Cooperation in Externals… see the corruption on display. Lutheran Child and Family Services now placing children in same-sex couple “homes”

I was alerted to this article just this evening from the Chicago Tribune.  See it here.

Here is what our continued experience with the “cooperation in externals” has gotten us:

After the article makes sure to note that LCFS is associated with the LCMS, the article goes on to quote the executive director:

“Gene Svebakken, executive director of LCFS, said the agency believes it has found a way to balance state law and church guidelines, which don’t restrict licensing same-sex couples. LCFS now will license any qualified prospective parent and will place children with same-sex couples in collaboration with other entities, he said.”

To top it off, the Roman Catholics are trying to stand firm on this issue, but that is not a problem for the LCMS related LCFS, they will take the trouble cases (involving same-sex “homes”) on to relieve the Roman Catholic Charities:

“Svebakken also has offered to take Catholic Charities cases in Springfield and Belleville if those Catholic agencies cease to offer foster care services.”

Certainly, the head of LCFS doesn’t believe that their work is “external” as you read his last quote:

“It’s been a fine line for me to walk here,” he said. “As Lutherans, part of our genetic code is to be involved in the world around us. If we’re out there, it’s going to be messy.”

I would contend that they are no longer involved with the world around them, they have joined it (James 4:4).

 

If you would like, you can browse the website for LCFS of Illinois here.

Those of you in the Northern Illinois District may be interested in this for its affect upon your local witness.

Is it time to start writing those resolutions to District Conventions in order to cease all of these so-called “cooperation in externals”?

 

 

 

About Pastor Joshua Scheer

Pastor Joshua Scheer is the Senior Pastor of Our Savior Lutheran Church in Cheyenne, Wyoming. He is also the Editor-in-chief of Brothers of John the Steadfast. He oversees all of the work done by Steadfast Lutherans. He is a regular host of Concord Matters on KFUO. Pastor Scheer and his lovely wife Holly (who writes and manages the Katie Luther Sisters) have four children and enjoy living in Wyoming.

Comments

Cooperation in Externals… see the corruption on display. Lutheran Child and Family Services now placing children in same-sex couple “homes” — 98 Comments

  1. James :

    Mrs. Hume :
    @James #36
    “How many private “Christian in name only” social service agencies were created only to get free Federal money?”
    Sounds like they are also private in name only.

    Yup! In many “charities”, 90% of the money goes towards “administrative overhead” while 10% gets sprinkled on the clients. What a brilliant business strategy.

    What a couple of ridiculous statements. Have a look at LCFS history here:

    http://www.lcfs.org/Page.aspx?pid=236

    You seem to know nothing and care even less about Lutheran human care and social services in this country. The reason these agencies have to take money from the government is that conservative Lutheran churchgoers and pastors think that is how it should be.

  2. @Pastor Joshua Scheer #51

    This issue is not predominantly about ELCA. It is about Lutheran agencies taking money from the government. As others have noted, the government gets a good deal here. But corrupt governments are blinded by Satan and are contributing to our society’s attempted suicide.

  3. @mbw #53
    You are right, however I was trying to answer a question on whether LCFS is a joint endeavor of LCMS and ELCA.

    In any sense, whether you are cooperating with/taking money from ELCA or USA or whatever, we are beginning to see the mess that is involved in joining forces with groups that have a different confession of faith than we do, and that in the end, our confession of the faith is corrupted and loses its integrity. So much for “Witness”. This doesn’t speak well for “Life Together” either, and I am not sure these kids being placed in these situations are really being shown anything like “Mercy”.

  4. The Illinois LCFS in question is part of the LSA

    http://applications.lutheranservices.org/lsapublic/serviceproviders.aspx#Illinois

    “Lutheran Services in America creates opportunities with people in thousands of communities throughout the United States and the Caribbean as an alliance of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, and their over 300 health and human service organizations. Working neighbor to neighbor through services in health care, aging and disability supports, community development, housing, and child and family strengthening, these organizations together touch the lives of one in 50 Americans each year and have aggregated annual incomes over $16.6 billion.”

