I believe you when you say that your article was not intended to be an *assault* on Lutheran CORE. However, reflecting on the content of the article, I don't see how being aware (prior to the writing of the article) of CORE's decision to form a new church body would affect what you said, as is implied in your above comments, unless you now reject the entire point of your editorial. Indeed, CORE is forming a new church body, and that will involve schism.

It seems to me that Sarah Hinlicky-Wilson and Robert Benne, in their two articles ("Why Stay?" and "The Need for New Beginnings") have set the parameters of discussion for which way confessional Lutherans can go in a post-CWA ELCA. And, it is a good discussion.

Sarah,

It doesn't really surprise me that many take it as a personal assault. You end your piece by proclaiming law to those intending to leave. Completely aside from issues of 'is it God's law or not', part of our rebellion is precisely that we don't like hearing the law and that will manifest as taking it personally. And well people should take it personally, since the Law accuses each of us of our failings, and abandoning one's community is a failing. The parable of sheep and goats is one we should bear in mind, except that we need to see how we've acted as the goats. There are churches fighting over whether or not to leave, and it is the very fighting itself that is wrecking havoc in those churches. Similarly, some are resolving to withhold contributing money to the ELCA, and that is also destructive to the community. In anger and disappointment over one vote, many are doing destructive things that they feel justified in doing. Calling people on that only makes them angry.

Instead, I think we need to focus on how and where the Gospel is at work, and I think you do touch on this in your penultimate part about enemy love. How does our trust in Christ's death and resurrection enable us to love people we consider our enemies? After reading Christ's words (in Luke 6:29-30), "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back", how can any of us justify withholding benevolence or breaking fellowship? We're all in relationship with each other, whether we like it or not and in Christ we have the strength to make that a loving relationship.

This is why the ELCA leadership is calling for unity-- it isn't a polite 'shut up and get in line', but it's a commitment on their part to NOT excommunicate anyone over this and instead to try to deal with those unhappy with the decision in a spirit of love. There's still going to be discussion about this topic, but instead of doing it as enemies, we need to do it as siblings. If we're describing what we're doing as "fighting" we're going about it all wrong. LC/NA figured this out, and I think it is precisely that realization that is the difference between CWA2005, and CWA2009 and why a 2/3 majority of the ELCA backed the social statement and a majority backed the policy changes this time around. If LC/NA can the power of organizing based on loving relationships, can self-styled confessional Lutherans?

First a 2/3 majority of the ELCA did not back the social statement. A 2/3 + 1 vote of the CWA2009 did-- there is a huge difference given the "quota" system and other political machinations (ignoring your Bishops?, excuse me...) You should have heard the groan that one faithful vote could not be found to stop "the vote." (One delegate in the bathroom caused the destruction of a Lutheran church body?) Loving relationships do not trump gross heresy (you have exchanged Sola Scriptura for the Methodist Quadrilateral, adopted a magisterial use of reason and moved to Cheap Grace as a material principal of theology) Who is benevolent in not excommunicating whom? A Lutheran church body is formed around the Confessions. Love is a product of that unity-- it does not create it. You have it upside down.

Dr Sidwell,

Sorry, I lost an "understand" just after "LC/NA can" in my last line.

The loving relationships I'm talking about here are not the marriages between homosexuals, but rather the non-sexual relationships betweeen church members in a community. These should especially be governed by love, and that doesn't mean "I must know what's best for you" (on either side). There is a time and place for holding people accountable, but nowhere near as often as we think, and ultimately is God's responsibility, not ours (and forgets that the state is intended as the primary instrument for holding people accountable). In the debate between staying and leaving, there's plenty of room to hold people on all sides daccountable. I don't think that's going to help nearly as much as people seem to think it will.

I agree that the Lutheran church body is made Lutheran by holding to the Confessions (which the ELCA still does as much as it ever did). Those Confessions, however, give us a very specific Christology in which our love for our enemies and neighbors are rooted in Christ's love for us. It is precisely that He loved the world unto death that we are empowered to do no less. With that kind of love, unity is the result. If you mean "unity" as needing to trust in Christ's promise of forgiveness, though, I do agree with your ordering, though I would say that it goes unity with Christ->love->unity with others.

It didn't come down to 1 vote at CWA2009. It came down to a supermajority. It is the aggregate of all the votes that dictates policy, and this is how they aggregated. It seems very curious to me that the votes against what you (or others here) see as "right" must be the result of politics and those nefarious people running the ELCA, but when those votes are ok, it's not. What was the mood immediately following the vote at CWA2009? What did Bp Hanson have to say about it? How celebratory was it, even?

Yes, if the vote had failed by one then I would have rejoiced. I do not accept the "rules of engagement" in either case-- please know that. Thank you for clarifying your argument and you measured and kind reply. The point is that even allowing a vote on such a matter was evidence of a breakdown in hermeneutics and confessional understanding. And voting for fellowship with a church body (UMC) that has a different hermeneutic of Scripture and doesn't even actually have the same "sexuality" statement view was just logically irrational. I do not doubt your love of Christ or His church or me but I do not see how you could have integrity of conscious and implicitly agree with the doctrine and practice of the ELCA by remaining. Yes, I would (and will) build a Habitat for Humanity house with you-- but I don't understand why you would put up with all that nonsense.

