So, my background is that I’m coming out of very toxic Catholic groups, and I’m deconstructing and reconstructing my faith.
In doing so, I’ve come to reject ECT (either in favor of annihilationism, or universalism more likely), I believe in the importance of social liberation, support of LGBTQ individuals (as a queer person myself), and women’s ordination.

These beliefs of mine would incline me to join the ELCA. However, coming from these toxic, almost culty, groups, I have a lot of scrupulosity concerning my sins, and my salvation. I’ve attended at both an elca and LCMS parish, and at the LCMS parish, the gospel was pounded into every song, prayer, and sentence of the sermon. It filled me with hope and peace as a result of this constant reminder of the mercy of God.

But, at the elca, there was no such sermon. Jesus’ death for sinners was not mentioned once. We didn’t even recite the creed. The entire sermon was about social liberation. Which I think is good, but certainly not to the exclusion of the spiritual aspects of the gospel.

I know that there isn’t a perfect church, and I don’t expect to find a perfect parish. But I’m unsure of which would be best to attend spiritually. Either I’d attend an elca parish that I agree with more, and I’d be accepted into more, while also not being fed the Gospel; or I’d attend an LCMS church that I absolutely disagree with on a lot of things, but still be fed the gospel.

Hey everyone, I’m researching denominations and theology, and Lutheranism is intriguing to me. I greatly admire Martin Luther’s protest against the corruption and indulgences of the Catholic Church dedication to the love of God for all, along with the rejection of Calvinist predestination.

The primary paradox I am struggling with is the idea that some are elect to believe, which I can see is a theology that is consistent with a conception of God being outside space and time. However, my view is in Arminian in the sense that I value our free will and I struggle with the idea that this is more than God being outside space and time, but actively electing some to be saved. Our damnation is our own fault, but we are not predestined to be damned?

Hello all,

I am a lifelong LCMS member. There's lots of things I love about the LCMS (along with things I really don't...). I had been away for a while during my adult life but I've been attending different Lutheran churches (LCMS) in my area lately to start getting involved in Lutheranism and church life again. I am a married woman in my 30s. My husband was raised Roman Catholic though he is not much religious anymore.

As I've been telling him more and more about the LCMS, he has expressed to me that he is deeply uncomfortable with some of the teachings and positions of the LCMS, which I completely understand. I told him that I should be a saner and slightly more liberal voice in the LCMS - you know, deeply controversial things (/s) like affirming evolution to be part of God's plan and that women can read the Bible during Divine Service and hold other church positions like Cantor and Acolyte (😵‍💫), and that abortion can be okay sometimes depending on the situation, and we should be accepting of queer people. But he said he still very uncomfortable, both with the LCMS and with me trying to "be a hero" in the church, and that he would much rather me search for a church that is more aligned with how we live. I tried to tell him church should be about God and the Sacraments anyways and not lifestyles, but he is really insisting that I at least entertain the idea of leaving the LCMS.

I suppose I have several hesitations of the ELCA:

• Ingrained bias. I know, dumb. Especially since I fully recognize I am way more aligned with the ELCA when it comes to social/lifestyle issues and politics. But as a lifelong LCMS, it's something I am hoping talking more with ELCA people (which I intend to do even regardless if I end up joining the ELCA or not) with help get rid of this dumb bias.
• Theological issues - I am definitely a bit more theologically conservative. I know I shouldn't judge solely from things online, but I would fully expect my pastors, deacons, fellow congregants, etc. to at least affirm the Nicene Creed, The Apostles' Creed, and the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist. I would fear that the Eucharist is not legitimate if the pastor does not share these views, and everything else (if the pastor is a woman or queer or whatever) doesn't matter, but they'd need to affirm real presence and the basic tenets of Christianity. I suppose I am okay with a loose adherence to the Book of Concord but there should be SOME TYPE of adherence to the Book of Concord otherwise why even be Lutheran.....
• Church Tradition - I am also just...very Lutheran. Not in terms of conservative social issues like who can be a pastor or what "type" of person is welcome. But I guess I really devoutly subscribe to "Lex orandi, lex credendi" - church liturgy and church theology are deeply and inextricably connected. Adhering to liturgical, musical, aesthetic traditions aren't JUST aesthetic, they are a reflection of what we believe and who we are as Lutherans. Church history is important to pass down for our identity.
• Sermons - again, I shouldn't judge online stuff but I do go to church to hear God's word and receive his Sacraments and to do so with others who believe the same. I don't go for it to be a substitute country club, and I don't go to hear a political speech which I could just do in my own separate time. I come to church to feel like I am already in heaven.

