Document Actions
I Am Not Going Anywhere. This Is My Church.
by
Pari Bailey
—
April 21, 2010
I had quite an experience at the Southwestern Minnesota Synod Assembly this past weekend. In addition to my duties as a voting member, I was providing occasional, informal color commentary on my Facebook page for distant friends and others interested in the proceedings. However, things got so bad, I simply quit posting out of shock and grief. I suppose this assembly experience was better for me than last year—at least this year, nobody accosted me in a bathroom and called me “bigot” and “bitch.” So, yay for a little bit more civility in this corner of the church. But boo, hiss to the horrible songs with their barely-Christian, social-gospel-and-good-works-save-us lyrics. Boo, hiss to the pastors who rolled their eyes and smirked at each other as I went to the microphone and called the assembly to repentance. Boo, hiss to the incessant “God’s Work, Our Hands” cheerleading. Boo, hiss to the pretense of business as usual. Boo, hiss to the fiction of bound conscience, which doesn't appear likely to last the year...
I had quite an experience at the Southwestern Minnesota Synod Assembly this past weekend. In addition to my duties as a voting member, I was providing occasional, informal color commentary on my Facebook page for distant friends and others interested in the proceedings. However, things got so bad, I simply quit posting out of shock and grief. I suppose this assembly experience was better for me than last year—at least this year, nobody accosted me in a bathroom and called me “bigot” and “bitch.” So, yay for a little bit more civility in this corner of the church. But boo, hiss to the horrible songs with their barely-Christian, social-gospel-and-good-works-save-us lyrics. Boo, hiss to the pastors who rolled their eyes and smirked at each other as I went to the microphone and called the assembly to repentance. Boo, hiss to the incessant “God’s Work, Our Hands” cheerleading. Boo, hiss to the pretense of business as usual. Boo, hiss to the fiction of bound conscience, which doesn't appear likely to last the year.
After the assembly concluded, I had an email exchange with someone who had also attended, and who does not understand why I choose to stay in the ELCA and thinks that I am confusing my congregation by my unwillingness to take a stand and leave. The person wondered if I should leave the ELCA and then return to its assemblies as a visitor. That way, I could still witness to those in the ELCA, but I would have taken a definitive stand against it.
I thought I had already done that at Microphone Two, speaking the words I believe that God laid on my heart though painting myself into a box labelled “hateful, benighted, irrelevant conservative” in many of my colleagues” minds and marking myself as a person of contempt, slated for marginalization, even under the banner of “bound conscience.”
The first words out of my mouth at the microphone were, “I am not going anywhere. This is my church.” That’s not simply grandstanding or a facile platitude. It is my deepest conviction of what God is calling me to do at this time, no matter how personally painful. Once people leave the ELCA, they have no stake in the ELCA anymore, and no real way to witness—that visitors at assemblies don’t have voice or vote is just the tip of the iceberg.
Witnessing is not about being at an assembly; it’s about the willingness to walk with a seriously broken church family and not abandon the people in it. People who leave, then come back as visitors to tell others how wrong they are, are not heard the same way as someone who is willing to stay and say, “I am with you. This is terribly wrong, and we are going down the wrong path, but I will not abandon you to the wolves. I will seek to help you hold the line, and work for reconciliation, and for a clear proclamation of the gospel. I will call you to repentance and you will call me there, too, and we will be accountable to one another. As long as I am here, this issue will not go away because I will stand as a living reminder of it. We both belong to Christ, and we have no choice but to be sisters and brothers.”
I use the metaphor of family because you don’t abandon your family in times of grave distress or grave error. Leaving the family and coming back occasionally at holidays to lecture or admonish just isn’t the same thing that Jesus calls us to when he speaks of the Good Shepherd and the hired hands.
There is much I dislike (and even detest) about the ELCA, but I flatly disagree that there is no hope of changing things for the better—the Word of God does not return to him empty, but prospers in that for which he purposes. Scripture tells us that. When the Word is proclaimed faithfully and clearly, even (especially!) in the midst of error and confusion, it will reap a harvest. Perhaps not one that is readily apparent to our eyes and senses, but we are commanded nonetheless to sow, trusting that the bounty and the glory will be God’s. God will bring fruit from dry ground, even as He brings life from the grave. When we substitute our own ideas of what is right, and perhaps even what is better, then we have set up an idol just as surely as the ELCA has done. That we must guard vigilantly against, because we are also sinners and prone to follow what we want and what we think instead of what God wants and what God thinks.
At this point, I am not convinced that Christ has called me to do anything but give witness in my speech, in my preaching and teaching, and in my life to those who walk in error, as well as those who desperately need the Word I bear, even as I lament and confess my own sinful self-righteousness (and there was plenty of that in me this past weekend, I am ashamed to say). If I leave—if all the orthodox pastors and congregations and laity leave—who then will witness and proclaim and minister, encouraging those other pastors and laity who are wavering so that they also can be strong and faithful? Surely God can raise up others, but has he not already placed me here, with this task at hand?
It’s a hard road but it is, I believe, a faithful and faith-filled one.
Pari Bailey is Pastor at Grace Lutheran Church in Belview, Minnesota.
Motive
Posted by
Kurt
at
April 21, 2010 17:34
David,
That's kind of a back-door way of saying that Pari was acting out of self-interest--saving ordination credentials. Obviously Pari has a view of the big tent that others do not.
That's kind of a back-door way of saying that Pari was acting out of self-interest--saving ordination credentials. Obviously Pari has a view of the big tent that others do not.
I say nothing back door
Posted by
David Pross
at
April 22, 2010 15:32
If I'd intended to say that Pr. Bailey was staying in the ELCA out of self-interest for her ordination, I would have said so. Do not put words in my mouth, sir.
What I said is what I meant.
What I said is what I meant.
Ordination
Posted by
Johannes U. Oesch
at
April 22, 2010 03:41
As an outsider from Germany, I don't understand the problem of ordination in this context. Just in case, some pastor happens to labour in another jurisdiction as before, why should his ordination to the Office of the Church (not "this" church) be questioned? It happens a lot of times, that pastors go to new fields, be it under friendly or unfriendly circumstances. Maybe there is, however, a ghost in the above comment, which would give a convincing explanation contrary to my reasoning. God bless you brothers and sisters in America!
ordination
Posted by
Peter
at
April 22, 2010 20:18
The next two largest Lutheran organizations in the US are the LCMS and WELS, neither of which permit the ordination of women. Thus, while Pr Bailey is welcome to join either group, her lack of a Y chromosome means neither group will ever consider her capable of serving in the ordained ministry.
Nice...
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
April 23, 2010 11:17
"And it is especially an excellent and noble virtue for one always to explain advantageously and put the best construction upon all he may hear of his neighbor (if it be not notoriously evil), or at any rate to condone it over and against the poisonous tongues that are busy wherever they can pry out and discover something to blame in a neighbor, and that explain and pervert it in the worst way; as is done now especially with the precious Word of God and its preachers."
As IF the choices for Lutherans is restricted to only the largest 3 Lutheran denominations in the US. It could also be said that the fastest growing Lutheran denomination LCMC, accepts women ordination and the three larger bodies that you mentioned are all shrinking denominations, and the ELCA is the fastest at shrinking its annual membership size, but that wouldn't have been helpful to your jab at the other bodies that don't agree with your I suppose.
As IF the choices for Lutherans is restricted to only the largest 3 Lutheran denominations in the US. It could also be said that the fastest growing Lutheran denomination LCMC, accepts women ordination and the three larger bodies that you mentioned are all shrinking denominations, and the ELCA is the fastest at shrinking its annual membership size, but that wouldn't have been helpful to your jab at the other bodies that don't agree with your I suppose.
irrelevant
Posted by
Peter
at
April 23, 2010 20:45
The other factions that do recognize women's ordination were irrelevant to the question at hand. David said her ordination "wouldn't be recognised in other Lutheran bodies." Johannes basically said: "WTF?" I answered that question.
boc1580@gmail.com
Posted by
Rev. Paul T. McCain
at
April 24, 2010 08:51
The agony of what is happening in the ELCA is painful to watch, extremely so. I wanted to mention something here, which I know conservative ELCA folks don't like to hear, but it must be said.
What has happened in the ELCA has its roots in the embrace of theological presuppositions which led its predecessor bodies to the ordination of women in the first place. Merely, or simply, turning the clock back before the ELCA embraced homosexuality as perfectly appropriate is no solution.
I would respectful urge careful reconsideration and study of the ordination of women and why it happened. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.cph.org/p-680-women-pastors-2nd-edition.aspx?SearchTerm=women%20pastors?
I've been surprised by the number of ELCA clergy, both male and female, who have spoken to me about leaving the ELCA, and to a person, they have come to realize just how things went wrong and they now recognize that the ordination of women flows directly out of the embrace of a theology that is simply foreign to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Here's the irony. As much as the ELCA talks about women's ministry, the fact remains that there are more women in The LCMS doing full-time ministry in various rostered positions than there are in the ELCA. Thousands more. That's worth pondering, quite a bit.
What has happened in the ELCA has its roots in the embrace of theological presuppositions which led its predecessor bodies to the ordination of women in the first place. Merely, or simply, turning the clock back before the ELCA embraced homosexuality as perfectly appropriate is no solution.
I would respectful urge careful reconsideration and study of the ordination of women and why it happened. Here's a good place to start:
http://www.cph.org/p-680-women-pastors-2nd-edition.aspx?SearchTerm=women%20pastors?
I've been surprised by the number of ELCA clergy, both male and female, who have spoken to me about leaving the ELCA, and to a person, they have come to realize just how things went wrong and they now recognize that the ordination of women flows directly out of the embrace of a theology that is simply foreign to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Here's the irony. As much as the ELCA talks about women's ministry, the fact remains that there are more women in The LCMS doing full-time ministry in various rostered positions than there are in the ELCA. Thousands more. That's worth pondering, quite a bit.
