drewjmore

I am personally aquainted with a (now former) Lutheran pastor who has resigned in protest of the ELCA policy ("Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships.") that prohibits sexually active homosexuals in ministerial roles.

I'd like to support this person from 'within' the church. What is my best scriptural stance from which to do this?

Spherical Time

I think that this will get more responses in our Biblical Criticism forum, because that's were those of us intimately familiar with the Bible hang out, so I'm moving it there (from GRD).

Spherical Time
GRD Moderator

Julian

There have been a few debates on this topic recently. Check out

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142940

and here

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=141455

Julian

drewjmore

Thank Mod for the change of venue!

And also thanks for the research: my simple search of the IIDB archives did not direct me to either of those debate threads.

I have been, and will continue, reading them. However I wish to draw attention to the ELCA's position: gays are not unrepentant sinners, yet they are unsuitable for ordination.

Can this be compared to the Roman Catholic prohibition against female priests?

It may also be important to note that my aquaintance is a female in a long-term comitted relationship, and served as pastor in several congregations-- with distinction, by all accounts-- over 15 years.

countjulian

The Bible (Paul in particular) deosn't like homosexuals, especially male homos. To establish that's it's OK to be gay in Xtianity, you should try and get around this little text first:

Romans 1: 18-32

18
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.
19
For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.
20
Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
21
for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22
While claiming to be wise, they became fools
23
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
24
Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts 15 for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

hatsoff

There's not much you can do about it. The Bible is very clear about homosexual behavior: It is an "abomination," "shameful," etc. That the church would allow even non-practicing homosexuals surprises me. What's more, this pastor should have known before Seminary--and certainly a few weeks into it--that she could not practice homosexual behavior. If she had objections to this, she should have chosen a different denomination.

However, a non-Scriptural argument is that everyone sins, and homosexuals are in that sense no different from anyone else. You can't require ordained ministers to be without sin, so why require them to abstain from *particular* sins? Such a policy unfairly rules out otherwise competent individuals from doing their best to serve God.

Unfortunately, that argument hits a dead end when you consider that a pastor should know and agree with his denomination's doctrines--which she apparently does not. As a homosexual, she is inherently unfit for leading an ELCA congregation--not because of her behavior but rather because of her beliefs.

It's unfortunate that this gal wasted a lot of time in Seminary for the wrong denomination, but that was ultimately her mistake.

Maybe I'm missing some key details, though. But from what you've given me so far I'd have to agree with the church's decision.

Djugashvillain

For the record, the acquaintance appears to be female.

drewjmore

This seems important to me, too. In the referenced debates (thanks again, Julian) both seebs & Pervy make excellent cases against the notion of "strong condemnation" of homosexuality on the grounds of prejudiced translations and bigoted interpretations. The Romans text is clearly a rant against idolatry (read: Greek polytheism) and related temple practices, and does not specifically condemn the individuals since, "...since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper." Perhaps most relevant in my friend's situation: even the fundamentalist side cannot genreralize the OT passages to womankind, from which one must infer that the bible sees no harm in lesbianism.

My two cents: the ELCA is fence-sitting. They hesitate to split their constituency, which is a very real risk. They tried to get a 2/3rds vote to allow gay pastors a while back, and got just less than 1/2. Schism is inevitable. My pastor friend is a passionate and engaging leader, and she could (IMHO) find herself in a position to found a truly inclusive--and of course, gay-friendly-- church at the expense of other doctrinally similar denominations.

I'd like to convince my lutheran friends that the devil is trying to cleave their church, by preying on their inculcated homophobia. Given the two options, one divides us and one unites us. IMO, those that espouse the anti-homosexual position are judging, and being otherwise uncharitable to, their gay siblings-in-Christ.

drewjmore

You're probably right, there's not much a closeted atheist can do from beneath the ELCA leadership.

However, my friend has a family and was an established pastor before 'discovering' her gay-ness. This discovery of hers has split several families over the last few years, and threatens to tear our congregation in two. Is it the devil who made her prefer same-sex relationships, or the devil who has closed the minds of those who are anti-gay?

David B

I think the bible is so clear in its teachings on homosexuality that any attempt to get round them is special pleading on a grand scale.

Simply, there is no room for practicing homosexuals in Christianity, so they should get out of it.

As should those heterosexuals who find the bible's teachings on homosexuality abhorrent. Which, IMV, they are.

David B