A Lutheran congregation in California explains on its blog site why it regards itself as a “progressive” congregation. Here are the standards they strive to uphold:

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who:

1. Proclaim Jesus Christ as our Gate to the realm of God.

2. Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the gateway to God’s realm.

3. Understand our sharing of bread and wine in Jesus’s name to be a representation of God’s feast for all peoples.

4. Invite all sorts and conditions of people to join in our worship and in our common life as full partners, including (but not limited to): believers and agnostics, conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, homosexuals and heterosexuals, females and males, the despairing and the hopeful, those of all races and cultures, and those of all classes and abilities, without imposing on them the necessity of becoming like us.

5. Think that the way we treat one another and other people is more important than the way we express our beliefs.

6. Find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers.

7. See ourselves as a spiritual community in which we discover the resources required for our work in the world: striving for justice and peace among all people; bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers

8. Recognize that our faith entails costly discipleship, renunciation of privilege, and conscientious resistance to evil–as has always been the tradition of the church

I read this first on Dr. Gene Edward Veith’s blog, who read it at Joe Carter’s blog, who in turn found it on the Internet. OK, now that we have the hat tips out of the way, here is a great interview with Rodney Stark.

Read this interview with sociologist Rodney Stark on how the so-called “mainline” liberal denominations have dwindled into irrelevance: Are Evangelicals the New Mainline?. Among the many interesting points he makes is that the only congregations in those traditions that are doing well are those with conservative pastors. And when “evangelicals” decide to go liberal, as in the emergent church or progressive evangelical movement, they decline too. He goes into the history of this phenomenon and finds that it goes way, way back.

What will those Anglicans think of next?

Here’s the story of how a dog received the Sacrament in an Anglican parish recently:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/838717–can-a-dog-receive-communion

Here’s a snippet:

“In my opinion, Christ would have thought it was neat. It was just being human. And it made everyone smile.”

In light of the LWF’s meeeting in Stuttgart this month, these thoughts from Hermann Sasse are eerily and dramatically prophetic:

Dear Brothers in the Office!

Three years have passed since the first of these letters came into your hands. That letter sought to depict, in brief strokes, the situation faced by the Lutheran Churches as it made note of the two-fold tendency in the most recent history of our church: a strong external ascendancy of “Lutheranism,” which is accompanied by a threatening diminution of the dogmatic-confessional substance. Most of you will agree with me that the developments of the past three years have corroborated this viewpoint. It is to be feared that the meeting of the Lutheran World Federation in Hannover will not contradict this view. How pleased would we all be, all of us who are so very concerned for the future of our church, if this meeting would prove us wrong, if it shall have revealed something of an ascendancy of the inner spiritual life of the church, of a renewal of the old faithfulness to the confession of the eternal truth, which once found a home in Lower Saxony. But from what one reads in Lutherischen Rundschau of the preparations in Hanover it appears to be much like the massive marches and manipulating demonstrations which the evangelical churches of Germany inherited from the Third Reich, which satisfy a deep psychological need of modern masses. There is no doubt hat the Hannover session of the Lutheran World Federation will be just as beautiful and enchanting as the Berlin Kirchentag of the EkiD and as the great royal nuptial celebrations of Hannover in previous years. The very same men who in Berlin were so enthused over the unity of the Evangelical Church in German [EkiD] (“We are still brothers!”), will be enthused in Hannover over the Lutheran Church. And they will proudly allow the church banners to stream, among which also is the banner of the LWF with Luther’s seal, just as at royal weddings the old Hannoverian flags suddenly fluttered again and the old uniforms of the Hannoverian army of 1866 experienced a remarkable resurrection. What a testimony of loyalty that was! Only it was forgotten that it was all merely a beautiful show [see note -compiler]. The princes no longer rule. The flag of a state was displayed which has long since gone under. The people passionately celebrated a loyalty, which had long since been violated. That is the genius loci of Hannover. Should it also rule the session of the Lutheran World Federation in August? If not, then it is time to exorcise it. We theologians in any case will remain sober and guard ourselves from the enthusiasm which in every form is the mortal enemy of the true faith. With Lutheran sobriety, which means for us at the same time with constant faith in the reality of the Church of God, we desire to seek to understand the situation of Lutheranism regarding a few essential points at the beginning of this fateful year.