Thank you for your witness Pr. Bailey
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
April 21, 2010 09:53
First of all let me say right on top, may God continue to bless you, protect you and guide you, as it seems evident that He is already doing so, may it continue and may you continue to be a witness for man. My prayer for you so that you can keep your strength and maintain the convictions that He has clearly led you to. I am quite convinced that you are where you are supposed to be and doing what He wants you to be doing.
I would leave it at that but I do need to mention, for the benefit of others who might be reading this and are convicted by your words against those that have left and don’t hear the same desire by the Spirit, or have not received the same calling that you have, and I have some words for them. When you say, “I use the metaphor of family because you do* not abandon your family in times of grave distress or grave error. Leaving the family and coming back occasionally at holidays to lecture or admonish just isn’t the same thing that Jesus calls us to when he speaks of the Good Shepherd and the hired hands.” I believe that you have presented only one side of the acceptable responses to the issue, and those that have left the ELCA or are seriously considering leaving the ELCA and are sad about it, should not be convicted by the accusation that they have wrongfully abandoned their family. Christ does teach what you say, but He also teaches that a follower might be called to leave his family behind, even letting the dead bury their own, letting them worry about their own paths, or even to shake the dust off their feet, reminding us not to share fellowship with those that have repeatedly rejected right teaching and correction.
Leaving may not be the only correct response, but neither is staying the only correct option for the faithful. The family of Christ is very large, if I leave my brothers house and go to live at my sisters house, I haven’t left or abandoned my family. The Church is larger that the ELCA.
I would leave it at that but I do need to mention, for the benefit of others who might be reading this and are convicted by your words against those that have left and don’t hear the same desire by the Spirit, or have not received the same calling that you have, and I have some words for them. When you say, “I use the metaphor of family because you do* not abandon your family in times of grave distress or grave error. Leaving the family and coming back occasionally at holidays to lecture or admonish just isn’t the same thing that Jesus calls us to when he speaks of the Good Shepherd and the hired hands.” I believe that you have presented only one side of the acceptable responses to the issue, and those that have left the ELCA or are seriously considering leaving the ELCA and are sad about it, should not be convicted by the accusation that they have wrongfully abandoned their family. Christ does teach what you say, but He also teaches that a follower might be called to leave his family behind, even letting the dead bury their own, letting them worry about their own paths, or even to shake the dust off their feet, reminding us not to share fellowship with those that have repeatedly rejected right teaching and correction.
Leaving may not be the only correct response, but neither is staying the only correct option for the faithful. The family of Christ is very large, if I leave my brothers house and go to live at my sisters house, I haven’t left or abandoned my family. The Church is larger that the ELCA.
to James
Posted by
Pari Bailey
at
April 21, 2010 10:41
You're absolutely right, James--staying is one of several faithful options. I was thinking specifically of the situation in my conversation with the other attendee at the assembly, in which the possibility was raised of leaving the ELCA, then coming back to things like assemblies as a visitor. In no way do I mean to denigrate those whose hearts and souls and minds have simply had enough and feel led by God to other corners of the vineyard. They, also, are my brothers and sisters.
This Is My Church?
Posted by
Mick Lee
at
April 21, 2010 11:43
In the “fallout” from the sexuality statements adopted during the 2009 CWA, I have come to the sad finish that I do not belong in the ELCA. I could give you several reasons; but it really comes down to a simple one.
I am tired of fighting. I have been at odds with the ELCA for so long and I just can’t do it anymore. The embarrassment, shame and alienation the ELCA has caused for me is not good. It has at length begun to harm my spirit.
If the sexuality statements were the end of the matter, there may have been some possibility to strike a kind of peace. But we all know it won’t end there. There has always been something coming over the horizon the more “conservative” or—if you will—“orthodox” have had to come together and make their case for opposition. Mostly to not avail.
As vexing as the sexuality statements are in themselves, the troubling concern is the theological reasoning used to justify them. It is more than being critical of these theological reflections. We reject them root and branch. We don’t even accept the same premises. The theological reasoning used in those particular statements has set the standard and portend the pattern for all future issues. In a real sense, in the days and years to come, we would be fighting the same battle over and over again.
The Church and the work of Christ go beyond the walls of the ELCA. Leaving the ELCA does not suggest one can no longer serve our Lord. For the ELCA instruct the world what goes against our conscience, to speak what we refuse to say, and teach our children and grandchildren what will harm them, will only push our differences to a venomous fester.
Wishing our brothers and sisters peace and earnest love, I say farewell.
I am tired of fighting. I have been at odds with the ELCA for so long and I just can’t do it anymore. The embarrassment, shame and alienation the ELCA has caused for me is not good. It has at length begun to harm my spirit.
If the sexuality statements were the end of the matter, there may have been some possibility to strike a kind of peace. But we all know it won’t end there. There has always been something coming over the horizon the more “conservative” or—if you will—“orthodox” have had to come together and make their case for opposition. Mostly to not avail.
As vexing as the sexuality statements are in themselves, the troubling concern is the theological reasoning used to justify them. It is more than being critical of these theological reflections. We reject them root and branch. We don’t even accept the same premises. The theological reasoning used in those particular statements has set the standard and portend the pattern for all future issues. In a real sense, in the days and years to come, we would be fighting the same battle over and over again.
The Church and the work of Christ go beyond the walls of the ELCA. Leaving the ELCA does not suggest one can no longer serve our Lord. For the ELCA instruct the world what goes against our conscience, to speak what we refuse to say, and teach our children and grandchildren what will harm them, will only push our differences to a venomous fester.
Wishing our brothers and sisters peace and earnest love, I say farewell.
Joan of Arc
Posted by
luthersterotypicus
at
April 21, 2010 14:26
Dear Joan:
We need people like you in the Church, the real Church, the one Church. This is where you belong....not in some pseudo social thingy...not in some farce.....not in some "we do it our way" bowling league....why torture yourself....we need you. Christ did leave the Temple...the traditions....the steps of self-edification the elders called "service" and "worship". You can too. Don't burn yourself up for that heap. You will not make a difference...until you leave.
There are those who left...who are waiting for your service...with open arms. God has brought them to a place where they can be served...by people like you.
We need people like you in the Church, the real Church, the one Church. This is where you belong....not in some pseudo social thingy...not in some farce.....not in some "we do it our way" bowling league....why torture yourself....we need you. Christ did leave the Temple...the traditions....the steps of self-edification the elders called "service" and "worship". You can too. Don't burn yourself up for that heap. You will not make a difference...until you leave.
There are those who left...who are waiting for your service...with open arms. God has brought them to a place where they can be served...by people like you.
Thanks
Posted by
Steve McGinley
at
April 21, 2010 15:12
Pastor Bailey,
I so dread going to our assembly, one synod east of you, anticipating many of the same experiences you list in your article. But you give me some much-needed encouragement. Thanks.
I so dread going to our assembly, one synod east of you, anticipating many of the same experiences you list in your article. But you give me some much-needed encouragement. Thanks.
to Steve
Posted by
Pari Bailey
at
April 21, 2010 19:39
Peace be with you, Steve. And remember--Jesus is still Lord. No matter what happens. Amen and Amen.
That sick feeling in the pit of your stomach is just the signal to turn it all over to Jesus.
That sick feeling in the pit of your stomach is just the signal to turn it all over to Jesus.
Thy Will Be Done!
Posted by
Henry
at
April 22, 2010 08:38
The most difficult prayer I have is "Thy Will Be Done!" I am sure, Pastor Bailey, you would agree! Since CWA '09, the question I keep asking is this: What makes God praiseworthy? Does the ELCA find God to be praiseworthy, in so far as He agrees with its own sentiments? If so, the ELCA convicts itself. . . .It follows a God of its own making! Likewise, I ask myself: Does my love for God extend anywhere beyond my own wishes and selfish desires, or do I, in my heart of hearts, worship only that God who agrees with my sentiments? For we all are guilty of this: When things go our way, we praise the Lord. . . .but when things don't go our way, we withhold it.
By remaining in the ELCA, I found that I was confessing a lesser God, one of human constructs, and one that was praiseworthy only when He agreed with me. This kind of love is all too human and certainly not the kind of love that passes all human understanding! That is why I left!
May God help you in your struggles!
By remaining in the ELCA, I found that I was confessing a lesser God, one of human constructs, and one that was praiseworthy only when He agreed with me. This kind of love is all too human and certainly not the kind of love that passes all human understanding! That is why I left!
May God help you in your struggles!
Thank you
Posted by
Rik
at
April 22, 2010 16:47
Thank you for caling the ELCA to repentance. Oh, that they would have ears to hear. Oh, that they would have understanding. May the ELCA repent and turn from their falsehood, and hear the true Wor of God from the Holy Bible.
Thanks for your courage!
Thanks for your courage!
dry bones?
Posted by
Peter
at
April 22, 2010 20:37
Glad you're staying, and when your path feels too rough, remember that in the end, Christ bears us all. At the very least, I pray that civility and love will take root and grow, not just in your synod, but in all of the ones torn up by this issue.
The Gospel
Posted by
Gary
at
April 25, 2010 01:11
Pr. Bailey,
I disagree with your position so fundamentally that I don't even understand it. I especially don't see how you can believe the concept of "bound conscience" a fiction, in light of what Luther wrote in LW 51, pages 76-77, Second Sermon after Invocavit (I will here highlight the pertinent parts): "I cannot, nor should I, force any one to have faith... we should give free course to the Word and not add our works to it... We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God's good pleasure... For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. But that is done when I teach only the Word of God, preach the gospel, and say: Dear lords or pastors, abandon the mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this. But I would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law... For the Word created heaven and earth and all things [Ps. 33.6]; the Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners. In short, I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will restrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion." That, according to someone who should know, is where the concept of bound conscience is based. And what you are attempting to do by remaining in the ELCA is exercise your bound conscience, and to preach to those whom you see as doing something which is completely wrong. I just find the irony striking.
However, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for staying. The reason is very simple: the man who told me about that passage above, who should know what he is talking about, often says that we get distracted by these things from preaching the gospel. And whenever that happens, the only winner is the devil/evil. So thank you for not allowing this issue to prevent your attendance to the matter of life and death: preaching the gospel! God bless you and your ministry, and may we meet in a better Lutheran context no longer separated by such bitterness.
I disagree with your position so fundamentally that I don't even understand it. I especially don't see how you can believe the concept of "bound conscience" a fiction, in light of what Luther wrote in LW 51, pages 76-77, Second Sermon after Invocavit (I will here highlight the pertinent parts): "I cannot, nor should I, force any one to have faith... we should give free course to the Word and not add our works to it... We should preach the Word, but the results must be left solely to God's good pleasure... For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. But that is done when I teach only the Word of God, preach the gospel, and say: Dear lords or pastors, abandon the mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this. But I would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law... For the Word created heaven and earth and all things [Ps. 33.6]; the Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners. In short, I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will restrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion." That, according to someone who should know, is where the concept of bound conscience is based. And what you are attempting to do by remaining in the ELCA is exercise your bound conscience, and to preach to those whom you see as doing something which is completely wrong. I just find the irony striking.
However, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for staying. The reason is very simple: the man who told me about that passage above, who should know what he is talking about, often says that we get distracted by these things from preaching the gospel. And whenever that happens, the only winner is the devil/evil. So thank you for not allowing this issue to prevent your attendance to the matter of life and death: preaching the gospel! God bless you and your ministry, and may we meet in a better Lutheran context no longer separated by such bitterness.
Amazingly bad application (of theology)
Posted by
Rev. David H. Sidwell
at
April 26, 2010 06:55
This is exactly why you (all) are where you are. Luther would only teach the "Word of God" and allow faith to be the response of the hearer-- recognizing that such faith is the work of the Holy Spirit. He would not allow a Zwingli a "bound conscience" in false teaching of the Lord's Supper or an Anabaptist a "bound conscience" with a false teaching of Baptism. He (Luther) would hardly allow the ordination and marriage of homosexual clergy, etc.... The Gospel includes the Truth which Luther and the Confessors where quite willing to apply forcefully and with discipline.
Amazingly unloving.
Posted by
Gary
at
April 26, 2010 08:45
This is exactly why I don't understand the rejection of the "bound conscience." It is applied to those who may be wrong (on whatever side you wish) to prevent schism and the slaying of souls that would hamper the gospel, which is Luther's first concern. Whatever your perspective on sexuality, you cannot deny that the preaching of Christ crucified takes priority. In light of this, I do not see where you disagree - except on the side of legalism, that is, making new laws to be applied to others. This is just a way of enforcing your own views. Bound conscience enables the ELCA to agree to disagree, to respect a diversity of opinion. How is this a bad application of anything? Is this not exactly a focus on the preaching of the Word, even if it be at the cost of the promulgation of a certain interpretation of the Bible?
Whatever else Luther preached, he emphasized that love of God and neighbor is key. If you don't believe this, look at the catechism, look at his sermons. The problem with the position that you have just argued is that it does nothing but hurt - it will never sway anyone from their views and thus will only trigger schism. And this is the main problem I have with those who disassociate from the Christian community because of their personal opinions - something Luther would never have allowed. You clearly have strong opinions - but faith in the work of the Spirit in the Church should provide you with comfort. I hope you find that comfort.
Whatever else Luther preached, he emphasized that love of God and neighbor is key. If you don't believe this, look at the catechism, look at his sermons. The problem with the position that you have just argued is that it does nothing but hurt - it will never sway anyone from their views and thus will only trigger schism. And this is the main problem I have with those who disassociate from the Christian community because of their personal opinions - something Luther would never have allowed. You clearly have strong opinions - but faith in the work of the Spirit in the Church should provide you with comfort. I hope you find that comfort.
how long is your Gospel?
Posted by
Peter
at
April 26, 2010 19:43
Pr Sidwell,
It sounds like you're letting something besides sola fide get into your gospel. The Gospel is quite simple: That God promises forgiveness to sinners on account of Christ's death and resurrection, alone and only. What it means that Luther would only teach the Word of God is this: any truths beyond the Gospel are not relevant to this, no matter how important they may be. The problems with Zwingli and Anabaptists is that their teachings lose sight of this. The problem with "bound conscience" is that it speaks of consciences that are not bound to the law, or to the Bible but bound TO THE GOSPEL. Neither ordination of women nor of married homosexuals contradicts the Gospel, nor does it intrinsically make them less able to proclaim that Gospel.
It sounds like you're letting something besides sola fide get into your gospel. The Gospel is quite simple: That God promises forgiveness to sinners on account of Christ's death and resurrection, alone and only. What it means that Luther would only teach the Word of God is this: any truths beyond the Gospel are not relevant to this, no matter how important they may be. The problems with Zwingli and Anabaptists is that their teachings lose sight of this. The problem with "bound conscience" is that it speaks of consciences that are not bound to the law, or to the Bible but bound TO THE GOSPEL. Neither ordination of women nor of married homosexuals contradicts the Gospel, nor does it intrinsically make them less able to proclaim that Gospel.
Gospel Reductionism
Posted by
David Charlton
at
April 26, 2010 20:14
Sad to say, those in the LCMS who invented the term "Gospel reductionism" hit the nail on the head. The distinction between Law and Gospel is tossed out. The Office of the Keys is turned into the Office of the Key.
In fact, it seems to me that you have turned Luther's statement on its head. It was the Gospel that was speaking of when he said that the no one can be forced to believe. No one can be compelled to have faith, and no one should make the attempt to compel another to believe.
Meanwhile, one can compel another to obey the Law. It is the duty of parents and civil authorities to do so in a wise and proportionate way. The Law is accessible to reason and to all people, believers and unbelievers alike. The ELCA cannot force anyone to believe the Gospel, but it does require pastors and congregations to abide by the policies of the ELCA. If the interpretation of "bound conscience" that you propose was actually put into practice by the ELCA, it would have to abolish all the policies that it has put in place over the last 22 years. (We have recently been reminded that congregations may not be dually rostered, that congregations are expected to give benevolence, etc... Students at ELCA seminaries are required to use "inclusive language" regardless of their bound conscience.) When the ELCA announces, "As long as you believe the Gospel, you are free to do whatever you want," I will believe you.
In fact, it seems to me that you have turned Luther's statement on its head. It was the Gospel that was speaking of when he said that the no one can be forced to believe. No one can be compelled to have faith, and no one should make the attempt to compel another to believe.
Meanwhile, one can compel another to obey the Law. It is the duty of parents and civil authorities to do so in a wise and proportionate way. The Law is accessible to reason and to all people, believers and unbelievers alike. The ELCA cannot force anyone to believe the Gospel, but it does require pastors and congregations to abide by the policies of the ELCA. If the interpretation of "bound conscience" that you propose was actually put into practice by the ELCA, it would have to abolish all the policies that it has put in place over the last 22 years. (We have recently been reminded that congregations may not be dually rostered, that congregations are expected to give benevolence, etc... Students at ELCA seminaries are required to use "inclusive language" regardless of their bound conscience.) When the ELCA announces, "As long as you believe the Gospel, you are free to do whatever you want," I will believe you.
Freedom of a Christian
Posted by
Gary
at
April 26, 2010 20:35
Mr. Charlton,
I'm not sure where you're going with your statements. One can be compelled to obey civil laws, certainly, but what does that have to do with the Law? The Law keeps order in the world (that is, prevents chaos that would keep the gospel from being preached), and convicts the conscience so that the sinner flees to the Cross and there finds the Gospel waiting. The Law is by no means, in this sense, about requirements that should be enforced but about the fallibility of humanity. Bound conscience, moreover, is about respecting those of weaker faith. I do not see how the infractions you have named could be perpetrated because of weak faith which depends on things which are unnecessary or even false. And how would bound conscience affect inclusive language? Simply acknowledge that humanity possesses two genders and God surpasses that category and therefore is beyond pronouns. Would the maleness of God (NOT Jesus, but God) really be such a problem to lose?
Clarification would be helpful here, since I don't follow your point. The freedom we have is to be alive and holy through Christ... what other freedom are we talking about? Surely not freedom to injure others, or to serve the self - because a Christian prays to be taken beyond such things.
I'm not sure where you're going with your statements. One can be compelled to obey civil laws, certainly, but what does that have to do with the Law? The Law keeps order in the world (that is, prevents chaos that would keep the gospel from being preached), and convicts the conscience so that the sinner flees to the Cross and there finds the Gospel waiting. The Law is by no means, in this sense, about requirements that should be enforced but about the fallibility of humanity. Bound conscience, moreover, is about respecting those of weaker faith. I do not see how the infractions you have named could be perpetrated because of weak faith which depends on things which are unnecessary or even false. And how would bound conscience affect inclusive language? Simply acknowledge that humanity possesses two genders and God surpasses that category and therefore is beyond pronouns. Would the maleness of God (NOT Jesus, but God) really be such a problem to lose?
Clarification would be helpful here, since I don't follow your point. The freedom we have is to be alive and holy through Christ... what other freedom are we talking about? Surely not freedom to injure others, or to serve the self - because a Christian prays to be taken beyond such things.
The Law Say Do This, Don't Do That
Posted by
David Charlton
at
April 26, 2010 21:09
My point was that the ELCA in fact requires people to do many things. ELCA seminarians are required to use inclusive language. Congregations are expected to give benevolence and not to be dually rostered. Clearly, the ELCA follow the definition of bound conscience that you and Peter espouse: "As long as we agree on the Gospel, we are free to disagree on everything else." The ELCA and its seminaries attempt to bind consciences to its policies and rules an many occasions. It would have use believe we have a moral obligation to use inclusive language, give benevolence, avoid dual rostering, etc... To imply that someone has a moral obligation is to attempt to "bind" that person's "conscience".
