Lutheran Men in Mission, Metro NY answer actions of Special Assembly

ELCA Lutheran Men in Mission
Metro NY Synod Chapter
Cross of Christ Lutheran Church
576 Deer Park Ave.
Babylon, NY 11702

Website: www.mnys.org/Partners/Partners1a.html Email: LutheranMen@aol.com

7 November 2005

Dear Bishop Bouman, John Litke and Synod Council Members:

It is with a heavy and saddened heart that we, as leaders of the men's ministry in this synod, must write this letter as a result of the recently enacted Resolutions passed during the Special Synod Assembly Meeting on Oct 29, 2005.

We believe that those actions taken were unconstitutional. While the Special Synod Assembly was properly called, all actions taken at that meeting are in violation of the following section of our Synod Constitution: S7.12. a. The notice of each special meeting shall define the purpose for which it is to be held. The scope of actions to be taken at such a special meeting shall be limited to the subject matter(s) described in the notice

The initial notification approved during the Spring Synod Assembly was for the purpose of and limited to:

RESOLVED, That, within six months of the 2005 ELCA Churchwide Assembly, the Bishop or Synod Council convene:

1) A special meeting of the Synod Assembly, in accordance with article S7.12. of the Metropolitan New York Synod Constitution, to address the issues raised in the event the April 11, 2005 recommendations of the ELCA Church Council are not adopted by the 2005 Churchwide Assembly substantially as recommended; or
2) A special consultative meeting of the Synod to discuss the implications of the Churchwide Assembly's action on these matters.

This is divisive, and an attempt to override the sexuality decisions enacted during the Orlando, FLA. Churchwide Assembly.

You (plural) are aware of the angst this issue causes to the majority of it's pastors and lay church members and are aware of their scriptural feelings about same sex issues, and accepting sinful behavior. After years of studying gay/lesbian lifestyles in our church, the Churchwide body declared its belief. We feel you (plural) knew that the adoption of these resolutions, would cause outrage. Because our Synod, into which so many have put so much effort over the years, is perceived as having abandoned its constitutional commitment to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. We do not condemn. We are to embrace all sinners, and they are welcome into the life of the church. We are not called to sanctify and OK any sin

Scripture to ponder: Romans 16:17: "...Keep an eye on those who cause dissension and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded." That is what we believe the gay/lesbian movement and resolution is doing.

We are concerned by what appears to be an unprincipled use of the office of the bishop and synod leadership caused by the insertion of Resolutions

Our perceptions:

We feel that you (plural) knew that these wants of the gay and lesbians in our synod would circumvent the will of the people and deliberately put in motion unwise decisions you knew would assure disharmony by

a) Inappropriately included by appointing the Executive Committee, who are not impartial to overriding our Confessions and Constitution as Reference and Council, and
b) By appointing our Church Secretary, who is not impartial to the gay/lesbian endeavors and strategy, and who was also an author of one on the motions, as the Parliamentarian, and
c) Knowingly violate the stated purpose for calling this meeting, and by the way they were announced.
d) There was an intentional effort not to allow appropriate and fair time to submit disagree

We, like many clergy and lay members, believed there would be merely discussion with no voting taking place (as understood in the stated purpose for the meeting).

We also did not see or receive any notification that Resolutions could be submitted or to whom such Resolutions should be directed, nor what the deadline was to be for submission of Resolutions prior to the meeting.

We found the Resolutions posted on the synod web site, only because we chose to check the web site, and received an email, dated one week before the Assembly. The posting of the Resolutions on the synod web site and emails, shortly before the Special meeting, appears to be a deceptive and disreputable procedure that we feel is an affront to all the clergy and lay members of this synod. (paragraph self-explanatory)

This affirms the perception of deliberately putting in motion unwise decisions that you (plural) knew the opposing majority would not be able to address in a timely manner.

Even though it is felt that these Resolutions are out of order, we were informed that the motions were not submitted through the established and accepted Reference and Council procedures as well. We were also informed that you appointed an author of one of the motions as the Parliamentarian. By so doing, these decisions were unwise and go against all properly established procedures for the conducting of an Assembly.

It's not proper for the parliamentarian to vote (except when a vote is by secret ballot) or participate in debate (should have Recused himself). This would imply that a person who is proposing a motion should not be appointed parliamentarian until after that motion is considered, at the very least. It does not matter whether the parliamentarian is a member of the executive committee, but can be considered unwise

It is felt that the voice of the church politic assembled in Orlando, Florida affirmed our stated Lutheran Confessions and Constitution on the gay/lesbian endeavors.
1) the constitutional issue revolves around MNYS Constitution Chapter 4: Confession of Faith: "

+S4.03 This synod accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life."

+S4.05 this accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel ... and

+S4.06 this synod accepts the other confessional writing in the Book of Concord ... as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church.

2) The Lutheran confessions are also quite clear on the subject, especially the Large Catechism, 10 Commandments, No 4 and 6, but also the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XXIII No. 9-22 "...the union of male and female is a matter of natural law."

Your continued accommodating response to the voice of the few is another indication to us, and the men of our synod, that our leaders don't seem to fully understand the message of scripture and are deliberately not seeking unity with those who want to be faithful to God's Word. A few of Jesus' words comes to mind:

"Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees..... How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (Mt 16:6-12)

If Scripture is to be the "source and norm," the Scripture is quite clear on this topic, a clear NO to sexual activity outside true marriage. The synod resolutions are unconstitutional because it contradicts scripture. If Scripture says NO, synod cannot say YES, without violating the constitution and confessions.

As fascinating as Paul's words are about future events, we are increasingly thankful for what Paul wrote in these two Letters about how the believers ought to live in the present. Many accepted Paul's message as the word of God and so turned from worshipping idols to serving the living God. These Gentiles converted from paganism (which included lifestyles) soon made up the majority of the church. We feel this also addresses the similarity of us changing our lifestyles also.