— Hermann Sasse

From Letters to Lutheran pastors No. 22: ‘The De-Confessionalisation of Lutheranism?’(1952); trans. by Rev Matthew Harrison and available in full here: http://www.clai.org.au/articles/sasse/deconfes.htm

Compiler’s Note – Sasse must have had in mind the nuptial celebrations of 5th September, 1951, when Prince Ernest Augustus of the House of Hanover married Princess Ortrud of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. The wedding was attended by many royal figures, including the heads of the houses of Saxony, Hesse, Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, and Baden, all of whom had long since been deposed from their thrones. The wedding was followed with a reception at Herrenhausen, the only part of Hanover’s former palace still intact in the aftermath of World War II. Sasse suggests that the essential meaninglessness of the pomp surrounding such celebrations is comparable to that which surrounds great ecumenical gatherings like the Berlin Kirchentag and LWF Assemblies. It is something which theologians have a responsibility to resist with ‘Lutheran sobriety’.

For those who keep saying that the ordination of women has no bearing on the issue of the ordination of homsexuals, please note the comment in bold/itals (emphasis mine) in the story below.

Presbyterians take step towards ordaining homosexual clergy
ENI-10-0477

By Chris Herlinger
New York, 9 July (ENI)–The general assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has approved a measure that would allow those in committed same-sex relationships to be ordained as clergy.

The proposed change to the denomination’s polices must still be approved by the U.S. church’s 173 presbyteries. In 2009, 94 of the local bodies voted against the change following a similar decision by the 2008 general assembly.

Proponents of the measure said the move that was made on 8 July is a historic step that puts the Presbyterian Church on the right side of history.

The denomination, meeting for its 219th assembly in Minneapolis, Minnesota, also debated whether to broaden its definition of marriage to include people in same-sex relationships.

The assembly, however, voted to maintain the current definition of marriage – between a man and a woman – in its constitution.

Lacy Morris, a delegate to the assembly quoted by the Presbyterian News Service, said that on the issue of ordination, the church had to decide which was worse: possible division or failing to do what was right.

“We’re talking about history, but we need to talk about the future,” Morris said, noting that the ordination of women also risked divisions, but had proven to be the right decision.

There was no immediate comment from traditionalist groups within the denomination about the move, though on its Web site, Presbyterians for Renewal, had said the previous day that “the news is not good from the Twin Cities” (of Minneapolis and St. Paul).

The move would change language for the denomination’s Book of Order, which only permits ordination for those who are either married or celibate.

If approved by the two-million-member denomination, which is the 10th largest in the United States, the church would join a number of Protestant denominations, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, that in recent years have changed their ordination rules regarding gay and lesbian clergy.

Debates over the issue of sexuality have proved contentious, though, and have caused splits within the U.S. Episcopal (Anglican) Church and between it and other Anglican churches elsewhere in the world. [360 words]

ENI News Headlines and Featured Articles are now available by RSS feed.
See http://www.eni.ch/rss/
All articles (c) Ecumenical News International
Reproduction permitted only by media subscribers and
provided ENI is acknowledged as the source.

Ecumenical News International
PO Box 2100
CH – 1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland

Tel: (41-22) 791 6088/6111
Fax: (41-22) 788 7244
Email: eni@eni.ch

Dr. Jack Kilcrease, a former member of the ELCA, had a great blog post recently, talking about his reading in the word by Werner Elert titled The Christian Faith. It has never been formally published, but a translation done years ago has been available for quite some time. Dr. Kilcrease makes some great points, well worth pondering. How did liberal Lutheranism in this country reach a point where they eschew Trinitarian language, and embrace deviant human sexuality, all in “light of the Gospel.” Here’s how:

“I’m in the process of re-reading Werner Elert’s The Christian Faith. It’s a bootlegged translation done back in the 70s (I have the manuscript from Luther Seminary, which I still have borrowing rights from). From what I heard (and Pr. McCain can correct me) CPH bought the rights and then found that a lot of it was heretical. So they translated the non-heretical parts and then not the rest. I will grant that a great deal of it is heretical. It is interesting and insightful at certain points though.

“This brings me to one of the points where Elert fails seriously, namely the doctrine of inspiration. He makes a series of weird statements about the authority of the Bible. First, he thinks that all Scriptural authority is based on the gospel. I don’t even know what that means. When I was in the ELCA, I had professors claim this- but I never really bought it. The difficulty with this that the gospel makes no sense if you don’t have the law. Both together don’t make any sense if you don’t have them within the context of salvation history. So, saying “the gospel” is the thing that makes the Scriptures authoritative, doesn’t make any sense, since the gospel makes no sense without things that aren’t gospel. Consequently, they must also be authoritative and then logically a subset of a larger phenomenon known as the “Word of God.”

“What I think is really going on is his existentializing and psychologizing tendency. This leads us into the next weird claim, that it’s the content of the Scriptures, not the Scriptures themselves which are authoritative.

“What? How can the content be authoritative, without the thing itself being authoritative? In other words, are you claiming that the Lutheran scholastic authors claimed that if the Scriptures were stripped of their content their would be something left over which would be authoritative? Certainly not. The content and the thing itself is no different.