Futhermore, the ELCA has on occasion disciplined rostered leaders and congregations in an attempt to enforce conformity to its policies. It also requires men and women to promise to teach in accordance with the Word of God, the Ecumenical Creeds, and the Lutheran Confessions. It also requires candidates for ministry to promise to abide by Visions and Expectations.
What is does not do and should not attempt to do is require someone to have faith. Why? First of all because "I cannot by my own understanding or strength believe in my Lord Jesus Christ or come to him." Faith cannot be compelled because it is a gifty of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, because the ELCA has no way of determining who truly has faith and who does not. That is known only to God. Luther was saying that we cannot compel people to believe. He was not saying that we cannot or should not compel people to follow the rules (Civil Righteousness).
Futhermore, the ELCA has on occasion disciplined rostered leaders and congregations in an attempt to enforce conformity to its policies. It also requires men and women to promise to teach in accordance with the Word of God, the Ecumenical Creeds, and the Lutheran Confessions. It also requires candidates for ministry to promise to abide by Visions and Expectations.
What is does not do and should not attempt to do is require someone to have faith. Why? First of all because "I cannot by my own understanding or strength believe in my Lord Jesus Christ or come to him." Faith cannot be compelled because it is a gifty of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, because the ELCA has no way of determining who truly has faith and who does not. That is known only to God. Luther was saying that we cannot compel people to believe. He was not saying that we cannot or should not compel people to follow the rules (Civil Righteousness).
correction
Posted by
David Charlton
at
April 26, 2010 21:12
I meant to say, "Clearly the ELCA does not follow the definition of bound conscience that you and Peter espouse.
Definition
Posted by
Gary
at
April 27, 2010 10:53
Mr. Charlton:
The purpose of bound conscience, as I posted above, is to prevent the slaying of souls through obstruction of the gospel on account of tenets that harm faith. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, and it would harm your faith to have a homosexual pastor, you are not required to be in a church pastored by someone who is homosexual or in a homosexual relationship. That is the purpose of bound conscience - whereas the definition is "a faith which is dependent upon a thing seen as inconsequential or negative doctrinally." A conscience is not "bound" by any action - it is a part of someone's faith, and only God through the Word can address it. Bound conscience is not about morality, it is about faith. It is not about choices, but an idea presented to allow choices for those whose faith relies upon certain things. Do you know of someone whose faith relies upon any of the things you name? Or are you saying that this idea means that anyone can do whatever they want (as was said of Luther, by the way)? If that is your argument, I encourage you to read the sexuality statement again, and look up the quote I used above in context to see that it is used as a tool for pastoral care to restrain those who have convictions from injuring the faith of others. I hope that helps.
The purpose of bound conscience, as I posted above, is to prevent the slaying of souls through obstruction of the gospel on account of tenets that harm faith. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, and it would harm your faith to have a homosexual pastor, you are not required to be in a church pastored by someone who is homosexual or in a homosexual relationship. That is the purpose of bound conscience - whereas the definition is "a faith which is dependent upon a thing seen as inconsequential or negative doctrinally." A conscience is not "bound" by any action - it is a part of someone's faith, and only God through the Word can address it. Bound conscience is not about morality, it is about faith. It is not about choices, but an idea presented to allow choices for those whose faith relies upon certain things. Do you know of someone whose faith relies upon any of the things you name? Or are you saying that this idea means that anyone can do whatever they want (as was said of Luther, by the way)? If that is your argument, I encourage you to read the sexuality statement again, and look up the quote I used above in context to see that it is used as a tool for pastoral care to restrain those who have convictions from injuring the faith of others. I hope that helps.
Your help isn't needed
Posted by
David Charlton
at
April 27, 2010 13:11
My argument is that it is as logically muddled and untenable as your statement above. My problem is not that I do not understand your argument, it is that I believe you are wrong. Bound conscience sets up as a principle that if followed consistently would render all policies of the ELCA negotiable.
Clearly
Posted by
Gary
at
April 27, 2010 18:41
Mr. Charlton,
Since this continues below I will briefly say: since your post above is unsubstantiated, I do not see how my help could be unneeded. If you think bound conscience renders all policies negotiable, give me an example of someone whose faith is relient upon the other policies you have named.
And as a pure theoretical: what if it did? Since the whole point is the preaching of the gospel, why should policies not be negotiable?
Since this continues below I will briefly say: since your post above is unsubstantiated, I do not see how my help could be unneeded. If you think bound conscience renders all policies negotiable, give me an example of someone whose faith is relient upon the other policies you have named.
And as a pure theoretical: what if it did? Since the whole point is the preaching of the gospel, why should policies not be negotiable?
I agree
Posted by
Peter
at
April 27, 2010 20:20
David,
I don't think the ELCA is using bound conscience in the sense that Luther meant it. But then, I think this is a Gospel-issue in that it reveals the extent to which the false gospel of legalism has been growing in the church. I don't think that means 'drive the false gospellers out', but I do think we need to talk about exactly what the Gospel is and how this is a false gospel, though certainly not in an angry and schismatic fashion. To that extent, I think bound conscience is the wrong thing to evoke here as a 'let's respect the opposing viewpoint'.
However, in your explanation of Law, I think you dangerously confuse function of the church and the state. The church's function is not to enforce Law-- that is explicitly reserved to the state as 'the power of the sword'. The church's function is to proclaim the Gospel. That is the central and only aim of the church. The problem we face is that the church is also a human institution run by sinners, so we can't help but organize it legally. However, when those laws impede the Gospel, the church is in error.
A lot of those 'rules' you mention that the ELCA requires are the dogmas of the church-- how to talk about God, Jesus and the Bible and have it come out as the Good News. They are 'required' in that if you neglect them, you no longer proclaim the Good News, much in the way that if you neglect certain mathematical theorems, your proofs are no longer consistent. And if a church regulation can be deleted without it destroying the Good News, it's an irrelevant regulation. Does the ELCA have many irrelevant regulations? Certainly.
I don't think the ELCA is using bound conscience in the sense that Luther meant it. But then, I think this is a Gospel-issue in that it reveals the extent to which the false gospel of legalism has been growing in the church. I don't think that means 'drive the false gospellers out', but I do think we need to talk about exactly what the Gospel is and how this is a false gospel, though certainly not in an angry and schismatic fashion. To that extent, I think bound conscience is the wrong thing to evoke here as a 'let's respect the opposing viewpoint'.
However, in your explanation of Law, I think you dangerously confuse function of the church and the state. The church's function is not to enforce Law-- that is explicitly reserved to the state as 'the power of the sword'. The church's function is to proclaim the Gospel. That is the central and only aim of the church. The problem we face is that the church is also a human institution run by sinners, so we can't help but organize it legally. However, when those laws impede the Gospel, the church is in error.
A lot of those 'rules' you mention that the ELCA requires are the dogmas of the church-- how to talk about God, Jesus and the Bible and have it come out as the Good News. They are 'required' in that if you neglect them, you no longer proclaim the Good News, much in the way that if you neglect certain mathematical theorems, your proofs are no longer consistent. And if a church regulation can be deleted without it destroying the Good News, it's an irrelevant regulation. Does the ELCA have many irrelevant regulations? Certainly.
Required to believe in bound conscience?
Posted by
David Charlton
at
April 26, 2010 20:42
Another question. In your intpretation of "bound conscience", are pastors in the ELCA to be required to "believe" in bound conscience? Are those who think bound conscience is nonsense unfit to serve in the ELCA? Will seminarians who believe bound conscience is a distortion of the Lutheran Confessions be approved by their candidacy committees?
In reality, "bound conscience" is another word for post-modernism. Just as every generation imagines Jesus in its own image, every generation of Lutherans imagines Luther in its own image. Fifty years ago Luther was an existentialist, now he is a post-modernist.
In reality, "bound conscience" is another word for post-modernism. Just as every generation imagines Jesus in its own image, every generation of Lutherans imagines Luther in its own image. Fifty years ago Luther was an existentialist, now he is a post-modernist.
"Believe"
Posted by
Gary
at
April 27, 2010 11:05
Mr. Charlton,
You clearly have a misapprehension of what bound conscience is meant to be. This is not doctrine, not an article of faith. It is a tool, a policy, which allows disagreement on things without instituting laws which attempt to enforce faith which humans cannot create. Whether you "believe" in bound conscience is entirely irrelevant. For example, have you ever been to a congregation which has an American flag next to the altar? Let us assume you ask someone about it, and it becomes clear to you that the placement of the flag is part of that congregation's faith. You may not like it, you may in fact very much disagree with it and be in dialogue with them to bring them to a different place. However, you do not simply institute a new policy which harms their faith by removing the flag - however much you wish to. That is respecting the bound conscience of others. It has nothing to do with post-modernism, and the biggest defender of bound conscience I know has a larger problem with post-modernism than you do. As for the "distortion" question, well, I'm sorry - Luther scholars came up with the idea, so how is it a "distortion"? I quoted Luther above to show that bound conscience is not made from whole cloth but simply naming something Luther clearly knew and practiced.
So in short - do you think that it is your place to sit in judgment of the ELCA? If so, then yes I think you are in need of prayer, preaching, comfort and care before you serve. That's what candidacy committees are for. Do you simply disagree with the sexuality statement? Then chances are that your conscience is bound, so you fall under its protection. Do you simply disagree with a certain reading of the Lutheran Confessions? That's probably not what a candidacy is most worried about.
Again, bound conscience is about love of neighbor - respecting them and protecting their faith, even when it clings to things you disagree with or attach no meaning to.
You clearly have a misapprehension of what bound conscience is meant to be. This is not doctrine, not an article of faith. It is a tool, a policy, which allows disagreement on things without instituting laws which attempt to enforce faith which humans cannot create. Whether you "believe" in bound conscience is entirely irrelevant. For example, have you ever been to a congregation which has an American flag next to the altar? Let us assume you ask someone about it, and it becomes clear to you that the placement of the flag is part of that congregation's faith. You may not like it, you may in fact very much disagree with it and be in dialogue with them to bring them to a different place. However, you do not simply institute a new policy which harms their faith by removing the flag - however much you wish to. That is respecting the bound conscience of others. It has nothing to do with post-modernism, and the biggest defender of bound conscience I know has a larger problem with post-modernism than you do. As for the "distortion" question, well, I'm sorry - Luther scholars came up with the idea, so how is it a "distortion"? I quoted Luther above to show that bound conscience is not made from whole cloth but simply naming something Luther clearly knew and practiced.
