What exactly are the applicable guidelines of ELCA?  Is he violating them or are they so vague that they have to be analyzed and interpreted to see if he is violating them?  My understanding is thay he is openly, actively gay; if it can’t be easily determined if that is a violation then the guidelines need to be clarified and rewritten.

Pr. Schmeling has not been violating any sort of pastoral conduct guidelines, and that is why his congregation stands with him. He has done nothing that a heterosexual person would be disciplned for in the same situation.

The guidelines of the ELCA are unclear, and that is why a trial was held. One document says that homosexual pastors are “expected” (not required) to remain abstinent, but the document dealing with discipline says that homosexuals are “procluded.” Therein lies the discrepancy.

And what does the Bible say about all this? That *all* of us have sinned and fallen short, and that nobody is righteous, except by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Every “Bible bullet” that people try to pull out in attack of homosexuality falls absolutely flat when faced with a little reason and thought. The Bible doens’t tell us to discriminate against homosexuals: it tells us to love one another as we love our selves and to live together as the body of Christ.

You can proof text all you want to say that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination before God, but the fact remains: Christ came to change the way we see the world and each other, and in Christ we are all made one. We are no longer bound to Levitical laws because of the gift of God’s grace, and we have no right nor any excuse to discriminate against a person because of the way God has created them.

Just a couple thoughts about the above post by Seth N.

“You can proof text all you want to say that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination before God… We are no longer bound to Levitical laws because of the gift of God’s grace....”

That logic does not work. That’s because if we used that logic, the 10 commandments (which everyone likes to throw around) all become moot as well. If we followed the logic that we are no longer bound to the Levitical Laws (not to be sarcastic), then that would mean we’re now free to worship other gods, use God’s name in vain, curse our parents, murder someone, sleep around on our spouse, embezzle church funds and lie about it because we want a car like our neighbor. So, that logic of “we are no longer bound to the Levitical Laws...” falls apart. God’s moral Law is unchanging, because *He* is unchanging. If morally, God said something is a sin in the Old Testament, it is still a sin in the New Testament.

“...we have no right nor any excuse to discriminate against a person because of the way God has created them.”

Again, not to be sarcastic, but using that logic… If it can be said that God created a person to be sexually attracted to the same gender (homosexual), then it must have also been God who created people sexually attracted to young children (pedophiles). Some might think that I’m nuts to equate the two. However, I counseled a pedophile (who has served his time in jail for his crime) who wondered why God made him the way that he was. None of us (I hope) would condone his actions and say “every ‘Bible bullet’ that people try to pull out in attack of pediophelia falls absolutely flat when faced with a little reason and thought.”

I also think that none of us would “buy” his statement that God made him that way. However, the “God made them that way” card is played all the time in the homosexual debate! Why is it any different?

The truth be told (by scripture), homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord (Lev 18:22). It’s hard to see how any less clear that can be. If God Himself instructed Moses to write this, then why would He create someone with those desires?

“And what does the Bible say about all this? That *all* of us have sinned and fallen short, and that nobody is righteous, except by the grace of God through Jesus Christ.”

That’s exactly right. But the same Bible also calls us to leave our sin behind and die to sin (Romans 6:1-11). The same Bible tells us to not let sin reign in our mortal body so that we should obey it’s lusts (Ro 6:12ff). We are called to turn from sin, and lay aside the sin that entangles us (Heb 12:1). This instruction is not in regards to our salvation, rather, it’s in regards to our walk with Christ. Grace works to grant us unmerited forgiveness of our sin, it does not work to condone our sin.

“The Bible doens’t tell us to discriminate against homosexuals: it tells us to love one another as we love our selves and to live together as the body of Christ."”

That’s exactly correct, the Bible tells us to love one another, etc… However, this very same Bible tells us in 2 Timothy 4:2 to “preach the word… reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.” The context of 2 Tim 4:2 is Paul instructing Timothy how to pastor the Church in Ephesus. This means that if someone is sinning, they are to be reproved - in love - but reproved and if necessary, rebuked.

It’s interesting to see how far people will go to defend a sin. I wonder if the same arguments of defense are made for fornicators, adulterers, theives, the covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers as well (the list in 1 Cor 6:9 that homosexuality is listed in). Is anyone willing to apply the same arguments of defense to these sins - i.e. that God made them that way and we shouldn’t discriminate against them? Just wondering....

Yes, the “by-laws” of the ELCA may be unclear, but the Word of God is very clear in regards to this subject.

19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious:  sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  Gal.5

17 Therefore, I say this and testify in the Lord: You should no longer walk as the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their thoughts. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them and because of the hardness of their hearts. 19 They became callous and gave themselves over to promiscuity for the practice of every kind of impurity with a desire for more and more.  Eph. 4

Qualifications of Church Leaders
1 This saying is trustworthy: “If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble work.” 2 An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, 3 not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy— 4 one who manages his own household competently, having his children under control with all dignity. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a new convert, or he might become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the Devil. 7 Furthermore, he must have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he does not fall into disgrace and the Devil’s trap.  1Timothy 3

I’m am sure that Fr. Bradley is a very nice guy who has done many good works and is loved by his congregation but that does not nullify what the Word of God says nor what the qualifications or dis-qualifications are for leadership in the church.  We will pray for him.