An ad published in small town newspapers is making its way around our state. It begins with a comment on the upcoming marriage amendment, then moves to a curious deprecation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Members of our congregations and others will see it and it will cause concern for some.
I have responded to this ad in the spirit of civility, integrity, and truthfulness.
The ad makes the claim that many Americans representing many religious groups believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. The ad then claims that our church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, is an exception to this reality. This is not true. Some in our church agree that marriage is only to be between a man and woman; some don’t agree with that; and some wrestle with it. We are not of one mind on this as ELCA Lutherans. If you polled every person belonging to the 14 religious groups mentioned in the ad you would find they would not be of one mind either.
The fact is that our social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust affirms that marriage is between a man and a woman. At the same time, the statement urges our members to affirm, welcome, care for, and support same gender couples and their families. We leave the way in which it will pastorally care for all its members, including those who desire to be in a publically accountable, life-long, monogamous same gender relationship, to the wisdom of each congregation.
The ad says it comes from the “Concern for Children” out of Almont, North Dakota. We have no idea who this group is, where they come from, or what they stand for. In total contradistinction, our church is transparent and directs people to its contact information, web sites, and documents.
The ELCA social statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust spends considerable time sharing our strong stance for children as it exposes our culture’s obsession with pornography, condemns sexual commodification and sexual exploitation - especially of children, and lifts up the centrality of a healthy home for the raising of children. We continue to place high value on children and youth through our Lutheran Youth Organization, ELCA Youth Gatherings, Middle School Gatherings, Cardia Deo, Cross Training, our current NE MN Synod Discipleship Challenge, Discipleship Challenge Facebook page, and our Lutheran Bible Camps where faith formation and discipleship are the center and focus.
The final paragraph of the ad declares that the ELCA is not in conformity with Lutheran doctrine and should not function as a Lutheran church. We are in fact committed to the Gospel, the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and the ancient Creeds of the church. It is the opening section of our Constitutional Documents.
Christians don’t need to deprecate other Christians over differences that are born out of honest, intelligent, and faithful study. The divisive nature of our times has not served us well in this great country of ours. We should all be aware that as November 6 approaches there will be more misinformation, half-truths, and lies propagated by individuals and groups. The increased and hostile polarities of our culture should not be mirrored in the church - - whatever the denomination. Instead we could serve as models of deep respect and honor. May we serve as light and love to the world, just as our Lord has asked us to do.
Thomas Aitken is the bishop of Northeastern Minnesota Synod, ELCA.
Comments (26)
Add commentThe ad makers are hidden.
This from the MINNPOST Oct 31.
"There is no group by the name Concern for Children registered with the Minnesota Board of Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure, or with the North Dakota Secretary of State. There is a group by that name registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501c (3) nonprofit, but it is an adoption agency in Ohio.
Almont, population 122 as of the 2010 census, is a wide spot in the road some 30 miles west of Bismarck. County tax rolls show no taxable structure at 200 Margaret St. The closest Google images are of the intersection at 300 Margaret St., where there is a vacant lot and what appears to be a tiny white church so quaint it could be used as a set in a “Little House on the Prairie” remake, quite likely St. Mary Queen of Peace.
Several online rosters of churches list 200 Margaret St. as the address of a Wesleyan Church, but the associated phone number has been disconnected. The staff at the protestant church’s Indiana headquarters identified three North Dakota churches but could not find any record of an Almont congregation."
More outside money coming to our state.
Why are they hiding their identities?
another dirty trick?
Thanks for the data, Southie. Isn't it interesting that organizations use deceitful letters to try to persuade us? I think (hope) we are smarter than they think.
Why don't the small newspapers who run these
fact-free ads do proper screening? Ads without proper attribution, from a non-existent/made-up organization like this, are screened out of our local "small town" paper. Some newspapers are apparently greedy for any ad revenue, regardless of the ficticious source and the inaccurate charges contained therein. It'll all be over soon (and I think the fear-mongers will probably win this round).
Outside money
Check out the Campaign finance boards 24 hr reporting Hometown boy I grew up here Stevenson just got a $1,000 from California!
Answer, Bubba: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I will post the whole article and many commenters ask that, too.
http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/10/exploring-other-vote-yes...