    David Benke is a current member of the LSA board
    Matt Harrison was on BOD last year

    http://www.lutheranservices.org/board_of_directors

    “All social ministry organizations affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and/or recognized by The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) are, by definition, members of LSA.”

    LCMS is Intertwined with ELCA through overlap in complex networks, influence through advocacy, by major corporations, foundations & think tanks—-Greenmail

  5. “LCMS is intertwined with ELCA through overlap in complex networks, influence through advocacy, by major corporations, foundations & think tanks”

    It’s the “pray, pay and obey” version of Koinonia.

  6. Pastor Joshua Scheer :
    In any sense, whether you are cooperating with/taking money from ELCA or USA or whatever, we are beginning to see the mess that is involved in joining forces with groups that have a different confession of faith than we do.

    This is true. However, one of the issues I am sure LCFS is facing is that it is not merely difficult or expensive to be a fully private foster care placement agency. It is legally impossible. A private agency does not have the ability to take and assign guardianship of children. This step of the process can only be done by the state. Even if LCFS chose to operate private group or foster homes, for instance (and private donations can be used to support these), they still must operate under state mandates in order for foster children to be placed with them. In ALL cases of foster care the legal guardian of the children is the state, not the foster parent nor the foster care agency. There is NO exception here. The closest alternative would be if parents voluntarily assigned guardianship of their children to the foster care agency. However, in such cases the parents can also revoke such guardianship at any time and for any reason – even if the original guardian agreement seems to prevent them from doing so. So the whole purpose of foster care is pretty much defeated by the ability of the parents to act on a whim. The question, therefore, is either to participate in foster care or to not participate in foster care. There is no in between option to participate in foster care as a purely private agency.

    It may, indeed, be time for LCFS to drop out of the foster care system if they are forced to place children with homosexual couples. However, there is no possibility of continuing to provide foster care placement on a private basis if they do so.

    Just making sure people in this discussion understand that it is about whether LCFS continues to offer foster care services according to state guidelines or to not offer them at all. There is simply NO legal option for offering such services in a way the state does not allow.

  7. @Matt #57

    If there is no way for LCFS to be involved in foster care and adoptions without working with homosexual customers, perhaps it is time for them to think outside the box. Maybe LCFS could reorganize specifically around helping LCMS families to adopt children or become foster parents: Provide financial assistance to those who do not have enough money for fees, offer legal services to assist with filling out paperwork, even have a couple public notaries who can help with that.

  8. Matt :

    Pastor Joshua Scheer :
    Just making sure people in this discussion understand that it is about whether LCFS continues to offer foster care services according to state guidelines or to not offer them at all. There is simply NO legal option for offering such services in a way the state does not allow.

    May I ask what or who is the source of your information? Thanks!

    Robert at bioethike.com

  9. State funding connected to State licensure of foster care providers seems to be the issue:

    “Last week, DCFS told four Catholic Charities agencies… that new contracts to provide foster care would not be accepted… On Wednesday, the department said it would not deny funding to any of the agencies until the case is resolved in court… Since March, state officials have been investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.”

    Robert at bioethike.com

  10. @Pastor Joshua Scheer #54

    Pastor Scheer, I may have missed something, but reading your article (only) I do not see anything about the fact that what drove this unfortunate situation for LCFS of IL was a horrendous change in IL state law. It would have applied whether LCFS ever worked with ELCA or not. Your article suggests to me that the essence of the problem was cooperating with ELCA and the like. That is not the case. If I had not already known about and been tracking this issue somewhat via KFUO, I would have thought that the problem was directly due to working with ELCA (which I know very little about and am biased against).

    The question I would suggest is how did the church get to the point where it sends hurting or needy people to the tender mercies of the government, then snidely criticizes, condemns and complains when agencies and individuals do that.

