IN a controversial decision that could divide its 4.6 million US members, an evangelical Lutheran Church decided at the weekend to allow gay men and lesbians “in committed relationships” to serve in its clergy,
According to this report, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which has 10,000 congregations throughout the US, voted to allow homosexuals to join the clergy.
Gay priests? It's what Jesus would have wanted
After passionate debate, church delegates voted 559 to 451:
To open the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in committed relationships.
Said church information director John Brook:
The actions here change the church’s policy, which previously allowed gays and lesbians into the ordained ministry only if they remained celibate.
For supporters of the decision, including Bishop Gary Wollersheim of the ECLA Northern Illinois Synod, it is simply a case of doing the right thing.
It’s a matter of justice, a matter of hospitality. It’s what Jesus would have us do.
The church is not the first in the United States to admit homosexuals to the clergy – the US Episcopalian Church had already done so – but the measure provoked heated debate among some 2,000 ELCA delegates who met in Minneapolis for three days.
Brook said:
There are different understandings of scripture on this issue. People made their decision on how they understand the scriptures. It was a passionate but very civil debate.
Among those opposing the decision was Pastor Richard Mahan of the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod. He blathered:
I cannot see how the church that I have known for 40 years can condone what God has condemned. Nowhere does it say in scripture that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable for God.
The text approved by the church does not make specific mention of same-sex marriage, but it provides that congregations may choose to:
Recognize, support and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships.
Some congregations opposed to the decision have threatened to leave the church altogether.
But Brook seems unfazed:
This remains to be seen.We are concerned because there have been such statements, but we are hopeful that the church will remain unified.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
"Nowhere does it say in scripture that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable for God."
Doesn't say much on the duty of halfwits to buy their pastor a Lear jet or fry in hell either.
I'm still waiting for any evangelical throwback to point out where in the New Testament it says Jesus was a heterosexual, or why, when the Old Testament specifically tells folk to eat their own shit, dipsticks like Mahan insist on just spouting it instead.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Very good, Stuart, I liked that one! But even if they throw out most of the OT injunctions (arbitrarily) as applying only to the Jews, they are left with an awful lot of material in the NT which is quite obviously incumbent on Christians, but ignored by most of them, apart from a few "extremist" groups. When their ladyfolk have their hair cut, do they then insist on shaving the heads of these miserable sinners? (I Cor. 11) And do they all insist that their women maintain silence in the church, only venturing to ask their husbands at home what the scripture teaches, and always being in subjection to their husbands in every aspect of their lives? (I Cor. 14) Do they insist that these same women do not wear jewellery, expensive clothes (no man would be so vain, of course!), and do not wear their long hair in fancy styles? (I Pet. 3) As with Islam, it is the "extremists" who have read their prophets correctly, whilst the vast majority just cherry-pick the bits that they find acceptable. How odd!!
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
There's one more that I meant to mention, though I have commented on it before. I Cor 11 also commands that women should have their heads covered. Quite apart from the obvious contradiction with the later commandment (in the same book!) that these very womenfolk should "keep silence in the churches", it has never been quite clear whether the head covering was only required during public worship, or at all times to demonstrate subservience to the male. To this end, many Christian women in past days wore a little cap AT ALL TIMES, not only in church. Strict evangelicals, like the Plymouth Brethren, absolutely insist on it at their "meetings" even today, even where children, and (bizarrely) unbelievers are concerned! Not only so, but how many readers would believe that one of the principal objections to the televising of the present Queen's coronation was the fact that women would be following a religious service with "uncovered heads" and men with their caps on!!
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Strictly speaking gays and lesbians with no partners or flings were allowed before. Also the United Church of Christ has allowed partnered gays and lesbians for years (and officially endorsed same-sex marriage back in 2005 which neither the ELCA or Episcopal church have yet done).
My own favorite of the NT prohibitions was on eating blood (Acts 15:29).
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
If would be best if nobody at all was in the clergy.
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
There was another comment prioir to the above, which you can read if you click onto "barriejohn" above, but I'm not writing it all out again!
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
It would be even better if the religious dumped their imaginary friends and their hatred, bigotry, stupid rules and rituals and left the rest of us alone. How I wish!
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
This is just like The Life Of Brian again! "The United Church of Christ": "The Church of Christ United": "Christ's United Church"! How many more bloody variations can you have?
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I'm not sure if Christ would have wanted a clergy at all…
August 24th, 2009 at 12:31 am
"Nowhere does it say in scripture that homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable for God."
Nowhere does it say blended fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, wearing gold/pearl jewelry or divorce are acceptable for God. Yet bigots like this sit with their second (or third) husbands in the pews week after week in their poly-cotton blends and gold jewelry. They cluck their tongues about how evil those nasty homosexual are, then afterward they go out to Denny's for a Grand Slam breakfast (extra bacon and sausage, thank you very much).
August 24th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Very good, Buffy, though I did make some of these points about Christian women in my now "disappeared" comment. They pray and preach in public: have their heads uncovered: have their hair cut, permed and styled (all strictly verboten): wear jewellery and expensive clothes: go out to work, thus neglecting their home and childrearing duties: have opinions of their own, even on religious matters: fail to obey their husbands, and so on, all of which are proscribed in the NEW Testament, and in the EPISTLES to boot, which were most definitely addressed to the churches and no one else! How do they get out of that then?
August 24th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
BTW Do others get as pissed off as I do with these religiots who all claim to know what it is that "Jesus would want"? You'd at least think that they would be able to agree on the subject, even if it's still conceited, pretentious, arrogant bullshit!
August 24th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I think that we should be encouraged, are not these pathetic attempts to move with the times an admission of defeat? Of course Christian churches have a long history of claiming to be moral leaders while in reality always being reluctantly dragged along by more enlightened thinkers.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
They're what I call "Cafeteria Christians". They pick and choose what they'll follow, or more accurately, what they'll try to make you follow. Whenever pressed about why they're preaching the Bible while ignoring large swathes of it they invariably have any number of excuses at hand. Therefore it's OK for them to do as they choose while still expecting *you* to obey whatever they demand because God Said So, and the Bible proves it.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
You're right there, Stoneyground. It's really MOST satisfying to note that these trustees of the unchanging laws of the eternal God are forever having to adapt their beliefs and practices according to the social and moral mores of society. If you look at the teachings of the Church today compared with the nonsense spouted by its leaders in the Middle Ages there is no comparison, yet they are all supposedly following the "immutable will of God" as expressed in His Holy Word! That's why we get all this pathetic "Well, you know, I think that what God is really saying is…" rubbish from the likes of Dumbledore. The more they squirm, the happier I am!!
August 25th, 2009 at 11:42 am
A glaring example of such ignorant, bigoted hypocrisy, of course, being Ms Carrie Prejean (qv), who is now bleating about being "victimised"! Talk about "you couldn't make it up"!!
August 25th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Referring to Jesus as "Christ" is like referring to Gautama as "Buddha". In each case it is tantamount to agreeing that he was the fairy tale creature he believed himself to be.