The bishops of this church should be applauded for their recommendation, and the Church Council chastised for its clearly result-oriented procedural maneuver. There are plainly some who think that the unity of the ELCA is a price that should be paid for what they deem to be "prophetic" action on the issue of human sexuality. That their actions are authentically prophetic, however, as the message of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and the Apostles, is more than a matter of a difference of "conscience bound" opinion - it is seen as grave error by a large number within, and without, this church.

The game plan is clear: portray those who argue that advocating for gay marriage and unrepentant homosexuality is contrary to Scripture and destroys the church's unity, as those who are disrupting unity, those who can't love others enough to live with disagreement, blah, blah, blah.

Same old, same old. Predictable.

Those who support same sex blessings and ordination of non-chaste homosexuals, according to the interpretation of the scriptures and confessions by Forum authors, are heretics. Therefore, should not the heretics be charged and evicted?

As one of the possible heretics, should there not be a trial to kick me out? You all have been far too patient with me. If I am seriously in error, then I should be given the boot. True?

I think the point of excommunicating heretics from the beginning of the Church is to cause repentance and also to protect one's flock from the poison of heresy. Excommunicating heretics is therefore ordered towards God's grace and forgiveness. The power of the keys is after all an important aspect of Christian ministry which has been lost in the "accept everything"- "feel good" American Church. Jesus himself (as interpreted by David Scaer) suggests that we should cut off a hand or rip out an eye if it causes us to sin- meaning that ministers should excommunicate those who are poisoning the corporate life of the Church.

I only write from my perspective as a candidate for ordination in the ELCA. My concern is not about having a Lutheran inquisition - on the order of the Seminex crisi, or anything of the sort. My only point is that I don't believe that those who are advocating change are grasping the depth of the concern of those who believe that it is a radical departure from Scriptural, and traditional Christian, teaching regarding human sexuality. This is not about "agreeing to disagree", as much as it is about whether we view the Scriptures in the same way. Again, from my perspective, I love my colleagues within the ELCA with whom I disagree, and have no intention to leave, even if the vote for this change occurs. I plan to stay, to preach the Gospel, and do ministry. However there are many, many people who would see this action as nothing less than a move away from the plain meaning of Scripture and millenia of tradition.

Dear Tim,

None of us commenting here have made the leap to heresy trials, so why did you? Are you determined to think the worst of us, or do you long for the glamor of persecution?

As another person pointed out, the goal of excommunication is to bring the erring sheep back into the fold. It is highly doubtful that heresy trials ever accomplished that; they generally descended into Christianity's least attractive episodes. We can agree on that while disagreeing about the point at hand.

I have no doubt that you, and others who share your views, really and truly want what is best for the church and the people of God. I expect you to expect the same of me. But we'll never get anywhere if our arguments remain at the ad hominem level. This is an argument about substance. The political struggle forced on all of us is tragically distracting from the heart of the matter.

So I ask you--and all others who comment on this website, regardless of their views--keep your comment on the topic! I realize this isn't the usual way for internet chatter, but surely given the stakes we can do better.

"Those who support same sex blessings and ordination of non-chaste homosexuals, according to the interpretation of the scriptures and confessions by Forum authors, are heretics."
Must we empty the words of Holy Scripture so much that we say that they say nothing at all but what one chooses to interpret themselves? While I can't speak diffinitively for all those who post here, I and I believe many others have no intention to interpolate our own views into Scripture. I am not lord over the Scriptures, but humbly seek to hear the voice of my Shepherd, no matter what He says. He has love for you and love for all members of the ELCA, but that doesn't mean that He contradicts His clear revelation with continuing updated revelation to cancel out His previous teachings, nor does He lovingly look the other way when we disobey Him. Were it that simple, why would He come down into our world to take upon Himself my many sins and yours as well, suffering the punishment I deserved that I (and you) might be set free? Was His life worth so little? Absolutely not. I seek to love you and others, and pray forgiveness for when I fail to do this, but love is not condoning sin and disorder. Let us not revise the teachings of Scripture, but let them stand on there own. May you truly know that God genuinely loves and cares for you, and that we seek to do likewise, but cannot do so by rejecting what our Father has taught us through His Holy Word.

Sarah,

I have looked at chapter eight of the CONSTITUTIONS,
BYLAWS, AND
CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS
of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America. While I see the responsibilities a bishop has in relation to his synod (district), I am unclear on his official role in regards to the ELCA as a whole. What exactly is the role of a bishop in the polity of the ELCA, besides being a synod's pastor? I would think their role would be significantly different compated to their counter-parts in the Roman church (less hierarchy, less real power...), and that the role has probably changed somewhat since the Concordat with the Episcopalians. But is their authority only locally, or do they have any real impact on the churchwide "expression" of the ELCA beyond an advisory capacity? Perhaps I missed it in the constiturion.

