Document Actions
Assembly Coverage
by
Sarah Wilson
—
August 17, 2009
The ELCA churchwide assembly takes place from the 17th to the 23rd of August. Our colleague at Forum Letter, Richard O. Johnson, is attending and his live reporting is available through the ALPB site. Please click over there for up-to-the-minute information. Our own coverage and commentary here will resume in September.
The ELCA churchwide assembly takes place from the 17th to the 23rd of August. Our colleague at Forum Letter, Richard O. Johnson, is attending and his live reporting is available through the ALPB site. Please click over there for up-to-the-minute information. Our own coverage and commentary here will resume in September.
Response to David
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 17, 2009 20:44
David, that's a bit overly dramatic, don't you think? There will still be an ELCA. What is unknown is what its practice will be on the major issue and who will be affiliated with it.
ELCA in name...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 17, 2009 22:09
Whatever remains may still retain the name ELCA, but one way or another it will have changed so much as to be hard to associate with what has been since 1988.
If the resolutions pass - a sizeable number of traditionalists leave or set up more dissident factions.
If the resolutions fail - a lot of RIC individuals and congregations leave or keep pushing harder for the overturn of V&E. My not-encyclopaedic knowledge of mediating conflict would say that risks a backlash from traditionalists, if one isn't forming already.
Either way it's going to hurt the Church's ministry.
Our pastor said that most people in the ELCA aren't even aware that there are a lot of other items on the agenda at CWA, like full communion with the United Methodists and initiatives for combating AIDS and malaria (all of which I support), because this sexuality stuff has been hogging the spotlight.
Now I am going to be overly dramatic on purpose and compare it to the situations where the Soviet Union broke apart bit-by-bit until finally it just didn't exist anymore, and Mikhail Gorbachev found himself out of a job.
If the resolutions pass - a sizeable number of traditionalists leave or set up more dissident factions.
If the resolutions fail - a lot of RIC individuals and congregations leave or keep pushing harder for the overturn of V&E. My not-encyclopaedic knowledge of mediating conflict would say that risks a backlash from traditionalists, if one isn't forming already.
Either way it's going to hurt the Church's ministry.
Our pastor said that most people in the ELCA aren't even aware that there are a lot of other items on the agenda at CWA, like full communion with the United Methodists and initiatives for combating AIDS and malaria (all of which I support), because this sexuality stuff has been hogging the spotlight.
Now I am going to be overly dramatic on purpose and compare it to the situations where the Soviet Union broke apart bit-by-bit until finally it just didn't exist anymore, and Mikhail Gorbachev found himself out of a job.
Response to David
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 17, 2009 22:37
I wonder why this sexuality stuff has been hogging the spotlight (your characterization). Was that really necessary?
BTW, at about 9:30 p.m. CDT, the CWA voted 436 (yes) to 584 (no) to defeat the motion requiring a two-thirds vote on the sexuality statement recommendations. I suppose there will be some amendments carved out to try to change the meaning of the "final" votes, but tonight it appears that we have looked into the future, and that is it.
BTW, at about 9:30 p.m. CDT, the CWA voted 436 (yes) to 584 (no) to defeat the motion requiring a two-thirds vote on the sexuality statement recommendations. I suppose there will be some amendments carved out to try to change the meaning of the "final" votes, but tonight it appears that we have looked into the future, and that is it.
"Hogging"
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 17, 2009 23:40
You'll find a lot of Scots-Irish who use that term.
I'm not sure how to interpret what you said the results of the Monday night vote were. Is a 2/3 motion still required, or no? Math was never my strong subject.
I'm in a different time zone than Minneapolis (Detroit), so I'm not sure how up-to-the-minute the stuff I read is.
I'm not sure how to interpret what you said the results of the Monday night vote were. Is a 2/3 motion still required, or no? Math was never my strong subject.
I'm in a different time zone than Minneapolis (Detroit), so I'm not sure how up-to-the-minute the stuff I read is.
Math
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 18, 2009 09:45
The vote on Monday night was on a motion that would have required a two-thirds majority to pass the sexuality recommendations. It failed 436 to 584, so now only a simple majority is required to pass those recommendations. And, if that preliminary vote can be seen as a harbinger of the real vote, then the sexuality recommendations would pass by roughly 58 percent to 43 percent, assuming there's not a big shift in position by delegates and taking into account any defining amendments to the recommendations.
My reference to your statement about the sexuality provisions "hogging the spotlight" was intended to convey to notion that both sides are responsible for letting this issue suck the oxygen out of more important issues. For example, yesterday I read MLK's Letter from the Birmingham Jail, viewing it in the context of the need to reform national health care rather in the context of race. Doing so helps put things in perspective where the church's involvement is concerned.
My reference to your statement about the sexuality provisions "hogging the spotlight" was intended to convey to notion that both sides are responsible for letting this issue suck the oxygen out of more important issues. For example, yesterday I read MLK's Letter from the Birmingham Jail, viewing it in the context of the need to reform national health care rather in the context of race. Doing so helps put things in perspective where the church's involvement is concerned.
Thank you...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 18, 2009 11:24
...for the explanation of the results.
Unfortunately, I already read the analysis at WordAlone.
The phrase "if you can't play by the rules, then change the rules" comes to mind.
The gay lobby must not be all that confident of their position if they can't withstand a 2/3 vote.
But, again, they just want what THEY want.
We are seeing the first seeds of destruction of the ELCA. Bishop Hanson can plead for "unity" all he wants, but the fact is that we are seeing the end result of eight years plus of theological slide in the name of "inclusion," of which he has been one of the primary enablers.
I wonder if, in the end, he will find himself like I mentioned Mikhail Gorbachev - a Presiding Bishop with nothing to preside over.
Unfortunately, I already read the analysis at WordAlone.
The phrase "if you can't play by the rules, then change the rules" comes to mind.
The gay lobby must not be all that confident of their position if they can't withstand a 2/3 vote.
But, again, they just want what THEY want.
We are seeing the first seeds of destruction of the ELCA. Bishop Hanson can plead for "unity" all he wants, but the fact is that we are seeing the end result of eight years plus of theological slide in the name of "inclusion," of which he has been one of the primary enablers.
I wonder if, in the end, he will find himself like I mentioned Mikhail Gorbachev - a Presiding Bishop with nothing to preside over.
Reply to Kurt
Posted by
Ben
at
August 18, 2009 11:37
The problem, Kurt, is that for many of us the authority of Scripture is a "make or break" issue. Either the ELCA takes the Word of God seriously, or it does not. Where, as here, the ELCA appears to be turning its back on Scripture, there is no middle ground and no room for compromise.
From prior discussions, I know that we simply disagree as to how Scripture is to be construed. I believe that God says what he means and means what he says. You believe that His Word must be interpreted. I do not intend to get into that debate again. I simply wish to point out that this issue has dominated the agenda because of what it concerns. Issues such as healthcare are not directly Scriptural, and reasonable people can differ as to how they may best be addressed. Where one stands on this issue, on the other hand, is based entirely on how one views Scripture.
The two sides in this debate are talking past each other rather than with each other. We seem to believe in two entirely different Gospels. Frankly, I do not know how ELCA will survive intact if one or more of the recommendations pass. In that event, my departure from ELCA will only be a question of time; I would like to stay, but I do not know how I can do so.
From prior discussions, I know that we simply disagree as to how Scripture is to be construed. I believe that God says what he means and means what he says. You believe that His Word must be interpreted. I do not intend to get into that debate again. I simply wish to point out that this issue has dominated the agenda because of what it concerns. Issues such as healthcare are not directly Scriptural, and reasonable people can differ as to how they may best be addressed. Where one stands on this issue, on the other hand, is based entirely on how one views Scripture.
The two sides in this debate are talking past each other rather than with each other. We seem to believe in two entirely different Gospels. Frankly, I do not know how ELCA will survive intact if one or more of the recommendations pass. In that event, my departure from ELCA will only be a question of time; I would like to stay, but I do not know how I can do so.
Ben
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 18, 2009 11:57
You speak for much of what I believe.
I have long maintained that the moment this "study" was introduced, or when I heard a Lutheran churchman say in Indianapolis in 2001 that "we'll have to see if the Gospel goes beyond the Bible," that the destruction of the ELCA was set in train. The genie was out of the bottle, and no way was she going back in. No way would the gay lobby permit otherwise, and, as I've said, there are some pretty heavy hitters on their side.
Ironically, a lot of my secular political views are somewhat left-of-centre, which caused me trouble in the "of-course-you're-a-Republican" LCMS. I support full, national, single-payer health care. I have Australian connections, and never once have I heard any of them say they'd trade their system for our non-system. Their Lutheran church, the Lutheran Church of Australia, is also considerably more centrist than any of the American Lutheran bodies.
I don't like to think about departing the ELCA. We like our congregation, and it was like pulling teeth to come to the decision to leave the LCMS two years ago and come back to the ELCA with all its turmoil.
But I cannot in good conscience agree with any of these "resolutions," nor will I abide by them.
I have long maintained that the moment this "study" was introduced, or when I heard a Lutheran churchman say in Indianapolis in 2001 that "we'll have to see if the Gospel goes beyond the Bible," that the destruction of the ELCA was set in train. The genie was out of the bottle, and no way was she going back in. No way would the gay lobby permit otherwise, and, as I've said, there are some pretty heavy hitters on their side.
Ironically, a lot of my secular political views are somewhat left-of-centre, which caused me trouble in the "of-course-you're-a-Republican" LCMS. I support full, national, single-payer health care. I have Australian connections, and never once have I heard any of them say they'd trade their system for our non-system. Their Lutheran church, the Lutheran Church of Australia, is also considerably more centrist than any of the American Lutheran bodies.
I don't like to think about departing the ELCA. We like our congregation, and it was like pulling teeth to come to the decision to leave the LCMS two years ago and come back to the ELCA with all its turmoil.
But I cannot in good conscience agree with any of these "resolutions," nor will I abide by them.
Good Conscience Revisited. . . .
Posted by
Henry
at
August 18, 2009 13:31
Ben and David. . .I agree with your understanding that there are two contradictory belief systems or "Gospels" attempting to co-exist within one denomination. What I find difficult to understand is how the opposing delegates to the Churchwide Assembly can in "good conscience" kneel together at the same Opening Eucharist and go away believing that, despite such differences, both sides are justified before God?
ANY conscience?
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 18, 2009 14:21
Henry, is there ANY conscience left in the ELCA other than making sure Lutherans Concerned gets what they want (which looks virtually inevitable now)?
I don't know about anyone else, but has this messed with anyone's personal spirituality? It's been very hard for me to pray and read Scripture - the very things I SHOULD be doing - because I don't know if I can trust my church any more.
I don't know about anyone else, but has this messed with anyone's personal spirituality? It's been very hard for me to pray and read Scripture - the very things I SHOULD be doing - because I don't know if I can trust my church any more.
Reply to David
Posted by
Ben
at
August 18, 2009 15:57
I agree that leaving ELCA would be very difficult. Leaving any congregation is difficult when you have forged relationships and generally like the people you see every Sunday. A number of years ago I changed churches because of the constant turmoil in the Congregation I had attended for more than 20 years. It was very difficult, but the constant bickering made it difficult for me to go to Church, let alone to experience spiritual fulfillment while there. I really like my current church (which, ironically, was my great-grandmother's home church), and do not want to leave it; I have now attended there for more than 10 years and have forged new relatioships.
In addition to the pain normally associated with breaking long-standing relationships, there is nowhere obvious to go. LCMS, with all of its problems, does not look to me to be an attractive option, but there does not seem to be anywhere else to go. To borrow a political metaphor, the center does not appear to be holding. The mainline Protestant churches are all moving seemingly inexorably toward liberal protestantism, so all of them have problems similar to ELCA. On the other hand, I feel like a fish out of water in the conservative Baptist/Independent-Protestant type churches. At this point, unless a centrist Lutheran church rises from the ashes of ELCA, I am leaning toward Rome, although I certainly have issues with the Roman Catholic Church, as the "least bad" of the bad alternatives.
The best case scenario for me would be a decision by my home congregation to leave ELCA. There is some possibility that it will happen-we are a traditional "high church" Lutheran congregation, and our Senior Pastor is firmly committed against these resolutions. (Our departure would be a serious blow to the Synod -- we are the 2nd largest congregation by attendance and benevolence AND the congregation our current bishop pastored for 20 years). The problem is that no other Lutheran body has a foot hold in our area. Normally, I would rate the odds of leaving as somewhere between slim and none, but there are at least a dozen pastors in our conference who have openly discussed trying to move their congregations out of ELCA if this passes, and our Synod leadership does not like these resolutions either. If a serious secession movement gets underway, I would not surprise me if a large portion of our Synod pulls out of ELCA.
In addition to the pain normally associated with breaking long-standing relationships, there is nowhere obvious to go. LCMS, with all of its problems, does not look to me to be an attractive option, but there does not seem to be anywhere else to go. To borrow a political metaphor, the center does not appear to be holding. The mainline Protestant churches are all moving seemingly inexorably toward liberal protestantism, so all of them have problems similar to ELCA. On the other hand, I feel like a fish out of water in the conservative Baptist/Independent-Protestant type churches. At this point, unless a centrist Lutheran church rises from the ashes of ELCA, I am leaning toward Rome, although I certainly have issues with the Roman Catholic Church, as the "least bad" of the bad alternatives.
The best case scenario for me would be a decision by my home congregation to leave ELCA. There is some possibility that it will happen-we are a traditional "high church" Lutheran congregation, and our Senior Pastor is firmly committed against these resolutions. (Our departure would be a serious blow to the Synod -- we are the 2nd largest congregation by attendance and benevolence AND the congregation our current bishop pastored for 20 years). The problem is that no other Lutheran body has a foot hold in our area. Normally, I would rate the odds of leaving as somewhere between slim and none, but there are at least a dozen pastors in our conference who have openly discussed trying to move their congregations out of ELCA if this passes, and our Synod leadership does not like these resolutions either. If a serious secession movement gets underway, I would not surprise me if a large portion of our Synod pulls out of ELCA.
Fish Out of Water (Response to David)
Posted by
Rik
at
August 19, 2009 12:44
"On the other hand, I feel like a fish out of water..." Have you considered the AALC (TAALC)? Check out their website at http://www.taalc.org/
Reply to Rik
Posted by
Ben
at
August 20, 2009 19:13
Thanks for the referral. The only other Lutheran body I am aware of is LCMC. Neither TAALC nor LCMC have a presence in my area (nor even LCMS). All of the (many) Lutheran congregations in my area are former ALC, so TAALC may be a better fit than LCMC. At this point, I don't know much of anything about TAALC or LCMC, so I guess I had better start educating myself. There are A LOT of Lutherans around here who are disaffected with what ELCA is doing--only 2 of the 25 or so Lutheran congregations within driving distance are "liberal" congregations, so I expect more than one will be looking for a way out of ELCA. It seems very likely that I will be able to look at another Lutheran congregation in the not too distant future.
I don't know where we'll go...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 21, 2009 02:20
I don't know where we'll go as a congregation and/or as individuals who cannot abide with these decisions.
We are a former LCMS/AELC congregation. A good portion of the materials on our bookshelves are old stuff from CPH.
A lot of us are former LCMS (and one WELS that I know of) and hence tend to be more theologically traditionalist. However, I don't see us merging back into the LCMS, because of our Seminex background, and because most of those who left the LCMS did so because of closed communion.
Since I live in a synod (SE Michigan; basically Detroit and outlying areas) that is very pro-RIC and pro-LC, WordAlone, TAALC, LCMC, etc. have virtually no presence here. There are no LCMC congregations within 100 miles of here. There is one AALC congregation about 30 miles away. AALC is now in altar-and-pulpit fellowship with LCMS, so I think to some affiliating with them would be like going back to LCMS, but I can't say that for sure.
We are a former LCMS/AELC congregation. A good portion of the materials on our bookshelves are old stuff from CPH.
A lot of us are former LCMS (and one WELS that I know of) and hence tend to be more theologically traditionalist. However, I don't see us merging back into the LCMS, because of our Seminex background, and because most of those who left the LCMS did so because of closed communion.
Since I live in a synod (SE Michigan; basically Detroit and outlying areas) that is very pro-RIC and pro-LC, WordAlone, TAALC, LCMC, etc. have virtually no presence here. There are no LCMC congregations within 100 miles of here. There is one AALC congregation about 30 miles away. AALC is now in altar-and-pulpit fellowship with LCMS, so I think to some affiliating with them would be like going back to LCMS, but I can't say that for sure.
Lets look for the good
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 19:59
Ben: "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him." We need to take this passage seriously as well. As for me and my faith I'm sticking with the Spirit in this community so I can see and be a part of the good that God will bring about. You either trust Him or you don't Where is it for you Ben?
Reply to John
Posted by
Ben
at
August 21, 2009 09:04
Staying with ELCA is not the necessary implication of that passage and love of God. Perhaps God wants us to move on to a new relationship that will provide new blessings. On the other hand, perhaps not.
About ten years ago I left the congregation I had grown up in and moved over to another congregation (both ELCA) in the area that happened to be a few blocks away from my new house. Leaving was a wrenching decision, but my principle motivation was not convenience. There were factions in my former church that fought with each other over everything. It became so emotionally and spiritually draining that I began to dread going to church. Since moving over to my current church, it has been wonderful - I am very active, have met a lot of great new people, and have really been able to focus on what matters. In that case, the decision to move has provided multiple blessings.
What I really resent about this more than anything else is the absolute insistance of the revisionists to keep the focus on this issue. Since 1993 it has been brought up repeatedly. It has sucked the oxygen out of everything else at the Synod and Churchwide levels for 16 years. Moving out of ELCA may be just what is needed to open the door for flowering of other blessings.
About ten years ago I left the congregation I had grown up in and moved over to another congregation (both ELCA) in the area that happened to be a few blocks away from my new house. Leaving was a wrenching decision, but my principle motivation was not convenience. There were factions in my former church that fought with each other over everything. It became so emotionally and spiritually draining that I began to dread going to church. Since moving over to my current church, it has been wonderful - I am very active, have met a lot of great new people, and have really been able to focus on what matters. In that case, the decision to move has provided multiple blessings.
What I really resent about this more than anything else is the absolute insistance of the revisionists to keep the focus on this issue. Since 1993 it has been brought up repeatedly. It has sucked the oxygen out of everything else at the Synod and Churchwide levels for 16 years. Moving out of ELCA may be just what is needed to open the door for flowering of other blessings.
this resolution is NOT what they want
Posted by
Peter
at
August 18, 2009 21:14
If the ELCA was out to make sure LC got what they really wanted, it would be a very different vote.
