news-record.com

BLOGS

The Front Pew

The Lutheran split

Statement of Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, president of The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod:

“In response to actions taken at the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s Churchwide Assembly last August, a conservative faction of that church body opted on Wednesday, Nov. 18, to form a new Lutheran denomination. At this summer’s assembly, ELCA delegates voted to open the ministry of their church body to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in ‘committed relationships.’

“A group of ELCA members and leaders named Lutheran CORE had said in September it would spend a year deciding whether to form a new church body. However, its leaders said Wednesday that the large number of requests from disenfranchised congregations and church members seeking quicker action caused them to step up the pace."

Permalink

Posted by nmclaughlin on Friday, November 20, 2009 at 5:59 pm

What do you think?

17 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

RSS: Subscribe to this blog

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Get A Clue

November 21, 2009 - 1:45 am EST

First you see a group of people who supposedly follow the teachings of Jesus the Christ play semantic games by naming their group Lutheran CORE. It's juvenile behavior, not that I'm surprised by it. (Go see Monty Python's Life of Brian and pay special attention to the Judean Popular People's Front scene. The comedy troupe mocks the ways so-called adults split and splinter as each claims to be in posession of "the real truth.")
Second you see a group of people who can barely mask their hatred and fear as they parse verses and create out of whole cloth justification for their petty self-loathing. Choose any of the sins listed in the Bible. Now guarantee me that none of your clergy has, is or plans to practice any of them. See how few clergy any religion has left standing in the pulpit.
It's both sad and hilarious to watch people argue over who has the right to preach to them values they never intended to uphold in the first place.

retiree

November 21, 2009 - 8:22 am EST

Am surprised you have chosen to use negative terms to impune those who have a different viewpoint. Using terms such as "juvenile behavior", "hatred and fear", "self-loathing", etc, only gives us a sense of your personal level of frustration with people whose views you disagree.

Too often we chastise those with whom we disagree versus having a fundamental discussion of the issue. In this case the basis of the CORE decision is on the interpretation of the Bible and historical views of sexuality. The fact you disagree with those promoting the CORE interpretations is not the issue, but your expressed anger and frustration against those with whom you dissagree is apparent.

I remember watching Bill Marr once (and only once due to his anti-religious views) telling those with Christian values that if they are not perfect then they have no right to tell others how to live. He missed the point since no one is perfect and we work at it each day to eliminate sins from our lives.

May God bless you and comfort you as you deal with these issues in your life.

Get A Clue

November 21, 2009 - 10:49 am EST

Step back from that tree, retiree, because you're missing the view of the forest. You've also contradicted yourself and made my point. Thanks for playing. No minister, priest or rabbi is or could be 'perfect.' That's why it is hypocritical for a group of people who call themselves Christians and who claim to desire to live according to the principles of Jesus the Christ to not only decide that a gay person could not minister to them but that if the governing body of their church makes that decision they're going to quit and form what they believe is the "true" version of their faith. Call it what it is: childish.
By the way, retiree, do you limit your TV viewing to only shows with a religious viewpoint which exactly matches your own? I don't watch Bill Maher because I don't pay for HBO. I'd be hard-pressed to find any other show on HBO which speaks strictly to Lutheran CORE values. Do you watch sports? News? Or are you just another hypocrite making bogus statements to defend your hatred of humans who are gay?

Paul Daniels

December 1, 2009 - 11:02 pm EST

Clue: I wonder when I read your posts what version of the Bible you are using. One need not "parse" the Bible to conclude that homosexuality is not part of Gods plan for men and women. Take these passages for example: 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' (Leviticus 18:22) 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will
be on their own heads.' (Leviticus 20:13) "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) The point is clear to any honest person. You may not like what it says, but don't accuse those who believe that Biblical teachings should govern church doctrine of "parsing" the Bible to reach a conclusion that suits their narrow views.

Although Monty Python can be amusing, I suggest that you not base your religious convictions on the troupe's skits.

Get A Clue

December 2, 2009 - 1:03 am EST

You're conveniently leaving out the parts of the Bible that clearly state what we should do to adulterers, for instance. Look, I have no doubt that heavily-edited book of myths is quite clear about homosexuality. But as I stated further below, I'm an American and I defer to the U.S. Constitution and the way we democratically create and amend our nation's laws. It's great that we both live in a country where you can follow a book of myths if that makes you happy and I can choose to think for myself. With occasional help from Monty Python's Flying Circus.
Thanks for playing.

Get A Clue

December 2, 2009 - 1:14 am EST

...and so long as we're quoting the Bible, Paul.....
On adultery:
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
On stealing:
Exo 22:3 ... A thief must surely make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he will be sold for his theft.

