Document Actions
An Analogy between Heterosexual Remarriage and Homosexual Marriage?
by
Lauren R. Ley
—
November 07, 2009
In past months I have come to support the view that the blessing of homosexual relationships, even if described as just and loving, undermines the divine institution of marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriages ruefully point out that serial marriages don’t inspire respect for Christian marriage either. Yet the church still supports remarriage after divorce. Many people need remarriage to keep from an even worse fate, fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, etc. If this is true of heterosexuals, might it not be true also for homosexuals?...
In past months I have come to support the view that the blessing of homosexual relationships, even if described as just and loving, undermines the divine institution of marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriages ruefully point out that serial marriages don’t inspire respect for Christian marriage either. Yet the church still supports remarriage after divorce. Many people need remarriage to keep from an even worse fate, fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, etc.
If this is true of heterosexuals, might it not be true also for homosexuals? A third-generation ELCA pastor friend of mine, ambivalent about recognizing monogamous same-sex relationships, wondered aloud to me if we may not be helping homosexuals to channel their sexual desires for partnership by providing some kind of recognition.
Another ELCA pastor, Paul R. Hinlicky, surprisingly points in the same direction in his recent article on marriage for the online Journal of Lutheran Ethics, “Luther’s Christocentric and Biblical Doctrine of Marriage.” In footnote 20 he refers to From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion and Law in the Western Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), where John Witte, Jr., points out that Luther and early Lutherans permitted divorce to “prevent something worse from happening.” Witte explains:
By conjoining these arguments from scripture, utility, and history, the reformers concluded that (1) divorce in the modern sense had been instituted by Moses and Christ; (2) the expansion of divorce was a result of sin and a remedy against greater sin; and (3) God had revealed the expanded grounds for divorce from history.” (68)
Hinlicky then states, “I apply this reasoning to the possibility of church recognition—not celebration or blessing—of same-sex unions.”
For all the weighty arguments defending orthodoxy Hinlicky has developed, why does he defend a position so close to what the human sexuality document argues for, a “live and let live” attitude toward those who support same-sex relationships? In short, I’m struck by the imbalance between demanding and fighting ferociously for the normative view, and then all but giving up the expectation of repentance and adherence in behavior through a “recognition” status.
Is this analogy between two kinds of church tolerance of less than biblically ideal behavior a strong or a weak argument for the recognition (not blessing) of same-sex, monogamous relationships by the church? As a divorced and remarried clergy who celebrated his 30th anniversary of remarriage two days after the CWA, this hits very close to home. Does compassion for a divorced Christian who seeks remarriage drive inexorably toward a compassionate recognition for the homosexual Christian who seeks a lifelong union with another homosexual? If so, doesn’t my remarriage, the acceptance by myself and the church of a compassionate heart logic, demand a similar acceptance of what until now has been an ongoing sin, a same-sex monogamous relationship?
Such sentiments of sympathy echo those of Luther who felt the tug to protect a sinner from God’s wrath; as he said, “My heart is not made of stone” (LW 33:51, cited by Gerhard O. Forde in “The Normative Character of Scripture for Matters of Faith and Life: Human Sexuality in Light of Romans 1:16-32,” Word and World 14/3 [1994]: 311). Though I applaud the compassion, I fear that this is a misplaced logic of the heart.
Persons arguing for recognition without blessing assert that the recognition of same-sex unions may have social benefits if the unions are lifelong, just, and loving. Such social benefits override the individualistic focus in what orthodox Christianity has considered until now the intrinsically selfish impulse of homoerotic desire. This would be especially true for the “hard-wired” homosexual, as Craig Nessan, a contextual theologian at Wartburg Seminary, once said to me.
Let us consider carefully the “compassionate heart logic” analogy between the remarriage of the divorced heterosexual and the recognition of the partnering of a homosexual couple.
The church exercises compassionate heart logic towards heterosexual divorce and remarriage, based in something not good, divorce, for the sake of preventing even greater sin—physical, sexual or emotional abuse, continuing adultery, incest, refusal to have sexual relations, destruction of home life, fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, loss of children, etc. Therefore, it is argued, the church should exercise compassion toward homosexual unions, something not good, for the sake of preventing greater sin—promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, destructive loneliness, suicides, lives of despair, etc. Note that this analogy of compassionate heart logic treats both kinds of relationships, heterosexual and homosexual, as equal in every respect.
But not all sins are equally dangerous to our life of faith. Luther in his commentary on the Lord’s Prayer took the petition to lead us away from temptation as a request to God to protect us from “false belief, despair, and other great and shameful sins.” Is not the supposed cure of the prevention of greater evil actually leading one group, the homosexual couple, into greater evil, and not less evil, by this analogy?
The compassionate heart logic does not do justice to the chasm of difference between these two types of sexual expression consistently witnessed to in Scripture and in orthodox tradition. The analogy flattens the biblical anthropology of God’s order and intentions for human creation and purpose. This analogy suppresses the ontological dimension of the participants. God has made us male and female. Beyond and within our gender, identified in every cell of our bodies, there is the intentionality of God’s creative purposes for male and female bearing the image of God even though it is tarnished, broken, and distorted by individual and corporate sin.
That ontology overrides, it seems to me, the capacity of the argument to be convincing. One cannot really apply the analogy at all because we are talking apples and pears here.
The analogy breaks apart because Scripture excludes the homoerotic relationship as ontologically intended by God, something which even the failed marriage as a marriage can assume. The strong and even severe restraining of homoerotic expression in Scripture argues against God “permitting,” in an interim ethic, a lifelong, same-sex relationship.
The analogy also anesthetizes the participants in the homosexual union from being convicted by God’s law for the ordering of their human sexuality. The Spirit is suppressed from working through God’s word that the individual enter into a personal, whole person spiritual death and resurrection in Christ, who is the end of the law.
The heart has its own reasons to reach out toward this analogy. I do not dispute with the logic of the heart, for both heart and mind share in the logos of God’s life. But that shared origin, the Word, speaks in one direction in the matter of gender, a complementary one for male and female. The analogy between divorce/remarriage and the recognition of same-sex unions is weak because it lacks a foundation in the express intentions of God’s Word.
Lauren R. Lay, ordained in 1988, is a solo pastor in the Western Iowa Synod of the ELCA.
comment
Posted by
reads elert too
at
November 07, 2009 18:05
Lay writes: "Yet the church still supports remarriage after divorce."
Which church? The institutional "church" ELCA or the church as defined in the Augsburg Confession:
"..where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered?" Two very different animals. Perhaps the ELCA officially supports remarriage along with a host of other things. When this institution speaks politcally it is not the church as defined in the Augsburg Confession.
The ELCA boasts to represent the confessional documents and perhaps does and doesn't. But what they represent could never equate to what makes the church church.
Having said that, to lead and respond in various political discussions within the ELCA means that I get to exercise my public opinionmaking. And so I do. But not at the expense of the church as defined in the Augsburg Confession. The ELCA constitutionally recognizes the unaltered Augsburg Confession. That is enough for me to exercise my ministry confessionally. But as regards to social statement making the ELCA is way off track as an institution which represents the liberal left. But don't equate that with gospel and sacraments stuff.
Lay uses terminology which seeks to grant some higher authority to the 'ELCA as if the ELCA was in the business of salvation. It isn't. ELCA's authority is derived and is not de divino but de humano, exercised by the relative exactitude of reason.
"...acceptance by myself and the church ..."
the ELCA may "accept" remarriage but God's law does not. Any suffering over a guilty conscience at any time indicates that judgment and condemnation as well as God's wrath is working its toll. We can hide our acceptances behind an institutional wall (ie. ELCA) but we can't hide from God's law. Adam and Eve tried it and look where it got them.
Which church? The institutional "church" ELCA or the church as defined in the Augsburg Confession:
"..where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are rightly administered?" Two very different animals. Perhaps the ELCA officially supports remarriage along with a host of other things. When this institution speaks politcally it is not the church as defined in the Augsburg Confession.
The ELCA boasts to represent the confessional documents and perhaps does and doesn't. But what they represent could never equate to what makes the church church.
Having said that, to lead and respond in various political discussions within the ELCA means that I get to exercise my public opinionmaking. And so I do. But not at the expense of the church as defined in the Augsburg Confession. The ELCA constitutionally recognizes the unaltered Augsburg Confession. That is enough for me to exercise my ministry confessionally. But as regards to social statement making the ELCA is way off track as an institution which represents the liberal left. But don't equate that with gospel and sacraments stuff.
Lay uses terminology which seeks to grant some higher authority to the 'ELCA as if the ELCA was in the business of salvation. It isn't. ELCA's authority is derived and is not de divino but de humano, exercised by the relative exactitude of reason.
"...acceptance by myself and the church ..."
the ELCA may "accept" remarriage but God's law does not. Any suffering over a guilty conscience at any time indicates that judgment and condemnation as well as God's wrath is working its toll. We can hide our acceptances behind an institutional wall (ie. ELCA) but we can't hide from God's law. Adam and Eve tried it and look where it got them.
divorce
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
November 09, 2009 01:10
Those of us that have experienced divorce do indeed go through a time of guilt, even when we were the party that did not want the marriage to end. However, guilt ends with confession and forgiveness particularly within private (individual) confession. It is done, and all the claptrap about on-going guilty consciences is nothing other than a shaming and silencing game of the old enemy!
The shame that some of us can continue to experience is largely the result of knowing that we wanted not ever to have to go through a divorce. And that is what can be accessed, on occasion, by personal attacks, usually at the hands of those that are substituting ad hominem arguments for reasoned debate.
In the instance of remarriage not being allowed, that implies that divorce is an unforgivable sin. It also reveals a lack of understanding about legal divorce in first century Judaism which included the right to remarry. Because Mark does not bear greater authority than Matthew, the Lord, in Matthew 19, allows divorce in the instance of adultery (as St. Paul does in 1 Corinthians 7 in the instance of abandonment by an unbeliever). First century AD rabbis that allowed a divorce also allowed remarriage.