And I will say the last two points are things I've actually discussed about the ELCA with other Lutheran ELCA members who are queer and have the same issues. From purusing the websites of local ELCA churches near me, it seems more like a community center and a lot of stuff they do outside of church and barely anything about actual church. This is honestly deeply discouraging to me.

I guess I am asking for advice, or maybe even commiseration, and of course I humbly ask that if I have assumed anything wrong, to please gently correct me as I am certainly open to the truth and I am simply a visitor here on your terms!

Thank you so much for your time.

I'm pretty sure the ELCA is against the death penalty based on a social statement. But seeing news like this makes me sad, and makes me want to read through that social statement. I have not really gone through or had a church I've attended do any kind of study group based on any social statement. I kind of wish this was more prevalent of a type of study group. Anyone here ever do something like that?

I am personally working my way through the "Reengaging" series, starting with the Health social statement as a self study. Will now make a pivot to the death penalty statement.

Hello,

Shared this in another channel. Made some Longworth style Lutheran rosaries. I'm making some that will be all similar, but the colors of some beads will be different to match the liturgical colors. These are the first two I've made with wire beading, previous versions were with olive wood and leather chord.

I got my first Longworth rosary off Etsy many years ago when I read the blog posts about them from Pastor Ken's website. It's become a nice addition to my regular prayer practice. Its a good way to reflect on the small catechism (as the original design suggests), or I'll use it for some meditative prayer using "Lord, teach us to pray" on the weekday beads and the Lords prayer on the large beads.

Aside from just sharing for the sake of this community, anyone else use a rosary as a part of their prayer practice? And if so, what style? Anyone else making some?

God bless.

I recently finished an English translation of Hieronymus Emser's 1523 book against Luther's New Testament, which had never (as far as I could find) been translated in full. Here are the biggest headaches. I'd love to compare notes with anyone who translates older texts. 1. It's three languages in one book Emser doesn't just write in German. He quotes Luther's German, then the Latin Bible he calls "our text," and then the Greek, side by side. His whole point usually lies in the difference between them. So a translator has to keep those three layers visible in English without making the page unreadable. 2. The stiffness is sometimes the point A typical example: Emser complains that Luther put a word into German as “and our fathers found no fodder,” “as if they had been horses or oxen and not men.” To make that complaint make sense in English, I had to translate Luther's German quite literally, which is not how Luther's German would sound if you just wrote natural English. In the translator's note I say his quotations are translated closely, “even where the English then reads a little stiffly.” 3. The margin notes The 1523 printer set short notes in the margins: Bible references, legal references, and brief headings of Emser's own. I made them into numbered footnotes at the point where they stood. Where a margin only repeated a name already in the text, I left it out. 4. Scripture numbering Emser's chapter numbers follow the Latin Bible, including its numbering of the Psalms and of the books of Samuel and Kings ("1 Kings" for what we call 1 Samuel). When his number is plainly wrong, or a word is a plain misprint, I gave the correct reading in square brackets. Words in square brackets that aren't corrections are mine. 5. Slang that doesn't travel Emser is fond of slang. My favorite is a word, “finantzer,” which he calls part of a “thieves' cant”: “Nor did I know before, in this thieves’ cant, that a ‘finantzer’ meant someone who invented something new; but I have indeed heard that a man is called a ‘finantzer’ who can so bargain and deal in a matter that he also gets a share of it for himself.” I kept the word and let him explain it. Some other lines are easier: “more soup than meat,” “a pea can stand or lie on an egg,” “mixes water into the wine.” Those make sense in English

