I presume you have seen the letter from the ELCIC National Church Council. I'm beginning to agree with the naysayers that the only way to deal with this is to leave the ELCIC. In the short term, the motion, even if it passes, will not make much of a difference to local churches. If one takes a longer term view however these proposed changes are pretty disastrous.
The sheer deviousness of the approach the ELCIC National Church Council is using is absolutely staggering. It is done in this way to drag in people who are sitting on the proverbial fence and of course those who have no clue whatsoever. Unfortunately, I think their strategy will be effective and (barring a miracle) they will pass all motions this summer.
NCC is very smart and consistent - they have been trying for many years and have never given up an inch. The winning formula: First amend the 1970 statement on sexuality through church wide consultations - but make sure the final product is super-liberal (agreeing with homosexuality), which is easy as a committee they control is making the final edits. Then they cleverly hide the word homosexuality or same-sex unions from the motions by wanting to authorize pastors to perform blessings that are legal in the province where they work/live. As a logical consequence, you must then allow practicing homosexuals (whether 'married' or not) to be your pastor - you will probably not even be able to question them on the subject during an interview in a call process, as this would be sexual discrimination. [I don't have problems with a Pastor who experiences same sex attraction, but who earnestly tries to live a celibate life]. Finally, they add a motion for unity - to make sure that any conservative voices don't cry to loudly when the NCC motions are passed.
Wow. I'm speechless! Same-sex blessings, Ordination of homosexual pastors and let's all be friends and united!
I take issue with Motion #2, blessing of same-sex marriages because it is contrary to my understanding of the scriptures. I very much dislike the approach and reasoning taken ("Let’s do this, because the state has approved same sex marriages").
I also take issue with Motion #3 Standards of Ordination & Consecration. Grounds for this is that I consider pastors to be deacons and 1 Timothy 3 mentions the following:
NCC is very smart and consistent - they have been trying for many years and have never given up an inch. The winning formula: First amend the 1970 statement on sexuality through church wide consultations - but make sure the final product is super-liberal (agreeing with homosexuality), which is easy as a committee they control is making the final edits. Then they cleverly hide the word homosexuality or same-sex unions from the motions by wanting to authorize pastors to perform blessings that are legal in the province where they work/live. As a logical consequence, you must then allow practicing homosexuals (whether 'married' or not) to be your pastor - you will probably not even be able to question them on the subject during an interview in a call process, as this would be sexual discrimination. [I don't have problems with a Pastor who experiences same sex attraction, but who earnestly tries to live a celibate life]. Finally, they add a motion for unity - to make sure that any conservative voices don't cry to loudly when the NCC motions are passed.
Wow. I'm speechless! Same-sex blessings, Ordination of homosexual pastors and let's all be friends and united!
I take issue with Motion #2, blessing of same-sex marriages because it is contrary to my understanding of the scriptures. I very much dislike the approach and reasoning taken ("Let’s do this, because the state has approved same sex marriages").
I also take issue with Motion #3 Standards of Ordination & Consecration. Grounds for this is that I consider pastors to be deacons and 1 Timothy 3 mentions the following:
Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.
8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
Again, my disagreement with motion #3 stems from my current understanding of the scriptures.
In the context of Motions #2 and #3, I also take issue with Motion #1, Motion on the unity of the Church. I don't have a problem with the motion per se, but with the reasoning and context. Basically it says - we are going to move a bunch of unpopular motions which have the potential to split the Church - but if they pass we can still agree on the lowest common denominator.
None of this really surprises me, and I am pretty sure that all of the motions will pass with a majority. Ultimately though, all of this posturing is
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes 1,2)
and will have no short term effect on our congregation.
Personally, the 1970 statement on sexuality was fine with me and did not need revising. In contrast, the new statement on sexuality shows no moral leadership whatsoever. This is unfortunately in complete agreement with 'modern' society values. If moral leadership is not going to come from the National Church - where else is it going to come from? It had better come from the local level. Thanks be to God for Scripture, for His Spirit and understanding but even this they try to twist.
The state of affairs is really twisted - what will the Lord Jesus do when He comes back?
Friedrich Brunzema (First Lutheran Church, Toronto)
In the context of Motions #2 and #3, I also take issue with Motion #1, Motion on the unity of the Church. I don't have a problem with the motion per se, but with the reasoning and context. Basically it says - we are going to move a bunch of unpopular motions which have the potential to split the Church - but if they pass we can still agree on the lowest common denominator.
None of this really surprises me, and I am pretty sure that all of the motions will pass with a majority. Ultimately though, all of this posturing is
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes 1,2)
and will have no short term effect on our congregation.
Personally, the 1970 statement on sexuality was fine with me and did not need revising. In contrast, the new statement on sexuality shows no moral leadership whatsoever. This is unfortunately in complete agreement with 'modern' society values. If moral leadership is not going to come from the National Church - where else is it going to come from? It had better come from the local level. Thanks be to God for Scripture, for His Spirit and understanding but even this they try to twist.
The state of affairs is really twisted - what will the Lord Jesus do when He comes back?
Friedrich Brunzema (First Lutheran Church, Toronto)
April 2010