Dr Sidwell,

Which rules of engagement are those? Our current church organization? Or is your objection to the organization that it passed something you believe is wrong? The problem is that our hermeneutics and even our confessional understanding are both doomed to be wrong-- that's the very real power of sin. If we could get it completely right, we wouldn't be sinners. It also means that we cannot establish a church organization that will always have the correct hermeneutics or confessional understanding. In a way, this is the very real need for the third use of the Law; we continually need to recognize our failures as an organization, repent, and re-place our trust in Christ. If this needs to happen daily or more often for each individual, think of the problems the aggregation of individuals is doomed to have. That doesn't mean we abandon that community because it isn't perfect-- Paul's words in Romans 13:4 names Nero as "God's servant to do you good."

I think the full communion agreement with the UMC is going to give them more than they bargained for, but I also see that as a good thing. You need to build bridges before you can ship goods across, and the better networked we are, the better we can spread the Gosple across that network. That vote was also pretty close to unanimous, too.

In the end, I think having some degree of 'nonsense' is good for the church, especially if everyone thinks there's some nonsense, and we can't agree on exactly what that is. It protects us from deviating as an entire church body into heresy. At the least, we can try to avoid the mistakes groups like the RCs and the LCMS have made.

Sarah,
In all respect, you began with three reasons for leaving, and then immediately discredited the first two. I understand your reason for avoiding the first reason: swimming the Tiber, or fleeing for Eastern Orthodoxy, although your talk of a "Lutheran expression" of the church catholic almost sounds to me like a Lutheran "flavor" of the church catholic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if that is close to what you meant, the substance of Lutheranism is much more (Biblically) foundational and distinct than a mere difference between the flavor of Lutheranism in contrast to Rome or Constantinople et al. Just re-reading the Augsburg Confession, the Roman Confutation and The Apology (defense) of the Augsburg Confession should support my above statement sufficiently. While we can indeed celebrate that which we have in common with these communions, wishful thinking regarding increased commonality does not create genuine unity (e.g. the ELCA has done much more than the LCMS to reach out to Rome in the spirit of ecumenicism, yet in many ways [including abortion = killing unborn infants; recognizing marriage as properly only between a man and a woman; etc.]the LCMS is closer to Roman Catholicism than the Liberal Protestant ELCA.). But I agree with you, that the "Lutheran experiment" did not fail, even if people are not entirely happy with the expressions of Lutheranism in 21st century America--hence no need to flee to Romanism or Eastern Orthodoxy or even Canterbury. The Book of Concord (B of C) got it right, and there is no reason to abandon it because the grass looks greener on the other side of the Tiber. Roman Catholicism, with all its beautiful, historic cathedrals; its artistic, decorative clerical garb; its tradition; its appreciation of the Church Fathers; its long-lived hierarchy; and its massive numbers--with all these, it is still grace PLUS WORKS. Yet the Lutherans got it right: our works in no way contribute one iota toward our salvation. Our works are merely fruit of our saved lives, done out of thanksgiving for God's great love and mercy. Our works naturally outflow from the lives of believers. But some would say we should just trade in our chips and buy into the PR of Catholicism--with all its trappings--in light of the fall-out last August in Minneapolis. Perhaps the ELCA may have been in some ways a failed experiment: perhaps the ALC should have remained separate from the LCA, but it is rather America-centric to assume that with the fall of the largest Lutheran church body in North America, that therefore all of Lutheranism has fallen. Just visit the Lutheran churches in Africa and you will see that Lutheranism is far from being dead or failed.

But my concern is more so with your reason number two:

"In the second, especially as someone who has had
family on both sides of this fence, I refuse to play off the
elca and lcms against each other. I will not make a case
against jumping from one Lutheran ship to the other since
such arguments can only reinforce this mutually destructive
competition between us."

My question to you is, why must you limit the Lutheran landscape in the U.S.A. to only the ELCA and Missouri? Great numbers of followers does not equal orthodoxy (Jesus spoke of a narrow road--wide is the way that leads to destruction). More importantly, though, my question to you is why focus on some "mutually destructive competition" between the ELCA and the LCMS, pitting one against the other polemically. Can we not entertain Reason No. 2 irenically, seeking God's truth first and dealing with ecclesiastic realities later? If you frame the relationship in polemic terms, it is much easier to demonize "the other side" and reduce a sister or brother in Christ to being an enemy.

If a church building is burning down, and people inside are being rescued, the important thing is to remove them from the danger of the burning building first, rather than remaining inside while arguing about which rescue shelter is better than another. And yes, some may stay: to assist with the rescue work, to save the Master-shepherd's sheep from all harm, although even this "remaining" should be only temporary as the flames will only get hotter, and the smoke is a very real, deadly danger. We appreciate your heroics, but honestly, there is no need for you to "go down with the ship" (to switch the analogy momentarily). We care about your health and life as well.

