Document Actions
An Open Letter to the Voting Members of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly
by
Teachers, Pastors, and Bishops of the ELCA
—
May 20, 2009
We are grateful that the church has called you to serve as a voting member for the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. Your role at the assembly will be a difficult one. We are writing this open letter as Lutheran theologians and church leaders concerned about the fidelity and future of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The proposals to be considered by the Churchwide Assembly this summer from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality are perceived by some as compromises that will permit the ELCA to live faithfully with internal diversity on controversial ethical questions. The proposals are in fact no compromise...
We are grateful that the church has called you to serve as a voting member for the 2009 Churchwide Assembly. Your role at the assembly will be a difficult one. We are writing this open letter as Lutheran theologians and church leaders concerned about the fidelity and future of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
The proposals are in fact no compromise.
The teaching of the church will be changed.
The proposals to be considered by the Churchwide Assembly this summer from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality are perceived by some as compromises that will permit the ELCA to live faithfully with internal diversity oncontroversial ethical questions. The proposals are in fact no compromise. They clearly imply that same-sex blessings and the ordination and rostering of homosexual persons in committed relationships are acceptable within the ELCA. The teaching of the church will be changed. We should not make such an important decision without clear biblical and theological support. The Task Force did not provide such support, nor has it been provided in statements from some of our colleagues in ELCA institutions.
Indifference to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.
1. If the assembly adopts the proposed rules of procedure, a simple majority of one Churchwide Assembly will alter the moral teaching on sexuality we have shared with the vast majority of the church past and present. We are concerned that such a procedure shows an indifference to the common mind of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church throughout the ages and across cultures. At the least, a two-thirds majority should be required, if indeed the assembly should be voting on these matters at all.
The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel.
2. The proposals claim that the ELCA can live with profound differences on sexual questions because our unity is centered exclusively on the gospel and the sacraments. This claim separates law and gospel in a way contrary to both Scripture and the Confessions. The church is founded on the whole Word of God, both law and gospel. The Task Force texts seem to permit variation on all ethical questions, no matter how fundamental. How Christians behave sexually is not a matter of indifference to our life in Christ.
It would damage our ecumenical relationships.
3. If the ELCA were to approve the public recognition of same-sex unions or the rostering of persons in such relationships, it would damage our ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and Evangelical churches, all of which affirm the clear teaching of Scripture that homosexual activity departs from God’s design for marriage and sexuality. Furthermore, it would put the ELCA at odds with many of our sister Lutheran churches, especially in Asia and Africa. The United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) have also recently upheld scriptural teaching on this matter. These bodies have officially recognized that the biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity remain applicable today to consensual sexual relationships between persons of the same sex.
Our unity will be fractured.
4. With regard to calling rostered leaders, the statement proposes “structured flexibility,” which we believe will lead inevitably to “local option.” If adopted, this proposal will mean that the relationship among bishops, candidacy committees, and congregations will become confused and conflicted. Practically speaking, there will be two lists of candidates for rostered leadership in the church. The result will be that not all pastors and congregations will be in full fellowship with each other, nor with many of the pastors and congregations of those denominations with whom we are in full communion. Further, laity seeking a congregation to join would need to ask about which option a congregation has chosen in calling its leaders. Our unity in the office of ministry will be fractured.
Conscience can err.
5. The social statement calls for opponents in the current controversy to respect each other’s “bound conscience,” referring to Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms. Luther, however, was not merely claiming that he was sincere about the convictions he held; he asserted rather that his conscience was bound to the Word of God. Conscience can err. The Word of God, not conscience, is the final court of appeal in the church.
We are deeply sensitive to the need of the church to provide pastoral care for all people. We are aware that there are some in the church who will disagree with this letter. Nevertheless, we feel we are called to support and advocate the biblical teaching on human sexuality and urge you to defeat all the proposals from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality that the Church Council has forwarded to you. We pledge to you our prayers and we invite you to work with us for the renewal of our church under the Word of God.
Rev. Richard Bansemer, Salem, VA, former Bishop, Virginia SynodDr. Robert D. Benne, Director of the Center for Religion and Society, Roanoke College, VA
Rev. John C. Beem, Miltona, MN, former Bishop, East-Central Synod of Wisconsin
Rev. Dr. Paul S. Berge, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. James A. Bergquist, Bloomington, MN, President Emeritus, Trinity Lutheran College, Everett, WA
Rev. Dr. Dennis D. Bielfeldt, Professor of Religion, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD
Rev. Dr. Carl E. Braaten, Professor Emeritus, Systematic Theology, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Rev. Mark C. Chavez, Landisville, PA, Director of Lutheran CORE
Rev. Dr. James R. Crumley, Jr, Chapin, SC, Former Bishop, Lutheran Church in America
Rev. Dr. Michael Domenech, Professor of Theology and Education, Inter-American University of Puerto Rico, Dorado, PR
Rev. Jaynan Clark Egland, Nine Mile Falls, WA, President, WordAlone Network
Rev. Dr. C. Jack Eichhorst, President emeritus, Trinity Lutheran College, WA
Dr. Rebecca Frey, New Haven, CT, Lutheran Forum Editorial Staff
Rev. Gregory P. Fryer, Immanuel Lutheran Church, New York, NY
Gracia M. Grindal, Professor of Rhetoric, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Mr. David J. Hardy, Esq., Chicago, IL, Former General Counsel of the ELCA
Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, Jr., Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. Roy A. Harrisville, III, Menomonie, WI
Rev. Dr. Mary Havens, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Prof. of Church History, Columbia, SC
Rev. Carol S. Hendrix, former bishop, Lower Susquehanna Synod, PA
Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand, Professor of Religion, Duke University, NC
Rev. Dr. Paul R. Hinlicky, Professor of Religion, Roanoke College, VA
Rev. Dr. Stephen J. Hultgren, Assistant Professor of Religion, Fordham University, Bronx, NY
Rev. Keith A. Hunsinger, Oak Harbor, OH, ELCA Church Council member
Rev. Harvey L. Huntley Jr., Blythewood, SC, ELCA Region 9 Coordinator
Rev. Dr. Robert W. Jenson, Princeton, NJ
Ben Arlen Johnson, Th.D., Professor emeritus, Lutheran Bible Institute in California
Rev. Dr. Richard O. Johnson, Grass Valley, CA, Editor of Forum Letter
Rev. Corinne R. Johnson, Crystal Falls, MI
Rev. Ralph A. Kempski, Aiken, SC, Bishop Emeritus, Indiana-Kentucky Synod
Rev. Dr. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, VA
Rev. Gerard H. Knoche, Bishop, Delaware-Maryland Synod
Rev. Dr. Marc Kolden, Professor Emeritus, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. David W. Lotz, Washburn Professor Emeritus of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY
Rev. Dr. Lamontte Luker, Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC
Rev. Dr. Paul V. Martinson, Professor Emeritus of Missions, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. Mark C. Mattes, Professor of Religion, Grand View College, Des Moines, IA
Rev. George P. Mocko, Bishop Emeritus, Delaware-Maryland Synod
Rev. Albert Nassen, Dallas, TX, Former Bishop, ALC Southern Wisconsin District
Rev. Dr. James A. Nestingen, Professor Emeritus of Church History, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Richard J. Niebanck III, Delhi, NY
Rev. Dr. Oliver K. Olson, Minneapolis, MN
Rev. Dr. Steven D. Paulson, Professor of Systematic Theology, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN
Rev. Dr. David W. Preus, Minneapolis, MN, Former Presiding Bishop, American Lutheran Church
Dr. Michael Root, Dean, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC
Rev. Dr. Paul E. Rorem, Professor of Church History, Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ
Rev. Russell E. Saltzman, Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, MO
Rev. Kenneth H. Sauer, Columbus, OH, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops
Rev. Dr. James A. Scherer, Professor Emeritus, Missions and Church History, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Rev. Dr. Amy Schifrin, Hershey, PA
Rev. Paul A. Schreck, Round Lake Beach, IL, former Executive Assistant to the Secretary, ELCA
Rev. Henry Schulte Jr, Boerne, TX, former Bishop, Southwestern Texas Synod
Rev. Frederick J. Schumacher, Manchester Township, NJ, Executive Director, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau
Rev. Dr. Hans Schwarz, Professor of Systematic Theology and Contemporary Theological Issues, University of Regensburg, Germany
Rev. Dr. Frank Senn, Immanuel Lutheran Church, Evanston, IL
Rev. Dr. Franklin Sherman, Schnecksville, PA
Rev. Dr. Trygve R. Skarsten, Pickerington, OH, President Emeritus of Trinity Lutheran College, Everett, WA
Rev. Paull E. Spring, State College, PA, Former Bishop, Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod
Rev. Dr. John R. Stumme, Chicago, IL, former Director of the Department for Studies in the Church in Society unit of the ELCA
Rev. Dr. Anders Tune, Campus Minister, Wittenberg University, Springfield, OH
Rev. Paul M. Werger, Iowa City, IA, Former Chair of Conference of Bishops
Rev. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, Associate Research Professor, Institute for Ecumenical Research, Strasbourg, France
Dr. David S. Yeago, Professor of Systematic Theology, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC
Rev. Dr. J. Larry Yoder, Professor and Director, Center for Theology, Lenoir-Rhyne University, Hickory, NC
A PDF of this statement is also available.
Lutheran CORE brought together some prominent theologians and church leaders April 29 in Phoenix to draft this letter. Other ELCA pastors and lay members may add their names to the complete list.
Open Letter
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
May 22, 2009 00:46
Anyone may add her or his name to this letter at www.lutherancore.org
If you agree, sign on and tell others to do so also.
If you agree, sign on and tell others to do so also.
Open Letter
Posted by
Kathy
at
May 22, 2009 09:37
I could not agree more. I wish I could add my nmae to this list!
Open Letter
Posted by
Kathy
at
May 22, 2009 09:40
Thank you for the link to add my name, much appreciated.
I would like to add my name
Posted by
Son of WMC
at
May 23, 2009 12:48
but I cannot. In principle I agree with the general idea of the statement insofar as it appeals to the voting members of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly to vote down the proposals of the Sexuality Taskforce realizing that these proposals are indeed no compromise but a change in teaching and practice.