I thank those who responded to my note and question.

Yes, if there is poison teaching (heresy), then it should be eliminated or "cut off" in order to rescue the rest of the body.

Yes, we are reading the Bible differently. However, I do share much in common with you who discern and read Christ as the interpretive lens for listening to the Word of God.

Yes, I made a leap to "heresy trials." No, I'm not seeking to become a glamorous victim. I am trying to discern the implications of where this is heading. I am wondering what the options are, especially if it is not possible to "agree to disagree". Perhaps a better question would be, "What are the implications of this article for someone who is- I don't like this label- a revisionist?"

Confession, I do not "feel good" about the conclusions I have reached in terms of "the question." As a matter of fact, my heart is breaking. I am saddened when my words come off as me trying to "win." I hear the desire of folks for me to repent from my distorted understanding of their plain meaning of scripture.

Finally, I apologize if this is off topic. My intention was to engage in the conversation. But I'll refrain from commenting if this is a distraction. I hope that I am honoring the Forum perspective despite my reaching a different understanding.

Peace

Tim, I certainly respect your candor, and your interest in dialogue. I would only offer this: I think there is no such thing as a purely subjective plain meaning (in reference to your staetment "their plain meaning"). For example, we can talk about whether those who wish to make this change in teaching on sexuality "agree" with Paul's argument in Romans 1 that homosexual sex is "unnatural", but to argue that given our new "insight", Paul would somehow approve of monogomous, same-sex relations, even given the argument he makes in this text - simply strains credulity beyond the breaking point. I would offer this is not about "his" or "her" plain meaning. Instead, the real, intellectually honest debate is whether the ELCA now feels empowered, despite the Confessions, to flatly disagree with Paul's teaching on same-sex relations, and as a consequence, offer a different teaching entirely. I think that is the real crux of this dialogue.

"Instead, the real, intellectually honest debate is whether the ELCA now feels empowered, despite the Confessions, to flatly disagree with Paul's teaching on same-sex relations, and as a consequence, offer a different teaching entirely. I think that is the real crux of this dialogue."
Now I am in no way an expert, but in my humble opinion--for what it's worth--I think it's about "acceptance." Feeling accepted in a basic human need. And even in the church we need to feel accepted. Perhaps some don't feel this need, perhaps some are calloused, but it goes with Paul's analogy of the church as the Body of Christ: When one part hurts, the whole body feels the pain--or at least we should!

Earlier today, I broke one of the Ten Commandments. I bore false witness against my neighbor. I spoke ill and untruthfully regarding one of my country's elected leaders, and it was a sin. Yet I want to be accepted in and out of the body of Christ. But don't just accept me by overlooking my sin (or "disordered comment", or whatever you want to call it). I need to be brought to repentance. And I do repent. I plead God's forgiveness. Had I refused to repent, I should not be shunned, but I should, in love, be made aware of my sin. If I refuse to repent of a public sin, I should still be loved by my Christians, but my unrepentant heart should not be merely overlooked. Sin needs to be identified appropriately and dealt with, much like cancerous tissue. A doctor who seeks to remove or destroy cancerous cells in a patient is not trying to harm the patient, but rather give him/her the help needed. To overlook the cancer in hopes it just might go away, or in assuming there is no real harm there, would be unloving. So, yes, we should care about everyone in our congregations, whether they're repentant or unrepentant of their sins. But to treat someone as if his/her sin did not exist or did not matter--that would be un-loving, as much as we hate to confront others. How do we speak the truth in (genuine) love without appearing/being hypocritical, when we ourselves are nothing but forgiven sinners. For the one who simply doesn't like what God's Word says, I would simply say that church-shopping may seem to solve that person's problem temporarily, but choosing a church / denomination that distances itself from what the Bible teaches would be like going to a known quack doctor in lieu of staying with a real doctor, despite the diagnosis. Why would God allow some to wrestle with a disorder which some Christians never have to experience? Are there not many other "disorders" that could fill in the blank--some worse, some not as difficult? Even St. Paul suffered from a "thorn in the flesh." In this disordered world of ours, I am not who God would want me to be. And when I do what I don't want to do, yet don't do the good I would, I plead God's forgiveness and seek real change. And God redeems my actions and somehow uses them instead for good. This holds for any temptation we may wrestle with. Yet God uses us cracked vessels to carry His great treasure from person to person. What is our individual identity? I will not start with my assumptions, but rather look at the gifts, abilities, and talents God has given me. What experiences have God allowed me to learn from? How has God worked through me in the past? How might He work through me in the near future? This is a better starting point in ascertaining our identity than accepting the labels society tries to fasten to me, such as "False-Witness-Bearer." Instead, I'll accept God's label for me: A Redeemed Sinner, Redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb of God, my Vicarious Atonement, my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In light of this, how should I live, and how should I understand my identity? How should I accept others, and hope to be accepted by others. May God lift my burdens from my back, but should He leave one there, may He teach me how He would have me bear it. And may He teach me how I may help others by bearing their burdens in Christian love.

