closed minded on all ends of the spectrum.
Thank you, Robert, for joining our conversation and getting involved. We are not here to judge, or as you say so specifically, engage in one extreme or the other. You are definitely preaching to the choir on that topic.
We are here to try to avoid the situation that you describe as having happened at your former congregation. Make no mistake, here we love and respect the good that La Casa and its leadership has done. We only want full disclosure, a balanced open discussion of the issues from both protagonists and antagonists, and complete education of the congregation resulting in a representative vote.
I've heard that only a fraction of your former church family voted, as did a minute fraction of Community of Joy. I feel that a fraction of our congregation should not be relied upon to speak for 3,500 members. It is not so much about staying or going, as it is allowing for full, open, and informed discussion members. Having been involved not only here, but in many other different scenarios where the argument gets caught up in personal attacks and disrespect of the opposing side of an argument, I do not wish for us to revisit what you have been through; nor do I want us to rush to judgment when there is so much information on both sides of the discussion yet to be heard.
La Casa has been my home for 20 years. I have every hope that we come through this period of our history stronger for having a deeper understanding and revelation of the Glory of Christ’s teachings.
Please be present at the NOVEMBER 7, 2010, congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Thank you for your input, and peace be with you. Yours in service of Christ, Tom
Saturday, October 2, 2010
A letter to churches thinking about leaving the ELCA
I wanted to make this resource available to all of you. It can be downloaded as a pdf file, or you can click on the Fullscreen option to read it on your computer. You can also use your printer to make a copy.
This is a letter written by the Rev. Dr. William Gafkjen, bishop elect of the ELCA's Indiana-Kentucky Synod, to the congregations he serves. Rev. Gafkjen is responding to a piece by Dr. Robert Benne, who strongly opposes the actions taken last summer by the ELCA in convention. I hope you'll take time to read it.
This is a letter written by the Rev. Dr. William Gafkjen, bishop elect of the ELCA's Indiana-Kentucky Synod, to the congregations he serves. Rev. Gafkjen is responding to a piece by Dr. Robert Benne, who strongly opposes the actions taken last summer by the ELCA in convention. I hope you'll take time to read it.
A distortion of Luther?
You'll find the original post excerpted below here. It's dated September 29 at 4:24 p.m. You'll see that it has inspired quite a string of comments already. I wanted to add a few more.
Anonymous said ...
Well, you have really distorted Luther's teaching. Luther wrote in one book 'If anyone comes along saying something is "new" by the Holy Spirit, and of a new era and new understanding, test it with scripture". Not sure where it is, but I read it in college.
There are volumes upon volumes written by and about Luther and his work. I don't think I've distorted his views, but any effort to discuss them here will have its limitations, on both sides! I would emphasize, however, that Luther was first and foremost about receiving and being thankful for the Gospel and the love of God. He struggled with the burden of guilt and sin, but he learned to tell his tormenter, Satan (the accuser), that Satan would just have to take up any accusations he had against Luther with Luther's savior, Jesus. That is the freedom and assurance of faith!
Luther was not only about Scripture alone but also grace alone and faith alone. Working out the tensions among those principles is a big part of what we're doing with the contentious issue before us today.
The comments in red above are an expression of several arguments frequently put forth in this discussion. The argument expressed is indeed a time tested or time worn one, depending of course on your point of view. However, let me point out something.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly and then face to face.” This verse from 1 Corinthians 13 poses a couple of interpretations right off the bat. The one I have pulled from it for 50 years is that we must continue to grow in our relationship with scripture and Jesus Christ, but we will never see either of these as clearly as we will when we're with him face to face in heaven. We all need humility. I admit I might not see these issues entirely clearly. My contribution to the discussion is to state my understanding, listen humbly to others, then let the Spirit move among us, as he has done in such issues as slavery, race and the role of women in the church.
Our understanding of these and other issues now is completely different than it once was. To take the 7 passages now in the context of when, by whom, and where they were written yields an interpretation, no doubt. But, the question exists as to whether that interpretation is relevant in a changing world.