“What he’s really getting at is this: he thinks that a person denigrates the authority of the gospel if you ground it in a prior theory of inspiration. In his way of thinking you’re saying “I believe the gospel, because I believe in a theory about inspiration.”

“But of course, not one really says this. David Scaer has consistently pointed to the Christological basis of the doctrine of inspiration particularly in his early work The Apostolic Scriptures. The Scriptures are authoritative because they are inspired. This inspiration is anchored in the authorization of the Old Testament (“the scriptures cannot be broken…) and the authority of the Apostles who wrote the New Testament (“those who hear you, hear me…” “I will send you the comforter, who will lead you into all truth…”) by Jesus.

“If I believe in Jesus, I will believe in the inerrant Biblical Word that he authorized. In fact, I will no other access to his person and work than to that witness. So, by believing in him and his trustworthiness, I will automatically believe in the trustworthiness of his Bible. This is what was often referred to by the Lutheran scholastics as the inner testimony of the Spirit regarding the authority and infallibility of the Scriptures.

“In the end, what Elert wants is to place authority in act of believing in Christ and his gospel and then to exclude a doctrine of inerrancy and Scripture inspiration on this basis. No one is disputing that faith comes first and this faith leads one to acknowledge the Scriptures. What Elert’s move does is in fact internalize authority in a psychological event of coming to faith. It takes the locus of authority away from the external Word and places it within the individual and their faith in Jesus.

“In the end, as we can see, this is a false decision of either/or. Faith in Christ automatically means both/and. Ultimately Elert’s reductionism gives us the current LWF and the ELCA. For this he and his companion at Erlangen have much to account for.”

I know some people would prefer simply to imagine these things are not happening, or pretend as if they are of no importance, and something we would do well simply to ignore and not talk about. But that is not how to handle the appearance of materials like this. They must be called what they are: heresy and rejected and condemned as false and damning. You can visit the curriculum web site and download samples. Here’s an excerpt from the curriculum description.

The curriculum is free from dogma and creed and does not make reference to the atonement/sacrifice issue that is in classical Christianity. It treats Jesus as a teacher of a way to live a fulfilling and spiritual life. It respects and celebrates the many wisdom teachings that exist and focuses on a joyful path and finding God within all.

Here’s the press release on the project.

Spiritual Lessons for Children — New Curriculum Changes How We Think About God

The Center for Progressive Christianity and ProgressiveChristianity.org, is changing the face of progressive Christianity with new groundbreaking children’s [sic] curriculum, A Joyful Path. Created for use in congregations, small groups, or individual families, it is ideal for those who are looking for spiritual lessons that are free from dogma and creed. The language is inclusive, inter-spiritual, and intelligent. Sensitively written and beautifully illustrated, this curriculum focuses on behavior before belief, creating and practicing a spiritual path, and knowing one’s true self. It celebrates children’s [sic] naturally joy-filled life, and draws upon their compassion, as well as their own innate wisdom.
First released at the Common Dreams Conference, in Melbourne, Australia, this set of lesson plans is generating a great deal of excitement among progressive Christians all over the world, as well as others who are looking for a fresh perspective on spiritual lessons. It offers a way of life that centers on the teachings of Jesus, but also celebrates and respects the teachings of other wisdom paths. The curriculum encourages children to listen and respect all people, to think of the all the world as our family, to celebrate and care for the earth, and to see God within each person.

It differs from traditional church curriculum in many ways. The curriculum avoids speaking at children, telling them what to believe or how to behave. Rather, it creates a space for children to learn on their own. It is fun and interactive, full of activities, games, and ideas to use children’s [sic] own experiences to help them discover each truth for themselves. While it uses the Bible as inspiration, it is not bible centered, nor does it refer to God as something outside of us or as a powerful deity with human like qualities. Based upon our most current understanding of the universe and science, and drawing upon a plethora of wisdom teachings, each lesson or affirmation encourages children to use their energy in positive ways and to see themselves as interconnected to all.

Parents, educators, churches, and communities can all benefit from a children’s [sic] curriculum that is both spiritually progressive and relevant in today’s world. For more information, contact Deshna at Deshna@tcpc.org or go to ProgressiveChristianity.org.

Last Saturday I was having a thoroughly enjoyable conversation with Rev. Dr. James Voelz, Dean of Faculty at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. He was telling anecdotes from his fascinating and varied academic experiences. He said what really impressed him was when he was a  young man studying in Cambridge, the famous liberal theologian, JAT Robinson, came in to lecture. Somebody asked him about something in Romans, a key passage, and without blinking an eye, Dr. Robertson simply said, “Oh, yes, of course Paul said that, but Paul was wrong.” Dr. Voelz pointed out what a completely honest response that was.

