A convenient construct. . .

Those who delight in muddying the waters of gender put distance between the person and their reproductive organs, between the feelings of the person and their DNA, and between the emotions and the body.  The real person cannot be explained or confined to the sexual organ or their DNA or even the body as a whole.  It is bigger.  It must define everything.  So it must redefine the body to match what the self has decided in conflict with the body, the DNA, and their reproductive organs.  The surgeon's scalpel is used to reshape the flesh to meet the expectation of the feelings and create an identity the body has failed to manifest.  It is creative -- I'll grant you that.  But it is a foolish pursuit without anything real at the end of it all.  

While reading the NALC (ELCA split off over 2008 sexuality decisions of that denomination) 10 page study document on the ordination of women, I noted this quote.  "As William G. Witt argues in Icons of Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Theology for Women’s Ordination, ordination is not an icon of Christ’s male body but of His humanity. Ministers represent Christ not by biological similarity but by sharing in the human nature the Word assumed."  In other words, they are doing the same but to Jesus.  His maleness is less important than his humanity.  That He was incarnate in a male body is almost irrelevant to the whole thing.  He was born human -- except that human without male or female pretty hard to identity!  This quote is used to justify again the practice of ordaining women which the NALC may study but not change.  Yet in distancing Jesus maleness from His humanity, they are doing exactly the same thing the gender fluid crowd is doing.  In the end, they also destroy their own raison d'etre.   For if the maleness of Christ is of no consequence to those whom the Church ordains over and against women, it cannot be applied to any of the LGBTQ+ folks the NALC wishes to exclude.  

There are many convenient constructs invented to bypass both the word and practice of Scripture and the Church (a surprisingly consistent norm right down to the modern era!) and to make optional what the Church understood through the ages to be unchanging and binding.  In the case of the NALC, it reveals what those who left the ELCA are loathe to admit.  The only thing they did not like about the ELCA was its embrace of same sex relationships, marriage, and opening the ministry to all of them.  It was a departure by degree rather than conviction.  It is like those who went they have a flat tire complain about how nicely the trip was going until they weren't so nice.  You do not want a new car but simply the way things were before the tire went flat.  I get that.  We all wish that we could preserve a moment but that is hardly a reason to begin a new church body -- especially when that new body is in fellowship with the one you just let and retains everything except the 2008 pronouncements on same sex marriage and clergy.  

That is the problem with the NALC and other conservative groups which have left their original building in pursuit of a better one.  The sacred tenets of women's ordination are lines drawn in the sand.  It is not about ordination but a dot in time from which they will ground their identity and confession but not without shutting down debate any further.  In short, they have a gay problem -- even more so than Missouri because they are willing to embrace everything but homosexual marriage and clergy (along with their subsequent gender rainbow).  Missouri has no gay problem because it does not speak of those who are prevented from being ordained but those who are permitted.  They adhere not to post 2008 criteria but to the same criteria which the Church has observed since the beginning -- the Scriptural one of men only, husband of one wife, able to manage well his household, of good repute, having the requisite gifts/skills necessary, and being theologically orthodox.  It is also because they define the Gospel in part as the exclusion of older barriers which they have not transcended and not simply in terms of Christ's death and resurrection once for all for the forgiveness of sins and the bestowal of life everlasting.  Sometimes, it would seem, the Gospel demands you to deviate from the previously held understanding of Scripture and the witness of the catholic tradition flowing from the Scriptures.  But, of course, if you do that for one group and not for another, it is pretty clear that this all started not with the intent to reclaim what Scripture has taught and the Church affirmed but from an artificial line drawn in the sand.  It was and remains a gay issue.