    The situation is very bad. There’s little reason to reject Johannes’ prognosis (above).

    A certain percentage of Lutheran-ists probably have had no contact with the ‘social services’ establishment and probably cannot conceive of any need for that. They are totally uninformed and take very ignorant pot shots here.

  11. @mbw #61
    My apologies for not mentioning the state’s involvement. The essence of my article is that we should reconsider all of our “cooperation in externals” whether they are with Caesar or apostate church bodies.

    Certainly our continued involvement with ELCA has helped liberalize our thinking and reasoning on this issues especially (the ELCA has been working for years to promote homosexuality). How much of their thinking and false teaching (leaven) affects us when we spend so much time in meetings together and working together in these externals? It is like our Old Adam says, “how can I sin?”, and their church is willing to show us a “reasonable” way to sin. Yes, the real problem is within us, they just help bring out and encourage the bad in us.

    I find it humorous that we ever expected our government to have “tender mercies” as you state. Maybe it was a laziness issue (mercy is hard work, better let someone else do it).

    Your last paragraph is a very big assumption and accusation of those who have posted here. I would ask you to explain it or apologize for it. I would doubt that anyone today could be totally ignorant of social services stuff. I understand the frustration, but it is probably not good to say such things.

    It may be time to start considering how congregations would fare if they did not have the “tax deductible offerings” to support them. It seems that if Caesar is getting as forceful (even as Johannes predicts) he will most likely take that benefit away (the privileged status of the church is going away).

  12. @Pastor Joshua Scheer #62

    > I would doubt that anyone today could be totally ignorant of social services stuff.

    I was, and what I mean is, no contact with such agencies via family members or friends – only what we read in the paper. Certainly many conservatives are ignorant and speak very harshly and yes judgmentally of those in that field. If I’ve offended an individual here I would ask them to contact me here or in private. I don’t see any real counter-responses other than yours.

    You used the IL children’s services problem to make a point about cooperating with ELCA. I say that you fundamentally missed the point, because this was not about ELCA or any other church body.

  13. @mbw #64
    I think you are assuming something of me in this. It was not until I was asked about the ELCA’s relationship that I gave comment concerning the ELCA. I have re-read the article and comments, and that is what I see.

    I have used this article to point out that cooperation (with whoever) in externals is risky business, especially for the pure confession of the faith and witness to the world.

    Certainly, our relationship with the ELCA is one of the chief corrupting factors in our “externals”, but they are not the only group we cooperate with. I think they are all problematic for our witness.

  14. Are not adoption placements sometimes made privately through attorneys? I know that this has been done in the past and was not all that unusual. Has this practice been ended or is it now state-regulated in some or all of the states? Or does it still take place as it has in the past?

  15. @Pastor Joshua Scheer #65

    Dear Pastor,
    The church has to exist in the world. The church has to cooperate with the government. In some cases faithful churches have had to change this or that in order to do that. Sometimes the required changes are benign. Sometimes we rationalize that the requirements are benign, in order not to lose our tax benefits or incur some other hardship or face persecution.
    In this case the government has crossed a line (declaring that sodomite unions and other perversions are equal to marriage) that it had not done in recent history. I don’t doubt that the apostasy of some (most? I do not know) in ELCA and other falling/fallen church bodies has facilitated the government’s reckless boldness here. It is easy to imagine a Christian service agency rationalizing that it is better to continue to facilitate many good and right adoptions even if they are forced to do evil in a number of placements. I am not saying that I know what LCFS should do. I am saying that we have a ‘new’ outrage perpetrated on the church by our society and its self-selected rulers.
    I’m seeing some INTERNAL LCMS campaigning here, on all of this, more or less against some human care decisions made in the past by our current administration. Think twice before conducting this engagement in public.
    God bless and help us this Lord’s day.