But what so often happens among liberals, particularly those in mainline protestant churches, is that they do not have the personal integrity to say simply, “Paul was wrong” or “Christ was wrong” but they play all sorts of games trying to explain how, well, that was what Christ said, or what Paul wrote, but the words don’t mean what they say, or appear to mean, or they did not really say what we think they said. In other words, they indulge in fundamentally deceptive ways of getting around the plain meaning of the text.

We see this all over the place in the recent ELCA decisions regarding homosexuality and we saw it all over the place in the days of Seminex in our own Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. I shared with Dr. Voelz one of my favorite stories about the Seminex days in our Synod, told me by an eye/ear witness. One of the Seminex professors, when asked if he personally believed that the account of Christ walking on water was true and if Christ did in fact walk on water paused for a long time and said, “Well, I certainly would not want to say Christ could not have walked on water.”Dr. Voelz, who was a student at the time during the years of the Seminex crisis confirmed that this kind of duplicitous way of approaching the issues was standard operating procedure among the pro-Seminex theologians on the campus of Concordia Seminary.

Most recently, on this blog site, when I posted something about why it is so important to maintain that there was a real Adam and a real Eve, a liberal theologian popped on and asked me where Christ ever said there was a real Adam and Eve. He is indulging in the kind of passive-aggresive, dishonest game playing that characterizes so much of American liberalism in many of the mainline protestant denominations. Liberal theologians know that, in varying degrees, the rank and file members of their congregations still believe the “old myths” they were taught as children, and so they dance around and play with the text of Scripture, trying to cover over their own utter disbelief in what the Bible clearly asserts.

Years ago when I was a young pastor, a neighboring pastor friend of mine who visited a newly installed ELCA Lutheran pastor told me about his conversation with her. When he asked her what she personally believed about the resurrection of the dead and Christ’s own bodily resurrection, asking her this question as they stood in the grave yard of her church, she said, “Oh, of course, I don’t believe in all that anymore.” And when he asked her, “Well, what do you preach about then?” She quickly said, “Oh, I preach what I know my people want to hear about these things.”

This is the kind of game-playing that goes on constantly; tragically, through these kinds of games, many are deceived. But God is not mocked. (Galatians 6:7)

I’ve been following debates/arguments/dicussions/conversations about the historicity of Adam and Eve. For our Lord Christ, the fact of the creation of Adam and Eve by God, and their union to one another, ordained by God, is the very foundation of marriage and all human sexuality. Precisely because the Lord taught this, this has an enormous impact on how the Church and the faithful, should—no not should, that’s way too soft a word—absolutely must—affirm the historicity of Adam and Eve. Justin Taylor had a blog post recently on this, that puts it rather well.

Reformation21 reprints an essay by Michael Reeves (Theological Adviser for UCCF in the UK) on “Adam and Eve,” from the forthcoming book Should Christians Embrace Evolution? edited by Norman Nevin (IVP-UK, P&R). In particular Dr. Reeves takes on Denis Alexander’s proposed “third way” of understanding Adam and evolution.

Here’s the conclusion:

When theological doctrines are detached from historical moorings, they are always easier to harmonize with other data and ideologies. And, of course, there are a good many doctrines that are not directly historical by nature. However, it has been my contention that the identity of Adam and his role as the physical progenitor of the human race are not such free or detachable doctrines. The historical reality of Adam is an essential means of preserving a Christian account of sin and evil, a Christian under-standing of God, and the rationale for the incarnation, cross and resurrection. His physical fatherhood of all humankind preserves God’s justice in condemning us in Adam (and, by inference, God’s justice in redeeming us in Christ) as well as safeguarding the logic of the incarnation. Neither belief can be reinterpreted without the most severe consequences.

A story that came across the e-mail inbox today set my teeth on edge: “Resolution to allow for generous discretion for same-sex blessings…”  Specifically the words that did it were: “generous discretion.” Verbal abuse, in its highest degree. In fact, the Catechism speaks of such behavior when it warns against taking the name of God in vain by appealing to people in God’s name to lie and deceive. Let us be absolutely clear. There is not a single thing “pastoral” about blessing what God has declared to be sin. It is the height of unfaithfulness to do so. Here is the full story from the Epipscopal News Service:

[Episcopal News Service] “Marriage equality is a reality coming soon to a state near you,” Bishop Gene Robinson told an overflow crowd at a July 8 hearing. He was speaking to a proposed resolution that calls for wider-than-usual latitude for bishops to allow blessings of gay and lesbian couples in states in which same-sex marriage or civil unions are legal.