So in short - do you think that it is your place to sit in judgment of the ELCA? If so, then yes I think you are in need of prayer, preaching, comfort and care before you serve. That's what candidacy committees are for. Do you simply disagree with the sexuality statement? Then chances are that your conscience is bound, so you fall under its protection. Do you simply disagree with a certain reading of the Lutheran Confessions? That's probably not what a candidacy is most worried about.
Again, bound conscience is about love of neighbor - respecting them and protecting their faith, even when it clings to things you disagree with or attach no meaning to.
No misapprehension
Posted by
David Charlton
at
April 27, 2010 13:28
Again, that I do not agree with you does not indicate that I don't understand. If in fact bound conscience is such a central principle for Lutherans, why was it invoked only at the end of a 20+ year process? It would seem that it was invoked because the local option had been rejected in 2005 and 2007 and a better rationalization for that proposal was needed. Believing it was "the Lutheran thing to do" enable people to vote for the local option with a good conscience, tipping the balance in favor of the resolutions.
As far as whether I require "prayer, preaching, comfort and care" before I serve, the horse left the barn 16 years ago. I still hold out the hope that you will avail yourself of "prayer, preaching, comfort and care" before you serve.
As far as whether I require "prayer, preaching, comfort and care" before I serve, the horse left the barn 16 years ago. I still hold out the hope that you will avail yourself of "prayer, preaching, comfort and care" before you serve.
And yet...
Posted by
Gary
at
April 27, 2010 17:46
Mr. Charlton,
Since your arguments are irrelevant to the concept, naturally I assumed a misapprehension. This argument, the question of why it was only invoked at the end of 20 years, lies in several things. First, that what is central for Lutherans are things like the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, the Lord's Supper. Those are the central things for Lutherans, so far as I can see - notice none of these things have to do with "homosexuality" in the Bible or anywhere else, and so the entire issue of debate is noncentral. And that is why bound conscience applies. The unfortunate place is that no amount of academic work has been able to sway those who think homosexual relationships make ordination impossible, and I still have never heard a good reason why. Since we were at this impasse, the decision was to agree to disagree about this non-central issue. Which brings up the question - why are we still fighting about it? What is the big deal, really?
Now, as far as my recommendation for you, that was based on the assumption that you place yourself in the position of judging the ELCA. Which, as you are no doubt aware, is preached against by Christ. That was my concern, that if you see yourself that way you might injure souls. This is of course hypothetical, since I do not know you. If you were insulted, I apologize - such was not my intent.
Now - what do you disagree with? Because, as far as we have taken this, you have disagreed with "bound conscience" while exercising it, and you appear to have objections to bound conscience that do not apply to it, and you do nothing with the actual points I make. So please, help me out here.
Since your arguments are irrelevant to the concept, naturally I assumed a misapprehension. This argument, the question of why it was only invoked at the end of 20 years, lies in several things. First, that what is central for Lutherans are things like the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, the Lord's Supper. Those are the central things for Lutherans, so far as I can see - notice none of these things have to do with "homosexuality" in the Bible or anywhere else, and so the entire issue of debate is noncentral. And that is why bound conscience applies. The unfortunate place is that no amount of academic work has been able to sway those who think homosexual relationships make ordination impossible, and I still have never heard a good reason why. Since we were at this impasse, the decision was to agree to disagree about this non-central issue. Which brings up the question - why are we still fighting about it? What is the big deal, really?
Now, as far as my recommendation for you, that was based on the assumption that you place yourself in the position of judging the ELCA. Which, as you are no doubt aware, is preached against by Christ. That was my concern, that if you see yourself that way you might injure souls. This is of course hypothetical, since I do not know you. If you were insulted, I apologize - such was not my intent.
Now - what do you disagree with? Because, as far as we have taken this, you have disagreed with "bound conscience" while exercising it, and you appear to have objections to bound conscience that do not apply to it, and you do nothing with the actual points I make. So please, help me out here.
clarification after all that's been said
Posted by
Craig
at
April 27, 2010 11:48
You and we should also note that in Luther's statement, supplied by Gary in an earlier post, he (Luther) does assert something that is not "the gospel" so much as it is an implication of the gospel -- to Luther. Namely, the practice of the Mass. About this he plans to preach and teach but he will not make an ordinance, or law, because he leaves it up to the Spirit to convict others of this point of view he espouses. If I understand correctly, Luther considered his conscience bound to this understanding about the Mass, but wasn't going to force anyone out of communion for believing otherwise. What interests me, is that the issue of the Mass was related to one's understanding of the gospel (to Luther), but could still be understood to be outside the gospel proclamation itself (to some). So to get back to Pr. Bailey's point, her conscience is bound to call the ELCA to repentance, she is calling the ELCA to respect that, and suggesting that she can still uphold her calling to proclaim the gospel in the ELCA while bound by her conscience to disagree. The issue seems to be whether the ELCA (who figuratively is in Luther's position here, from "its" point of view) can tolerate her disagreement and welcome her continued ministry within the ELCA.
It's hard to compare all the many different expectations of policy in force in the ELCA, in the modern church denomination, to this matter. How much of it would Luther have called adiafara (sp?) and how much would he have characterized as unallowable false teaching, as Rev. Sidwell has interjected?
It's hard to compare all the many different expectations of policy in force in the ELCA, in the modern church denomination, to this matter. How much of it would Luther have called adiafara (sp?) and how much would he have characterized as unallowable false teaching, as Rev. Sidwell has interjected?
Adiaphora
Posted by
Gary
at
April 27, 2010 17:35
Craig, you seem to understand me. Luther's point, and the whole idea of bound conscience, is to remain in dialogue so that the gospel can be proclaimed. What Luther would have thought in the 1500s is that homosexuality is sinful - he would not have the basis we have to think otherwise - but he would most certainly feel that this is not an opinion that should obstruct faith! Since it is doing so and causing schism, Luther would tell everyone (on both sides) to preach the gospel and stop fussing about over secondary things. Everything is Adiaphora aside from Word and Sacrament, because these are the marks of the Church!
Contradicting the Gospel ?
Posted by
Gregory
at
April 27, 2010 17:05
Peter:
The concept of married homosexuals is in direct opposition to Jesus' explicit teaching, so it follows that the ordination of such persons does, in fact, contradict the Gospel.
We've all heard your rationalizations ad infinitum. Jesus said what he said.
The concept of married homosexuals is in direct opposition to Jesus' explicit teaching, so it follows that the ordination of such persons does, in fact, contradict the Gospel.
We've all heard your rationalizations ad infinitum. Jesus said what he said.
Said what?
Posted by
Gary
at
April 27, 2010 17:50
Gregory,
How is this opposed to Jesus' teaching, especially since homosexual marriage was incomprehensible in late antiquity according to some (not all, I suppose) New Testament scholars and nonexistent as a concern in the Jewish tradition? In other words, where are you getting this from?
Oh, but Jesus does seem to have commanded the complete donation of all wealth to charity. Are you planning on selling your car, home, and clothes any time soon for that purpose? To be less sarcastic, what hermenutic are you using, since you are obviously not being simply literal?
How is this opposed to Jesus' teaching, especially since homosexual marriage was incomprehensible in late antiquity according to some (not all, I suppose) New Testament scholars and nonexistent as a concern in the Jewish tradition? In other words, where are you getting this from?
Oh, but Jesus does seem to have commanded the complete donation of all wealth to charity. Are you planning on selling your car, home, and clothes any time soon for that purpose? To be less sarcastic, what hermenutic are you using, since you are obviously not being simply literal?
tag! you're it!
Posted by
Peter
at
April 27, 2010 19:30
Gary,
I think you're going to be a better dance partner than I am.
I think you're going to be a better dance partner than I am.
the Good News, not the literary gattungen
Posted by
Peter
at
April 27, 2010 19:45
Gregory,
Not loving your neighbor as yourself also contradicts Jesus' explicit teaching. So does speaking in anger, much of which is being done, unfortunately by a distressing number of pastors in my synod. There is Law to be found in the four canonical Gospels, but that is distinct from the Good News told in these four Gospels. That Good News is not 'never get a divorce and marriage is only 1 man with 1 woman'. It is that even in the midst of your sin, God loves you to the point that He gave His only Son up to our sins that we may be forgiven and have eternal life.
All of us live in broken sexual relationships. Some are far more broken than others, but they're all broken too much. Being with a person of the same gender isn't the problem, though, because being with a person of the opposite gender or being with no one fails to fix the problem (and in most cases leads to further brokenness). Our problem is our sinful heart, which in turn is the result of our broken connection with God. Christ's healing fixes that connection, which gives us new hearts for love, and when that love is shown to another, that is the work of the Spirit.
Not loving your neighbor as yourself also contradicts Jesus' explicit teaching. So does speaking in anger, much of which is being done, unfortunately by a distressing number of pastors in my synod. There is Law to be found in the four canonical Gospels, but that is distinct from the Good News told in these four Gospels. That Good News is not 'never get a divorce and marriage is only 1 man with 1 woman'. It is that even in the midst of your sin, God loves you to the point that He gave His only Son up to our sins that we may be forgiven and have eternal life.
All of us live in broken sexual relationships. Some are far more broken than others, but they're all broken too much. Being with a person of the same gender isn't the problem, though, because being with a person of the opposite gender or being with no one fails to fix the problem (and in most cases leads to further brokenness). Our problem is our sinful heart, which in turn is the result of our broken connection with God. Christ's healing fixes that connection, which gives us new hearts for love, and when that love is shown to another, that is the work of the Spirit.
