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

I don't feel like getting involved in a huge debate, but I feel that, as a Lutheran, a quick disclaimer is necessary:

Lutheranism is divided into two sects: the ELCA and the Missouri Synod. While Lutheranism is considered one of the more conservative denominations, the ELCA has moved forward and established itself as being a very contemporary, liberal sect, while the Missouri Synod remains true to a lot of the more conservative "core" Christian ethics. Even though they both call themselves "Lutheran" they share little more than the title.

 

I think you're missing my point... There is no temporal penalty, as God has forgiven all sin. The church or dioceses may decide the pastor is not being a good example to the flock, but that is another issue entirely. In any case, this is all academic without some context.

Natasi, you're forgetting to mention the Wisconsin Synod, and a fairly large number Lutheran churches that are not affiliated with any synod. Also, the Lutheran churches have more than the moniker Lutheran in common, they also all share the Lutheran Catechism.

 

There are many, many, many more sects of Lutheranism than just ELCA and the Missouri Synod. They're just the two biggest in the United States.

 

True. Michele Bachmann is Wisconsin Synod and I definitely prefer to not consider myself in the same denomination that she is. I know the Missouri Synod Lutherans prefer not to be associated with us ELCA folks at all.

There was a story in the paper this morning about the ELCA Lutheran churches in our area; the senior pastor at one of the larger churches came out against this. I attended that church for awhile after we moved here, I'm glad I switched. I went to services this morning and nobody mentioned it, but we have had same-sex couples serve as lay ministers before, so I know our pastors don't have a problem with this.

 

My pastor spoke eloquently in favor of the decision this morning, and then he invited anyone who disagreed to feel free to bring it up to him later. He also said it will be interesting to see the direction of the synod moving forward, as churches are threatening to leave.

He also said that the synod's previous position was that gay minsters were asked to be celibate, rather than the 'don't ask don't tell' that was alluded to earlier. A pastor could be out, but he was asked to not have sex. I've read about some who have been as such, and stepped down as pastor when they fell in love, despite their parish's objections.

Ahhh. Like the Earth revolving around the Sun, that should have been obvious, and explains a great deal.

 

Yeah, that was my fault; I knew the position was "gay but celibate" but worded it completely wrong. More like "tell but don't act on it".

 

So can someone tell me what the scriptural basis is for prohibiting sexually active gays and lesbians from serving as ministers in the first place. If there is such a scriptural directive, then what is the scriptural basis for ignoring that directive by allowing sexually active homosexuals from acting? If there is no scriptural basis for ignoring this directive, then why bother belonging to a church at all? If you are just going to cherry pick what you decide to follow and what you decide to ignore then how can anyone really say that scripture is the word of God?

 

Repentance from sin and dead works is the first principle of the church, in every era, locale, and denomination. Homosexuality is sin. Thus, unrepentant participants in homosexual acts have no part in the church, even as members, let alone ministers. Let me know which statements you need scriptural reference for.

Please note that I am not presuming to dictate to anyone the state of their personal spiritual well-being, simply offering, as requested the theological argument for opposing homosexual clergy.

 

wocky will you come to my wedding

 

Jabba-wocky, that kind of answers my first question, but not my other two. Can I assume that there is no scriptural 'get out of jail free card' for these Lutherans?

 

Ah, as I understand it, homosexuality is as an abomination, a distinction to say the least. Further, the new covenant lifts the ban on many abominations (i.e. eating shellfish, and so forth). I didn't pull this out of thin air, see this discussion. Some denominations continue to treat homosexuality as an abomination, or even a sin, but obviously the ELCA Synod of Lutheran churches are not among them. I know many of the same scriptural references you do, but I doubt you're aware of references that the bishops and pastors in the ELCA don't know. It suffices to say, they've faced the objections you bring up, and have made peace with them.

To LostOnHoth: elements of the bible can be read different ways, obviously. Catholics motivate having celibate priests because Christ said to follow him one had to forsake all possessions and family (I'm paraphrasing). Many denominations exclude homosexuals because it is listed as an abomination in the old testament, and Paul didn't like the gay either. However, some churches see inclusiveness as the path to a better community, and in harmony with God's purpose for us. As in so many things, YMMV.

editJW, I saw your edit after I posted, and if I come on a little strong, it's because your "theological argument" felt a bit combative.

