Lutherans to allow sexually-active gays in committed relationships into their clergy

Yes, I see that.... and I find it really bizarre.

 

Why? Not to retread the OZK's ground in the thread, but the distinction they are making is between "committed relationship" vs "no committed relationship." There's no assumption that all gays are sexually active. It's merely a rule that states how to handle gays that choose to be sexually active. Similarly, there are laws governing people with visual impairment that want to have a driver's license. The fact that such a law exists does not imply that lawmakers thought everyone who wears glasses would automatically want to drive. It just says that if a person is in the group that needs glasses or contacts to have 20/20 vision, their rules for obtaining a driver's license are different than those who do not.

 

So what is the rule in regards to sexually active heterosexual people?

 

Why? This issue at stake is not whether or not people attracted to members of the same sex should be ordained as clergy but whether or not those committing homosexual acts should be ordained as clergy. The typical Christian view has been to view the latter, not the former, as a sin.

I don't know the rules of the ELCA, but I should dearly hope that the only sexually active heterosexuals they ordain are already married.

 

Last I heard the church frowned upon that.

 

Though I've never seen (nor do I care to) the rules of the ECLA in particular, I would imagine that, like most every other church, no sexually active, unmarried heterosexual would or could ever be ordained, and that if anyone was sexually active outside of their marriage, they would be subject to severe disciplinary action like suspension or permanent disbarment. In other words, the rules for homosexuals are precisely the same as for heterosexuals, except for the term "committed relationship" is used in acknowledgment of the fact that gay marriage is not legal in some of the places where the ECLA operates.

 

This is correct.

 

. . .

A female priest . . . who is pregnant outside of wedlock . . . and no one finds a problem with it. I have nothing to say.

 

That's some pretty harsh judgement there, ozk.

 

Wouldn't maternity leave have affected her job?

 

Again, I have nothing to say. There is no judgement.

 

Perhaps the father/husband died while the woman was pregnant or perhaps it was artificial insemination? Either way, you don't know all the facts and really can't judge - although I will freely admit to it being a bit of a headscratcher.

 

Again, I have nothing to say.

 

Not really.

Assuming she was not en vitro fertilized to carry a baby for someone else, she must have had sex in order to get pregnant. For people of this particular faith, that is strictly forbidden for even the lay members, let alone the clergy/authority figures.

I would happen to agree with Obi Anne that nothing about this actually interferes with her ability to do her job from a practical standpoint. However, the whole core of religious belief or spirituality of any sort is the proposition that operate in this world that cannot be practically measured or detected, but are part of some other sort of existence. In particular, this religion believes that their deity would find such an act offensive, and thus could not be expected to respond well to this person, whose sole job is to make overtures to said deity. To point out that how that might be problematic isn't really judgmental so much as common sense.

In context, it's a bit like trying to appoint Mahmoud Ahamdinejad as your goodwill ambassador to Israel.

 

The ELCA rule on ordaining unmarried heterosexuals is that they cannot be living with a partner. IOW, it's basically "don't ask, don't tell."

While I personally do not have a problem with an unmarried ordained minister who lives with a partner, I do see this rule differently from a rule mandating that homosexuals remain celibate, for this reason: in most states in the union, homosexuals cannot get married. So they don't have the choice to marry their life partners; with the old policy, they were simply told that they would never be allowed to have a life partner.

 

Didn't see this one coming. Probably more likely from Lutherans than, say, Baptists, though.

 

Well done, Lutherans. Another step towards acceptance.

 

If there is a loving God who created us and the whole universe, you have to wonder whether He would really care about all of these silly rules and beauracratic nonsense. It just seems so petty. If there is a God, I wish He would pay us all a visit and provide a comprehensive update to His previous users manual as the current version appears to be thousands of years out of date and many of us mere mortals, even those who believe in Him, seemed to have moved on morally, socially and spiritually.

 

A petty God appeals to my sense of humour. But Zahn, sometimes standoffishness is judgment in itself.

 

Not as such. To quote the venerable Martin Luther

Presuming the aformentioned pastor had sex out of wedlock, she sinned in the eyes of the Luthern Church, but also that's between her and God, a forgiving God at that.

 

I have made no comment either way on the pregnant, unwed priest.

Yes, we're going to sin, but we need to: acknowledge that we've sinned, repent, and pay the temporal penalty for our sins. Hence, sin such as pre-marital sex among the clergy should be handled as such and not ignored.

 

OMG. the gays really are trying to convert us all!

Quick! Duct tape you butts and hide or they'll get you!