What the Lord (and Paul) particularly attacked was the kind of cavalier attitude and situation common today in which marriages are ended for many reasons other than infidelity and for abandonment by an unbeliever. (See David Instone-Brewer's books on Divorce and Remarriage).
Paul would have had everyone remain single given his expectation of the Lord's immediate return. The Lord Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 offers judgment, grace, and a call to amend her life.
Divorce is always a sin, a breaking of the marriage covenant which promised lifelong fidelity. If divorce is not forgivable for those that confess their sin, then the death of Christ is wasted. If remarriage is forbidden particularly those that wanted the kind of lifelong fidelity that Paul describes in Ephesians 5 and were denied it, then the resurrection of Christ is wasted.
Properly dividing Law and Gospel entails knowing both the damning power of the Law and the gracious power of the Gospel. The Law drives sinners to the foot of the cross and their need for a Savior. The Gospel offers forgiveness, life, and salvation to all as a free gift. Through the Gospel, sinners are forgiven, called to repentance and amendment of life, which is made possible with the Holy Spirit's help working in Word and Sacrament.
Why divorce and remarriage doesn't work as analogous to same-sex sexual relationships is that, while both fall short of God's good and gracious will, one is occasionally permitted in Scripture and the other is always proscribed. Both sins call for repentance and amendment of life.
Of course, this settles nothing. The rhetoric will go on ad nauseam.
The shame that some of us can continue to experience is largely the result of knowing that we wanted not ever to have to go through a divorce. And that is what can be accessed, on occasion, by personal attacks, usually at the hands of those that are substituting ad hominem arguments for reasoned debate.
In the instance of remarriage not being allowed, that implies that divorce is an unforgivable sin. It also reveals a lack of understanding about legal divorce in first century Judaism which included the right to remarry. Because Mark does not bear greater authority than Matthew, the Lord, in Matthew 19, allows divorce in the instance of adultery (as St. Paul does in 1 Corinthians 7 in the instance of abandonment by an unbeliever). First century AD rabbis that allowed a divorce also allowed remarriage.
What the Lord (and Paul) particularly attacked was the kind of cavalier attitude and situation common today in which marriages are ended for many reasons other than infidelity and for abandonment by an unbeliever. (See David Instone-Brewer's books on Divorce and Remarriage).
Paul would have had everyone remain single given his expectation of the Lord's immediate return. The Lord Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 offers judgment, grace, and a call to amend her life.
Divorce is always a sin, a breaking of the marriage covenant which promised lifelong fidelity. If divorce is not forgivable for those that confess their sin, then the death of Christ is wasted. If remarriage is forbidden particularly those that wanted the kind of lifelong fidelity that Paul describes in Ephesians 5 and were denied it, then the resurrection of Christ is wasted.
Properly dividing Law and Gospel entails knowing both the damning power of the Law and the gracious power of the Gospel. The Law drives sinners to the foot of the cross and their need for a Savior. The Gospel offers forgiveness, life, and salvation to all as a free gift. Through the Gospel, sinners are forgiven, called to repentance and amendment of life, which is made possible with the Holy Spirit's help working in Word and Sacrament.
Why divorce and remarriage doesn't work as analogous to same-sex sexual relationships is that, while both fall short of God's good and gracious will, one is occasionally permitted in Scripture and the other is always proscribed. Both sins call for repentance and amendment of life.
Of course, this settles nothing. The rhetoric will go on ad nauseam.
divorce
Posted by
David Nuottila
at
November 09, 2009 16:19
Thank you Samuel Zumwalt for stating so clearly what I have said many times. I cannot count the instances divorce has entered into the debate concerning the issues surrounding homosexuality and the church. This has always been troublesome in that the two are not the same nor are they equal in circumstance. Comparing divorce and remarriage with homosexual unions is apples to oranges.
As divorced persons come to repent and then live in God's grace, those wishing to remarry are to strive to live according to the biblical model for marriage. The same cannot be said for same gendered relationships since their relationship is contrary to the biblical model. Continuing in such relationships is not repentance. It is a selfish willingness to continue in the same sinful behavior.
Alas...as you say, the rhetoric will will continue ad nauseam.
As divorced persons come to repent and then live in God's grace, those wishing to remarry are to strive to live according to the biblical model for marriage. The same cannot be said for same gendered relationships since their relationship is contrary to the biblical model. Continuing in such relationships is not repentance. It is a selfish willingness to continue in the same sinful behavior.
Alas...as you say, the rhetoric will will continue ad nauseam.
comment
Posted by
reads elert too
at
November 09, 2009 20:20
"As divorced persons come to repent and then live in God's grace, those wishing to remarry are to strive to live according to the biblical model for marriage. The same cannot be said for same gendered relationships since their relationship is contrary to the biblical model. Continuing in such relationships is not repentance. It is a selfish willingness to continue in the same sinful behavior."
My reasons to oppose same-sex unions have to do with the issue of how civil society is currently dealing with it. It is on the radar of a small number of states but (thank God) has not reached the level of federal legislation. If our society has not resolved this issue on the federal plane, neither should the ELCA override civil authority in terms of its nonresolve of this issue. (In fact by overriding civil authority in the way they have, the ELCA has rendered ineffective any authoritative stance in the social order, in my opinion.)
By accepting same-sex unions in terms of so-called marriages, the ELCA has thumbed its nose at God's authority of justice and retribution within the civil order.
In terms of what marriage is all about or what humans do/or not do within the natural orders is always sinful because they are sinners. One man/one woman marriage is the God-given estate and cannot be altered. However, whether married, divorced and remarried, or even living together under so-called same sex unions, all are sinners in need of repentance. Marriage isn't somehow connected to a sacramental grace in which striving to live better will make it all better eventually. Folks who profess to be Christian rely on forgiveness from a Forgiver and do not rely on some intrinsic change for the better which would occur within them. Marriage of one man/one woman is a divinely ordered estate. It is a good estate because God has ordained it. It is not qualitatively measured based on some alien value of goodness which humanity has dreamed up. God is not to be measured according to our own systems of value measurement. To undercut God this way is to usurp God's authority by replacing our own judgments in place of God's.
Couples involved are sinners. This goes for "first" timers, divorced and remarried, divorced and "single", etc. There is no such thing as an estate of marriage belonging to same-sex couples. This is a crafted arrangement created within the GLBT agenda and now publicly being tried within the eyes of God's law. This is blantant misuse of our courts.
My reasons to oppose same-sex unions have to do with the issue of how civil society is currently dealing with it. It is on the radar of a small number of states but (thank God) has not reached the level of federal legislation. If our society has not resolved this issue on the federal plane, neither should the ELCA override civil authority in terms of its nonresolve of this issue. (In fact by overriding civil authority in the way they have, the ELCA has rendered ineffective any authoritative stance in the social order, in my opinion.)
By accepting same-sex unions in terms of so-called marriages, the ELCA has thumbed its nose at God's authority of justice and retribution within the civil order.
In terms of what marriage is all about or what humans do/or not do within the natural orders is always sinful because they are sinners. One man/one woman marriage is the God-given estate and cannot be altered. However, whether married, divorced and remarried, or even living together under so-called same sex unions, all are sinners in need of repentance. Marriage isn't somehow connected to a sacramental grace in which striving to live better will make it all better eventually. Folks who profess to be Christian rely on forgiveness from a Forgiver and do not rely on some intrinsic change for the better which would occur within them. Marriage of one man/one woman is a divinely ordered estate. It is a good estate because God has ordained it. It is not qualitatively measured based on some alien value of goodness which humanity has dreamed up. God is not to be measured according to our own systems of value measurement. To undercut God this way is to usurp God's authority by replacing our own judgments in place of God's.
Couples involved are sinners. This goes for "first" timers, divorced and remarried, divorced and "single", etc. There is no such thing as an estate of marriage belonging to same-sex couples. This is a crafted arrangement created within the GLBT agenda and now publicly being tried within the eyes of God's law. This is blantant misuse of our courts.
Remarriage
Posted by
Mark J. Mathews
at
April 07, 2010 13:39
So what is your point? Remarriage should not be sanctioned by the ELCA?
fruits of the spirit
Posted by
Peter
at
November 07, 2009 21:50
Lauren,
Insofar as your point is that 'recognition without blessing' of homosexual unions is silly, I more or less agree with you. However, you raise a few very important points that demonstrate the problem with taking a stand against recognition of any flavor of homosexual marriage. You state:
"Persons arguing for recognition without blessing assert that the recognition of same-sex unions may have social benefits if the unions are lifelong, just, and loving."
The only way any union can be lifelong, just and loving is with Christ's help. Our bondage to sin means that we cannot do it alone. What does Matthew 7:18--"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit", or even Paul's description of fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 mean? Nevermind Christ's statements regarding love in John 13:34-35, Matthew 22:36-40, or even where the OT speaks of it in Leviticus 19:18. Love has no other source and all of our good gifts have as their source God the Creator. There can be none of these social benefits without God's presence. If God is present in this relationship, who are any of us to stand against Him?
Similarly, that we see "physical, sexual or emotional abuse, continuing adultery, incest, refusal to have sexual relations, destruction of home life, fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, loss of children, etc." as fruits of the church's (and society's) restriction of homosexual relationships is plain enough evidence that these restrictions are sinful. When we place people into these systems of death we sin. Christ died to bring life, not death, and when we see death resulting from church or social polity, we know that as a lack of trust in Christ. For all of our worry over these matters, we can see the fruits with our own eyes. Does death abound, or does life?
I think this is the risk of leaving such questions in the realm of the theologian. We lose sight of the fact that faith in Christ is something so simple that we can say with confidence that a small child not only can proclaim the Gospel, but that in so doing, she is greater than all the popes, powers, and dominions. We like to worry about "ontology" and "God's intention", but this always boils down to desiring signs (what do Scripture and Tradition have to say) or wisdom (all of these arguments and analyses). Instead, we must put all our trust in the promise of mercy won by Christ for us on the cross.
Insofar as your point is that 'recognition without blessing' of homosexual unions is silly, I more or less agree with you. However, you raise a few very important points that demonstrate the problem with taking a stand against recognition of any flavor of homosexual marriage. You state:
"Persons arguing for recognition without blessing assert that the recognition of same-sex unions may have social benefits if the unions are lifelong, just, and loving."
