With regard to this phrase you use:

"the faith received from the apostles and held in common across time and space."

How do Episcopalians in America fit into this picture, and what are the implications for our own ecumenism if the ELCA delegates vote to follow the conservative hard-liners on this issue in August?

Kurt,
You use the phrase "conservative hard-liners" in a way that appears to be intended as pejorative. Given that the "conservative hard-liners" want to affirm current policies and refrain from changing doctrine that has been accepted for 2,000 years, which hardly seems to be radical or out of the ordinary, please justify your use of that phrase.

The characterization, "conservative hard-liners" is not meant to be pejorative. If I intended to be pejorative, I would have used some other phrasing--perhaps similar to the characterizations used by Hinlicky used in his attack on the LSTC faculty. The use of the above characterization is to be as specific as possible to identify which aspect of this entire spectrum of views is being noted. Use of the term "conservative" is obvious. The characterization, "hard-liners", reflects the unwillingness of this group to be open to any kind of compromise--including the compromise offered by the two ELCA task force recommendations.

Speaking as a conservative, I believe that it is not "compromise" to surrender what I consider to be the essential meaning of Scripture. In my view, Scripture prohibits homosexual conduct. It does not prohibit it sometimes, under certain circumstances, it prohibits it all of the time under every circumstance. What compromise is possible here?

In my view, we have already compromised as far as we can compromise by agreeing to "look the other way" in terms of the operative theology of some churches--i.e., "don't ask, don't tell." What the revisionists want is official recognition. There is no way for me to sanction any form of official recognition, without altering my view theology. I am unwilling to alter my view of theology, because I believe that by altering my fundamental theology I am putting my immortal soul in jeopardy. I doubt very much that you are willing to alter your fundamental theology, either.

My view is that in order to show respect for each other's views we should use neutral terms in this debate, such as "traditionalist" and "revisionist." It is further my view that traditionalists have already compromised as far as we can by agreeing to "don't ask, don't tell."

I am undecided as to whether revisionists don't understand how traditionalists view this or simply don't care. We really do believe that Scripture prohibits homosexual conduct, that permitting it is a denial of God's authority, and that this amounts to a grievous sin.

Should I stay and fight, or move on to greener pastures? I suspect that staying is merely postponing the inevitable, because once changed, ELCA will never go back. If revisionists insist on putting me into the position of either putting my immortal soul in jeopardy or breaking with ELCA, I will break with ELCA. I suspect there are a fairly significant number of people who agree with me. Passage of these resolutions will tear apart the ELCA.

I feel I used a descriptive term which I have already said (in my view) is not pejorative. I feel that the terms and characterizations used by Hinlicky in response to the LSTC statement were pejorative. By the way, I don't consider my view to be "revisionist" inasmuch as it is consistent with a valid view of scripture based on higher bibilcal criticism--so I'm not revising scripture. You and I obviously disagree on that also.

It is not that I don't care about your view. I do care. I simply and respectfully disagree.

If both task force recommendations pass and a significant number of "traditionalists" leave the ELCA, the ELCA will not be torn apart. It may downsize somewhat, and the internal debate will continue. The absence of some traditionalists may mean a heightened focus by the ELCA on the human aspects of social ministry issues. I think a more significant "tearing apart" will occur if the recommendations fail and the ELCA will then have to move with sanctions against congregations who are not aligned with the policy--as happened to the two California congregations in the 1990s. It will be emotional and drawn out and painful. Hinlicky is right in saying that there will be pain for both sides, but those of us making these choices are adults who make them freely and thus we must accept the responsibility to live with them.

Perhaps, then, we should "divorce," as has already been suggested in a prior thread. I am willing to do so, provided that we agree to act as mature adults during the process. I suggest that we frame the issues honsetly, take a poll of our membership, and divide the assets accordingly. We should dissolve the ELCA and form two new denominations, so that neither can claim to be staying or going. For example, if 50% favor each position, then everything would be divided as evenly as possible, with 1/2 of the church buildings and other assets going to each new denomination. Unfortunately, I fear the more likely result is Episcopal Chruch II--whereby division is ugly, divisive and accompanied by lawsuits.