There are those who said that buggies were never going to be replaced by the automobile, the airplane, the jet airplane, and the rocket ship. There are those who would deny medical advances because of admonitions and interpretations expressed thousands of years ago. New medical advances occur every day as humankind evolves! Would you deny their use, if it were to save your life? I would argue our ability to interpret scripture and offer interpretation is a gift from God, as are our advances. So perhaps following HIS commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you”, should be our guiding principle. And therein, my Christian Brother or Sister, lies the rub and the need for full, frank, open, respectful discussion.
Thank you so much for your views. They are an invaluable part of our discussion. Please remember to be present at the second Congregational vote scheduled for NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in the service of Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
Well, you have really distorted Luther's teaching. Luther wrote in one book 'If anyone comes along saying something is "new" by the Holy Spirit, and of a new era and new understanding, test it with scripture". Not sure where it is, but I read it in college.
Both Christ and Luther never leave us "alone in our sin". Gay or straight or whatever, he should change us , not just "accept us for who we are ". He told people to go and sin no more...he loved people, but did not accept their sin. Do you think Christ should leave you unchanged in your sin?
For the church of "scripture alone" to take this simple majority vote in their convention defies logic. Luther would never do anything that went against scripture....thus, your analogy about suicide is a strawman. That was a tradtion in the RC church about all suicides going to hell, not in the bible.
There are seven passages in the bible. Read them. They are clear. Jesus also made it clear marriage is the primary relationship-read the Gospel of Matthew. He DID speak of this issue, because he lifted up man and woman as the only primary relationship and God-ordained.
You sure twist words.
There are volumes upon volumes written by and about Luther and his work. I don't think I've distorted his views, but any effort to discuss them here will have its limitations, on both sides! I would emphasize, however, that Luther was first and foremost about receiving and being thankful for the Gospel and the love of God. He struggled with the burden of guilt and sin, but he learned to tell his tormenter, Satan (the accuser), that Satan would just have to take up any accusations he had against Luther with Luther's savior, Jesus. That is the freedom and assurance of faith!
Luther was not only about Scripture alone but also grace alone and faith alone. Working out the tensions among those principles is a big part of what we're doing with the contentious issue before us today.
The comments in red above are an expression of several arguments frequently put forth in this discussion. The argument expressed is indeed a time tested or time worn one, depending of course on your point of view. However, let me point out something.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly and then face to face.” This verse from 1 Corinthians 13 poses a couple of interpretations right off the bat. The one I have pulled from it for 50 years is that we must continue to grow in our relationship with scripture and Jesus Christ, but we will never see either of these as clearly as we will when we're with him face to face in heaven. We all need humility. I admit I might not see these issues entirely clearly. My contribution to the discussion is to state my understanding, listen humbly to others, then let the Spirit move among us, as he has done in such issues as slavery, race and the role of women in the church.
Our understanding of these and other issues now is completely different than it once was. To take the 7 passages now in the context of when, by whom, and where they were written yields an interpretation, no doubt. But, the question exists as to whether that interpretation is relevant in a changing world.
There are those who said that buggies were never going to be replaced by the automobile, the airplane, the jet airplane, and the rocket ship. There are those who would deny medical advances because of admonitions and interpretations expressed thousands of years ago. New medical advances occur every day as humankind evolves! Would you deny their use, if it were to save your life? I would argue our ability to interpret scripture and offer interpretation is a gift from God, as are our advances. So perhaps following HIS commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you”, should be our guiding principle. And therein, my Christian Brother or Sister, lies the rub and the need for full, frank, open, respectful discussion.
Thank you so much for your views. They are an invaluable part of our discussion. Please remember to be present at the second Congregational vote scheduled for NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in the service of Christ, Tom.
ELCA document available for the asking
You'll find this comment in its entirety here. I wanted to make a few observations.
Anonymous said ...
Actually, that is not true. At the first vote, 66% percent in Fountain Hills voted to LEAVE, there could not be 80% who wanted to stay... I used to be a member there, have since joined La Casa.