The only way any union can be lifelong, just and loving is with Christ's help. Our bondage to sin means that we cannot do it alone. What does Matthew 7:18--"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit", or even Paul's description of fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 mean? Nevermind Christ's statements regarding love in John 13:34-35, Matthew 22:36-40, or even where the OT speaks of it in Leviticus 19:18. Love has no other source and all of our good gifts have as their source God the Creator. There can be none of these social benefits without God's presence. If God is present in this relationship, who are any of us to stand against Him?
Similarly, that we see "physical, sexual or emotional abuse, continuing adultery, incest, refusal to have sexual relations, destruction of home life, fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, loss of children, etc." as fruits of the church's (and society's) restriction of homosexual relationships is plain enough evidence that these restrictions are sinful. When we place people into these systems of death we sin. Christ died to bring life, not death, and when we see death resulting from church or social polity, we know that as a lack of trust in Christ. For all of our worry over these matters, we can see the fruits with our own eyes. Does death abound, or does life?
I think this is the risk of leaving such questions in the realm of the theologian. We lose sight of the fact that faith in Christ is something so simple that we can say with confidence that a small child not only can proclaim the Gospel, but that in so doing, she is greater than all the popes, powers, and dominions. We like to worry about "ontology" and "God's intention", but this always boils down to desiring signs (what do Scripture and Tradition have to say) or wisdom (all of these arguments and analyses). Instead, we must put all our trust in the promise of mercy won by Christ for us on the cross.
Reply to Peter
Posted by
Gregory
at
November 08, 2009 06:52
You state: "The only way any union can be lifelong, just and loving is with Christ's help. "
Given that 2/3 of the population is unchurched, regardless of sexual orientation, does it therefore follow that unions of persons outside the Church are unjust,unloving, and doomed to failure?
Given that 2/3 of the population is unchurched, regardless of sexual orientation, does it therefore follow that unions of persons outside the Church are unjust,unloving, and doomed to failure?
God helps the unbeliever
Posted by
Peter
at
November 08, 2009 09:04
Gregory,
Heathens get as much help from Christ in their marriage as they do in other aspects of their life. Do we assume that Luther's explanation of the petition "give us our daily bread" only applies to believers? If there is as much brokenness in marriage between Christians as there is between heathens, that is a judgement against us, as it means we dwell in deepest sin. The only way out of that judgement is returning to Christ.
Heathens get as much help from Christ in their marriage as they do in other aspects of their life. Do we assume that Luther's explanation of the petition "give us our daily bread" only applies to believers? If there is as much brokenness in marriage between Christians as there is between heathens, that is a judgement against us, as it means we dwell in deepest sin. The only way out of that judgement is returning to Christ.
Loving those that love you benefits you nothing
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
November 08, 2009 10:16
~Luke 6:32
"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them."
~Matthew 5:44-48
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
~With those verses in mind, we see that it is true that God makes it rain on both the just and the unjust, and the sun shines on both the just and the unjust, but it does not say nor imply that Christ lives in all marriage where the two spouses love each other. It fact it says the exact opposite, it says we are not rewarded for loving those that love us, even the sinners and the tax collectors do the same and their is no reward from Christ for that. From Christs lips to our ears.
We are meant to be perfect, even as our heavenly Father is perfect. Non-~Christian marriages may be good ones or bad ones, but unless they accept Christ dwelling in them Jesus doesn't say hes dwelling in them, nor blessing them, in fact, he's saying that they get no reward for it and they deserve none. It seems you are pushing your assertion too far when you say Christ is reflected in the marriage of the non-believer and the unjust, and as such they make a poor example for your use of them as an example for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples in a church endorsed union. Their love for each other is not reflective of Christ abounding in them, the scripture says flat out differently.
"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them."
~Matthew 5:44-48
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
~With those verses in mind, we see that it is true that God makes it rain on both the just and the unjust, and the sun shines on both the just and the unjust, but it does not say nor imply that Christ lives in all marriage where the two spouses love each other. It fact it says the exact opposite, it says we are not rewarded for loving those that love us, even the sinners and the tax collectors do the same and their is no reward from Christ for that. From Christs lips to our ears.
We are meant to be perfect, even as our heavenly Father is perfect. Non-~Christian marriages may be good ones or bad ones, but unless they accept Christ dwelling in them Jesus doesn't say hes dwelling in them, nor blessing them, in fact, he's saying that they get no reward for it and they deserve none. It seems you are pushing your assertion too far when you say Christ is reflected in the marriage of the non-believer and the unjust, and as such they make a poor example for your use of them as an example for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples in a church endorsed union. Their love for each other is not reflective of Christ abounding in them, the scripture says flat out differently.
God is love
Posted by
Peter
at
November 08, 2009 17:12
James,
That's not what the witness of 1 John 4 says in v12 "if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." and v16: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." More importantly, 1 John says that we can't love except that God has loved us first (v10) "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." and (v16) "We love because he first loved us."
I also don't think it's too much to say that Christ can dwell in a non-believer's marriage when He claims to dwell generally with the lost, poor, imprisoned and broken (Matthew 25:35-36) "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." Also worth noting is that Christ calls these people 'brother'.
More generally, if you're looking for a reward, you're choosing the Law over the Gospel. Christ's point in the verses you quoted is specifically that the bar for showing love is not at 'spouse/friend' but at 'everyone, including your enemies'. If that wasn't enough, He asks for perfection. Can you be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect? Do you think you can earn your reward from God, or even take the first steps towards your salvation yourself?
When we put our trust in Christ, we are spared from the punishment we have earned, but we are also giving up any claim to a reward.
That's not what the witness of 1 John 4 says in v12 "if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." and v16: "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him." More importantly, 1 John says that we can't love except that God has loved us first (v10) "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." and (v16) "We love because he first loved us."
I also don't think it's too much to say that Christ can dwell in a non-believer's marriage when He claims to dwell generally with the lost, poor, imprisoned and broken (Matthew 25:35-36) "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." Also worth noting is that Christ calls these people 'brother'.
More generally, if you're looking for a reward, you're choosing the Law over the Gospel. Christ's point in the verses you quoted is specifically that the bar for showing love is not at 'spouse/friend' but at 'everyone, including your enemies'. If that wasn't enough, He asks for perfection. Can you be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect? Do you think you can earn your reward from God, or even take the first steps towards your salvation yourself?
When we put our trust in Christ, we are spared from the punishment we have earned, but we are also giving up any claim to a reward.
Love your Brother, is not the same as Love of spouse...
Posted by
James Gustafson
at
November 08, 2009 21:59
Your example of 1 John 4 is about loving your brother, it is not about loving your brother as if he is your spouse.
Whereas the verses I quoted, Matthew 5 and Luke 6, shows Jesus specifically speaking of love of spouse and how it is not an indicator of the same type of Love that he is speaking of, as the type spoken of in 1 John 4...
Your original example still fails because of that. The presentation of their love for each other does not indicate that Christ has blessed their relationship, Jesus' plain language quotes from Matthew and Luke specifically deal with it and show how it is a different Love than the Love God wants us to have for our Brother and enemies.
Whereas the verses I quoted, Matthew 5 and Luke 6, shows Jesus specifically speaking of love of spouse and how it is not an indicator of the same type of Love that he is speaking of, as the type spoken of in 1 John 4...
Your original example still fails because of that. The presentation of their love for each other does not indicate that Christ has blessed their relationship, Jesus' plain language quotes from Matthew and Luke specifically deal with it and show how it is a different Love than the Love God wants us to have for our Brother and enemies.
Brokenness
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 09, 2009 09:13
Both heterosexual divorce and the attempted legitimisation of homosexual "marriage" both show one thing clearly: sin came into the world, going back to Eden. Both show our brokenness.
I am a child of divorce. I have no memory of my birth parents being married. It stinks. In my field, I have never observed a "good" divorce. At best, it will take one spouse and perhaps children out of an abusive, maybe life-threatening, situation.
Is divorce a sin? Absolutely. Can divorce and remarriage be forgiven? Absolutely. Nonetheless, some churches, like the Mennonites, absolutely forbid either one.
However, divorce and remarriage for heterosexuals is never given the Biblical proscription as persistence in homosexual behaviour of any kind. Can repentant homosexuals be forgiven? Yes. That is Gospel. However, if they knowingly and unrepentantly persist in such behaviour, the injunction of the Office of the Keys in retaining sin applies. That is Law.
I am a child of divorce. I have no memory of my birth parents being married. It stinks. In my field, I have never observed a "good" divorce. At best, it will take one spouse and perhaps children out of an abusive, maybe life-threatening, situation.
Is divorce a sin? Absolutely. Can divorce and remarriage be forgiven? Absolutely. Nonetheless, some churches, like the Mennonites, absolutely forbid either one.
However, divorce and remarriage for heterosexuals is never given the Biblical proscription as persistence in homosexual behaviour of any kind. Can repentant homosexuals be forgiven? Yes. That is Gospel. However, if they knowingly and unrepentantly persist in such behaviour, the injunction of the Office of the Keys in retaining sin applies. That is Law.
Deus Abscondicus
Posted by
Lauren R Ley
at
November 09, 2009 11:22
Peter,
I did not say the distinction "recognition not blessing" is silly. It has a definite plausability to those who believe homosexual practice is a sin yet believe some are more hard-wired than others toward it. When a theologian such as Paul Hinlikcy takes it seriously it is clear evidence the proposal has plausability.
It seems to me that aside from the ontological argument I presented based in scripture the issue of justice will push for full acceptance either from witnin the church itself or from civil intrusion into religious life. Walter Brueggemann points out the victory of the justice trajectory of divine command over the purity trajectory of divine command emanating from within the need for a new Moses (the writer of Deuteronomy, for example) to make concrete the command of God current to the time, place, and circumstance in which the people of God now reside (Theology of the Old Testament, Fortress Press, 1997, 196)"Undoubtedly the tension between the felt threat of disorder (as curred expressed the in church around issues of homosexuality) and the voiced urgings of justice (as concerns full right and dignity for homosexuals) will contineu to be a disupted, vexed issue. My own judgment is that, . . the justice trjectory has decisily and irreversibly defeated the purity trajectory. Thus the purity trajectory of the text may help us understand pastorally the anxiety produced by perceived and experienced disorder, but it provides no warrant for exculsionary ethincal decisions in the face of the gospel". He makes it abundantly clear in his argument, which argues for full acceptance based in the gospel, tha the purity motive is been highly underestimated. It does explain the great resistance to change in this matter of human sexuality. It is a fear of profound disorder, an issue of cleanness and uncleanness, more elemental than moral issues.