At odds with their own polity, the American Episcopalians are pursuing a nationalist congregationalism which will also turn into local congregationalism as more congregations and dioceses break fellowship. It's not ecumenism for one church body (ours) to imitate the loveless congregationalism of another (TEC). For more on this, tomorrow there will be a link to an article by Bp Tom Wright of the Anglican Church, who sees spells out exactly the ecclesiological ramifications of this decision.

Oh yes, I agree with you that the Episcopal action (the last couple of days especially) will result in division, just like the fact that the ELCA is facing this issue will result in division. My point in raising this issue in this context is to show that ecumenism is (and for a long time, has been) a false positive if one claims that different denominations are glued together with meaningfulness despite theological differences inasmuch as there are some lines which "traditionalists" won't cross, in which case, ecumenism is a house of cards.

This is really the big issue. In my local community with 5 ELCA congregations I believe 3/5 parishes will bless same sex unions immediately. If this isn't "each little parish doing whatever they want" I don't know what it is. Also it effectively takes preaching of human sexuality off the table because even in the same community, (faith or local parishes) others are teaching otherwise. This is the great irony of our age. We are awash in sexuality in our culture yet the church will be going silent on the very issue that we are in bondage too lest we give offense.

I am slowly and reluctantly coming to the conclusion that this issue is the tip of the iceberg in what is possibly a truly divergent understanding of the gospel. One group thinks loyalty to the gospel means a form of inclusion and welcome that blesses homosexuality despite what Scripture seems to say about it. Another group thinks this specific act of blessing is diverging from the essential witness of Scripture in a way that calls the faith itself into question. These are just shorthand sketches--the point is, it could really be a case of local congregations not teaching the same gospel. If that's the case, then are we one church, regardless of the structure we both inhabit? To me that is the really frightening and tragic possibility looming ahead.

Sarah- I think you've made an important point. In the last post, the debate basically turned into a debate about a whole bunch of other issues including divine agency and scriptural authority. This is why the ELCA interpretation of CA VII doesn't work in my mind. The denomination interpreted this statement to mean that one could have church unity if one agreed about justification by faith and the sacraments (actually the "Gospel" means a great deal more than this in the context of the Augustana- a position my denomination holds and which recent historical scholarship has vindicated). But I think that this whole debate shows that that doesn't work. The Church in its concrete existence faces many problems that are logically related to the gospel, but which are not explicitly gospel. Consequently, by making that that the sole basis of Church unity, one ends up leaving a bunch of other issues unsettled which years later end up creating more problems than their worth. For example, what's the ELCA's doctrine of the Church- Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten have a vastly different one than Gerhard Forde. How can we make decisions about how the Church is to be run if we can't agree what it is? What is the ELCA doctrine of Scripture? How do we agree about what immoral acts make one worthy of Church discipline or unworthy of the office of ministry if we have no clear definitions of what is and isn't to be considered authoritative in Scriptures? For Church unity, one actually needs agreement on the whole counsel of God and one needs clear answers about what that is.

Those who argued from the beginning that the merger that created ELCA was flawed because it did not address these issues appear to have been proven correct.

The issues that have led to the ELCA's statement have been before me for over 20 years. In my third year of parish ministry the 1993 draft rocked the church I served in North Dakota. Ever since then I have heard far more voices against these statements than for them. The problem now is that people who don't support it are tired. This year, the Western ND Synod voted in assembly never to consider another statement on human sexuality! Those in Chicago and in many bishop's offices seem unaware of what they are doing to people who harbor no hatred for homosexual persons but retain the plain reading of Scripture.

The same situation occurred at our Synod Assembly. We voted for the 2/3 majority and rejected memorials supporting and opposing the Social Statement and the Recommendations. Many of the delegates addressing the Assembly during the debate expressed that they were tired of discussing this.

The only recent "poll" taken of ELCA members regarding this controversy--the comment period during the go around in 2007--found 56% of members opposed to changing our standards. That poll was self-selecting and most likely biased toward change because it required people to go out of their way to express their opinions. It is probably safe to assume that the actual number opposed to change is some percentage higher than 56%. If the Churchwide Assembly forces a change on a unwilling church body this August, it is likely to rend apart the ELCA.

If that 2007 poll was accurate (and especially if it was biased in favor of those desiring change), and if it's validity carries over into the present, then the traditionalists have nothing about which to worry. The two Task Force recommendations will be voted down in Minneapolis, and it won't even be close.