I think there's more than 2 Gospels living in our ELCA, but I think they all require enough trust in Christ to either trust the others' souls to Him or don't think it matters what the others believe.
I think there's more than 2 Gospels living in our ELCA, but I think they all require enough trust in Christ to either trust the others' souls to Him or don't think it matters what the others believe.
Other gospels (Response to Peter)
Posted by
Rik
at
August 19, 2009 13:26
Peter, you wrote, "I think there's more than 2 Gospels living in our ELCA, but I think they all require enough trust in Christ to either trust the others' souls to Him or don't think it matters what the others believe." Please read along with me in St. Paul's letter to the Church in Galatia, inspired by the Holy Spirit: 6 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or and angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! 10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." (Gal. 1:6-10 NIV) That doesn't exactly sound to me like "agreeing to disagree." "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers (¿teaching theologians?) to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Tim.4:3 NIV) Does this sound prophetic? It sure does to me. "You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine (teaching)." Titus 2:1
other gospels
Posted by
Peter
at
August 19, 2009 22:11
Rik,
Oh, my statement isn't to say that we shouldn't be proclaiming the true Gospel against other gospels. I'm just saying that whether we proclaim the Gospel or not, others' souls are in God's hands, not ours, and we have to trust in Him. Sharing communion isn't so much agreeing to disagree as trusting God to deal appropriately with anyone abusing His Sacrament.
Oh, my statement isn't to say that we shouldn't be proclaiming the true Gospel against other gospels. I'm just saying that whether we proclaim the Gospel or not, others' souls are in God's hands, not ours, and we have to trust in Him. Sharing communion isn't so much agreeing to disagree as trusting God to deal appropriately with anyone abusing His Sacrament.
other gospels
Posted by
Andrew
at
August 20, 2009 15:12
Peter,
Just an observation in response to your comment, "others' souls are in God's hands, not ours, and we have to trust in Him." While it is true that salvation rests with God alone, what do we do with Ezekiel 3:16-21? In particular note verses 18 and 19: "When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself." If we condone sinful behavior, are we not held accountable? It is very sobering.
Just an observation in response to your comment, "others' souls are in God's hands, not ours, and we have to trust in Him." While it is true that salvation rests with God alone, what do we do with Ezekiel 3:16-21? In particular note verses 18 and 19: "When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself." If we condone sinful behavior, are we not held accountable? It is very sobering.
"Ability to do so "
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 19:46
Kurt: Do so because you have the power that is derived from knowing our Unity is in Christ not some resolution. (win or lose)The members of the ELCA profess to be in Christ, you are in Christ, thats it. Ephesians is a good letter for this to come clear. Hang in there Kurt. John
Reply to Kurt
Posted by
Robert
at
August 23, 2009 01:06
I agree completely with you Kurt. It comes down to what one believes about the divine nature of scripture, which is apparent in this vote by the ELCA. I have been a member of an ELCA church for 50 years and have really struggled to continue with the non-scriptural deriction of the Synod. This week I have to face the very sad and heart-breaking meeting with the Pastor at the church I have been attending to tell him that I will no longer be a member of this church or attend services there, and it is not his fault, but unless our church decides to withdraw from the Synod and become non-denominational (which I doubt) I can not and will not condone this non-scriptural stance taken by the ELCA by continuing my membership there or giving my tithe to them.
Robert
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 20:26
We started directing our offerings to the local congregation only as of today.
Sinple majority
Posted by
Gregory
at
August 18, 2009 14:57
If I understand what I read correctly, the rationale for denying a clear majority vote was that it would have somehow resulted in (my words) a tyranny of the minority.
Ironic?
Ironic?
Hoggin'
Posted by
Michael Dooley
at
August 19, 2009 07:48
I grow weary of the complaint that there are so many more important things the Church could be dealing with than sex. If the Church didn't want to make a big deal of it, this resolution would not have seen the light of day. If there are so many more important things to deal with, there should have been no room on the agenda to shoehorn it in. Before anyone gets on their high horse to look down their nose at how the "conservatives" are making a fight out of nothing, remember who brought the subject up--remember who it was that brought "same-sex" clergy, etc. issues all the way to the point we are at now. Put the blame where is belongs. If they succeed, they'll sure will be there to take the credit.
What we are in is the finally stage of the three "D.s" of holding your opposition and other interested parties at bay. First, deny your intention is exactly what is in the works now. Second, delay any decision when it appears you will lose. In our case, it was a continuing appeal to dialogue, listening to the "perspectives of others", prayer and study of the Scriptures. Of course, we had a "committee" to sort things all out. If you still lose, start the whole process all over again.
Now we arrive at the third "D": deflect. The big question comes up for a vote. You may win but storm clouds are forming and a bad moon is arisin'. Point attention away from the issue by invoking more "important" issues. Say devoting energy toward issue is a waste when all these other needs are pressing. While their attention is pointed elsewhere, NEVER fail keep your movement going foreward.
Yes, we are all this justified by the same Lord. But can we live together in the same Church? What if honor, respect and conscience prevent you from standing by what the ELCA says to her sister Churches and the wider world about the "normalization" of homosexuality.
What happens to you when you come to realize that maybe you can somehow manage to stay but you can't recommend your own Church to others?
But so far our "divines" have not seriously addressed those for whom this is a crisis of conscience. Saying "you don't have to agree to belong" doesn't cut it. Of course, the time of "dialogue, listening to the "perspectives of others", prayer and study of the Scriptures" is over.
What we are in is the finally stage of the three "D.s" of holding your opposition and other interested parties at bay. First, deny your intention is exactly what is in the works now. Second, delay any decision when it appears you will lose. In our case, it was a continuing appeal to dialogue, listening to the "perspectives of others", prayer and study of the Scriptures. Of course, we had a "committee" to sort things all out. If you still lose, start the whole process all over again.
Now we arrive at the third "D": deflect. The big question comes up for a vote. You may win but storm clouds are forming and a bad moon is arisin'. Point attention away from the issue by invoking more "important" issues. Say devoting energy toward issue is a waste when all these other needs are pressing. While their attention is pointed elsewhere, NEVER fail keep your movement going foreward.
Yes, we are all this justified by the same Lord. But can we live together in the same Church? What if honor, respect and conscience prevent you from standing by what the ELCA says to her sister Churches and the wider world about the "normalization" of homosexuality.
What happens to you when you come to realize that maybe you can somehow manage to stay but you can't recommend your own Church to others?
But so far our "divines" have not seriously addressed those for whom this is a crisis of conscience. Saying "you don't have to agree to belong" doesn't cut it. Of course, the time of "dialogue, listening to the "perspectives of others", prayer and study of the Scriptures" is over.
The Bible is not up for a vote...or shouldn't be
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 08:47
Nice set of D's, Mr D. They all make sense.
I've used the comparison before to Quebec separatists in Canada. They've had three votes on whether to split off and form their own country - 1970, 1980, 1995. All have failed. Many Quebecois are tired of hearing about "sovereignty." Yet the separatists continue to say that they will "wait for the right conditions" until holding another referendum (meaning: when they think the winds of public opinion are in their favour) - and they'll KEEP doing so until they get the result they want, despite the fact that since 1970 there has been a steady drain of non-French speakers and business to other provinces.
Do you see the comparison?
However, in the ELCA the stakes are a lot higher than a disgruntled province in one of the world's great democracies moaning about how bad they supposedly have it and they want to be "masters of their own house." This is about the authority of the Bible.
If this passes, the ELCA might as well jack "sola scriptura."
I've used the comparison before to Quebec separatists in Canada. They've had three votes on whether to split off and form their own country - 1970, 1980, 1995. All have failed. Many Quebecois are tired of hearing about "sovereignty." Yet the separatists continue to say that they will "wait for the right conditions" until holding another referendum (meaning: when they think the winds of public opinion are in their favour) - and they'll KEEP doing so until they get the result they want, despite the fact that since 1970 there has been a steady drain of non-French speakers and business to other provinces.
Do you see the comparison?
However, in the ELCA the stakes are a lot higher than a disgruntled province in one of the world's great democracies moaning about how bad they supposedly have it and they want to be "masters of their own house." This is about the authority of the Bible.
If this passes, the ELCA might as well jack "sola scriptura."
No Need for Sola Scriptura?
Posted by
Rik
at
August 19, 2009 13:43
"If this passes, the ELCA might as well jack "sola scriptura."
I have a suggestion for the 2nd edition of The Lutheran Study Bible (AF) If this passes, perhaps it would be more in keeping with their theology if they paraphrase Psalm 36:9b: "in our own light shall we see light."
I have a suggestion for the 2nd edition of The Lutheran Study Bible (AF) If this passes, perhaps it would be more in keeping with their theology if they paraphrase Psalm 36:9b: "in our own light shall we see light."
Re: Hoggin'
Posted by
Ben
at
August 20, 2009 08:43
My guess is that if this passes, we will no longer be allowed to discuss it. I have predicted all along that we would keep discussing this issue and keep bringing it up for votes until the revisionists win; then, once they win, the subject will be off the table, never to be discussed again. The bright side is that we will not have to endure any more endless studies and divisive votes at assemblies. The bad news is that we may no longer have the option to stay in ELCA.
Hoggin' is most certainly true
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 20, 2009 11:16
Yes, Ben, as with the Quebec separatist analogy I've frequently used. They've had three votes on separatism - 1970, 1980, 1995 - and the separatists say that "when the time is right," they will hold another one, despite the fact that most of the people of Quebec are weary of hearing about separation.
That is what has happened in Minneapolis.
But if they think they're going to just expect people to shut-up and concede...using myself as an example, very few people outside of my dad and my Military Training Instructor (USAF version of drill sergeant) have ever accomplished getting me to shut-up (the former out of respect, the latter out of fear).
What is really horrifying is the new "creed" adopted by Goodsoil, as well as their statement that "if the church doesn't recognise our gifts of ministry, justice demands that we burn it to the ground!"
How Christlike.
That is what has happened in Minneapolis.
But if they think they're going to just expect people to shut-up and concede...using myself as an example, very few people outside of my dad and my Military Training Instructor (USAF version of drill sergeant) have ever accomplished getting me to shut-up (the former out of respect, the latter out of fear).
What is really horrifying is the new "creed" adopted by Goodsoil, as well as their statement that "if the church doesn't recognise our gifts of ministry, justice demands that we burn it to the ground!"
How Christlike.
Moment of Truth
Posted by
Rik E.
at
August 18, 2009 13:41
It would appear as though this Friday is the moment of truth for the short-lived ELCA, a church body which has existed for a relatively short period of time, when the AELC (departed from the LCMS) joined together with the LCA and much of the ALC to form a more united Lutheran church body in North America. It would seem as though the epitaph is being written for the ELCA as we know it. Yesterday (Monday), the decision to keep the vote threshold at 50% +1 was decided, meaning that a simple majority can overturn the ELCA's current policies regarding sexuality and church polity. But that is nothing compared to what Friday's vote is REALLY about. As Professor Hinlicky wrote in an earlier blog on Lutheran Forum online, "It's Not About Homosexuality...Not Really." The masses under the umbrella called the ELCA do not have a united approach to interpreting Scripture. The range is great from a literalist approach to a revisionist approach, and everything in between. The passing of this sexuality social statement and related resolutions says a lot about how the remaining ELCA approaches Holy Scripture and how it interprets it. It also demonstrates a clear departure from Lutheranism to a Liberal Protestantism flavoured by Lutheran heritage and jargon. God knows what will happen come Friday. I see it more as realism than pessimism to predict that this week we will be observing Bad Friday, yet I know that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is more powerful than all the revisionists in the ELCA. My only question, then, is what does God plan to do with the ELCA? After Pharoah hardened his own heart, God hardened it as well. Does He plan the same for those who perpetuate the smaller ELCA (after the ex-hodus of those who flee Higgins Rd.)? Or, in His mercy, will He miraculously forbid the passing of the Statement and Resolutions, bringing this church body closer and closer to a right understanding of His Law and Gospel, and orthodox interpretation and practice? God only knows. What will happen to the sheep without true, godly shepherds? Once more I must cry out Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison! And...Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Amen.
What Bible?
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 18, 2009 14:16
What Bible are they reading? Or ARE they?
Or is it an excised version leaving only the words of Christ, since "Jesus never spoke about homosexuality?"
I think, in the end, the epitaph of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will be "but we didn't want to offend anyone."
Or is it an excised version leaving only the words of Christ, since "Jesus never spoke about homosexuality?"
I think, in the end, the epitaph of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will be "but we didn't want to offend anyone."
Epitaph of the ELCA
Posted by
Rev. Clinton Kersey
at
August 19, 2009 21:29
I think the epitaph will read: "I have no need of you."
Unkind
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 20:11
David:
Poor statement, David. Jesus and Paul, spoke about love a great deal. Please don't judge others its not loving. John
Poor statement, David. Jesus and Paul, spoke about love a great deal. Please don't judge others its not loving. John
Unkind and judging
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 21, 2009 02:07
If expressing an opinion contrary to what you believe and the way the ELCA is going, and expressing my anger and frustration over all this mess is unkind and judging, I suggest you read some of Luther's treatises. Not to mention even some of Paul's statements, i.e., "I wish they would emasculate themselves!"
I also suggest you look at the log in your own eye, good sir.
I also suggest you look at the log in your own eye, good sir.
Anger...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 01:38
You're bloody well right I'm angry.
I no longer trust my church body.
With me, trust is earned, not given. Once you mess with that trust, I am not very pleasant.
God knows my feelings. I won't hide them.
I no longer trust my church body.
With me, trust is earned, not given. Once you mess with that trust, I am not very pleasant.
God knows my feelings. I won't hide them.
Agree with Rik
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 18, 2009 16:25
I agree with Rik. God could step in at the CWA and fix this problem--just make sure the traditionalists win by 50 percent plus one vote. Let's see what God's will really is.
Reply to Kurt
Posted by
Ben
at
August 18, 2009 17:09
A win for the revisionists does not signify that God is in favor of what they want to do. Remember free will? God does not always step in to save us from ourselves.
ELCA : 'We had to destroy it in order to save it'
Posted by
Gregory
at
August 18, 2009 18:15
Remember the Vietnam War bromide about "having to destroy it in order to save it"? This too may be the hand of God. I am reminded of Mark 9:
"42 And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell..."
"42 And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell..."
To Destroy in Order to Save?
Posted by
Rik
at
August 18, 2009 19:47
The ELCA should have no trouble learning from your post, as it would appear in their red-letter editions of the Bible, even the ones that are missing the black letters (antinomian, "Gospel" over the whole of Scripture). Historical criticism: When we speak of understanding Scripture through the Love of Jesus, do we understand "love" in a 21st century, western, capitalist, materialist, any-thing goes interpretation, or do we look at the text historically, in their 1st century understanding of love? Not everything that passes for "love" to our culture is "love" in the eyes of God. Change our will to be intead Thine, O LORD!
RIK
Posted by
JOHN
at
August 20, 2009 20:16
Rik: What is your understanding of 1st century historical love? John
JOHN
Posted by
Rik
at
August 22, 2009 01:30
"Rik: What is your understanding of 1st century historical love? John" Answer: Your question is too vague in the English. Ask me in Koine and I would be glad to answer.
To finish the thought ...
Posted by
Gregory
at
August 18, 2009 20:00
Perhaps God is calling on us to 'cut ourselves off' from the ELCA.
Ineloquence
Posted by
Gregory
at
August 18, 2009 20:28
I can't seem to finish a succint thought tonight, but I'll keep trying!
I believe that homosexual behavior is biblically proscribed and cannot be blessed by the Church. Having said that, maybe the Holy Spirit is at work in making it clear that the ELCA, should it vote to become fully apostate, should be 'cut off' (to extend the metaphor)from the body of Christ.
I consider the passage from Mark quoted above to express a grave responsibility to avoid false teaching!
I believe that homosexual behavior is biblically proscribed and cannot be blessed by the Church. Having said that, maybe the Holy Spirit is at work in making it clear that the ELCA, should it vote to become fully apostate, should be 'cut off' (to extend the metaphor)from the body of Christ.
I consider the passage from Mark quoted above to express a grave responsibility to avoid false teaching!
Reply to Ben
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 18, 2009 21:27
I know what you mean about free will. I was just pointing out that if Rik were right, that would be the way to handle it.
Response to Ben
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 18, 2009 22:46
Yes, I see. Though he is thought to be omnipotent, he still lets bad things happen.
Omnipotent / Bad things...to Good People
Posted by
Response to Kurt Johnson
at
August 19, 2009 01:10
He (God) is omnipotent, whether He is "thought to be omnipotent" or not. His omnipotency is not dependent upon the thoughts of believers or anyone. And does he let "bad things happen"? He both allows them within His constraints, and He has made allowance for them, by paying for all of the sins of the world, past, present, and future, with the once-for-all time sacrifice of the Lamb of God: Messiah Y'shua (Jesus). Oh, that people would not reject this free gift. God could have taken judgement against the Israelites of old early on, yet He was patient with them. As a church body drifts off from Deus Revelatus, revealed to us in Holy Scripture, over a span of decades, the thought must surely become (for some), "If God did not like what we as a church are doing, he could certainly prevent it, if he is God." One gets away with missing the mark once. No lightening bolt. A second time...a third time...in time: Why repent? Is he really all powerful? Pastors and Bishops and Presiding Bishops can be looked up to as people in authority--people who apparently must be close to God. When you have job security and position similar to the security the Pharisees had--before Mary's son entered the scene--why would you fear God? People see you as God's representative...or...some still do, anyway. God's judgement will come in God's timing, and I do not pretend to have inside information on when. Kurt said, "he still lets bad things happen." To the best of our ability, with the help of God, let us fear and love God that we seek to live for Him, judging our actions by His revealed standards. Not specifically in reference to what is happening in Minneapolis or anywhere else in particular, who are we to say that a particular action is bad. If something appears "bad" by our standards (it may be or perhaps our standards may not be aligned with His), should we not remember that God can redeem bad actions and bring good out of them? (By this I do not mean by acting contrary to Himself) Even when things seems extremely difficult, and I know this in my personal life right now, we cannot stop trusting God. Even if we don't feel it with our emotions, and if our friends and family would laugh in our face, we should still remember that God is in control. He has the over-view. He wants us to spend time with Him in His Word. He wants us to pray without ceasing. He wants us to draw near to Him. Now is as good a time as any to test our faith. May God bring about good even if we don't detect it immediately. But let us be faithful to Him, living as one "after God's heart." All praise to our all-powerful God. May He keep our hearts and minds focused on Him. Domine dirige nos (Lord, direct us).
