Local Lutheran Church Votes for Homophobia

The Blade

A prominent Protestant church in Maumee voted overwhelmingly yesterday to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the first in northwest Ohio following the national body’s decision in August to be more welcoming to homosexuals.

Members of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church voted 250-43 with one abstention – an 85 percent approval ratio – to end its affiliation with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). On the same ballot, members also voted to join the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.


Ah, yes, the ‘mission for Christ.’ Poor Jesus.  What pain that man has endured from the people who pimp his good name.  These oh-so righteous Maumee [c]hristians believe that Jesus wouldn’t want them to associate with gays and lesbians.  Of course, no where in the NT does Jesus ever turn away anybody from his love.

“Love one another as I have loved you.”

Apparently that command is much too difficult to follow for the Maumee Lutherans.


8 thoughts on “Local Lutheran Church Votes for Homophobia

  1. Muddy, why bother bitching about it? If they start losing money in the collection plate, so be it. Plenty of Lutheran churches in the area to go to for those who don’t agree.

  2. why bother bitchin about mudrake’s bitchin?..have a donut.

    I guess that’s anoher Lutheran Church I’ll never go to…

  3. The reason I posted this topic, Sepp, is to call out those hypocrites in our society, especially those who pimp the name and life of Jesus. Hypocrites and I do not get along at all whether in politics or religion.

  4. You are right that Christ loves all people. But his advice to the adulteress was to “go and sin no more.” For those who accurately interpret scripture as forbidding homosexual practice, there is no permissible way to allow “practicing” homosexuals to serve in the clergy. This is because they have essentially made a public declaration that scripture is meaningless to them. What type of witness is that, particularly for a pastor? It is no different than if a pastor abandoned his wife and family and moved in with a girlfriend for no reason other than sexual satisfaction. He would be just as unfit for the clergy as the practicing homosexual. This issue is not sexual orientation. It is a refusal to acknowledge sin and to seek forgiveness. When a church body such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America declares that public, unrepentant sin is no longer a disqualification for the clergy, then it has truly lost its way.

  5. moribund- remember that specious line that Bill Clinton used in his testimony re the Monica Lewinski affair– it all depends on the meaning of ‘is’?

    Well, your entire argument above all depends on the meaning of ‘sin.’ Who is the sinner, the gay person or the pastor? Now on that issue, we surely are at opposite ends of the argument.

  6. Mud, you have it wrong again. It has nothing to do with not associating with gays and lesbians. I would vote the same way. It has to do with not promoting the lifestyle. I have gay and lesbian friends, doesn’t mean that support their CHOICE to be gay because I most definitely do not. It means that i accept them for who they are but will not promote their lifestyle choice. It’s no different than me having friends that have cheated in relationships, don’t believe in Christ, stolen or worse. It means I accept them but do not promote their sin. I’m sinner just as bad as any of them…and I’m not self-righteous.

  7. Mud, it does not depend on the meaning of sin. The sin we are talking about in this post is clearly defined in the bible. There isn’t room for different interpretations on this issue…there are with other issues but on this issue God is very clear.

    What the issue may be is whether you take the Bible as truth, and I know you don’t. But because we are involving the Lutheran Church and it is their choice alone, the bible is the only authority needed.

  8. Surprisingly, the Catholic church is way ahead on this issue. In my ethics class – which is based on Catholic teaching – The last chapter of the text book deals with ethical issues surrounding genetic screening. The Catholic church is already prepping for the eventual finding that there is a genetic cause to homosexuality and so are exploring what that means, both theologically and ehtically. So I was SHOCKED when I was reading my textbook and the arguement they were using in exposing the pitfalls of genetic testing was a hypothitical case study of a hypothetical future homosexual man who had genetic screening done for some health problem and it is found that he has the gay gene anomoly. The ethical danger is, is that with this type of technology, insurance and employers now have a means of discriminating against this person. Because even though he may deny that he is Gay, his genes say otherwise. All this is a tangent to what you guys were talking about, but I just found that an amazing find in a Catholic textbook!

Comments are closed.