The text of Resolution B012, “Pastoral Generosity in Blessing Civil Marriage,” calls for “generous discretion [to be] extended to clergy in the exercise of their pastoral ministry in order to permit the adaptation of the Pastoral Offices” for marriage. It also provides for the affected dioceses to report annually to the House of Bishops and to the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Church Music for help in developing a service of blessing for same-sex marriage if such a rite should be approved by future meetings of General Convention.

Some 30 speakers — gay, lesbian and straight, bishops and clergy and laypersons, old couples who had been together for decades and young people who couldn’t see what the fuss is about — lined up on July 8 to support the resolution, which was under consideration by the joint committee on Social and Urban Affairs, co-chaired by Bishop Bavi Edna (Nedi) Rivera of Olympia and deputy Diane Pollard of New York. But the chorus of approval was finally brought up short by equally passionate remarks by those who struggle with passages in Scripture that oppose homosexuality.

Read more…

Ecumenical News International
Daily News Service
29 May 2009

Swedish Lutheran church elects bishop in lesbian partnership
ENI-09-0436

Uppsala, Sweden, 29 May (ENI)–The newly-elected Lutheran bishop of Stockholm says that being a lesbian means she wants to stand alongside people who feel powerless.

“I know what it is to be called into question,” Brunne said in an article on the Web site of the Church of Sweden (www.svenskakyrkan.se) after her 26 May election. “I am in the lucky situation that I have power and I can use it for the benefit of those who have no power,” said Brunne, currently dean of the diocese of Stockholm.

Brunne is the first Church of Sweden bishop to live in a registered homosexual partnership, the Uppsala-headquartered church said, and she is believed to be the first openly lesbian bishop in the world.

Fifty-five year old Brunne lives with priest Gunilla Lindén in a partnership that has received a church blessing. They have a three-year-old son.

“Once you have been baptised, no one can say you cannot be part of the Church because you are homo-, bi-, or transsexual,” the Web site of the French periodical Tétu quoted Brunne as saying.

She clinched the post by 413 votes against the 365 votes for Hans Ulfvebrand and she will succeed Bishop Caroline Krook, who is to retire in November.

In 2003, the consecration of a V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay divorced man who lives with a male partner, as an Episcopal (Anglican) bishop in the United States, triggered a deep division and threatened a schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Lutheran churches throughout the world hold different views about matters such as the acceptance of homosexuals in church life, and blessings for same-sex relationships in some Northern countries.

The Church of Sweden, which offers a special blessing for same-sex couples, has faced criticism from some other Lutheran churches, particularly those in African countries.

In 2005, leaders of the Lutheran World Federation removed Kenyan Bishop Walter E. Obare Omwanza as an advisor to its main governing body, the LWF Council, after he consecrated a bishop from a breakaway Lutheran grouping in Sweden, opposed to women priests and same-sex marriage. [355 words]

ENI News Headlines and Featured Articles are now available by RSS feed.
See http://www.eni.ch/rss/

All articles (c) Ecumenical News International
Reproduction permitted only by media subscribers and
provided ENI is acknowledged as the source.

Ecumenical News International
PO Box 2100
CH – 1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland

Tel: (41-22) 791 6088 – 6111
Fax: (41-22) 788 7244
Email: eni@eni.ch

This survey explains, well, frankly, everything that we see going on in mainline Protestantism today. Seriously. Give it a read, at least the summary, and let’s talk about it. While the media has made news of the report’s findings on the attitude of mainline Protestant clergy and gay marriage, for me the “smoking gun” findings are really these:

Overall, Mainline Protestant clergy hold a theological outlook that is a mix of modernist and traditional views. On the one hand, more than two‐thirds (67%) of clergy do not believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, both in matters of faith and in historic, geographical, and other secular matters. More than three‐quarters (76%) reject the notion that there is only one correct Christian position on political issues. Moreover, less than 4‐in‐10 (38%) believe that social issues would take care of themselves if enough people were brought to Christ. On the other hand, more than 6‐in‐10 (61%) believe in the existence of the Devil and that the only way to attain salvation is through Jesus Christ. Eight‐in‐ten clergy believe that Jesus will return to earth one day. [Source: Mainline
 Protestant
 Clergy
 Views
 on
 Theology
 and
 Gay
 and
 Lesbian
 Issues:
 Findings
 from
 the
 2008
 Clergy
 Voices 
Survey (Public Religion Research, Washington DC, May 2009), p. 5.]

Here is a web site that has the complete report findings, along with summaries: http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=208

I received a copy of this letter, and found it to be very interesting.