Yes, what is God's will
Posted by
Alan
at
August 18, 2009 20:40
Perhaps God has spoken in all the previous CWA's of the ELCA that have voted these positions down. Perhaps God has spoken in the considerations of the Church over the past 2,000 years. Perhaps we prefer our own will over against God's.
If the will of God is in line with the will and desicions of the people of God (as you suggest) then it would seem very arrogant to believe that a simple majority of one CWA of the ELCA shows forth God's will over against the overwhelming consensus of the whole Church both past and presnet. So yes indeed, lets see what the will of God really is
If the will of God is in line with the will and desicions of the people of God (as you suggest) then it would seem very arrogant to believe that a simple majority of one CWA of the ELCA shows forth God's will over against the overwhelming consensus of the whole Church both past and presnet. So yes indeed, lets see what the will of God really is
keeping it all in perspective
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
August 19, 2009 00:39
The ELCA is smaller than the Roman Catholic diocese of Los Angeles. The median age of ELCA parishioners is twenty years older than the rest of the population. The ELCA is considerably whiter than the rest of the population. In 1993, the AAL study indicated then that 50% of ELCA congregations were at risk due to declining membership by death.
By 2020, regardless of how many congregations do or do not leave the ELCA, this denomination will be at about 2 million or less. Given the lower birthrate to be anticipated among those remaining ELCA parishioners, the ELCA won't be able to produce enough babies to replace the dying. And Lutherans are not known for inviting people to worship. Pat Keiffert used to say the average Lutheran invites someone to worship once every 17 years.
The ELCA is not the Church catholic. Following the lead of UCC and TEC who have been free-falling at a much higher rate than other mainline churches, the ELCA will be less and less significant than it already is.
The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church. The slow demise of the ELCA really is rather inconsequential in the great scheme of things. Look for the ELCA, TEC, UCC, and a few others to eventually form the Liberal Protestant North American Church with the United Church of Canada.
So when the triumphant revisionist majority celebrates this weekend it will be a pyrrhic victory for the liberation theologians who haven't heard that they are the walking dead.
By 2020, regardless of how many congregations do or do not leave the ELCA, this denomination will be at about 2 million or less. Given the lower birthrate to be anticipated among those remaining ELCA parishioners, the ELCA won't be able to produce enough babies to replace the dying. And Lutherans are not known for inviting people to worship. Pat Keiffert used to say the average Lutheran invites someone to worship once every 17 years.
The ELCA is not the Church catholic. Following the lead of UCC and TEC who have been free-falling at a much higher rate than other mainline churches, the ELCA will be less and less significant than it already is.
The gates of hell will not prevail against Christ's Church. The slow demise of the ELCA really is rather inconsequential in the great scheme of things. Look for the ELCA, TEC, UCC, and a few others to eventually form the Liberal Protestant North American Church with the United Church of Canada.
So when the triumphant revisionist majority celebrates this weekend it will be a pyrrhic victory for the liberation theologians who haven't heard that they are the walking dead.
Response to Zumwalt
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 19, 2009 09:51
This analysis of the ELCA's ultimate demise is based more on demographic considerations than on theology. Assume for a moment that the ELCA votes on the sexuality recommendation on Friday fail instead of pass. Would such a result mean that more young people would come into the ELCA, countering the demographic forecast? Did the ELCA become old and white while the V&E provisions of the newly-formed ELCA have been in effect for the past 20 years? Is liberal theology alone responsible for the demographic as described? I don't disagree with Zuwalt's characterization of ELCA demographics, but finding the cause-effect relationship is not a simple prospect. In my opinion, for starters, we need to look at whether the younger generation is more prone to accept a theology which is driven by the declarative fiat of doctrine (indoctrination), or conversely, whether a more enlightened understanding of epistemology makes a better case.
It depends on what you mean by "enlightened"
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 10:59
Then, Kurt, why are the nondenominational (which are mostly a mix of Baptist and Holiness doctrines) "megachurches" that preach conservative doctrine growing so fast while "mainline" denominations that are trying to be "nice" to everybody shrinking?
Because it's a crazy world, and a lot of people are looking for something SOLID to hold on to.
If "enlightened epistemology" means taking a Marcionite approach to the Bible, in no way is that a good approach.
And where would we go from here?
Blessing incestuous unions as long as they're "committed and monogamous?" "Hey, Pastor, I'm John, and this is my sister Jane. We've discovered that we love each other and want to solemnise our commitment. Marry us."
Or a child in an ELCA youth group, scared to death, coming to an authority figure like a pastor (I've seen this) because the youth leader has molested him/her? The pastor says, "No, that couldn't have happened. John is in a committed, church-blessed relationship with Jim. He couldn't have done that." DISCLAIMER: I know quite well that most child molesters are heterosexual and usually well-acquainted with the victim.
Because it's a crazy world, and a lot of people are looking for something SOLID to hold on to.
If "enlightened epistemology" means taking a Marcionite approach to the Bible, in no way is that a good approach.
And where would we go from here?
Blessing incestuous unions as long as they're "committed and monogamous?" "Hey, Pastor, I'm John, and this is my sister Jane. We've discovered that we love each other and want to solemnise our commitment. Marry us."
Or a child in an ELCA youth group, scared to death, coming to an authority figure like a pastor (I've seen this) because the youth leader has molested him/her? The pastor says, "No, that couldn't have happened. John is in a committed, church-blessed relationship with Jim. He couldn't have done that." DISCLAIMER: I know quite well that most child molesters are heterosexual and usually well-acquainted with the victim.
Response to David Pross
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 19, 2009 11:18
Your protracted illustrations take us far afield from the specific discussion involving demographics and theology. You impute that what I mean by enlightened epistemology is a "Marcionite approach," yet I can tell you for a fact that such an imputation is not what I mean by the characterization. You set up radical examples which severely jump necessary steps in structuring a cogent theology. Would you buy into the theology of non-denominational churches, many of which are non-confessional and preach the "health and wealth" interpretation of scripture in order to raise funds for themselves? Are those things truly "solid" even though they lack academic and theological integrity? Would the ELCA be more successful numerically if it invoked the Catholic view of Mary or if it preached a health-and-wealth gospel? Would that change the demographic Zumwalt has described.
One of the biggest liabilities of the process used by traditionalists (as evidenced in your most recent post) is the black-and-white oversimplification. The issue of the basis for authoritarianism itself is an epistemological issue worthy of discussion. Young, enlightened and well-educated minds want a basis for belief, not just authoritarian indoctrination. That is the cutting edge of these important matters, of which the ELCA sexuality-recommendation process is only one of a host of important issues.
One of the biggest liabilities of the process used by traditionalists (as evidenced in your most recent post) is the black-and-white oversimplification. The issue of the basis for authoritarianism itself is an epistemological issue worthy of discussion. Young, enlightened and well-educated minds want a basis for belief, not just authoritarian indoctrination. That is the cutting edge of these important matters, of which the ELCA sexuality-recommendation process is only one of a host of important issues.
"Young and enlightened?"
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 13:17
Kurt, I never said that I bought into those non-denominational "health and wealth" groups. I don't. I have very little use for what Joel Osteen preaches. I am also no Marianologist.
I take exception to your "young, enlightened and well-educated" mischaracterisation, if it was meant about those who believe as I do. I am not yet 50, but am I old? I am working on an eventual Psy.D., already have an honours degree with a 3.735 GPA, am currently maintaining a 4.0 GPA, have made various Dean's Lists, and received several commendations for outstanding duty from the Air Force. I am bilingual English/German. Am I uneducated? Or is it that I take the Bible as the written word of God, as stated by the ELCA Constitution? Do those who believe that way qualify as "unenlightened?"
I really think this has precious little to do with demographics, but EVERYTHING to do with doctrine, and where we as a church start "picking and choosing." Either we regard the Bible, and not cultural trends, as our sole source of doctrine (as Luther believed), or we don't. If that's "black-and-white," que sera sera. It is not essential if your hair is full-colour, salt-and-pepper (like mine) or grey as to what you believe.
I can't remember if it was Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin who said, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
I take exception to your "young, enlightened and well-educated" mischaracterisation, if it was meant about those who believe as I do. I am not yet 50, but am I old? I am working on an eventual Psy.D., already have an honours degree with a 3.735 GPA, am currently maintaining a 4.0 GPA, have made various Dean's Lists, and received several commendations for outstanding duty from the Air Force. I am bilingual English/German. Am I uneducated? Or is it that I take the Bible as the written word of God, as stated by the ELCA Constitution? Do those who believe that way qualify as "unenlightened?"
I really think this has precious little to do with demographics, but EVERYTHING to do with doctrine, and where we as a church start "picking and choosing." Either we regard the Bible, and not cultural trends, as our sole source of doctrine (as Luther believed), or we don't. If that's "black-and-white," que sera sera. It is not essential if your hair is full-colour, salt-and-pepper (like mine) or grey as to what you believe.
I can't remember if it was Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin who said, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
Response to David Pross
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 19, 2009 14:00
The only reason for bringing up the youth or generational issue is because of what Zumwalt offered in his demographic characterization. It wasn't directed at you personally (and I am frankly surprised that you took it that way). It was offered in the context of Zumwalt's characterization about the future of the church.
Inasmuch as you have noted your esteemed, academic and other achievements, perhaps you could then answer this question referable to the traditionalists' basic premise: What epistemology (or other method of decision-making) to conclude that the Bible is the sole source of doctrine?
Inasmuch as you have noted your esteemed, academic and other achievements, perhaps you could then answer this question referable to the traditionalists' basic premise: What epistemology (or other method of decision-making) to conclude that the Bible is the sole source of doctrine?
Our sole source of doctrine
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 15:41
First of all, I didn't take your demographic characterisation personally. Had I done so, you would have known it. I am fairly thick-skinned (almost a prerequisite in my field) but once someone succeeds in penetrating that thick skin (usually from trying repeatedly), the thin veneer of civility is pretty much out the window. That's why I phrased the "am I old?" "am I uneducated?" etc. in the form of questions. You need to watch "Jeopardy!" more, mate. Ken Jennings could have figured it out.
What has led me to conclude that the Bible is our sole source of doctrine?
First of all, remember Luther's little rubric of "Sola Scriptura?"
From the ELCA website:
"As Lutherans, ELCA members believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. It creates and nurtures faith through the work of the Holy Spirit and points us to Jesus Christ, the living Word and center of our faith. And in reading the Bible, we are invited into a relationship with God that both challenges us and promises us new life."
I usually don't like using Wikipedia, nor have most of my professors accepted it, but this is a pretty good statement:
"Lutherans hold the holy Bible of the Old and New Testaments to be the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.[17] Scripture alone is the formal principle of the faith, the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, effectiveness, and sufficiency.[18]"
Statement from Luther, from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada (ELCIC):
>>Rome's authority was being directly challenged. On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo signed a papal decree charging Luther with heresy. Charles V, the new emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, whose father was German, convened an imperial assembly [called a "diet"] at Worms, Germany. When he appeared before the Diet, Luther was asked two questions: Did he write the books which were standing on a table? Was he willing to recant what he had written?
The following afternoon witnessed Luther's famous reply: "Unless convinced by the testimony of Scripture or right reason for I trust neither the pope nor councils inasmuch as they have often erred and contradicted one another, I am bound by conscience, held captive by the Word of God in the Scriptures I have quoted. I neither can nor will recant anything, for it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. God help me! Amen."<<
From the Lutheran Church of Australia:
>>Lutherans believe what the Bible says
The Bible is the word of God. So Lutherans accept the Bible as the authority that decides what they are to believe and how they should live. Lutherans believe that the good news about Jesus is the key to the whole Bible.<<
From the Lutheran Church - New Zealand:
>>Is it Biblical?
Lutherans believe that the Bible is the word of God and the standard by which all teaching is to be judged.<<
From the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches:
>>Thesis 1
We confess that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and the only rule and norm according to which all teachings and teachers in the church are to be judged. The canonical Scriptures are inspired by God and are therefore infallible. Even as God cannot lie, deceive, or err, the Holy Scriptures cannot lie, deceive, or err. The Holy Scriptures are the only source of divine doctrine. All of the church’s doctrine is to be drawn from the clear Scriptures. It must be established by what the biblical text clearly means. It may not be established by what the biblical text might mean.<<
From the Evangelical Lutheran Church in England (ELCE):
"The ELCE accepts without reservation all of the teachings of Holy Scripture, the inspired and infallible Word of God."
From ELCA theologian Mark Allan Powell, taken from the Lutheran Study Bible, p. 1539:
"Another phrase important to Lutherans is the Latin expression "sola scriptura" ("scripture alone"). So, what do Lutherans mean by "sola scriptura?" They mean that "scripture alone" has authority to serve as a source of divine revelation. Not councils. Not popes. NOT CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLIES (emphasis mine). Not bishops or seminary professors. Only the Bible has the authority of divine revelation. Lutherans do not view the Bible as the only source for knowing what is true in this world, but they do claim that the Bible is the only authoritative source for knowing divine truth that God reveals to us."
There's a pretty wide range of Lutherans worldwide. I think the statements are clear.
What has led me to conclude that the Bible is our sole source of doctrine?
First of all, remember Luther's little rubric of "Sola Scriptura?"
From the ELCA website:
"As Lutherans, ELCA members believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. It creates and nurtures faith through the work of the Holy Spirit and points us to Jesus Christ, the living Word and center of our faith. And in reading the Bible, we are invited into a relationship with God that both challenges us and promises us new life."
I usually don't like using Wikipedia, nor have most of my professors accepted it, but this is a pretty good statement:
"Lutherans hold the holy Bible of the Old and New Testaments to be the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.[17] Scripture alone is the formal principle of the faith, the final authority for all matters of faith and morals because of its inspiration, authority, clarity, effectiveness, and sufficiency.[18]"
Statement from Luther, from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada (ELCIC):
>>Rome's authority was being directly challenged. On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo signed a papal decree charging Luther with heresy. Charles V, the new emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, whose father was German, convened an imperial assembly [called a "diet"] at Worms, Germany. When he appeared before the Diet, Luther was asked two questions: Did he write the books which were standing on a table? Was he willing to recant what he had written?
The following afternoon witnessed Luther's famous reply: "Unless convinced by the testimony of Scripture or right reason for I trust neither the pope nor councils inasmuch as they have often erred and contradicted one another, I am bound by conscience, held captive by the Word of God in the Scriptures I have quoted. I neither can nor will recant anything, for it is neither right nor safe to act against conscience. God help me! Amen."<<
From the Lutheran Church of Australia:
>>Lutherans believe what the Bible says
The Bible is the word of God. So Lutherans accept the Bible as the authority that decides what they are to believe and how they should live. Lutherans believe that the good news about Jesus is the key to the whole Bible.<<
From the Lutheran Church - New Zealand:
>>Is it Biblical?
Lutherans believe that the Bible is the word of God and the standard by which all teaching is to be judged.<<
From the Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches:
>>Thesis 1
We confess that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and the only rule and norm according to which all teachings and teachers in the church are to be judged. The canonical Scriptures are inspired by God and are therefore infallible. Even as God cannot lie, deceive, or err, the Holy Scriptures cannot lie, deceive, or err. The Holy Scriptures are the only source of divine doctrine. All of the church’s doctrine is to be drawn from the clear Scriptures. It must be established by what the biblical text clearly means. It may not be established by what the biblical text might mean.<<
From the Evangelical Lutheran Church in England (ELCE):
"The ELCE accepts without reservation all of the teachings of Holy Scripture, the inspired and infallible Word of God."
From ELCA theologian Mark Allan Powell, taken from the Lutheran Study Bible, p. 1539:
"Another phrase important to Lutherans is the Latin expression "sola scriptura" ("scripture alone"). So, what do Lutherans mean by "sola scriptura?" They mean that "scripture alone" has authority to serve as a source of divine revelation. Not councils. Not popes. NOT CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLIES (emphasis mine). Not bishops or seminary professors. Only the Bible has the authority of divine revelation. Lutherans do not view the Bible as the only source for knowing what is true in this world, but they do claim that the Bible is the only authoritative source for knowing divine truth that God reveals to us."
There's a pretty wide range of Lutherans worldwide. I think the statements are clear.
Response to David Pross
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 19, 2009 15:52
So, you believe it because other Lutherans and Luther believed it. That still doesn't answer the epistemological question regarding why you believe it, but it allows the question to be re-stated: Why do you believe on the basis of the beliefs of other Lutherans, and what is their epistemology? In the end, no matter how the question is carved up, the only thing that can replace valid epistemology is a claim revelation, conveyed, for example, as a supernatural vision or God speaking from a burning bush, a claim which hard to validate unless it has been personally experienced. You write: "Only the Bible has the authority of divine revelation." How do you know that to be the case?
Faith
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 18:33
It's called faith, Mr Johnson.
I won't get too much into this, but I had to find my own way, with the leading of the Holy Spirit and the guidance of Scripture, since I come from a non-Christian home. My earliest positive experience of Christianity was Methodist, but due to some very bad experiences at a "Holiness" church I spent much of my teens and early 20s as a virtual agnostic.
I "rediscovered" God through a 12-step program. I look at that as my "clean slate."
I studied various Christian faiths, to see where I would be a good fit. After a lot of deliberation, reading Scripture (starting with an ancient King James Bible my grandmother gave me as a young boy), and prayer, I started reading Luther. I ended up in an excellent ELCA congregation. The only reason I left was because I got married and moved to where my wife was from, and we joined an ELCA congregation (the one we got virtually booted from), and then an LCMS congregation before moving to where we are now. About the only reasons we left the LCMS were because of their attitudes toward politics and isolationist attitudes about ecumenism.
Three little words sum up my "epistemology": Came To Believe. That may not fit what you're looking for, but it'll have to do.
And I would ask you:
If not the Bible, then what is your source of revelation (one of my former LCMS pastor's favourite expressions)?
Is it not logical for one in a Lutheran church to look to Lutheran theology for inspiration and Biblical hermeneutics?
I won't get too much into this, but I had to find my own way, with the leading of the Holy Spirit and the guidance of Scripture, since I come from a non-Christian home. My earliest positive experience of Christianity was Methodist, but due to some very bad experiences at a "Holiness" church I spent much of my teens and early 20s as a virtual agnostic.