Paul's concern about integrity came out of defense of his past conduct. Paul's lengthy defense reminds believers today how important it is for us also to uphold the integrity of the gospel by living lives that are honest and above reproach.

The Thessalonian Christians not only accepted the Gospel "in spite of severe suffering," but also continued to endure opposition for their faith after their conversion. This persecution involved verbal harassment and social ostracism. Non-Christians were offended when new believers of Christ refused to participate in the social and cultic activities of the pagans. (Is this not what the homosexuals want us to do?) We do not ostracize the homosexuals in our churches, we include them in the life of the church (see various Reconciling decisions of the ELCA and it's Synods).

Although Christians in North America today enjoy religious freedom, they too must be willing to be ridiculed and oppressed for their commitment to Christ. Hence, the silent ostracizing of those opposed to blessing gay/lesbian unions and activities should be endured. As you may know, during the past several years the ministry to gays and lesbians has been taken to the forefront of our church and, indeed, to the forefront of the secular world. There are many secular organizations with money and clout supporting these endeavors to have the church accept and bless secular behavior.

Conversion to the Christian faith involves not just a major shift in one's beliefs but also a dramatic change in one's lifestyle. Paul thus emphasized in the second half of the Letter the need for the Thessalonian believers to live a holy sanctified life. This involved, for example, their sexual conduct. Our church addresses homosexual Clergy by having them agree to be celebrant during their "Call." We men earnestly feel that blessing and affirming same-sex unions, and as marriages, we are accepting their behavior as a norm (and sinless) and therefore, not in need of changing.

In the first chapter of Romans, St. Paul gives as a prime example of pagan practices which serve to worship and serve the creature rather than the creator, the exchanging of heterosexual intercourse for homosexual intercourse among both men and women (Romans 1:26-27).

There are no passages of Holy Scripture, which encourage same sex erotic activity.

The Synod has also encouraged the secular state to misunderstand marriage in a way incompatible with the Christian understanding of marriage as revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

In Genesis chapter two the will of God for the nature of marriage is explained, "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24).

Jesus reinforces this when he teaches, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? (Matthew 19:4-5)

The Greco-Roman world had a tolerant attitude towards adultery and other sexual practices. Attitudes toward sexual activity outside marriage are not so different from those found in our contemporary culture today.

We feel that we are in an era of "false teaching" about homosexuality and its need for acceptance.

You may have done irreparable harm to our endeavors of encouraging men and their families to remain supportive members in this synod.

This Synod has proclaimed to the men that the will of God is revealed not in Scripture. In fact, the Synod has proclaimed that the will of God is whatever the Synod gathered in assembly wants it to be.

Our efforts are being impinged towards the discipleship of new members as a result of the disunity being caused by your seemingly singular focus on sexuality, especially as a result of the recently adopted gay/lesbian Resolutions in this synod. You may have also done harm to any renewed efforts of monetary support of synod ministries.

Men take seriously what they believe their church (at all levels) believes and wants them to uphold as a body of Christ. After all, we have always had a mandate to help all people in their walk toward the cross and LMM has always encouraged men from all walks of life, including gay men to join with us in our walk towards the Cross as repenting sinners. Therefore if they feel their church (including congregation) and their leadership believes and acts contrary to the church's confession and biblical beliefs, then one must consider that seriously and carefully; so he can determine if they agree to "OK" a sin as an accepted behavior to celebrate and condone.

It is used to be felt that the ELCA was a mid stream organization that seeks to follow Christ's teachings and his greatest commandment, that of loving one another.... and not taking a left or right extreme position.
These actions are indicative of the gay/lesbian agenda in wedging their wants into a fine and caring organization, and of our synod leadership acquiescing to them.

New Testament Scripture (a few):
Lest anyone raise the smokescreen protest that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, that answer is quite simple:
1) The Gospels make no claim of recording ALL that Jesus said and did. Quite the contrary: John 21:25 "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." and
2) There is also no record of Jesus saying anything about incest, pro or con; or bestiality, pro or con. So does that mean it's OK? Of course not, and
3) Jesus strong support of permanent, heterosexual marriage, based on the creation accounts, "one flesh," etc., quite, decisively excludes any other options (Mark 10: 1-12; Matthew 19: 1-12).

Comments: Holy Scripture nowhere allows for anything like a "gay/lesbian marriage/union/partnered," and indeed, in unanimously condemning homosexual activity, it would regard such a concept as gay/lesbian marriage/union/partnered," as an oxymoron. In short, there is no way any two or more persons of the same sex can consummate a "one-flesh" union. The body parts are biologically incapable of such a deed. Any attempt at such a thing makes a mockery of the use of the body, of God's command ("be fruitful and multiply"), and of the true marriage of one man and one woman. A real marriage is inherently limited to two, a man and a woman. Anything else is wide open to as many participants as want to take part.

We appeal to you, for the sake of the unity and peace that you seek, that all actions taken during the Assembly of October 29, 2005, be declared out of order and void.

We pray always for the Synod, that they will reflect upon this decision and declare it out of order.

It is difficult to separate the media's liberal pro gay and lesbian rhetoric from our learned morals and values taught in our congregations at Sunday School, VBS and Church, when at every turn, we are shown that a "normal" family includes gays and lesbians. And this misrepresentation runs much deeper than we can even imagine, and the result is the wearing down of the morals and values of our own families and thereby instigating disunity.

Resolutions of this nature can be addressed during the 2006 Synod Assembly through proper procedures and timely notification.

We prayerfully hope you see the necessity of our request, and await your reply as we continue to wrestle with these issues within our synod.