For these reasons I do not consider it a silly distinction squabbling over mere details. I don't draw the same conclusions from this exercise in hermeneutics as does Brueggemann, but I believe he honestly seeks to understand the theology of the Old Testament on this matter.
Your second point is to me an example of gospel reductionism, grace without law that attempts to use the gopsel in making ethical decisions without a foundation in God's creation, without the ordering function of the law and without recognizing the law's primary function of driving us to the person of Jesus Christ. Your argument is missing a key element in Luther and in our Confessional dogmatics--the Deus Abscondicus, the hidden God, who drives us to limit our desires to conform to God's ordering of creation. Coming to Christ is through this sickness unto death God's wrath opens us to. Herein we can find social benefits without any regeneration experience, yet.
Luther worried about ontology; Paul tillich worried about ontology; the scriptures begins with a clear statement of our being. God's word, live and active, directs us to no other understanding than this. It is the old Lutheran law and gospel dynamic at work Peter whether we want to acknowledge it or not. In this searching of the scriptures one may be looking for a sign as did the Pharisees Jesus encountered in John 5:39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf." But the Spirit leads us to Christ through our repentance, through our hunger for deep peace, through our hunger for lasting truth that transcends human reason and understanding.
Lauren
I did not say the distinction "recognition not blessing" is silly. It has a definite plausability to those who believe homosexual practice is a sin yet believe some are more hard-wired than others toward it. When a theologian such as Paul Hinlikcy takes it seriously it is clear evidence the proposal has plausability.
It seems to me that aside from the ontological argument I presented based in scripture the issue of justice will push for full acceptance either from witnin the church itself or from civil intrusion into religious life. Walter Brueggemann points out the victory of the justice trajectory of divine command over the purity trajectory of divine command emanating from within the need for a new Moses (the writer of Deuteronomy, for example) to make concrete the command of God current to the time, place, and circumstance in which the people of God now reside (Theology of the Old Testament, Fortress Press, 1997, 196)"Undoubtedly the tension between the felt threat of disorder (as curred expressed the in church around issues of homosexuality) and the voiced urgings of justice (as concerns full right and dignity for homosexuals) will contineu to be a disupted, vexed issue. My own judgment is that, . . the justice trjectory has decisily and irreversibly defeated the purity trajectory. Thus the purity trajectory of the text may help us understand pastorally the anxiety produced by perceived and experienced disorder, but it provides no warrant for exculsionary ethincal decisions in the face of the gospel". He makes it abundantly clear in his argument, which argues for full acceptance based in the gospel, tha the purity motive is been highly underestimated. It does explain the great resistance to change in this matter of human sexuality. It is a fear of profound disorder, an issue of cleanness and uncleanness, more elemental than moral issues.
For these reasons I do not consider it a silly distinction squabbling over mere details. I don't draw the same conclusions from this exercise in hermeneutics as does Brueggemann, but I believe he honestly seeks to understand the theology of the Old Testament on this matter.
Your second point is to me an example of gospel reductionism, grace without law that attempts to use the gopsel in making ethical decisions without a foundation in God's creation, without the ordering function of the law and without recognizing the law's primary function of driving us to the person of Jesus Christ. Your argument is missing a key element in Luther and in our Confessional dogmatics--the Deus Abscondicus, the hidden God, who drives us to limit our desires to conform to God's ordering of creation. Coming to Christ is through this sickness unto death God's wrath opens us to. Herein we can find social benefits without any regeneration experience, yet.
Luther worried about ontology; Paul tillich worried about ontology; the scriptures begins with a clear statement of our being. God's word, live and active, directs us to no other understanding than this. It is the old Lutheran law and gospel dynamic at work Peter whether we want to acknowledge it or not. In this searching of the scriptures one may be looking for a sign as did the Pharisees Jesus encountered in John 5:39 "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf." But the Spirit leads us to Christ through our repentance, through our hunger for deep peace, through our hunger for lasting truth that transcends human reason and understanding.
Lauren
the Church is not called to be a system of death
Posted by
Peter
at
November 10, 2009 21:39
Lauren,
Silly was a bit of an overstatement on my part, though I think theologians tend to be in especial danger of being silly. "Untenable" might have been a better choice for wording. I think the consideration of the "purity" and "justice" trajectories is rather interesting. However, it seems to me that both the "justice" trajectory and the "purity" trajectory were decisively changed by the new "Christ" trajectory.
An interesting choice of words you use is "God's ordering of creation". I think homosexuality as we understand it today lies within that ordering. When the hidden God is driving us to limit our desires, those are the desires that cause suffering and death. We are not holy when we cause suffering or death-- if anything Christ says it's the exact opposite. The other thing to note is that Christ didn't call theologians as his first disciples, but simple fisherfolk. If anything, the theologians are generally painted as His enemies. To me, that's a very sobering thought, and I think it's an important reminder that our theology is meaningless until it impacts the lives of people. When that theology drives a system of death, it becomes worse than meaningless.
Silly was a bit of an overstatement on my part, though I think theologians tend to be in especial danger of being silly. "Untenable" might have been a better choice for wording. I think the consideration of the "purity" and "justice" trajectories is rather interesting. However, it seems to me that both the "justice" trajectory and the "purity" trajectory were decisively changed by the new "Christ" trajectory.
An interesting choice of words you use is "God's ordering of creation". I think homosexuality as we understand it today lies within that ordering. When the hidden God is driving us to limit our desires, those are the desires that cause suffering and death. We are not holy when we cause suffering or death-- if anything Christ says it's the exact opposite. The other thing to note is that Christ didn't call theologians as his first disciples, but simple fisherfolk. If anything, the theologians are generally painted as His enemies. To me, that's a very sobering thought, and I think it's an important reminder that our theology is meaningless until it impacts the lives of people. When that theology drives a system of death, it becomes worse than meaningless.
comment
Posted by
readselertoo
at
November 13, 2009 15:50
"...civil intrusion into religious life."
I'm skeptical of language which seems to see religious life as somehow apart from God's order in the civil realm. Religious life (whatever that is) can be a place where faith in the Gospel is exercised within the civil order but not apart from the civil order. This is where the value of mission comes into play. Civil intrusions would occur if the state were actually forbidding the preaching of the Gospel. At that point the "clausula Petri" of Acts 5 would come into play.
However I don't think the issues before us are quite that urgent. Unless I'm blind...which may be the case!
I'm skeptical of language which seems to see religious life as somehow apart from God's order in the civil realm. Religious life (whatever that is) can be a place where faith in the Gospel is exercised within the civil order but not apart from the civil order. This is where the value of mission comes into play. Civil intrusions would occur if the state were actually forbidding the preaching of the Gospel. At that point the "clausula Petri" of Acts 5 would come into play.
However I don't think the issues before us are quite that urgent. Unless I'm blind...which may be the case!
Throwing virgins
Posted by
luthersterotypicus
at
November 09, 2009 07:45
"Many people need remarriage to keep from an even worse fate, fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, etc."
This is the same logic used in throwing young virgins into the fiery volcano. Who knows what disasters have been averted thanks to the sacrifice. The village still stands as potent testimony that throwing young virgins to volcano gods really works.
Perhaps the marriage ended because OF the fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, etc. You fail to advance the argument against same-sex marriage because it stands on faulty logic for one.
Heartfelt compassion did not save any virgins from the fire. It demanded their sacrifice. It was all done for the good of the village. To say a homoerotic relationship can be monogamous, good, healthy, delivering from all sexual boogeymen is following no better the example of throwing virgins into the volcano.
If you don't dispute the logic of the heart, I do. That's what has led to this whole sordid affair; divorce, SSM, and throwing virgins into the fire.
This is the same logic used in throwing young virgins into the fiery volcano. Who knows what disasters have been averted thanks to the sacrifice. The village still stands as potent testimony that throwing young virgins to volcano gods really works.
Perhaps the marriage ended because OF the fornication, promiscuity, sexual addictions, crippling loneliness, etc. You fail to advance the argument against same-sex marriage because it stands on faulty logic for one.
Heartfelt compassion did not save any virgins from the fire. It demanded their sacrifice. It was all done for the good of the village. To say a homoerotic relationship can be monogamous, good, healthy, delivering from all sexual boogeymen is following no better the example of throwing virgins into the volcano.
If you don't dispute the logic of the heart, I do. That's what has led to this whole sordid affair; divorce, SSM, and throwing virgins into the fire.
speaking of systems of death
Posted by
Peter
at
November 10, 2009 22:07
Here is the witness of Mark Achtemeier, who identifies as a bible-believing, conservative evangelical Christian seminary professor:
http://www.pres-outlook.com/component/content/article/44-breaking-news/9385-2009-covenant-network-gathering-and-grace-will-lead-me-home.html
It is longish, but I think he manages to make the point both that this isn't just 'heart logic' standing in the way of Scripture and that standing contrary to homosexual marriages is contrary to Scripture.
http://www.pres-outlook.com/component/content/article/44-breaking-news/9385-2009-covenant-network-gathering-and-grace-will-lead-me-home.html
It is longish, but I think he manages to make the point both that this isn't just 'heart logic' standing in the way of Scripture and that standing contrary to homosexual marriages is contrary to Scripture.
Simply untrue
Posted by
Luthersteropicus
at
November 12, 2009 12:17
Simply utter tosh on both counts.
There is no attempt to put forth any Scripture. Fails to make any point of the sort. The dear boy has taken a swim in utter fancy and gotten himself thoroughly soaked in utter nonsense.
Compassion gone wrong yet again. Bleeding heart liberal is the tune he plays.