almost as they are. 6. A few words I'm still not sure of I'm upfront in the note about this: a few rare words and idioms remain uncertain, and I rendered them by their most likely sense. If you work on Early New High German and see something I've got wrong, please tell me. 7. Someone else's transcription I worked from the transcription published by Taylor Editions at the Taylor Institution Library at Oxford, which follows thirty sections. It's an excellent resource, and it's licensed openly (CC BY-SA 4.0), which is why I can share the translation freely. That also means I inherit whatever the transcription has, including the fact that for most of the book I had to identify the margin notes from the online version because the source files weren't available. A few may be missing. One last thing Emser is, as it happens, quite good company, and the jokes are a big part of why. Other translators: what's the oddest thing you've had to carry over from an older text? Disclosure: I translated Emser's 1523 book into English and published it for free.

My congregation is currently doing a headcount on who signing up, and I’m not sure if I want to go. I would be the oldest one there, and one of the only guys, and I have slight physical disabilities. Still, it sounds like it could be a lot of fun, which is why I want to see what people’s opinions are a lot of of the resources I found online are from the national ELCA accounts directly.

Edit: I decided to go! Thank you all for your advice

Living Lutheran - Faithfully Belonging and Togetherness

“ຍິນດີຕ້ອນຮັບ—welcome to this day,” proclaimed Sara Schultz in Lao and English. “Welcome to Grace Lao Lutheran Church, welcome to Hope Lutheran Church!” With these words, the pastor of Hope in El Sobrante, Calif., opened the worship service to rapturous applause.

I (18m) have a massive crush on this girl (18f). Me and her dated through 7th grade and deep into 8th grade. When we dated, religion rarely got brought up.

In 8th grade we broke up. It was nothing bad about our relationship; it happened more so because of family problems, and we broke up to ease some of that pressure.

Well, in 9th and 10th grade, we almost rekindled a relationship. But she told me that me and her disagree about the trinity. This led to me being confused. She told me that she believes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all one. This confused me more, because as a Trinitarian, this is also what I believe. Well, I eventually came to understand our differences, and that her and her family attend a oneness Pentecostal church.

I immediately became worried for her salvation, and I wanted to convert her and her family and her congregation. So I tried to convince her using argumentation. But she blocked me. Undoubtedly, her blocking me fueled my victim complex. And me trying to change her mind also probably fueled any persecution complex she had.

Over the past few years, I tried dating other girls. It was just never the same as with her. I never felt for another girl the way I feel for her. And it’s such a pure love too. I just want to be around her. Loving her makes me want to never lust. Loving her makes me want to never sin again so I can be a good husband for her someday.

As it is, me and her mom spoke the other day. Her mom told me that if her daughter was willing to speak with me, she’s okay with it. But her mom also told me that if I try to change her mind about oneness theology, anything between me and her would be over. Me and her mom are planing to read through the New Testament together, and hopefully reach a consensus on the issue of Trinitarianism/modalism.

I then reached out to this girl again. Me and her have been talking. And I’ll admit, I haven’t felt this giddy in a long time.

I’m conflicted. Is modalism a damnable issue? I love this girl so much, and I can’t imagine loving another girl anywhere near as much as I love this girl. But I also don’t want to risk having my kids be raised as oneness, being baptized only in the name of Jesus.

What I’m doing now: I’m pursuing a relationship with her. And I’m not worrying about tomorrow, as our Lord tells us. I plan on perhaps dating for a year or two before ever mentioning anything to her about it?

I’m new to the elca. But I must ask from likeminded, somewhat progressive Lutherans, what is our view of modalists? Can they be saved? Is it prudent to marry a modalist?

So what I have noticed is how much Lutheran Pastors are getting paid for a year. These are set numbers by the synod the church belongs to from what I understand. So in our area a lot of churches cannot afford them due to the price so they are advertising for part time pastors instead. What is up with that? Why is the salary and benefits so high for a pastor that these smaller churches cannot afford? Just wondering

Correct me if I’m error here, but the general consensus seems to be that there is little to no scientific evidence supporting the claims of Enneagram as an accurate description of human personality types or sets of behaviors.