$1,000? That is nothing compared to millions!
Hometown boy, I grew up here,
also is getting money from unions all over and not in this district, PACs like ZetePAC in DC, and people in multinational law offices in New York. Yessir, OUTSIDE MONEY.
As a member of ther ELCA, but
As a member of the ELCA, but seldom attend due to the
liberal leaning of the church, I see that the Bishop continues
the middle of the road stance.
By not taking a stand, against gay marrriage, they are taking
a stand for it.
That is what is missing in the church, it should not be "whatever feels good" method, it should be according to the scriptures.
Sadie: I thought you said that you had already left the ELCA?
If you're more comfortable with the black-and-white Biblical interpretation (emphasis on interpretation, here) offered by some other churches, it's understandable that you might prefer to worship elsewhere.
When the Bishop says: "Christians don’t need to deprecate other Christians over differences that are born out of honest, intelligent, and faithful study. The divisive nature of our times has not served us well in this great country.", he summarizes things well. God must look down on us and give a sad 'ole shake of the "triune-head" at our pettiness as we attempt to honor "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven . . ."
By the way, don't misinterpret the fact that the ELCA doesn't compel it's member congregations to walk in lock-step with "not taking a stand". The ELCA's Human Sexuality statement is a very comprehensive "stand", and well worth a read.
Facts matter here
Fact: ELCA leaders decided in 2009 without any formal effort to gather input from it's members-- or any effort to compel a vote by churches-- to allow gays/lesbians who were openly declaring they were NOT celibate to serve as a pastor. (previously if they declared themselves celibate they were allowed to minister).
Fact: Last winter they began formally installing gay/lesbian ministers openly involved in a non-celibate relationship.
So what is Aitken asking us to believe here? That the church is just fine with these individuals engaging in an active homosexual lifestyle and serving as ministers--but not being in a committed marriage?
We have told directly by you and others that the intent all along was to only allow those in a committed relationship to serve.
And now you want us to believe that the church has taken no position on same-sex marriage? Really?
Don't take your members for fools, Bishop! You and your fellow leaders opened this door, don't go about absolving yourself of any responsibility!
Hi, Rino! I adore your thinking on so many issues . . .
can you help me out by supplying some references on the above statements. I'd love to read up. Thanks.
My definition of leaving is this--
We have left the ELCA, but are still members.
Looking for a replacement church and then will
switch membership.
Not contributing to the church adm.but have given
to special local church projects.
Not attending services, only 2-3 times a year.
To me, that is leaving the EL CA. Haven't made it
formal. I didn't think someone would take every word
literally.
The point is that we are not the only ones.
RE: ELCA pastors
Note: I checked with an ELCA pastor -- The ELCA still DOES require that pastors either be celibate or married. (Gays who are in committed, monogomous relationships, only, are permitted because they are not, by law, allowed to marry.) In other words, promiscuity is not permitted for either hetero- or homosexual pastors, period.
Some heartfelt words about church unity.
"I hope with all my heart that we can avoid the divorce court (over gay marriage). I want us to stay together. I do not have a clear sense of what it would take to avoid what many of our fellow (Christians) apparently are convinced is an inevitable separation. I do sense, however, a strong need to keep talking. The church, some insist, is not some mere voluntary arrangement that we can abandon just because we do not happen to like some of the other people in the group. God calls us to the church, and that means God requires that we hang in there with each other, even if that goes against our natural inclinations. I agree with that formulation.
I want with all my heart for this to happen to us in the (name of denomination) church -- that we take up our arguments about the issues that divide only after we have knelt and laid our individual and collective burdens of sin at the foot of the cross. Needless to say, if it did happen, I would be surprised. But then, the God whom we worship and serve is nothing if not a God of surprises." (Richard Mouw, Fuller Theological Seminary)
More Outside Money
So who paid for the home grown boy I grew up here Stevenson ad on October 31st 1/2 page color with Governor Dayton? Last I heard ads had to have a "paid for by" disclaimer and this has none! Isnt that a campaign violation?
Quoted from "tdejonghe" in this comment section:
"Below is a brilliant and humorous response to the notion that the bible is the ultimate justification for any conflicting viewpoint in this day and age.