Sin Movement
Posted by
Christopher
at
April 28, 2010 09:52
Substitution Test: Substitute another sin and see if it makes sense. (Adultery lust, fornication, etc.) Are these honoring to God? What we have here is a ZERO SUM GAME - Gay activists at war with traditional christian values - THEY CANNOT CO-EXIST. Tyranny in the name of tolerance. This sin movement is a very powerful one, like the communist message, sometimes it takes a good 20 + years of repeating the same information over and over again and what people rejected at one point, they now start to believe. Civil rights is about unchangeable characteristics, race - you cannot be an ex-black or an ex-hispanic. Ex-gays exist, delivered by God. As Christians, we need to maintain the focus of celebrating people being delivered from sin. The activist cannot stand God pulling people out of homosexuality. Now the ELCA raises the banner of "Bound Conscience" which is a mask word for moral relativism (don't be deceived, it's an oldie made popular in the 60's when absolute truth couldn't exist anymore). The freedom of the conscience is being chipped away, tyranny in the name of tolerance. When you cannot speak truth a piece of your soul is buried away. So here is the big question - Am I agreeing with God on this issue? If you have a temptation to accept gay identity - He doesn't. Are you shaping the world? Or is the world shaping you? Get into your bible. Don't deny Christ's ability to change people. He is still in the business of saving souls. Will we work as hard for the truth as the sin movement works for a lie? Sin doesn't stay in a corner, it wants and will expand. Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. Your testimony of deliverance is power to minister. Embrace persecution, speak in love, we are no better than the person struggling with homosexuality. -C
let's play substitution
Posted by
Peter
at
April 28, 2010 20:48
Let's look to Scripture, and see what it says about some of the leaders of God's chosen people and sin.
Abraham: does not trust God's promise to bring him a kid through Sarah
Jacob: lies to steal his brother's blessing, and if 1 man/1 woman is any kind of value, he falls well short of that mark. also plays favorites within his family, and raises a bunch of murderers.
Noah: drunk
Moses: murderer
Aaron: forged a false idol for people to worship
King David: murderer and adulterer
King Solomon: how many hundreds of wives? And the big no-no is that some of them were foreign
Or NT personalities:
Peter: denies Christ, even after the resurrection he and Paul get into it over eating unclean food
Paul: persecuted the early Christians, and even after his conversion confesses that he still sins, wretched man that he is.
or the woman caught in adultery, the syrophoenician woman, Bartimaes, the man born blind, Zaccheus
Does one's sins disqualify one from proclaiming the Gospel? Or, the Lutheran question: what is honoring to God? Is it when we do good works by keeping "traditional Christian values"? Or is it when we place our faith (trust!) entirely in God's promise of forgiveness on behalf of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ alone and only (as suggested throughout John's Gospel, esp John 16:9)? If it is the former, we're ALL damned-our righteousness is as dirty rags in God's sight. We are sinners, and sin is what a sinner does. It is only through Christ that we may be forgiven and restored to a right relationship with God.
And all this is even presuming homosexuality is a sin. THAT thought is a remnant of the 1st century Zeitgeist that has insidiously infiltrated the church and assumed God's name. Cast that idol out.
As to your 'civil rights is about unchangeable characteristics', Michael Jackson is a counter-example. Biracial folks are another counter-example, since they are half-white to blacks, and half-black to whites. Their characteristics change based on the observer. I also hope that you don't take this as a justification for sexism, since gender can also be changed.
Abraham: does not trust God's promise to bring him a kid through Sarah
Jacob: lies to steal his brother's blessing, and if 1 man/1 woman is any kind of value, he falls well short of that mark. also plays favorites within his family, and raises a bunch of murderers.
Noah: drunk
Moses: murderer
Aaron: forged a false idol for people to worship
King David: murderer and adulterer
King Solomon: how many hundreds of wives? And the big no-no is that some of them were foreign
Or NT personalities:
Peter: denies Christ, even after the resurrection he and Paul get into it over eating unclean food
Paul: persecuted the early Christians, and even after his conversion confesses that he still sins, wretched man that he is.
or the woman caught in adultery, the syrophoenician woman, Bartimaes, the man born blind, Zaccheus
Does one's sins disqualify one from proclaiming the Gospel? Or, the Lutheran question: what is honoring to God? Is it when we do good works by keeping "traditional Christian values"? Or is it when we place our faith (trust!) entirely in God's promise of forgiveness on behalf of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ alone and only (as suggested throughout John's Gospel, esp John 16:9)? If it is the former, we're ALL damned-our righteousness is as dirty rags in God's sight. We are sinners, and sin is what a sinner does. It is only through Christ that we may be forgiven and restored to a right relationship with God.
And all this is even presuming homosexuality is a sin. THAT thought is a remnant of the 1st century Zeitgeist that has insidiously infiltrated the church and assumed God's name. Cast that idol out.
As to your 'civil rights is about unchangeable characteristics', Michael Jackson is a counter-example. Biracial folks are another counter-example, since they are half-white to blacks, and half-black to whites. Their characteristics change based on the observer. I also hope that you don't take this as a justification for sexism, since gender can also be changed.
"Suffering, death and resurrection" Take it to the Cross!
Posted by
Rik
at
April 28, 2010 23:59
Peter wrote, "Or is it when we place our faith (trust!) entirely in God's promise of forgiveness on behalf of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ alone..."
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. -1 John 1:8-10 ESV.
Regardless of the sin let us "place our faith (trust!) entirely in God's promise of forgiveness on behalf of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ alone." Let us turn from our sins (repent), and trust that He has removed our sins "as far as the east is from the west." And let us arise as a new creation, and live in that full and complete forgiveness, thankful for Christ's all atoning sacrifice in our behalf. Let us live thankful lives, and not think lightly about sin. May God indeed have mercy upon us.
8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. -1 John 1:8-10 ESV.
Regardless of the sin let us "place our faith (trust!) entirely in God's promise of forgiveness on behalf of the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ alone." Let us turn from our sins (repent), and trust that He has removed our sins "as far as the east is from the west." And let us arise as a new creation, and live in that full and complete forgiveness, thankful for Christ's all atoning sacrifice in our behalf. Let us live thankful lives, and not think lightly about sin. May God indeed have mercy upon us.
The biggest Law that threatens the "Gospel"!
Posted by
Henry
at
April 29, 2010 05:59
There is one "It is written," from Deuteronomy 6:16 no less, that seems to persist within the ELCA and elsewhere, which threatens our "Gospel" of Christ forgiving sinners on account of his death and resurrection, alone and only. The legalism it promotes pervasive. It has become an idol that should be cast out. Of course, Christ didn't help his own cause by quoting this Law in Matt. 4:7 and Luke 4:12! Would that the "Spirit" speak to us today in a new way to get rid of this hindrance to the "Gospel" in the ELCA! Oh wait, it already has. . . . Nevermind!
and just what test is that?
Posted by
Peter
at
April 29, 2010 19:28
Henry,
The test of God from Deut 6:16 directly refers back to Exodus 17:7, where it is stated exactly what that test is: the Israelites asking, "Is the LORD among us or not?" It is specifically a question of faith. As Christians we answer that in the affirmative when we trust in Christ's death and resurrection as our salvation. This is still the central question of faith in Matthew and Luke, when the devil asks Jesus to cast himself down from the temple and be borne up by angels, lest he be injured. Jesus knew precisely that he HAD to die, without angels bearing him up. Matthew 26:53 reflects precisely this in the garden. So tell me, how does rostering married homosexuals, or even loosing a sin display a lack of trust in either the necessity of Christ's death and resurrection or Christ's real presence among us?
The test of God from Deut 6:16 directly refers back to Exodus 17:7, where it is stated exactly what that test is: the Israelites asking, "Is the LORD among us or not?" It is specifically a question of faith. As Christians we answer that in the affirmative when we trust in Christ's death and resurrection as our salvation. This is still the central question of faith in Matthew and Luke, when the devil asks Jesus to cast himself down from the temple and be borne up by angels, lest he be injured. Jesus knew precisely that he HAD to die, without angels bearing him up. Matthew 26:53 reflects precisely this in the garden. So tell me, how does rostering married homosexuals, or even loosing a sin display a lack of trust in either the necessity of Christ's death and resurrection or Christ's real presence among us?
Faith or Foolishness?
Posted by
Henry
at
April 30, 2010 06:17
Peter, where is your faith? You will have ample opportunity to argue your most excellent case before the Almighty in the hereafter! No doubt, you are most certain of His reply, are you not? That cocksure faith in a grace that saves, unrepentance notwithstanding, could not be foolish! It is your ticket, my friend. Go for it!
foolishness to Gentiles and a stumbling block to Jews
Posted by
Peter
at
May 01, 2010 02:50
Henry,
My faith is in the foolishness of the cross, and a crucified Messiah. I know that when I die, no matter how hard I try or what I do, I will be in a state of rebellion against God, and can only rely on His mercy, freely poured out in Christ's blood.
My faith is in the foolishness of the cross, and a crucified Messiah. I know that when I die, no matter how hard I try or what I do, I will be in a state of rebellion against God, and can only rely on His mercy, freely poured out in Christ's blood.
An unholy and reproachable church?
Posted by
Henry
at
May 01, 2010 22:58
Would that you would consider how your thinking empties the cross of its meaning, Peter, when you argue in favor of an unholy and reproachable church to be present on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ! For the cross does not destroy the conscience and the Law, but presupposes it even as it shames the wise.
it's not about what I favor
Posted by
Peter
at
May 02, 2010 14:59
Henry,
Neither Law nor conscience will make the church holy and unreproachable. In fact, it makes it quite the opposite. It is only through Christ that the church can be made so. The existence of persistent, lifelong sin on our part is a guarantee. That sin is only overcome when Christ is present in our lives, and when He is there, I think your concerns would be put to rest.
Neither Law nor conscience will make the church holy and unreproachable. In fact, it makes it quite the opposite. It is only through Christ that the church can be made so. The existence of persistent, lifelong sin on our part is a guarantee. That sin is only overcome when Christ is present in our lives, and when He is there, I think your concerns would be put to rest.
