Concerned Member of BC Synod

Dear Friends;

Having been a delegate to the BC Synod convention in 2006 I have awaited with interest and concern the motions that might be coming to the 2008 convention. Unfortunately the bulletin of reports has been posted at a late date on the  synod web site thus hampering pre-convention discussion by the full constituency. Decisions on critical issues are again being left for discussion and decision by a few elected delegates.

 

I understand that, among other matters, there are several motions being presented which have implications affecting not only the Synod but impacting upon the whole ELCIC and should therefore be the focus of in-depth discussion by all congregations before decisions are made.

 

The proposed motion calling for welcoming of people of all sexual orientations into the full life of the Synod is deceptively simple, vague, overly inclusive and full implementation of this motion would in fact defy the decisions made by the ELCIC national convention in 2005 and 2007. The former small group of GLBT sexual orientations is now being rapidly expanded and proposal to include activities such as pedophilia, among others, to be legally identified as a sexual orientation is being aggressively promoted by some gay political lobbyists. Such a broadly inclusive motion as proposed, of welcome into the "full" life of the synod, opens the door not only to the local option of blessing same-sex relationships but also to marriage and ordination of those of all the variously proposed sexual orientations. Has the full implications of this motion been carefully considered by the members of this congregation and synod?

 

Appropriately the motion encouraging congregations to seek designation as "RIC congregations" calls for discussion and deliberation before decision.
In any such discussion it is essential to recognize that the "RIC" agenda is much more broad than simply welcoming people of all sexual orientations into the worship service of a congregation; accepting a "RIC" designation involves affirming the whole RIC agenda which calls for including people of all sexual orientations into the full life and ministry of the church. The RIC agenda is directly opposed to the official position of the ELCIC and any congregation accepting "RIC" status thereby commits itself to working in opposition to the current ELCIC policy and practice and  becomes an agency of disunity and conflict within the wider Christian Church. I believe there is a more truthful, faithful and less conflictual way for the Church to offer hope and help to people of other than heterosexual orientations. Such an alternative, though available,  has yet to be considered by this church..

 

In 2003 Bishop Preibisch together with the National Bishop of the day and other synod Bishops of the time wrote in a letter that, "for the sake of unity and good order of the church, it is important that any change in this practice be authorized by this church acting together". It is unfortunate that by entertaining these motions Bishop Preibisch is now apparently prepared to open the door to disunity, should these motions pass, thereby encourage the BC synod to walk apart from the ELCIC. If these motions pass it would be appropriate for Bishop Preibisch to consider resigning his position as a Bishop in the ELCIC.

 

In light of the continuing advance in the scientific understanding of homosexuality I again encourage that a lengthy moratorium be placed on any further decisions by the ELCIC pertaining to policies and practices regarding persons of other than heterosexual orientation until such new developments might be carefully considered. I believe that hasty, ill considered decisions and action may not only become an embarrassment but if based upon untruth might be misleading and detrimental to all involved.

 

In the fall of 2007 researchers Stanton and Jones in a 414 page book entitled, "ExGays?" published detailed results of a 7 year follow-up study on the effectiveness of ministry-oriented change therapies. The treatment-outcomes they reported compare favorably to that reported in recent clinical interventions of depression. As well, utilizing several measures assessing the possibility of harm, their study showed no harm to be involved; clearly the scientific evidence favors change therapy for homosexual individuals who wish treatment for unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction and gives no support to its condemnation. In response to this study Merton Strommen, well recognized research psychologist and founder of the Lutheran Youth Research Institute stated, "Pastors and leaders in the church who are convinced that gays cannot be changed in their orientation need to re-evaluate their position in light of this significant research."

 

Significantly, in the past month, the American Psychological Association finally after 30 years of supporting disinformation, has taken into account good scientific research and quietly adjusted its position on several related issues thereby undermining two of the major planks in the platform of the gay rights agenda. (Though strongly supported by the American Psychological Association, none of the 5 major planks in the gay activist agenda is based upon scientific fact). For further information please see the article, "APA's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument and Supports A Clients Right to Self-Determination", by Dean Byrd Ph.D, found on the web site, www.NARTH.com

 

I strongly encourage Mount Olive Congregation, the BC synod and the entire leadership of the ELCIC to carefully study and consider the implications of this recent action of the APA and also follow the recommendation of Merton Strommen. I believe that scientific objectivity must be maintained and that good science, not activism and political pressure, must guide decision and policy making. To assist in further study of this matter I suggest reading the book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.; Baker Books. Concerning this book, the Congressional Record stated, "The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime."

 

In my last meeting with Pastors Peter and Kathy on November 27, 2007 it was mutually agreed that under the circumstances it would be more appropriate for Shirley and I to worship elsewhere though our membership would be retained for a time longer at Mt Olive. Having heard nothing further I presume that we are still members at Mt Olive and that I still have the right of voice and therefore assume the privilege of again communicating with you.

 

In shared concern,

Victor Mollerup.