Neil! You are willingly misguiding the souls of homosexual people..

A post by Neil Hart on homosexuality, LGBT, lesbian and gay stuff and the Lutheran Church of Australia.

I post this comment and the reply because it follows on from the last one. Also, Barney has been a commentor in the past and, i trust he will rise to the challenge and put some meat on the accusation. I think that the way we are able to work through controverted issues is critical for our church. It could mean the difference between a split or no split. I find it interesting that the accusation of “vow breaker” is usually accompanied by the accusation of “church splitter”. Which is interesting. Surely the way forward in unity rests on the ability to openly and freely express opposing points of view. No “church splitter” accusation from Barney however. Have a read. I look forward to the reply.

I try to understand the mindset of the LGBT people, but I cannot understand their unnatural practices, nor can I understand how an ordained Lutheran Pastor can support them. I read in your blog:


” … join a growing list of people who want to accuse me of breaking my ordination solemn vows. So far, they have all been pastors. You? i dont know, you are anonymous. But there is the stench of pastor about your comment so, until i hear otherwise, i will assume that of you. When the teachings of the church are challenged, it seeems to me that there have been one of three responses. Some ignore it. Most people are willing to pick up the challenge and argue the case, one way or the other. But then there are a few people, only pastors so far, who, upon hearing the challenge can do nothing but respond with accusation and the threat that goes with it. “Neil, you are an ordination vow breaker”. “Neil, you should leave the church.” If find that response ignorant. You, dear pastor, are the only one so far who has made that threat anonymously. That makes you both ignorant and a coward.”


I am NOT anonymous, I have been open in what I wrote on this blog and on others. I believe that you should reconsider your vows, and if you cannot, OR WILL NOT comply with your solemn vows, resign your ordination, leave the LCA, and join a denomination where the homosexual abominations are overtly or covertly accepted. You have dishonoured your ordination and you are not true to your vows.
I am NOT a Pastor, but a Doctor of Philosophy in Biblical Studies, and an MTh; however, I am a Lay Chaplain and a Lector, and have by experience seen the spiritual ruin that homosexuality brings to one’s life and more importantly one’s soul.

I will pray for the preservation of your soul and especially for the souls you willingly misguided.



Barney, do you know that the bible describes your wife during her monthly “uncleaness” an abomination? But it would be just plain offensive to call her an abomination. Wouldnt you agree?

Barney, you put your name to your statement and that, to me, means you should have a respectful response.

You will admit that what you say is strong. I believe you to be a reasonable man with a christian heart. As such I’m sure that you would allow me the right to challenge you to back up your accusations with some facts and explanations.

Firstly, I want you to show me how I have broken my ordination vow. And it is no good just saying that I “do not hold to scripture” or something like that. The point in question is homosexuality. The “vow” aspect of that is the DSTO. Can you explain to me the nature of the DSTO in the Lutheran Church of Australia in relation to ordination vows. can you explain to me how pastors or anyone from the LCA can be involved in effecting change in controverted statements? Can you explain to me how over half of the LCA pastors have not broken their ordination vows by the simple fact that they publically stated their disagreement with the DSTO by vote at the national synod in 2006. Should they all resign from the ministry?

Secondly, you have stepped back into the debate at this point to accuse me of bringing spiritual ruin into peoples lives and souls, that i have willingly misguided them and that i have dishonoured my ordination vows. And yet you have not so strongly jumped in at any of the times that I have given the scriptural position for my stand. I challenge you now to do that… and not generally, specifically. I have taken the time to lay out my case, point by point. I ask you now to do me the courtesy of addressing what i have said, point by point. In fairness, barney, you dont get to jump in now, make accusations that you know are designed to hurt, and ignore everything that has gone before.

So…..Please put you Mth to work and explain to me

1. Your position on the slavery texts. Why is it that we do not have slavery when the clear word of God, the Lutheran Confessors, and thousands of years of common societal tradition back it up as a godly practice mirroring the relationship between Jesus in heaven as the master of his slaves on earth. (Please reread the 4 posts on slavery)

2. Can you explain to me the meaning behind Jesus Statement “The law was made for people, not people for the law”.

3. Can you defend the Lutheran Church’s confusing statement that Homosexual propensity is NOT sin, but homosexual activity IS sin, when this clearly goes against the sermon on the mount and the most basic understanding of sin as being not only those things we do but those things we think and desire.

This is usually the point where the other accusers disappear…i trust that you will stick around to answer. Barney, lets pretend that, right here, right now, you and i represent two different ways of reading scritpure in our church. Let us be the test case. Are we able to go forward in continuing dialogue? or… is a split between you and me inevitable? I really hope for the former…