Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View What the ELCA missed at the 2009 CWA - The Bible!
7 years ago  ::  Mar 21, 2011 - 12:29PM #21
Posts: 53,304

Yes ... History -- including Church History -- is LITTERED with well-intended Experiments gone awry ... (The Western Church unilateral insertion of "Filioque" into The Nicean Creed comes to mind) ...

Maybe Mass-Representative-Revolutionary "Democracy" a la 1776 will also turn out to be such, along with The Individualistic Protest Ant Schismatic MANIA unleashed only about 500 Years ago ...

It takes Time for these Things to "shake out" ... I agree ... Seriousness is required, while Hype and Hysteria are unhelpful ...

"Lutherans" especially in particular will continue-to-continue to ask together, "What does this mean ... ???"

Mar 21, 2011 -- 12:22PM, G_Erdner wrote:

Mar 21, 2011 -- 12:18PM, teilhard wrote:

Yeah ... SOME "Lutherans" had the same mis-givings about Ordination of Women on that very same "kind" of Basis ...

Do you know that back in 1776 some "Lutherans" opposed The American Revolution as it CLEARLY  went against Paul's CLEAR Words in Romans 13:1-7 ... ???

Mar 21, 2011 -- 12:03PM, G_Erdner wrote:

Mar 21, 2011 -- 11:17AM, teilhard wrote:

No ... The Bible was INTERPRETED ... Obviously you disagree with The Interpretation ...

You cal it "interpreted". People who respect the Word of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that shaped our understanding for a couple of millenia recognize it as TWISTING AND PERVERTING the Bible.

The ordination of women is probably a mistake. As for the opposition to the Revolutionary war, that proves that there have been errant interpretations of Scripture all along. They usually are corrected in time, as the errant interpretations of the 2009 CWA will end up a minor footnote on the list of heresies that the Church has overcome.


Quick Reply
7 years ago  ::  Mar 21, 2011 - 10:44PM #22
Posts: 4,367

G Erdner: Since you hold Scripture in such esteem, I'm sure you're acquainted with the part of it that states, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

The denominational discussion that led to the CWA resolution that's upsetting you so was indeed done in a prayerful, sincere and Scripture-respectful atmosphere, even though different people, good people in good conscience, wound up on opposite sides of the debate. That is to be expected in any serious discussion of Scripture. The Church has always had vigorous debates on matters of biblical interpretation; acting as if this were the only one, and the most important one, in all of Christendom, is just being disingenuous.

Moreover, that informed, respectful disagreement was acknowledged in the resolution, and provision was made for congregations that simply can't in good conscience call a partnered gay clergyperson. If you've read the resolution, you know that. If your congregation thinks the way you do, you're going to carry on as you always have.

Finally: I am personally calling you out on your false assertion that the ELCA doesn't care about Scripture. The ELCA is currently emphasizing Scriptural literacy in everything from its SPARK Bible program for children to its Book of Faith Initiative for adults...the Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible (from which I get regular Bible study prompts via Facebook), the excellent Lutheran Woman Today series of Bible studies,  the Working Preacher website that provides study/preaching helps for pastors and laypeople alike...if you'd like, I will list every website related to the ELCA's commitment to Scriptural education here. If you're not aware of these...well, it's not the ELCA's fault.

Coming to conclusions about Scripture that differ from yours isn't disrespecting Scripture.

If you have a difficult time being part of a church body that encourages discussion and debate and asking the hard questions, a church body that believes that the Bible is a living, dynamic set of texts that each culture and generation must engage according to its own situation...there are other church bodies with less tolerance for ambiguity and paradox. Personally, I think some people are simply more dispositionally suited for those groups. As my pastor says, he'd rather that someone be a happy and fulfilled Missouri Synodian or Southern Baptist or Pentecostal than an unhappy, resentful, obstructionist member of the ELCA.


Quick Reply
7 years ago  ::  Mar 21, 2011 - 11:39PM #23
Posts: 352

Mar 20, 2011 -- 9:51PM, G_Erdner wrote:

I have heard from people on the committee appointed to do the studying, and when the Bible was consulted, it stood in the way of those who wanted to cram the homosexual agenda through at any cost, and so what the Bible said was ignored.

Let me get this straight--you heard from people appointed to participate in the Study?  You are still relying on second hand information. 

Why didn't you participate in the study?  When the congressional study packet came out there was no stipulation that people had to be appointed to a special study group.  In fact, it said any interested member is encouraged to study it.

The Nationwide Synod even went another step.  It provided all the material online so people could study it on their own and were also provided with means to react to the study.

On the basis of the replies to the study from congregations and individuals, the task force then drew up its resolutions which were then made available for congregations, bishop councils, seminaries, and yes even individuals to react to them.  In the year leading up to the Nationwhide Assemby local synods passed memorials  in support or against the task force resolutions. 

As my dad used to say, this thingwas discussed and cussed until the cows came home and then some.  It was probably the most studied issues in the ELCA since the merger of the church body.

And you did not even participate in the discussions?  Frankly, you do not have a leg to stand on here.

But if you are so upset about it, there are still ways for you to address it.  But you have to go through your local congregation to do it.  You can seek to have them send a new memorial to the local synod so that this will be reconsidered.

Or you can get your congregation to begin the process of withdrawal.

Now, if your congregation has elected not to memorialize the local synod for redress and has refused to consider withdrawing from the Nationwide body, then maybe you should find another church body you would be comfortable with.

But this forum is not the place to address the issue anymore, if it ever was.

Quick Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook