His brief (and ambiguously relevant) response came yesterday, the 8th of October.
Dear Ian - I encourage you to re read Genesis 1,2,3. God's created order has a perfect plan for marriage and family. For anyone to redesign God's desires and designs is just plain wrong. Since the fall God has sacrificed everything to reconcile and redeem ALL creation.Blessings,Walt
This just stinks of ambiguity and misconception.
I believe what he meant by "Genesis 1,2,3" is actually Genesis 2: 24... again, what I would call "sound byte" scripture: a single sentence taken out of context found in a book full of diverse and conflicting ideas.
Furthermore, I asked for an explanation based on the teachings of Jesus, the very guy we Christians claim to follow, and all I got was a suggestion to read the first three chapters of the old testament? Really?? Jesus was merely a twinkle in God's eye at that point!
So, dear readers and committed participants, here's my question to you:
- What do you think about this issue and decision from a personal belief perspective (regardless of your faith background)?
- What would your response to this perfunctory message be? What questions would you ask at this point?
- As a participant in culture-- theological, popular, political-- what does his response actually say in regard to my initial set of questions? Does this give us any insight into how or why we should justify turning our backs to people who are simply biologically different than me?
I look forward to responding, and will post my return as soon as it is composed. Chime in with your questions if you'd like them addressed in my retort.
Having been raised Catholic it seems strange that divorce from a denomination is possible. Or even that this decision was reached democratically. Which is not to say I don't think it should be done this way...I think it's great! I no longer identify as Catholic, I only say this because this way of running a church is foreign to me.
ReplyDeleteAnyway,my personal opinion on this issue based on what i've heard at work and read of the actual wording of the decision is this (based on my understanding that is)--
The ELCA isn't mandating that all churches accept gay clergy into their doors. But that the church as a whole accepts them. I understood that it is still up to individual congregations whether to accpet a call for a gay minister (or whatever the term for accepting a new pastor is).
THe other part of the decision was essentially, that people within the ELCA would agree to disagree on this issue, but would strive to respect each others' beliefs. Correct me if i'm wrong in my understanding here.
So basically it seems to me that if a congregation collectivley did not agree with homosexual pastorhood, it would not be forced upon them. From what i understood, the decision was worded to be inclusive of all beliefs and all people.
Based on this, it seems doubly egregious that a congregation would choose to divorce. I can't fathom how the mere idea of homosexuality would be so disturbing as to make this drastic step. It is just devastatingly sad to me. I don't see how a person's sexuality makes them more or less capable or qualified to lead a congregation, to be a pastor. As you say, we are all sinners. What makes one sin worse than another? Who decides which sin is the disqualifier? (of course this assumes homosexuality is a sin which personally i do not believe)
Pastor Kallestad's answer is infuriating. I can only assume he got a lot of emails like yours and didn't want to write a full response to all. I hope that he has a better answer than Genesis for choosing to shun not only homosexuals but also anyone who would accept them. But really, what answer could justify that?