I "rediscovered" God through a 12-step program. I look at that as my "clean slate."
I studied various Christian faiths, to see where I would be a good fit. After a lot of deliberation, reading Scripture (starting with an ancient King James Bible my grandmother gave me as a young boy), and prayer, I started reading Luther. I ended up in an excellent ELCA congregation. The only reason I left was because I got married and moved to where my wife was from, and we joined an ELCA congregation (the one we got virtually booted from), and then an LCMS congregation before moving to where we are now. About the only reasons we left the LCMS were because of their attitudes toward politics and isolationist attitudes about ecumenism.
Three little words sum up my "epistemology": Came To Believe. That may not fit what you're looking for, but it'll have to do.
And I would ask you:
If not the Bible, then what is your source of revelation (one of my former LCMS pastor's favourite expressions)?
Is it not logical for one in a Lutheran church to look to Lutheran theology for inspiration and Biblical hermeneutics?
Response to David Pross
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 19, 2009 21:01
You ask:
"Is it not logical for one in a Lutheran church to look to Lutheran theology for inspiration and Biblical hermeneutics?"
Yes, it is logical for a Lutheran to look there, but not in a manner that blindly refuses to ask questions, and not in a manner which relieves the mind of the obligation to pursue ultimate questions honestly.
"Is it not logical for one in a Lutheran church to look to Lutheran theology for inspiration and Biblical hermeneutics?"
Yes, it is logical for a Lutheran to look there, but not in a manner that blindly refuses to ask questions, and not in a manner which relieves the mind of the obligation to pursue ultimate questions honestly.
Critical thinking
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 21:41
Kurt, one thing I had to learn was critical thinking. I am quite skilled at pursuing answers to any sorts of questions, thank you. My discipline requires me to be investigative sometimes. In fact, my wife says I should have gone to law school because of the way I ask questions.
I ask you again:
What is your source of revelation?
If not the Bible, which, as harsh as it may sound, is not a Lutheran approach, what is your final authority?
I ask you again:
What is your source of revelation?
If not the Bible, which, as harsh as it may sound, is not a Lutheran approach, what is your final authority?
Response to David Pross
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 20, 2009 00:12
My final authority as a relevant and enlightened understanding of scripture itself.
Enlightened?
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 20:24
Enlightened by what?
Methodology, hermeneutics, what?
Methodology, hermeneutics, what?
Spirit
Posted by
John Friedli
at
August 19, 2009 16:13
Response to David Pross and others:
I am disappointed when I hear Lutherans confessing the Spirit in their lives and then behaving like spoiled kids when it comes time to trust Him.
I believe the Spirit, as promised, is working within and through our Church. I believe He is doing so in ways, that we surely do not understand. The Spirit is moving the body of Christ in the direction that He sees as best at this point in history. I trust the Spirit to keep His promises to His Church. Please trust Him.
It hurts me to read how some are promising to respond if they can't control the Spirit to move their way in the lives of millions of believers. "If I can't have it my way then not the Spirit's way either" I believe this lack of trust is an insult to the Spirit.
I prefer to trust the Spirit enough to want to hang around to see what marvelous things He is doing in His Church and how His way is better. How can we separate from each other when the whole work of Christ was to reconcile. Such pain we create for Christ.
Let me invite you who suddenly distrust the Spirit to give Him a chance to grow us to greater enlightment. That would glorfy Him. Lets pray together that we might repond out of our faith and trust Him who is the Sanctifier. John
I am disappointed when I hear Lutherans confessing the Spirit in their lives and then behaving like spoiled kids when it comes time to trust Him.
I believe the Spirit, as promised, is working within and through our Church. I believe He is doing so in ways, that we surely do not understand. The Spirit is moving the body of Christ in the direction that He sees as best at this point in history. I trust the Spirit to keep His promises to His Church. Please trust Him.
It hurts me to read how some are promising to respond if they can't control the Spirit to move their way in the lives of millions of believers. "If I can't have it my way then not the Spirit's way either" I believe this lack of trust is an insult to the Spirit.
I prefer to trust the Spirit enough to want to hang around to see what marvelous things He is doing in His Church and how His way is better. How can we separate from each other when the whole work of Christ was to reconcile. Such pain we create for Christ.
Let me invite you who suddenly distrust the Spirit to give Him a chance to grow us to greater enlightment. That would glorfy Him. Lets pray together that we might repond out of our faith and trust Him who is the Sanctifier. John
The Spirit
Posted by
Alan
at
August 19, 2009 18:07
John,
I'm a bit confussed; are you saying that the approval of the ministry recomendations is the work and desire of the Spirit? I want to make sure that I understnad you. Thanks.
I'm a bit confussed; are you saying that the approval of the ministry recomendations is the work and desire of the Spirit? I want to make sure that I understnad you. Thanks.
I think that is what the Doctor means
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 18:20
I think that is what the good doctor means.
However, I would be very cautious about ascribing "the work of the Holy Spirit" to something so clearly antithetical to Scripture.
Dr John, from what I have observed, seems to interpret matters theological solely through the view of "broken relationships" - a hermeneutic I do not share.
However, I would be very cautious about ascribing "the work of the Holy Spirit" to something so clearly antithetical to Scripture.
Dr John, from what I have observed, seems to interpret matters theological solely through the view of "broken relationships" - a hermeneutic I do not share.
And...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 18:21
I wonder if he would still believe it to be "the work of the Spirit" if the tide turned AGAINST the "recommendations."
My thoughts as well
Posted by
Alan
at
August 19, 2009 19:21
David,
Thanks for your remarks. I will still wait to hear from John but that's what I was thinking he meant. I guess my concerns come is that many people don't seem to understand how the Spirit works. Much of the Thinking seems to be like that of V. Gene Robinson who constently uses the line that the Spirit is doing a new thing. Interesting that that old testament text would be used in such a way. Both the Scriptures and the Confessions attest to the fact that the Spirit does not do it's work freely apart from the Word. I understand fully the three fold distinctions of the Word (Jesus Christ, the Scriptures and Preaching) but it seems that we cannot preach or teach about Jesus apart from the witness of Scripture. THe Smalcald Articles Part Three section 8 (Page 322 #3 in Kolb/Wengert) has been very instructive for me on this matter. Further all Doctrine, all teaching and preaching and practice of the church finds it's sole norming agent as the Scriptures. So then, how can approving these ministry recomendations, when the Scriptures are clearly opposed, be a work of the Spirit?
Thanks for your remarks. I will still wait to hear from John but that's what I was thinking he meant. I guess my concerns come is that many people don't seem to understand how the Spirit works. Much of the Thinking seems to be like that of V. Gene Robinson who constently uses the line that the Spirit is doing a new thing. Interesting that that old testament text would be used in such a way. Both the Scriptures and the Confessions attest to the fact that the Spirit does not do it's work freely apart from the Word. I understand fully the three fold distinctions of the Word (Jesus Christ, the Scriptures and Preaching) but it seems that we cannot preach or teach about Jesus apart from the witness of Scripture. THe Smalcald Articles Part Three section 8 (Page 322 #3 in Kolb/Wengert) has been very instructive for me on this matter. Further all Doctrine, all teaching and preaching and practice of the church finds it's sole norming agent as the Scriptures. So then, how can approving these ministry recomendations, when the Scriptures are clearly opposed, be a work of the Spirit?
Spirit works in mysterious ways
Posted by
John
at
August 19, 2009 23:18
Alan: I am not stating anything with that kind of assurance that I know. I am simply saying that I trust the Spirit to accomplish His work and I don't alway know how. Therefore, I am going to respond to any decision that is made with reconciation not separation. We could all be wrong in what we think is not only correct but righteous. John
The Spirit
Posted by
Alan
at
August 19, 2009 23:41
John,
Thanks for your response. Just to clarify, I never made any mention of separation. In fact, among my peers I have been a voice that urgings staying. Particularly informative for me is an essay written by Frank Senn in which he points out that separation is as sinful (if not more) than any practice the church can cook up. While I haven't begun to contemplate what the future will look like for the ELCA I would venture a guess that in ten years the Christian Church (including the ELCA) will look very different in the US. Oh the joys of being a Senior Seminarian preparing for a vocation in a very interesting climate! For now certainly I will be staying. For my thoughts on the Work of the Spirit see my post in reply to David's comments.
Thanks for your response. Just to clarify, I never made any mention of separation. In fact, among my peers I have been a voice that urgings staying. Particularly informative for me is an essay written by Frank Senn in which he points out that separation is as sinful (if not more) than any practice the church can cook up. While I haven't begun to contemplate what the future will look like for the ELCA I would venture a guess that in ten years the Christian Church (including the ELCA) will look very different in the US. Oh the joys of being a Senior Seminarian preparing for a vocation in a very interesting climate! For now certainly I will be staying. For my thoughts on the Work of the Spirit see my post in reply to David's comments.
Faithfulness
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 13:38
Alan: I am pleased with what you have decided to do. I don't envy your work because it will be a struggle. A blessed struggle I hope.
I'm not sure we are prieve to know the will of God. Thats why I am concerned about people leaving the ELCA when their knowledge is not accepted as the best way. It may be that God is expressing His will in whatever decision is made. I am not willing to go against reconciliation for the sake of difference opinions about what the will of God is.I would raher hang in with the Spirit and love of neighbor and see where He is leading us. I believe you are expressing some of the same thoughts. Thank your for relationship with me in the community. It sounds like your more interested in caring and loving one another than being correct. I think we can get through this and grow together in Christ. John
I'm not sure we are prieve to know the will of God. Thats why I am concerned about people leaving the ELCA when their knowledge is not accepted as the best way. It may be that God is expressing His will in whatever decision is made. I am not willing to go against reconciliation for the sake of difference opinions about what the will of God is.I would raher hang in with the Spirit and love of neighbor and see where He is leading us. I believe you are expressing some of the same thoughts. Thank your for relationship with me in the community. It sounds like your more interested in caring and loving one another than being correct. I think we can get through this and grow together in Christ. John
No I am not saying
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 20:30
Alan:I do not know in absolutes what the work and desire of the Spirit is. I am searching as to what the Body of Christ says from there relationship with the scriptures and the Spirit. I have an opinion but I am prepared to stick with the Spirit, the Body of Christ no matter how the vote comes out. I believe it when Paul says all things work for good. I am willing to believe that what the Church votes gives some indication of what the Spirit wants at this time in history. I can do this because I am not convinced that I and others are infallible in interpretation of scriptures. So I leave the door open for the Spirit to do his thing. My main concern is not the vote but rather how we the Body of Christ will respond.John
Spoilt kids...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 19, 2009 18:40
Hmm, John.
With all due respect, I saw a bunch of spoilt kids throwing a fit because they didn't get their way. These spoilt kids were members of Lutherans Concerned, Soulforce and Goodsoil, including Anita Hill, at the 2001 CWA. Many of these spoilt kids showed their maturity by screaming into news media cameras about how "persecuted" they are by the nasty ELCA. Many also ended up with police records for refusing to vacate the premises, doing equally-mature things like lying down in the street.
I believe that you say that it is "the work of the Spirit" because the CWA is currently going YOUR WAY. On the outside chance that it does not turn out that way, will it still be "the work of the Spirit?"
There are other spirits at work. Darker ones, led by ha-shatan, the Adversary, Enemy, Accuser, who is gleeful about this kind of animosity in the Christian community.
I will not change my stance that the Holy Spirit would not move something so clearly against Scripture. You can be angry about that if you so desire.
From what we have been hearing from other parishioners, if your "side" gets its way, my congregation WILL leave the ELCA. Apparently they almost did once before, a few years ago before we were part of it.
With all due respect, I saw a bunch of spoilt kids throwing a fit because they didn't get their way. These spoilt kids were members of Lutherans Concerned, Soulforce and Goodsoil, including Anita Hill, at the 2001 CWA. Many of these spoilt kids showed their maturity by screaming into news media cameras about how "persecuted" they are by the nasty ELCA. Many also ended up with police records for refusing to vacate the premises, doing equally-mature things like lying down in the street.
I believe that you say that it is "the work of the Spirit" because the CWA is currently going YOUR WAY. On the outside chance that it does not turn out that way, will it still be "the work of the Spirit?"
There are other spirits at work. Darker ones, led by ha-shatan, the Adversary, Enemy, Accuser, who is gleeful about this kind of animosity in the Christian community.
I will not change my stance that the Holy Spirit would not move something so clearly against Scripture. You can be angry about that if you so desire.
From what we have been hearing from other parishioners, if your "side" gets its way, my congregation WILL leave the ELCA. Apparently they almost did once before, a few years ago before we were part of it.
My side ???
Posted by
John
at
August 19, 2009 22:27
David: Must have hit a nerve. First, I have not said anything about sides. Mine or anyone elses. You don't know what side I'm on. Just as we don't know which side the Spirit is on. I have only said that the Spirit is still alive and well even as the Assembly does its work. I have also said that we should not be so sure that our interpretation of scripture is so correct that we turn our backs on each other if things don't go our way. Either way. Could be ya know.John
"Spirit" or "spirit"???
Posted by
Rik
at
August 20, 2009 00:43
John writes, "I have only said that the Spirit is still alive and well even as the Assembly does its work." That spirit, sir, is the Zeitgeist, and certainly not the holy Spirit of God. If an assembly wants to separate itself from the church Jesus founded, I guess I can't stop them. I've tried to point to the truth of God's Word, but some will refuse to listen. A new chapter begins.
demographics
Posted by
Samuel Zumwalt
at
August 20, 2009 01:33
My post was entitled "keeping it all in perspective." It was a reminder that the ELCA is an insignificant part of the Church catholic that is diminishing and dying. This is quite apart from the decision to depart from 2,000 years of teaching and practice on human sexuality.
I do think that the demographic decline will increase, as it has in the UCC and TEC, precisely because of these and other decisions driven by 60s era liberal pietists and their acolytes.
Mercifully, among the deaths to come are my generation of baby boomers, who, as some wag once said will likely have TV shows called "Sixty Something" and "Seventy Something" ad nauseum.
Within one hundred years, the scourge of liberation theology will have run its course. It will take that long for those who have been indoctrinated by them to die off along with those they indoctrinate.
In the meantime, all of you that went to seminary during the Viet Nam War flick your Bics and sing with Jesse Colin Young: "Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now." Far out, man!
If only Jimi Hendrix could have lived to paraphrase himself: "Blue pill up in my brain. Viva Viagra!"
I do think that the demographic decline will increase, as it has in the UCC and TEC, precisely because of these and other decisions driven by 60s era liberal pietists and their acolytes.
Mercifully, among the deaths to come are my generation of baby boomers, who, as some wag once said will likely have TV shows called "Sixty Something" and "Seventy Something" ad nauseum.
Within one hundred years, the scourge of liberation theology will have run its course. It will take that long for those who have been indoctrinated by them to die off along with those they indoctrinate.
In the meantime, all of you that went to seminary during the Viet Nam War flick your Bics and sing with Jesse Colin Young: "Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now." Far out, man!
If only Jimi Hendrix could have lived to paraphrase himself: "Blue pill up in my brain. Viva Viagra!"
New Hymnody
Posted by
Gregory
at
August 20, 2009 07:01
Maybe the 2001 CWA will feature a choral arrangement of "Love the One You're With" :-(.
Response to Zumwalt
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 20, 2009 09:20
OK, back to reality now. I've never really cared for trying to speak on God's behalf, but since everyone else is doing it, if Zumwalt is right, then 100 years from now, after the die-off, Christians can return to a singular theology--going to heaven. If God had not intended for theology and culture to mix, he never would have created culture.
Hendrix
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 01:40
I am a great fan of Jimi Hendrix.
Even at his most acid-addled, he made more sense than this CWA has.
Even at his most acid-addled, he made more sense than this CWA has.
Spirit and also spirit
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 08:03
Rik: Both are working hard there, Rik. The problem is you and I must discern the Spirit. Either way, I believe the Spirit is faithful in His promises and will prevail over time. I just need to be careful that I do not respond in such away that I give the vistory to the spirit. (separation) John
Discerning the Spirit
Posted by
Rik
at
August 20, 2009 11:30
John, you wrote, "The problem is you and I must discern the Spirit." Agreed. How do you discern the Spirit? I discern the Spirit by referring to Holy Scripture. Here, we are called to "test the spirits." I do not seek new and innovative interpretations. Rather, I use basic hermeneutical principles that have been used by the church over the centuries and across the continents. A main principle is: Scripture interprets Scripture. I am a Lutheran Christian, therefore, in addition to believing Sola Fide and Sola Gratia, I also believe in Sola Scriptura. Some may see this approach to inteerpretation as dry and dead. It's not: the Spirit brings life to the words (yet does not contradict them). You also wrote, "Either way, I believe the Spirit is faithful in His promises and will prevail over time." I'm sorry for you, but I cannot buy that. Of course, I believe the Spirit is faithful in His promises! But if what you are saying is that whatever ends up happening was God's will, that is the part I cannot accept. Jesus warned us to "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them..." (Matt. 7:15f. NIV) Does this mean that these false prophets are part of God's will? Sure, God will redeem the times and bring good out of evil, but I would think Jesus might recommend a millstone around their necks, not congratulations and the assertion that "the Spirit is doing a new thing." And I can never accept a CWA that believes that it can put the Word of God to a vote and override it. Who do mere human beings think they are, telling God He was wrong? Ultimately the vote was not really about "human sexuality" or "homosexuality" anyway. It all boils down to what we do with the Bible God has given us, and how we approach and interpret His Holy Scripture." To say we must view all Scripture through the lens of Jesus and His love, becomes to some an antinomian construct. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. But does that mean that the law is all null and void now, and has nothing to do with the Christian life any more? I would challenge you to read all three of the synoptic gospels as well as John's account, and tell me that Jesus would have us live our lives any way we want to, in complete freedom. Tell me that when He says to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, that He means "on our own terms", not His. God has given us Christian freedom to live for Him, not to live in sin. Tell me that when He tells us we must love our neighbor as ourselves, that we are free to interpret "love" in any way we like. Go ahead and tell me that God is a loving God who would not condemn any to hell, and that wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to heaven, and anyone who feels like it will enter. If you tell me any of these things, I will not believe you. Tell me that we can discern the Spirit by observing current societal values and the spirit of the times, and I will tell you that you are after the wrong spirit. Call me a Scripturalist, or call me a Biblicist, or whatever else you want to call me, but I am just fine being called a confessional (quia) Lutheran Christian. I seek to please God, not man. If the (Law and) Gospel offends someone, that is that. I will not seek to offend, but I will not be ashamed of the Gospel, either. Jesus told us it would be a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others. But God will use my witness to reach some for His Kingdom. May God grant it, in Jesus' name. May His will be done. Amen.