Thank you for your opinion on this issue. I do not have knowledge of the procedure or vote that the Fountain Hills church followed, so I cannot comment on this. I think it is time for me to say something again:
The ELCA ruling does not force individual churches to follow this decision. It is left up to the local church to hire whomever they want. Bishop Talmage said as much, as has ELCA national. However, when a congregation decides to leave ELCA, it makes a statement to the community. This simply cannot be dismissed.
I have received from ELCA, Marcus Kunz to be precise, a presentation that national makes available to speakers who discuss this decision from the ELCA viewpoint. If anyone wishes a copy, please contact me via email and I will see that you receive one. Many.oneof@yahoo.com is my email address.
Thank you again for your post. Please remember to be present at the congregational meeting and vote your conscience on NOVEMBER 7. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
Actually, that is not true. At the first vote, 66% percent in Fountain Hills voted to LEAVE, there could not be 80% who wanted to stay... I used to be a member there, have since joined La Casa.
There are always two sides to any story. The pro-ELCA forced a vote which they knew would fail because they paid for people to come back and vote with airplane tickets who were away at college and in other states who hadn't been in worship for years. There is only one pastor there, not two. You have bad information.
The split occurred because after the vote failed, a second vote was taken to affiliate with LCMC and the pro-ELCA folks left.
This is the legacy of the 2009 ELCA actions. It is the parishes and local pastors and members who suffer-if there is bad leadership, it is with the leaders of the ELCA who pushed this for the past 15 years when 60% of the members of the ELCA were saying no, don't do it. 600 people voted for 4 million, now down to about 3.2 million.
Sad.
Thank you for your opinion on this issue. I do not have knowledge of the procedure or vote that the Fountain Hills church followed, so I cannot comment on this. I think it is time for me to say something again:
The ELCA ruling does not force individual churches to follow this decision. It is left up to the local church to hire whomever they want. Bishop Talmage said as much, as has ELCA national. However, when a congregation decides to leave ELCA, it makes a statement to the community. This simply cannot be dismissed.
I have received from ELCA, Marcus Kunz to be precise, a presentation that national makes available to speakers who discuss this decision from the ELCA viewpoint. If anyone wishes a copy, please contact me via email and I will see that you receive one. Many.oneof@yahoo.com is my email address.
Thank you again for your post. Please remember to be present at the congregational meeting and vote your conscience on NOVEMBER 7. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
The more information and viewpoints, the better
You'll find the original comment excerpted below here. It's dated September 27 at 10:26 p.m. I wanted to respond to a few points.
Anonymous said ...
Just last weekend almost 20 more voted to leave!
This is a very good resource for discussion. I would point out that our pastors fall on this side of the argument as well. I would think exposure of this type of information would be beneficial to all of us to have at our disposal, but we also need information from the other side of the same amount and from a recognized authority. This is exactly what I would like to see from both sides of this argument.
Again, I would argue that the interpretation of “importance” of issues and exactly what “preaching the Bible” means are at the heart of this issue. I have a real difficulty with excluding people from things due to anthropological traits, and I suppose that would be where I differ with an awful lot of folk. I understand that, but then I have something much more authoritative than everyday scriptural text: The words of Christ’ commandment to us all as Christians. I can’t get away from the feeling that to exclude means that we are walking away from, not closer to Jesus Christ. And that bothers me immensely.
Thanks for the well wishes. We’ve had nearly 2,300 views of this blog, so somebody is paying attention. And as far as our count is concerned, I wouldn’t even consider that a sampling worth considering. It is what it is, and people who view our site have left the posts, but not necessarily their vote, so I’m not concerned in the least. Thanks again for your post, and providing meaningful information.
Please remember to be present at the November 7 congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
The ELCA is dying. So is every other denomination. They have dropped over a million members in twenty years and now the decline is accelerating. The ELCA leaders keep saying only a few hundred have left, but every weekend five to ten more churches vote to leave, and it keeps accelerating... check this blog out,
Just last weekend almost 20 more voted to leave!
This is a very good resource for discussion. I would point out that our pastors fall on this side of the argument as well. I would think exposure of this type of information would be beneficial to all of us to have at our disposal, but we also need information from the other side of the same amount and from a recognized authority. This is exactly what I would like to see from both sides of this argument.