Rik, I don't disagree with you, but I think we're talking about two related things. Acceptance, or perhaps, genuine compassion, is what is driving this theological issue, for those who wish to make the changes. We're not talking about a malevolent attack on the church; instead, we're talking about a true desire to do what is right. The problem is, the standard against which those who wish to make this change are measuring their new teaching is a moving target. I would respectfully submit that is has to be. To confront Paul's writings, as well as the Genesis account of creation and Jesus' reaffirmation of it, square-on, would yield what I think they would deem to be uncompassionate results. So, and again I say this respectfully, I think they are creating, perhaps even unintentionally, result-driven ambiguity in the Scriptural texts. So despite the fact that no one can seriously argue with the fact that the Jewish culture of the day clearly, and historically, condemned same-sex acts based upon the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Apostle Paul wrote, and presumably taught, that the Pagan allowance of homosexual acts was not acceptable in the church for the same reason (and for reasons of God's design for nature), we are now faced with a sudden case of "ambiguity" where one did not previously exist. It is difficult for me to understand where this type of theological reasoning stops.

Dear Tim,

Thank you for this clarification. As much as the internet enables discussion, it also enables misunderstanding to an unprecedented degree. I'm sorry for my misinterpretation of your remarks.

I personally find the situation heartbreaking too, especially the cruelty of the ELCA trying to work out its profoundly flawed ecclesiology with homosexuals in the spotlight. I still hold to the view that this is as much or more an ecclesiological conflict than a moral one over homosexual behavior.

Of course, ecclesiological conflict does raise the specter of "heresy trial." I hope whichever side "wins" it never comes to that. Organizational schism seems more likely, though my guess is that it would turn into practical schism without organizational recognition. Actually, that's exactly what the Recommendations would do. They would destroy our internal altar and pulpit fellowship. At that point "heresy trial" would be irrelevant anyway, since we wouldn't be sufficiently in fellowship for a breach to occur.

A less inflammatory term is "discipline." We Americans don't like it, as a rule, but it has always been a part of the church, even if a less theologized and (I think accordingly) less well exercised part of church life. No one has any doubts about the necessity of discipline in, say, preparing candidates for ministry (we won't ordain just anybody who says "I want to be a pastor," and rightly so), or in administering offerings (so they go to the proper causes and not into the pocket of nephews in the plumbing business), or in removing gross offenders from office (as in the case of clergy sexually abusing children). Discipline per se only becomes a problem when we disagree about what is being disciplined. If it becomes the focus, it's a red herring. All the more reason to keep working at the real substance of this problem before the center is shifted to what is not the real issue.

"...or in removing gross offenders from office (as in the case of clergy sexually abusing children)."
_______

How many Churchwide Assemblies until THIS is voted acceptable, provided it is in the context of a loving relationship?! The slippery slope continues downhill.

Sarah,
I found one phrase in your article particularly striking. Do you really think that Lutheran ecclesiology has recourse to the notion of a "deposit of faith?"
The depositum fidei is, of course, a bedrock concept of Roman Catholic ecclesiology; however, I am not sure how it would cohere with the historic practices of the Lutheran communions, particularly with their decisive rejection of the idea that Jesus might have transmitted truths orally to the disciples that are external to scripture but nonetheless essential to the faith (a debate going back to More vs. Luther and More vs. Tyndale, if not further).
How do you construe the depositum fidei as you invoke its protection as the "chief function" of bishops?

Hi Rob,
I didn't mean "deposit of faith" in a kind of "secret tradition" a la Basil of Caesarea or anything like that. I met the common ground that all Christians share and makes ecumenism possible, chiefly trinitarian and christological dogma defined by the early councils; also the creeds, the canon of Scripture, and for Lutherans the specific interpretation of these in the Confessions. I think "deposit" is a useful term for those things that Lutheran theology assumed but didn't need to spell out because they weren't under controversy (like trinitarian doctrine, for instance). As I read history, the purpose of having authority reside in particular persons, namely bishops, is to have a living guide for the church in and back to fidelity to this common faith share everywhere, always, and by all. I haven't been to an episcopal consecration, but I assume they profess vows similar to ordination vows--to uphold the teachings of the church.
Sarah