  16. @ Pastor Scheer

    Allow me re-state my previous comment with more clarity.

    The LCMS is intertwined with ELCA through a complex system of networked overlap and influence through advocacy by major corporations, foundations, and think tanks………. for specific religious, cultural, and political objectives.

    I read your website most everyday, for the most recent tangential outrage and I always come away with the question, What is the true spiritual condition and moral fitness of those who hold high office in this synod?

    Why do the people and those responsible to oversee Director Svebakken put up with a succession incidents like the LCFS bungling? Why do Leaders cave like a cheap lawn chairs, when the heat is on?

    I’d really rather read Dr. Nafzger explain all this to me in a CTCR paper, not you, Pastor Scheer.

    But, I thank you for raising awareness, pointing out the inconsistent behavior and not sweeping this issue under the rug.

  17. Pastor Joshua Scheer :
    @mbw #61

    Certainly our continued involvement with ELCA has helped liberalize our thinking and reasoning on this issues especially (the ELCA has been working for years to promote homosexuality). How much of their thinking and false teaching (leaven) affects us when we spend so much time in meetings together and working together in these externals?

    I would submit that this is wholly unsubstantiated opinion, and not even reasonable opinion at that. Any liberalism in our Synod has been there for a long, long time, and it hasn’t been introduced into the Synod by the occasional meeting with the ELCA or social service partners.

    Robert at bioethike.com

  18. @greenmail #69

    “I’d really rather read Dr. Nafzger explain all this to me in a CTCR paper, not you, Pastor Scheer. ”

    Lots of luck. I had extensive email exchanges with Dr. Nafzger on two different occasions, in the 2003 -2005 time frame, in which I strongly urged him/Synod to “shake the dust from our sandals,” and cease all joint efforts with the E?CA. There was no moving him on that issue. He was deternined to “save” the E?CA from their errors. Did a great job, didn’t he?

  19. @Robert #70
    You are correct, I cannot substantiate the claim, but it is my opinion. I still believe it is a reasonable opinion, note that I used “helped” and did not lay sole blame on the ELCA for any liberalism in the LCMS. In fact, the rest of my statement (which you failed to quote) admits that the real problem is within us. Again – my opinion.

    @mbw #68
    Your warning is duly noted, however I believe it is a good thing to have these discussions out in the open rather than in secret. In the end, Synod in convention determines what its course will be (regardless of any administration). The current administration is faithfully serving under the directives of past conventions. If there is a change necessary, it will have to come though future ones.

  20. @greenmail #69
    Thank you for restating your comment.

    Dr. Nafzger is no longer serving on the CTCR, but the spirit of your preference is noted. I mostly offer my opinions in order to promote conversation and provide some information to those who wish to have it. People can take them or leave them, agree with them or as you have seen disagree with them. I am a firm believer that open conversation can have great benefit for us all.

    the current make-up of the CTCR can be found at:
    http://www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=987

  21. @Walter R Wagner #71

    To borrow a saying from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “If you get on the wrong train, there’s no use running as fast as you can in the opposite direction!”

    About the best thing I know that our Synod has done with the Extremely Liberal “Church” of America is that President Kieschnik declared them to be heterodox back in 2001-ish.

  22. Concerned Seminarian,

    Right year; wrong president!

    In March 2001, Pres. Al Barry died in office, however his “Report of the President” was entered into the 2001 Convention Proceedings of the Missouri Synod (Part III was read at the convention by President Robert Kuhn). It was in Part I (Proceedings, p. 62) that President Barry had stated:

    “The LCMS indicated to the ELCA that in light of its theological direction we cannot consider them to be an orthodox Lutheran church body, and they expressed their feeling that precisely because we do not agree with their ecumenical agreements they regard us in a similar manner.”

