Thursday Sexuality Debate: No conclusions yet

Started by Richard Johnson, August 09, 2007, 06:46:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Maryland Brian

Christopher,

I guess she's never read about the Orders of Creation and the role family life plays in the public sphere.  It's like 1984 speak - chaos is called structure and healthy family life is called collapse.


MD BRian

ROB_MOSKOWITZ

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 11:49:36 AM

I think he and I have agreed that the ELCA has a statement prohibiting dual rostering of clergy. (Similarly, the LCMS has statements prohibiting dual membership in a congregation and a lodge.)
And thus I was not dual rostered.

Quote
There is nothing in our official documents that prohibit a congregation from having a dual roster. That has been his objection. Since the ELCA does not have a statement about it, he argues that 9.31. Congregations of this church shall have authority in all matters that are not assigned by the constitution and bylaws of this church to synods and the churchwide organization, then is the ruling statement.

Yep. Thats what the document says.

Yours In Christ
Rob Moskowitz

Pr. Jerry

Quote from: Christopher Miller on August 10, 2007, 12:02:01 PM
Now someone is comparing the debate to maintaining the infrastructure like the bridge collapse!

Will people never know their heritage?

And her point, likening the Church's discussion to the "infrasturcture," undercuts her argument...  It destroys the denomination's infrastructure to circumvent the process and standards of the denomination.

Hysterics, not logic.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Sc ott  Yaki mow on August 10, 2007, 12:00:49 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: Sc ott  Yaki mow on August 10, 2007, 10:29:18 AM
The Bible is unanimous and unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexual activity.
Not all biblical scholars believe that statement.

Not all people believe that the world is round, either, but this isn't about what "all biblical scholars believe".
It also isn't about "what Scott believes." Not everyone agrees with your interpretation.

QuoteReally?  So if Phelps and his congregation swapped the "Baptist" sign for an "ELCA" sign and advocated for their position within the ELCA, you think that would be OK or simply a matter of discretion?  Interesting.
I interviewed at a congregation that had "Lutheran" on its sign, but they were calling themselves a "community" church. For their "praise" service, they pushed the altar out of the way so that the praise band could be "on stage". I couldn't serve that congregation; but they had had an ELCA pastor who allowed such practices to take place.

QuoteRob and his congregation joined a non-Christian organization?
1. They joined an organization that is seen as competing with the ELCA. Lodges, as I understand it, are seen as competing religious organizations. I'm certain that many within the lodge would consider them Christian, in so far as they read from scriptures and pray to God.

2. In both cases, there are rules that the church has set up and enforces -- one cannot be a member of the church and the other organization. (Although a rule against dual membership of congregations has not stated.)
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

scott3

#64
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 12:10:35 PM
Quote from: Sc ott  Yaki mow on August 10, 2007, 12:00:49 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: Sc ott  Yaki mow on August 10, 2007, 10:29:18 AM
The Bible is unanimous and unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexual activity.
Not all biblical scholars believe that statement.

Not all people believe that the world is round, either, but this isn't about what "all biblical scholars believe".
It also isn't about "what Scott believes." Not everyone agrees with your interpretation.

Chuckle.  Never said it was.  But I will stick with the diachronic witness of the Church as well as the synchronic agreement of the vast majority of Christians worldwide (the Global South rocks!  Check out some of the "pro" speakers at the convention).

Too bad that you have to resort to mischaracterizing my position in such an ad hominem manner as if I were saying that my opinion is all that matters.  A bit odd for you, too, as you normally don't resort to such debating tactics.

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 11:49:36 AM
I interviewed at a congregation that had "Lutheran" on its sign, but they were calling themselves a "community" church. For their "praise" service, they pushed the altar out of the way so that the praise band could be "on stage". I couldn't serve that congregation; but they had had an ELCA pastor who allowed such practices to take place.

QuoteRob and his congregation joined a non-Christian organization?
1. They joined an organization that is seen as competing with the ELCA. Lodges, as I understand it, are seen as competing religious organizations. I'm certain that many within the lodge would consider them Christian, in so far as they read from scriptures and pray to God.

