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.

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

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.

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.

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.