An Open Letter to the Voting Members of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly

We are grateful that the church has called you to serve as a voting member for the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. Your role at the assembly will be a difficult one. We are writing this open letter as Lutheran theologians and church leaders concerned about the fidelity and future of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

The proposals are in fact no compromise

The teaching of the church will be changed The proposals to be considered by the Churchwide Assembly this summer from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality are perceived by some as compromises that will permit the ELCA to live faithfully with internal diversity on controversial ethical questions. The proposals are in fact no compromise. They clearly imply that same-sex blessings and the ordination and rostering of homosexual persons in committed relationships are acceptable within the ELCA. The teaching of the church will be changed. We should not make such an important decision without clear biblical and theological support. The Task Force did not provide such support, nor has it been provided in statements from some of our colleagues in ELCA institutions.

Indifference to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church

1. If the assembly adopts the proposed rules of procedure, a simple majority of one Churchwide Assembly will alter the moral teaching on sexuality we have shared with the vast majority of the church past and present. We are concerned that such a procedure shows an indifference to the common mind of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church throughout the ages and across cultures. At the least, a two-thirds majority should be required, if indeed the assembly should be voting on these matters at all.

The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel

2. The proposals claim that the ELCA can live with profound differences on sexual questions because our unity is centered exclusively on the gospel and the sacraments. This claim separates law and gospel in a way contrary to both Scripture and the Confessions. The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel. The Task Force texts seem to permit variation on all ethical questions, no matter how fundamental. How Christians behave sexually is not a matter of indifference to our life in Christ.

It would damage our ecumenical relationships

3. If the ELCA were to approve the public recognition of same-sex unions or the rostering of persons in such relationships, it would damage our ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and Evangelical churches, all of which affirm the clear teaching of Scripture that homosexual activity departs from God’s design for marriage and sexuality. Furthermore, it would put the ELCA at odds with many of our sister Lutheran churches, especially in Asia and Africa. The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have also recently upheld scriptural teaching on this matter. These bodies have officially recognized that the biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity remain applicable today to consensual sexual relationships between persons of the same sex.

Our unity will be fractured

4. With regard to calling rostered leaders, the statement proposes “structured flexibility,” which we believe will lead inevitably to “local option.” If adopted, this proposal will mean that the relationship among bishops, candidacy committees, and congregations will become confused and conflicted. Practically speaking, there will be two lists of candidates for rostered leadership in the church. The result will be that not all pastors and congregations will be in full fellowship with each other, nor with many of the pastors and congregations of those denominations with whom we are in full communion. Further, laity seeking a congregation to join would need to ask about which option a congregation has chosen in calling its leaders. Our unity in the office of ministry will be fractured.

Conscience can err

5. The social statement calls for opponents in the current controversy to respect each other’s “bound conscience,” referring to Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. Luther, however, was not merely claiming that he was sincere about the convictions he held; he asserted rather that his conscience was bound to the Word of God. Conscience can err. The Word of God, not conscience, is the final court of appeal in the church. We are deeply sensitive to the need of the church to provide pastoral care for all people. We are aware that there are some in the church who will disagree with this letter. Nevertheless, we feel we are called to support and advocate the biblical teaching on human sexuality. We pledge to you our prayers and we invite you to work with us for the renewal of our church under the Word of God.

Rev. Richard Bansemer, Salem, VA, former Bishop, Virginia Synod
Dr. Robert D. Benne, Director of the Center for Religion and Society, Roanoke College, VA
Rev. John C. Beem, Miltona, MN, former Bishop, East-Central Synod of Wisconsin
Rev. Dr. Paul S. Berge, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. Dennis D. Bielfeldt, Professor of Religion, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD

Rev. Dr. Carl E. Braaten, Professor Emeritus, Systematic Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Rev. Mark C. Chavez, Landisville, PA, Director of Lutheran CORE
Rev. Dr. James R. Crumley, Jr, Chapin, SC, Former Bishop, Lutheran Church in America
Rev. Jaynan Clark Egland, Nine Mile Falls, WA, President, WordAlone Network
Rev. Dr. C. Jack Eichhorst, President emeritus, Trinity Lutheran College, WA

Dr. Rebecca Frey, New Haven, CT, Lutheran Forum Editorial Staff
Rev. Gregory P. Fryer, Immanuel Lutheran Church, New York, MY
Gracia M. Grindal, Professor of Rhetoric, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Mr. David J. Hardy, Esq., Chicago, IL, Former General Counsel of the ELCA
Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, Jr., Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN

Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, III, Menomonie, WI
Rev. Dr. Mary Havens, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Prof. of Church History, Columbia, SC
Rev. Carol S. Hendrix, former bishop, Lower Susquehanna Synod, PA
Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand, Professor of Religion, Duke University, NC
Rev. Dr. Paul R. Hinlicky, Professor of Religion, Roanoke College, VA

Rev. Dr. Stephen J. Hultgren, Assistant Professor of Religion, Fordham University, Bronx, NY
Rev. Dr. Robert W. Jenson, Princeton, NJ
Ben Arlen Johnson, Th.D., Professor emeritus, Lutheran Bible Institute in California
Rev. Dr. Richard O. Johnson, Grass Valley, CA, Editor of Forum Letter
Rev. Corinne R. Johnson, Crystal Falls, MI

