And now, the ELCA's position on homosexuality has been completely gutted
Two years ago I did an long entry on the long, long history of the ongoing plan by the leadership of the "Evangelical" "Lutheran" Church in America to foist the acceptance of homosexuality on the church's membership no matter what the laity might say about it.
As I pointed out in that entry, the ELCA committed itself to the acceptance of homosexuality as a morally acceptable lifestyle in 1991, when it adopted a carefully weasel-worded statement to the effect that gays are "sinners only in the sense that all of us are sinners," and guaranteeing that- fudging the distinction between orientation and conduct- homosexuals without distinction would be welcome as members of the church.True enough, traditionalists agreed; all sinners are equally guilty before God. No sin is worse than another, and repentance and faith are equally needed by all. Homosexual orientation in itself should not be a bar to membership in the church.
Few noticed the phrase that clinched the matter: an invitation to homosexuals without distinction to "participate fully in the life of congregations of the ELCA-" including, by implication, reception of the Sacraments.
Game, set and match to the revisionists- back in 1991. The entire issue, as a practical matter, was decided then. Everything that has come since has been sheer playacting for the benefit of those blind enough still to believe that Scripture has any authority at all in the ELCA, or that anybody but the liberal nomenklatura finally has any say-so about where the ELCA will ultimately stand on anything.
But the sinfulness of practicing homosexuals manifests itself, among other ways, in a specific behavior categorized by Scripture as incompatible with citizenship in the Kingdom of God. The sin, not the sinner, is the issue here- an issue the 1991 intentionally confused. In any sort of biblical or historically Lutheran understanding, open and unrepented sin of any kind ought to be incompatible with membership in the church, and the occasion of church discipline when it occurs among its members.
However, the distinction between the orientation and the practice was intentionally blurred by that statement back in 1991, even while language weasled in authorizing practicing homosexuals to receive the Sacraments before the issue itself was even widely debated in the ELCA (granted, similar language had been adopted prior to the merger by the old Lutheran Church in America). The underlying purpose of that slight of hand- to put the church on in a position in which it could be argued that the church had already decided that precisely homosexual behavior is compatible with membership in good standing, and by implication therefore to be morally appropriate- was to stage a pre-emptive strike and commit the ELCA to a position its membership as a whole did not favor without the membership as a whole even being aware of it. And by that underhanded means, any subsequent objection to the ordination or communion of unrepentant, practicing homosexuals was totally deprived of a rationale not already undercut by established ELCA policy. After all, had not homosexuals as a class been invited to "fully participate" in the lives of ELCA congregations already back in 1991?
If homosexuals, without distinction, are welcome to receive the Sacraments and to function as members in good standing of the ELCA , there is no possible logic by which they can be- or even ought to be- refused ordination.
If that premise is accepted. Which it was in 1991, making the ultimate resolution of the issue inevitable no matter what the membership of the ELCA as a whole thinks about it
That plan continues to unfold on schedule. This year's Churchwide Assembly first reaffirmed the ELCA's policy not to ordain practicing homosexuals- and then, the very next day, turned around and called on bishops and synods not to discipline gay pastors anymore! The ban on practicing homosexuals in ELCA pulpits- inconsistent as it always was with the 1991 statement- is now, as a practical matter, dead- despite technically remaining on the books. Traditionalist clergy and laity who object to this bizarre can be readily silenced simply by having it pointed out to them that, after all, the ELCA still maintains its ban on gay pastors- gay pastors who, paradoxically, it has welcomed to fully participate in the life of ELCA congregations ever since 1991!
Many years ago, at a Synod Assembly I attended, ELCA mission executive Mark Thompson- who had been ambushed by a bunch of us confessionalist pastors concerned about this issue moments before- stepped up to the rostrum and blurted out, "Why, it may take ten years for us to convince you people to accept homosexuality in the church!" And it cannot be emphasized too strongly that that's been the agenda of the official ELCA all along- and despite the continuing willful blindness of those in the ELCA who let themselves be lied to, that agenda continues to inexorably advance, step by underhanded, sneaky step.
And now, the ELCA's position on the issue has been completely gutted, while those who insist on continuing to deceive themselves remain free to tell themselves that, after all, the ELCA still doesn't officially approve of practicing homosexuals in its pulpits. Not only have they had a fast one pulled on them lo these past sixteen years, but they continue to lie to themselves about it.