The traditionalists have everything about which to worry. I expect the social statement and recommendations to pass despite what appears to be majority opinion against them. Why? First, the process is biased in favor of the revisionists. For example, there is a significant amount of top down pressure in favor of the revisionist position; the process for selecting delegates is biased in favor of the revisionists; revisionists are more likely to seek out positions as delegates; and the list goes on. Secondly, the revisionists present their views as reasonable compromises, as you yourself have done. People seek out compromise, perhaps without realizing that "compromise" is the first step toward full acceptance. Thirdly, the revisionists have engaged in a campaign of bullying, whereby they accuse traditionalists of hatred toward homosexuals and other assorted evils.

Before you try to argue that no bullying has occurred, please understand that I have seen it first hand. I was a delegate to Chicago Churchwide Assembly in 2007 and have attended numerous Synod Assemblies since 1993, when all of this started. At each one that I have attended, I have seen attempts to bully traditionalists. Two specific examples: (1) To get to any significant event in 2007, including meals, delegates had to walk past a gauntlet of demonstrators wearing clerical vestments and rainbow stolls, many of whom I discovered quite by chance were not even members of ELCA. (2) At the 2009 Synod Assembly, drafters of the a resolution supporting the traditional position were called "evil" by one of the revisionists and otherwise personally attacked in public during the comment period. I refuse to be bullied, and have dug in even further. Others have probably been swayed or simply given up.

ELCA is self-destructing. The only real hope of stopping this is for the Assembly to adopt a rule requiring a two-thirds vote for passage. The Presiding Bishop and his administration and the Church Council all voted for a majority rule, but the Bishops overwhelmingly endorsed a 2/3 rule (they know what will happen if this passes). Revisionism would have carried the day in 2007 had there not been a 2/3 rule at the time. Most of the revisionist resolutions passed with 50-55% of the vote, but they could not get to 2/3--this at a time when 56+% of ELCA members opposed revisionism. Revisionism will never pass by 2/3, which has traditionally been required for all major decisions in the name of fostering unity. Since revisionists are unwilling to lose on this issue, they have simply changed the rules for 2009, with a ruling from Church Council that a majority is sufficient. Now the Assembly itself will have to change the rule back to 2/3. While I suspect that the majority favors revisionism (or will at least say so when others are looking), the 2/3 rule has a chance to be adopted in the name of unity.

Ultimately, this is why the issue is so divisive. A majority oppose revisionism, but their views are being systematically ignored by the ELCA heirarchy. In the mean time, many traditionalists who just want to worship in peace have already been driven out of ELCA during the 16 year fight over homosexuality. Check out our attendance numbers if you have a doubt about this. While you are at it, just for fun, take a look at what is going on in the Episcopal Church. Eventually revisionism will carry the day, if for no other reason than declining membership as traditionalists leave ELCA. When (not if) ELCA accepts homosexuality, the denomination will fracture.

I lived near Indianapolis during the 2001 CWA. It sickened me to see what was going on outside - Anita Hill and her supporters being led away by Indianapolis police, and homosexuals screaming into the cameras because they didn't get their way, right away: V&E scrapped then and there.

Anyone who believes there hasn't been bullying is simply wrong. My wife and I tried to discuss this with our then-pastor, and were basically told (in a sermon, no less) to either get on board or get out. We got out, and were in the LCMS for about eight years, until we moved.

I have been called "homophobic" and many other more unprintable names, as well as being equated with Fred Phelps. If that isn't bullying, tell me what is.

We went back to the ELCA because of the many restrictions the LCMS has on being part of any sort of interfaith event with other Christians. We got tired of having to clear everything with the pastor, like community Christmas services.

Our congregation is punch-drunk tired after eight years plus of this. Nonetheless, the vast majority of people in the congregation do NOT in any way agree with what is going on at CWA this year.

It seems to me that Lutherans Concerned, et. al., only want what THEY want, no matter if it ultimately causes the ELCA to disintegrate - which it will, make no mistake. It is fallacious to think that we'll all just pass the resolutions, smile, sing "Kum Ba Ya" and go on our merry way. Human nature doesn't work that way.