Wow.
Posted by
Gary
at
May 03, 2010 10:34
Henry:
I'm going to supplement Peter a bit here (not that he needs it, it's just that your scorn for Jesus is particularly offensive to me at this moment in time). You seem to confuse the church for a club of those who are perfect - whereas it's a hospital for sinners. We are under Christ because Christ is our hope. The argument that we will offer the Almighty, the crucified and risen one, will be this: I have been Baptised in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and for his sake God has forgiven all my sins. Therefore, not from my repentence or worth but only through the promises and power of Christ, I am delivered from sin, death, and the devil." That's a paraphrase of Luther, by the way. As for your argument about the law (which is what you seem to be resting your pietism, disguised as legalism, disguised as scriptural accuracy), I simply direct you to the letter of Paul to the Galatians. We live under Christ, not the law, and it is in Christ that faith lies because it is from God that faith comes!
I really hope that what you are claiming here is not the result of bad preaching, the best and most secretive slayer of souls that evil has yet produced!
I'm going to supplement Peter a bit here (not that he needs it, it's just that your scorn for Jesus is particularly offensive to me at this moment in time). You seem to confuse the church for a club of those who are perfect - whereas it's a hospital for sinners. We are under Christ because Christ is our hope. The argument that we will offer the Almighty, the crucified and risen one, will be this: I have been Baptised in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and for his sake God has forgiven all my sins. Therefore, not from my repentence or worth but only through the promises and power of Christ, I am delivered from sin, death, and the devil." That's a paraphrase of Luther, by the way. As for your argument about the law (which is what you seem to be resting your pietism, disguised as legalism, disguised as scriptural accuracy), I simply direct you to the letter of Paul to the Galatians. We live under Christ, not the law, and it is in Christ that faith lies because it is from God that faith comes!
I really hope that what you are claiming here is not the result of bad preaching, the best and most secretive slayer of souls that evil has yet produced!
Why are you offended?
Posted by
Henry
at
May 03, 2010 17:28
Why are you offended, Gary? Are you offended because I do not believe that Lutheranism is, or ever was, a one doctrine system? Are you offended that I believe that for there to be such a thing as sin (and a hospital for "sinners") there must first be Law? Are you offended that I believe that God works through this Law (and not just the "Gospel" in the narrow sense of the term) to show us our sin and then to direct us, through the Gospel, to Christ? Are you offended because I believe that Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it? Are you offended that I believe that confession always comes before absolution in the church, and not the other way around? Are you offended that I believe that the antinomians who wish to remove the law in the church out of a misguided love are, inadvertantly perhaps, thwarting the Holy Spirit's work of convicting the heart of sin through God's Word of Law? Are you offended that I know of nowhere in Scripture where either Christ or the apostles encouraged Christians to abandon the conscience, the Law written upon the heart, in favor of a guilt-free, no-fault gospel? Are you offended that I believe a counterfeit Christ is at work in the Church demanding we all must forever test God's Grace anew by jumping from the top of our temples or by throwing His pearls to swine as we abandon His Words of Law whenever another perceived victim of the church raises his/her voice in [feigned] protest? Are you offended that I believe that your interpretation of "repentance", and the one promulgated by the revisionists as being some sort of human "work", is nothing but a clever device used by Satan to aid in the establishment of an enabling "grace" and false security within the church? Are you offended that I defend Paul and his letters to the Corinthians?
If you are offended, then it must be your ego that's been offended, not your conscience! Cause anyone who retains a conscience and the Law must, by your thinking, most certainly be a Scripture quoting, pietistic legalist!
If you are offended, then it must be your ego that's been offended, not your conscience! Cause anyone who retains a conscience and the Law must, by your thinking, most certainly be a Scripture quoting, pietistic legalist!
Offended
Posted by
Gary
at
May 03, 2010 19:23
I'm offended because you think the church can be fully holy when Christ comes, because the Gospel is that Christ comes to make us holy, not by our work, but as gift. Remember how Christ came to the unclean, unholy, and lowly? That's us.
I'm offended because what your efforts to restore the law do is not drive people to Christ, but to a dependence on works which kills souls.
I'm offended because what you are advocating has caused youth to despair, and people to turn from Christ to themselves, and points at a rhetoric of "scripture says what it says!"
I'm offended because you call me antignomian, when all I am saying is that the law exists precisely to drive us to God - who then forgives us. And that "penance" is not the only form of that, and that God will forgive everyone clothed in baptism as was promised.
In other words, I'm offended because you think God is a liar.
In other words, I'm offended because you think Jesus was not the Son of God. Because this is the only way to arrive at your conclusions. That's the only way baptism (that is, the promises of God) does not save.
I'm offended because you talk about being guilt-free as a negative, when your own statements smell of judgment. How else do you explain your arguments?
I'm offended because of my conscience, which tells me that your intentions are to establish a system of guilt where a system of love is meant to be.
I'm offended because your arguments are the same as the ones that Peter would have tried against Paul.
I'm offended because you think that saying loving relationships are not sinful is throwing out the Law.
I'm offended on behalf of my brothers and sisters, who have weak faiths, who hear what you say and are stricken not by their actual faults but by artificial scruples they will never shed. I know people who have never healed from this kind of rhetoric.
I'm offended because you are not exercising your conscience, because that is simply disagreeing. You are, instead, advocating a moral superiority over others because you think the church is cleansed by works. If it is, we sure are doing a poor job, don't you think?
I'm a little disappointed that you didn't read Galatians. The cross does indeed shatter the conscience - which is just as flawed as any other part of humanity. And it breaks the Law, because the law is DEATH, and the Gospel is LIFE. Life can only come after death, but that doesn't mean we go around killing each other!
I'm NOT offended by the Law, but by the Gospel. It sounds like you are too. Some advice: get over it, before you crucify Christ again.
Galatians 3:3 (NET) "Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?"
I'm offended because what your efforts to restore the law do is not drive people to Christ, but to a dependence on works which kills souls.
I'm offended because what you are advocating has caused youth to despair, and people to turn from Christ to themselves, and points at a rhetoric of "scripture says what it says!"
I'm offended because you call me antignomian, when all I am saying is that the law exists precisely to drive us to God - who then forgives us. And that "penance" is not the only form of that, and that God will forgive everyone clothed in baptism as was promised.
In other words, I'm offended because you think God is a liar.
In other words, I'm offended because you think Jesus was not the Son of God. Because this is the only way to arrive at your conclusions. That's the only way baptism (that is, the promises of God) does not save.
I'm offended because you talk about being guilt-free as a negative, when your own statements smell of judgment. How else do you explain your arguments?
I'm offended because of my conscience, which tells me that your intentions are to establish a system of guilt where a system of love is meant to be.
I'm offended because your arguments are the same as the ones that Peter would have tried against Paul.
I'm offended because you think that saying loving relationships are not sinful is throwing out the Law.
I'm offended on behalf of my brothers and sisters, who have weak faiths, who hear what you say and are stricken not by their actual faults but by artificial scruples they will never shed. I know people who have never healed from this kind of rhetoric.
I'm offended because you are not exercising your conscience, because that is simply disagreeing. You are, instead, advocating a moral superiority over others because you think the church is cleansed by works. If it is, we sure are doing a poor job, don't you think?
I'm a little disappointed that you didn't read Galatians. The cross does indeed shatter the conscience - which is just as flawed as any other part of humanity. And it breaks the Law, because the law is DEATH, and the Gospel is LIFE. Life can only come after death, but that doesn't mean we go around killing each other!
I'm NOT offended by the Law, but by the Gospel. It sounds like you are too. Some advice: get over it, before you crucify Christ again.
Galatians 3:3 (NET) "Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?"
reply to Peter.
Posted by
Christopher
at
April 29, 2010 17:32
We all have something in common with the people of the bible listed. We all live in a fallen world. We are all sinners. All of these sins listed should point us to the sufficiency of Christ and His perfect atonement.
The seriousness of homosexuality from Leviticus falls between child sacrifice and beastiality. There really is a fine balance between Truth and Grace. What happens if we have too much truth and not enough grace? Legalism. What happens if we have all grace and no truth? Lawlessness. When the scriptures outline God's plan for the family and expression of sexuality, we should live to honor Him. When we fail, He helps, cleanses and restores. Shall we go on stumbling, commiting the same things that are offensive to Him? At what point do we lean on the spirit in full surrender to walk in victory without constantly falling? I don't affirm gay relations nor transgender relations as honoring to God as you asked me about sexism.
I do affirm sexual purity: Sexual intimacy is a precious gift of God to be experienced only in the covenant relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. Do you agree with this?
We all need to come to the point in our faith where we can say, God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
The seriousness of homosexuality from Leviticus falls between child sacrifice and beastiality. There really is a fine balance between Truth and Grace. What happens if we have too much truth and not enough grace? Legalism. What happens if we have all grace and no truth? Lawlessness. When the scriptures outline God's plan for the family and expression of sexuality, we should live to honor Him. When we fail, He helps, cleanses and restores. Shall we go on stumbling, commiting the same things that are offensive to Him? At what point do we lean on the spirit in full surrender to walk in victory without constantly falling? I don't affirm gay relations nor transgender relations as honoring to God as you asked me about sexism.
I do affirm sexual purity: Sexual intimacy is a precious gift of God to be experienced only in the covenant relationship of marriage between a man and a woman. Do you agree with this?
We all need to come to the point in our faith where we can say, God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
"Truth" and "Grace"
Posted by
Peter
at
April 29, 2010 21:02
Christopher,
I think you're using "Truth" and "Grace" as synonyms for "Law" and "Gospel". But you're completely missing the boat if there can be something as 'too much Gospel' (or too much Grace?) or that the Lawlessness granted by that grace results in sin.