So rather than attacking other American Lutheran synods (which you did not do), OR even ignoring them as though they are irrelevant, we would do best by going back to what God is revealing to us in Holy Scripture. The B of C is not broken, so there is no need to fix it, and there is certainly no need to cast it into the fire because we are instead mesmerized by the glamour of other communions. Truth comes first, and structure comes later. Love (AS taught by Christ Jesus) comes first, and how that love in expressed in fellowship will fall into place later. So let us distance ourselves from animosity toward St. Louis or any other Lutheran communion, and instead open the Book of Faith: The Holy Bible, and listen for our shepherd's voice. He will draw us back unto Himself. Let us gather where His Word is rightly proclaimed and the Sacraments are rightly administered (at the same time being alert for wolves), but let us gather with those who hold to the right Christian faith and leave the glory all to God alone. I repeat--the praise does not go to any church organizations--to God Alone be the Glory! Soli Deo Gloria! God is faithful. God will preserve His church.

Thank you, Sarah, for sharing your thoughts and concerns.

"If there
is to be any integrity to our being as
church, it’s time to stop playing the
game that actually plays us, jump off
the hamster wheel of denominational
splintering, and renounce schism once
and for all as a solution to ecclesiastical
trouble." Your words seem to miss the fact
that those who voted in Minneapolis to
over-ride the Bible were the ones to cause
schism--not the ones abandoning the apostate
"church" remaining. Despite the frustration of
so many denominations, and the resulting implications thereof,
we must still recognise that Jesus would rather have his sheep fed
than poisoned. Separation is sometimes necessary.

You can never have a pure Church. Not a pilgrim Church, anyway. The Church is always a mixed body - saint and sinner at the same time. The Donatists tried to build a pure Church and it failed. WordAlone/CORE will try to build a pure church, and it will fail. You simply cannot maintain doctrinal purity via schism.

I admit that as a layman I don't follow much of what Pr. Wilson has to say. (Let's be clear that just because I am ignorant does not mean what Pr. Wilson says is not valid) But two different thoughts come to me.

1.) If we truly believe all this talk of "bearing all things" and not "forsaking the fellowship", then why do we not submit ourselves to Rome? Could not the same things which recommend staying in the ELCA also guide us to rejoin with the Mother Church?

2.) The Christian family is much like my own family. As much as I love each mother, aunt, uncle and cousin, they drive me nuts. As much as I love them, I simply can't live with them. I know I drive them nuts. So setting up a few fences and households allows us imperfect folk to get along and tolerate each other while at the same time remaining a growing family.


To put it inelegantly, we in the ELCA are driving each other nuts.

I commend Pr Wilson for this much needed article. I hope many of the faithful opposition will read it.

Don't the epsitle writers again and again prescribe what we are calling "schism" as the remedy for situations like the one we are in? Whether it be false teachers or simply those who promote foolish controversies we are to try to reform them a couple of times but then get away from them if that doesn't work. Are we suppose to just ignore those clear instructions?

I'm also concerned about the idea that we shouldn't start a new denomination because people will say mean things about it. Well, if a given church stays in the ELCA but doesn't tow the line, it will just as likely be condemned as an antigay congregation. Or if an individual is openly resisting the new policies they will be condemned individually. The only way to avoid the antigay label is to go along, and I'm afraid that's what most will do.

There seem to be many who are rationalizing staying in the ELCA with the notion that they will be voices of resistance. I'm afraid that so far, I only hear or read these people protesting what CORE or LCMC is doing. If they are going to really make a difference within the ELCA, they need get in the trenches and get to work in a tangible political way to reverse the vote. Just talking about the idea of resisting is just enabling.

Dan,

Galatians 3:28 and Ephesians 2 and the Great Commission all speak to our unity in Christ and how that extends to everyone. That doesn't leave us with an option to abandon anyone, including and especially false teachers. Although 35 years old now, I think this article about the use of anathemas in the Lutheran Confessions makes this point as well: http://www.crossings.org/archive/ed/CURRENTIMPLICATIONSOFTHE.pdf

You also have a misunderstanding of what the sexuality document said. It didn't create a line that everyone must tow. Especially given that the ELCA and the Episcopals are the only two mainline demons to have moved forward with a truer understanding of marriage, no individual church is more or less likely to be tarred as anti-gay than before. Certainly not to the same extent as it would be if it joined a denomination formed specifically to be an anti-gay church. That's a mantle this new denom will have a very hard time shedding, especially if it's their "line drawn in the sand". How many examples do you have of the national office bullying individual churches into calling openly gay pastors?

"Especially given that the ELCA and the Episcopals are the only two mainline demons to have moved forward with a truer understanding of marriage...." By any standard of orthodox teaching the ELCA and ECUSA have not moved to "a truer understanding of marriage," but a false, heterodox one. As even the sexuality statement passed by CWA acknowledged, there is no support in the Christian tradition of canon, creed, and confession for ever calling a homosexual relationship a "marriage." Call it what you will -- partnership, friendship, or whatever -- it is not from Christian teaching marriage. That testable assertion fails.