And when Kurt and others who believe as he does say that any exodus of traditionalists would not be hurtful to the church, well, that shows the limitations of the "big tent" hypothesis, doesn't it?

I didn't say that traditionalists leaving would be hurtful to the ELCA. I said it would change the ELCA.

But speaking of traditionalists and relying only on the "plain sense" of scripture, are we to assume that the "plain sense" process means that we are to understand the historicity of the birth of Jesus as including the shepherds, the wise men and the singing angels? Are we to understand creation as a non-evolutionary process which included Adam, Eve, the snake and the apple in the garden. Are we to understand that Noah managed to get two of every species on the ark, and that Jonah was swallowed by the whale.

Is that the kind of "plain sense" about which we speak?

In my first sentense of the above post which reads:

"I didn't say that traditionalists leaving would be hurtful to the ELCA. I said it would change the ELCA."

... it should read:

"I didn't say that traditionalists leaving wouldn't be hurtful to the ELCA. I said it would change the ELCA."

Of course not. In some instances, Scripture is clearly intended to be understood as metaphorical or as telling a story in a way that can be easily understood by the audience. In cases where the text is obviously metaphorical, we know that by the text itself. In other cases, there is overwhelming scientific evidence to suggest that the story is a story intended to convey a deeper meaning without being intended to convey specific factual details. These claims cannot be made with respect to Scriptural pronouncements about the morality of homosexual acts. The text itself contains no hint that it does not mean exactly what it says, and there is not overwhelming external evidence that the text does not mean exactly what it says.

I don't, not very well. The reason I bring that up is because so many who have your line of thinking use the "do you eat shellfish?" argument.

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. However, I have also had university-level anthropology and geology classes. How God created His creation is mysterious to me, but I accept that He created it.

I have no problems with the Biblical account of the birth of Jesus, or the other issues you mention.

When homosexuality is spoken of in the Bible, it is never in a favourable sense. No, I don't count David/Jonathan, Ruth/Naomi, etc.

Despite what you say about the ELCA having a constitution in place, and votes not being there for a dissolution, well, as I've said, I know of at least one sizeable ELCA congregation locally that has quietly been making plans for secession for quite some time. It's a bit like the Quebec/Canada issue. Canada says that constitutionally Quebec cannot leave, and Quebec says "if we choose to do it, your requirements don't mean anything, and who's going to stop us?" (I live on the Canadian border, so I hear this a lot.)

Look at what is happening in the Episcopal Church.

Do you want traditionalists leaving the ELCA? Because I can guarantee you that though some are going to leave - individually and congregationally - there are many who are going to stay and fight. Lutheran CORE, WordAlone, etc are not going away. That is going to make for a very sorry environment of ministry in the ELCA.

Is it worth all that to get what you want?

What's interesting about all of this is that I never said I want "traditionalists" to leave the ELCA. (Go back and read all my posts again if you need to verify that.) All I did was offer an opinion regarding subsequent events based on the vote in Minneapolis one way or the other.

And, I'm going to have no influence whatsoever on the outcome of that vote. I'm not a voting delegate. From what I can tell, I haven't changed one vote with the things I have written. And I don't necessarily agree with your characterization of the speculated consequences should the traditionalists lose.

On our way home from church today, my wife and I passed by an intersection in central Austin (Texas) and saw an Hispanic mother and small boy (three to four years old). The mother was holding up a cardboard sign which read, "Immigrants with no place to go. Need help for child."

This moment was not the first time it occurred to me that we really need to keep our priorities in better focus. In this particular moment, the upcoming vote in Minneapolis didn't seem very important. And after the vote over and we return to the real world which is the object of the mission which Christ has set before us, I hope we can put it in perspective in contrast to the real work we need to do.

We have found something about which to agree. I absolutely agree that this debate is diverting our attention from places where it should be focused. Where we disagree, I suppose, is on what all of that means. I believe that this is a matter that must be addressed and that the outcome is matters greatly, for reasons I have previously stated. I see this dispute as demonstrating that our denomination is broken, because we apparently do not agree on a matter that is fundamental to our own spiritual lives.

So, are you saying that revisionists are totally responsible for the controversy?

I think that is obvious--if there were no attempt to revise the meaning of Scripture there would be no debate about it.