Where did all this come from Rik
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 12:12
Rik: You sure unloaded in that Post.I did'nt say or even imply most of what you wrote. I do not want to even own it. Most of what you wrote I hear aa defensive.
I have one question. I accept the scriptures as being the Word of God. I read Johns statement that "much more was said and written". I realize that being selfcentered and sin(s) prone there is a possibliity that I am not interpreting a scripture passage correctly or understanding it's meaning in the context of all of the Word. Such as how Paul understood things. Therefore, not wishing to take a legalist approach I leave plenty of room for the Spirit to have a different intent and message that I'm not grasping. Also I do not wish to break my relationship with fellow christians nor do I believe Christ wants me to. (My the way I do accept others who disagree with me as Christians on the bases of their confession of Christ, do you?) Therefore, I will not be quick to base my relationship to others on what I think to be true. I am very apt to be wrong since I am not God. I will base such relationship on my relationship to Jesus who wants reconciliation, always. Please do not read more into this than I am expressing. All Im saying is the Spirit works in interesting way that I can's fathom, I will not base my response to these matters (no matter which way it goes)on my human understanding. (Good Paul stuff). With caring concern, Jack
I have one question. I accept the scriptures as being the Word of God. I read Johns statement that "much more was said and written". I realize that being selfcentered and sin(s) prone there is a possibliity that I am not interpreting a scripture passage correctly or understanding it's meaning in the context of all of the Word. Such as how Paul understood things. Therefore, not wishing to take a legalist approach I leave plenty of room for the Spirit to have a different intent and message that I'm not grasping. Also I do not wish to break my relationship with fellow christians nor do I believe Christ wants me to. (My the way I do accept others who disagree with me as Christians on the bases of their confession of Christ, do you?) Therefore, I will not be quick to base my relationship to others on what I think to be true. I am very apt to be wrong since I am not God. I will base such relationship on my relationship to Jesus who wants reconciliation, always. Please do not read more into this than I am expressing. All Im saying is the Spirit works in interesting way that I can's fathom, I will not base my response to these matters (no matter which way it goes)on my human understanding. (Good Paul stuff). With caring concern, Jack
Late Night with Rik--NOT
Posted by
Rik
at
August 21, 2009 00:22
I do not mean to ignore your response, hence my short reply now. Would you be so kind as to let me respond when I'm more awake? I don't want to miss the opportunity to craft a reply that is hopefully worth reading, but I can't do so tonight. Please forgive me where I unloaded wrongly and unnecessarily. I am trying to deal with some stress at this time. Also, it is sometimes almost surreal when you are watching history in the making (this CWA), even when observing it from afar. Sorry.
Rik: Sorry
Posted by
John
at
August 21, 2009 19:04
Rik: I am sorry that I did not see, read and respond sooner. I feel badly that I did not respond to your sharing about the stress you are experiencing. Surely, that stress along with your concern for the ELCA is heavy on your heart. I pray that you are able to work it through. I wish I could be of more help that just this Post. Hang in there. As you know Christ through the Spirit is there for you. Blessings, Johm
Stress
Posted by
John
at
August 21, 2009 22:17
Yes, my wife and I are definately concerned for the ELCA in convention--that is, in CWA, and they are in our prayers. The other source of stress is my current unemployment and job search. I thank you for your concern, John. God will provide. Yours in Christ, -Rik.
Sorry John (or "Jack")
Posted by
Rik
at
August 21, 2009 22:38
"Rik: You sure unloaded in that Post.I did'nt say or even imply most of what you wrote. I do not want to even own it." You can say that again. Maybe I'm practicing my typing to increase my words per minute (wpm) score. Seriously, though, I was having a bad day, and on top of it, I put some time into a response only to lose it thanks to my pc. Then I tried to remember what I had written, and the result was verbosity of the keyboard. I am sorry. Please don't take ownership for any apparent accusation that had nothing to do with what was written. I will try to do better in the future. Yes, with the help of God. Please forgive me. I am sooooo thankful for forgiveness in Christ Jesus! -Rik.
Judgement
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 20:45
Rik: What a terrible judgement of your fellow christian hearts. You cannot know their hearts thats why Jesus said not to judge. Therefore, to say that the spirit of the evil one is what is in the hearts of Assembly voters is wrong. Love, John
Judging Hearts?
Posted by
Rik
at
August 21, 2009 13:35
Am I able to judge peoples' hearts? Absolutely not. I leave that to God alone. Am I able to judge peoples' thoughts? Not directly, but if they express their thoughts, I can judge the expression of their thoughts. Am I able to judge people's actions? Not perfectly, because I cannot be certain of the motives behind their actions, unless they explain those actions. If they explain their actions, I can judge their explanation. I can certainly take note of their actions. A better word than judge, here, would be "discern." When you wrote "the spirit of the evil one" you were putting words in my mouth (fingertips?). What I wrote was, "That spirit, sir, is the Zeitgeist, and certainly not the holy Spirit of God. Zeitgeist=the spirit of the times. Neither did I say that it was in the heart of the Assembly voters. To use your words, I said it "is still alive and well even as the Assembly does its work." Please don't jump to conclusions. When I wrote "and certainly not the holy Spirit of God" I was stating that we can discern whether the spirit is holy (hagia) by the actions resulting. What was proposed by the CWA was certainly not in keeping with the Spirit of YHWH--the Spirit of Holiness--who inspired every book of the Bible. Were it in agreement with His revelation, I could see a sign of His presence in what was decided. When we are told we are not to judge others, we are certainly not being told we are not to discern the spirits. Read the epistles again. I think you'll discover this for yourself.
Getting nervy
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 20, 2009 14:11
The only "nerve" hit was the shame I felt to be a member of the ELCA after 2001 CWA, with outright hooliganism on the part of those who wanted "change." If that wasn't acting like a load of spoilt kids who didn't get their way, I don't know what the heck is.
I'm a lot thicker-skinned than you think.
I'm a lot thicker-skinned than you think.
Separation
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 13:43
David: I am sorry that your congregation is doing this. I am also sorry for any part you had in leading them this way. John
Separation
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 20, 2009 14:09
Isn't that where the "bound conscience" bit comes in, John?
I had no part in "leading them this way." I'm just a schmuck in the pews. I have no leadership position. I've only been there for not quite two years.
They started to leave before, I think, but reconsidered after more restrained actions at one of the CWA's. That was over a year before they ever heard of me. I was in the LCMS then.
Besides, does it not mean something if a congregation of believers is intact, even if it may not have the name "ELCA" on the sign outside?
I had no part in "leading them this way." I'm just a schmuck in the pews. I have no leadership position. I've only been there for not quite two years.
They started to leave before, I think, but reconsidered after more restrained actions at one of the CWA's. That was over a year before they ever heard of me. I was in the LCMS then.
Besides, does it not mean something if a congregation of believers is intact, even if it may not have the name "ELCA" on the sign outside?
COINCIDENCE
Posted by
Richard Davis
at
August 20, 2009 08:50
I see from news reports that a tornado set down next to the assembly vote yesterday. Quite a coincidence. A couple of observations: I attended the SC State Assembly two years ago in Newberry SC. During the afternoon of the vote on homosexuality issue, there was a thunderstorm over the meeting place like none I had ever heard. One of the speakers from Chicago promoting the homosexuality issue made a little joking reference to God having something to do with the storm. There was some muffled laughter. Most attendees didn't laugh.
Also, interesting coincidence in the Wednesdays vote numbers. Those voting for change were 676 of 1014. My calculator stops at nine places. All sixes.
Given their intelligence and sophistication, those voting for these changes will think these observations are mere coincidence and their mention even a little embarrassing.
Therein lies their problem. God has an Opinion. Thats the idea that really embarrasses them.
Also, interesting coincidence in the Wednesdays vote numbers. Those voting for change were 676 of 1014. My calculator stops at nine places. All sixes.
Given their intelligence and sophistication, those voting for these changes will think these observations are mere coincidence and their mention even a little embarrassing.
Therein lies their problem. God has an Opinion. Thats the idea that really embarrasses them.
Response to Richard Davis
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 20, 2009 09:22
I suppose you also see merit in Jerry Falwell's opinion as to why Katrina hit New Orleans.
"Acts of God"
Posted by
Rik
at
August 20, 2009 11:41
My wife and I thought it rather interesting, too, when we heard this on the news. An ELCA convention (CWA) interrupted by an 'act of God' as some call it. Something to think about, anyway. And what was the business of the day at the CWA? Hmmmm. That's an interesting thought. Coincidence? What Does This Mean?
Response to Rik
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 20, 2009 11:47
It means that some people are far too superstitious.
Central Lutheran, Minneapolis Looses the Cross
Posted by
Rik
at
August 20, 2009 13:02
"It means that some people are far too superstitious." Perhaps some people are, Kurt. I would be even further on your side if God had never used nature to get his point across. As it is, I simply left the final conclusion to the reader: "Coincidence?" This was before I read more at the ALPB site: "The cross on Central Lutheran blew down within a few hours of the GoodSoil service. There has not been a tornado hitting Minneapolis proper since 1981" Brian J. Bergs
continues, "It burns my toast to see the derision of the symbolism of the cross blowing down, the spire was split...My oh my how we moderns downplay such God-given imagery. This was a God thing, and I am not one who takes lightly to these kinds of signs. The cross was toppled by a very unexpected tornado at Central Lutheran just before GoodSoil had its service. This was not random. There are signs for those who have eyes. We have received such a sign." (ALPB Forum Re: Wednesday afternoon: destructive storms «Reply #29 on Yesterday at 11:27:02PM» Take it for what you will. There is a literary term for when the weather in a story reflects what is going on with the characters, but it's been years since I've studied it, and the term isn't coming to me. In a fairly recent post, here at LF online, I referred to people straying further from the truth just because they weren't struck by lightning. I guess I didn't think to mention a tornado. I'm not saying...I'm just saying...
continues, "It burns my toast to see the derision of the symbolism of the cross blowing down, the spire was split...My oh my how we moderns downplay such God-given imagery. This was a God thing, and I am not one who takes lightly to these kinds of signs. The cross was toppled by a very unexpected tornado at Central Lutheran just before GoodSoil had its service. This was not random. There are signs for those who have eyes. We have received such a sign." (ALPB Forum Re: Wednesday afternoon: destructive storms «Reply #29 on Yesterday at 11:27:02PM» Take it for what you will. There is a literary term for when the weather in a story reflects what is going on with the characters, but it's been years since I've studied it, and the term isn't coming to me. In a fairly recent post, here at LF online, I referred to people straying further from the truth just because they weren't struck by lightning. I guess I didn't think to mention a tornado. I'm not saying...I'm just saying...
Weather
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 20, 2009 13:25
If God controls (and uses) the weather in this way, then perhaps someone ought to explain the tsunami that took tens of thousands of lives ....
Interpretation
Posted by
Check This Out
at
August 20, 2009 13:37
Be sure to scroll down if you have a blank screen when you check out this blog:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/Author/2_john_piper/
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/Author/2_john_piper/
It brings us a message
Posted by
Cris
at
August 20, 2009 15:01
I've been following the event online in the past few days. I'm a lutheran here in the Philippines and I believe what's happening in ELCA right now will also concern me as lutheran. It makes me so sad that this is happening. I'm not a superstitious type of person but I almost want to make myself believe that the tornado that hit Central Lutheran brings us a message.
My colleage, a gay, noticed how busy I am reading all these news, asked, "What are you reading?" I answered, "Our(being lutheran) Church in the US just approved 'a social statement on human sexuality,'" and continued to tell him some details. He's not a lutheran but he became excited to know more about the lutheran church. Maybe he noticed I'm not as excited as he is, so he asked, "Are you in favor of their decision?" I replied, "Sorry to say this, but... NO." I can see how his face reacted.
I may have hurt his feeling. I know my faith and I know where I stand.
My colleage, a gay, noticed how busy I am reading all these news, asked, "What are you reading?" I answered, "Our(being lutheran) Church in the US just approved 'a social statement on human sexuality,'" and continued to tell him some details. He's not a lutheran but he became excited to know more about the lutheran church. Maybe he noticed I'm not as excited as he is, so he asked, "Are you in favor of their decision?" I replied, "Sorry to say this, but... NO." I can see how his face reacted.
I may have hurt his feeling. I know my faith and I know where I stand.
Hurt feelings
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 15:35
Chris: For what purpose are you telling us this? John
:-(
Posted by
Cris
at
August 20, 2009 18:03
Thanks for asking John. I don't know exactly how I would answer your question. I know I have nothing to do with what's happening there.
I have nothing against the homosexuals as a person but as a believer of the Lord and member of the Church, I don't think God would be pleased with it. The Apostle Paul is very clear. The practice of homosexuality is a sin. To see people living in the same gender is a practice of homosexuality in itself and is not in accordance with God's order of marriage... no matter how happy and faithful they would be to each other, it is still a sin. What more if in the future we see them preaching in the pulpit. Will it be a good witness?
I believe that lutherans around the world are watching. Just wanna express my thoughts. Don't mind me.
I have nothing against the homosexuals as a person but as a believer of the Lord and member of the Church, I don't think God would be pleased with it. The Apostle Paul is very clear. The practice of homosexuality is a sin. To see people living in the same gender is a practice of homosexuality in itself and is not in accordance with God's order of marriage... no matter how happy and faithful they would be to each other, it is still a sin. What more if in the future we see them preaching in the pulpit. Will it be a good witness?
I believe that lutherans around the world are watching. Just wanna express my thoughts. Don't mind me.
Are you sure
Posted by
John
at
August 20, 2009 21:07
Cris: Are you absolutely, 100%% sure that you have the right interpretation of What Paul was talking about compared to what we are discussing these days. Perhaps he was not talking about behaviors, he was talking about the breaking of one relationship for another just for the sake of sexual fun. Breaking the relationships were against God. Men were leaving their wives to have relationships with young boys. We are not talking about the same kind of (broken) relationship these days. We are talking about a loving, othercentered, committed relationship the kind that glories God. Such a relatioship is not sin. And who says that what two people do to express their love is for us to judge anymore than we allow people to judge what goes on in our heterosexual relationships. Now are you really absolutely, 100% sure that your interpretation of Romans is correct. If there is a slight chance that you are not sure please room for the Spirit to work and refuse to judge others. I am asking that we be not so legalistic in this matter that we leave no room for grace. John
Hurt Feelings
Posted by
djk
at
August 20, 2009 22:51
John,
You know exactly what Cris is saying. But your use of a condescending question serves to muddy the subject and divert all the attention from Cris' main point.
Cris' last statement said basically the same as Luther's "Here I stand..."
Cris,
You stood up for what the Bible clearly states, while showing no disrespect for your friend. Keep up the work and keep following this issue. djk
You know exactly what Cris is saying. But your use of a condescending question serves to muddy the subject and divert all the attention from Cris' main point.
Cris' last statement said basically the same as Luther's "Here I stand..."
Cris,
You stood up for what the Bible clearly states, while showing no disrespect for your friend. Keep up the work and keep following this issue. djk
Not so legalistic
Posted by
CE
at
August 20, 2009 23:02
John,
Are you so absolutely 100% sure that you ahve the right interpretation of What Paul was talking about compared to what we are discussing these days?
We are not talking about men leaving their wives to enter into other relationships?
I have seen people defend those men and women who leave their spouses for someone of the same sex because, after years of marriage, they "finally came to the realization about the truth about who they were" - "they shouldn't be forced to live a lie anymore."
If there is a lisght chance that you are not sure that your interpretation of Romans is correct, please save some room for the Spirit to change your heart. Judging others is not the same as judging their behavior.
I am askign that we be not so unlegalistic in this manner. Grace means nothing if there is no sin.
CE
Are you so absolutely 100% sure that you ahve the right interpretation of What Paul was talking about compared to what we are discussing these days?
We are not talking about men leaving their wives to enter into other relationships?
I have seen people defend those men and women who leave their spouses for someone of the same sex because, after years of marriage, they "finally came to the realization about the truth about who they were" - "they shouldn't be forced to live a lie anymore."
If there is a lisght chance that you are not sure that your interpretation of Romans is correct, please save some room for the Spirit to change your heart. Judging others is not the same as judging their behavior.
I am askign that we be not so unlegalistic in this manner. Grace means nothing if there is no sin.
CE
Wrong reading
Posted by
John
at
August 21, 2009 08:47
CE: The note about men leaving wives was not about todays situation. Please read what I wrote again an see that I am writing about what was happening in Paul's day. What they were dealing with back then was different from what we are talking about today. No I am not 100% sure that my interpretation is correct. And knowing that encourages me not to part company. Excepting my inability to be God keeps me wanting to stay in relatioships as Christ wants me to. I disagree with you that grace means nothing if their is no sin. Christ love for me is inspite of my sin not because of my sin. John
Yours is a Wrong Reading
Posted by
CE
at
August 21, 2009 11:33
I understood you were saying that men leaving their wives is not today's situation. Read my note again. I am saying it IS still happening today. I agree with you that Christ loves you (and me) inspite of of your (my) sin, and not because of it. I just guess I disagree with you as to what sin is.
Refuse
Posted by
John
at
August 21, 2009 15:34
CE: Why are refusing to read my posts in there intireity and then tell me what you think of the complete message? John
You refuse to read my post, not vise-versa.
Posted by
CE
at
August 21, 2009 20:45
I said I disagreed with you that what was happening in Paul's time is not happening today. I understand you said "In Paul's time, he was saying it's wrong for a man to leave his wife for a young boy. But today we are talking about two wonderfully committed people of the same sex having a great relationship to each other." I am saying today, people leave their spouse "when they finally stop living a lie." Either way, IMO, people leave what should be, IMO, a committed, monogomous life long relationship for, IMO, sinful desires.
I'm sorry you were unable to understand that.
I'm sorry you were unable to understand that.
Sin
Posted by
John
at
August 21, 2009 17:39
CE:Sin is what Eve and Adam enter when they thumbed their nose at God. Before the eating of the tree. Separation was their sin. When we separate ourselves from each other that separation is sin. Not our behaviors (Sins) but our turning out backs on God is sin (separation) We act as those Christ never reconciled us. Those behaviors are sins. His death reconciled us forever and we will never be separated from Him again. Sin(separation) is forgiven. Sins need to be forgiven every moment of our lives.But we sinners fail to live in that forgiveness. (Sins) I believe the relationship between two same gendered people is not separation but is a blessed relationship by loving and committed people. In that relationship their expression of love is not sins. John
Separation leads to sin?? What?