Rev. Ralph A. Kempski, Aiken, SC, Bishop Emeritus, Indiana-Kentucky Synod
Rev. Dr. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA
Rev. Gerard H. Knoche, Bishop, Delaware-Maryland Synod
Rev. Dr. Marc Kolden, Professor Emeritus, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. David W. Lotz, Washburn Professor Emeritus of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY

Rev. Dr. Lamontte Luker, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC
Rev. Dr. Paul V. Martinson, Professor Emeritus of Missions, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. Mark C. Mattes, Professor of Religion, Grand View College, Des Moines, IA
Rev. George P. Mocko, Bishop Emeritus, Delaware-Maryland Synod
Rev. Dr. James A. Nestingen, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN

Rev. Richard J. Niebanck III, Delhi, NY
Rev. Dr. Oliver K. Olson, Minneapolis, MN
Rev. Dr. Steven D. Paulson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. David W. Preus, Minneapolis, MN, Former Bishop, American Lutheran Church
Dr. Michael Root, Dean, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC

Rev. Dr. Paul E. Rorem, Professor of Church History, Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ
Rev. Russell E. Saltzman, Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, MO
Rev. Kenneth H. Sauer, Columbus, OH, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops
Rev. Dr. James A. Scherer, Professor Emeritus, Missions and Church History, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Rev. Dr. Amy Schifrin, Hershey, PA

Rev. Paul A. Schreck, Round Lake Beach, IL, former Executive Assistant to the Secretary, ELCA
Rev. Henry Schulte Jr, Boerne, TX, former Bishop, Southwestern Texas Synod
Rev. Frederick J. Schumacher, Manchester Township, NJ, Executive Director, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau
Rev. Dr. Hans Schwarz, Professor of Systematic Theology and Contemporary Theological Issues, University of Regensburg, Germany
Rev. Dr. Frank Senn, Immanuel Lutheran Church, Evanston, IL

Rev. Dr. Franklin Sherman, Schnecksville, PA
Rev. Dr. Trygve R. Skarsten, Pickerington, OH, President Emeritus of Trinity Lutheran College, Everett, WA
Rev. Paull E. Spring, State College, PA, Former Bishop, Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod
Rev. Dr. John R. Stumme, Chicago, IL, former Director of the Department for Studies in the Church in Society unit of the ELCA
Rev. Dr. Anders Tune, Campus Minister, Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH

Rev. Paul M. Werger, Iowa City, IA, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops
Rev. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, Associate Research Professor, Institute for Ecumenical Research, Strasbourg, France
Dr. David S. Yeago, Professor of Systematic Theology, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC
Rev. Dr. J. Larry Yoder, Professor and Director, Center for Theology, Lenoir-Rhyne University, Hickory, NC

I'll reproduce the official press release from the ELCA below, but today the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America released its official recommendation for a "social statement on sexuality." In it the task force that prepared it recommends several resolutions that would enact the full inclusion of openly homosexual men and women as pastors and other church workers in the ELCA.

The first resolution calls on the ELCA Churchwide Assembly this summer to "make a decision" on the fundamental question: do we, or don't we, on the question of "monogamous, life-long homosexual relationships" for their pastors and other rostered workers. Now, you might say, "OK, fine, they just reject that, then, no problem."

But here is the problem. The ELCA's Church Council a couple months ago, set in place a rule that would require only a simple majority vote on these issues, with no further churchwide ratification and not even a 2/3 majority vote. In other words, game over. The last ELCA Assembly, by a simple majority, placed a moratorium on any disciplinary measures for openly homosexual persons on their roster.

As one of my good ELCA pastor friends just said on another forum, a week ago he predicted this kind of strategy: call for loving acceptance of all diverse opinions, allow for 'local options' and then simply say that none of this need divide them as a Church. He then added: "I'm grieving that as of today the end-game of the
ELCA as a National Church may have been officially set in motion." I share his grief.