 

Whitey, can I be one of the groomsmen?

LostOnHoth, I don't follow. Your second two questions were predicated on an inability to answer the first. Unless you find my first response unsatisfactory I don't see what else there is to say.

 

You can be the matron of honor, since Leslie passed.

 

Jabba-wocky, no, not really. Sometimes in the Bible it is possible to get a pass on certain things, like the command to stone homosexuals to death, for example. You can point to that command, but then point to other sources which are generally accepted within Christian circles as being a rescission of that command. But if you just read Leviticus you wouldn't know what the state of play actually was.

That was the thrust of my second question: If there is a prohibition on homosexuals from entering the clergy somewhere in the Bible as you state, is there some later amendment or source that might be accepted as constituting a rescission of that prohibition which is generally accepted in, say, Luteran theology or even within some Christian denominations?

Neo-Paladin, can you please elaborate on this sentence for me?

I'm not sure I follow this part.

 

My point is we are all reading out of the same Bible, and in the ELCA there are very learned men and women who have read the Bible and concluded that there is no reason to prohibit homosexuals from leading a congregation, despite impassioned protests to the contrary. Much of the substance in the argument is in the link I posted.

Namely, the branding of homosexuality as abomination made it unclean, though these labels were lifted in the new covenant.
Read in context, Paul's letters to the Romans are not sufficient to bar homosexuals from the church, nor prohibit their practices, particularly when balanced against the fact that Christ said nothing against homosexuality, and had an inclusive message of love for all believers and a commandment to bring everyone into the fold. Any claims that homosexuality is a sin is imprecise at best.

There isn't much in the way of explicit prohibitions for leading a church in the Bible. Each Church (denomination) has its own rules, sometimes directly due to Biblical commandments, other times for historical reasons (which may or may not be backed up with scripture). Catholics don't let women become priests, but there's no scripture that explicitly forbids women from leading a church (again, one might cite Paul, but I'd rather not derail this conversation) so the ELCA has allow women to become ordained pastors. Also, the Bible does not explicitly forbid the leaders of the Church from being married (see the earlier parenthetical about Paul), and all Lutheran denominations allow it.

 

LostOnHoth: Oh, I see. Apologies for misunderstanding. In answer to your question, there certainly is not. Indeed, while in many other areas (eg. dietary laws) we were recieving new instructions, Scripture goes out of its way (several times) to point out that homosexuality is still sinful. This is what Neo-Paladin refers to when he said "Paul didn't like the gay either." However, I don't see this position as intellectually defensible. Just a few paragraphs prior, when Paul is saying something one agrees with, its the Word of God, but suddenly, and for no apparent reason, the declaration of homosexuality as sinful is just "Paul not liking the gay?" What keeps us from concluding that about anything in Paul's writings? For that matter, why not just dismiss all the Bible as the various opinions of the individual authors and teachers?

Either Paul is or is not speaking on God's behalf. If he is, then the Old Testament law is lifted, and homosexuality is a sin. If he is not, then the Law still stands, and you best get yourself a phylactery.

Whitey:

. . .

Passed? When did it happen? I can't breath. I am racked with grief. My head is spinning. It's all so sudden. Were you there, at the end? Did she say anything? I don't know what to do anymore.

 

That is kind of what I was getting at with my last question, but it seems from Neo-Paladin's response that the real question is whether homosexuality should be considered a sin at all according to the New Testament.

 

A few things: What Paul intended is likely not what the modern reader takes from the translation of what Paul wrote (speaking in the context of pederasty and pagan orgy); what Christ's word is more important than Paul's; and and Paul did not name it a sin either.

However, I should modify what I said before, as some Churches do lable homosexuality a full sin, and for members of that church, they do see it as a more than an abomination.

 

Because that is expressly not what it claims to be, nor is that what any of the major prophets of either Christianity or Judaism said it was. If they are wrong on this point, then they are liars, and there is no reason for either religion to exist at all.