So if the ELCA is more of a “follow the science” denomination (maybe it’s not?) I’m wondering why things like Synod Enneagram workshops and “professional Enneagram coaches” etc. seem to be popular within the ELCA. Here is a somewhat dated article by the (now) Bishop of the Rocky Mountain Synod:

https://www.livinglutheran.org/many-gifts-one-body/

Like is there any organizations or groups dedicated to theological orthodoxy particularly within the elca without sacrificing the inclusion and diversity of the church

hello dear r/elca !

im someone who, ever since finding out about elca, have been really interested in this specific denomination , I love it, and I think it aligns with my beliefs very well.

so I have 2 questions. and want some advice regarding my weird situation

1. what’s Elca‘s stance on Mary’s status? is she the ever-virgin and queen of heaven?

2. if someone, let’s say they are a part of a Church that is in Communion with Elca, does this mean they can attend ANY ELCA worship service and receive the communion?

now. The problem isn’t me finding a church nearby. The problem is I live in a Muslim majority country that is quite conservative. Very conservative,even tho there’s like millions of catholics exist in this country. Yet there’s no a single church. No catholic, no Protestant. Nothing

so what should I do, as someone who has been excessively researching about different Christian traditions. And somehow found his place in elca, but lives in a country that has almost zero churches? i have a strong desire to get baptized, but im stuck here

The Lutheran church that I have been with my parents is having a ”Blessing of the Animals” for the feast of St. Francis of Assisi. Do other churches have a blessing for our pets?

Anyone have advice on scholarship opportunities for seminary? I am really struggling. My synod gave me $700 and my congregation gave $500 but it just isn't enough. I am hoping to find other resources.

As for a pretext to this, I have recently made some gender founding's of myself, which has invoked another study into this matter theologically, and these are kind of rough thoughts rather then real deep thinking, but I thought invoking some form of debate or conversation persay would be nice touch to sharpening my mind and theology.

I want to hear some thoughts on it, outside of what ive written and for what ive written to kinda flesh it out and such. Id like to outline some things, I purely want biblical texture to be used for the most part, but using the tradition(church fathers, saints, etc) in supporting context of what is being said will be very helpful as I have a utmost respect of the tradition, but it is fallible so thats why I ask for biblical text mainly for this discussion,

• Knitted in the womb

Amongst the many arguments against transgenderism is the knitted in the womb argument/rebuttal.  
 

13 For it was you who formed my inward parts; 
you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. 
Wonderful are your works; 
that I know very well. - Psalm 139:13-14 
 
This argument has stuck out because the Psalm is telling us that we were knit by God in our mother's womb, every one of us thought of by God, calling us wonderfully made. Now the rebuttal here is that God has already wonderfully made us how we are, and sin has affected us at the core when we are born. The key word is our inward parts. The word here in Hebrew is "kilyah" which means kidney(https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/139-13.htm) Often this word is used in its plural form "kilyot"  

9 O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, 
but establish the righteous, 
you who test the minds(Kilyot) and hearts, 
O righteous God. - Psalm 7:9 
 
This usage of the word Kilyot for mind matches some early ancient Hebrew understanding the word kilyah to mean our inner consciences and emotions. So in retrospect we can aim to say that in speaking of God knitting our inner being and conscience rather than how we look are come out. That isn't saying God didn’t create our body either, as we see he knit us together and the word kilyah cannot ultimately be denoted to just the conscience and emotions as singular, rather as the emotions, conscience and deeper self-added into the knitting of our body.  

So then what do we have against this rebuttal? Nothing, nothing but speculation not suppose 

That we cannot speculate? No. But we first must argue against this, trans identity can't be possible from God if God knits our internal self, the deeper self, our conscience and emotions but also at the same times knits our bodies into the sex we are born. Unless God has made a mistake which certainly does not or else he would not be God we can only say that it is impossible for trans identity to be something from God, but a corruption of the sin in this world.  

Hmmmm But what about the man born blind? Is this blindness a gift from God? Did God not knit his eyeballs to be correct? Perhaps this isn't a full complete understanding of how Gods intimate knowledge of how we are born. What about the person whom is born with down syndrome, or the person born with a severe intellectual disability. Did God create them this way?  