2. In both cases, there are rules that the church has set up and enforces -- one cannot be a member of the church and the other organization. (Although a rule against dual membership of congregations has not stated.)

Interesting side issues, but I'm content with what has already been said and no longer interested in discussing them at this time.  I'd rather talk theology directly and not structural issues.  If others want to continue to play in this particular sandbox, that's fine.


I'm still curious to hear if anyone agrees with the argument one speaker made that baptism qualifies one for ordination, but if one is refused ordination, they should also be refused baptism.  Anyone buy that?

Dadoo

Quote from: Sc ott  Yaki mow on August 10, 2007, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: Christopher Miller on August 10, 2007, 12:02:01 PM
Now someone is comparing the debate to maintaining the infrastructure like the bridge collapse!

Will people never know their heritage?

Now someone's saying that baptism qualifies one for ordination, and if one is denied ordination, then they should also be denied baptism.  Anybody else buy that argument?

There used to be a novelty message button: "Ordain women or stop baptizing them."  I wonder if this is a retreat of that battle cry.  I do note that the inherent right to ordaination seems to be somehow in the speeches.  Based on that, how do we deny anyone ordination?  Wiat, wait, I know, if someone in their congregation thinks they are doing just such a great job... Is that not a bit of crypto donatism?

Keep the Fath

Peter
Peter Kruse

Diversity and tolerance are very complex concepts. Rigid conformity is needed to ensure their full realization. - Mike Adams

David Charlton

Also in reply to Brians question:

Based on the argument that Baptism necessarily qualifies a person for ordination, and denying ordination denies Baptism, then no one could be denied ordination for any reason.  The argument is that nothing one does after baptism is a disqualification from ordination.  If so, then we can disband all candidacy committees. 

Pr. Jerry

Just a note...

Richard has opened up a new thread that deals specifically with the content of this debate...  Maybe it's good to move this conversation over there?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Jim Butler

#68
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: jebutler on August 10, 2007, 11:17:55 AM
*Pr. Otten's case is a very unique one. If a congregation in the LCMS extended a call to a non-LCMS pastor, it would be removed (although some time might be given for the pastor to gain roster status). At any rate, I can pretty much promise that if an LCMS church called a pastor to serve it who had been removed from the roster for whatever reason, it would be removed.
There is an LCMS congregation in Palisades, CA that is being served by an ELCA pastor. (It's part of a joint LCMS/ELCA congregation.)

I believe Palisades is the last joint ELCA/LCMS congregation left. It was started when the LCMS and ALC were still in fellowship. We have been patient with these situations. But it is the exception (by far!) and not the rule. In every other joint congregation that I know of, steps have been taken to ask them to decide which Lutheran body they will be part of.
"Pastor Butler... [is] deaf to the cries of people like me, dismissing our concerns as Satanic scenarios, denouncing our faith and our very existence."--Charles Austin

GoCubsGo!

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 09, 2007, 10:43:18 PM
Quote from: ptmccain on August 09, 2007, 10:39:12 PM
Please note: I referenced Biblical vision and expectations for pastors, not the ELCA's document. The fact that a congregation is served by him as a pastor makes his "roster removal" rather meaningless.
And the fact that First United and St. Francis Lutheran Churches continue to hold services, their pastors have attended conference meetings (one had been elected as dean,) send "visitors" to synod assemblies, send benevolence to the synod, seems to make their removal from the ELCA rather meaningless, too. They are essentially doing all the same things they did before being expelled.

It seems to me that a valid response to this type of thing is:  1) Deny their pastors the ability to serve as dean.  The bishop of that synod should simply have said, "Cute, but try again!" to those who elected a removed pastor to the position of dean.  2) They could still send "visitors" to synod assemlies but they would be designated as non-ELCA visitors.   3) Send their benovolence checks back to them.  Any other action than this would be inappropriate.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Sc ott  Yaki mow on August 10, 2007, 12:16:41 PM
Too bad that you have to resort to mischaracterizing my position in such an ad hominem manner as if I were saying that my opinion is all that matters.  A bit odd for you, too, as you normally don't resort to such debating tactics.
Well, if the issue isn't about what different scholars believe, then it must be limited to what the individual believes.