Pr Biles,

The standard for orthodox teaching that I rely on are the Lutheran Confessions. Most especially Article 23 of the Augsburg Confession and Apology of same article, which I think the sexuality statement fails to properly take into account. Specifically, from the Apology 23:7: "For we are speaking not of concupiscence, which is sin, but of that appetite which was to have been in nature in its integrity [which would have existed in nature even if it had remained uncorrupted], which they call physical love. And this love of one sex for the other is truly a divine ordinance. But since this ordinance of God cannot be removed without an extraordinary work of God, it follows that the right to contract marriage cannot be removed by statutes or vows." is the affirmation that homosexuality is an extraordinary work of God. We're called to honor all of God's good works, and trying to place laws that work contrary to what God has done there is working contrary to God Himself, which they get to in 23:9: "Secondly, And because this creation or divine ordinance in man is a natural right, jurists have accordingly said wisely and correctly that the union of male and female belongs to natural right. But since natural right is immutable, the right to contract marriage must always remain." That means the homosexual has the right to contract marriage as much as the priest or anyone else. Specifically, they nail this in 23:12 "But inasmuch as this right cannot be changed without an extraordinary work of God, it is necessary that the right to contract marriage remains, because the natural desire of sex for sex is an ordinance of God in nature, and for this reason is a right" Homosexual desire is as much the natural desire of sex for sex as is heterosexual desire.

The last post by Peter at January 16, 2010 13:46 ending with this statement: Homosexual desire is as much the natural desire of sex for sex as is heterosexual desire.

I respond:
What biblical texts and hermeneutics do your rely on in support of your statement?
Since homosexual desire cannot conceive children, how can homosexual desire be as natural as heterosexual desire?
Since male and female bodies are anatomically complementary, how can homosexual desire be as natural as heterosexual desire?
Since homosexual desire requires one partner to abandon their natural gender role, how can homosexual desire be as natural as heterosexual desire?

D Storhaug,

The hermeneutics I use are the ones handed down to Paul and as explained by the Reformers in the Confessions, specifically in Article IV of the Augsburg Confession. This is what bifurcates Scripture into both Law and Gospel. Specifically as the Reformers point out in regards to priestly marriage, we confuse Law and Gospel when we make spreading the Gospel Promise contingent on following any part that we suspect is Law. We are also expected to consider the "perpetual aim of the Gospel" (AC 28:65). This is why the Reformers can say that ignoring the NT regulation of "abstention from blood" (Acts) is not a sin. This is also why we do not follow the laws of the ancient Jewish theocracy.

If conceiving children is a requirement for desire to be natural, what then of barren and sterile couples who cannot conceive?

It's also clear that anatomy does not dictate desire, especially when bisexuals and transgendered people are considered as well. The homosexuality we speak of is not electing to have a same-gendered relationship because it's cool or you did it on a dare or a whim, it's the same desire that you have that ties a marriage together. Sexual desire is a gift from God, which the Reformers clearly acknowledge. The best place for that gift is marriage.

"Natural gender roles"... lol. I don't think you can really point to any such thing in Scripture, and if anything, those gender roles get stood on their head as often as not in both Old and New Testament. Family (like marriage and government) is part of the left-hand kingdom, which means there can be different configurations. In regards to family, the most clear example is from NT times, where the "household" was not just the man and his wife/wives, and children, but also slaves and probably extended family as well. At the very least, slaves are no longer part of our families, and the general idea of family in the US today is just parents and kids.

>>It's also clear that anatomy does not dictate desire, especially when bisexuals and transgendered people are considered as well.<<

Peter, on that you are simply WRONG.

I don't know how much Anatomy and Physiology training you have had, but mine has been somewhat considerable.

There is nothing that your Crossings dogma states that can overrule biology.

Reading your posts since the first of the year, I am increasingly concerned that "Crossings" is cultic.

Happy new year to you, too, David:)

I do believe we'll have a physiologic understanding of sexuality some day, but so far we're not there yet. Can you provide any information on putative difference in underlying physiologic processes between different sexual orientations and gender identities? Anatomy itself is out, though, as you can't tell by the parts what the person's sexual orientation is. It's not like you can have a biopsy done to see if you're homosexual or not. And while I've been using general terms, since I've been talking about marriage, I'm not really talking about situational homosexuality.

I don't think Crossings is cultic. I think it continues the traditions that Luther and the Reformers rediscovered from Scripture. I don't think that homosexuality is its defining characteristic, as I think there are some in that community that do not support full inclusion. Crossings had its beginnings before Seminex, and its main concern is the proper Law/Gospel distinction. My understanding is that Walther also considered that the most important aspect of Lutheranism as well, and that was in the LCMS 100 years before Crossings was started. Although it may sound like it at times, I do not intend to equate either the "visible, true church" or the "invisible church" with the Crossings Community.

We are a lot closer to a physiological understanding of sexuality in general than you may be aware of (and I'm not talking about the "gay gene"). I could post a bunch of things relating to A&P (anatomy and physiology) having to do with X v. Y chromosomes, metaphase, phenotypes and genotypes, as well as the differences between sexual identity v. sexual behaviour but it would have little to no meaning for the average layperson reading this forum.

Nor do I think quotations from Jung, Freud, Hirschfeld, Milgram, or Bailey would be edifying.

I do think Crossings is cultic, and I would be happy to debate Schroeder any time at a place of his choosing. I find it cultic in a sense that it excises, twists and outright ignores parts of Scripture and "re-images" the Lutheran Confessions to suit its agenda, instead of taking them in their plain-sense interpretation.