However, my beef is with premise #5. Luther said his conscience was bound to the Word of God, but in reality it was bound to his interpretation of the Word of God, the same problem many on the other side have when they try to argue that the Word of God supports their position, even if in a vague or nondescript way. Not only can conscience err, so can personal interpretation. The notion that the right of personal interpretation (the common though wrong understanding of the priesthood of all believers) somehow guarantees everybody will get it right is ludicrous. Why else to we have 32,000 plus Christian denominations at the present time. Is the Holy Spirit confused? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead us into all the truth. Was he a liar? No on both counts. Rather this so-called right to personal interpretation has led us to the current mess we are in. That and the notion that untrained persons should form a majority, much less be allowed to vote on such matters, as if church doctrine were a matter of democratic vote and personal opinion. Ecumenical councils decided these issues and CWA is not an ecumenical council. We have no right changing this doctrine or practice. We have the facade of a magisterium but it has no power to determine or guard doctrine nor will it use what power it has in all too many cases to enforce the policies of the ELCA. Again, I say Jesus delegated his authority to the Apostles and to their successors the Bishops for these matters. The ELCA is a far cry from the way Jesus set things up and thus cannot handle these matters in concert with the Holy Spirit. When these resolutions unfortunately pass at CWA, will anybody realize then that the established polity of the ELCA is a complete failure when it comes to being faithful to the Word of God?
However, my beef is with premise #5. Luther said his conscience was bound to the Word of God, but in reality it was bound to his interpretation of the Word of God, the same problem many on the other side have when they try to argue that the Word of God supports their position, even if in a vague or nondescript way. Not only can conscience err, so can personal interpretation. The notion that the right of personal interpretation (the common though wrong understanding of the priesthood of all believers) somehow guarantees everybody will get it right is ludicrous. Why else to we have 32,000 plus Christian denominations at the present time. Is the Holy Spirit confused? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead us into all the truth. Was he a liar? No on both counts. Rather this so-called right to personal interpretation has led us to the current mess we are in. That and the notion that untrained persons should form a majority, much less be allowed to vote on such matters, as if church doctrine were a matter of democratic vote and personal opinion. Ecumenical councils decided these issues and CWA is not an ecumenical council. We have no right changing this doctrine or practice. We have the facade of a magisterium but it has no power to determine or guard doctrine nor will it use what power it has in all too many cases to enforce the policies of the ELCA. Again, I say Jesus delegated his authority to the Apostles and to their successors the Bishops for these matters. The ELCA is a far cry from the way Jesus set things up and thus cannot handle these matters in concert with the Holy Spirit. When these resolutions unfortunately pass at CWA, will anybody realize then that the established polity of the ELCA is a complete failure when it comes to being faithful to the Word of God?
Bishops?
Posted by
Jack Kilcrease
at
May 23, 2009 13:45
Son of WMC, I do not think that you are correct that the Bishops can offer a real corrective or an infallible teaching authority as you so hope. For one thing, there are a great many denominations that possess episcopal authority and do not agree in doctrine- notably, EO Churches, Anglicanism, Rome and the Nestorian and Monophysite Churches of the east. Bishops did not guarantee true doctrine in those cases (unless the Holy Spirit is contradicting himself), so why should it now? Paul teaches us in 2 Cor. 2-3 that there is an internal clarity of Scripture that the Holy Spirit guarantees to the elect. Everyone else reads the Scriptures with a veil over their hearts. In 1 Cor. Paul notes that there are many division within his congregation "in order to reveal which of you is true." In other words, the true Church is in unity in the truth of the Scriptures because the Holy Spirit always confirms the true meaning of the Scriptures to the elect. God allows disunity in the visible Church in order to make the truth of true Scriptural interpretation shine all the brighter. The main problem that we face is that most people in the world who claim to be Christian are not and therefore make horrible decisions regarding Biblical interpretation within our official denominations. What can we do about this? Pretty much nothing. We can simply testify to the truth of the law and gospel, and allow the Holy Spirit to do his work.
Please clarify
Posted by
Son of WMC
at
May 23, 2009 23:43
Jack,
You said, "Paul teaches us in 2 Cor. 2-3 that there is an internal clarity of Scripture that the Holy Spirit guarantees to the elect." Please clarify where in these chapters you find this spelled out specifically.
Also, please give me an instance of where Rome officially (Pope and the College of Bishops in unison decreed either through ecumenical council or through Papal decree done ex cathedra - which in the latter case has only been done twice in the cases of the doctrines of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven and her immaculate conception), contradicted itself and previous set doctrine.
Finally, your theory on the Holy Spirit guaranteeing the truth of the Scriptures being perfectly evident to the elect has a major problem, doesn't it? How does one know they are or are not the elect? What criterion makes one elect? If, as I've been taught, to be elect is something God offers to all through baptism by grace - then I can't for the life of me see how your theory holds. If there is any other criterion that doesn't make God's grace available to all, especially to all who claim Holy Spirit inspiration on both sides of this debate, then whatever that criterion is becomes gnostic which the Church has always rejected.
If I am wrong, you'll need to do a more thorough job of correcting me.
You said, "Paul teaches us in 2 Cor. 2-3 that there is an internal clarity of Scripture that the Holy Spirit guarantees to the elect." Please clarify where in these chapters you find this spelled out specifically.
Also, please give me an instance of where Rome officially (Pope and the College of Bishops in unison decreed either through ecumenical council or through Papal decree done ex cathedra - which in the latter case has only been done twice in the cases of the doctrines of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven and her immaculate conception), contradicted itself and previous set doctrine.
Finally, your theory on the Holy Spirit guaranteeing the truth of the Scriptures being perfectly evident to the elect has a major problem, doesn't it? How does one know they are or are not the elect? What criterion makes one elect? If, as I've been taught, to be elect is something God offers to all through baptism by grace - then I can't for the life of me see how your theory holds. If there is any other criterion that doesn't make God's grace available to all, especially to all who claim Holy Spirit inspiration on both sides of this debate, then whatever that criterion is becomes gnostic which the Church has always rejected.
If I am wrong, you'll need to do a more thorough job of correcting me.
Clarification.
Posted by
Jack Kilcrease
at
June 10, 2009 19:32
1. Paul states this in his discussion of the verses 3:13-5. Those who read the Scriptures without the Spirit do so with "a veil over their hearts." When the Spirit comes, he takes away the veil and all is clear. How do we get the Spirit? Paul tells us in Galatians- from the hearing of faith. Faith in what? Faith in Christ! Therefore the elect are those who God has eternally chosen to have faith in Christ
2. There are many instances in which the Roman pontiff has contradicted himself. For one thing, what is and isn't infallible has changed over the years. Una Sancta used to thought of as infallible for example (at Vatican I, Manning claimed it was!)- now it's not. Vatican I tried essentially to minimalize the things that the Roman pontiff had said that could be construed as infallible so that they could back off of them if they wanted to. Nevertheless, many, many statement that they have now back track on (Una Sancta being the chief example) can now be chalked up to having no force behind them.
The Catholic Church also has a tendency of teaching things for generations and then taking a 180. They then pretend that they never the taught X or that they weren't teaching falsehood all those years because there technically wasn't any official council or infallible statement by the Pope behind it. Examples: Hell is at the center of the earth (taught until the first world war), belief in Limbo (a Roman Catholic nun I had as a professor claimed that the Church had in fact never taught it, though if so why were there all those Church funded grave yards for children in Limbo?), the Mass as a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ (again, the Council of Trent rejected the idea which had been taught by many theologians and is in fact taught by the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Again, another of example of the Church teaching something and then claiming never to have taught it). Another example might be the attitude towards Eastern Orthodoxy (heretics vs. "our other lung") and Democracy and Socialism (consigned to the index of errors vs. the Church promoting Democracy and the whole "St. Joseph the Worker" thing).
As the present criterion as to what's infallible and what not, one can find very little continuity between Vatican I and Vatican II. One interesting contradiction between Vatican I and Vatican II is that the former describes the Church (with special reference to the Pope) as irreformable and the later describes the church as always reforming. Also, Vatican I (according to my reading of it) rejects the possibility of salvation to non-Catholics, whereas Vatican II gleefully embraces it.
Ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church is good at one thing alone and consistency isn't it. What it's good at is creating institutional stability. In other words, it can maintain it's institutions even if it changes it's doctrines with great ease. Also, if the Church decides to do something, it can do it and enforce it. I can understand why this would be an appealing state of affairs and why one would be willing to believe in the continuity of doctrine and moral (when it's really any such thing) in order to get some darn stability!
Nevertheless, Jesus said "go and make disciples of all nations" not, "go and create institutional stability." Lutheranism has proven to be less institutionally stable, but it is more capable of being self-critical and renewing itself than Roman Catholicism ever could. I also happen to be believe it to be true (which is always an advantage!).
3. How do we tell who's elect? The first answer is, who cares! God knows and that's what matters. Perhaps you thought that I was proposing the elect as a medium of institutional stability. I'm not. I believe that the Church is an organ of salvation. Institutions are helpful insofar as they promote this. They are unhelpful to the extent that they do not. Also, I believe that institutional stability is impossible unless we are willing to suppress the truth to make everyone happy. If are telling the truth, then the Devil will attack us and ruin our institutional stability. Jesus and Paul promised this state of affairs. Apostasy and false teacher to the end!!!
My second answer is that although we cannot tell who the elect are (that is, those who have true faith) we can tell where they are. That is, gathered around Word and Sacrament. Where ever there is true Word and Sacrament, the there you have the elect. How can you tell where that is? Well, one must have a true knowledge of Scripture, which rests on the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore one can only tell if one is elect. But as we observed earlier in Paul, it clearly is where the reading of Scripture and the celebration of the Sacraments centers on the article of Justification by faith alone. That is the royal road into the Scriptures, the thing that takes away the veil from our hearts.
And no, though God does desire all to be saved, he does not give the Holy Spirit to all. We don't know why, as Luther and the Formula of Concord point out. Furthermore, everyone does not have have the Holy Spirit who claims to have it. Just people who have sincere faith in Christ.
Also, I'd like your explanation as to how this is Gnostic. High-churchy types throw that word around alot when a distinction is made between the invisible and invisible Church, but they have yet to prove to me that this is a real critique and not just rhetoric. In fact, the claim that Bishops are special inspired people strikes me as a return to the Gnostic distinction between "pistics" and "gnostics." Or perhaps (and I think that this is historically true) a return to the old Montanist charismatic hierarchy. Cyprian got it from Tertuallian (the Montanist), who then passed it on in a modified form to Augustine with his whole indellible character jazz.
