95 Lutheran Pastors Stand Defiantly During ELCA Vote
In a defiant act of protest, 95 Lutheran pastors have “come out” as openly gay or lesbian in a document being released this week. The release coincides with the ELCA churchwide assembly that is meeting this week to vote on whether or not to ordain gay and lesbian pastors in committed, same-sex relationships. The document can be found here, entitled “One Table, Many Blessings” released by the group GoodSoil.org.
In an article from The Minnesota Independent, a same-gender couple is interviewed and reveals their stance on the ELCA vote:
Among the stories told in the booklet includes a lesbian couple from Minnesota, Rev. Phyllis Zillhart and Rev. Ruth Frost, whose church in California was expelled from the ELCA because the two pastors are married.
“We could not and will not wait for the ELCA to approve our ministries,†the couple wrote in the booklet. “January marks the 20th anniversary of our extraordinary ordinations together with our gay colleague, Jeff Johnson. Yet there are people who do not recognize our marriage, our shared parenthood, or our ministry as legitimate.â€Â
The couple said that young people like their daughter are leaving the church over these issues. “She has marched in Pride parades every year of her life. She is clear about who her parents and her village are to her,†they wrote. “She is not clear what the Lutheran Church as a whole is to her. Her generation will decide what place the Church will have in their lives based on the justice and hospitality they see extended to or withheld from LGBT people.â€Â
Make no mistake, this is a defining issue for this generation. Particularly telling was the portion where the couple’s daughter was highlighted. Her mothers write, “Her generation will decide what place the Church will have in their lives based on the justice and hospitality they see extended to or withheld from LGBT people.“
So, what do you think? How would you answer that?
This isn’t the first time the church has encountered something like this. I like the phrase from Batman that the night is always the darkest before dawn. Make no mistake, God has the last “say”…God has a plan…I am not concerned…and I think the fundamental problem with this highlighted phrase about the future of the Church is that it doesn’t reference God.
"Make no mistake, this is a defining issue for this generation."
I'll just be blunt. I hate comments like this. Who's in charge of assigning "defining issues" to generations? Because I'd like to have a word or two with them.
Why can't this generation be defined by passion for worship? Curing disease? Feeding the hungry? Studying the Bible? Depending on prayer? Loving the lost? Why does this generation get stuck with a divisive issue that even church leaders can't agree on after years of study and discernment? Who picked us to lead this charge when our energy could be spent better elsewhere?
Just think of how much energy is being spent right now on this topic in the ELCA. Think of how much attention the ELCA is getting centered around this topic. Look at how things like the malaria initiative, world hunger, HIV/AIDS response, etc. are ignored or glossed over by the people observing and reporting on this assembly. Regardless of which side you're on in the debate, you have to see that there are needs in our world potentially greater than this. I'm not saying we shouldn't be discussing it. We should. It's important for the church to talk openly about social issues and stay relevant to the world we're in. I just feel like we've drawn the short straw when it comes to "defining issues."
I'd love to think that our generation has more to offer the world than a treatise on human sexuality.
Who? The media. Our blogs. Our tweets. Our comments.
Why? Because this issue is controversial and divides people and churches.
I think most of us can agree that we SHOULD be working to end world hunger, curing disease, loving the lost, etc. but at the end of the day, those issues don't make headlines in the media like the social statement is making.
I believe it's also significant that Justin said "a defining issue" and not "the defining issue". The "Civil Rights" era did much for race relations in the United States, but calling it the "Civil Rights" era doesn't mean it was the only important thing to be accomplished in that time or that those people weren't invested in other issues as well. But it WAS an issue that defined a time.
It is my personal belief that the issue of GLBT rights will be a legacy our generation (and perhaps the generation to follow) is known for. Whether we stand for or against GLBT rights — as a collective — we will be known for how it all shakes out in the end. I believe that's what Justin was getting at.
Personally, I hope and pray that our generation is known for welcoming, supporting, and advocating for our GLBT brothers and sisters.
Jake, you nailed it. This isn't the ONLY issue, but it's a big one. Much like the civil rights debate of the 1960's/70's.
The ones who argue that this is "THE ISSUE" have made it such, not because of their faith in God, but a desire to be justified in "who they are". God justifies us not because of "who we are", but because of WHO HE IS. We are called to be not of this world, yet we allow this world to define us. It is sad that this is such an issue because it makes PEOPLE THE ISSUE and does not call into question behaviors that are not life giving. If you say that homosexuality is a sin, you are then a homophobe or a hater or a bigot. This is an confusion between accepting and approving. In this day and age one can not accept homosexual people unless they approve of homosexuality. Where is God in this? The question of God calling those caught up in negative behaviors is not an issue, God calls us all the time, but God also calls us to sacrifice of ourselves. If I was "true to myself" which seems to be the motto of the day and the call of the homosexual community then I most certainly would not be being true to the calling that God has for my life.
Chris, is it possible that "this world" has been busy defining "who God is" at the expense of others? This seems to be a recurring historical theme in Christianity, does it not? What do you think?
Chris, I could not have said it better. This is the difference between the "tolerant" love being propigated here versus the "radical" love of Jesus which is accepting of an individual but not of the sin. I would argue that the "radical" love of Jesus is much more tolerant and loving than the "tolerant gospel" that leaves a person in a life of sin and puts a person's salvation at risk. Not to mention that the Word of God is pretty clear on this issue.
Wouldn't Jesus then "radically love" EVERY individual and not every individual's sin? I am certainly not sin-free, but my church allows me to lead. John 8:7, right? What are your thoughts?