One need not "parse" the Bible to conclude that adultery nor theivery is not part of God's plan for men and women.
So I await the day you gay-haters shout just as loudly about the Biblically-sanctioned killing of all adulterers, for starters. Until then you're just blowing...smoke. As usual.

Paul Daniels

December 2, 2009 - 10:39 am EST

Clue:

If you concede that the Bible prohibits homosexuality then why your prior post, and claims of parsing? Not switching horses in the middle of the stream are you?

I agree that the Bible forbids adultery. No one is out there trying to vindicate adulterers. The day that churchs start ordaining practicing adulters I will be back her quoting those passages. Geez.

Get A Clue

December 3, 2009 - 6:48 am EST

Thanks, Paul. In my last two responses I forgot to clarify the point I clearly made earlier. To wit: Choose any of the sins listed in the Bible. Now guarantee me that none of your clergy has, is or plans to practice any of them. See how few clergy any religion has left standing in the pulpit.
I'll stand comfortably on that point. No need to again point out this is simply all about hatred of homosexuality. By the way, what guarantees do you have in place that your church or any other organized religions are not, in fact, ordaining practicing adulterers?

Lakeshia

November 21, 2009 - 4:40 am EST

All this squabbling . . . thank god I'm an atheist.

9mmjustice

November 21, 2009 - 10:04 pm EST

We are all agnostic.. by definition. An atheist denies the existence of God without being able to prove how s/he knows.. Believers live by faith, not sight, and will only be proved correct in their belief at the point of death.

As for getaclue, well, you have to wonder about those who expend so much negative energy towards that which has no relevance to them- sort of like the kids I remember from my youth arguing over who was stronger- Superman or Mighty Mouse.

BTW, still waiting for the clue....

Get A Clue

November 22, 2009 - 10:42 am EST

The clues are all around you. It's not my fault your education and upbringing did not adequately prepare you to recognize the obvious.

9mmjustice

November 23, 2009 - 9:27 pm EST

Arrogance is the refuge of bigots. You are supremely arrogant. You know nothing of the concepts you address.. speaks to deep seated self hatred. That dissonant squawking you hear is your own empty and putrid attempt to make yourself feel important. No one will remember you or me in future years, but God will continue on.

MaryWaterton

November 21, 2009 - 11:07 pm EST

When the ELCA began ordaining homosexuals & marrying homosexuals, they gave themselves over to Satan without pretense. If you are a christian, flee from this evil organization. You are disgracing Jesus Christ by sanctioning this abomination with your presence.

kuranes

November 23, 2009 - 3:18 pm EST

Let's see, Satan...isn't he the one who is always accusing the brethren? Spreading hatred and fear? Sounds right up your alley, Ms. Waterton. Or shall we stop judging the tree by its fruit?

kuranes

November 23, 2009 - 3:39 pm EST

On a general note, a Bible that can be interpreted in so many contradictory ways seems useless as a guide to moral certainty. By what standard can such conflicts be resolved? You can't use the Bible, since its reliability is the issue. Christians are no longer divided along denominational lines but political ones, yet they are still, as ever, divided. So much for Jesus' prayer that they may all be one (John 17:11); surely the most ineffectual prayer in all the long history of fruitless praying.
As for splitting, is it better to be a homophobe than a hypocrite? I've read a lot of books attempting to reconcile scripture with homosexuality, A lot of people find them convincing, but I don't. Would I rather people who think that way be honest and form a church that opposes gay clergy, according to their consciences, or become enlightened and toss the Bible on the scrap heap of outmoded mythology with the Eddas and Hesiod's Theogony? Obviously the latter, but that is a decision they will have to make, as I once did.

Get A Clue

November 23, 2009 - 7:03 pm EST

The Bible is not my moral authority, nor the authority upon which my state or nation exclusively base its laws. So I really don't care what the book says or how Christians interpret it. I'm a American. I'll leave it to my elected and appointed officials and the US Constitution, thanks.

kuranes

December 4, 2009 - 7:52 am EST

I'm curious about a few things. If gay marriage became legal, would pastors be expected to adhere to Christ's prohibition of divorce? For that matter, how often are hetero pastors expected to adhere to it? Why the requirement of "committed relationships" when the only reason for it would be the Biblical prohibition which they are already ignoring in relation to homosexuality? It seems inconsistent to explain away one prohibition but insist on another. For that matter, why bother about any of them? Most Protestants, at least, believe the OT law no longer applies (despite the explicit statement by Jesus to the contrary in Matthew). At any rate, none of them worry about shaving or eating oysters. But if God can change his perfect and infinitely wise mind about that, why not about gay marriage?