A compromise for Lutherans? (gay issues) | Minneapolis Star-Tribune

[Ediacara]

A compromise for Lutherans?

Martha Sawyer Allen, Star Tribune May 8

In an effort to keep the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) from imploding over sexuality issues next year, one of its influential leaders is promoting a way for the denomination to vote -- without voting -- on two of the most contentious issues it has ever faced.

The 16-year-old denomination will vote at its national assembly meeting in Orlando, Fla., in 2005 on whether to ordain sexually active gays and lesbians and to authorize an official rite to bless same-sex unions. However, the church is already deeply divided on the issues, and advocates on both sides are bracing for a major confrontation.

The Rev. Peter Rogness, bishop of the ELCA's St. Paul Area Synod and a respected national leader, sent an e-mail to his 425 pastors in February asking, in part, "Can we agree that living with these differing perspectives for a time might be less harmful for the church than a divisive vote that does nothing to bring us together?"

More at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune

[efhmc]

1. As a member of the ELCA, I am confused by this as I thought this issue

had already been dealt with. The first (and only that I know of) gay church I ever saw was in SF and was Lutheran. It was in the Haight- Asbery area of SF and had a large rainbow banner and a sign saying they welcomed all people.

[TheReligiousLeft]

2. Gay church-->Reconciled in Christ

What that "gay church" was (I assume) is a church that decided to be designated "Reconciled in Christ" meaning the individual church has decided that it is purposefully welcoming to homosexuals. The issue with the ELCA (brought about by our connection to the Episcipalians) is now 1. Gay Marraige 2. Gays/lesbians in relationships becoming pastors.
My guess is we will end up doing something like Reconciled in Christ, for these issues, only on a synodical (think state) level.
Man, I haven't posted (or even looked at) DU for a long time. Glad I stuck my head back in the door at the right time. Any more questions just ask me.

[54anickel]

3. I am with Rogness on this one. Our congregation fairly recently decided

on the "agree to disagree" stance. It was rather ugly just getting to that point. We are now "growing" to discern and repect each others viewpoints. The next step would be to hand it over to God, and we are very close to taking that step. IMO, a vote higher up at this point in time will throw our congregation backwards.

In his e-mail, Rogness said, "We need to have rules, of course. But we need to act, whenever we can, not simply as a legislative body but as a community gathered to celebrate and discern God's movement among us. Sometimes that work of discernment does not conform to the legislative process. This is one of those times."

[efhmc]

5. Thanks. I've always being rather proud of my church's more

intellectual approach to many things and the ability of many to see differing views. When I was younger and before women were treated as total members of the church with all the rights as male, I was having a very hard time with my religion. I think this issue is EXACTLY the same and do not want to see us go backwards here. (Sorry about the term "gay" church but I did not how else to id it.)

[Wapsie B]

4. But if the ELCA would splinter because of this

is it nothing but a house of cards to begin with? I'm almost of the opinion that if the right-wingers in the ELCA want to draw the line in the sand, let them. They'd be happier in one of these Confessional churches stuck in the dark ages. Let the ELCA grow and evolve in a new direction; not burdened by those that wish to live in the 1950's.

[efhmc]

6. Exactly. That is what I think is the right thing to do.

[Wapsie B]

7. In Iowa several years ago,

there was a gay ELCA minister who was defrocked. The case was all over the Des Moines Register for months. I believe he ended up going out to SF. But I would've much rather had him as my pastor than the Iowa bishop that felt it was his duty to defrock a gay minister, or the fundy wannabe we had at the time in our pulpit.

[54anickel]

8. Now you lost me. Does that mean you are for putting it to a vote?

[Wapsie B]

9. I would.

Let the chips fall where they may.

[54anickel]

10. That would mean all the works and studies that our congregation

has done so far would be for naught. While we are making progress, we aren't there yet. Putting it to a vote higher up would decide the issue for all involved, nothing left to discuss. This would end the process of reconciliation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and replace it with the human dictates of the human PTB. At least in our congregation. How many others may be at the same point? A vote would take this gray issue and make it black and white at this point.

[TheReligiousLeft]

11. At the same time hasn't the gay community waited on this for a long time

I'm not disagreeing with you, just thinking about things. Won't the HS be with us for the voting? God only knows.

[54anickel]

14. You've given me something more to chew on.

Would the HS be guiding the ones that do the voting? Perhaps. At the same time is it not for each individual congregation's dedication be to the spiritual growth of it's membership in love? Yes, the gay community has waited on this a long time. I guess I'm an idealist wanting for them to be truly welcomed and loved, so that when they read that sign at the door that says "All are welcome" it is true and from the heart and not because of something decided by a "political" vote. I am torn. Perhaps because I truly love my church, but deep inside I know we are not ready for a yes/no vote. Maybe we will never be.

[efhmc]

15. No, I am for getting shut of the fundies. This should not ever be the

church for them and if it is, I want OUT. However, a vote may be necessary some time in the future.

[silverlib]

12. We Methodist could certainly learn something from this.

We made the NY Times today. I sent a scathing letter to the annual conference, but it did no good.

We have churches who are dissenting from the "moral majority." One is here in Austin. Rev. Sid Hall, who is pastor to a great many gays in his assigned church, has refused to conduct marriages in his church if the Methodist doctrine will not allow him to perform ceremonies for gays. He has been jailed for his involvement in peaceful demonstrations supporting gays. He is not gay, so the Methodist Church will be hard pressed to get rid of him, but I'm sure they can make his professional life difficult.

Good for the ECLA. It's much better to table it and pray about it than to admonish gays. For now, I'll stay Methodist and put up the good fight, but I may eventually have to leave and join a more inclusive group.

[TheReligiousLeft]

13. Fight, fight

and when hope is out of sight join the ELCA... isn't that how the Service poem goes...
Keep up the good fight.

[struggle4progress]

16. There are sick, naked, hungry, tortured in the world ...

today in need of healing, clothing, food, protection. First things first. I fear that if we Lutherans stare too hard at this relatively minor personal sexual issue, we can become distracted from more important practical issues of faith.