    Later in the convention, after extensive parliamentary maneuvers to castrate, or at least caveat, the Resolved text, tactics that included allowing President-elect Kieschnick to speak on the issue and suspending the Standing Rules to allow a special amendment to be offered (it was defeated), Resolution 3-21A was passed (yes: 706; no: 343), which stated:

    Resolved, That the 2001 synodical convention affirm the late President Alvin L. Barry’s judgment that “we cannot consider them [the ELCA] to be an orthodox Lutheran church body.”

  23. I’m kind of confused.  Why is ELCA mentioned so much in this thread?  I don’t think ELCA has a dog in this hunt.

  24. @John Rixe #76
    “I’m kind of confused. Why is ELCA mentioned so much in this thread? I don’t think ELCA has a dog in this hunt.”

    ________________________
    The topic was/is “Cooperation in Externals.” With what heterodox church body do we most have cooperative arrangements with in the ares of social ministry…. the E?CA!” That’s why!

  25. @Jim Pierce #79

    OK – thanks for the clarification. LSA is one of the 37 partners, but it’s difficult to determine what influence it has on the issue of placing kids with same-sex couples in Illinois. I’m guessing this is between LCFS and the state government.

  26. John – It has everything to do wtih the state, you’re correct on that. LSA is an association that provides negotiating “power” for its members, represents the interests of its members in DC and provides very valuable educational/networking opportunities for its member organizations. It has nothing to do with doctrine as some would have you believe. As Mr. Wagner points out in #77 there is a rush to assume ELCA dominates all things “in externals” when I believe the “external” in this post would be the state. LCFS of IL is an LCMS RSO. LSS of Illinois is the ELCS counterpart and they do not work together. I know Gene S. and he has been a terrific leader of this organization for many years. My congregation (Bethany Naperville) also has at least one member on the LCFS board, for which we are grateful and proud of his service.

    This work is difficult to be sure. But, as I have posted before, LCMS members could send a whole bunch of contributions to LCFS and this issue would go away. Until then, I would think the shouts being offered will go unheard.

  27. @John Rixe #80

    You’re welcome, John. The primary issue I am having with all this is taken from the quote in the OP:

    “Gene Svebakken, executive director of LCFS, said the agency believes it has found a way to balance state law and church guidelines, which don’t restrict licensing same-sex couples. LCFS now will license any qualified prospective parent and will place children with same-sex couples in collaboration with other entities, he said.”

    I think Robert succinctly frames the issue in post #9 above with his point over “Two-Kingdoms reductionism.” It seems to me that some Lutherans use obedience to the laws of the land as license to wink at breaking God’s law. In this case, the executive director indicates that the LCFS will do as the government demands and place children, “in collaboration with other entities,” with homosexual couples. Cooperation in externals with the E_CA is definitely a real issue, but in my opinion, the greater issue presented in the OP is the LCFS cooperating in placing children with unrepentant homosexuals. Such action looks like a tacit rejection of the truth that homosexuality is a sin that should be repented of and which Christ forgives like all our sins. Shouldn’t an LCMS RSO stand firm in Scriptural truth and confess that truth in this case? Indeed, if they are taking money from LCMS congregations, I think they have an obligation to do so. And, I think it is also terrible that a child in the care of the LCFS would be placed with “same sex couples.” What kind of message is being given to that child?

  28. @Paul #81
    @Jim Pierce #82

    Both of your comments are excellent and I’m learning a lot.  I have much respect for agencies like LCFS who need to deal on a daily basis with real kids with huge challenges.   We need to support them with prayer and donations.

  29. @Jim Pierce #82
    Jim,
    So far as the question of “should the LCMS work w/ a placement agency that places children into inherently sinful partnerships (homosexual or unmarried couples, polagamous or polyamorous groups etc.)?” the answer is absolutely not. That being said, you need to brush up on what the doctrine of the two kingdoms means for Lutherans. It’s not just you, but there seem to be a lot of wildly inaccurate statements going out on the “doctrine of the two kingdoms” in this string.
    To quote the famous Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  30. @Matthew Mills #84

    Mr. Mills,

    It is one thing to say there is an error and yet another to point out the error or problem and offer a correction. Please do point out what I stated is in error and offer the correction. Thank you.