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 23, 2009 21:52
"But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden {His} face from you, so that He does not hear." ISAIAH 59:2
After their disobedience, Adam and Eve felt exposed and sought to hide. Their separation from the purity of God began immediately.
Refuting this one could consume a gigabyte, but it's not worth the trouble when hearts are hard.
--Mike
--Mike
After their disobedience, Adam and Eve felt exposed and sought to hide. Their separation from the purity of God began immediately.
Refuting this one could consume a gigabyte, but it's not worth the trouble when hearts are hard.
--Mike
--Mike
My gosh!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 22, 2009 01:08
I've read with interest many of the posts in this thread. You're getting your butt kicked John.
Now you've resorted (twice) to the phrase "are you really absolutely 100% sure". Then you tried "is there a slight chance" and "perhaps he was talking about".
You haven't described which "side" you're on? "We are talking about a loving, othercentered, committed relationship the kind that glories God."
That's a worldly view John. Every time you utter such words, you push more of the Holy Spirit out of you. You might want to refrain from references to the "Spirit" going forward . . . . at least the Holy One!
--Mike
Now you've resorted (twice) to the phrase "are you really absolutely 100% sure". Then you tried "is there a slight chance" and "perhaps he was talking about".
You haven't described which "side" you're on? "We are talking about a loving, othercentered, committed relationship the kind that glories God."
That's a worldly view John. Every time you utter such words, you push more of the Holy Spirit out of you. You might want to refrain from references to the "Spirit" going forward . . . . at least the Holy One!
--Mike
Opinions...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 01:29
Mike, I've been on the receiving end of the good doctor's finger-shaking, calling my attitude toward what was once the ELCA "unloving." You know what they say about opinions and a certain part of the human anatomy - everybody's got them, they all stink, some more than others.
Is that offensive? Probably. But read Luther. It is obvious that what was once the ELCA doesn't anymore.
Is that offensive? Probably. But read Luther. It is obvious that what was once the ELCA doesn't anymore.
Stinks
Posted by
John
at
August 23, 2009 20:49
David: If you feel that I have been attacking you you are more thin skinned than you let on. I think its more defensivness because your unsure of yourself. John
Diagnosis
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 23:07
Herr Doktor, please don't try to diagnose me. You don't do it very well.
If I had felt that you "attacked" me, you would not need to speculate. You would know it.
I know who I am, and what I believe. You can take that for what it is.
DP
If I had felt that you "attacked" me, you would not need to speculate. You would know it.
I know who I am, and what I believe. You can take that for what it is.
DP
Butt kicked
Posted by
John
at
August 23, 2009 20:46
Mike: I rejoice that the Spirit can't be pushed that easy. He is more forgiving than that. You say it is a worldly view but the Gospel as Christ shared it with us is not a worldly view. A loving, committed, othercentered etc relationship is where the love Jesus talks about is most ofenten expressed. The Spirit rejoices when ever He sees it. John
This denomination is no more!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 23, 2009 21:15
Some spirit rejoices whenever two men make engage in sexual relations . . . that's for sure.
You often forget the Holy Spirit is also righteous. I like the way another web site puts it . . .
"The ELCA assembly has now voted against the authoritative Word of God. The assembly has swapped His Word for human words that are neither based on sound reason or good order. In fact, the assembly voted against the Word of God, sound reason and the good order of creation.
That is not only not Lutheran, it is not Christian and it is not the work of the church but of a misguided , shrinking, sideline denomination whose leadership’s ears cannot hear and can no longer even discern or recognize, let alone revere, God’s direct warning and intervention."
I agree . . . you're not a Lutheran any more John!!
--Mike
You often forget the Holy Spirit is also righteous. I like the way another web site puts it . . .
"The ELCA assembly has now voted against the authoritative Word of God. The assembly has swapped His Word for human words that are neither based on sound reason or good order. In fact, the assembly voted against the Word of God, sound reason and the good order of creation.
That is not only not Lutheran, it is not Christian and it is not the work of the church but of a misguided , shrinking, sideline denomination whose leadership’s ears cannot hear and can no longer even discern or recognize, let alone revere, God’s direct warning and intervention."
I agree . . . you're not a Lutheran any more John!!
--Mike
Mike
Posted by
John
at
August 24, 2009 10:25
Mike: I chose to believe you are speaking out of anger. At least I want to believe so. Just be cautous about how you judge the ELCA as a part of the Body of Christ. You could be wrong.If it were not Lutheran and were not Christians as you say that makes us heathen. I'm glad Christ and His love is more faithful than yours. John
John
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 24, 2009 22:28
More cautious? Nah.
Yes . . . He is more faithful and loving. Duh!
He's also righteous, and He will not stand for this change. His love for us means there will be consequences for the iniquities of our time. That's the way it works with wayward children.
"The wicked far outnumber the righteous, and justice is perverted with bribes and trickery. The LORD replied, Look at the nations and be amazed! Watch and be astounded at what I will do!"
--Mike
Yes . . . He is more faithful and loving. Duh!
He's also righteous, and He will not stand for this change. His love for us means there will be consequences for the iniquities of our time. That's the way it works with wayward children.
"The wicked far outnumber the righteous, and justice is perverted with bribes and trickery. The LORD replied, Look at the nations and be amazed! Watch and be astounded at what I will do!"
--Mike
I can hardly believe it!!!
Posted by
ccb
at
August 21, 2009 10:40
Goodsoil's Affirmation of Faith from ALPB
I believe in God,
Maker of an unfinished world,
Who calls us to participate in bringing about the fullness of Creation.
God, who created abundant resources to provide for all.
God, who has not divided people into rich and poor, owners and slaves,
Nor pitted us against each other because of race, color, social class or sex.
I believe in Jesus Christ who was ridiculed, tortured and executed for the sins of humankind.
He has overthrown the rule of evil and injustice
and continues to judge and redeem the hatred and arrogance of human beings.
I believe in the Spirit of God whose flame comforts us with divine presence
and causes our hearts to burn for righteousness and justice.
I believe in the reconciling power of God in our lives and in the world.
I believe that God, through people, can bring peace and hope,
justice and equality, the relief of suffering and pain, and the final triumph of love and grace. Amen.
I believe in God,
Maker of an unfinished world,
Who calls us to participate in bringing about the fullness of Creation.
God, who created abundant resources to provide for all.
God, who has not divided people into rich and poor, owners and slaves,
Nor pitted us against each other because of race, color, social class or sex.
I believe in Jesus Christ who was ridiculed, tortured and executed for the sins of humankind.
He has overthrown the rule of evil and injustice
and continues to judge and redeem the hatred and arrogance of human beings.
I believe in the Spirit of God whose flame comforts us with divine presence
and causes our hearts to burn for righteousness and justice.
I believe in the reconciling power of God in our lives and in the world.
I believe that God, through people, can bring peace and hope,
justice and equality, the relief of suffering and pain, and the final triumph of love and grace. Amen.
Y'ain't seen nuttin' yet
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 21, 2009 11:51
I read it.
I also read Goodsoil's little blurb about if the church didn't recognise their ministry, justice required that they BURN DOWN THE CHURCH.
If you REALLY want something to clear your sinuses:
www.herchurch.org
This is a feminist, neopagan, goddess worship sect...and it is part of the ELCA.
I also read Goodsoil's little blurb about if the church didn't recognise their ministry, justice required that they BURN DOWN THE CHURCH.
If you REALLY want something to clear your sinuses:
www.herchurch.org
This is a feminist, neopagan, goddess worship sect...and it is part of the ELCA.
Mean
Posted by
David Anderson
at
August 21, 2009 17:26
David: The way you talk is mean and unloving. Lets take the scriptures seriously on the issue of love. John
Mean and unloving...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 01:26
Check your own judgement, Herr Doktor.
I am angry and frustrated. I have an opinion. I shall express it. Period.
I am angry and frustrated. I have an opinion. I shall express it. Period.
Mean and unloving?
Posted by
ccb
at
August 24, 2009 09:10
David: I understand your anger and frustration... that truly shows that YOU LOVE THE CHURCH! Jesus himself showed his own anger in the temple.
OK to bless same sex marriages
Posted by
CE
at
August 21, 2009 12:05
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=2203.0
I somehow thought this wouldn't happen.
I'm really sad and confused now.
My family has been part of the same Lutheran church for generations. The current pastor definitely leans this way, and has alienated a lot of the church, who have left. I don't know if I can stay part of a church in the ELCA now.
I can disagree with other Christians on a variety of doctrinal issues, and still think they are Christians. But I want my own church to uphold the same values as I do. I can't see how that is possible now. I'm really confused.
I somehow thought this wouldn't happen.
I'm really sad and confused now.
My family has been part of the same Lutheran church for generations. The current pastor definitely leans this way, and has alienated a lot of the church, who have left. I don't know if I can stay part of a church in the ELCA now.
I can disagree with other Christians on a variety of doctrinal issues, and still think they are Christians. But I want my own church to uphold the same values as I do. I can't see how that is possible now. I'm really confused.
The end of the ELCA
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 21, 2009 13:43
If this isn't the end of the ELCA, I don't know what is.
For the longest time, I've been peeved with the lot on LutherQuest who snarkily refer to the ELCA as the "E?CA."
Now I wonder if they don't have something.
The vote on homosexual pastors is just a formality.
Gay is OK.
Neo-paganism is OK.
Rewriting the Creeds is OK.
Rewriting the BIBLE is OK.
Traditional Lutheran - NOT OK, YOU BLIND PHARISEE!
Lord, to whom shall we go?
For the longest time, I've been peeved with the lot on LutherQuest who snarkily refer to the ELCA as the "E?CA."
Now I wonder if they don't have something.
The vote on homosexual pastors is just a formality.
Gay is OK.
Neo-paganism is OK.
Rewriting the Creeds is OK.
Rewriting the BIBLE is OK.
Traditional Lutheran - NOT OK, YOU BLIND PHARISEE!
Lord, to whom shall we go?
"Whom", not "Wom"
Posted by
rik
at
August 21, 2009 16:43
I'LL tell you where you can go: To the One who has rescued us from sin, death, and the power of the devil. He has the words of eternal life! In terms of the local church, I would encourage you to check out all three. Just use Google or your favorite search engine, and check them out! Or make an appointment to speak to a pastor at one of their local churches. I'm sure they would be glad to speak with you. www.taalc.org/ or www.lcms.org/ or www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/ or www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl There. Now you don't even need a search engine. Some are hoping to stay within the ELCA to be a continued witness. I can't recommend this as look at how well their witness has affected the ELCA to this point. Others are in conversation with CORE, to see what exit door to take. LCMC is poular with some. There are other small groups which I can't name off the top of my head. Others are looking to the new Episcopalian communion on this side of the puddle. Or Rome, or Constantinople. I personally encourage you to look into the ones you listed above. If some or someone has abandoned Lutheranism, it is not God. No church / synod is perfect, and their are "issues" with any, but please keep the faith, and make connections. An interesting feature at wels.net is their Q & A feature. It's much more complete than FAQ at lcms.org, although LCMS would give you a personal reply instead of posting it on their website. Q & A will reply privately if that is your preference. To be somewhat complete here, there is also www.clclutheran.org/ at the end of the spectrum, although other Lutheran church bodies exist as well (historically, they have been listed in the back of the print edition of the YYYY Yearbook by Augsburg/Fortress (I just have an older copy) , listed under "Lutheran Churches in North America" opposite the "Statistics For YYYY: Lutheran Church Bodies In The United States And Canada." May God truly bless your journey.
Spelling error correction:
Posted by
rik
at
August 21, 2009 16:46
"LCMC is poular with some" should read: "LCMC is popular with some." Sorry.
Whom...
Posted by
ccb
at
August 21, 2009 17:24
Rik,
I appreciate your response.
You are right! -- To the One who has rescued us from sin, death, and the power of the devil. -- JESUS CHRIST.
He and Him alone.
This is the most precise answer to the question.
This is given Rik. With due respect may I ask (I know you've been most consistent with your Orthodox stance)... whom will you go? -- I will follow :-)
I appreciate your response.
You are right! -- To the One who has rescued us from sin, death, and the power of the devil. -- JESUS CHRIST.
He and Him alone.
This is the most precise answer to the question.
This is given Rik. With due respect may I ask (I know you've been most consistent with your Orthodox stance)... whom will you go? -- I will follow :-)
My recommendation
Posted by
rik
at
August 21, 2009 21:14
My personal recommendation would have to be the ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod--the remnant of the old Norwegian Synod [ELC]) or WELS, as this is solid ground. My wife and I are working through better understanding the fellowship principles held by the ELS & WELS. I believe one can find a good church within the LCMS, but I happen to be in a district which I believe to be less than conservative, and in my judgement I have concerns with the direction the LCMS is going. There was a time I thought it to be unchanging, but if you do your homework, I think you'll see that's not quite correct. Examples of changes: Roles of men and women, and in some congregations, close communion is eroding into open communion. I recognize the place for pastoral concern regarding communing someone, that the grace we receive in Holy Communion is the same grace we receive in hearing God's Word, and I think it's a good idea for someone to learn what a church believes before going up to the altar and silently bearing witness to a unity with that congregation which he/she might not share. I believe there is a vertical and horizontal relationship in the Eucharist (between myself and God, but also between myself and my fellow believers. I am trying to look at the WELS doctrine of prayer fellowship objectively, as they do not hold to a "levels of fellowship" approach to fellowship, but rather a unit approach (fellowship is fellowship). I think that ELS and WELS have been greatly misunderstood by mainstream Lutheranism in the USA, who loves to brand them with terms such as "Ultra-conservative" (I do not see this to be the case). I have learned so much sound theology from their pastors in Bible Study, and in my experience the Bible Studies I have attended recently in the LCMS appear rather shallow. But to be fair, not everyone is at the same point of understanding. People new to the faith would be more in need of "milk." I have experienced deep love and genuine concern from congregational members and pastors in WELS & ELS churches even though I had no natural connection (family, etc.)to their churches. I have likewise found members of LCMS churches to be rather caring as well. How do we get beyond surface relationships of "hi" and "goodbye"? By being in a smaller congregation, regularly attending Bible Study, and being active in asking questions, sharing comments, and getting involved in the life of the church and church members. Putting others' needs first, and praying for others helps too. Some in the LCMS seem to be buying into the Church Growth movement too much IMO. I'm not saying we can't learn anything from it, and while I see evangelism as a high priority, I understand the worship service to be the place to worship God and grow in our faith and knowledge, not to become entertainment to bring in the crowds. There are other opportunities to attract crowds outside of a Divine Service. I fear worship services turning into places of entertainment, and I have seen hymnals in some LCMS churches get little to no use as the non-Lutheran song lyrics with tricky rhythms are projected on a screen. I'm not opposed to everything new, and I enjoy adding some new songs, and new instrumentation to traditional hymnody, but I happen to value liturgical worship and do not see it as a great burden to the younger generation when people mean what they are saying/chanting/singing. I have heard that some WELS churches are exploring the church-growth movement, but to date I have not experienced that. My concern is that we not focus on the numbers of people attending, but rather the people who have been entrusted to their pastor, to shepherd. I am concerned when my LCMS church seeks to compete with the mega-churches, and I see a need for larger congregations to be active in church-planting and daughtering new congregations. This is where we stand. I was baptized in an LCA congregation in Chicago in the 60's and confirmed in an LCMS congregation in the 70's. I feel deep concern for those in the ELCA, having discussed faith with ELCA pastors myself, and even my wife came from an ELCA congregation. I hope this helps. Remember, God is in control.
Let's talk about the future!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 22, 2009 01:23
If some are ambiguous about context . . . then and now . . . . Paul was pretty clear about Christ's intention in preparing the Church.
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesisans 5: 25-27)
"Husbands, love your wives . . . ". What was that?
Sex is for marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman! Are you 100% and absolutely sure the Bible doesn't say such things??
Is this so hard?
Now that the vote is over, for me the question is “Can we tolerate a defiled bride?" Can we look the other way, because the ELCA has succumbed to some that feel unhappy feelings, and are offended by God's Word? I don’t think so. I don’t think Christ will either.
--Mike
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesisans 5: 25-27)
"Husbands, love your wives . . . ". What was that?
Sex is for marriage. Marriage is for a man and a woman! Are you 100% and absolutely sure the Bible doesn't say such things??
Is this so hard?
Now that the vote is over, for me the question is “Can we tolerate a defiled bride?" Can we look the other way, because the ELCA has succumbed to some that feel unhappy feelings, and are offended by God's Word? I don’t think so. I don’t think Christ will either.
--Mike
WHAT future?
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 01:32
CWA shot both Scripture and traditional Lutherans the bird this week.
As of this moment, I am officially in statu confessionis.
As of this moment, I am officially in statu confessionis.
Communion
Posted by
Henry
at
August 22, 2009 08:28
What we have witnessed is one group's "social ethic" trumping both the moral ethic, the Law written upon the heart, and the essential ethic of God's Holy Word. In a few minutes, the CWA will hold its final serivce of Holy Communion service in Hall D. It will dispense the Grace of Our Lord in the Sacrament and the forgiveness of sins to persons holding two opposing belief systems. In the following weeks, months and years, it will continue to do the same. Does this offend anyone?
Offended?
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 09:06
You bet.
To think that those holding orthodox Christian, Lutheran faith, as specified in that nasty Athanasian Creed, will be sharing the Body and Blood of the Lord with those who not only have disregarded the historic faith, but in some cases have mingled it with paganism (www.herchurch.org)...
To think that those holding orthodox Christian, Lutheran faith, as specified in that nasty Athanasian Creed, will be sharing the Body and Blood of the Lord with those who not only have disregarded the historic faith, but in some cases have mingled it with paganism (www.herchurch.org)...
Giving Offense: A One-Way Street?
Posted by
Henry
at
August 22, 2009 10:36
Gee. . .Didn't this whole mess start when one group claimed that it felt offended? Didn't the ELCA, just yesterday, affirm it's commitment to become more sensitive to that weaker conscience by embracing it within it's doors? Now that the weaker conscience has become strong, what will become of the ELCA's newly discovered sensitivity to my weaker conscience and its sense of offense at her abuse of the Holy Sacrament? . . . Will there be a little reciprocity here?
