xarcoss ([info]xarcoss) wrote,
@ 2009-08-24 09:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
Current mood: blank

In my thoughts all weekend
I am hoping that if I post it I can get it out of my head and move on.


The article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/21/lutheran.gays/index.html?iref=newssearch

"After hours of back and forth between members, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America decided Friday evening to accept noncelibate clergy members and lay leaders who are in "lifelong" and "monogamous" same-sex relationships." (continues)

My synod's response:

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=1651&contentID=95806&shortcutID=31623

"To view same-sex relationships as acceptable to God is to place cultural viewpoint and human opinions above the clear Word of God,” says Schroeder. “The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, along with The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and other smaller Lutheran synods, maintains and upholds the clear teaching of the Bible that homosexuality is not in keeping with God’s design and is sinful in God’s eyes." (continues)


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]koepkeb
2009-08-24 02:21 pm UTC (link)
Ha. I was raised in the Missouri synod myself. My aunt and uncle were both ELCA. We visited their church once and during a gospel-esque hymn by the choir the congregation started clapping along (something not done in the MS synod, least not my churches). My mom turned to me and jokingly said "These ELCA people...*shakes head*".

I had no idea how..er..right she was.

Go ELCA!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]xarcoss
2009-08-24 03:19 pm UTC (link)
They certainly seem to be the least conservative of the Lutheran synods

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Fascinating.
[info]gollwyn
2009-08-24 04:11 pm UTC (link)
It is fascinating that this has come to pass. I am very interested in seeing how it works out.

I don't know much about how the Lutheran church is organized; what is the relationship among Synods? What is the structure within a Synod?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Fascinating.
[info]xarcoss
2009-08-24 05:01 pm UTC (link)
Originally the division of synod's was simply geographic. Wisconsin synod originated in Wisconsin, and the Missouri synod in Missouri are the easiest examples.

As time went on the shared beliefs diverged and the different groups broke fellowship. Many of these are what I consider "minor" issues (open versus close/closed communion)and others were more significant. Additionally, there were breakings of fellowship due to fellowships made between the individual synods and other denominations. For example, I believe that either the ELS or the ELCA is still in fellowship with the Presbetyrian (sp?) church and so the Wisconsin synod broke fellowship with them but the Missouri synod had maintained fellowship.

There is not hostility between the synods but they have diverged enough that they could probably be considered seperate denominations at this point. They all have their own organization and conferences and such. The way the Wisconsin Synod is organized is that you have various churches in a state. and they communicate with each other fairly regularly and elect a some number of division leaders. You then have divisions mades of of various states and they have yearly conferences and there are elected officials for each of the conference. Those officials then go to a regular "head meeting" where they vote on the budget and direction of the synod.

At least this is my understanding.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]chardarkminion
2009-08-24 05:55 pm UTC (link)
These people live in a fairy tale world. Did they even read the Bible? The same book that says homosexuality is wrong also says that eating shellfish is evil, that adulterers must be stoned to death, and that parents can kill their children whenever they want to do so.

You know; core Christian values.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]howlwhite
2009-08-24 09:28 pm UTC (link)
Don't we all live in a Fairy tale world where we believe whatever we want without any real proof? (unless you believe the nutjobs that think strange spots on pictures are ghosts trying to communicate with us).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]touchstone
2009-08-24 10:22 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I accept and respect (though do not necessarily share) belief-without-proof far more readily than I do believe that purports to be based on proof but which stands on either flawed logic or highly selective evidence. Better to say 'I believe this, though I can't prove it's true' than to present 'proof' that doesn't hold together.

Whatever sort of evidence you're using as the basis for an argument, you either need to accept all of it, or be able to articulate a standard by which you determine what evidence you accept as valid. Ideally, that'll be a standard other than 'things that agree with the position I want to take' :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]gr8tmazinkaiser
2009-08-25 02:30 am UTC (link)
Yet another sterling example of a generally unaccepted fact: Christians are not one in brotherhood, but rather a broad grouping of minor religions that happen to share similar named and un-named god(s).

(Reply to this)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…