Your rhetorical question "Shall we go on stumbling, commiting the same things that are offensive to Him?" must be answered in the affirmative on this side of the grave. We will be stumbling for our entire lives until God terminates us. The promise we have in Christ is that He will be there to pick us up every single time we stumble, and that death will not be the end. Part of the problem is that surrender is the Muslim interpretation of faith. I don't think surrender is consistent with sola fide. Our rebellion against God is not ended by our own action of surrender (or by us somehow graciously permitting God to act through our lives), but by Christ's action of dying on the cross and God's action of raising Christ from the dead. Humanity is the passive agency no matter how hard it tries to free itself from sin. We all surrendered to sin since our beginnings. Christ's rescue work does not make us passive, but is the active agent coming into our lives and bringing a complete transformation with it-- the metanoia Paul of which Paul speaks. Speaking of Paul, his conversion is a dramatic illustration of this. Saul does not repent or even believe that what he is doing is wrong. And yet, Christ comes to him as he is, and it is Saul's encounter with Christ that changes him. It is that which leads him to repentance, and drives him to a very active life. There was no surrender for Saul.
To answer your question about sex, I think no one lives up to 'sexual purity'. Sex only within the confines of marriage is not enough-- I think Christ makes that point in Matt 5:28, and it gets made again in 1 Corinthians 7:4. Does the law punish those who fail to live up to its total demand? Absolutely.
I will agree with your final statement, so long as we believe God's final Word on the entire problem of human sin: Christ crucified and risen.
I think you're using "Truth" and "Grace" as synonyms for "Law" and "Gospel". But you're completely missing the boat if there can be something as 'too much Gospel' (or too much Grace?) or that the Lawlessness granted by that grace results in sin.
Your rhetorical question "Shall we go on stumbling, commiting the same things that are offensive to Him?" must be answered in the affirmative on this side of the grave. We will be stumbling for our entire lives until God terminates us. The promise we have in Christ is that He will be there to pick us up every single time we stumble, and that death will not be the end. Part of the problem is that surrender is the Muslim interpretation of faith. I don't think surrender is consistent with sola fide. Our rebellion against God is not ended by our own action of surrender (or by us somehow graciously permitting God to act through our lives), but by Christ's action of dying on the cross and God's action of raising Christ from the dead. Humanity is the passive agency no matter how hard it tries to free itself from sin. We all surrendered to sin since our beginnings. Christ's rescue work does not make us passive, but is the active agent coming into our lives and bringing a complete transformation with it-- the metanoia Paul of which Paul speaks. Speaking of Paul, his conversion is a dramatic illustration of this. Saul does not repent or even believe that what he is doing is wrong. And yet, Christ comes to him as he is, and it is Saul's encounter with Christ that changes him. It is that which leads him to repentance, and drives him to a very active life. There was no surrender for Saul.
To answer your question about sex, I think no one lives up to 'sexual purity'. Sex only within the confines of marriage is not enough-- I think Christ makes that point in Matt 5:28, and it gets made again in 1 Corinthians 7:4. Does the law punish those who fail to live up to its total demand? Absolutely.
I will agree with your final statement, so long as we believe God's final Word on the entire problem of human sin: Christ crucified and risen.
to Peter.
Posted by
Christopher
at
April 29, 2010 23:52
To someone who feels that they can do whatever they want because they are under grace is what I am refering to when I say too much grace. Grace needs to be viewed as the wonderful gift that it is - Gods Riches At Christ's Expense. I don't deserve this because I am a rebel and He owes me nothing. Nothing we can earn or deserve of course, but to rejoice in and not use a license for the gratifying our flesh. As to stumbling, it should be our daily goal to walk victoriously. Can we do this on our own? No. We depend entirely on the spirit to walk in victory. Can we do this perfectly? No, Only Jesus did that and that is not our mission or purpose here. We agree that Christ picks us up, cleanses, heals, and restores every time we fail. I personally grow more and more to hate the things I fail upon when it comes to sin. I don't want to settle for the cycle of stumble, fall, repent on the same old repeated sins. I want to stand. By asking God to search us for anything offensive and restore us, Psalm 139 we begin the right path.
As far as sexuality, with offensiveness out of the picture, let's focus upon what is God's best for His children. He has designed the family, and marriage to be between one man and one woman. Apart from his plan, we have settled for second best. Apart from His plan we place our selves in danger to that which destroys and hurts us.
Personally, I would rather be spending more time on bigger matters like defending the unborn, other injustices and sharing the good news. In Christ - Christopher
As far as sexuality, with offensiveness out of the picture, let's focus upon what is God's best for His children. He has designed the family, and marriage to be between one man and one woman. Apart from his plan, we have settled for second best. Apart from His plan we place our selves in danger to that which destroys and hurts us.
Personally, I would rather be spending more time on bigger matters like defending the unborn, other injustices and sharing the good news. In Christ - Christopher
standing on your own
Posted by
Peter
at
May 01, 2010 15:55
The cycle of stumble, fall, rescued by Christ is one we will live through for every single day we're on earth. This is why Luther writes that we must daily drown the old Adam in the waters of baptism. It is what we confess when we say we are in bondage to sin. We can't stand on our own, and when that desire to stand gets too strong, we try to stand on our own apart from Christ, with disasterous results.
As to the question of 'too much grace', the individual who does not see the need for grace or sees grace as an excuse to dismiss God loses sight of it as surely as does the legalist. Our measure for that is not God's Law, though. God's law does reveal how we fail God, but it provides nothing for repairing the fault, which is provided by the Gospel. Thus, we must test every supposedly Christian idea by whether they are grounded in that Gospel promise. The Reformers sum this up in Article IV of the AC, where they say any Christian doctrine must meet two criteria: it must cleave to faith in Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins alone and only, and it must spread the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted. The decision to bar people from the ministry on account of their marital status flatly contradicts this, as does any attempt by the church to interfere in matters governed by the state, such as marriage.
As to what God thinks is best for us, we can't know that. As sinners we are guaranteed to get that wrong. That means we cannot rely on 'God's law says do this so you better do this'. We get great examples of this from Scripture, most notably the issue of working on Saturday. God's law speaks more clearly on that, than on homosexuality (or even abortion) and yet how do we view that vs orthodox Jews? We always have to acknowledge that our reading of the law probably is not God's own reading of the law. Especially considering that the law is summed in its totality as 'love one another as Christ has loved us', we need to be ever vigilant that we not violate THAT understanding of the law. Telling two people who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together, nurturing, caring for, and uplifting one another that those intentions are contrary to God flies in the face of our understanding of what marriage and family is really about. God's law exists to protect and reward that love, and punish those who fall short and destroy that love.
As to the question of 'too much grace', the individual who does not see the need for grace or sees grace as an excuse to dismiss God loses sight of it as surely as does the legalist. Our measure for that is not God's Law, though. God's law does reveal how we fail God, but it provides nothing for repairing the fault, which is provided by the Gospel. Thus, we must test every supposedly Christian idea by whether they are grounded in that Gospel promise. The Reformers sum this up in Article IV of the AC, where they say any Christian doctrine must meet two criteria: it must cleave to faith in Christ's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins alone and only, and it must spread the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted. The decision to bar people from the ministry on account of their marital status flatly contradicts this, as does any attempt by the church to interfere in matters governed by the state, such as marriage.
As to what God thinks is best for us, we can't know that. As sinners we are guaranteed to get that wrong. That means we cannot rely on 'God's law says do this so you better do this'. We get great examples of this from Scripture, most notably the issue of working on Saturday. God's law speaks more clearly on that, than on homosexuality (or even abortion) and yet how do we view that vs orthodox Jews? We always have to acknowledge that our reading of the law probably is not God's own reading of the law. Especially considering that the law is summed in its totality as 'love one another as Christ has loved us', we need to be ever vigilant that we not violate THAT understanding of the law. Telling two people who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together, nurturing, caring for, and uplifting one another that those intentions are contrary to God flies in the face of our understanding of what marriage and family is really about. God's law exists to protect and reward that love, and punish those who fall short and destroy that love.
That Settles It
Posted by
Rik
at
April 30, 2010 13:33
Christopher (Christ-bearer),
You wrote, "We all need to come to the point in our faith where we can say, God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
Better still,
"God said it, that settles it, I believe it." The veracity of God's truth is not dependent on whether or not I believe it. May He lead me to hear, believe and trust His truth. His Word is truth.
You wrote, "We all need to come to the point in our faith where we can say, God said it, I believe it, that settles it."
Better still,
"God said it, that settles it, I believe it." The veracity of God's truth is not dependent on whether or not I believe it. May He lead me to hear, believe and trust His truth. His Word is truth.
to Rik
Posted by
Christopher
at
April 30, 2010 15:53
Thank you, that is better still. I've often said those same words you said in regards to the atheist. That they believe not has no claim to the authenticity and power of the Word. It's like going to the judgement claiming you don't believe. What you think is not going to matter.
This is my chruch?
Posted by
Jim
at
September 28, 2010 11:46
Sadly Pastorette Bailey is, by her gender and position within this "so called" church, a large portion of the problem. Our dear ladies were called to do many things in this world but, being a pastor was not one of them. She has usurped the authority given expressly to men and ignores the clear instructions in the Word of God she professes. Then she cries foul when her so called church goes to hell in a hand basket. Maybe, what the ELCA needs most from her is public repentance of her continuing willful sin.
"This is my church"? What a strange and goofy idea that is, but it's exactly the kind of thinking that got us into the fix we're in. How about we give the church back to Jesus Christ, the Rightful Owner, and start following the instructions he laid out for His church?
"This is my church"? What a strange and goofy idea that is, but it's exactly the kind of thinking that got us into the fix we're in. How about we give the church back to Jesus Christ, the Rightful Owner, and start following the instructions he laid out for His church?
Very courageous
After CWA '09 I was told in no uncertain terms by my former pastor that the ELCA was going places that I perhaps couldn't go.
Only a fool fights in a burning house (no, I'm not talking about you).
I have found a home in the LCMS.
Nonetheless, I respect what you say, not least because of your ordination. It wouldn't be recognised in other Lutheran bodies. Obviously it's important to you. I respect that.
God bless.