  31. On July 13, the LCMS Praesidium released its Memo from Praesidium endorsing ‘Externals’ document along with the doument, “Principles for ‘Cooperation in Externals’ with Theological Integrity (2010 Res. 3-03)“, prepared by the CTCR in response to the 2010 Resolution 3-03. The “Principles” document in its opening pages makes such statements as:

    “The issue of ‘cooperation in externals’ with the ELCA has come to a head because of the sexuality decisions made by the ELCA at its 2009 Assembly, which give stark evidence of the deep theological divisions between the LCMS and the ELCA.” [pp. 1-2]

    “As noted above, the immediate cause for this concern is action taken by the ELCA when it met in Churchwide Assembly in August, 2009.” [p. 2]

    “The ELCA decisions regarding human sexuality have clearly provided a tipping point, leading people to question any joint work with the ELCA.” [p. 2]

    A question arises: Can we remain faithful in our confession before the world when we cooperate with another church body that has openly repudiated critical aspects of that confession?” [p. 2]

    “It has also acknowledged two critical principles with regard to cooperation in externals: (1) that it is often appropriate to engage in cooperative work with another church body or group of Christians, and (2) that such cooperative work may not be done at the expense of doctrinal integrity.” [p. 3]

    “The purpose of a sharp, clear distinction between cooperation in externals and communion in sacred things is to prevent any cooperative relationships from compromising the purity of the Gospel or undermining the church?s proper work of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments of Christ. However, it is sometimes difficult or even impossible to draw the line sharply between ‘externals’ and ‘sacred things.'” [p. 3]

    One wonders why the earlier heresies of the XXXA were not an “immediate cause” or “tipping point” or “openly repudiated critical aspect of that confession” for the issue of cooperation to “come to a head.” Whatever. To no surprise, the “Principles” document concludes:

    “Therefore, cooperative work with individuals or entities in the ECLA is not necessarily precluded so long as it meets the criteria given above.” [p. 10]

  32. John – I would think not. This tread seems to be implying that LCFS is working with the ELCA. The ELCA has its own social service agency – Lutheran Social Services of Illinois – so there is no cooperation in externals as it relates to the ELCA in this case. Cooperation with state govt could be at issue but I don’t see the ELCA link.

  33. @John Rixe #89
    @Paul #90

    Same issue, though. Cooperation with the state could very well be forcing us to compromise our integrety. And as had been stated above in other posts, all these agencies have rough afilliation with LSA and therefore e_ca. From the government’s point of view, they see a larger heterodox/heretical Lutheran body, and wonder why we all aren’t like them? We’re Lutheran after all. I find the discussion on the Military Chaplancy thread encouraging in that we are seperating for e_ca in the external. I am happy we have a SP that has the wisdom and courage to take these long overdue actions.

  34. I think far too much credit is given to organizations – in this case the government of all people – to this idea that they would actually be asking themselves questions about the differences between Lutheran bodies. Here is what the state is worried about – can you take the kids and put them in your program?

    Do we really think the state is considering doctrinal differences? Really?

  35. @Jim Pierce #85
    Jim,
    I’m honestly short of time, but very briefly: It might not be your phrase originally, but there is no such thing as “Two-Kingdoms reductionism,” and using the term is sort of a flag that a person might be shaky on the doctrine of the two kingdoms. There is also absolutely nothing in Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms that could possibly be used by any Lutherans to use “obedience to the laws of the land as license to wink at breaking God’s law.” Additionally “right-left” doesn’t equate cleanly w/ “church-state” and equates even less w/ “good-bad” (there’s a lot of important left-hand work done by the Church.) Both kingdoms are tools of God’s to bless his creation, but in very different ways. Anyone who insists on driving screws w/ a hammer can go ahead and wack away, but for my money it represents a poor tool-to-task match.
    I’ve no time to quibble point by point, so feel free to take it or leave it, but I suggest folks give Luther’s “temporal authority” and the FC section on the third use a re-reading.