Anonymous said ...
This is not to mention the churches that have split, like in Fountain Hills. The true damage is not churches leaving, it is the ones closing their doors as members walk and people split. Sad the ECLA has decided politics and social issues are more important than preaching the bible.
This is not to mention the churches that have split, like in Fountain Hills. The true damage is not churches leaving, it is the ones closing their doors as members walk and people split. Sad the ECLA has decided politics and social issues are more important than preaching the bible.
Again, I would argue that the interpretation of “importance” of issues and exactly what “preaching the Bible” means are at the heart of this issue. I have a real difficulty with excluding people from things due to anthropological traits, and I suppose that would be where I differ with an awful lot of folk. I understand that, but then I have something much more authoritative than everyday scriptural text: The words of Christ’ commandment to us all as Christians. I can’t get away from the feeling that to exclude means that we are walking away from, not closer to Jesus Christ. And that bothers me immensely.
Anonymous said ...
As for you getting a larger number to vote, good luck. Judging that you have a grand total of less than 1% of the membership voting here, I don't think that will happen.
As for you getting a larger number to vote, good luck. Judging that you have a grand total of less than 1% of the membership voting here, I don't think that will happen.
Thanks for the well wishes. We’ve had nearly 2,300 views of this blog, so somebody is paying attention. And as far as our count is concerned, I wouldn’t even consider that a sampling worth considering. It is what it is, and people who view our site have left the posts, but not necessarily their vote, so I’m not concerned in the least. Thanks again for your post, and providing meaningful information.
Please remember to be present at the November 7 congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The meaning of conscience-bound
You'll find the comment below in its entirety here. It's dated September 25 at 9:32 a.m. I want to make some observations about it.
In talking about conscience-bound belief, the ELCA, I believe, is recognizing that some of its members will feel conscience-bound to be in disagreement with the actions taken at last year’s church assembly. For that reason, the denomination said no congregation would be forced to take any action that it would find unacceptable, such as accepting a practicing gay minister. La Casa will never be forced to do so.
I believe this is an equitable way to avoid a schism in the church while recognizing that Christians will differ on this highly contentious issue. This is one reason I believe we need not leave the ELCA at this time and that we should make time for a full, open discussion of these issues. The people on the other side of the issue aren’t demons, and we shouldn’t demonize them. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should at least give them a full hearing and understand their position before we disassociate ourselves from them.
Anonymous said ...
The ELCA no longer views scripture as absolute. Rather, it has replaced scripture based theology with "On the basis of conscience-bound belief". Indeed, this issue the Lutheran Church (ELCA) is facing today is due to this move from a concept of "there are some absolute truths" to "conscience-bound beliefs" of social justice. The concept by definition removes the word of "God" as the arbiter of truth and substitutes human behavior/environment as the norm for truth. Once this occurs, the authority of scripture is supplanted by the material world and therefore, will be constantly changing.
The ELCA no longer views scripture as absolute. Rather, it has replaced scripture based theology with "On the basis of conscience-bound belief". Indeed, this issue the Lutheran Church (ELCA) is facing today is due to this move from a concept of "there are some absolute truths" to "conscience-bound beliefs" of social justice. The concept by definition removes the word of "God" as the arbiter of truth and substitutes human behavior/environment as the norm for truth. Once this occurs, the authority of scripture is supplanted by the material world and therefore, will be constantly changing.
In talking about conscience-bound belief, the ELCA, I believe, is recognizing that some of its members will feel conscience-bound to be in disagreement with the actions taken at last year’s church assembly. For that reason, the denomination said no congregation would be forced to take any action that it would find unacceptable, such as accepting a practicing gay minister. La Casa will never be forced to do so.
I believe this is an equitable way to avoid a schism in the church while recognizing that Christians will differ on this highly contentious issue. This is one reason I believe we need not leave the ELCA at this time and that we should make time for a full, open discussion of these issues. The people on the other side of the issue aren’t demons, and we shouldn’t demonize them. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should at least give them a full hearing and understand their position before we disassociate ourselves from them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