As for whether homosexuality is a sin:

A few brief points here. Some argue that the meaning of the passage is uncertain, since the word "natural" (in Greek) is not always used positively in the Bible. That is unnecessary and irrelevant. Here, flanked by words like "vile," described as a consequence of straying from God, and mentioned as one of the things worthy of divine punishment, context certainly indicates that departing from "nature" in this instance, should be viewed in a negative light. Some also argue that the objection here is to "lust" based relationships rather than substantive long-term partnership, and thus homosexuality would be acceptable in the latter case. This is nonsensical, in the first place, because in Classical society, while Romans frowned on homosexuality, they also understood that the Greeks greatly lauded it, and (more importantly) grasped that it could take place in long term relationships that were not simply "lust-based." That besides, it wouldn't explain why the sexual act itself would be described as "unseemly" if there were situations in which it might be acceptable. The clear effect of the passage is to forbid homosexuality.

 

But it appears to be a matter of church doctrine, which also appears to be somewhat inspired by secular, temporal considerations such as political affiliations and political ideology, ie, the reference earlier to the two major 'camps' of Lutheranism being somewhat divided along 'liberal' and 'conservative' political lines. It seems that political leftists are much more prone to warm and fuzzy interpretations of Biblical text which condemns homosexuality than conservatives who appear to apply a more literal interpretation. Is that a fair comment?

 

Passed on fulfilling that duty, I mean.

 

I think it's certainly fair to describe it as a doctrinal dispute. However, there've been these sorts of disputes about how to interpret the Bible from the very beginning. Jeremiah and Isaiah contested others with looser readings, the Pharisees held the line against the Sadducees, etc. The principle question, though, is authorial intent. Having established that these are supposed to be divine writings, and that we are, again, explicitly told that we should not just rely on what we take from it personally, we have to ask what the author was trying to say in each case. If the author gives no indication that he is speaking metaphorically (eg the Psalms are poems, thus "the eyes of the Lord go to and fro about the Earth" is a metaphor, not a description of gigantic flying eyeballs) then we must assume they are speaking literally.

EDIT: Whitey, don't you ever scare me like that again.

 

He did.

Sorry I couldn't resist. Re: the rest of the conversation, the way other churches make their decisions facinates me. If you baptized into one church and it is too liberal or conservative for you, you just start going to one where they preach what you like. If the group has some question about what God wants you to do or have represent you, you just take a vote. I mean I understand the gay rights movement, and I think I understand Christianity, but given what to me is pretty clear language in the Bible, I have a hard time seeing how you just decide to change things because everyone took a vote and decided that was what was best. I mean if you said God told you to do it, then either I'm forced to call you either a liar or a fool or agree with you. I can't ask you to go back and ask God for a second opinion, but who knows what the next vote will be.

I guess I just don't get Protestantism.

 

Not that I'm at all eager to defend foolishness like this (or that I'm defending it at all), but a couple things should be pointed out. First, not all Protestant churches settle doctrinal issues by ballot. Secondly, that an individual can leave and go find another place of worship is true of all religions, not unique to Protestant Christianity. Thirdly, I would imagine that, ideally, people are supposed to vote based off what they feel is the best estimate of the will of God as taken from earnest, competent attempts at interpreting the Bible. Which is really no different than the LDS practice of having Apostles receive new teachings, as it's still ultimately just someone's best guess about what God wants. Thus, while I agree with you that this result is loopy, I don't think it points to any special criticism of the process in its conceptual/ideal form.

 

On the second point, I guess what I was refering to isn't that people can leave churches, but that from what I understand from A_G's post and other things is that if you did get baptized into this church, and left it for a more conservative sect or congregation, that you wouldn't get baptized again. So if someone was baptized by a sexually active homosexual in one Lutheran church and then went to another where that wasn't accepted, would that person and the new congregation still recognize the authority of the previous clergy to baptise?

On the third point, I obviously feel there is a difference between direct revelation and intrepretation of the Bible, but that is a doctrinal dispute we aren't going to resolve. But thank you for the way you characterize it, it now makes a little more sense to me.