I see. And so, when Luther took a run at revisionism and attacked the prevailing authority (see the beginning of the Smalcald Articles), was he reinterpreting scripture or not, based on the insight of the times?

Actually, what Luther was mostly doing was measuring the institutional church against Scripture and finding the church wanting in a number of areas. Moreover, Luther I am not aware of a single incidence of Luther claiming that Scripture does not mean what it says.

Ben,

Luther doesn't speak against the scriptural statements that the world was created in six days, that there really was a Garden of Eden with Adam, Eve, a snake and an apple, and that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. Do you think such silence by Luther means we are supposed to believe that such things actually happened?

No. I don't know whether, or to what extent, each of those things actually happened, and I suspect Luther may have had similar questions. I don't think it is particularly relevant whether the specific details of each of those Biblical accounts are exactly true in every detail. Each tells a story to make a particular point, and the making of the point is what matters. The Bible uses literary devices in numerous places to tell stories, and in each case those stories are not necessarily meant to convey factual details. The same is not true of Biblical statements concerning other matters, such as homosexual sex. There is no ambiguity in what the Bible says about homosexual sex and no indication that the statements about homosexual sex do no say what they mean and mean what they say.

What about a "divorce," as I suggested above and as has been suggested elsewhere?

Despite the fact that we now have inalterable judgment about whose fault it is, in my opinion, a so-called "divorce", it is means (as has been suggested) the dissolution of the ELCA for formation of two new, separate bodies, that isn't in the cards. No matter who wins the August vote, the ELCA continues with a constitution and Bylaws and provisions for dissolution, which won't happen, because the votes aren't there.

I am not asking about whether the votes are there. I am asking you whether you consider that to be acceptable. Are you willing to allow traditionalists to leave with their churches and assets, or do you want want to prevent them from taking any of the churches and assets with them?

If this property/asset issue is what is really behind your question, then I don't believe there is a problem. In the ELCA, a congregation can withdraw from the body and keep its assets intact. You might be confusing that premise with the Episcopalians, who aren't in the same legal boat. With a congregation's assets protected for that congregation, agencies and seminaries are all right because they are separately chartered. And the pension plans for individuals should be significantly separate to remain without change, and if not, the plan could simply be transferred to another plan.

I don't know about the size of the ELCA's endowment, but those who contributed to it undoubtedly contributed with no strings attached. Whether and how it could be redistributed is a serious legal question.

Frankly, I don't have problem with it either way, so my basic comment still holds from a pragmatic point of view. The ELCA won't be dissolved. Congregations and people (on the losing side, whichever side that is) simply will have to make the choice regarding whether they want to be in or out.

Glad to hear that.

Ben asked, "Are you willing to allow traditionalists to leave with their churches and assets, or do you want want to prevent them from taking any of the churches and assets with them?"

I'd like to see the question turned around, asking whether revisionists should be allowed to leave with the assets of the church, as they are leaving Lutheranism for Crypto-Enthusiam--with a light dusting of Lutheran "heritage" on top for camouflage (IMO).

That's pretty cynical, Rik. IMHO, the significance of this issue for the future of the church causes any concern over assets to pale in comparison.

In addition, whoever leaves wouldn't be leaving with "the assets of the church". Congregations that withdraw would take their own assets with them, which they already own as per the constitution and Bylaws of the ELCA.

"That's pretty cynical, Rik." You're right, Kurt. Who'd have ever thought things would come to this. As a middle-aged person, I would have never believed that people would question what a marriage is in my lifetime. Never. Had I been told that people in the church would openly advocate against what Scripture clearly says, seeking to move the church further and further away from the truth of God's Word, I would have never believed it would happen on this scale. "Just like in the days of Noah?" Evidently. May God forgive me for my cynicism, and remind me that no matter how many within the church disavow what God has taught us, nevertheless God is in control. He knows best what I should pray for, but I add, "Lord Jesus, quickly come. Maranatha!" And, of course, KYRIE ELEISON!!!

I find myself agreeing with Kurt twice in one day. Incredible! I think any church that wants to leave should be able to leave with its assets. I do not want to see happen here what is going on in ECUSA -- endless litigation over church assets. That is not good for anyone, especially not our mission as churches. Let us have an amicable parting.