Owning A Canadian
On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a U.S. man, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.
Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses.
Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary
that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to
stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can
help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
P.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian.
Sorry for the poor "cut and paste" job above, but
you get the drift. Which verses in the Bible are "thus sayeth the Lord", and which do Christians have permission to put in a "cultural context"? If every word of the Bible is to be taken literally, who among us could be counted as "true to the Word"?
More importantly for the purposes of this divisive Constitutional amendment, should Minnesotans who don't have ANY religious beliefs, or who are non-Christian, or who are Christian, but just the "damned-to-hell" brand of Christian -- should those Minnesotans be subject to a Constitutional amendment that represents a narrow religious/cultural perspective? Don't you think the Constitution of our State should protect/expand our civil rights, not discriminate against a minority?
Dick Andolshek heads (treasurer)
the Freedom Club State Pac which sends all those ugly GOP ads out for Carrie Ruud. Go figure. Twin Cities money.
Check out the SOS's web site to find more out of district donors trying to influence local elections.
Both sides do it. It's annoying.
Who's money is paying for
those attack ads against "That Dale Lueck Guy"?
They accuse him of voting for a lot of garbage and he never was in State office. That makes them a total LIE! That's OK with you though twilight, isn't it?
The lying left is annoying.
Bubba ...
... your quote from Richard Mouw, Fuller Theological Seminary, sounds as unsubstantive, politically correct, and meaningless as what Bishop Aitken always writes and preaches. Nice words and sentiment, but totally devoid of any direction to people in the real world.
The lack of leadership the ELCA is demonstrating will only guarantee its loss of members and their support.
Sadie's posting above perfectly describes my wife's and my current situation, and - as Sadie says - there are many like us.
Lendad...
For you and your wife – perhaps for Sadie and others – here is “direction for people in the real world” that I take away from Mouw and the Bishop’s words:
First, let’s keep talking. Thank you so much for not shutting the door completely on the ELCA. That means that your heart is still there and you have the strength and faith to continue the conversation. That is the crux of the ELCA’s 2009 Sexuality statement; recognizing that we won’t all agree, but agree to continue dialogue.
Second, the ELCA is not going to tell us how to vote. It will not provide that kind of “direction” for us. The ELCA trusts us to wrestle with political issues, as individuals and as congregations. Bishop Aitken (and all 6 Minnesota ELCA Bishops, for that matter) have shared their personal decisions to vote against this amendment. They’ve convinced me to agree with them. If you’re not similarly convinced, vote your conscience. And let’s keep talking.
Finally, regardless of the outcome of the ELCA conversation, I personally urge you to vote “no” on this amendment. I don’t think it’s right to impose our religious beliefs (whatever they are) on citizens of our state. Please see our former Bishop Herb Chilstrom’s letter to the Catholic archbishop on this issue (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/173954851.html).
Let's talk!!
Thanks BY for making my point for me
From Bubba Yumba: "I checked with an ELCA pastor -- The ELCA still DOES require that pastors either be celibate or married. (Gays who are in committed, monogomous relationships, only, are permitted because they are not, by law, allowed to marry.) In other words, promiscuity is not permitted for either hetero- or homosexual pastors, period."
So the ELCA allows gay pastors in relationships. Given your findings above, can you not see how hollow the Bishops words ring now? He says the ELCA has taken no position on gay marriage. But they took a position that gay people in an openly gay relationship with someone can serve as a pastor--but hey, we make sure they are married or would be if they could!
Give me a break. The ELCA took a position on this long ago, they did NOT allow members with concerns a chance to discuss it as you now request either, BY. Some churches were wise in my opinion and did bring it up in their congregation and vote on it--many did not, and did not get any input from their members either. Sure they came to members AFTER the decision was made....
Too late for me, like Sadie and Lendad I have not completely severed ties yet but I don't see anything changing with regards to truly gathering input and voting on the issue.
Kind of ironic actually, given how the founder of the lutheran church rebelled against the prevailing church of the time.
Thank you so much for your points of view on this. Is it
possible to keep the conversation open?? Or, is the dialogue closed, from your perspective?
You make a good point,
Eyolf. Take care, folks.