2. There are many instances in which the Roman pontiff has contradicted himself. For one thing, what is and isn't infallible has changed over the years. Una Sancta used to thought of as infallible for example (at Vatican I, Manning claimed it was!)- now it's not. Vatican I tried essentially to minimalize the things that the Roman pontiff had said that could be construed as infallible so that they could back off of them if they wanted to. Nevertheless, many, many statement that they have now back track on (Una Sancta being the chief example) can now be chalked up to having no force behind them.
The Catholic Church also has a tendency of teaching things for generations and then taking a 180. They then pretend that they never the taught X or that they weren't teaching falsehood all those years because there technically wasn't any official council or infallible statement by the Pope behind it. Examples: Hell is at the center of the earth (taught until the first world war), belief in Limbo (a Roman Catholic nun I had as a professor claimed that the Church had in fact never taught it, though if so why were there all those Church funded grave yards for children in Limbo?), the Mass as a repetition of the sacrifice of Christ (again, the Council of Trent rejected the idea which had been taught by many theologians and is in fact taught by the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Again, another of example of the Church teaching something and then claiming never to have taught it). Another example might be the attitude towards Eastern Orthodoxy (heretics vs. "our other lung") and Democracy and Socialism (consigned to the index of errors vs. the Church promoting Democracy and the whole "St. Joseph the Worker" thing).
As the present criterion as to what's infallible and what not, one can find very little continuity between Vatican I and Vatican II. One interesting contradiction between Vatican I and Vatican II is that the former describes the Church (with special reference to the Pope) as irreformable and the later describes the church as always reforming. Also, Vatican I (according to my reading of it) rejects the possibility of salvation to non-Catholics, whereas Vatican II gleefully embraces it.
Ultimately, the Roman Catholic Church is good at one thing alone and consistency isn't it. What it's good at is creating institutional stability. In other words, it can maintain it's institutions even if it changes it's doctrines with great ease. Also, if the Church decides to do something, it can do it and enforce it. I can understand why this would be an appealing state of affairs and why one would be willing to believe in the continuity of doctrine and moral (when it's really any such thing) in order to get some darn stability!
Nevertheless, Jesus said "go and make disciples of all nations" not, "go and create institutional stability." Lutheranism has proven to be less institutionally stable, but it is more capable of being self-critical and renewing itself than Roman Catholicism ever could. I also happen to be believe it to be true (which is always an advantage!).
3. How do we tell who's elect? The first answer is, who cares! God knows and that's what matters. Perhaps you thought that I was proposing the elect as a medium of institutional stability. I'm not. I believe that the Church is an organ of salvation. Institutions are helpful insofar as they promote this. They are unhelpful to the extent that they do not. Also, I believe that institutional stability is impossible unless we are willing to suppress the truth to make everyone happy. If are telling the truth, then the Devil will attack us and ruin our institutional stability. Jesus and Paul promised this state of affairs. Apostasy and false teacher to the end!!!
My second answer is that although we cannot tell who the elect are (that is, those who have true faith) we can tell where they are. That is, gathered around Word and Sacrament. Where ever there is true Word and Sacrament, the there you have the elect. How can you tell where that is? Well, one must have a true knowledge of Scripture, which rests on the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore one can only tell if one is elect. But as we observed earlier in Paul, it clearly is where the reading of Scripture and the celebration of the Sacraments centers on the article of Justification by faith alone. That is the royal road into the Scriptures, the thing that takes away the veil from our hearts.
And no, though God does desire all to be saved, he does not give the Holy Spirit to all. We don't know why, as Luther and the Formula of Concord point out. Furthermore, everyone does not have have the Holy Spirit who claims to have it. Just people who have sincere faith in Christ.
Also, I'd like your explanation as to how this is Gnostic. High-churchy types throw that word around alot when a distinction is made between the invisible and invisible Church, but they have yet to prove to me that this is a real critique and not just rhetoric. In fact, the claim that Bishops are special inspired people strikes me as a return to the Gnostic distinction between "pistics" and "gnostics." Or perhaps (and I think that this is historically true) a return to the old Montanist charismatic hierarchy. Cyprian got it from Tertuallian (the Montanist), who then passed it on in a modified form to Augustine with his whole indellible character jazz.
Open Letter to Churchwide Assembly Delegates
Posted by
Conrad Derrick
at
May 24, 2009 15:06
I am not a delegate to the upcoming Churchwide Assembly and I am not even a delegate to the Synodical Assembly which will be held this week in South Carolina. However, as an ELCA layperson, I have had serious concerns about the Recommendations of the Human Sexuality Task Force. Like many other laypeople, we have been looking for leaders in our church with more Biblical and theological education to provide us with guidance. We want first to be faithful Christians, following the commands of our Lord to spread the Gospel to all sinners, to welcome them into our fellowship, and to "love one another". But we are confused by how those commands relate to other Biblical teachings that provide us with the moral framework for our lives. Thanks to the Bishops and teaching theologians who have developed and signed this Open Letter for presenting a response to the other "teaching theologians" who have come out in support of the Recommendations. There is a way that we can love and support all sinners without deviating from moral standards that have been recognized and taught for centuries- that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Open Letter to Churchwide Assembly Delegates
Posted by
Conrad Derrick
at
May 24, 2009 15:26
I am not a delegate to the upcoming Churchwide Assembly and I am not even a delegate to the Synodical Assembly which will be held this week in South Carolina. However, as an ELCA layperson, I have had serious concerns about the Recommendations of the Human Sexuality Task Force. Like many other laypeople, we have been looking for leaders in our church with more Biblical and theological education to provide us with guidance. We want first to be faithful Christians, following the commands of our Lord to spread the Gospel to all sinners, to welcome them into our fellowship, and to "love one another". But we are confused by how those commands relate to other Biblical teachings that provide us with the moral framework for our lives. Thanks to the Bishops and teaching theologians who have developed and signed this Open Letter for presenting a response to the other "teaching theologians" who have come out in support of the Recommendations. There is a way that we can love and support all sinners without deviating from moral standards that have been recognized and taught for centuries- that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
yet saints their watch are keeping
Posted by
Jonathan A. Schnibben
at
May 25, 2009 10:50
Yesterday, the Seventh Sunday of Easter, our sending hymn was "The Church's One Foundation." The third stanza is as follows: "Though with a scornful wonder this world sees her oppressed, by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed, yet saints their watch are keeping; their cry goes up: 'How Long?' and soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song." I don't think it is overstating the matter or being overly dramatic to say that this stanza is very telling for the current situation we find ourselves in as a church. Thank you to all the Bishops, Pastors, Teaching Theologians, Seminarians and laypeople, the assembly of saints whose cry goes up "How Long?"
For the love of Christ, and God.
Posted by
Tim
at
May 26, 2009 13:20
The old guard has spoken. Change happens slowly, but change happens, and God is a part of it all.
Are we really concerned about our ecumenical relationships? Do we really think that this issue is the only or even biggest issue of disagreement we might have with our sisters and brothers of faith? The message we have been given of our Christ through scripture is clear: he never side-stepped his mission of peace and justice because he thought the Pharisees or Sadducees might disagree... And, in our own lineage, Martin Luther took his stand against the old traditional ideas and methods, and we are all the better for it (ecumenically speaking). Let us not fail God because taking charge in a social justice issue is not popular or worse yet, because it is hard. But, embrace God's true love of all people. We are the hands and minds that must make this world a livable and lovable place for ALL - not just those you find appealing. Please let us not weaken God by saying God can only support some. God is clear, God Loves all. We should not only love all, but allow all to love.
Are we really concerned about our ecumenical relationships? Do we really think that this issue is the only or even biggest issue of disagreement we might have with our sisters and brothers of faith? The message we have been given of our Christ through scripture is clear: he never side-stepped his mission of peace and justice because he thought the Pharisees or Sadducees might disagree... And, in our own lineage, Martin Luther took his stand against the old traditional ideas and methods, and we are all the better for it (ecumenically speaking). Let us not fail God because taking charge in a social justice issue is not popular or worse yet, because it is hard. But, embrace God's true love of all people. We are the hands and minds that must make this world a livable and lovable place for ALL - not just those you find appealing. Please let us not weaken God by saying God can only support some. God is clear, God Loves all. We should not only love all, but allow all to love.
Re: For the love of Christ, and God
Posted by
Jonathan A. Schnibben
at
May 26, 2009 13:50
Tim,
I'm not sure that what is at issue here is loving all people. One can be opposed to the ministry resolutions and still love people. Your comments seem to say, as I read them, that if you love someone you will let them do whatever they please. Anyone that has been around children will know that that train of thought certainly cannot be the case. A Child may wish to have ice cream for every meal; is that the best thing for them? Certainly not. It is my belief that that is what those of us in the "old guard" are trying to say (though I may take some issue with that term). Our position as I understand it is that not everything is good for people (this is certainly and argument Paul makes). The Law is not only a mirror to show us our brokenness but also a proclamation of the gospel that guides us in a healthy way in our life with Christ.
The message concerning Christ in the scriptures is clear, he came to heal those who are sick, that would be all of us. He never healed someone only to let them go back to sickness. Rather, he healed and said go and sin no more. I also point out that Jesus upholds the image of marriage being the two flesh that is different (man and woman, look at the Hebrew in Genesis where Jesus gets this passage) being joined together as one flesh.
One might also argue that Martin Luther wasn't taking a stand against the old tradition as much as he was taking issue with new changes that had been placed into the old tradition, his work was to return us to the catholic tradition. In this view Martin Luther is not so much a champion of change as he was a champion of the "old guard."
I'm not sure that what is at issue here is loving all people. One can be opposed to the ministry resolutions and still love people. Your comments seem to say, as I read them, that if you love someone you will let them do whatever they please. Anyone that has been around children will know that that train of thought certainly cannot be the case. A Child may wish to have ice cream for every meal; is that the best thing for them? Certainly not. It is my belief that that is what those of us in the "old guard" are trying to say (though I may take some issue with that term). Our position as I understand it is that not everything is good for people (this is certainly and argument Paul makes). The Law is not only a mirror to show us our brokenness but also a proclamation of the gospel that guides us in a healthy way in our life with Christ.
The message concerning Christ in the scriptures is clear, he came to heal those who are sick, that would be all of us. He never healed someone only to let them go back to sickness. Rather, he healed and said go and sin no more. I also point out that Jesus upholds the image of marriage being the two flesh that is different (man and woman, look at the Hebrew in Genesis where Jesus gets this passage) being joined together as one flesh.