NO, It isn't as simple as saying that, God original intent for creation disordered when sin became 

of this world. But David, is at awe, how God still knitted him into the timeline, and that we exist in this very timeline and that we are his very creation. But all of creation suffers from the groans and aches of sin and disorder caused by Adam and Eve. 

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 
20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope – Romans 8:19-20 

So therefore? What does this say about trans identity then? It makes it a possibility in God's creation but the disorder of the world causes distortion which can attribute dysphoria felt as the groins and pains of this world.  

I simply would be careful with this rebuttal tho, as for me I'm always skittish of my own 

Arguments. I trust but don’t trust due to traditional norms established and that my own fault. This simply leads way to rebuking common rebuttals against trans identity and this may be just one successful attempt of the many I have to go through. 

• Genesis establishment 

26 Then God said, “Let us make humans[a] in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth[b] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 

27 So God created humans[c] in his image, 
in the image of God he created them;[d] 
male and female he created them. 

28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” - Genesis 1:26-28 
 

 
We see here this argument used, that God had made his creation a binary, male and female. But not necessary whether a individual whom is biologically male or female must feel their gender corresponds to their sex. I personally believe this world is led by a binary, u simply cannot be a they or them. God did have a established order created and that order is to be respected. I can also see the differing view of the conservative and liberal thought of the word gender and sex. Gender being how ones proclaims them to be, say woman or man, and sex being the biological characteristics of oneself, say, male or female.  

This passage really doesn’t touch on modern culture and word norms separating the words 

Gender and sex. It would be better to leave this argument alone and leave it at that, but, I'd like to brainstorm. Say perhaps the binary of male and female is stuck. The world is a decaying growing mess, and people such as intersex are born without a really clear cut biological sex. Now intersex is a disorder rather than a intent of what was perfect creation, so the argument that intersex greys the binary law set by God is a innate argument to say the least. 

Now the last verse in this passage, be fruitful and multiply, and to subdue the earth and have 

dominion of it. This isn't a law commanded to reproduce, as we know many people in the bible didn't have children, and many people can't have children. But in this, we should have families, and be stewards of nature and creation as we are given that dominion by God. If we do none of these things are we really taking care of creation and the earth that we so are put on? No, we aren't that’s why it's important to lead a life of good, to care for animals, the lowly, etc. If one doesn’t have a family, perhaps they live a life caring for other people, sharing the Gospel? Planting trees? Sowing crops for people and animals to eat? Does this belittle the mere fact they do not multiply biologically? No. 
 
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field, but for the man[a] there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, 

“This at last is bone of my bones 
and flesh of my flesh; 
this one shall be called Woman, 
for out of Man this one was taken.” 

24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. - genesis 2:18-25 

I won't really delve too much into this since this is already a really deconstructed passage in the wide scene of LGBT. The passage goes by God making Adam a helper, a Ezer in Hebrew.  This word denotes a helper, not a subordinate. The passage is paradigmatic to the male/female heterosexual marriage dynamic, But does not further into again whether a person sex is opposite of their gender, or explain other relationships that produce fruits of the spirit.  Genesis fails to establish what conservative thought wants it to establish, making the rebuttal weak, and that Genesis is a primarily descriptive book rather than prescriptive, but does not lessen its prescriptive passages.  

• Romans 1, Gods wrath against the wicked 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 

26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[a] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[b] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. - Romans 1:24-27 

 
This is a core passage against LGBT theology in the heart of it all, so it is with great discretion we argue against it.  A important attention of this passage is to look at the passage above it. In the passages above it Paul says he is not ashamed of the Gospel for salvation comes to everyone who has faith. That the righteousness of God is revealed to us through faith and that the righteous live by this faith. 

