New Lutheran Denomination Planned Because of Gay Ordinations

That's right. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to ordain homosexual pastors so the conservatives are splitting off into a new denomination. That's how it usually goes too. There is a discernible liberal trend among church denominations, publishing houses, and seminaries that has taken place since the enlightenment. You would think this is strong evidence against conservative type Christianities, but no, conservatives maintain despite this evidence that God predicted there would be a falling away from the faith (I Tim. 4:1). Okay, but remember this, the conservatives who turned liberals knew about that prediction and became liberals anyway! How do you explain that? Read this story for more

9 comments:

LadyAtheist said...

...then there are the little splits that happen every day amongst the choose-your-own-theology churches. They report to nobody so if the congregation doesn't like what a pastor says, they can vote to fire him and then conduct a search for someone more to their taste. His supporters are free to church-shop for someone who says what they want to hear. I used to attend one of these churches. The pastor was about to be fired for reaching out to black people, so the blacks & non-bigoted whites moved to a congregation that was itty bitty and took it over. It wasn't a hostile takeover, since the remaining members were desperate to ensure their historic building was cared for (had windows by Tiffany!) when they passed on (they were mostly in their 80s & 90s) and the minister was a pretty nice guy with an interesting message.

Anywho, these are the churches that have the potential to turn into destructive forces in peoples' lives. Destructive cults start that way, as do megachurches.

Vic said...

Even in the small town I live in, a breakaway church started up because of the issue. It's a bit sad that they are so reactionary to gay pastors just being allowed at a time when other churches are starting to overlook their old differences that use to seem quite important. A new split for a new time, I suppose.

All the many type of Christian churches was one of the first things that tipped me off that religion wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Perhaps splits like this will help drive a few more away.

Papalinton said...

I'll say it again;
"....religions do not and cannot progress the way that, say, science can progress. When science progresses, it abandons old and false ideas. Once we discovered oxygen and the principles of combustion, we stopped thinking that there was a substance called phlogiston. Once we discovered that the earth is round, we stopped thinking that it is flat. Science and reason are SUBSTITUTIVE and ELIMINATIVE: new ideas replace old ideas. Religion is ADDITIVE and/or SCHISMATIC: new ideas proliferate alongside old ideas. For instance, the development of Protestantism did not put an end to Catholicism, and the development of Christianity did not put an end to Judaism. With science, we get BETTER. With religion, we get MORE."

And on and on it goes. These people are so caught up in their own smell it blurs any sensibilities. These grubby little tribal internecine squabbles clearly demonstrate the parlous nature of the christianities, indeed all the cults and religions that masquerade as some form of social order; it's like trying to roundup a herd of spitting, scowling cats, all trying to spray-mark their own territory.

If only they had the intellectual and cognitive ability to rise above their squalid little contretemps and view their antics from an outside perspective, surely they would be shamed into some form of reasonable and civil behaviour.

Somehow, I think not.

Cheers

Russ said...

Paull Spring, slated to be a bishop in the new North American Lutheran Church said,

But you don’t vote on faith or morals. You just believe it. I cannot believe we did this.

Paull Spring is religiously blinded. His blindness to the world and how the Christianities operate is obvious from the recognition that people regularly vote on both faith and morals. When someone is selecting a Christian church, they are looking for a congregation wherein the words and habits closely align with their own. The main concern is not truth, but rather personal comfort. They are voting for both the constituents of the faith they have chosen and the sect-specific moral tenets.

Roman Catholicism tries - and fails - to prohibit contraception. Their edicts, bulls, writs and papers maligning and prohibiting contraception promulgate what are often the outcomes of votes, actual counted ballots, cast by various clergy from their church bureaucracy. These votes define the Roman Catholic faith as well as their sect-specific morality. Paull Spring has been ordained clergy for 45 years. Can it possibly be the case that he wouldn't know this and be honest enough to acknowledge it?

People do not "just believe it." Beyond early childhood, the authoritarianism of "because I say so" or "just believe it" no longer works. Even at that tender age, the mind insists on having good evidence and arguments for accepting things. The bully will still have its way physically, mechanically, but the developing mind wants to be able to fit the world together in ways that make sense.

Part of theology's challenge has always been to construct a narrative that appears sensible to the unsophisticated mind of the child. Children want to know, need to know, and it's in their best interest to know, but the church's objectives run counter to the child's wants, needs and best interests.

His religion has left Paull Spring blind.

MKR said...

"With science, we get BETTER. With religion, we get MORE" (Papalinton).

Worth quoting.

Headshaker said...

"Okay, but remember this, the conservatives who turned liberals knew about that prediction and became liberals anyway! How do you explain that?"

I think it's fair to say that we don't always do what we should do. We know that we shouldn't cheat on our spouse; but plenty of people do.

I know that the DC crowd think that the bible is bunk, but when people ignore God's revelation of course they are going to endorse different positions.

LadyAtheist said...

"But you don’t vote on faith or morals. You just believe it. I cannot believe we did this."

uhhh isn't it a bit ironic for a *Lutheran* to say this?

Papalinton said...

Hi Headshaker
You say, .."but when people ignore God's revelation.. "

Papalinton
This is the form of meaningless universal declarative that distinguishes nonsense from 'horse sense' [common sense]; the difference between superstition, myth, old wives' tale, legend, unfounded belief, illusion, magic, sorcery, humbug and hooey from logic, reason, sagacity, ratiocination, and good sense.

Such a statement has an implied form of 'prophecy telling' about it, a form of foretelling those who 'ignore', will feel the wrath of a loving god. Headshaker, surely you must realise the statement is little more than shamanic nonsense born out of a superstitious cultural milieu so redolent of bronze/iron age thinking.

People today, do not unwittingly 'ignore', they choose to IGNORE, knowing full well that prophesying is best left at the margins of society along with 'new age' tarot card reading and crystal-ball predictions.

If ever religion is going to contribute to future societies it had better get its humanist [its humanitarian face] aspects polished up, not this woo-woo stuff.

Sheesh

Dale Husband said...

"conservatives maintain despite this evidence that God predicted there would be a falling away from the faith (I Tim. 4:1)."

Two words: Damage Control!