There is no attempt to put forth any Scripture. Fails to make any point of the sort. The dear boy has taken a swim in utter fancy and gotten himself thoroughly soaked in utter nonsense.
Compassion gone wrong yet again. Bleeding heart liberal is the tune he plays.
Close,but no cigar...
Posted by
Gregory
at
November 12, 2009 18:50
Achtemeir falls into the trap sociologists call "the fallacy of dramatic instance", among his argument's numerous other flaws. While denying experience interprets scripture, he relies heavily upon experience, and seems to be among the crowd that asserts Gospel trumps Law.
I can't speak for the Presbyterians, but I believe the Lutheran tradition is Law AND Gospel.
I can't speak for the Presbyterians, but I believe the Lutheran tradition is Law AND Gospel.
Dramatic instance
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 12, 2009 23:48
I agree.
I think Peter kind of falls into the same trap, where his own encounters with homosexuals in his own church have heavily weighted his opinion on the matter. And I don't necessarily blame him for that - it's human.
However, feelings do not equate with good theology (pity someone didn't tell the CWA that).
The Presbyterians are not distant from Lutherans on Law/Gospel, though of course they have the Calvinist emphasis on double predestination. We visited a Presbyterian church for a while.
They handled the gay issue exactly in reverse of the ELCA. They originated the issue at their main conference (not sure what it's called) and then sent it to their presbyteries (kind of like ELCA synods or LCMS districts). They had a two-year time limit to ratify removing restrictions on homosexual ordination. It didn't happen, and it didn't pass.
I think Peter kind of falls into the same trap, where his own encounters with homosexuals in his own church have heavily weighted his opinion on the matter. And I don't necessarily blame him for that - it's human.
However, feelings do not equate with good theology (pity someone didn't tell the CWA that).
The Presbyterians are not distant from Lutherans on Law/Gospel, though of course they have the Calvinist emphasis on double predestination. We visited a Presbyterian church for a while.
They handled the gay issue exactly in reverse of the ELCA. They originated the issue at their main conference (not sure what it's called) and then sent it to their presbyteries (kind of like ELCA synods or LCMS districts). They had a two-year time limit to ratify removing restrictions on homosexual ordination. It didn't happen, and it didn't pass.
comment on PCUSA decisionmaking
Posted by
reads elert too
at
November 13, 2009 14:13
One of the positive benefits I see in the American expression of Presbyterianism is this emphasis on "return accountability" in terms of taking what a national church body decides and return it to the presbyterys for vote BEFORE any wider church promulgation. This reverse accountability is sadly lacking in the ELCA.
It couldn't have happened
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 13, 2009 16:22
Except that the governing structure of the ELCA is that there IS no governing structure. The only thing really keeping the ELCA from being Congregationalist is that there are Bishops whose role seems to be mostly advisory.
It's been asked why did PB Hanson allow such a divisive issue to come to the floor for a vote? Others have said that he didn't have the power to stop it.
If the first case is true, he should have shown his true colours and said "I support this and I'm advocating for it." At least Peter Rogness and Herbert Chilstrom did so.
If the second, then the office of Presiding Bishop is worth about as much as what former Vice President John Nance Garner said about his office.
In any case, the Presbyterian example would not, could not have happened in this case. The outcome at CWA was engineered since at least 2001. Lutherans Concerned/Soulforce pumped a lot of money and effort into it, and they wouldn't have allowed it to go any other way.
It's been asked why did PB Hanson allow such a divisive issue to come to the floor for a vote? Others have said that he didn't have the power to stop it.
If the first case is true, he should have shown his true colours and said "I support this and I'm advocating for it." At least Peter Rogness and Herbert Chilstrom did so.
If the second, then the office of Presiding Bishop is worth about as much as what former Vice President John Nance Garner said about his office.
In any case, the Presbyterian example would not, could not have happened in this case. The outcome at CWA was engineered since at least 2001. Lutherans Concerned/Soulforce pumped a lot of money and effort into it, and they wouldn't have allowed it to go any other way.
Response to Luthersteropicus
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
November 13, 2009 20:22
Did you not read the essay? The footnotes are ripe with scriptural references.
Force of the argument
Posted by
luthersterotypicus
at
November 15, 2009 09:22
"If the Bible’s teaching does not help us make powerful sense of life and experience, if biblical faithfulness is not life-giving, that is a sure sign we have not understood our Scripture properly."
Footnotes, schmootnotes....The premise is not that Scripture guides our thinking. His argument is that Scripture needs to be modified to co-exist with our experiences...like his.....finding some gay folks to be quite affable and nice to be around and life affirming.
Does not erase any indication that the mask of death Prof A was expecting to find isn't there...just like Eve might have been surprised that she did not in fact die as God indicated. What did He know?
Still shaping our present reality by what we think God really meant? I thought we tried that already. It's called the Fall.
Still missing. Scriptures promoting gay lifestyle. Never has. Never will.
Footnotes, schmootnotes....The premise is not that Scripture guides our thinking. His argument is that Scripture needs to be modified to co-exist with our experiences...like his.....finding some gay folks to be quite affable and nice to be around and life affirming.
Does not erase any indication that the mask of death Prof A was expecting to find isn't there...just like Eve might have been surprised that she did not in fact die as God indicated. What did He know?
Still shaping our present reality by what we think God really meant? I thought we tried that already. It's called the Fall.
Still missing. Scriptures promoting gay lifestyle. Never has. Never will.
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 17, 2009 15:02
I believe this post is on to something.
The Bible or Scriptural authority has been replaced by subverting the authority of biblical statements to that of life experience. Or even worse ascriptions of divine value have been made on human experience by shoring up biblical texts to agree with our own created valuation. This, in my view, is a correct observation of the current breakdown of scriptural authority in the denominations.
Our current culture depends on authenticating its experiences and its own reasonable creativity by subverting the biblical text or even worse by ascribing divine value to its own rationality while blessing its own standards of measurement. This is an alien methodology in terms of making such means a road to salvation. The use of Scripture, in the revisionist view, will be to shore up its findings to corroborate human experience. This is hogwash.
The authority of Scripture lies within itself. God's law inflicts all of us whether we like it or not, know it or not, agree with this or not. God's law functions ONLY to bring sin and human rebellion against God into visibility. By elevating human experience as truthful and good, Christians usurp God's values of good and evil under which we ought to be standing (obedience, ob-audire, to hear/listen under). Our systems of morality are sh-t before God's face. But we keep on believing in our own goodness at the expense of God's act in Jesus, ie. forgiveness of sin.
I haven't even exhausted the talk about the necessity of Christ in terms of the Gospel. Again God has already reconciled the world to himself NOT counting our trespasses against us. Whether you believe this or not, God has done it without getting the approval/disapproval of human reasoning. And no system of morality or human evaluation of the above will make it more or less real. God has already acted in history in Jesus. Where the rubber hits the road though is whether you believe it or not!
The Bible or Scriptural authority has been replaced by subverting the authority of biblical statements to that of life experience. Or even worse ascriptions of divine value have been made on human experience by shoring up biblical texts to agree with our own created valuation. This, in my view, is a correct observation of the current breakdown of scriptural authority in the denominations.
Our current culture depends on authenticating its experiences and its own reasonable creativity by subverting the biblical text or even worse by ascribing divine value to its own rationality while blessing its own standards of measurement. This is an alien methodology in terms of making such means a road to salvation. The use of Scripture, in the revisionist view, will be to shore up its findings to corroborate human experience. This is hogwash.
The authority of Scripture lies within itself. God's law inflicts all of us whether we like it or not, know it or not, agree with this or not. God's law functions ONLY to bring sin and human rebellion against God into visibility. By elevating human experience as truthful and good, Christians usurp God's values of good and evil under which we ought to be standing (obedience, ob-audire, to hear/listen under). Our systems of morality are sh-t before God's face. But we keep on believing in our own goodness at the expense of God's act in Jesus, ie. forgiveness of sin.
I haven't even exhausted the talk about the necessity of Christ in terms of the Gospel. Again God has already reconciled the world to himself NOT counting our trespasses against us. Whether you believe this or not, God has done it without getting the approval/disapproval of human reasoning. And no system of morality or human evaluation of the above will make it more or less real. God has already acted in history in Jesus. Where the rubber hits the road though is whether you believe it or not!
I Need Help - How are CWA Voters Appointed?
Posted by
Don Struckmeyer
at
November 13, 2009 07:31
I'm sorry to use this space for something other than a real response, but I need some help from people who would know how CWA voters are appointed/elected. I read/searched the ELCA constitution, Synod Constitution, and word searched sites. But I can't seem to find the answer anywhere. Obviously, my congregation didn't vote for the CWA representative nor my local church council, so how did they get appointed/elected?
The reason I bring this up is that some people assert that the vote to approve "practicing" gays to be ordained was a complete "democratic" process. But since members don't vote for the representative that doesn't seem to be an accurate assertion.
I've also done research on the 2/3rds requirment to approve a Social Statement. The term/issue "Social Statement" is mentioned in three areas in the ELCA constitution, but is not actually "defined." It would appear then that some body is making that decision. For the ELCA to say it will "ordain" practicing gays seems to be a Social Statement to the church and the rest of Christendom. I believe the vase majority of Lutherans, Christians, and the secular community would, by common sense, view that as a "Social Statement" rather than just an operational issue dealing with the qualifications of candidates for the clergy. Since the action is contray to scripture, two-thousand years of Christian tradition, and the views of most members (2005 survey), it is obviously at the level of significance for the church's teachings/adherence to be consdered a "Social Statement." So, how did the actual act of approving the ordination of practicing homosexuals be subjected to only a 50.001% requirement? I would really appreciate an honest answer. Please accpet by thanks ahead of time.
Don - A Rank and File Member
The reason I bring this up is that some people assert that the vote to approve "practicing" gays to be ordained was a complete "democratic" process. But since members don't vote for the representative that doesn't seem to be an accurate assertion.