If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny.
As I pointed out in that entry, the ELCA committed itself to the acceptance of homosexuality as a morally acceptable lifestyle in 1991, when it adopted a carefully weasel-worded statement to the effect that gays are "sinners only in the sense that all of us are sinners," and guaranteeing that- fudging the distinction between orientation and conduct- homosexuals without distinction would be welcome as members of the church.True enough, traditionalists agreed; all sinners are equally guilty before God. No sin is worse than another, and repentance and faith are equally needed by all. Homosexual orientation in itself should not be a bar to membership in the church.
Few noticed the phrase that clinched the matter: an invitation to homosexuals without distinction to "participate fully in the life of congregations of the ELCA-" including, by implication, reception of the Sacraments.
Game, set and match to the revisionists- back in 1991. The entire issue, as a practical matter, was decided then. Everything that has come since has been sheer playacting for the benefit of those blind enough still to believe that Scripture has any authority at all in the ELCA, or that anybody but the liberal nomenklatura finally has any say-so about where the ELCA will ultimately stand on anything.
But the sinfulness of practicing homosexuals manifests itself, among other ways, in a specific behavior categorized by Scripture as incompatible with citizenship in the Kingdom of God. The sin, not the sinner, is the issue here- an issue the 1991 intentionally confused. In any sort of biblical or historically Lutheran understanding, open and unrepented sin of any kind ought to be incompatible with membership in the church, and the occasion of church discipline when it occurs among its members.
However, the distinction between the orientation and the practice was intentionally blurred by that statement back in 1991, even while language weasled in authorizing practicing homosexuals to receive the Sacraments before the issue itself was even widely debated in the ELCA (granted, similar language had been adopted prior to the merger by the old Lutheran Church in America). The underlying purpose of that slight of hand- to put the church on in a position in which it could be argued that the church had already decided that precisely homosexual behavior is compatible with membership in good standing, and by implication therefore to be morally appropriate- was to stage a pre-emptive strike and commit the ELCA to a position its membership as a whole did not favor without the membership as a whole even being aware of it. And by that underhanded means, any subsequent objection to the ordination or communion of unrepentant, practicing homosexuals was totally deprived of a rationale not already undercut by established ELCA policy. After all, had not homosexuals as a class been invited to "fully participate" in the lives of ELCA congregations already back in 1991?
If homosexuals, without distinction, are welcome to receive the Sacraments and to function as members in good standing of the ELCA , there is no possible logic by which they can be- or even ought to be- refused ordination.
If that premise is accepted. Which it was in 1991, making the ultimate resolution of the issue inevitable no matter what the membership of the ELCA as a whole thinks about it
That plan continues to unfold on schedule. This year's Churchwide Assembly first reaffirmed the ELCA's policy not to ordain practicing homosexuals- and then, the very next day, turned around and called on bishops and synods not to discipline gay pastors anymore! The ban on practicing homosexuals in ELCA pulpits- inconsistent as it always was with the 1991 statement- is now, as a practical matter, dead- despite technically remaining on the books. Traditionalist clergy and laity who object to this bizarre can be readily silenced simply by having it pointed out to them that, after all, the ELCA still maintains its ban on gay pastors- gay pastors who, paradoxically, it has welcomed to fully participate in the life of ELCA congregations ever since 1991!
Many years ago, at a Synod Assembly I attended, ELCA mission executive Mark Thompson- who had been ambushed by a bunch of us confessionalist pastors concerned about this issue moments before- stepped up to the rostrum and blurted out, "Why, it may take ten years for us to convince you people to accept homosexuality in the church!" And it cannot be emphasized too strongly that that's been the agenda of the official ELCA all along- and despite the continuing willful blindness of those in the ELCA who let themselves be lied to, that agenda continues to inexorably advance, step by underhanded, sneaky step.
And now, the ELCA's position on the issue has been completely gutted, while those who insist on continuing to deceive themselves remain free to tell themselves that, after all, the ELCA still doesn't officially approve of practicing homosexuals in its pulpits. Not only have they had a fast one pulled on them lo these past sixteen years, but they continue to lie to themselves about it.
If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny.
Comments