February 19, 2009

ELCA Task Force Releases 'Human Sexuality: Gift And Trust'
09-046-MRC

     CHICAGO (ELCA) — The 15-member Task Force for the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Studies on
Sexuality released Feb. 19 "Human Sexuality:  Gift and
Trust" — a proposed social statement on human sexuality.
     The 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly — the chief
legislative body of the church — is expected to consider
the social statement for adoption as an official statement
Aug. 17-23 in Minneapolis.
     The proposed statement addresses a spectrum of concerns
relevant to human sexuality from a Lutheran perspective. It
responds to the question:  "How do we understand human
sexuality within the context of Jesus' invitation to love
God and love our neighbor?"  If adopted by the assembly, the
social statement will assist the ELCA in its moral
deliberation, govern its institutional policies and guide
the church's public advocacy work.
     While the document does not offer once-and-for-all
answers to contemporary questions about sexuality, it "seeks
to tap the deep roots of Scripture and the Lutheran theological
tradition" for Lutherans to discern what is "responsible and
faithful action," according to the proposed statement.
     The document contains sections on key Lutheran principles,
trust and human sexuality, social structures that enhance trust,
sexuality and trust in relationships, sexuality and social
responsibility, and a series of resolutions to incorporate
the statement into the mission and ministry of the ELCA.
     "Sexuality has to do with relationships, and God has made
us relational beings," said the Rev. Rebecca S. Larson,
executive director, ELCA Church in Society.
     "The underlying question of this social statement,
therefore, is what makes right relationship. Our model is
God's unfailingly, trustworthy relationship with people and
creation.  No human relationship can thrive without trust.
The social statement therefore considers all human
relationships and social structures in light of what fosters
trust, commitment and protection for those who are vulnerable,"
she said.
     The call for trust is woven into the proposed statement's
discourse about marriage, same-gender relationships, family
and children, commitment in relationships, adult cohabitation,
society, public ministry and more.
     On the topic of marriage the document states that the
historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions
recognize marriage as a covenant between a woman and a man.
In recent decades the church has begun to understand "in new
ways" the need of same-gender couples who seek relationships
of "lifelong companionship and commitment as well as public
accountability and legal support for those commitments," said
the statement.
     The proposed statement acknowledges that "consensus does
not exist" among ELCA members on how to "honor" committed
same-sex relationships.  The statement reflects differing
conclusions on the basis of biblical and theological
interpretation.  Some members believe homosexuality is a sin
in their understanding of biblical teaching and natural law,
and some members believe homosexuality "reflects a broken
world in which some relationships do not pattern themselves
after the creation God intended."
     Some Lutherans believe same-gender relationships are to
be "honored and held to high standards and public
accountability" but do not equate these relationships with
marriage, and some believe that same-gender relationships are
to be held to the same "rigorous standards, sexual ethics
and status as heterosexual marriage," said the statement.
     Despite the varying viewpoints, the church encourages
all people to live out their faith with "profound respect for
the conscience-bound belief of the neighbor," said the
proposed statement.
     The document calls on congregations to be safe places for
children and youth, and it calls for education on human
sexuality for children and youth.
     "Degrees of physical intimacy should be carefully matched
to degrees of growing affection and commitment," stated the
document.  For this reason, the document calls the church to
oppose "non-monogamous, promiscuous or casual sexual
relationships."
     The statement addresses the topic of the value of
friendship, adult cohabitation, and Lutheran opposition of
sexual exploitation within and outside the church.  It also
asks that justice for women in church and society continue
to be an important dimension of Lutheran response.
     "When approved, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust will be
the 10th social statement of the ELCA," said Larson. "All
social statements are developed through at least a five-year
process in a broadly participatory way."
     "Human sexuality infuses all of life from the time we
are born until the time we die.  It is also social.  Economics,
business and advertising, social roles, medicine and science
are all relevant to human sexuality and the ways we act in
relationship to others.  How to use this gift in a way that
honors God and serves the neighbor is a critical issue,
particularly in this culture," Larson said.
     A draft of the social statement was given to ELCA members
in March 2008 for study, review and feedback.
     Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust "reflects what the task
force heard from this church in response to the draft social
statement," said Larson.
     "The theological section has been both focused and
expanded.  The role of God in creation and the role of law in
our lives has been made more prominent.  There is more material
on how Lutherans approach social ethics from a perspective of
faith.  The order of the sections has been changed to deal
with the intersection between the individual and social aspects
of human sexuality," she said.  "Also, it is 1 thousand words
shorter."
     Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust completes a directive from
the 2001 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to develop a social statement
on human sexuality.
     The task force also released a "Report and Recommendation
on Ministry Policies" to the 2009 Churchwide Assembly regarding
the professional leadership of the church on Feb. 19.  This
document completes a directive from the 2007 assembly to address
and make recommendations on changes to policies that preclude
Lutherans in committed, same-gender relationships from the ELCA's
professional rosters.
     The proposed social statement and the report and
recommendation on ministry policies are two separate documents.
They are open to review by the ELCA Church Council — the
church&#
39;s board of directors — and will be considered by the
2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.
- – -
     "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" is available at
http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney on the ELCA Web site.

For information contact:
John Brooks, Director (773) 380-2958 or news@elca.org
http://www.elca.org/news
ELCA News Blog: http://www.elca.org/news/blog