One might also argue that Martin Luther wasn't taking a stand against the old tradition as much as he was taking issue with new changes that had been placed into the old tradition, his work was to return us to the catholic tradition. In this view Martin Luther is not so much a champion of change as he was a champion of the "old guard."
For the Love of Christ
Posted by
Rik
at
May 26, 2009 16:59
Jonathan,
First of all, I don't see much use for the language of "old guard" and "champion of change" when it comes to discussing Luther. For more than a hundred years prior to Martin's birth in Eisleben, the Church of Rome was in need of Reform. Jan Hus was one example of another reformer who tried to help prior to Martin. Luther was raised in the church, steeped in its tradition, and (thankfully) changes didn't come quickly for him. He sought to address the problems of indulgences in his area, and other abuses in the Church of Rome, but he was not one for innovation. When he was dismissed as an unimportant "drunken German" monk, and was later excommunicated by Rome, he stood for the catholic faith despite Rome's rejection of the Apostolic faith. Unlike Calvin and others, Luther did not seek to reinvent Christianity by dashing tradition to the wind and starting from scratch. Rather, his was a conservative reformation, cutting out only that which was contradictory to the Word of God. He sought to avoid radical change, and encouraged Lutherans to speak to what we affirm with Rome as well as what we protest, and the early Lutherans furthermore clarified their Biblical positions in contrast with other reformations which had started up.
Now regarding the Love of Christ, and the great test of the 21st century ELCA, you are certainly correct that love is not affirming anyone in their sin, and just getting along at all costs for the sake of so-called "unity." Those who claim that we should pretend sin doesn't exist, and make nice-nice with everybody, overlooking law and judgement and all that "negative" stuff as God supposedly simply looks away when we have wrong thoughts, words and actions--those who claim such things have obviously never read the Bible, or paid attention to the words on the pages. Yes, we are to love people--all people--but with genuine love, not mamby-pamby "let's all get along, give peace a chance" love. There's a difference between the world's understanding of peace and the "peace that passes all understanding." There's a difference between "tolerance = acceptance = there is no such thing as right and wrong", and loving people with the love that comes from God, accepting others but not accepting teachings which contradict what God teaches in His Word, and God has made it abundantly clear that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Will you love me enough to confront me when I sin? Will you love me enough to lovingly correct me when I err? Will you pray for me even if you know me to be a miserable sinner? Those who hold to the mamby-pamby model of "love" must take issue with Jesus himself. Why didn't He embrace the Pharisees, and affirm them in their religious beliefs? Why would he take issue with the Sadducees who did not believe in a resurrection? Couldn't He have dialoged with them and said "let's just agree to disagree" and "this doesn't have to be a church-dividing issue?" Regarding Judas, "But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." That language doesn't sound very positive and affirming. And yet, Jesus never sinned, and His love
was real and genuine, even when it was tough love. Oh, that those who call themselves Christians would open up our Bibles and learn what real love is all about. It's there in black and white and red. How can one support the ministry Resolutions and at the same time love God and one's neighbor? Condoning that which is unnatural and wrong in the eyes of God Almighty is quite simply not the love of Christ.
First of all, I don't see much use for the language of "old guard" and "champion of change" when it comes to discussing Luther. For more than a hundred years prior to Martin's birth in Eisleben, the Church of Rome was in need of Reform. Jan Hus was one example of another reformer who tried to help prior to Martin. Luther was raised in the church, steeped in its tradition, and (thankfully) changes didn't come quickly for him. He sought to address the problems of indulgences in his area, and other abuses in the Church of Rome, but he was not one for innovation. When he was dismissed as an unimportant "drunken German" monk, and was later excommunicated by Rome, he stood for the catholic faith despite Rome's rejection of the Apostolic faith. Unlike Calvin and others, Luther did not seek to reinvent Christianity by dashing tradition to the wind and starting from scratch. Rather, his was a conservative reformation, cutting out only that which was contradictory to the Word of God. He sought to avoid radical change, and encouraged Lutherans to speak to what we affirm with Rome as well as what we protest, and the early Lutherans furthermore clarified their Biblical positions in contrast with other reformations which had started up.
Now regarding the Love of Christ, and the great test of the 21st century ELCA, you are certainly correct that love is not affirming anyone in their sin, and just getting along at all costs for the sake of so-called "unity." Those who claim that we should pretend sin doesn't exist, and make nice-nice with everybody, overlooking law and judgement and all that "negative" stuff as God supposedly simply looks away when we have wrong thoughts, words and actions--those who claim such things have obviously never read the Bible, or paid attention to the words on the pages. Yes, we are to love people--all people--but with genuine love, not mamby-pamby "let's all get along, give peace a chance" love. There's a difference between the world's understanding of peace and the "peace that passes all understanding." There's a difference between "tolerance = acceptance = there is no such thing as right and wrong", and loving people with the love that comes from God, accepting others but not accepting teachings which contradict what God teaches in His Word, and God has made it abundantly clear that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Will you love me enough to confront me when I sin? Will you love me enough to lovingly correct me when I err? Will you pray for me even if you know me to be a miserable sinner? Those who hold to the mamby-pamby model of "love" must take issue with Jesus himself. Why didn't He embrace the Pharisees, and affirm them in their religious beliefs? Why would he take issue with the Sadducees who did not believe in a resurrection? Couldn't He have dialoged with them and said "let's just agree to disagree" and "this doesn't have to be a church-dividing issue?" Regarding Judas, "But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." That language doesn't sound very positive and affirming. And yet, Jesus never sinned, and His love
was real and genuine, even when it was tough love. Oh, that those who call themselves Christians would open up our Bibles and learn what real love is all about. It's there in black and white and red. How can one support the ministry Resolutions and at the same time love God and one's neighbor? Condoning that which is unnatural and wrong in the eyes of God Almighty is quite simply not the love of Christ.
Re: for the love of Christ
Posted by
Jonathan A. Schnibben
at
May 26, 2009 21:07
Rik,
I agree completely with your comments. My use of "old gaurd" and "change" was in reference to Tim's comments. I believe that I mentioned in my comments that I took some issue with the use of them, I was merely using his vocabulary to make my point. THat point was that Luther's work was to return the church to the catholic faith of the patristic era. Using Luther as some form of ideal for change in the 21st century is just an incorrect interpretation of him.
I think we are in agreement in regard to our biblical interpretation.
Soli Deo Gloria
I agree completely with your comments. My use of "old gaurd" and "change" was in reference to Tim's comments. I believe that I mentioned in my comments that I took some issue with the use of them, I was merely using his vocabulary to make my point. THat point was that Luther's work was to return the church to the catholic faith of the patristic era. Using Luther as some form of ideal for change in the 21st century is just an incorrect interpretation of him.
I think we are in agreement in regard to our biblical interpretation.
Soli Deo Gloria
Mamby pamby
Posted by
Mamby pamby Tim
at
May 27, 2009 12:25
I am a card-carrying member of the mamby-pamby "let's all get along, give peace a chance" love club.
#1= A family member got married after 21 years of being together with their partner. The couple has been more stable and life-giving than other members of my family.
#2= Suicide... I have experienced gay people who have been lovingly confronted about their disorder, sin, mutation, not to mention abomination, resulting in the taking of their own life.
#3= If being cast in the role of Pharisee, Sadducee, Judas, Pilate, Herod, and the rest of the abomination superstars is the price, I'm going to have to think about it. Being a mamby pamby I have to save my own skin.
#4= What happened to me is that I had a dream where God said "kill and eat" and I wanted to puke. The abomination we are discussing is not my cup of tea. However, I am being converted to an open table.
#5= I do believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. Right is do what is life-giving. Wrong is what leads people to suicide and spiritual depression.
The Mamby Pamby
#1= A family member got married after 21 years of being together with their partner. The couple has been more stable and life-giving than other members of my family.
#2= Suicide... I have experienced gay people who have been lovingly confronted about their disorder, sin, mutation, not to mention abomination, resulting in the taking of their own life.
#3= If being cast in the role of Pharisee, Sadducee, Judas, Pilate, Herod, and the rest of the abomination superstars is the price, I'm going to have to think about it. Being a mamby pamby I have to save my own skin.
#4= What happened to me is that I had a dream where God said "kill and eat" and I wanted to puke. The abomination we are discussing is not my cup of tea. However, I am being converted to an open table.
#5= I do believe there is such a thing as right and wrong. Right is do what is life-giving. Wrong is what leads people to suicide and spiritual depression.
The Mamby Pamby
Response to Tim "Mamby pamby"
Posted by
Rik
at
May 27, 2009 17:38
Tim, I am writing because I believe you deserve a response. I do not believe I am the best one to respond to what you have written, but I will try. I hope one more qualified than I will correct my mistakes and help you further.
...
#1=I was wrong: the word is "namby-pamby" defined as 1) lacking in character or substance: insipid. 2)weak, indecisive. (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). "1. (UK) A syrupy, sentimental, insipid or childish person. 2. (US) A weak-kneed, fearful and indecisive person, lacking willpower." (Alpha Dictionary.com). I believe I meant more of the UK definition, not meaning "childish" as an insult, but rather "syrupy, sentimental", not biblically grounded. My purpose was to contrast this so-called "love" to one grounded in love as taught in Scripture.
...
#2="'...let's all get along, give peace a chance'love club." Where I am living in responsible Christian freedom, loving God through loving my neighbor, striving not to do that which displeases Almighty God by the power of His Spirit, I too say "Let's all get along." But to go against the Creator of the Universe who redeemed me at great price, to be indifferent to Him who suffered on my behalf--I cannot do that. Where I have sinned in what I have done & in what I have left undone, I confess my sin and plead God's forgiveness. "Give peace a chance." Oh, that the world could know the peace that comes from God--real shalom, wholeness, oneness with Him... Oh, that you and I would share the message of Christ with others in word and action, that more might experience this true peace rather than the shallow peace that the world advocates. I am a member of a love club that seeks to reflect the love of God to others. Please pray that God would make me more effective at reflecting His great love.
...
#3="A family member got married after 21 years of being together with their partner. The couple has been more stable and life-giving than other members of my family." Praise God that even when we make wrong chices (being together with a partner, evidently not married) that God can still redeem our situations and bring good (stability) out of evil. What do you mean by "life-giving?" I want to understand your how you understand it.
...
#4= "Suicide... I have experienced gay people who have been lovingly confronted about their disorder, sin, mutation, not to mention abomination, resulting in the taking of their own life." I am genuinely concerned: Are you suicidal? If you are, I hope you will seek the help you need, as there are caring people who would love to help you through the difficulties which can make life depressing and difficult. If you are a Christian, press on toward the goal, trusting in the strength that God will supply you with. (My screen saver has 1 Cor 15:58 on it). Regardless of what others say, you have real worth in the eyes of God. Do not forget that. If you are not suicidal, I didn't want to ignore what could have been an indirect cry for help. I know that some who would like help can be afraid of being direct in asking for such help. I didn't want to err on the side of remaining silent. You have experienced "gay people who have been lovingly confronted about their disorder, sin... , resulting in the taking of their own life." If the result was taking their life, I find it hard to believe the cause was being "lovingly confronted." Why would God call us to lovingly care enough to confront if that would result in another's suicide? I did not personally experience the confrontation of which you wrote of. Evidently these gay people chose to respond to that confrontation (and/or some other factor[s]) by taking their own life, but to say that universally there is a cause & effect relationship between lovingly confronting one with one's sin (and hopefully pointing them to the great news of the Gospel) and suicide seems very hard to accept. One can indeed despair of one's sin, but comfort from knowing that Jesus paid for that and all sin should fill a person with great joy! Like I said, I wasn't there.
...
#5- I did not bring up Pharisees, Sadducees, et al. to compare you with them, or label you as a "Judas." Rather, I sought to briefly point to some examples of how Jesus dealt with people in a manner that many today would not consider "politically correct." I challenge you to open your Bible and find Jesus love evident even in these above listed encounters, or with the help of a pastor.
...
#6- "What happened to me is that I had a dream where God said "kill and eat" and I wanted to puke. The abomination we are discussing is not my cup of tea. However, I am being converted to an open table." I know that which you are refering to, but I don't understand your twist on it. Would you be so kind as to explain it for me?
...
#7- Revision: In place of Ten Commandments, i give you only two: I. Thou shalt do whatever is, in your interpretation, life-giving. II. Thou shalt not do whatever "leads" people to suicide and spiritual depression.
Had God replaced the Law with only these guidelines, what would the world look like today? I have sinned against Almighty God and deserve temporal and eternal punishment, but you cannot call me to repent of my sin because I might become spiritually depressed. The Good News of Salation in Jesus Christ is of NO use to me if I do not recognize my need for it (if I am not confronted with God's Law). But I tell you that what is really "life-giving" is not accepting sin and justifying disorder and evil, but rather Jesus' love to take my place on the cross, paying the debt of my sin in full--that I might live abundant and eternal life, now THAT is life-giving! May God be with you, Tim. May you be refreshed by joy knowing the abundant love of God who deeply cares about you. He bore those stripes for you. Even if you were the only person on the face of this earth, He would have still died to cover your sins and restore His relationship with you--He loves you that much!
...
#1=I was wrong: the word is "namby-pamby" defined as 1) lacking in character or substance: insipid. 2)weak, indecisive. (Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). "1. (UK) A syrupy, sentimental, insipid or childish person. 2. (US) A weak-kneed, fearful and indecisive person, lacking willpower." (Alpha Dictionary.com). I believe I meant more of the UK definition, not meaning "childish" as an insult, but rather "syrupy, sentimental", not biblically grounded. My purpose was to contrast this so-called "love" to one grounded in love as taught in Scripture.
...
#2="'...let's all get along, give peace a chance'love club." Where I am living in responsible Christian freedom, loving God through loving my neighbor, striving not to do that which displeases Almighty God by the power of His Spirit, I too say "Let's all get along." But to go against the Creator of the Universe who redeemed me at great price, to be indifferent to Him who suffered on my behalf--I cannot do that. Where I have sinned in what I have done & in what I have left undone, I confess my sin and plead God's forgiveness. "Give peace a chance." Oh, that the world could know the peace that comes from God--real shalom, wholeness, oneness with Him... Oh, that you and I would share the message of Christ with others in word and action, that more might experience this true peace rather than the shallow peace that the world advocates. I am a member of a love club that seeks to reflect the love of God to others. Please pray that God would make me more effective at reflecting His great love.
...
#3="A family member got married after 21 years of being together with their partner. The couple has been more stable and life-giving than other members of my family." Praise God that even when we make wrong chices (being together with a partner, evidently not married) that God can still redeem our situations and bring good (stability) out of evil. What do you mean by "life-giving?" I want to understand your how you understand it.
...
#4= "Suicide... I have experienced gay people who have been lovingly confronted about their disorder, sin, mutation, not to mention abomination, resulting in the taking of their own life." I am genuinely concerned: Are you suicidal? If you are, I hope you will seek the help you need, as there are caring people who would love to help you through the difficulties which can make life depressing and difficult. If you are a Christian, press on toward the goal, trusting in the strength that God will supply you with. (My screen saver has 1 Cor 15:58 on it). Regardless of what others say, you have real worth in the eyes of God. Do not forget that. If you are not suicidal, I didn't want to ignore what could have been an indirect cry for help. I know that some who would like help can be afraid of being direct in asking for such help. I didn't want to err on the side of remaining silent. You have experienced "gay people who have been lovingly confronted about their disorder, sin... , resulting in the taking of their own life." If the result was taking their life, I find it hard to believe the cause was being "lovingly confronted." Why would God call us to lovingly care enough to confront if that would result in another's suicide? I did not personally experience the confrontation of which you wrote of. Evidently these gay people chose to respond to that confrontation (and/or some other factor[s]) by taking their own life, but to say that universally there is a cause & effect relationship between lovingly confronting one with one's sin (and hopefully pointing them to the great news of the Gospel) and suicide seems very hard to accept. One can indeed despair of one's sin, but comfort from knowing that Jesus paid for that and all sin should fill a person with great joy! Like I said, I wasn't there.
...
#5- I did not bring up Pharisees, Sadducees, et al. to compare you with them, or label you as a "Judas." Rather, I sought to briefly point to some examples of how Jesus dealt with people in a manner that many today would not consider "politically correct." I challenge you to open your Bible and find Jesus love evident even in these above listed encounters, or with the help of a pastor.
...
#6- "What happened to me is that I had a dream where God said "kill and eat" and I wanted to puke. The abomination we are discussing is not my cup of tea. However, I am being converted to an open table." I know that which you are refering to, but I don't understand your twist on it. Would you be so kind as to explain it for me?
...
#7- Revision: In place of Ten Commandments, i give you only two: I. Thou shalt do whatever is, in your interpretation, life-giving. II. Thou shalt not do whatever "leads" people to suicide and spiritual depression.
Had God replaced the Law with only these guidelines, what would the world look like today? I have sinned against Almighty God and deserve temporal and eternal punishment, but you cannot call me to repent of my sin because I might become spiritually depressed. The Good News of Salation in Jesus Christ is of NO use to me if I do not recognize my need for it (if I am not confronted with God's Law). But I tell you that what is really "life-giving" is not accepting sin and justifying disorder and evil, but rather Jesus' love to take my place on the cross, paying the debt of my sin in full--that I might live abundant and eternal life, now THAT is life-giving! May God be with you, Tim. May you be refreshed by joy knowing the abundant love of God who deeply cares about you. He bore those stripes for you. Even if you were the only person on the face of this earth, He would have still died to cover your sins and restore His relationship with you--He loves you that much!
responding
Posted by
Tim
at
May 28, 2009 18:58
Jonathan,
Thanks. However, your understanding of the homosexual issue makes our conversation of little help. I believe we have two very distinct perspective which are not conducive to dialog. Your suggestion that being a homosexual is akin to a child wanting ice cream is not only bigoted and uninformed, it is extremely offensive. Our theologies and levels of understanding on these matters are simply not compatible. Yes, my phrasing of 'old guard' was meant to make the point it did - immature as it was - however, I also found it interesting that nearly 90% of those signed to this letter were titled: emeritus, retired, etc... That said, I know if just as many 'old guard' folk (with these same titles, bishop, pastor, professor, etc) that support loving, same-sex relationships, so it was not, in case one was concerned, an ageist comment of any sort. :)
This issue is so extremely limited when it comes to biblical justification! There are so many issues in which the Bible provides much more extensive lessons - which are issues we REALLY need to deal with - that this civil justice issue does not warrant the extreme attention it receives. If half of our "loving" attention was put towards ending poverty as is given to how we think God wants us to love eachother - I think we'd answer that question very clearly... God wants us to love each other unconditionally. Poverty, racism, sexism, all forms of bigotry, this is what God hates.
And, as for the other posters suggesting I am not theologically trained - suffice it to say, I read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.
Best of luck to you all.
Thanks. However, your understanding of the homosexual issue makes our conversation of little help. I believe we have two very distinct perspective which are not conducive to dialog. Your suggestion that being a homosexual is akin to a child wanting ice cream is not only bigoted and uninformed, it is extremely offensive. Our theologies and levels of understanding on these matters are simply not compatible. Yes, my phrasing of 'old guard' was meant to make the point it did - immature as it was - however, I also found it interesting that nearly 90% of those signed to this letter were titled: emeritus, retired, etc... That said, I know if just as many 'old guard' folk (with these same titles, bishop, pastor, professor, etc) that support loving, same-sex relationships, so it was not, in case one was concerned, an ageist comment of any sort. :)
This issue is so extremely limited when it comes to biblical justification! There are so many issues in which the Bible provides much more extensive lessons - which are issues we REALLY need to deal with - that this civil justice issue does not warrant the extreme attention it receives. If half of our "loving" attention was put towards ending poverty as is given to how we think God wants us to love eachother - I think we'd answer that question very clearly... God wants us to love each other unconditionally. Poverty, racism, sexism, all forms of bigotry, this is what God hates.
And, as for the other posters suggesting I am not theologically trained - suffice it to say, I read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.
Best of luck to you all.
A reply to Tim
Posted by
Jonathan A Schnibben
at
May 29, 2009 20:49
Tim,
I'm not so sure how my use of a simple anaology, not a sugestion, makes me a bigot, unifnormed or offensive. I'm sorry we must revert to name calling when we disagree with other people. I pray we will all be able to discuss this matter in a civil way, myself included, but I am becoming increasingly aware we will be torn apart by this vote in August. May God have mercy on us all
I'm not so sure how my use of a simple anaology, not a sugestion, makes me a bigot, unifnormed or offensive. I'm sorry we must revert to name calling when we disagree with other people. I pray we will all be able to discuss this matter in a civil way, myself included, but I am becoming increasingly aware we will be torn apart by this vote in August. May God have mercy on us all
A further reply to your comments
Posted by
Jonathan A. Schnibben
at
May 29, 2009 23:52
Tim,
Please understand that I meant no harm by my anaology. My point simply was this: loving someone doesn't alway mean we let everyone do what they wish. This is certainly the case for myself, for you and for all people.