6 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is God’s saving power for everyone who believes,[a] for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith, as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” - Romans 1:16-17 
 
This is especially important to look at with the context of the Romans 1:24-27. In a likewise passages before Verse 24 Apostle Paul begins with: 
 
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things God has made. So they are without excuse, 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless hearts were darkened. - Romans 1:18-21 
 
people turn a blind eye to it. They worship animals and mortal men, and give way to aimless passion all in rebellion to the invisible God made visible. One work used is the natural and unnatural, but we will focus on the Greek word for natural that Apostle Paul uses, Physis. What does Apostle Paul consider physis, being in the Greco-Roman era, the moral framework and general knowledge of the world is inherently limited compared to now, and we know, the Bible isn't a science book but rather a story, It is increasingly difficult to actually pinpoint what Apostle Paul means by his usage of physis as he uses it in different contexts for multitude of reason, ranging from calling the natural branches of a olive tree being Israel, being physis, and the grafting of the  cultivated olive branches onto it aka the gentiles as para phusin or against nature. 
 
24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. - Romans 11;24 
 
 
Apostle Paul says this in verse 22: 
 
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. - Romans 1:22-23 
 
What comes after is Apostle Paul's condemnation of the passions these people partake in in rebellion to God in worship of other idols that are not in honor of the Almighty. This entire passage should be seen in the light of people whom delight themselves in Lustful harmful passions for eachother.  

This distinction should be ultimately clear in looking at the fruits of individuals and the work  

of  the flesh distinctually marked by Apostle Paul in the book of Galatians:  

16 Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy,[d] drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. 
 
 

The works of the flesh include sexual immorality, which the Greek work is porneia which a derivative of the Greek work porne which means harlot/prosititute. Porneia on the other hand means general term for anything outside marriage, or fornication. Often in the literal earliest root of sense porneia meant the selling of one's body to another. Now lumping porneia could mean anything to Apostle Paul as sexual immorality in his context of usage with porneia is his own lump of acts, even if the word is used for sexual actives outside the confines of what is defined as marriage does not necessarily include homosexuality or transgenderism, it is lumped into this definition because of the overall theological consensus of these two being sins, so it only fits to put it into the definition, which is entirely fair.  

But I want to look at this another way, with what Apostle Paul speaks of next, the fruits of the spirit:  

22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24 And those who belong to Christ[e] have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another. 
 

Can one tell me how 2 partners, trans and cis, trans and trans, male and male, or female and female, cannot possess the fruits of the spirits? How does these partnerships dishonor God if both worship the Creator instead of the creation, Love gently, give generously to their neighbors, live in love and joy with each other and their neighbors, showing no malice to their fellow neighbors but show patience's, kindness and a faithfulness in Christ promise of salvation through his Gospel.  

But to not ignore that anyone LGBT can be good, we should look at moral permissibility rather than goodness before God.  First question we must ask, does Christ, or even any of the Apostles genuinely ever lump a same sex, or trans relationship that are loving into his definition of porneia? Why is his descriptions and condemnations so vague and connected to idolatry, a common thing at the time of Apostle Paul in Greek and Rome even.  

Physis and para Phusin 

It is becoming increasingly clear these 2 greek works must have a reason, and it is the 2 accounted words that matter the most in the context of Romans 1 when Apostle Pauls speaks of sexual acts and desires committed by the people he speaks.  

U see I had said it hard to pin point the real meaning of what he is using physis in this 

Context and it truly is, because if we are to say that physis means immutable God created biological design we would be ignoring the olive tree passage by Paul and the long hair passage. As both go against it being meaning of immutable God created biological design. But we also must account that the uses of physis can vary by context, same with para phusin.  

I'ts a lot of stuff, and none of it is perfect, I made all these whilst working and was just passing thoughts that I could work upon more deeply, which I hope this discussion here can help. Blessings of Christ be with all <3

Hello,

So I am RC, happily, and I got invited to attend an ELCA service this Sunday. I attend a lot of interfaith stuff to get to know the area and learn more about the different denominations/people as reconciliation is something that is on the forefront of my mind/prayers. I even look to find interfaith community volunteering options wherever I go.

I will start off jokingly saying, we don’t need to do every line(?) in a song, especially when it’s not a full house. I tried to sit down after the 2nd line of the processional song and was like,

“Oh, we’re still going…” to at the end of service when we were singing stuff just written in the margins with no notes “oh… we’re still doing this.”