David,

What do you see as Crossings' agenda that it needs to "excise, twist and outright ignore parts of Scripture"? And by this definition, couldn't both the LCMS and ELCA accuse each other of cultism? It sounds more that we have a disagreement on our approach to Scripture. I do think this tends to be the fundamental disagreement in Scripture, too. What was Paul's approach to Scripture? How did he use Scripture in his arguments with the Judaizing Christians? Clearly, they used Scripture, too, and claimed that the "plain sense" of the Torah meant that new Christians had to follow the Law-- which specifically meant "circumcision". This was the debate between Christ and the religious authorities, and Luther and the religious authorities of his time. The recurring theme of what's happening in the NT is always that one must reject both biblicism and antinomianism. That's one of the reasons historical criticism must be tolerated by the church, but that at the same time it doesn't mean that every last finding of historical criticism is directly relevant to the church.

Actually, I think it would be useful to post some of the relevant physiological data. I'm especially curious as to how metaphase relates to either gender identity or sexual orientation, unless you're talking about XXY individuals or X-, or other things like that. I'm not clear on the link between these individuals and people who are homosexual and have either XX or XY sex chromosomes. Similarly for how physiology informs gender identity. My understanding is that hormone therapy/sex changes follow gender identity, not precede it.

Anatomical complementary is pure silliness for a theological opinion. We believe that lions will live at peace with lambs. The anatomical complementary of lions with lambs is FOOD! Not lounging around together!

Nor is this a simple shot I am taking at your point. It is also not the practice of the Church in general regarding marriage. The Church will wed people who cannot conceive (due to surgery, other medical treatments, accident, etc). As Lutherans we will even permit marriage for those who do not desire children.

Marriage is not about the ability to reproduce. Marriage is about a commitment to practice discipleship, love of neighbor, and spiritual growth in the context of life with someone from who you cannot easily separate oneself. I believe it was Gregory of Nyssa who said that children are a wonderful addition to marriage, but they are not what constitutes marriage.

What, pray tell, is a "natural gender role"? How contextualized can you get? Gender roles are by-products of culture, not biblically mandated things. They are certainly _NOT_ natural in the sense that they can be derived from Creation; oral sex is not procreative. Are you suggesting that the Church should take the same stand on oral sex as you think it should on homosexuality? What about masturbation? Or mutual masturbation between married couples? Just what all should the Church dictate?

Roman culture had vastly different "gender roles" than we have now. What "gender roles" are not authoritative? 1950's? Rome? Polygamus pre-history? Should women be passive during sex? That used to be a gender role. If so, that means that the Church will need to start dictating acceptable sexual positions for couples. That was part of the gender roles of the New Testament era. Actually it was part of the gender roles for must of the United States just a few years ago, and probably even still, legally, in Alabama.

1 Corinthians 11:14 "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him..." What is natural is also a fluid thing. Paul thought long hair on a man was unnatural. That's not such a problem for us anymore. This is culturally conditioned "nature." The same applies to homosexuality.

Well, well, well, Peter "Whoever-you-are." Your reply reminds me of a comment Luther once made about the Pope's treatment of Scripture, that Rome had turned it into a "wax nose," which could be reshaped as they willed to justify whatever position they wanted to take. Fortunately, Luther was spared living so long as to see the Augsburg Confession subjected to the same fate.

As I said in my previous post: The ELCA has not arrived at a "truer" understanding of marriage, but a more muddled one. Thank-you for helping to prove my point.

Pr Biles,

This actually illustrates one of the fundamental problems of trying to make Scripture, rather than Christ, your final authority. The Pope uses Scripture, you use Scripture and I use Scripture all in different ways. Saying it's in Scripture is not sufficient. What needs to be shown is that there is a proper Law/Gospel distinction being made. This is the heart of the Confessions, and the major problem with the sexuality statement is that does not use any of the theology it lays out in the beginning of the document. Can you show that living in a homosexual relationship is contrary to trust in Christ?

And, Peter, you have never demonstrated just what you mean by "Christ as final authority," especially given that there is no revelation of Christ outside the pages of Holy Scripture.

David,

When I say that Christ is the final authority, I mean what has been laid out in AC4. There, it says that in order for any idea to be considered Christian, it must rest on the forgiveness of sins only through Christ's death and resurrection alone and spread the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection such that devout consciences are comforted. If a premise requires you to trust in something other than Christ for the forgiveness of sins, it contradicts Christ's authority. If a premise requires that you do something in addition to trusting Christ's Gospel promise, it contradicts Christ's authority.

This is all contained in Scripture, but the thing is that there's a lot contained in Scripture. Jewish purity laws for one. Christ did overturn a few of them (and Paul lots more), but the concrete example of one that wasn't is abstention from blood in Acts. That HAS been overturned since the NT became canon, specifically as referenced in AC 28:65.

I think this is also the reason why Lutherans believe that Scripture interprets Scripture.

AC4 is just fine when taken as written.

When all other sorts of things are written into it that are not there, then there are problems, including the way you seem to hold it as higher than Scripture.

I have talked to many Lutheran pastors/scholars in the LCMS, Lutheran Church-Canada and ELCA (unfortunately none from WELS, ELS or smaller synods). I have heard none of them interpret AC4 the way you do. That includes my former Seminex ELCA pastor.