Jake, you are not "sin-free" but do you continue in a blatant sin? I think there is a difference in continuing "to sin" versus continuing "in sin." Paul is clear in Romans that we do not continue in blatant sin in order that the grace of Jesus Christ may prevail. Like someone else said in an earlier comment, we abandon ourselves and our sinful desires, regardless of whether they are the "hot button" issues or not. True grace is transformative, if it does not change us, then we need to ask ourselves whether we have truly tasted it.
Good point, Jon. Continuing to sin vs. continuing in sin is an important distinction. My counterpoint to your point about transformative grace is this:
If Christians believe that homosexuals will be "transformed" out of their sin by God's grace (i.e. recognizing their supposed sinful lifestyle), BUT they are consistently NOT transformed (i.e. converted to heterosexuality or denying their homosexual nature), is that a failure in our understanding or homosexuals? Or is it a failure of our understanding of God and God's grace?
I think it depends on if you define "sin" as several specific actions, or as a state of being. As Lutherans we confess "things known and unknown, things done and left undone". I can't possibly name or comprehend the ways in which I sin. I am sinful person who has a sinful condition….a condition that Christ died to forgive and redeem.
A ridiculous example:
I ate pork chops for dinner last night. Scripture tells us that eating pork is a sin. I didn't repent of that sin because I don't think it's sinful. Does that mean that God's grace doesn't come to me because I didn't ask for forgiveness? I am unrepentant of that sin and will (likely) eat pork again sometime in the near future. In fact, my sinful self will probably take great delight in the next time I eat bacon or a ham sandwich.
I'd like to believe that God forgives my sinful nature, even if I don't confess each instance that I sin.
The only sin there is if your pork chop wasn't on a stick and purchased at the Iowa State Fair.
If it wasn't, I forgive you, brother.
I've got about a year to go in sem before i (maybe) start to look into ordination and its issues like this that really make me feel that the whole process is ridiculous. So, there are 15,000+ protestant denominations, the eastern church, and many more "orthodox" groups out there and each of them have different denominational vows/creeds/stances. The sheer number of them–for me anyway– render the meaning of ordination in a particular denomination meaningless.
Maybe I'll do what I think is faithful and pleasing to God and leave it at that. It seems to be what we're all doing anyway.
::frustrated::
yes, a defining issue, and noteworthy… Too bad few people in any camp will notice what COULD BE defining issues of this generation IF WE WANTED THEM TO BE, that the ELCA is also considering, like fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS in Africa.
We would be close to HEAVEN if we tried so vigorously to hold each other Biblically accountable for matters such as poverty, clean water for Africa, feeding the hungry, creating and building economies in the two-thirds world that the first world has shamelessly pimped into poverty.
I might give a $h!t about sexual orientation, when Christians would get serious about the poor. MT 25:31f.
The ELCA should embrace gay everything. For more than a generation, the Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures, has meant next to nothing to this organization. They should stop pretending, and go with the gods of this world.
On the other hand, those who don't agree with any church that stands under the authority of Sacred Scripture, can always form their own church.
The "defining" legacy this generation will leave the future Church is whether we decide to believe in the absoluteness of scripture or not.
I do not agree with the decision made by the ELCA. Gays have the legal right to do as they please with their own lives, sure. A gay pastor sufficiently relate to man and wife marriage situations, children, or normal family issues. I certainly wouldn't let a son of mine go near a gay pastor.
Craig –
why particularly are you afraid for your son to be around gay clergy?
i suspect it is because you hold to the age-old prejudice that all fags are pedophiles… (harshly said, i know – but you get the point)… the scientific truth is that the vast majority of pedophiles identify themselves as heterosexual, meaning that you should be more afraid of your sons being with their female teachers or clergy…
For the same reason I do not want a tax cheat as head of the U.S. Treasury, I do not want a self avowed, practicing homosexual as a leader in my church. If I condone such homosexual behavior in the leadership of the ELCA then the condemnation is attributable to me for having allowed fellow brothers and sister to be led astray. If one were to look at natural law, taking religion completely out of the picture, homosexuality is completely at odds with nature, and reproduction of the species. It is by definition a deviant act. I do not believe I nor my family can receive the best counsel from a sexual deviant nor am I being morally honest to allow others to receive such counsel. Should the church welcome gays, yes. Should the church establish them in positions of leadership, power and authority? Hell, no.
I concern myself with this line of thinking as the truth is I don't know anyone who isn't a sinner – including my pastors (present and past). Still, I have faith that they were called to shepherd me into a relationship with God, and I listen to my heart to guide me (in terms of practicing my faith under the leadership of my church). Also, I think the bigger question to ponder is why do we stand firm on this notion of "Natural law" that requires people to reproduce? The ability to reproduce doesn't trump the internal workings of a human. If someone is attracted to another of the same sex, and commits a life-time of love toward that person, and raises children, can't they still come to know God? I think it would be unnatural to force homosexual people into a lonely life without a mate. It seems to me that to live alone in this world is against natural law. I'm not overly comfortable with homosexuality, but I think that I need to reevaluate why I'm not comfortable. I don't believe it's the Bible that leads to my discomfort as much as it is the society in which I have been raised.
I am with you on this and if our church doesn't condemn this then I will have to take my family to a church that believes in the scriptures and is willing to stand by our values that we were all raised up by.
As a life long Lutheran, I believe that the 95 "so called pastors" who stood "defiant" should apologize to the thousands of Lutheran's have believed in Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Their using "95" as a statement is insulting if not blasphemous.
hi jon. fancy meeting you here! great comment. you have my vote.