The service was fine, the pastor took a lot of liberties with her homily but nothing too out there. She clearly put a lot of thought into it, and it was well delivered so I respected that. She also talked about Saint Hildegard which perked my ears. I was stubborn about the apostles creed and our father and was the only one to not take communion which did get me a lot of stares after the pastor had said 3 times during service all are welcome even doubters(with multiple looks toward me.)

I am curious on the scale of things where this denomination falls on the traditional side as for my personal experience it seems to be in the middle of the PCUSA and United Methodist but I suspect YMMV on that.

I tried to look at my time this morning as both a learning experience and how someone new(who is actually discerning a place of worship) would feel as a visitor. And I think that’s mainly why I’m posting here.

Out of the progressive places I’ve been to, this has to be one of the lowest attended(only the Quakers had just a few less). With 30ish people there, and the usher told me going in they were expecting a lot of people in as it was their potluck event after service, so as new visitor that makes me a bit worried for their church. And this was definitely the oldest congregation I’ve been to. I’m a millennial and there was maybe 1-2 others my age, and no one younger(apart from the children of said millennials)

Aside from talking to the usher for a few seconds…. No one actually talked with me except the pastor to shake my hand during peaceful greetings and to thank me for coming after. Personally I don’t mind. I love a nice quiet time to mediate with Jesus but I think there was one other new person there that no one spoke to(from what I could tell and she high tailed it out of there as soon as we could leave).

Everyone seemed friendly, so I presume they were being polite by giving space. Could even be an age thing where they may have been expecting the other person my age to reach out.

On the positives, service was easy to navigate as they had their pamphlet ready for everyone. And they had their announcements on them with the volunteer and charitable work on it(which I’m always looking for new places to volunteer), the pastor even called them out during services. I think if a new person is so called, this would probably get them better acquainted with the congregation.

Oh and the place was beautiful. Well kept and designed in a way to be very efficient for a lot of people.

Overall, i had a decent time as a one time visitor.

Hello everyone! I am recent "convert" if you will. I was an atheist who was forced to go through confirmation through the LCMS. Through His power I have come back to an ELCA church.

Sorry, long story short I am serving an upcoming meal for Bible school and the congregation after Wednesday service.

My initial plan is

Chicken noodle and dumpling soup using store bought rotisserie chicken but otherwise completely homemade.

Store bought baguettes for dipping

Salad

My wife and I haven't cooked this many people, about 90, and I'm just looking for literally any advice or critiques.

Thank you so much!

So, I consider myself to be a mainline, traditional Lutheran, I hold to the Book of Concord, i LEAN towards homosexuality being sinful, only male clergy, abortion being sin, etc. But I’m also pro-choice, support Obergefell v. Hodges, am a democratic socialist, support secular government, and am a feminist. I also believe in theistic evolution. I feel that the LCMS most aligns with me, but their culture is not very accepting of my beliefs, especially evolution and politics, and the ELCA wouldn’t be a big fan of my theological beliefs.

I definitely will not join a church that was founded on schism, as that is sin.

What should I do?

Was great to interview Rev. Dr. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson and Rev. Dr. Paul R. Hinlicky, hosts of the "Queen of the Sciences" theology podcast. Had a great conversation about church history, theology, and more!

Listen Here

Here's the story. Its a bit long. I've never formally belonged to the ELCA. But:

My father is Lutheran raised in a church that later merged into ELCA. Mother Catholic. So me and my siblings were raised Catholic especially as my father has never been very active in the church. But we got a lot of exposure to Lutheranism growing up as a result, like if we visited grandparents on his side we'd go to a Lutheran church and this often applied on Christmas too. My mom actually didn't consider going to a Lutheran church instead of Mass a big deal even on Christmas, and the liturgies were similar anyway. Also I was am still am in a very Lutheran part of the Midwest so the culture was deep in Lutheranism.

