That there may be a “diversity of beliefs” on various aspects regarding LBGQT etc. as suggested in the response to the letter to Bishop Eaton is not in question. What was not addressed (among other things) was why the ELCA would choose to continue to support the legislation proposed which clearly favors one view over the other when there is “a diversity of beliefs.” This non-response is consistent with merely repeating what was decided in 2009, which anyone can read, but does not address that the ELCA has actually ignored what happened in 2009, as they continue to do in this non-response response. This kind of response is actually insulting to anyone who reads it because it treats people like they are less than intelligent by pretending to answer when, in fact, they do not DO what their answer implies they will do, but does not say. This is deliberate. It is also their common way of communicating and operating.
David, I share your frustration with the response from the ELCA. You probably noticed that the difficulty began when I asked the ELCA representative to publicly state what she was saying to me in private. If ELCA social statements are in fact what guide Churchwide in its social advocacy, there should have been no difficulty in restating what HSGT clearly says. That makes one question whether our social statements are anything more than window dressing.
That there may be a “diversity of beliefs” on various aspects regarding LBGQT etc. as suggested in the response to the letter to Bishop Eaton is not in question. What was not addressed (among other things) was why the ELCA would choose to continue to support the legislation proposed which clearly favors one view over the other when there is “a diversity of beliefs.” This non-response is consistent with merely repeating what was decided in 2009, which anyone can read, but does not address that the ELCA has actually ignored what happened in 2009, as they continue to do in this non-response response. This kind of response is actually insulting to anyone who reads it because it treats people like they are less than intelligent by pretending to answer when, in fact, they do not DO what their answer implies they will do, but does not say. This is deliberate. It is also their common way of communicating and operating.
David, I share your frustration with the response from the ELCA. You probably noticed that the difficulty began when I asked the ELCA representative to publicly state what she was saying to me in private. If ELCA social statements are in fact what guide Churchwide in its social advocacy, there should have been no difficulty in restating what HSGT clearly says. That makes one question whether our social statements are anything more than window dressing.
David Charlton