I have also not heard an postulation of "Scripture interpreting Scripture" anything like yours. In the LCMS, we believe that the clearer passages of Scripture interpret the "murkier" or "darker" passages, but we do not disregard any passage of Scripture.

Following your/Crossings line of "logic," as long as one "trusts in Christ," then it's all right to do just about anything.

What then is your criteria for something being Lutheran or even Christian?

And to some extent, I think you have seen this definition of AC4 before in use if not explicitly spelled out. Elert's Christian Ethos is probably one of the best works outlining all of this, but it permeates Bonhoeffer's Ethics, too (see esp beginning of Chapter 4: Justification as the Last Word). Everything comes back to the cross and what God in Christ has done for us. One of Luther's expressions for this talking about where you hang your heart. When you hang your heart on Christ, you can't do anything except walk in Christ.

Since life in Christ is law-free, you can't say 'here's a list of things you must do', because that is a return to life under the law. By the same token, though, once you start doing anything without regard for walking in Christ, you are turning away from Christ and abandoning your lifeline. AC4 guards against both biblicism and libertinism by putting the requirement on necessitating Christ. One favors the law over Christ and the other favors neither the law nor Christ.

What's your axe to grind against the LCMS, which by your own admission you know very little about?

If the LCMS interpreted the Bible and AC4 as YOU (again, I have never read another interpretation that is as completely unorthodox as yours) interpret them, it would indeed be a different church body. In fact, it would not be "Lutheran" in the slightest. It would be a church body that built doctrine on feelings and emotions, that interpreted the Bible according to current, secular cultural trends in the United States, discarding what it believed was no longer applicable.

I thank God it is none of those.

Did you pick up your attitude toward the LCMS from Elert/Schroeder? What I have read of Schroeder, he does not like the LCMS.

You can continue to state "biblicism" as a pejorative all you want. I don't see it that way at all. Without the Bible, including its revelation of Christ, which is our ONLY revelation of Christ AND of the Gospel, as the Church's final authority, we may as well be Unitarian Universalists.

You are simply wrong on the "law-free" contention. I am currently re-reading a book I've had in my collection for a long time called "Fortress Introduction To Lutheranism" by Eric W Gritsch. Remember how Luther came out of hiding at the Wartburg because of the antinomian abuses by Agricola and his ilk? Dr Gritsch addresses this:

"In the 1530s, Johann Agricola, one of Luther's students, declared that faith needed no laws, since believers would naturally do what needed to be done for the neighbour. This was a kind of antinomianism (from the Greek "nomos," meaning "law"), that was an enduring problem in Christianity."

Again, I think Agricola would feel quite comfortable with the theological/social views you express.

I was referring to 1 Cor 5:9-13,2 Cor 6:14-18, Eph 5: 3-7,Titus 3:9-11 and pretty much the entire books of 2 Peter and Jude. Maybe I'm cherry picking but it wasn't very hard to find those cherries. The Bible seems to have a pretty consistent theme running through it that counters the popular "unity no matter what" argument that is everywhere today. Don't get mad at me. I didn't write the Bible.

I know that Martin Luther, in writing on Galatians (but not the referrence you mention)really did seem to preach "unity no matter what".
I think that was an unfortunate episode of Hussite bashing at a time when he was perhaps still in denial of his own inner Hussite.

I'll try again on my other point as well. If a church or individual is really going to be a voice of resistance within the ELCA, they can't do it silently (silent voices don't accomplish much). Just failing to call a gay preacher won't do it. They need to openly and loudly preach that the CWA was wrong. To remain silent is to tow the line.

If these people do get loud, they will very likely be condemned as hateful homophobes. They won't be condemned by any official church body that needs their money, but that isn't what Ms. Wilson was talking about. I think she was talking about diffuse, unofficial condemnation that would come down on a new denomination. My point is that anybody who openly disagrees with this CWA is going to be picked on whether they stay or go.

Dan,

As with all condemnations in the Bible, we need to turn those passages on ourselves as much as we do others. Today's 2nd lesson also talks about Christian unity is that there is only one Spirit that empowers us to name Christ as Lord and Savior. The Confessions similarly proclaim not "unity no matter what" but that we have unity in Christ's Gospel Promise. Forgiveness is open to all of us, equally. First and foremost, our identity is child of God.

The other big issue is just what false teaching is. That always comes back to AC4 and the Law/Gospel distinction. Also, the way you are taking these verses would suggest that the 'true, visible church' would have to be very similar to the invisible church, since failing to abide by those laws brings condemnation.

Look Peter, obviously I disagree with you about the underlying issue. Since I have not been given any sort of special revelation on this matter I am stuck looking at the Bible. I am of the opinion that the Bible is very clear on homosexuality. I'm not especially happy about that because I have friends and relatives who are homosexual. But I just don't see how Paul could have been clearer about this issue. I believe that Paul was a man who once stood face to face with the risen Christ, and was tortured repeatedly for preaching what he was commanded to preach. So I put great store in what he has to say.

I would go ahead and use the term false teacher in this instance because we are dealing with a teaching that is (in my opion)false and is clearly threatening to destroy a fine old Christian tradition (Lutheranism) that was already in poor health. The ELCA is beset by other false teachings, the worst being universalism, and they all come from pretty much the same people.