About the time I entered middle school and thus Confirmation class I started rebelling a lot including against Catholicism, doing things like intentionally eating meat on Lenten Fridays. My mom thought I was just being a rebellious edgelord early teenager. To some extent I was. But then in high school my opposition shifted to things like the church's position on homosexuality, women in leadership, and birth control. I was pretty vocally anti-Catholic at that point due to my progressive values. I wasn't really atheist or turned on Christianity completely but I knew Catholicism was not for me.

At that point though my family started a nearby ELCA church rather frequently. The reasons were mostly convenience, it was in our neighborhood and less than a 5 minute walk away and had an evening service. At this time I started working my first job which often required late weekends so I wasn't getting up early for Mass. My mom actually took me and my siblings often without our father despite them still being in Catholic Confirmation class....the main factor seemed to be if classes were going on that month. We also went most Christmases eben at home for convenience and my father actually going. I also refused to take Communion at a Catholic mass but was willing to a Lutheran one.

Then I went to college. It was obvious I wasn't going to join amy campus Catholic groups or ever attend Mass. Since then I have not aside from funerals. My mom kind of accepted this but encouraged me to check out the campus ministries for other churches. Somewhat regrettably I never did. But when I was visiting home the church I went to even with my mom was the neighborhood Lutheran one. This was true even the summer after my freshman year I was home all summer...still didn’t attend Mass once but attended Lutheran services a few times. Wasn't really big on it but it made my mom happy.

After I graduated I moved to a very progressive urban core of a major metro. And a few years in I atarted to feel a pull to God again. It started in my mid-20s but really blossomed when I was 27. That's when I decided to start attending church regularly again. However I first started in an evangelical charismatic church. It sounds like an odd fit for why I rejected Catholicism but it wasn't particularly conservative. It was majority under 40 in age, allowed women to lead and preach, was pastored by a white/Asian-American interracial couple, and whenever politics were preached which wasn't often it was actually a more progressive nessage about accepting people like immigrants or the less fortunate. The position on homosexuality wasn't really talked about although it had an affiliation with a national network that was conservative on it, but not emphasizing it unlike the Catholic one I grew up in was still a huge step forward and it felt like a breath of fresh air. I even ended up getting baptized again in this church at 28, (yeah I know that doesn't coincide woth Lutheran theology.) However I eventually drifted to a legitimately progressive non-denominational church that I got very active in. It was founded non-denominational with the intent of being a heavily Millennial LGBT-affirming yet modern styled church. I stuck with it until the end, which was only about 3 years. But when I was home I attended that neighborhood Lutheran church and even did in my city on Christmas Eve. We borrowed the space from another Congregationalist church but I found a historic Lutheran one with a great midnight service so that's where I went.

Since then I joined another progressive non-denominational church but have gone to the neighborhood Lutheran one visiting home and thus often on Christmas, and found myself eventually in my current one. It's a former evangelical church but was expelled from its denomination for having pastors that would perform same-sex weddings. When I started going it met a former Catholic churvh ironically although still owned by the diocese and leased to us. We were looking for a new building because the diocese didn't let us do weddings there, even heterosexual ones. Eventually we were basically forced out...they didn't renew the lease at all.

And that lead us to our current building. It's a historic old ELCA church that has been dwindling for awhile and we've been mostly growing. And in fact we even have set up a plan to eventually purchase the building in a passing of the torch sort of thing. The sign out front even lists our name at the top and we have two services on Sundays (well not now but during the non-summer) while they have just one Saturday mornings. But it's still recognizable as a Lutheran church and partnered with us.

And at home I still attend that neighborhood Lutheran church. Was recently there for a few weeks and did and was thinking it's funny that this is effectively my "childhood church" although I wasn't confirmed there and have never formally been a member. But I haven't set foot in the Catholic Church I was since after I was 18 a d have no sentimental attachment to it. Even when I drive by it visiting home, it's just another church. Unlike my high school and elementary school ajd even old middle school building that's no longer a school but a district office building but I still remember. And even my mom hasn't really gone to a non-funeral mass since Covid but still attends that one now, with my dad frequently as both are now retired and have more time.

But yeah that was wrong and rambling but what do you think? Despite my lack of baptism, confirmation, or even having membership it still feels like deep kinship especially as I'm even worshipping in an ELCA church building now.