  36. @Matthew Mills #94

    Thank you for your response Mr. Mills. You are correct, the term ““Two-Kingdoms reductionism” is, as I pointed out in #82 above, a term introduced by Robert in #9. And as I stated I think the issue at hand is succinctly framed by Robert in that post. Meaning, that there would have to be more fleshing out of what is meant with the term, but I think the gist of what he is getting at is mark on.

    You write, “There is also absolutely nothing in Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms that could possibly be used by any Lutherans to use ‘obedience to the laws of the land as license to wink at breaking God’s law'” as if I am disagreeing with Luther’s doctrine, which is a misrepresents what I have written. Indeed, you are making my point and that is Lutherans shouldn’t be abusing the doctrine of the two kingdoms in order to give a pass to breaking God’s law in the left hand kingdom. I think the link to the CTCR document “Carl Vehse” provides above is a very good read and I encourage you to read over it. I think you will find that what I wrote doesn’t contradict it or the FC section on the third use, which I have read several times over, btw.

    I don’t see where your argument is with what I wrote, but I do appreciate you taking a moment to explain yourself. Quips such as “To quote the famous Inigo Montoya, ‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'” Aren’t terribly useful as an explanation for much of anything.

  37. @Paul #81
    This work is difficult to be sure. But, as I have posted before, LCMS members could send a whole bunch of contributions to LCFS and this issue would go away. Until then, I would think the shouts being offered will go unheard.

    Would they stop placing children in homosexual situations because they had more money?
    (Are you saying this is another lcms “business” and the kids are for sale?)

    If —a isn’t involved, why aren’t we standing with the Catholics and resisting this sort of placement? They’ve got a judge telling the state agency, it can’t enforce its dictate to the RC. If that is so, Lutherans wouldn’t have to comply either.

    The RC have homosexuals in their priesthood, or so we keep being told. Isn’t it strange that they are more concerned about where kids are placed than the Lutheran body which claims to be against homosexual behavior!? 🙁

  38. The LCMS did not see this coming? Does anyone recall an ALC group called Lutherans Concerned, back in the 1970’s?

    There is no such thing as an external. That is what Holy Scripture calls fruit. “You will know it by its fruit.” Fruit is not produced without a root system.

  39. According to a November 16, 2011, Chicago Tribune article, “Last faith agency opposed to civil union adoptions out of foster care“:

    “All religious agencies that declined to accommodate Illinois’ civil union law and refused to license same-sex couples as prospective foster parents no longer provide publicly funded foster care.

    “A day after Catholic Charities across Illinois ended its historic partnership with the state, Evangelical Child and Family Agency in Wheaton confirmed that the state did not renew its foster care contract, forcing the transfer of 242 children, 185 families and most of the agency’s staff to child welfare agencies in Chicago, Wheaton and Rockford.”

    Oh… and as for the Lutherans, the Missouri Synod bent over and spread its confessional cheeks. The article states:

    “Lutheran Child and Family Services, affiliated with the conservative Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, amended its policy to comply with the state.”

    Of course, there is the LCMS synodocratic spin. Central Illinois District President David J. Bueltmann issued this statement:

    Regarding the situation with Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois, which is currently an RSO of the LCMS and which is being impacted by the state’s new civil union law, we offer this update (12/1/2011) from LCMS President Matt Harrison:

    “The LCMS will remain faithful to Holy Scripture. We plea for patience as we work carefully and deliberately for the duration of this case, since it has far-reaching ramifications for other Lutheran service agencies. Please do not confuse our slow and deliberate actions as lack of concern and fidelity. We are going the last mile for the children being served, but in the end we will be faithful and will ask the same of our RSOs.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.