I am much happier having given up on Lutheranism all together. Good luck with all that pointless dogma. Making disciples of all nations is the worst kind of imperialism, though I'm sure you mean well.

hahahahah!

No it's smarter to allow comments, if they had been turned off I would have turned my question into a post thereby drawing more attention to it.

You realize there's more than one denomination of Lutherans, right? The old Missouri Synod are the hellfire and brimstone gang, the ALC (not sure if they are still called that) are the more "liberal" and the LCMC who are more into evangelizing...

I love Jesus, but in a gay way

Sure I realize different denominations are handling it differently. The denoms that are more Conservative may have an easier time of keeping their congregations, but they are also the denoms that tend to be older and will have a harder time recruiting replacements as their congregation passes away. I think the more liberal denoms(paradoxically) are the ones where you are going to see a lot of flight from as the parishioners seek out churches that take a more firm stance on equal rights.

I want my question answered. I you want to start an anti-gay church, well, that is your right, but you should be up front about it. What are you afraid of?

You didn't ask me, but I thought I would share this.  I am assuming that you really want an answer and are not just trying to stir the pot).

Source: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/lutheranism.htm

Social/Ethical Issues

Lutheran churches vary in their perspective on homosexuality and their response to homosexuals in the church. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) "believes that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's Word and will, and seeks to minister to those who are struggling with homosexual inclinations." 

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has not defined its position officially, but has been conducting a study of the issue in recent years. Its current policy is to welcome homosexual persons to participate fully in its congregations and to encourage open conversations about the issue. The ELCA ordains homosexuals to church positions, with the understanding that they will remain celibate outside of marriage like all ministers.10 The ELCA does not currently bless same-sex marriages.

Well, there is an Old Covenant (actually a few) and a New Covenant.  Without going into the gory details, basically the "New Covenant" begins on the first Good Friday, which we commemorate in a few weeks here.  

Shrimp is not covered under the new covenant, in fact Jesus specifically yammered some critics into silence at least once on the issue of "food laws."  Later, St. Paul covered the same topic with circumcision, basically they want hearts, not necessarily bodies to be circumsized.  That said, I stayed clear of shrimp (bottom feeder) for several years but then I was out last week and there was this $10shrimp dish ... 

Re: Gays, the "New Covenant" still prohibits homosexuality, although there is valid debate about it. I have struggled with this.  Grappled with it. People talk about wrestling with God and I have wrestled on that one, to be sure.  It does come off as SO hypocritical.  For BadCat!, a better example might be someone who opposes "gays" and yet still looks at a woman with lust in his/her heart.  As in, have you salivated over the new receptionist or even the new Sports Illustrated ... Bam, sinful.  That's adultery under the new covenant.  I'm pretty sure most churches ordain people who have the random adulterous thought, or who eat shrimp.  BadCat, you are correct in asserting that hypocrisy is a huge issue in matters of faith and especially "dogma," and people of faith need to stare it in the face, acknowledge it and respond to it rather than run.  Truth brings a lot of freedom with it.  

---

Too bad Ironic1 has been scarce on lately, I'd love to hear his 2 cents.

@wildgoose -- One point about the new covenant.  The only word that we have on homosexuality in the New Testament is from Paul, not from Jesus.  In fact, many of the interpretations we have of the new covenant come from Paul, who never had first-hand interaction with Jesus (at least not in the physical sense).  So depending on your point of view, it could be true that all of the Leviticus rules are null and void through the new covenant, and the homophobia that some Christians still exercise is not Christian but Pauline instead.

Just food for thought.  Kind of why Jefferson cut up his bible, I suppose.  If the topic is interesting to anyone, I would recommend reading "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" by Stephen Mitchell.  

(I told my mom that comparative religion degree would come in handy someday.)

+1 The ELCA when they say:

"[The social statement] affirms the possibility of living together in continued discussion despite our disagreements."

Read the bible sometime, the gospels, and the letter of Paul and basically the whole book and people are peppered with accounts of arguing and nitpicking all the way through.  This is nothing new.  The God if that book understands how we humans are and loves us ... whatever is defined as sin or not (good points, Jessige,) there is a path out of condemnation.  Any Christian that forgets that, or tries to build a "church" around ignoring that central tenet of Christianity is a heretic, and a sinner, IMO, but I'll let God be the judge of that ...  Whew, I got heated up on my soapbox, there.

Perhaps KingdomKid could solve this whole question by letting us know what synod, if any, New Life Lutheran belongs to.  

@wildgoose, absolutely.  It's the old "hate the sin, but not the sinner."  And it's up to you to define what "sin" is, as dictated by your understanding of the texts and your relationship with God.  Unfortunately, lots of people don't put a whole lot of thought into those definitions and let others do their thinking for them (i.e. that idiot whose church protests at military funerals and that other idiot who burned the Quran in FL).