Frankly, I'd like to take my pet beagle, Rex, to communion in the ELCA. It's part of the family! Everyone loves Rex. Rex is harmless. Dogs, unlike human beings, have no soul or belief system . . .so the Sacrament can't harm them spiritually, like it can people, who can eat and drink to one's damnation. So, in my thinking, Rex's participation in the Eucharist would not be offensive as it would be to someone, like me, who feels that the Sacrament is being defiled by the deliberate, flippant and schizophrenic feeding of unrepentant souls! Besides, my kids would love to have Rex join us at the communion rail and share in the meal. . .just like at home!
Perhaps someday, we can only pray, the ELCA will realize that the Holy Spirit is working anew amongst us and it will learn to welcome these poor, loving pets within our communities into the life of the church.
Frankly, I'd like to take my pet beagle, Rex, to communion in the ELCA. It's part of the family! Everyone loves Rex. Rex is harmless. Dogs, unlike human beings, have no soul or belief system . . .so the Sacrament can't harm them spiritually, like it can people, who can eat and drink to one's damnation. So, in my thinking, Rex's participation in the Eucharist would not be offensive as it would be to someone, like me, who feels that the Sacrament is being defiled by the deliberate, flippant and schizophrenic feeding of unrepentant souls! Besides, my kids would love to have Rex join us at the communion rail and share in the meal. . .just like at home!
Perhaps someday, we can only pray, the ELCA will realize that the Holy Spirit is working anew amongst us and it will learn to welcome these poor, loving pets within our communities into the life of the church.
And our kitty...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 11:52
...though as picky as she is, she would look at the communion wafer and think "So?" and pull a face at the smell of the wine.
My question now is, since "all is permissible" has been taken to an illogical end, when do we start marrying consanguinary relatives who "love each other?"
My question now is, since "all is permissible" has been taken to an illogical end, when do we start marrying consanguinary relatives who "love each other?"
All is Permissible!
Posted by
ccb
at
August 24, 2009 12:43
Good point David! I was thinking of that. I see it coming.
Brother and sister
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 25, 2009 11:32
"Pastor, I'm Jim and this is Jane. We want you to marry us."
Interesting that you already have the same last name...
"We're brother and sister. We realised long ago that we were truly in love. We are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
Hmmm...I suppose we'll have to form a Task Force to study marrying close blood relatives. Come back again in about eight years.
Interesting that you already have the same last name...
"We're brother and sister. We realised long ago that we were truly in love. We are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
Hmmm...I suppose we'll have to form a Task Force to study marrying close blood relatives. Come back again in about eight years.
Beagles
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 11:54
I had a (part) beagle puppy as a little boy. My wife had two of them growing up. They are very nice, gentle, loving "people dogs." Certainly the fact that they are "nice" and "loving" qualifies them for admission to the Sacrament, based on current ELCA standards.
Henry, it's time for you to start Beagles Concerned to address this inequity and injustice. Rex must be fully included in the life of the Church.
Henry, it's time for you to start Beagles Concerned to address this inequity and injustice. Rex must be fully included in the life of the Church.
Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly..
Posted by
Henry
at
August 22, 2009 13:12
Good idea.
We'll call our new group KYON, the Greek word for Dog, from 2 Peter 2:20-23: If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
Say, isn't PETA part of the ELCA quota system?
We'll call our new group KYON, the Greek word for Dog, from 2 Peter 2:20-23: If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
Say, isn't PETA part of the ELCA quota system?
Dogs at communion
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 22, 2009 20:36
Dogs at communion: the analogy to the ELCA vote doesn't compute. I've had enough blaspheming of the Spirit for one day.
Blaspheming of the Spirit
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 21:36
Plenty of that went on in Minneapolis this week.
The analogy?
ANYTHING GOES in the "new, improved, inclusive" ELCA.
The analogy?
ANYTHING GOES in the "new, improved, inclusive" ELCA.
Response to David Pross
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 22, 2009 22:24
There are a number of things that many of us don't like, but it is not "anything goes", because there are still contstraints. The hyperbole, however, is not constructive. It's understable that people are frustrated, but that doesn't justify wingnut concepts, even for illustrative purposes. While it is arguable (in the minds of some) whether scripture is completely clear regarding ordaining gay or lesbian clergy, there is no question but that the hyperbolic illustration of dogs taking communion would have no scriptural validation, under any interpretation. So, let's at least keep the discussion civil and not overreach to the hypothetical absurd, which does nothing in seeking constructive solutions.
The ELCA is not my church body any more
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 22, 2009 22:55
I have declared in statu confessionis against the national leadership of the ELCA, and, after speaking to my pastor, I will send formal notice of such to my synod and to Bishop Hanson.
Therefore, I do not regard myself as being ELCA any more. I am Lutheran. Whether or not that will entail AALC, LCMC AFLC or back to LCMS, only God knows, and only time will tell.
I am still a member of my local congregation, which for the time being is still part of the ELCA.
What you saw from Henry and I is satire borne out of frustration and betrayal by what was our church.
I don't believe Scripture is unclear at all. Obviously what was my church body does.
Therefore, I do not regard myself as being ELCA any more. I am Lutheran. Whether or not that will entail AALC, LCMC AFLC or back to LCMS, only God knows, and only time will tell.
I am still a member of my local congregation, which for the time being is still part of the ELCA.
What you saw from Henry and I is satire borne out of frustration and betrayal by what was our church.
I don't believe Scripture is unclear at all. Obviously what was my church body does.
Bound Conscience Congregations
Posted by
Larry
at
August 23, 2009 09:04
I think it would be an interesting strategy if conservative ELCA congregations very quickly started declaring themselves to be "Bound Conscience Congregations". Start doing it immediately, without "permission" or waiting for an official "policy" to emerge from National HQ. They could still be formally part of the ELCA, but under protest, as it were. You could think of the BCC's as mirror images of the RIC congregations.
Probably not allowed
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 20:22
Under the new management of the ELCA, such congregations would probably be "encouraged" to leave; i.e., LCMC.
CORE
Posted by
Larry
at
August 25, 2009 08:21
David, I think that is pretty much what CORE is planning to do, setting up a cadre of conservative congregations within the ELCA. An alliance, a denomination within a denomination. They might not call them Bound Conscience Congregations; that was my little idea.
Embarassment
Posted by
Rik
at
August 25, 2009 10:37
I heard a news story this morning, before I entirely got up, about a Lutheran congregation (ELCA?) somewhere that covered over the name "Lutheran" on their church sign because of the embarrasment of what took place at the Churchwide Assembly (CWA) and all the press coverage of these dreadful decisions. I actually wish those who are seeking a "form" of Lutheranism without the substance therein would be the ones to dis the title "Lutheran." Why did they have to drag Martin's name in the mud?
Embarrassment
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 25, 2009 11:28
I hadn't heard that, Rik, but I imagine it well could have happened. I think it likely to have been an ELCA congregation, because other synods have taken the position (rightly) that they are not budging on the name "Lutheran" just because of the ELCA having fallen off the edge of the world.
Those of us remaining in the ELCA for now do face embarrassment. I may have to tell others, "I am in an ELCA congregation for now, but officially in confessional protest against the national body's actions." Our colleagues in the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LC-C and ELCIC (many of them, anyway) can honestly say they had nothing to do with this.
Those of us remaining in the ELCA for now do face embarrassment. I may have to tell others, "I am in an ELCA congregation for now, but officially in confessional protest against the national body's actions." Our colleagues in the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LC-C and ELCIC (many of them, anyway) can honestly say they had nothing to do with this.
Covering up "Lutheran"
Posted by
Larry
at
August 25, 2009 19:32
It was a church in Charleston, WV. I read about it on the ALPB boards, which is an excellent site, by the way. A lot of fine discussion there about the current situation, led by faithful pastors and laymen.
Picture
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 26, 2009 01:01
I saw it. Here's a link:
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/54534257.html
The bitter irony is that Pastor Mahan is probably more authentically Lutheran than the "majority" at CWA.
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/54534257.html
The bitter irony is that Pastor Mahan is probably more authentically Lutheran than the "majority" at CWA.
Blasphemy?
Posted by
Henry
at
August 23, 2009 07:40
Tell me, Kurt. . . Why are you not offended by a church body that plays Russian Roulette with its most Sacred and Holy Sacrament. . . a trust given to it by our Lord, who suffered and died out of perfect Love so that we might live with Him eternally? Do you not understand? The ELCA must now officially declare to both the unrepentant and repentant homosexual within its structure "You are not Guilty. . .Go in Peace," as if Christ our Lord said it to them Himself. Tell me, Kurt, when both the repentant and unrepentant then go away from the ELCA altar after receiving this Sacrament, each believing that he/she is forgiven, which one is Justified? As far as I can tell, this "church" cares not one whit about the eternal soul of the communicant, preferring only that its members just get along. . . . Talk about cheap Grace. And this this not offensive to you? Perhaps the throwing of Pearls to Swine is a more appropriate and less blasphemous analogy for you?
Being offensive
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 10:34
As Luther pointed out in FREEDOM OF A CHRISTIAN, we are freed to be accountable. You cannot be accountable for me, nor I for you. While I am pleased that you are concerned about my salvation, that is an issue for me to take up individually with God. People within a "denomination" disagree all the time. For example, the differences of belief regarding a physical, historical virgin birth have not caused a split in the denomination, yet those differences are there. What makes this new issue unique is the manner in which it is accompanied by such vitriol. I am astounded by it. I am not in complete agreement with the passage of these recommendations either, but I understand them in their context, and they do not cut me off from the ELCA. But I will not radicalize honest differences by promoting such analogies as dogs taking communion. You and Pross may consider it to be satire or justify it as the venting of frustration. Certainly, those in this discussion are more mature than that, or at least one would hope that such is the case. And make no mistake about it: no ELCA congregation has to "accept" a gay or lesbian as rostered clergy leadership. Passage of the new recommendation is less restrictive and conveys greater latitude, and the language seeks to work for solutions to this emerging issue in society and culture. But there is no movement anywhere to commune dogs, which (whether satire or not) suggests that gay and lesbian people are in that category, yet they are people created in the image of God. I pray that you and David will re-think your position on that.
Lost Sheep. . .Another Radical Animal Analogy, Kurt!
Posted by
Henry
at
August 23, 2009 12:21
My dear Sir. Do you sit by and allow, or encourage your children, or your neighbor's children, to go out and play in the middle of a busy street? Are you so callous, irresponsible, neglectful, selfish, or indifferent to their welfare that you leave it up to them to decide whether or not it is a good idea to do this?
For 2000+ years, Christians have, for sake of Christ the Good Shepherd and the Gospel, stood on the curb and called out to all of God's children playing in the middle of the street to stop playing in the street and come to the berm where it is safe with Christ. . . cause someone was sure to get hurt! This is what the church is all about.
For 2000+ years, Christians, out of love, have done the same thing to the many homosexuals who have lived and died on this earth. And countless numbers of lost homosexual souls have heard the voice of the Master, come to repentance, and found salvation in Christ.
Now this method been questioned and found wanting by a rebellious spirit, and has been undermined, to say the very least. For a number of years, one group within the ELCA has insisted that it is not such a bad idea to go playing out in the middle of the street. They reason, "It doesn't seem to hurt other groups who once thought this activity was dangerous." "Other Christians seem to be playing in the street with no real consequences." "Scripture that proscribed playing in the street is contextually irrelevant today." "God must have put those people in the middle of the street for a reason. Who are we to tell them it is wrong to play in the street?" "Instead of standing on the curb and shouting, which seems so negative, we Christians should be examples of faith and love and go out into the middle of the street and play with them too." or "We'll be Christ-like and play in the middle of the street, while you guys just keep playing on the sidewalk. . .We'll all pretend that everything's fine and just respect each other's consciences". . . . .
You may wish to trivialize, rationalize or remain in deep denial over what has happened at the CWA in Minneapolis over this past week, Kurt. But God is not mocked. He is not pleased by our foolishness, which constantly puts His Grace to the Test in the name of a counterfeit "love".
I'm afraid your cries of feigned outrage at my "dog" allusion, which I derived from Matthew 7 and 2 Peter 2:20-23 in this context, is as hollow and heartless as your theology. Please read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these words, dear Sir. They are His Words, not mine. I am simply a messenger. He who has ears, let him hear. May God have mercy on you and others who are tempted to disregard these clear words of warning!
For 2000+ years, Christians have, for sake of Christ the Good Shepherd and the Gospel, stood on the curb and called out to all of God's children playing in the middle of the street to stop playing in the street and come to the berm where it is safe with Christ. . . cause someone was sure to get hurt! This is what the church is all about.
For 2000+ years, Christians, out of love, have done the same thing to the many homosexuals who have lived and died on this earth. And countless numbers of lost homosexual souls have heard the voice of the Master, come to repentance, and found salvation in Christ.
Now this method been questioned and found wanting by a rebellious spirit, and has been undermined, to say the very least. For a number of years, one group within the ELCA has insisted that it is not such a bad idea to go playing out in the middle of the street. They reason, "It doesn't seem to hurt other groups who once thought this activity was dangerous." "Other Christians seem to be playing in the street with no real consequences." "Scripture that proscribed playing in the street is contextually irrelevant today." "God must have put those people in the middle of the street for a reason. Who are we to tell them it is wrong to play in the street?" "Instead of standing on the curb and shouting, which seems so negative, we Christians should be examples of faith and love and go out into the middle of the street and play with them too." or "We'll be Christ-like and play in the middle of the street, while you guys just keep playing on the sidewalk. . .We'll all pretend that everything's fine and just respect each other's consciences". . . . .
You may wish to trivialize, rationalize or remain in deep denial over what has happened at the CWA in Minneapolis over this past week, Kurt. But God is not mocked. He is not pleased by our foolishness, which constantly puts His Grace to the Test in the name of a counterfeit "love".
I'm afraid your cries of feigned outrage at my "dog" allusion, which I derived from Matthew 7 and 2 Peter 2:20-23 in this context, is as hollow and heartless as your theology. Please read, mark, learn and inwardly digest these words, dear Sir. They are His Words, not mine. I am simply a messenger. He who has ears, let him hear. May God have mercy on you and others who are tempted to disregard these clear words of warning!
Response to Henry
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 12:45
Henry, you and I need to have a long talk about the epistemology of scripture. Failing that, I hope you get the help you need.
Epistemology of Scripture 101, by Kurt Johnson
Posted by
Henry
at
August 23, 2009 18:25
Your on, Kurt. . .But only if you promise to restrict all of your thoughts, assertions and discourses to a non-classical, non-black and white, non-thesis/antithesis form of reasoning and communication. That way we can keep it all relative and post-modern, just for fun! This can be best accomplished, of course, if one skips their scheduled dose of Thorazine. Hey, maybe we'll even find Truth. . .or not!
Epistemology of Scripture 101, by Kurt Johnson
Posted by
Henry
at
August 23, 2009 18:28
Your on, Kurt. . .But only if you promise to restrict all of your thoughts, assertions and discourses to a non-classical, non-black and white, non-thesis/antithesis form of reasoning and communication. That way we can keep it all relative and post-modern, just the way you like it! This can be best accomplished, of course, if one skips their scheduled dose of Thorazine. Hey, maybe we'll even find Truth. . .or not!
Careful with diagnoses
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 20:20
"The help you need?"
Be careful with diagnoses. I can't do one on my own and don't try. I leave that up to the M.D.'s and D.O.'s.
Be careful with diagnoses. I can't do one on my own and don't try. I leave that up to the M.D.'s and D.O.'s.
Law and Gospel
Posted by
John
at
August 23, 2009 20:08
David, Henry, and Kurt:
If the three of you get together to discuss dogs and Gospel I would like to be a part of that discussion. It is quit clear that some in this group do not have a very clear understanding of the Gospel. Law is useful at times but to talk to each other as if the law were the way to respond to such difficuties is senseless and a dispointment to Christ. When you set up this get together let me know. And Kurt, hang in their the love of Christ is stronger than all of this anger and the Spirit more knowing than some would admit. John
If the three of you get together to discuss dogs and Gospel I would like to be a part of that discussion. It is quit clear that some in this group do not have a very clear understanding of the Gospel. Law is useful at times but to talk to each other as if the law were the way to respond to such difficuties is senseless and a dispointment to Christ. When you set up this get together let me know. And Kurt, hang in their the love of Christ is stronger than all of this anger and the Spirit more knowing than some would admit. John
Excuse me. . . .Minor Correction
Posted by
Henry
at
August 23, 2009 21:15
Oops, John. . . I think you meant to say in your heading, Law OR Gospel, not Law AND Gospel. How soon we forget. . . Haven't we just had a crash course on this dictum at the CWA?
You are forgiven!
(See, I'm learning. . . Absolution without Confession=Gospel, Right?)
You are forgiven!
(See, I'm learning. . . Absolution without Confession=Gospel, Right?)
Middle of the street
Posted by
John
at
August 23, 2009 21:04
Henry: If as you suggest God put them (I take it you mean those of the same gender) in the middle of the street he did so to have another opportunity to express to you how great and inclusive His love is.Please be grateful. John
your curb example isn't quite right
Posted by
Peter
at
August 23, 2009 21:21
Henry,
The big problem with your curb example is that Christ isn't standing on the curb calling out to the kids to get out of the street. He's going into the street and knocking them out of the way before the truck hits them at the cost of His life. Gay or straight, we're all out playing in the street. All we can do is trust that mercy on account of Christ's death and resurrection will save us.
There is a trend towards universalism in the ELCA, but it's important to remember that Lutheranism is balanced in between universalism and biblicism. It's faith in Christ alone and only, not anything goes, but also not 'try to do exactly everything that has been written in the Bible' either. On this issue, we have finally (started to) come into line with that Gospel.
The big problem with your curb example is that Christ isn't standing on the curb calling out to the kids to get out of the street. He's going into the street and knocking them out of the way before the truck hits them at the cost of His life. Gay or straight, we're all out playing in the street. All we can do is trust that mercy on account of Christ's death and resurrection will save us.
There is a trend towards universalism in the ELCA, but it's important to remember that Lutheranism is balanced in between universalism and biblicism. It's faith in Christ alone and only, not anything goes, but also not 'try to do exactly everything that has been written in the Bible' either. On this issue, we have finally (started to) come into line with that Gospel.