So if I think I'm dealing with false teachers or even persistent troublemakers (in the Titus reference)I need to know whether I should break free of them or continue to bear their burdens and stuff like that. Once again, if I consult actual Apostles, people who saw Jesus, like Peter or Paul on how to deal with these sorts of influences, the instructions are very clear and unambiguous. I have never had the misfortune of seminary training so I am able to "take these verses" the way they were written. These were practical instructions given to real people in real churches dealing with controversies eerily similar to those before us today. There is no way anyone can read them to say you should stay in a Church headed up by false teachers and give it a tithe. You might think you can win over these teachers if you stay, but the NT writers are telling you over and over that you are wrong to think that.

Peter I really wish you would think about it this way. All of Christendom has been in agreement on this issue for 2000 years. There have been no recent great advancements in our understanding of Greek or 1st century history that would compel a new interpretation. Even today only about 20 million out of 2 billion (1%) of Christians belong to groups who believe as you do. Can't you cut some of us some slack if we choose to stay with the 99% by leaving the 1%.

Dan,

Why were Peter and Paul chosen by Christ? Is it because they were always right? Christ Himself names Peter Satan. Even after Pentecost, Peter and Paul get into quite a disagreement over keeping kosher. We don't take Paul at his word in regards to slavery, either. And was Bonhoeffer taking Paul's recommendation of Nero in Romans 13 to heart when he was part of the plot to assassinate Hitler? The OT is an even better source for showing that the leaders were not infallible. Look to Abraham or David or any of the others. Although the NT is more letters than stories, we still get plenty of examples of how no one is perfect. Sometimes that imperfection is glaringly obvious, like David's adultery. But Peter's sin ("you shouldn't suffer and die, Jesus") is only glaringly obvious to us because of Christ's reply: "Get behind me, Satan!" Even then, that error isn't obvious to those who subscribe to the theology of glory.

I think the Bible is less clear on homosexuality than you probably do. Part of that is that the OT references are about gang rape or Temple law than homosexuality, and most of the NT references are two words: "arsenokoites" and "malakoi". Luther does not choose 'homosexual' in his translation of the NT, but rather child abuser. That's considerably different, and yet the Greek hasn't changed. That leaves us with Romans 1. There I think Paul is trapped in the Zeitgeist of his age. He was raised in a culture that taught homosexuality was evil, and even still he saw that as not the fundamental God-problem, which he said was idolatry. I very much doubt that Paul thought his letters would survive for the next hundred years, let alone become part of the Bible, especially considering that he had extreme difficulties with James and the other apostles over very similar issues to what we have today. As you say, Paul was writing to real people in real churches at the time. Thanks to the Holy Spirit, these writings still hold meaning for us today. But we can't forget that Luther's "Judensachsenspiegel" isn't just about the OT.

This also cuts to the heart of my concern about false teachers. False teachings are always false teachings about the Gospel, about how we're saved. How does this new teaching imperil the Gospel? Are you hearing claims that we do not need Christ's life-giving death on the cross? I know that I am in as much need of salvation as ever. And is your tithe suddenly supporting something it wasn't before? How much does the ELCA spend on mission (or even pastor salaries in general) compared to what it will spend on married, homosexual clergy, especially considering that it is usually the individual congregation that pays for the pastor, and the seminarian who pays to attend seminary.

Even if they are false teachers, the point isn't about winning them over or winning anyone over. Christ makes it very clear that isn't our job. Ours is to proclaim the kingdom, but it is Christ who ushers it in. We are expected to bear witness to Christ's death and resurrection, and it really shouldn't matter where God places us to do that. Currently a lot of people are placed in the ELCA. Instead of proclaiming Christ crucified there, they want to proclaim it somewhere else. How far did that get Jonah?

One very important point that gets lost is that we do not treat the term 'brother in Christ' with the gravity it deserves. Leaving your brother behind is no small thing and that does not seem to get the attention it deserves. A lot of people are insistent that married homosexuals must acknowledge that their marriage is sin before the Gospel can do any good for them. Yet a lot of these same people see the destruction of the church relationships they held both as their right and duty, rather than as a sin in need of repentance. If you leave a community behind and either they or you are angry, you've broken that relationship and both you and the community stand condemned by the Law. God's Law cuts none of us slack-- it's a death sentence, and we can see that in the pain some churches are currently going through.

It isn't the act of leaving that will give anyone a new beginning. What gives us all a new beginning is Christ's crucifixion and death. It is that freedom handed to us whether we leave or stay, that gives us a new beginning. It is that new beginning that will let us confess Christ's death and resurrection wherever we are, and lead us to the same mission we still share: proclaiming the Gospel to all the ends of the earth with word and dead.