I've also done research on the 2/3rds requirment to approve a Social Statement. The term/issue "Social Statement" is mentioned in three areas in the ELCA constitution, but is not actually "defined." It would appear then that some body is making that decision. For the ELCA to say it will "ordain" practicing gays seems to be a Social Statement to the church and the rest of Christendom. I believe the vase majority of Lutherans, Christians, and the secular community would, by common sense, view that as a "Social Statement" rather than just an operational issue dealing with the qualifications of candidates for the clergy. Since the action is contray to scripture, two-thousand years of Christian tradition, and the views of most members (2005 survey), it is obviously at the level of significance for the church's teachings/adherence to be consdered a "Social Statement." So, how did the actual act of approving the ordination of practicing homosexuals be subjected to only a 50.001% requirement? I would really appreciate an honest answer. Please accpet by thanks ahead of time.
Don - A Rank and File Member
chosen by synod assembly
Posted by
Peter
at
November 14, 2009 00:16
Don,
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that voting CWA delegates are chosen at Synod assembly. Each congregation generally sends two lay voting members to Synod assembly.
It was a simple majority because of the type of bill it was. Out of deference to the nature of the issue, and to help the delegates prayerfully discuss and engage in the issue, they layered it into 4 consecutive votes that all had to pass. If you look at the Synod memorial resolutions, the CWA delegates weren't oddly chosen as being stacked in favor one way or another. Like it or not, a majority of the ELCA IS accepting of this change.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that voting CWA delegates are chosen at Synod assembly. Each congregation generally sends two lay voting members to Synod assembly.
It was a simple majority because of the type of bill it was. Out of deference to the nature of the issue, and to help the delegates prayerfully discuss and engage in the issue, they layered it into 4 consecutive votes that all had to pass. If you look at the Synod memorial resolutions, the CWA delegates weren't oddly chosen as being stacked in favor one way or another. Like it or not, a majority of the ELCA IS accepting of this change.
Then why the delay?
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 14, 2009 00:52
The issue was supposed to have been voted on in 2006.
However, it was not.
Why the delay?
I would say that the homosexual lobby knew they did not have the votes for a decisive victory, so they engineered a delay until 2009. This gave them more time to "soften up" the opposition with emotional (rather than solidly theological) appeals, or until more of the opposition had simply left in disgust and/or weariness. They were, of course, aided by advocates open and covert. I respect the open advocates far more, even though my disagreements with them are just as deep.
In 2009, they judged correctly that they had the votes, and the time was right. They won.
However, it was not.
Why the delay?
I would say that the homosexual lobby knew they did not have the votes for a decisive victory, so they engineered a delay until 2009. This gave them more time to "soften up" the opposition with emotional (rather than solidly theological) appeals, or until more of the opposition had simply left in disgust and/or weariness. They were, of course, aided by advocates open and covert. I respect the open advocates far more, even though my disagreements with them are just as deep.
In 2009, they judged correctly that they had the votes, and the time was right. They won.
it's not all conspiracy
Posted by
Peter
at
November 14, 2009 11:46
David,
There have been people on this forum who were calling for delays on this issue as well this time around. It would be news to them if they were doing it to help stall for time for LC/NA to magically come up with enough votes. This is a sufficiently "hot potato" item that there was severe dissent amongst the Task Force that had to come up with the sexuality statement, and that always makes things take longer. Look at the two radically different dissenting positions offered by the Task Force. Or look at the first draft of the sexuality statement-- the Task Force was hardly an instrument of LC/NA.
Nor am I convinced that the measures offered this year would have been defeated at CWA2005. The difference then was the 2/3rds majority everyone here is up in arms about. The reason the 2/3rds majority matters this time is that there's been a simple majority for quite a while now, and the fact is that the 'prevent homosexual ordination' groups have neither a majority nor do they represent a majority within the ELCA.
I think how the different factions act as minorities is very telling. One faction stayed with the ELCA and worked with it. The other seems pretty evenly split between leaving now that they didn't get exactly what they want on one issue and staying and working with the ELCA. While I understand that in some of these cases, this is the straw that broke the camel's back, this split makes all of this exhortation about the Office of the Keys and the authority of the church sound extremely hollow and empty.
There have been people on this forum who were calling for delays on this issue as well this time around. It would be news to them if they were doing it to help stall for time for LC/NA to magically come up with enough votes. This is a sufficiently "hot potato" item that there was severe dissent amongst the Task Force that had to come up with the sexuality statement, and that always makes things take longer. Look at the two radically different dissenting positions offered by the Task Force. Or look at the first draft of the sexuality statement-- the Task Force was hardly an instrument of LC/NA.
Nor am I convinced that the measures offered this year would have been defeated at CWA2005. The difference then was the 2/3rds majority everyone here is up in arms about. The reason the 2/3rds majority matters this time is that there's been a simple majority for quite a while now, and the fact is that the 'prevent homosexual ordination' groups have neither a majority nor do they represent a majority within the ELCA.
I think how the different factions act as minorities is very telling. One faction stayed with the ELCA and worked with it. The other seems pretty evenly split between leaving now that they didn't get exactly what they want on one issue and staying and working with the ELCA. While I understand that in some of these cases, this is the straw that broke the camel's back, this split makes all of this exhortation about the Office of the Keys and the authority of the church sound extremely hollow and empty.
Different factions
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 14, 2009 15:25
That is because one faction won, and the other lost.
In battle, very rarely do the defeated stick around to collaborate with the victors.
There is no space to "work with the ELCA," since official church policy has changed. Those who are withholding/redirecting giving are already being hassled on the synodical level.
Only a fool fights in a burning house.
In battle, very rarely do the defeated stick around to collaborate with the victors.
There is no space to "work with the ELCA," since official church policy has changed. Those who are withholding/redirecting giving are already being hassled on the synodical level.
Only a fool fights in a burning house.
only fools?
Posted by
Peter
at
November 15, 2009 21:28
LC/NA has been working with and in the ELCA despite multiple losses. If they'd packed up and quit after one loss, we probably wouldn't be in this position today.
Also, given this bound conscience stuff they included, there IS room for those who disagree to work with the ELCA. As you've said, there are churches that still won't call a woman pastor today. I suspect it will be a very long while before every church in the ELCA is willing to call an openly gay pastor.
Also, given this bound conscience stuff they included, there IS room for those who disagree to work with the ELCA. As you've said, there are churches that still won't call a woman pastor today. I suspect it will be a very long while before every church in the ELCA is willing to call an openly gay pastor.
"Bound conscience"
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 16, 2009 21:40
Peter, if you actually believe that "bound conscience" bit, you're either a lot more idealistic or a lot more naive than I am.
LC/NA won. Traditionalists lost. The ELCA has already laid down the law that says synods cannot violate the new standards.
The fact is, I am gone from the ELCA, permanently. I do not share their, or your, theology.
LC/NA won. Traditionalists lost. The ELCA has already laid down the law that says synods cannot violate the new standards.
The fact is, I am gone from the ELCA, permanently. I do not share their, or your, theology.
How are CWA Voters Appointed? --chosen by synod assembly
Posted by
Mick Lee
at
November 19, 2009 08:01
This gets at the heart of my criticism of the whole voting structure within the ELCA. The two delegates from each congregation are not a product of any vote before the membership. In reality, the Parish Pastor and/or Church Council have to beg for volunteers to go to synod assemblies. Often times the congregation is just satisfied that they got someone to go. Unsurprisingly, those with an agenda are most likely to put themselves forward to be delegates. In any event, a congregation will not necessarily be told how their own delegates had voted once a synod assembly has ended.
Even with this, some delegates do not know what they are there to do. I am still stunned even after all these years to hear more than just a few delegates tell me that they think it is their duty to "give the Church what it wants". (!!!?!!!)
But forget about all that. Delegates elect those going to the CWA knowing nothing about the candidates' views. This goes down to even those they elect for their own synod offices. We are generally told the candidates line of work, the name of his/her spouse, how many children, where they went to school, place of worship, and any assorted charities and civic organizational memberships. No where will the synod voter be informed as to what the potential CWA delegate's views actually are. In fact, the local Synod office will strongly discourage any attempt to canvass and then report to the rest of the synod assembly the views of those standing for election.
"Like it or not, a majority of the ELCA IS accepting of this change"
Really? How can you tell? Have you gone to the typical Lutheran in the pew and asked him/her? How about the next one? Then what about the rest?
One thing is sure. It has never been demonstrated that delegates to the CWA's are actually representative of the ELCA membership at large.
Even with this, some delegates do not know what they are there to do. I am still stunned even after all these years to hear more than just a few delegates tell me that they think it is their duty to "give the Church what it wants". (!!!?!!!)
But forget about all that. Delegates elect those going to the CWA knowing nothing about the candidates' views. This goes down to even those they elect for their own synod offices. We are generally told the candidates line of work, the name of his/her spouse, how many children, where they went to school, place of worship, and any assorted charities and civic organizational memberships. No where will the synod voter be informed as to what the potential CWA delegate's views actually are. In fact, the local Synod office will strongly discourage any attempt to canvass and then report to the rest of the synod assembly the views of those standing for election.
"Like it or not, a majority of the ELCA IS accepting of this change"
Really? How can you tell? Have you gone to the typical Lutheran in the pew and asked him/her? How about the next one? Then what about the rest?
One thing is sure. It has never been demonstrated that delegates to the CWA's are actually representative of the ELCA membership at large.
"Intrinsically selfish"
Posted by
Lee
at
November 13, 2009 11:51
Is there even a shred of empirical evidence that "homoerotic desire" is "intrinsically selfish"? Or is this functioning as an a priori claim that couldn't possibly be refuted by any evidence to the contrary, no matter how compelling?
For that matter, is there any evidence that most ELCA Lutherans treat divorce and remarriage as sins and subjects for repentance?
For that matter, is there any evidence that most ELCA Lutherans treat divorce and remarriage as sins and subjects for repentance?
comment
Posted by
reads elert too
at
November 13, 2009 14:26
"Is there even a shred of empirical evidence that "homoerotic desire" is "intrinsically selfish"?
This is precisely the point where all of us are at a divergence in the road. All behavior is intrinsically selfish. The point of the story of Genesis 3 is that now all of us are cursed to being introspective and selfishly inclined to be concerned about ourselves and NOT our neighbor least of all God. Homoerotic behavior is simply testimony and symptomatic of the nature of our rebellion against God ala Genesis 3. We have simply used the issue of same sex stuff as a "whipping boy" in terms of demonizing a group of people. By doing so many conservatives (as well as liberals in their own take) take the light off themselves and their own intrinsically selfish behavior. By comparing ourselves to others we have transposed the introspective issue to an issue in which we try to escape our selfishness and instead demonize a group outside of us. This results in injustice. While this goes for both liberal and conservative sides to this issue, the fact of the matter is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
This is precisely the point where all of us are at a divergence in the road. All behavior is intrinsically selfish. The point of the story of Genesis 3 is that now all of us are cursed to being introspective and selfishly inclined to be concerned about ourselves and NOT our neighbor least of all God. Homoerotic behavior is simply testimony and symptomatic of the nature of our rebellion against God ala Genesis 3. We have simply used the issue of same sex stuff as a "whipping boy" in terms of demonizing a group of people. By doing so many conservatives (as well as liberals in their own take) take the light off themselves and their own intrinsically selfish behavior. By comparing ourselves to others we have transposed the introspective issue to an issue in which we try to escape our selfishness and instead demonize a group outside of us. This results in injustice. While this goes for both liberal and conservative sides to this issue, the fact of the matter is that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
Thirty years from now
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
November 13, 2009 20:24
In 2039 or thereabouts, people are going to read this stuff on Lutheran Forum and wonder what all the fuss was about. It's over. Time marches on.
The future is always in motion
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 14, 2009 00:47
Mr Johnson, the future is always in motion. No human being can predict what will happen thirty seconds from now, let alone thirty years. No human being can guarantee the actions (or reactions) of another.
In 2039, I will be seventy-three years old, if the Lord does not return, and if I am spared. I can safely say that my own stances on the issue will likely not have changed; indeed, if my grandmother, who lived to be ninety-two, is any indication, they will have hardened further.
I will also become even more obstinate and difficult to argue with.
In 2039, I will be seventy-three years old, if the Lord does not return, and if I am spared. I can safely say that my own stances on the issue will likely not have changed; indeed, if my grandmother, who lived to be ninety-two, is any indication, they will have hardened further.
I will also become even more obstinate and difficult to argue with.
even yours
Posted by
Peter
at
November 14, 2009 12:04
David,
No one can really guarantee their own actions either, or know God's plans for us. I think Saul would have laughed at anyone telling him he'd become a Christian. Zechariah didn't believe at first either. In Mark, even the resurrection is received with fear and confusion. There are lots of places in Scripture where people laugh at God's promises. Often they're described like Zechariah as "upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly", yet they're missing one core thing: trust in God's promises. This brings us back to justification which is rooted in God's Promise of forgiveness--Christ. Don't close yourself off to what God through Christ can do to your life.
No one can really guarantee their own actions either, or know God's plans for us. I think Saul would have laughed at anyone telling him he'd become a Christian. Zechariah didn't believe at first either. In Mark, even the resurrection is received with fear and confusion. There are lots of places in Scripture where people laugh at God's promises. Often they're described like Zechariah as "upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly", yet they're missing one core thing: trust in God's promises. This brings us back to justification which is rooted in God's Promise of forgiveness--Christ. Don't close yourself off to what God through Christ can do to your life.
Forgiveness?
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 14, 2009 15:22
I trust in God's forgiveness. I am a forgiven sinner.
However, what you seem to be saying in "not closing myself off" is to change my mind on homosexuality.
However, what you seem to be saying in "not closing myself off" is to change my mind on homosexuality.
trust
Posted by
Peter
at
November 16, 2009 19:20
Closing yourself off to what God may be doing in your life or when He may correct wrong beliefs and notions. Changing your mind on homosexuality (and more importantly, the way in which the Bible is read) is the immediate example, but I doubt it's the only one. We all tend to get dug in sometimes.
Crossings "theology"
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 16, 2009 21:38
Peter, you are at least as locked into "Crossings theology" as you say I am on "biblicism." Again, that concerns me, both as a behaviourist and a Christian.
Crossings theology
Posted by
Peter
at
November 18, 2009 21:03
David,
I'm curious to hear your explanation of what "Crossings theology" is and how that is problematic for Christianity.
I'm curious to hear your explanation of what "Crossings theology" is and how that is problematic for Christianity.
Crossings theology
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 19, 2009 02:45
From what I have read on the Crossings.org website, and your posts:
Extremely selective application of the Law
Exaltation of the ELCA as the truest application of the "Gospel"
Vague interpretation of "Gospel"
Discarding, or at best lip service to, the indispensable Lutheran concept of Law AND Gospel
Recognition of Law as legalism
Recognition of sola scriptura as "biblicism" in the pejorative
A Marcionite/Agricolan view of Scripture
Homosexuality as the "acid test" (your words) of ecclesiastical application of "the Gospel"
A lot of hypotheses about what "could be/might be/should be" about homosexuality rather than what Scripture actually says
That's just off the cuff at 0345. I have homework in Principles of Logic to do...
Extremely selective application of the Law
Exaltation of the ELCA as the truest application of the "Gospel"
Vague interpretation of "Gospel"
Discarding, or at best lip service to, the indispensable Lutheran concept of Law AND Gospel
Recognition of Law as legalism
Recognition of sola scriptura as "biblicism" in the pejorative
A Marcionite/Agricolan view of Scripture
Homosexuality as the "acid test" (your words) of ecclesiastical application of "the Gospel"
A lot of hypotheses about what "could be/might be/should be" about homosexuality rather than what Scripture actually says
That's just off the cuff at 0345. I have homework in Principles of Logic to do...
Crossings Theology = ELCA Theology?
Posted by
Henry
at
November 19, 2009 07:07
But to be fair, David, Crossing's Theology, which has come a long way from its Seminex days and seems to capture the imagination of many within the ELCA today, attempts to be circumspect about that which it advocates.
An example of this thinking comes from Crossings leader, Ed Schroeder, who in a sermon given back in 1976 in support of women's ordination asks, "But what if we are wrong? The risk element is never totally absent. Suppose that
on judgment day, or even before, we get the message loud and clear: You were wrong in
your conclusions favoring women pastors. What then? Confronted by God's judgment
we know there is only one way to go: in the publican's daring words, 'God be merciful to me, a sinner—in Jesus’ name.' The big surprise from the Word of God is: 'I tell you, that
one went down to his house justified.'"
If one applies this theology to same-sex advocacy, one is left with this conclusion:
1.) Advocates of change believe in a judgment day.
2.) Advocates of change believe in a second chance at repentance after they've died and left this world.
3.) The only answer they ever expect to hear is a word of justification!
Who can resist such solid "Lutheran" theology?
An example of this thinking comes from Crossings leader, Ed Schroeder, who in a sermon given back in 1976 in support of women's ordination asks, "But what if we are wrong? The risk element is never totally absent. Suppose that
on judgment day, or even before, we get the message loud and clear: You were wrong in
your conclusions favoring women pastors. What then? Confronted by God's judgment
we know there is only one way to go: in the publican's daring words, 'God be merciful to me, a sinner—in Jesus’ name.' The big surprise from the Word of God is: 'I tell you, that
one went down to his house justified.'"
If one applies this theology to same-sex advocacy, one is left with this conclusion:
1.) Advocates of change believe in a judgment day.
2.) Advocates of change believe in a second chance at repentance after they've died and left this world.
3.) The only answer they ever expect to hear is a word of justification!
Who can resist such solid "Lutheran" theology?
IS there a theology?
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 19, 2009 13:36
What I have got from Peter's postings and the Crossings website is that it's basically a "make-it-up-as-you-go-along theology." The term "cafeteria theology" I think would much apply.
So, yes, "circumspect" is a word I would agree with.
I hadn't really known that it sprang forth from Seminex; but I'm not a lifelong Lutheran and I was 10 years old in 1976. However, I can tell it, from the references on the site to purported LCMS "legalism" and from some of Peter's own remarks about church bodies other than the ELCA; i.e., that the ELCA has the truest concept of "grace" and "the Gospel."
I stand by what I said about there being vaguely cultic references (which comes into my behavioural sciences outlook). Often little "buzzwords" within a belief system that only the "insiders" know, in this case "The Promise," and "The Augsburg AHA!" among others, indicate that. Peter's seeming advocacy of "ELCA" = "THE church" also gives me cause for concern.
One thing I have noticed from the website: the powers that be at Crossings still have an axe to grind with the LCMS.
So, yes, "circumspect" is a word I would agree with.
I hadn't really known that it sprang forth from Seminex; but I'm not a lifelong Lutheran and I was 10 years old in 1976. However, I can tell it, from the references on the site to purported LCMS "legalism" and from some of Peter's own remarks about church bodies other than the ELCA; i.e., that the ELCA has the truest concept of "grace" and "the Gospel."
I stand by what I said about there being vaguely cultic references (which comes into my behavioural sciences outlook). Often little "buzzwords" within a belief system that only the "insiders" know, in this case "The Promise," and "The Augsburg AHA!" among others, indicate that. Peter's seeming advocacy of "ELCA" = "THE church" also gives me cause for concern.
One thing I have noticed from the website: the powers that be at Crossings still have an axe to grind with the LCMS.
comment
Posted by
readselerttoo
at
November 19, 2009 16:24
Some folks who post here are ignorant of the full witness which so-called Crossings Theology addresses. It does not play down God's law as some seem to surmise. In fact it takes God's judgment on sinners seriously. So that the preaching of the Gospel (mutually exclusive from God's law) can magnify greatly the benefits that Christ has won for us from his cross. The natural orders and our belonging to them do not ignore that people are SINNERS who are assigned by God's preservation activity to live out their sinful lives within these arenas subject to justice and retribution, ie. if you do well you get rewarded and if you do bad, better watch out! In fact that is part of God's activity as divine Judge in his kingdom on the left hand. We are not somehow subjects/people as subjects who live within a neutral environment in which we can choose to live morally. This is blasphemy before God's face. The issue for Martin Luther against Erasmus in the Bondage of the Will was that there is no neutral territory in which a person can live morally untouched by God's retributive action in his law. Yes, a tree is known by its fruits, as Jesus tells us. But our vision of what that looks like cannot be a substitute for faith in Christ's word on this. This is primarily the problem within both the ELCA and LCMS at this time. There is a presumptuousness that in our political entanglements and fist-fighting we will come to a unified resolution through our own reasonable designs. The only resolution to any political battle finally is within Christ's crucified Body. So it is useless for us to find some sort of constitutional resolution on any of our social diatribing in which everyone agrees and will stay agreed as time marches on. That is expecting too much from a "saeculum" which is on its way out in terms of cessation and dissolution.
The official misuse of bound conscience within the ELCA indicates that each side is due what he/she believes to be right. This bound conscience issue can only be valid between humans but is not valid before God's face. Yes, everyone has their opinion, but opinions are simply opinions only valid within the plane of humanity but are due divine retribution within God's sight.
In our postmodern society in which we are increasingly relying on life/death issues to be resolved by technology or science or public opinion, we are only left to appear before a God who as St. Paul says in Romans 1 (ESV) "...although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,..." and then, God gave up on them...
The official misuse of bound conscience within the ELCA indicates that each side is due what he/she believes to be right. This bound conscience issue can only be valid between humans but is not valid before God's face. Yes, everyone has their opinion, but opinions are simply opinions only valid within the plane of humanity but are due divine retribution within God's sight.
In our postmodern society in which we are increasingly relying on life/death issues to be resolved by technology or science or public opinion, we are only left to appear before a God who as St. Paul says in Romans 1 (ESV) "...although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,..." and then, God gave up on them...
Thirty years from now
Posted by
Mick Lee
at
November 18, 2009 09:09
The planted axiom in your observation is that the “march of history” as it makes its way into the future is on your side.
It is interesting that with every defeat the “pro-homosexual” faction suffered came the admonition to continue to study the Scriptures, engage in dialogue and mutual prayer, and listen to others. Now that this faction has finally won (and barely at that), instead of “continue to study the Scriptures, engage in dialogue and mutual prayer, and listen to others” comes “It's over. Time marches on.” Makes it look like all that “Bible, prayer, listening” was just a sham. All it was was a holding action until you got one majority once.
Wait. Do you hear what I hear? Sounds like the slow grinding wheels of repression and suppression
“…wonder what all the fuss was about”? Is that a prediction or is it a threat?
It is interesting that with every defeat the “pro-homosexual” faction suffered came the admonition to continue to study the Scriptures, engage in dialogue and mutual prayer, and listen to others. Now that this faction has finally won (and barely at that), instead of “continue to study the Scriptures, engage in dialogue and mutual prayer, and listen to others” comes “It's over. Time marches on.” Makes it look like all that “Bible, prayer, listening” was just a sham. All it was was a holding action until you got one majority once.
Wait. Do you hear what I hear? Sounds like the slow grinding wheels of repression and suppression
“…wonder what all the fuss was about”? Is that a prediction or is it a threat?
To the victors go the spoils...
Posted by
David Pross
at
November 18, 2009 10:37
...and now that they have the victory, they want the issue closed.
I have no doubt that if Lutheran CORE would try to offer memorials, etc., for repeal that they would not get anywhere.
Higgins Road is already lowering the boom on synods who are defying the new guidelines.
Many may disagree, but I still believe this was engineered from the getgo at least as far back as 2001.
I have no doubt that if Lutheran CORE would try to offer memorials, etc., for repeal that they would not get anywhere.
Higgins Road is already lowering the boom on synods who are defying the new guidelines.
Many may disagree, but I still believe this was engineered from the getgo at least as far back as 2001.
Modernist meta-narrative?
Posted by
Jack Kilcrease
at
November 18, 2009 10:39
I am perpetually amazed Kurt by your mental captivation with the modernist meta-narrative. Probably it has to do with your having come of age during the period of high-modernism (50s and 60s). It's frankly comical how you believe that homosexual marriage or ordination is some how an inevitable outcome of the "march of civilization" or "progress." Historians, theologians and philosophers no longer take these concepts seriously and I think you should drop them as well. In 2039, we'll very likely be a far more conservative nation. The birth rates of minorities (who tend to be more morally conservative) and in conservative relgiious folks of all races (notably, conservative Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, and Evangelicals) will probably mean some rather serious setbacks for secular modernity.
No one will of course care about our debates on Lutheran forum, because their won't be any ELCA left by then. Mainline Protestantism has about 10-15 years to go and then there will be total collapse. Where do you all think the money for sexuality studies and whatnot is going to come from once the last boomer dies? Who else is going to leave their money to the ELCA? Certainly not Gen-xers, much less their unchurched grandchildren! You and your generation didn't give them any reason to go to church except to listen to an hour long social-justice seminar. Consequently, they believe nothing and are committed to nothing, much less the mission of the Church.
No one will of course care about our debates on Lutheran forum, because their won't be any ELCA left by then. Mainline Protestantism has about 10-15 years to go and then there will be total collapse. Where do you all think the money for sexuality studies and whatnot is going to come from once the last boomer dies? Who else is going to leave their money to the ELCA? Certainly not Gen-xers, much less their unchurched grandchildren! You and your generation didn't give them any reason to go to church except to listen to an hour long social-justice seminar. Consequently, they believe nothing and are committed to nothing, much less the mission of the Church.
Remarriage
Posted by
CD
at
December 29, 2009 19:11
Remarriage while a first spouse lives is considered adultery according to scripture. This adultery is no different from extra-marital adultery. It must be repented of and forsaken.
I have some study resources at the following website
Why I Repented of A Marriage God Called Adulterous!
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
I have some study resources at the following website
Why I Repented of A Marriage God Called Adulterous!
http://www.cadz.net/mdr.html
Remarriage
Posted by
Mark J. Mathews
at
April 07, 2010 14:00
According to scripture we are all to tithe 10%. How many Christians do this? How many Christians live "according to scripture"? Yes, you are correct. Remarriage is adultery according to scripture. Now, tell me what you are going to do about it and how big is this Christian church you propose? How many "perfect" people will we find?
"in order to" marry
Posted by
C eric
at
April 27, 2010 13:30
In my studies of translation, Jesus' teaching about divorce has repeatedly come up. And those explorations have provided this clarification, one that makes sense. The most common and worst divorce scenario is when a spouse decides the grass is greener, wants to have or is already having an affair -- then leaves a marriage for another. That other marriage may be at hand or only wishful thinking, but they're divorcing "in order to" marry another. I myself was divorced against my will, and I still mourn the loss of my first marriage and the impact on my children. However, I knew I didn't choose to be divorced and that I didn't leave my marriage. My wife did, and she married the man she was after, the opportunity to revive our marriage ceased. I didn't divorce my wife, she divorced me. After much time learning and praying about what needed to change in me -- what God could do with the criticisms and legitimate failures on my part -- I realized I was free to marry again. Certainly I trust in the grace of God where my understanding falls short or my sinful nature misleads, to have mercy. But in this case I am certain I have acted within my freedom as a Christian.
Mark, part (only part) of the quandary for churches is the poor teaching on this issue. No one knows how to distinguish a justifiable divorce from a malicious one. Further, no one wants to stand up for anything for fear of exposing themselves to scrutiny. But the church as a whole could do much better at challenging our culture of easy divorce and casual remarriage. Why is there so much talk about 'no perfect people' as if that is an excuse to not challenge anything? Did Jesus ever say, well nobody's perfect, you're all off the hook! Thanks be to God, we are off the hook, but we are still called to repentance and what the scripture calls wrong is still wrong -- Particulalry what is wrong according to Christ.
So today, we realize many of the old testament laws don't apply to us. I quite like Luther's work on what is a Christian to do with Moses? However we still need to talk about how Jesus' standard of loving our neighbors as ourselves applies to common personal sins we so often 'overlook'. Jesus certainly wanted us to pay more attention to stopping injustice, greed, oppression; and increasing compassion, hospitality, generosity, mercy, & forgiveness. But our Lutheran churches always talk about these in such broad strokes. So seldom we seem to address the selfishness on our own mainstreets, in the homes of our parishoners, etc...
Mark, part (only part) of the quandary for churches is the poor teaching on this issue. No one knows how to distinguish a justifiable divorce from a malicious one. Further, no one wants to stand up for anything for fear of exposing themselves to scrutiny. But the church as a whole could do much better at challenging our culture of easy divorce and casual remarriage. Why is there so much talk about 'no perfect people' as if that is an excuse to not challenge anything? Did Jesus ever say, well nobody's perfect, you're all off the hook! Thanks be to God, we are off the hook, but we are still called to repentance and what the scripture calls wrong is still wrong -- Particulalry what is wrong according to Christ.
So today, we realize many of the old testament laws don't apply to us. I quite like Luther's work on what is a Christian to do with Moses? However we still need to talk about how Jesus' standard of loving our neighbors as ourselves applies to common personal sins we so often 'overlook'. Jesus certainly wanted us to pay more attention to stopping injustice, greed, oppression; and increasing compassion, hospitality, generosity, mercy, & forgiveness. But our Lutheran churches always talk about these in such broad strokes. So seldom we seem to address the selfishness on our own mainstreets, in the homes of our parishoners, etc...
What other Christians think ?
Posted by
Biible
at
January 29, 2010 17:41
Want to think deeper & see reflexions of other Christians on the same topic ?
Use Biible.info [http://www.biible.info] the first full web biblical search engine that allows you to search by text &/or by verse(s)
Bible & Sexuality : http://bit.ly/cW71XF
Bible & Homosexuality : http://bit.ly/8bkpKs
Use Biible.info [http://www.biible.info] the first full web biblical search engine that allows you to search by text &/or by verse(s)
Bible & Sexuality : http://bit.ly/cW71XF
Bible & Homosexuality : http://bit.ly/8bkpKs
http://themoralchristian.blogspot.com
Compassion is not always virtuous. God gave us reason and moral values. Compassion, run amok, can be the fog the clouds moral reason.
God's peace,
Michael