I hope and pray you understand I am not a bigot, I can tell you I have been quite hurt by your remarks (I also recognize that my remarks must have hurt you, for this I am sorry).
For me this issue is not primarily about homosexuality, in my mind there are far greater issues at stake such as, the proper distinction and use of both the law and the gospel, the work of the Spirit within the church, how we interpret the bible, what Christian love is, and our unity as a church. It sounds as if you have come to some level of peace on this matter in regards to scripture and the confessions. I personally have found all the arguments in support of these ministry changes lacking from a scriptural and confessional basis. I will seek to be in honest dialouge with those whose views differ from mine. It seems to me that we must all seek to be civil with one another in this process. Those of us who oppose change cannot simply brand you all who wish change as people who care not for scripture and the confessions; however, you cannot brand us as bigots, uninofrmed and offensive. If we're going to have an honest debate about this it's going to hurt but perhaps in the interest of Christian brotherhood we can leave the labeling out of it. If you help me with it, then I will help you. May God's will be done and his name be praised!
Please understand that I meant no harm by my anaology. My point simply was this: loving someone doesn't alway mean we let everyone do what they wish. This is certainly the case for myself, for you and for all people.
I hope and pray you understand I am not a bigot, I can tell you I have been quite hurt by your remarks (I also recognize that my remarks must have hurt you, for this I am sorry).
For me this issue is not primarily about homosexuality, in my mind there are far greater issues at stake such as, the proper distinction and use of both the law and the gospel, the work of the Spirit within the church, how we interpret the bible, what Christian love is, and our unity as a church. It sounds as if you have come to some level of peace on this matter in regards to scripture and the confessions. I personally have found all the arguments in support of these ministry changes lacking from a scriptural and confessional basis. I will seek to be in honest dialouge with those whose views differ from mine. It seems to me that we must all seek to be civil with one another in this process. Those of us who oppose change cannot simply brand you all who wish change as people who care not for scripture and the confessions; however, you cannot brand us as bigots, uninofrmed and offensive. If we're going to have an honest debate about this it's going to hurt but perhaps in the interest of Christian brotherhood we can leave the labeling out of it. If you help me with it, then I will help you. May God's will be done and his name be praised!
I understand
Posted by
Tim
at
May 31, 2009 19:05
Jonathan,
your "analogy" implies a false truth: that homosexuality is a choice, and not a God given gift to love. This issues needs to be about facts, not opinions. And yes, I am surrounded by deep peace about these issues of understanding the Bible and the work of the Spirit in our church. God is alive with us and still speaking through our hands of peace and justice - which may look much less rigid than the ancient authors could have ever understood. We need to be flexible WITH the spirit, not rigid against it.
Peace be with us.
your "analogy" implies a false truth: that homosexuality is a choice, and not a God given gift to love. This issues needs to be about facts, not opinions. And yes, I am surrounded by deep peace about these issues of understanding the Bible and the work of the Spirit in our church. God is alive with us and still speaking through our hands of peace and justice - which may look much less rigid than the ancient authors could have ever understood. We need to be flexible WITH the spirit, not rigid against it.
Peace be with us.
Reply to Tim
Posted by
CE
at
May 31, 2009 23:01
Jonathan's analogy may have been overly simplified, but your statement that "homosexuality is a God given gift of love" is an opinion, not a fact.
Nowhere in Jonathan's statements did I see anything homosexuality being a choice. I do not know Jonathan and will not speak for him, but my personal opinion is that while the desire to love someone of the same sex is not a choice, acting on that desire certainly is. I am attracted to people of the opposite sex and have to choose to repress my own desires about that attraction all the time. Of course a child's desire to eat ice cream is not the same as the desire to be with someone intimately that you love, but Jonathan's statement that "loving someone doesn't alway mean we let everyone do what they wish" is a fact, not an opinion.
Everything I read in the Statement on Sexuality and from proponents of change seems to be based on a matter of conscience - that it is just not right to continue to let our brothers and sisters who love someone of the same sex to be denied what those who love someone of the opposite sex have - marriage and the right to be ordained if he or she is in a faithful loving relationship (or single and celibate). Because I love my brothers and sisters who love someone of the same sex, I'm sorry, but I can't support that statement. Because I love them, I do not believe it is right to tell them they should live - and love - in a way that - I believe - would not be honoring to God. And I base this not just on my own conscience, but on the Bible, which only proclaims the sexual love between a man and woman as honoring to God. I'm sorry but I can't believe the Spirit is leading us to an understanding that "loving your neighbor" who - for whatever reason - happens to love someone of the same gender, means that we should bless their union.
Some of my former pastors are either members of LCNY or similar organizations, and I believe that they feel the Spirit is guiding the Lutheran Church to this change, but I just cannot agree. And not because I'm a biggot or feel that homosexuality is a choice.
Nowhere in Jonathan's statements did I see anything homosexuality being a choice. I do not know Jonathan and will not speak for him, but my personal opinion is that while the desire to love someone of the same sex is not a choice, acting on that desire certainly is. I am attracted to people of the opposite sex and have to choose to repress my own desires about that attraction all the time. Of course a child's desire to eat ice cream is not the same as the desire to be with someone intimately that you love, but Jonathan's statement that "loving someone doesn't alway mean we let everyone do what they wish" is a fact, not an opinion.
Everything I read in the Statement on Sexuality and from proponents of change seems to be based on a matter of conscience - that it is just not right to continue to let our brothers and sisters who love someone of the same sex to be denied what those who love someone of the opposite sex have - marriage and the right to be ordained if he or she is in a faithful loving relationship (or single and celibate). Because I love my brothers and sisters who love someone of the same sex, I'm sorry, but I can't support that statement. Because I love them, I do not believe it is right to tell them they should live - and love - in a way that - I believe - would not be honoring to God. And I base this not just on my own conscience, but on the Bible, which only proclaims the sexual love between a man and woman as honoring to God. I'm sorry but I can't believe the Spirit is leading us to an understanding that "loving your neighbor" who - for whatever reason - happens to love someone of the same gender, means that we should bless their union.
Some of my former pastors are either members of LCNY or similar organizations, and I believe that they feel the Spirit is guiding the Lutheran Church to this change, but I just cannot agree. And not because I'm a biggot or feel that homosexuality is a choice.
RE: CE
Posted by
Tim
at
June 01, 2009 08:27
Dear CE,
Here is the problem: if one doesn't believe homosexuality is a choice, as you so state, and one believe in a loving creator God, how does one reconcile that God would create (in God's own image) homosexuals. Those are the two choices I see: "it is a choice", or "God created all humans in God's image." Some people were very much against marriage between people of different races decades ago (some still are)? If we believe God creates this mysterious universe with grand diversity - honor that creation, love that creation, praise God everyday for it.
Here is the problem: if one doesn't believe homosexuality is a choice, as you so state, and one believe in a loving creator God, how does one reconcile that God would create (in God's own image) homosexuals. Those are the two choices I see: "it is a choice", or "God created all humans in God's image." Some people were very much against marriage between people of different races decades ago (some still are)? If we believe God creates this mysterious universe with grand diversity - honor that creation, love that creation, praise God everyday for it.
Reply to Tim:
Posted by
Rik
at
June 01, 2009 18:16
"God created all humans in God's image." That is correct! And it was very good. But mankind disobeyed God, turning from Him, and separated himself from a right relationship with the Almighty. This brought about spiritual death. We all have been blind, enemies of God, with distorted, even evil desires. For more info., see Genesis, and the prophesies of the (then) coming Messiah, and the fulfillment of His coming in the Gospels. God did not create homosexuality. He allowed men and women to succumb to it, but through Christ we can overcome all that would separate us from Him and His holiness. "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free..." Let us make the right choice and live as redeemed heirs of the King of Kings!
Re:Tim
Posted by
CE
at
June 01, 2009 23:54
Tim, some people are more prone to anger than others. They might just naturally be born that way. Or perhaps something in their childhood (the way their parents interacted with them, for example) made them that way. They didn't choose to be that way. I don't think acting on that anger is neccessarily good, especially if it is violent and causes harm to others. I'm sure you agree.
I also believe that sexual attraction to children is not a choice one makes, and is either something that they were born with, or again, possibly a result of sexual abuse they personally suffered as children. Again, I'm sure you wouldn't support people acting out on such feelings.
Before you start accusing me of equating homosexuality with violence or pedophilia, please note, I am not. I understand full well that two adult consenting individuals freely choosing to embrace their mutual feelings for one another is completely different, and, that unlike violent behavior or child abuse, no one is being forced to do something against their will.
But this "God created all humans in God's image" = "Homosexuality must be good" is utter nonsense.
Yes, some people continue to condemn marriages or relationships between people of different races, but I don't see a correlation. For me, I don't see any prohibition in the Bible, or any "problem" otherwise, with such relationships. If anything, I think the Bible supports cross-cultural relationships. For example, Moses was a Jew, a member of the Levite tribe, adopted into an Egyptian family (its royal family), and he later married a Midian woman. Yes, I know people used the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws, but I think their interpretations of the stories of Phineas and the "Curse of Ham" were used to support racists agendas of keeping minorities oppressed.
On the other hand, I'm not looking to oppress those who identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual or otherwise. As far as I can tell, the Bible only honors the sexual relationship and the love between a man and a woman. That's the creation that I understand is honoring to God. If there is a counter example, please, please show it to me. I have many friends that have been in loving, caring relationships with people of the same sex for years - some longer than many broken heterosexual relationships of other friends that ended in divorce. I have no doubt that my friends love their partners and are "good" people. Some of them are regular church goers, and one is even the director of music at a Lutheran church. My sins are no worse or better than theirs, and my salvation is just as dependant on God's grace as is theirs. But I can't believe that their relationship was what God intended.
I see more options than you, "it is a choice" (which I don't believe), "God created some people to be gay, and others straight - it's all good and beautiful!" (rephrasing your second option, which I also don't believe), "All humans are sinful and fall short of the glory of God; people suffer different temptations, and the church should be there to welcome all, but not to justify any sinful behavior, and should always treat people with love." So, I think that churches should welcome homosexuals into their congregations, but should not bless a relationship which does not honor God's creation.
I also believe that sexual attraction to children is not a choice one makes, and is either something that they were born with, or again, possibly a result of sexual abuse they personally suffered as children. Again, I'm sure you wouldn't support people acting out on such feelings.
Before you start accusing me of equating homosexuality with violence or pedophilia, please note, I am not. I understand full well that two adult consenting individuals freely choosing to embrace their mutual feelings for one another is completely different, and, that unlike violent behavior or child abuse, no one is being forced to do something against their will.
But this "God created all humans in God's image" = "Homosexuality must be good" is utter nonsense.
Yes, some people continue to condemn marriages or relationships between people of different races, but I don't see a correlation. For me, I don't see any prohibition in the Bible, or any "problem" otherwise, with such relationships. If anything, I think the Bible supports cross-cultural relationships. For example, Moses was a Jew, a member of the Levite tribe, adopted into an Egyptian family (its royal family), and he later married a Midian woman. Yes, I know people used the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws, but I think their interpretations of the stories of Phineas and the "Curse of Ham" were used to support racists agendas of keeping minorities oppressed.
On the other hand, I'm not looking to oppress those who identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual or otherwise. As far as I can tell, the Bible only honors the sexual relationship and the love between a man and a woman. That's the creation that I understand is honoring to God. If there is a counter example, please, please show it to me. I have many friends that have been in loving, caring relationships with people of the same sex for years - some longer than many broken heterosexual relationships of other friends that ended in divorce. I have no doubt that my friends love their partners and are "good" people. Some of them are regular church goers, and one is even the director of music at a Lutheran church. My sins are no worse or better than theirs, and my salvation is just as dependant on God's grace as is theirs. But I can't believe that their relationship was what God intended.
I see more options than you, "it is a choice" (which I don't believe), "God created some people to be gay, and others straight - it's all good and beautiful!" (rephrasing your second option, which I also don't believe), "All humans are sinful and fall short of the glory of God; people suffer different temptations, and the church should be there to welcome all, but not to justify any sinful behavior, and should always treat people with love." So, I think that churches should welcome homosexuals into their congregations, but should not bless a relationship which does not honor God's creation.
To CE
Posted by
Tim
at
June 02, 2009 08:46
Yes, i get it, love the sinner hate the sin. That is a bit simplistic for me.
Your example of biblical stories that are used to promote racism is good. I think any use of holy scripture to promote hate and difference is a misuse of the scripture (including homosexuality). Since the topic of pedophilia was brought up, when the Bible was being written adult men being married to 12-15 year old girls was the norm, one could say the Bible condones pedophilia as we understand it today... I wouldn't, but one could - and they would have strong evidence for their case. The Bible, in my opinion, is a record of a people's experience of the divine in their lives which was written with their understanding of social norms and pre-scientific knowledge of our human lives. There is much humans have learned (through our God given gift of intelligence)in the subsequent two to three thousand years since these stories where written. And, now when we come across something as an "ancient understanding", we disregard the specifics of that comment to find the deeper message of our ancient and beautiful faith from its original context. Human sexuality should be on that list of ancient understandings.
God is much greater than any collection of stories can contain. And, God's involvement in our lives did not stop with the completion of the Bible. Just as we grow and learn, God guides us, leads us and points us to truth in all ways possible. Science, in my opinion, is God saying, "Hey look at this! This can help you better understand all of creation! Keep looking!" If, on the other hand, there are those that disagree that the Bible is an ancient work - and believe that science is a falsehood where is disagrees with the ancient biblical writers, then we probably have little to converse about when it comes to our understanding of "God's creation".
Your example of biblical stories that are used to promote racism is good. I think any use of holy scripture to promote hate and difference is a misuse of the scripture (including homosexuality). Since the topic of pedophilia was brought up, when the Bible was being written adult men being married to 12-15 year old girls was the norm, one could say the Bible condones pedophilia as we understand it today... I wouldn't, but one could - and they would have strong evidence for their case. The Bible, in my opinion, is a record of a people's experience of the divine in their lives which was written with their understanding of social norms and pre-scientific knowledge of our human lives. There is much humans have learned (through our God given gift of intelligence)in the subsequent two to three thousand years since these stories where written. And, now when we come across something as an "ancient understanding", we disregard the specifics of that comment to find the deeper message of our ancient and beautiful faith from its original context. Human sexuality should be on that list of ancient understandings.
God is much greater than any collection of stories can contain. And, God's involvement in our lives did not stop with the completion of the Bible. Just as we grow and learn, God guides us, leads us and points us to truth in all ways possible. Science, in my opinion, is God saying, "Hey look at this! This can help you better understand all of creation! Keep looking!" If, on the other hand, there are those that disagree that the Bible is an ancient work - and believe that science is a falsehood where is disagrees with the ancient biblical writers, then we probably have little to converse about when it comes to our understanding of "God's creation".
Reply to Tim
Posted by
CE
at
June 02, 2009 10:51
I'm afraid we have such a difference of opinion that there's not much to talk about.
I believe in science, but scientific theories on many subjects continue to evolve over time, and there are a lot of theories that were widely accepted (and completely unrelated to any ancient text) that have been proven false. So there's nothing to say that a certain current belief about anything today might not change tomorrow as new facts are revealed. And yes, I agree that God gave us intelligence to keep looking and better understand his creation. But science can't teach everything.
I also believe that the Bible is the word of God. People have made mistakes in interpreting the Bible, and I agree that it does have some statements that are more "cultural" values than "Kingdom" values. But I don't see sexuality as falling in the former category, and while I do agree it was a gift, I simply can't agree that it should be used in the contexts you seem to.
God bless you in your search for truth. Me too.
I believe in science, but scientific theories on many subjects continue to evolve over time, and there are a lot of theories that were widely accepted (and completely unrelated to any ancient text) that have been proven false. So there's nothing to say that a certain current belief about anything today might not change tomorrow as new facts are revealed. And yes, I agree that God gave us intelligence to keep looking and better understand his creation. But science can't teach everything.
I also believe that the Bible is the word of God. People have made mistakes in interpreting the Bible, and I agree that it does have some statements that are more "cultural" values than "Kingdom" values. But I don't see sexuality as falling in the former category, and while I do agree it was a gift, I simply can't agree that it should be used in the contexts you seem to.
God bless you in your search for truth. Me too.
Half of our Loving Attention
Posted by
Rik
at
June 04, 2009 17:01
Tim, on May 28 ("responding") you wrote: "If half of our 'loving' attention was put towards ending poverty as is given to how we think God wants us to love each other - I think we'd answer that question very clearly... God wants us to love each other unconditionally."
---
And yet it seems in this context you imply that "loving unconditionally" means ignoring sin and pretending that our disobeying God is no big deal. This is not what God's Word teaches us. Matthew chapter 5 records Jesus words in the Sermon on the Mount, including, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...(Mt. 5:19 NIV)." Is God really indifferent toward sin. Does He say anywhere "Do whatever you want--I'll take care of it." "The Father will look the other way." or "Sin is no big deal."??? You also wrote, "Poverty, racism, sexism, all forms of bigotry, this is what God hates." It's interesting how you abridged the list of what God hates. Where's homosexuality and adultery on your list? What constitutes "all forms of bigotry?" Not agreeing with everything Tim believes? Your list sounds more like what the politically correct abhor, and you can add "slavery, irresponsible treatment of our environment, and all forms of torture in any circumstance" to the list. But you are right, God hates poverty (Luke 16:19-31; Lk 1:53, etc.) yet see Mt. 26:11; Mk 14:7; Jn. 12:8. Racism, see Jesus's teaching on the Good Samaritan, or his choosing to meet with the woman at the well (re: sexism as well, yet he did not chooae a woman to be among His chosen twelve disciples--He must not have believed in quotas).
"If half of our 'loving' attention was put towards ending poverty as is given to how we think God wants us to love each other..." There is nothing wrong with thinking about how God wants us to love one another--it is certainly no waste of time. Rather, it is the first step of the process. The second necessary step is putting that thought into action, in genuine, concrete ways. But it is never wise nor loving to ignore God and what pleases* Him (* not in our opinion, but what He has told us in the Bible) and what He abhors. Please check out the above Bible passages (in Greek if you prefer).
---
And yet it seems in this context you imply that "loving unconditionally" means ignoring sin and pretending that our disobeying God is no big deal. This is not what God's Word teaches us. Matthew chapter 5 records Jesus words in the Sermon on the Mount, including, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven...(Mt. 5:19 NIV)." Is God really indifferent toward sin. Does He say anywhere "Do whatever you want--I'll take care of it." "The Father will look the other way." or "Sin is no big deal."??? You also wrote, "Poverty, racism, sexism, all forms of bigotry, this is what God hates." It's interesting how you abridged the list of what God hates. Where's homosexuality and adultery on your list? What constitutes "all forms of bigotry?" Not agreeing with everything Tim believes? Your list sounds more like what the politically correct abhor, and you can add "slavery, irresponsible treatment of our environment, and all forms of torture in any circumstance" to the list. But you are right, God hates poverty (Luke 16:19-31; Lk 1:53, etc.) yet see Mt. 26:11; Mk 14:7; Jn. 12:8. Racism, see Jesus's teaching on the Good Samaritan, or his choosing to meet with the woman at the well (re: sexism as well, yet he did not chooae a woman to be among His chosen twelve disciples--He must not have believed in quotas).
"If half of our 'loving' attention was put towards ending poverty as is given to how we think God wants us to love each other..." There is nothing wrong with thinking about how God wants us to love one another--it is certainly no waste of time. Rather, it is the first step of the process. The second necessary step is putting that thought into action, in genuine, concrete ways. But it is never wise nor loving to ignore God and what pleases* Him (* not in our opinion, but what He has told us in the Bible) and what He abhors. Please check out the above Bible passages (in Greek if you prefer).
Hi Rik
Posted by
Tim
at
June 05, 2009 22:41
What the Bible says, taken, whole-cloth, as unchanging literal facts = What God wants? is that really your position?
Be prepared to read the whole thing (KJV if you prefer).
Be prepared to read the whole thing (KJV if you prefer).
What the Bible Says
Posted by
Rik
at
June 17, 2009 16:44
God is unchanging, and His truth is unchanging, and I am prepared to read and accept the whole thing. I do not have a problem with KJV, but mostly I prefer Hebrew and Greek to the degree I am able to read these languages. For me, NIV and ESV will do nicely, although NASV and NKJV are also good choices. Some parts are intended to be taken literally, and other parts such as the symbolic language of Revelation were not intended to be interpreted in a literal, chronological manner. Tim, I wish you could come to understand that God is the author of the Bible. It is not a mere human book of stories with an ancient gem here and an ancient gem there which need to be taken out of the historical rough to find any usefulness in the 21st century. I pray that you will pursue reading God's Word sensitive to His interpretation, as Scripture interprets Scripture, and difficult passages are understood in light of easier passages. To take a command that was directed toward Israel at one time and say that was intended for all people for all time would be an example of taking Scripture out of context. Example: Animal Sacrifices. They were intended to foreshadow the ultimate sacrifice of Christ Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This once-for-all Sacrifice made animal sacrifices unnecessary in the New Testament age. For a similar example, see when Jesus was asked why His disciples didn't fast--He said guests do not fast when the bridegroom is present (when Jesus was among them). The more you read Scripture and look for contexts (reading to learn, not to interpolate your own ideas into the text), the more the pieces of the puzzle will come together. May God bless you richly as you undertake a thorough study of His written Holy Word.
Another Tim
Posted by
Tim
at
May 26, 2009 14:46
Seems there's another Tim out there who is not the same Tim as me. However, I am in general agreement with his biblical discernment of the matter. May we all incarnate the Love of Christ despite our disagreements.
Fall of the House of ELCA?
Posted by
Rik
at
May 27, 2009 12:52
To: Teachers, Pastors, and Bishops of the ELCA,
THANK YOU for your open letter. May many more have the courage to take a clear stand against the reccomendations of a task-force which, if accepted, could well bring on disaster in the ELCA and alienate her ecumenical partners and the church at large. I do want to make it abundantly clear that I wish no ill against the ELCA, and hope its not too late for her congregations to awaken to the reality of what she faces this August at her Churchwide Assembly. May those who would teach a gospel other than the one true Gospel have no power or victory within the ELCA:
"24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end." Mark 3:24-26 (New King James Version)
I have just read a compelling writing by Robert Benne entitled "A House Divided." If you have not yet read it, I think you really should. You can find it online at http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/BennetoELCACouncilAHouseDivided.html My inlaws are members of an ELCA congregation in Illinois, and they had no clue what is happening regarding the proposed Statement and Recommendations. Please pray regularly that ELCA will proclaim the true Gospel in love and purity. Let others know what is going on, and speak the truth in love! Genuine love. May God have mercy on us all.
THANK YOU for your open letter. May many more have the courage to take a clear stand against the reccomendations of a task-force which, if accepted, could well bring on disaster in the ELCA and alienate her ecumenical partners and the church at large. I do want to make it abundantly clear that I wish no ill against the ELCA, and hope its not too late for her congregations to awaken to the reality of what she faces this August at her Churchwide Assembly. May those who would teach a gospel other than the one true Gospel have no power or victory within the ELCA:
"24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end." Mark 3:24-26 (New King James Version)
I have just read a compelling writing by Robert Benne entitled "A House Divided." If you have not yet read it, I think you really should. You can find it online at http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/BennetoELCACouncilAHouseDivided.html My inlaws are members of an ELCA congregation in Illinois, and they had no clue what is happening regarding the proposed Statement and Recommendations. Please pray regularly that ELCA will proclaim the true Gospel in love and purity. Let others know what is going on, and speak the truth in love! Genuine love. May God have mercy on us all.
A Simple Truth - A Simple Faith
Posted by
Dan Baker
at
June 01, 2009 23:31
It is a fact that considerable effort is being expended to assail what has long been accepted by most of those considered as faithful Christians as a Biblical truth. In Genesis there is a story about disobedience and how it was sown into the world. To those who so passionately keep asking the question, "Does scripture really say....?" I must say that I find that question greatly unsettling on so many levels and you should too. I look at Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." It is a simple statement which stands on its own. Yes, there are countless sins and we ignore many of them. We are even guilty of trying to rationalize them away. None the less, if they are described as an abomination before God they are an abomination before God. It is incomprehensible to me that God would have given his Son so that man could freely commit what He considers an abomination.
I greatly appreciate the efforts of those with a better grasp of the issus than I to clearly articulate the formal moral principles involved. Thank you.
I greatly appreciate the efforts of those with a better grasp of the issus than I to clearly articulate the formal moral principles involved. Thank you.
Simplistic faith
Posted by
Henry Franks
at
June 02, 2009 09:59
There is much more hate mongering and "effort" on the side you are promoting sir.
simple indeed.
simple indeed.
Simplistic faith
Posted by
Dan Baker
at
June 02, 2009 11:25
Just as the ends do not justify the means, the means do not disqualify the virtue of the objective. The tactics employed on both side often violate the respect that each would ask to be accorded. If I understand the "Simplistic Faith" response above, it does not respond by fairly addressing the foundation of the simple faith and even seems to go as far as demeaning one who admits to having an unsophisticated faith. Interesting indeed (or should I say "in deed").
Luke 18:17 NIV
Posted by
Rik
at
June 04, 2009 12:31
"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
What's wrong with simplistic?
What's wrong with simplistic?
Rik
Posted by
Henry
at
June 05, 2009 22:33
Yes Rik! Now, let us take that simplicity further and let the "rules" of our faith be led from this, not the irrelevant and erroneous parts that promote hate and division.
peace and love - to all, in all ways, always.
peace and love - to all, in all ways, always.
Henry
Posted by
Dan
at
June 06, 2009 15:02
I may be misuderstanding so let me pose this in the form of a question. Are you saying that you believe that simple means without limits?
A simple observation, for what it is worth. In my life I have worked with many troubled youth. In most, not all, but most,cases these young soles have been subjected to two types of spiritual abuse. Limits without Love and love without limits. (Capitalization is intentional).
A simple observation, for what it is worth. In my life I have worked with many troubled youth. In most, not all, but most,cases these young soles have been subjected to two types of spiritual abuse. Limits without Love and love without limits. (Capitalization is intentional).
Henry
Posted by
Rik
at
June 08, 2009 18:19
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (I Cor. 13:11 NIV). For context, please read all of Chapter 13. Go and learn the difference between "childlike" and "childish." And, Henry, within proper context, I have not found any irrelevant or erroneous portions in Holy Scripture. Had you read the words I've written in my postings, Scripture does not promote hatred, but love. Christian love is not the anything-goes-love that the world would entice us with. And the only divisions I stand for are the divisions that Christ Himself would bring (eg. Matt. 10:34, etc.).
Hey Rik
Posted by
Henry
at
June 13, 2009 15:38
Sorry man, I don't believe God can or should be constrained to ancient texts. The God I worship is way more open and accepting than the authors of the Bible were thousands of years ago. God is still speaking, God is still acting, God did not stop acting with the world with the "completion" of the Bible. So, feel free to worship a trapped, stagnant God. I prefer to recognize ALL of God's great creation - even those the Bible is unable to show us.
just a thought
Posted by
Alan
at
June 16, 2009 13:07
Henry,
I hear what you are saying but if you will permit me I'd like to push you just a bit. You say: "The God I worship is way more open and accepting than the authors of the Bible were thousands of years ago." OK, so where then do you get that understanding of God? Is the Bible then null and void for us now some thousands of years removed from its writing? What then do we base our new understandings of God's present actions? Certainly one could see that your comments might suggest we can have God approve of whatever one wants. Just some thoughts.
I hear what you are saying but if you will permit me I'd like to push you just a bit. You say: "The God I worship is way more open and accepting than the authors of the Bible were thousands of years ago." OK, so where then do you get that understanding of God? Is the Bible then null and void for us now some thousands of years removed from its writing? What then do we base our new understandings of God's present actions? Certainly one could see that your comments might suggest we can have God approve of whatever one wants. Just some thoughts.
Alan is Right.
Posted by
Rik
at
June 17, 2009 17:43
Henry, "God is still speaking, God is still acting, God did not stop acting with the world with the "completion" of the Bible." Absolutely correct! But God is not fickle either. He does not change. No, He is not constrained by anyone to ancient texts other than that He has constrained Himself to stand by His promises to us and not drift back and forth like a wave on the sea. "The God I worship is way more open and accepting than the authors of the Bible were thousands of years ago." God was the author who spoke through many human authors by His Spirit. How open and accepting is your god? If we can say that God has changed his mind on homosexuality, than how can we know whether God currently opposes racism or not? Should we not be open to everything? I would think God would still be opposed to murder, but if god is more open and out of the box, how can I know what he currently stands for? You say he is more "accepting" too? Accepting of what? Are you suggesting he might be accepting of the guy who killed Dr. Tiller? With this post-biblical "christianity", it's very confusing to me as to what god is open to and what (s)he is accepting of. If each of us has our own valid concepts of what this god's values are, what do we do when my concept and your concept don't jive? Can two opposing things be true at the same time? It sounds awfully confusing, and God is not a God of confusion--or has that changed too? My God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Is that a "trapped, stagnant God."??? I prefer to recognize "ALL of God's great creation" too. Where it still shows the breathtaking beauty of God's divine hand, that is awesome! Where we have ruined it by disobeying Him, thinking we know better--I will fall to my knees with that ancient dude called David, and cry, "Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions...Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evill in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge (Ps. 51:1,2,4 NIV). even those the Bible is unable to show us. What the Bible is unable to show me due to its age, its principles are timeless and are just as relevant today. So Henry, man, I don't mean to sound disrespectful at all, but from what I can see it looks like you and I worship different gods. I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob et al.--who revealed Himself in His incarnation as Y'shua ha Maschia Jesus the Christ. Before He died, rose and ascended, He promised His church the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth: "He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears...(Jn.16:13 NIV)." It all may be a little to archaic for you, and I don't know what parts of history you are considering pre-history. My message to the ELCA is from St. John's Gospel as well. Oh that they would open up their Bibles to John 16:5-11, especially verse eight. It's absolutely amazing to me how timeless God's words are, that words put on paper thousands of years ago read as though they were written just yesterday! God is amazing!!!
I'll see you in St. Louis...
Posted by
RWF
at
June 22, 2009 21:47
I'm done. The fact that the ELCA would so flagrantly violate the principle of Sola Scriptura (not that they haven't before) and would even consider what is now before them shows just how far they've fallen. I'll take my 'quia' and you can keep your 'quatenus'. I'll be with the Missouri Lutherans. They haven't abandoned Luther and Book of Concord yet.
August Assembly Votes
Praying for you and for all of us during this most unsettling time.
Penny Dixon
Director of Music at First Lutheran in Idaho Falls, Idaho
Penny Dixon