Peter, you dismiss the New Testament when it clearly condemns same sex intercourse. arsenokoites is not a word that was used by native Greek speakers, but it would have been clearly understood by first century Christians who had read the Septuagent. Arseno and Koites were two words that are used in both Leviticus 18:22 amd 20:13. Paul reminded in I Corinthians 6:9 (and repeated in I Timothy 1:10) his readers that men who bed men are an abomination in the sight of God. You mention that in Romans 1 Paul sees idolarty as the fundamental God-problem. But for Paul and other writers of scritpure intercourse contrary to God's law is idolatry. Sexual unfaithfulness and perversion connects us with another person in a way that defiles, not only the body, but our inner selves (I Corinthians 6:13-20). In the Smalcald Articles Luther, in discussing the marriage of priests, writes that in forbidding marriage Rome has caused "all kinds of horrible, abominable, innumerable sins of unchastity." He writes, "Therefore we are unwilling to assent to their abominable celibacy, nor will we [even] tolerate it" What abominable sin of unchastity was Luther refering to? Melanchthon also refers to abominable vices in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession. Both Paul and the Lutheran reformers reaffirmed that men having intercourse with men is an abomination in the sight of God (Leviticus 18:22). "The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body" (I Corinthians 6:13). Do not sin against Christ in your body. It is an abomination.

Dean,

I think you underestimate the fact that arsenokoites is NOT a normally used Greek word. Had the translators of the LXX wanted to generally mean homosexuality, there were other words at their disposal. That they used arsenokoites for Leviticus only means that passage is not as clear on homosexuality, either, even if our translation of the Masoretic text suggests otherwise. The "clearest" explanation for their choice of a very odd word for both instances is that there was a specific cultural practice that they were condemning and that this cultural practice could not be labeled with any of the other words currently in use. The Masoretes could easily have been more strict about this than the translators of the LXX.

It's sad to see that you can quote Luther in the Smalkald Articles as to the horrors that enforced celibacy does to priests and yet fail to see the horrors enforced chastity does to our LGBT brothers and sisters. Given that Luther translates arsenokoites as "child abuser", the abominable sin of unchastity that he is probably referring to is pedophilia, not homosexuality.

The Septuagent does not use the word arsenokoites, but rather uses the words arsenos, which means man and κοίτην, which means marriage bed. The writer of Leviticus is clear in his meaning. If same sex relationships were common or acceptable, he might have used a short slang word like "gay". But, instead he says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." This is not the way that a modern english speaker would describe the act, but this is an english translation of the Hebrew. The Septuagint does not read like a native Greek speaker would talk, but it is a translation of the Hebrews way of speaking. And Paul uses those words together to form arsenokoites, which is not the way that native Greek speakers spoke, but it is the way that someone steeped in the scriptures would express in Greek the abomination desribed in Leviticus.
You assume that people are hopelessly bound by their feelings and by their sins. Paul and Luther wanted people to be bound by and to the Word of God. Many people are caught up in the horror of same sex relationships. It is sad to see that you are content to leave them in that horror. Do you think that the law is only for the perfect, for those who feel like doing the law in the first place. Is it unloving to proclaim law and gospel to those who disagree with it? The law of God is given to root out and kill the sin within our feelings and will, so that we might have repentance and life. I can not bless what God has cursed. I do no one any favors if I convince others that right is wrong and wrong is right. Do you think that the church's "blessing" can overcome God's judgment (Numbers 22 and 23)? The blessing that I can give is, may God give you strength to repent and believe, that you may come to the obedience of faith (Romans 1:5, 16:26).

Dean,

That's all conjecture. We can create all kinds of chains of reasoning, but there isn't any evidence that they hold. I think referring to current practices by their current term would be far more useful rhetorically than trying to create a new phrase to refer to an old part of the Torah that 1st century Gentile Christians may not see as relevant in the first place.

Many of the same-sex relationships I've seen have been no horror. They've been as strong and as protective as any heterosexual marriage and their relationship helps them stay bound to the Word of God much as marriage helps a couple continue to trust God. Where you see a curse, others see a blessing. They don't see that blessing in what you or I may say about their relationship, but they treasure their relationship as a gift from God. As fellow Christians, we are called to similarly treasure that relationship and all the gifts that God gives to us.

I didn't stay, for the very reasons you outlined.

The final meeting with our former ELCA pastor, where he finally played the cards he'd held close to his vest prior to CWA, and revealed himself to be firmly in line with CWA, sealed it.

I did get some of the "homophobe" and "against full inclusion" Bravo Sierra, but (not to toot my own horn) I know at least as much about human behaviour than most of the accusers, they picked the wrong target, as they soon found out, much to their dismay.

I don't see anyone who can pick on me for leaving...and if so, honestly I don't care.

I found this nuanced and faithful reflection deeply helpful for those outside Lutheranism as well.

I am so glad I stopped going to church. I save time, energy, money and I don't have to listen to either side of these debates.
Best thing I ever did was admit that going to church was a waste and that I was just going through the motions.
Hope you all get to wise up yourselves one day.

I can appreciate your disgust with what is going on in our church. But do not let the problems of the Church separate you from Christ. It is amazing that after two-thousand years of human interference that the Church remains. The Holy Spirit keeps the Church going inspite of our human brokenness and failure to remian faith to the Gospel. In the midst of this human chaos remember that God still reaches out to you in love.

I can appreciate your disgust with what is going on in our church. But do not let the problems of the Church separate you from Christ. It is amazing that after two-thousand years of human interference that the Church remains. The Holy Spirit keeps the Church going in spite of our human brokenness and failure to remain faithful to the Gospel. In the midst of this human chaos remember that God still reaches out to you in love. This is a correction to the previous message.