QuoteI'm still curious to hear if anyone agrees with the argument one speaker made that baptism qualifies one for ordination, but if one is refused ordination, they should also be refused baptism.  Anyone buy that?
No.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: jebutler on August 10, 2007, 01:28:10 PM
I believe Palisades is the last joint ELCA/LCMS congregation left. It was started when the LCMS and ALC were still in fellowship. We have been patient with these situations. But it is the exception (by far!) and not the rule. In every other joint congregation that I know of, steps have been taken to ask them to decide which Lutheran body they will be part of.
There's also one in Arcata, CA. They were served by an LCMS minister, but they are presently vacant.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

scott3

#72
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 01:54:27 PM
Quote from: Sc ott  Yaki mow on August 10, 2007, 12:16:41 PM
Too bad that you have to resort to mischaracterizing my position in such an ad hominem manner as if I were saying that my opinion is all that matters.  A bit odd for you, too, as you normally don't resort to such debating tactics.
Well, if the issue isn't about what different scholars believe, then it must be limited to what the individual believes.

Ahh, again a misunderstanding.  I said: "...but this isn't about what 'all biblical scholars believe,'" in reference to your contention that not "all biblical scholars believe" this.  This is different again from "what different scholars believe", isn't it, as "all" is does not equal "different" or "individual" or "particular" or whatever.

But such is life.

Glad to hear you don't buy the whole baptism / ordination thingy.



Peter and David -- that seems to be my read, too.  I'd be interested if anyone chimes in in favor of the argument because when it was offered, it got quite a reaction.  Positive or negative I don't know as the webcast didn't give a particularly good read on if the noises were guffaws of derision or hoots of agreement.



Does anyone out there want to make an argument that the Bible teaches that we should accept homosexual behavior as a God-blessed, God-intended way of life?

GoCubsGo!

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: pterandon on August 10, 2007, 07:59:43 AM
I think Brian here is merely stating a Theology of the Cross.   Conservatives shoot themselves in foot by not mentioning the inadequacy of all candidates.  Liberals are asking us to celebrate sin. The fascinating thing in my mind is whether there's ever been a candidate who admitted the brokenness of their sexual practice in the same way that Brian appears to here be admitting the brokenness of his relations with spouse & neighbor.  I have a beef with the celebration the revisionists are asking of us;  I'm wondering if I could live with (figuratively speaking) the hypothetical candidate I just mentioned.
My hunch is that most, if not all, clergy commit adultery by lusting in their hearts. That is not a sin that we believe hinders a pastor's ability to proclaim the gospel. However, if a pastor has committed adultery in deed, we usually see that a sin that requires disciplinary action.

You have a point all of us have sinned and all of us are in need of forgiveness.  I agree that "lusting in your heart" is a sin that hinders a pastor's ability to proclaim the gospel.  And I agree that "committing adultery in deed" is an offense that requires a disciplinary action.  But where we disagree is that homosexual behavior (actions) I believe are grounds for discipline.  As far as I know GLBT pastors are not being removed from the roster for their thoughts/feelings--they are being removed when their "deeds" (entering into homosexual relationships) reveal that they are not compatible to the office of ministry.

Also, I agree that there may be congregations that do not agree with the policies/standards for ministry and think that a GLBT pastor who is living in a same sex relationship is "a good fit" for their congregation.  But, indiviidual congregations should not be the final arbiter since the actions of one congregation so deeply affects the witness of other congregations.

bmj

My emphasis is added in the quotes below.  Forgetting the GLBT issue, Brian, I am curious if you truly believe the statement in bold below.  I would think that this is a sin and in fact does hinder, and is in need of contrition and absolution and growth on the pastor's part.

Quote from: GoCubsGo! on August 10, 2007, 02:18:22 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 10, 2007, 08:57:03 AM
My hunch is that most, if not all, clergy commit adultery by lusting in their hearts. That is not a sin that we believe hinders a pastor's ability to proclaim the gospel. However, if a pastor has committed adultery in deed, we usually see that a sin that requires disciplinary action.

You have a point all of us have sinned and all of us are in need of forgiveness.  I agree that "lusting in your heart" is a sin that hinders a pastor's ability to proclaim the gospel. 


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk