A while back I wrote to you about a Lutheran Synod that decided to allow active gays as clergy. I took the time to explain to you that all Lutherans are not the same. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) is the largest synod of churches that call themselves Lutheran. It is also the most liberal and also the synod losing the most members.

When this synod adopted their policy it cause much turmoil within.

The Associated Press has just released this story:
GROVE CITY, Ohio (AP) — Critics of the country's largest Lutheran denomination and its more open stance toward gay clergy have formed a new group at a meeting in Ohio of a conservative activist group.
Members of Lutheran CORE voted overwhelmingly to approve the creation of the North American Lutheran Church on Friday in Grove City in suburban Columbus.
The new denomination will consist largely of congregations leaving the Chicago-headquartered Evangelical Lutheran Church in America over issues of adhering to scriptural authority.
Paull Spring, the new bishop of the North American Lutheran Church, says the ELCA's acceptance of openly gay pastors was a tipping point for many.
Spring and others attending the meeting say they are also concerned about the ELCA's use of language limiting masculine references to God.

Over 150 congregations split from ELCA to form the North American Lutheran Church.


I welcome the news that some of my christian brothers and sisters who have called on the Bible and Lutheran doctrine and have moved their way back towards them.
Incidently the problem is NOT homosexuality, it is UNREPENTANT sin that is the problem. To allow ANY unrepentant sinner leadership and authority in the church is wrong, no matter what the sin is.

Now I am sure there are readers here who may think that homosexual behavior is not a sin, but a Lutheran's authority on the subject is the Bible. And it is very clear.

Good.

Good on the NALC.

This is what it boils down to.  If it doesn't sit well with you, don't go to that church.  Nobody will kill you for that.  Watering down one's religious doctrine in order to ignore acts defined as wrong therein is ridiculous.



 

Good Ol Martin can roll back over now and rest easy...he's got a few good men left that claim his name.

It will be interesting to see how this new synod will square with the more conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the even more conservative Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) (mine) It is good to see that they are reviewing everything. It is good to see that they claim to adhere to the Augsburg Confession and the Book of Concord (these are basic Lutheran doctrine and confession of faith)

Most Lutheran Synods do not allow women in the clergy. ELCA does. We'll see how they come down on this issue.

It is good to see:
3) The Authority of Scripture
We believe and confess that the Bible is God's revealed Word to us, spoken in Law and Gospel. The Bible is the final authority for us in all matters of our faith and life.

What I do not see is any kind of statement confessing that the Scriptures are innerrant. It may be implied, but for me it sure would be helpful to see. There is a little wiggle room in that confession. Perhaps it's coming.

I do rejoice in them rebuking this heresy and I look forward to them coming closer to God's word!

I'm certain brother Martin is resting easy. We still have a lot of work to do however. But more important to claiming his name is adhering to Biblical teaching!

We left the ELCA officially in the early spring. We are now associated with the LCMC.



There is another large local Lutheran Church, we invite their youth groups to participate in some of our youth events. In talking to some of their members there has been almost zero mention of the ELCA's new position within their church.



For us it was simple, we are a old church, we own the land and buildings. We can leave. I'm afraid that some congregations are not so lucky. The one troubling thought though , is that we had to have a series of votes before our constitution would allow us to officially leave the ELCA. Hundreds and hundreds of members voted to leave the ELCA, and 2 members continually showed up to every vote and meeting and voted to stay with the ELCA. Those 2 members were a retired former pastor and his wife. I worry had those 2 not been retired, and in a position of authority, the whole issue may have been swept under the rug, and i'm afraid similar situations may exist in other churches.



One other huge obstacle for our church were some of the missions and charities our church supported, through the ELCA. We had to find ways to continue to support those people and places yet still cut ties with ELCA.

LOL he is still rolling over from me, my mother was a devout Luthern, her Grandfather a Swedish Missionary to Finland....We Finns were still a bit BArbaric....had a great uncle that prefered a knife on Russians to a gun...I am a Jew....Martin did not like Jews, yet today there is no issue between Jews and Lutherns, times Change. if you don't like a Church for that reason, don't go....but tthen ask yourself...What would Jesus Do?

Gentlemen its good to see the Lutheran Church has men left that don't preach a changing gospel that suites peoples live but an unchanging Gospel that changes men's lives.

Luther did indeed have harsh words for the Jews leaving a stain on his legacy but in his defence it was not "because" they were Jews but because they rejected Jesus.
The man had a big mouth that was not only his virtue but in some regard his vice.
I think he would be the first to point out that he was a sinful and imperfect man who found a perfect Savior.
Let's not just learn from his world changing defense of the Scriptures but learn from his mistakes as well.

"I am more afraid of my own heart than of the pope and all his cardinals. I have within me the great pope, Self.
Martin Luther"

" I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess.
Martin Luther "

Yup, good on them.

I am pretty sure Jesus would be against false teachings as well as unrepenting homosexuals...

While I agree that a church should not endorse sinful behaviour, I've found the fixation over homosexuality interesting.

If it's the ultimate sin, I wonder why it is not in the Ten Commandments.

There are lots of sinful acts that are called out more clearly in the Bible and that many more folks engage in than the small population of homosexuals (myself included at times).

I wonder if some aren't using the issue to ignore the log in their own eye.  (This statement is NOT directed at anyone here, it's just an observation).

You raise a valid point and that is why I took pains in my post that it is the idea of unrepentant sin that is abhorrant. It's not that homosexual behavior is worse than any other sin, it isn't. It is that often times this lifestyle is defended and sometimes celebrated as opposed to most sin which is usually done in secret. The idea of a Pastor living with a woman without marriage should be / is equally as wrong and would disqualify him from office.

A congregation should treat an unmarried couple cohabitating no differently than a gay couple. A person who openly cheats on his/her spouse is no different. Any UNREPENTANT sin should be addressed.

Hit the nail on the head.

It's not that Homosexuality is some kind of "ultimate sin" as much as the Church allowing those how openly live immoral lifestyles to fill the leadership roles.
Without the moral guide post of the scriptures were like "blind guides" leading blind men.
True, all have sinned and many often fall into sin again.... but to wink at sin and allow it to continue without repentance will be the death toll of any church.

I realize this is all very much "old man shouts at clouds" style dialog, but here goes.

The "Openly immoral" lifestyle is based on a combination of OT (Leviticus), Pauline Doctrine (see Romans) and current Federal statute (marriage laws).

Based on these three things, it seems we discriminate against homosexuals.  I would counter with an appeal to the pure love that we were once exhorted to preach.  Observe:

'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "And a second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ( Matthew 22:37-40)

If you are married and/or in love, how could you deny the same love to someone who is homosexual?  How can you lead a congregation, preach to them love and at the same time deny that love in the heart of another pastor?

Can you abase yourself in common tasks to the disenfranchised, and then say that someone else can't do the same with the same love in their heart?

"If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you." ( John 13:14-15)

Can you actively sit there and support laws like DOMA and DADT with scripture like this?

"Whatever you want others to do for you, do so for them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." ( Matthew 7:12)

This question makes clear that you do not understand the proper nature of Christian love and the Sacrament of Matrimony.  Two men or two women simply cannot experience the "same love" that is shared between a man and a woman who are married.  In part, because the love between a man and a woman has the unique characteristic of the possibility of producing children.  While homosexual couples may "love" each other very much, their relationship can never transcend to that level.  For that reason, their love relationship should not be a sexual one.  

This issue has nothing to do with not "loving" homosexuals.  We are called to love everyone, but loving someone does not mean looking the other way as they unabashedly engage in sinful behavior.  The same standard applies to a pastor who is committing any other sin - hate the sinful behavior, love the sinner.

That is true, but not every relationship needs children, there are many childless Christian couples, that is omne of the reasons there is adoption. One issue I have is that until the 11th century, other forms of relationships were also common, such as marriage without a religious or government sanction. Marraige of the priesthood also existed prior to that tim. There are many reports of children born out of wedlock to members of the clergy.  Poly relationships and polygamy existed within the Christian community. Why would there be a papal ban, unless it was happening?
If you want to look at an evolution of the church, that is one thing, but denial does not work.

Yes, many couples struggle with infertility, but they have done nothing to bring that on themselves, as opposed to those who decide to contracept because they don't want children.  The Christian marriage is called to be "open to life", and if it is God's will for them, they will conceive.  A same-sex couple can never have a sexual union that is open to life.



Not sure where you're going with this or what it has to do with openly homosexual pastors or homosexual unions.

(As far as married priesthood, it still does exist in the Eastern Catholic rites (as well as in the Orthodox Christian Churches).  The Latin rite has made it a discipline that priests will be celibate.  And it seems to me that if there was a papal ban on polygamy it was because people were practicing something other than the Church's teaching on marriage.  Although, I can't say I'm familiar with Church history on this point - do you have a reference?)

THe ban was in the 11th century, prior priests were married, the problem was they would die and the church was responsible for the widow and children. As for a married Priest, there are some in the Roman Church. They were interviewed on TV, they came from another faith and were married prior, I had spoken to a priest that had been divorced prior, his opinons on marriage and divorce were very helpful to me.
As for homosexual priests, it is rather evident that there have been many priests caught abusing boys in their care? Actually as an LEO, it is hetrosexual males that go after boys. THe homosexuals tend to date other men, not abuse boys. I would rather have a clergy open about their sexuality.
As for  married priests, Paul was non as feeling woman were second class, a common Jewish trend at the time. But to be a Rabbi you must be married, if not at first, later on. Judiasm, where Jesus grew up was believed in family. Although he seems to be linked to the Essenes, and they had some different ideas on marriage.
As for contraception, Judiasm deals with being responsible, that includes having children, But not so many that you put your family into financial hardship. Also it is generally accepted that a husband has a responsiblty to pleasure his wife, even on the Shabot.
I have many books on the subject, but most are still packed away from moving, but I have an excellent long term memory....which irrates my wife a bit somemtimes.