Christ Alone and Only: The Great Half-Truth
Posted by
Henry
at
August 23, 2009 23:32
No, Peter. . .The church is not a bunch of children playing out in the middle of the street, placing a misguided confidence in a false Christ who pushes one out of the way of a truck in the nick of time. That is the Gospel of the ELCA and your imagination. "Faith in Christ alone and only," certainly sounds Lutheran, Peter. But it is an evil half-truth which seeks to bind the Holy Spirit to words of comfort, alone and only. Our Lord taught us how to deal with this half-truth with His words of Law. . .words the CWA rejected this past week as a stumbling block. We are told not to put Him to a Foolish Test, and to not give that which is sacred to dogs, and to not throw pearls to swine, and to guard against false prophets who come into the church disguised in sheep's clothing, and that not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. . . . accusations of "legalism," "biblicism," "homophobia," "radicalism," "blasphemy," notwithstanding.
Universalism
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 24, 2009 11:14
In no way is Lutheranism balanced between biblicism and universalism.
Luther never taught that, and it's not in your favourite AC4.
More importantly, it is not in Scripture.
Luther never taught that, and it's not in your favourite AC4.
More importantly, it is not in Scripture.
You Might Want to Re-think Your Position
Posted by
Julie
at
August 23, 2009 13:29
I'm with David.
If you're offended by the puppy satire, then tell what you think about this...
http://www.herchurch.org/
I'm afraid this is what the ELCA is evolving into and I won't be any part it.
If you're offended by the puppy satire, then tell what you think about this...
http://www.herchurch.org/
I'm afraid this is what the ELCA is evolving into and I won't be any part it.
Response to Julie
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 13:43
The existence of the "herchurch" operation doesn't justify the "dog communion" satire. Yes, there are many of us who don't agree with either the manifestation or the symbolism of "herchurch". I disagree with a lot of sermons I hear as well as a lot of the posts on Lutheran Forum. But none of those cause me to use blasphemous hyperbole to make a point. I don't think "herchurch" is consistent with the Augsburg Confession or with scripture, but that fact doesn't cause me to to reject sound doctrine or to resort to hyperbole in discussing controversial doctrine. The hyperbole disenfranchises dialogue. Traditionalists want to pretend that we live in a black-or-white world with nothing to be discussed beyond doctrinal fiat. We don't live in that world, and neither did Luther. In truth, the anger of the traditionalists has gone out of control ("dog-communion") when, in fact, the sexuality statements which passed at the ELCA don't exclude anyone. A local congregation doesn't have to accept a gay or lesbian pastor and doesn't have to use allegedly Wiccan symbols. The Gospel is bigger than that, especially in a diverse culture and a diverse denomination, and as Luther stated in FREEDOM OF THE CHRISTIAN, the choice is up to us, not only with regard to our own theology, but also with regard to our own concerns about salvific teleology. You don't have to take communion at "herchurch" if you care not to do that. The ELCA is not the pope ... it is only an organized denomination with programs of ministry. Neither the ELCA nor any of its predecessors can provide your salvation, if that is the focus of your concern. You and God need to deal with that one-to-one, as is the case with all of us.
"Herchurch"
Posted by
Julie
at
August 23, 2009 15:15
I didn't suggest that I expect the ELCA or any of its predecessors to provide my salvation. What I expect from ELCA churches is to deliver sound doctrine based on the Word of God - not to serve as some sanctuary for secular, liberal, feminist, gay, lesbian political thought. You think the anger of the traditionalists has gotten out of control? My friend, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Response to Julie
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 15:29
Thanks for the heads-up on the "threat". It's the love of Christ which I promote. The "You ain't seen nuthin' " mentality never works. Anger and retribution never work, as you'll soon discover.
Anger and retribution
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 20:17
Then what of Goodsoil's comment of "if the church doesn't recognise our gifts of ministry, justice demands we burn it to the ground?"
And regarding the little blurb about Beagles Concerned, where's your sense of humour? I think it was patently obvious that Henry and I were being facetious. I can have a very caustic wit; kind of a Scottish/Irish thing, and sometimes it's not easy to understand.
But the gays, having declared victory, have got to be fools if they think that this will just all come out (sorry!) in the wash.
And regarding the little blurb about Beagles Concerned, where's your sense of humour? I think it was patently obvious that Henry and I were being facetious. I can have a very caustic wit; kind of a Scottish/Irish thing, and sometimes it's not easy to understand.
But the gays, having declared victory, have got to be fools if they think that this will just all come out (sorry!) in the wash.
Response to David
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 20:44
I don't speak for GoodSoil, so don't try to hold me accountable for anyone other than myself. There are inappropriate comments on all sides here. ... I have a keen sense of humor, but this situation is not humorous, and a Scottish-Irish heritage, nor any other heritage, justifies such rancor. It certainly doesn't excuse comparing communing with gays and lesbians to communing with dogs. ... I haven't seen any documentation suggesting that "gays" are saying it will all come out in the wash." The ones from which I have heard are very concerned about the vitriol from traditionalists and have not been triumphant or "in your face" about it. I'm not so naive' as to think that this vote would avoid people being angry, but I never expected what I have read in a number of traditionalists' posts. What's really a shame is that some traditionalists have chosen to go down this path.
God is at it again
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 20:51
And now, after some critical of the ELCA vote in Minneapolis on human sexuality claim that God sent a tornado to take the steeple off of Central Lutheran Church and tear up a tent to be used by those in favor of the change, we get this report from the NY Times: "Nine people were hospitalized Sunday after a rogue wave from Hurricane Bill slammed into some rocks on the coast of Maine and swept 20 people out to sea." Perhaps those who understand how God works through the weather can explain that one.
Grow a spine!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 23, 2009 21:26
This is spiritual warfare . . . you're right in the middle of it . . . no less the participant than any other here . . . no more moral for sure.
--Mike
--Mike
Response to Mike
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 21:42
I've never even considered the notion that I'm "no more moral." But I choose how to participate along with the rest of you, and my choice of style is somewhat different.
Your style is different?
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 23, 2009 21:56
Kurt,
What happened to . . . .
"What's really a shame is that some traditionalists have chosen to go down this path."
Your tone has changed considerably in less than an hour.
I like the more combative style you employed earlier . . . though I felt no more shame because of it.
--Mike
What happened to . . . .
"What's really a shame is that some traditionalists have chosen to go down this path."
Your tone has changed considerably in less than an hour.
I like the more combative style you employed earlier . . . though I felt no more shame because of it.
--Mike
I think you're overreacting
Posted by
Peter
at
August 23, 2009 21:40
Kurt,
I'm with Henry and David on Beagles Concerned. I don't think the hatred that you see was there, or even an implied 'communing with homosexuals is like communing with dogs' was there (note David's 'and my kitty' in his subject line. They're talking about beloved family pets and I don't see how or what derogatory point could be made directly on the basis of comparing homosexuals to beloved family pets). It certainly reflected a fair amount of bitterness and frustration, but given the circumstances, I think that was a humorous and fairly constructive form of venting that bitterness and frustration, and nothing remotely meriting classification as 'vitriol'.
I'm with Henry and David on Beagles Concerned. I don't think the hatred that you see was there, or even an implied 'communing with homosexuals is like communing with dogs' was there (note David's 'and my kitty' in his subject line. They're talking about beloved family pets and I don't see how or what derogatory point could be made directly on the basis of comparing homosexuals to beloved family pets). It certainly reflected a fair amount of bitterness and frustration, but given the circumstances, I think that was a humorous and fairly constructive form of venting that bitterness and frustration, and nothing remotely meriting classification as 'vitriol'.
Response to Peter
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 21:44
I understand humor. I also understand that humor is dangerous in very serious situations. Dangerous as well is the venting of frustration without choosing one's words carefully.
did you find Catch-22 humorous?
Posted by
Peter
at
August 23, 2009 22:03
Kurt,
I think it's far more dangerous to read too much into facetious statements and react based on that. I think the world would be a better place if every single person who was upset with this decision vented it solely by forming Beagles Concerned.
I think it's far more dangerous to read too much into facetious statements and react based on that. I think the world would be a better place if every single person who was upset with this decision vented it solely by forming Beagles Concerned.
Actually, Peter...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 23:18
...thank you!
Out of all the people on this board, you are the one who "got it" regarding mine and Henry's diversion into matters canine and feline.
Out of all the people on this board, you are the one who "got it" regarding mine and Henry's diversion into matters canine and feline.
If the Canine shoe fits. . . . . .
Posted by
Henry
at
August 24, 2009 07:20
Kurt. When one lacks a moral ethic and has discarded Biblical truth as a guide for one's conscience, one is left with only social ethics by which one can become "outraged". As such, I was probably asking a bit too much of you to truly understand the righteous anger expressed in my original and subsequent posts regarding dogs attending the ELCA communion. Together with that sense of victimhood which you, and others who think like you, have been taught and have grown accustomed to (your "Christian" entitlement, I suppose) expressing outrage about things peripheral to the core issues do serve a useful purpose in helping to silence one's opponents. But if you have the intellectual honesty to re-read my posts and understand the biblical underpinnings therein you will see that the dichotomy, the contradiction in beliefs, and schizophrenia within the ELCA, which is so evidently clear to me, remains unanswered. I'm still waiting for someone to resolve this question: When two homosexuals receive absolution in the ELCA: one after they have repented, the other devoid of it, which one goes away justified?
Check your Spelling.
Posted by
Rik
at
August 25, 2009 11:05
Kurt, I seek to correct your spelling errors in your "Response to Julie." You wrote, "The ELCA is not the pope ... it is only an organized denomination with programs of ministry." Surely, you meant: "The ELCA is not the pope ... it is only an organized denomination with pograms of misery." Would this last Churchwide Assembly be a good example of that? May God grand recovery to the remnant who suffered under the hands of the worldly revisionists. You think "The Gospel is bigger than that, especially in a diverse culture and a diverse denomination..." If you empty the meaning from the letters that spell "Gospel", you can make that English word mean anything you would like it to mean. But a language needs to be a shared communication where a word does not mean one thing to one and something else to another. If you make "Good News" mean anything but the true Good News (eu-angelion) of the one true gospel, your left with news that is not worth hearing in contrast to the news that although we deserved death for our sins against God and our neighbors, Jesus stood in our place and took our punishment for us. We must repent and trust Jesus and His great exchange, leaving us with His perfection and covering us with His robe of righteousness.
CWA result
Posted by
Lost and confused
at
August 23, 2009 13:04
Sarah, Very good article but why should I stay in the ELCA? I am so upset about this and I find no good reason to stay.
what's actually different?
Posted by
Peter
at
August 23, 2009 21:54
For all that we believe this to have been a big issue (and are correspondingly hopeful/bitter about it), and today's sermon in most ELCA churches probably related to this decision, what has actually changed? What was different in your church today? Multiple viewpoints (and practices) on this issue and others were already in existance. There were ELCA churches that called openly gay pastors (through the extraordinary ministry), and many more who clearly looked the other way for gay pastors' partners. You may hear about a lot of pastors who suddenly have spouses, but I would guess that they've had them for a while and the only new thing is that the community is actively encouraged to help them maintain a faithful and committed relationship. And if you're at a church with a suddenly homosexual pastor suddenly in a relationship, what has really changed about him? Does being openly gay make what he has to say any less insightful?
At the congregational level, it's way more about dynamics of congregations than what the ELCA has passed. If 90% of your congregation believes homosexuality to be a sin, I would be very surprised if it calls a homosexual pastor in the first place, especially one with a partner. Can and will bishops play politics with this issue? Sure, but how is that different from any of the other games bishops play with congregations?
CWA is way more of a reflection of what has already happened in the ELCA than anything enforcing change.
At the congregational level, it's way more about dynamics of congregations than what the ELCA has passed. If 90% of your congregation believes homosexuality to be a sin, I would be very surprised if it calls a homosexual pastor in the first place, especially one with a partner. Can and will bishops play politics with this issue? Sure, but how is that different from any of the other games bishops play with congregations?
CWA is way more of a reflection of what has already happened in the ELCA than anything enforcing change.
What's changed?
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 23, 2009 22:04
The "official" truth has changed Peter! The Bible is now secondary to our enlightened minds. God isn't smart enough to get it right for all time.
There's a new and big and ugly stain on the bride's wedding dress!
I talked to the president of our congregation this evening . . . . I was grinning from ear to ear. Our church has always tithed to the ELCA . . . . sounds like that situation is changing!!!
--Mike
There's a new and big and ugly stain on the bride's wedding dress!
I talked to the president of our congregation this evening . . . . I was grinning from ear to ear. Our church has always tithed to the ELCA . . . . sounds like that situation is changing!!!
--Mike
Question for Mike
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 23, 2009 22:21
And so, Mike, what were you grinning about?
Answer
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 23, 2009 22:29
The words about the rustling "Winds of Change" (Russ Taff anyone?) were music to my ears.
--Mike
--Mike
One more thought
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 23, 2009 22:39
"And if you're at a church with a suddenly homosexual pastor suddenly in a relationship, what has really changed about him? Does being openly gay make what he has to say any less insightful?"
Yes . . . based on the Bible, I'd say "much less credible".
If I were in such a congregation and after hearing from him for the first time about the consequences of my sin, I'd ask him how many votes it would take to get the situation changed!!
--Mike
Yes . . . based on the Bible, I'd say "much less credible".
If I were in such a congregation and after hearing from him for the first time about the consequences of my sin, I'd ask him how many votes it would take to get the situation changed!!
--Mike
What has already happened
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 23, 2009 23:28
Peter, for the second time tonight I am agreeing with you. Did I forget to take my meds tonight? When you start getting old, you start forgetting things like that.
Actually, back in 2001 I predicted that by the time this malarky sorted itself out, the only "vote" would be to formalise an already extant situation.
Actually, back in 2001 I predicted that by the time this malarky sorted itself out, the only "vote" would be to formalise an already extant situation.
Re: CWA Result
Posted by
Ben
at
August 24, 2009 06:25
"The Lord says: ‘These people come near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. Their worship of Me is made up only of rules taught by men.’" Isaiah 29:13.
Let's face it...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 24, 2009 11:23
...we got our kiesters kicked at CWA.
That stinks, but it is REALITY.
The time for licking our wounds and griping about it is past. We were outmanouevred, helped along by a complicit ELCA leadership. Reality.
Now we have to formulate where we go next. We have allies in LutheranCORE and WordAlone, just as the gays did in Lutherans Concerned and Goodsoil (is there really any more need for either of them to exist, since they got what they wanted, unless they next try to set their sights on the LCMS?). We have people praying for us in the LCMS, WELS, ELS and Lutheran Church - Canada.
We can be a resistance movement within the ELCA, or we can ultimately break away.
But we cannot have a re-do of CWA 2009. I thoroughly doubt that CWA 2011 would even accept the restoration of V&E as an order of business.
It is time to go on.
That stinks, but it is REALITY.
The time for licking our wounds and griping about it is past. We were outmanouevred, helped along by a complicit ELCA leadership. Reality.
Now we have to formulate where we go next. We have allies in LutheranCORE and WordAlone, just as the gays did in Lutherans Concerned and Goodsoil (is there really any more need for either of them to exist, since they got what they wanted, unless they next try to set their sights on the LCMS?). We have people praying for us in the LCMS, WELS, ELS and Lutheran Church - Canada.
We can be a resistance movement within the ELCA, or we can ultimately break away.
But we cannot have a re-do of CWA 2009. I thoroughly doubt that CWA 2011 would even accept the restoration of V&E as an order of business.
It is time to go on.
Spirit speaking
Posted by
John
at
August 24, 2009 18:33
David: Could it be that the Spirit would like for you to cool it for awhile. Just sit back now after the vote and think about what happened and about what is going on. Perhaps the Spirit's work in the Assembly indicates that a new message is to be heard and given careful thought. Don't think so much about what your going to do right now. Give the Spirit a chance to work within both you and me. John
ELCA Decisions
Posted by
Ed James
at
August 24, 2009 18:52
I am a Lutheran layman who did not grow up in the Lutheran church but was adopted by the church 40 some years ago. I have followed the course of events closely. One of our Sunday School teachers brought things into focus this weekend when he pointed to his heart and asked "How can I teach my church learned values to kids knowing all the time that our church body does not share those values"? I was moved by his remarks. The idea of living with out differences will not hold up. The new theology of the church will fall downward and become all encompassing within a generation. Simply having the freedom not to choose a homosexual won't mean much when our seminaries and our clergy become of one mind. It took a couple days following the assembly for me to fully realize that long term the ELCA will not be a proper fit for our congregation. Sadly.
Cool it for a while? Just sit back?
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 24, 2009 21:21
Sounds like sound guidance . . . not.
Instead . . . .
"Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world."
--Mike
Instead . . . .
"Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experience of suffering is required of your brotherhood throughout the world."
--Mike
Sober
Posted by
Paul Grunzweig
at
August 25, 2009 09:56
Is this the Mike Bauman that has Grandpa Al for a dad ?
Even if not, a well spoken word.
Even if not, a well spoken word.
Sobriety is a good thing!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 25, 2009 12:30
Yep . . . that's me. Thanks be to God . . . his words came to mind.
Aren't you VP of the Council? Care to share what are thinking from a leadership standpoint? :-)
--Mike
Aren't you VP of the Council? Care to share what are thinking from a leadership standpoint? :-)
--Mike
It may be "spirit"...
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 25, 2009 01:59
...but I doubt VERY much it was the HOLY Spirit.
The Holy Spirit will not do anything contrary to Scripture.
The fifth-columnists like Lutherans Concerned and Goodsoil did not sit idle for the past eight years, and now they are in control.
It is time to stand and fight, or light the pipes and bug out.
The Holy Spirit will not do anything contrary to Scripture.
The fifth-columnists like Lutherans Concerned and Goodsoil did not sit idle for the past eight years, and now they are in control.
It is time to stand and fight, or light the pipes and bug out.
Discern the spirits?
Posted by
Rik
at
August 25, 2009 10:23
John wrote: "David: Could it be that the Spirit would like for you to cool it for awhile..." and "Perhaps the Spirit's work in the Assembly indicates that a new message is to be heard and given careful thought." "Could it be...?" "Perhaps?" It sounds very new-agey! And what is the substance of the councel given? "cool it for awhile." "Just sit back now...and think about what happened and about what is going on." "Don't think so much about what your going to do right now." What is the purpose of these requests to take it easy? From my perspective it could be pretty much one of two things: The first is really good advice: After all that stress, take the time to come up for air. "Think about what happened" can add additional stress, unless one thinks about it calmly and constructively, in perspective, and considers the options one has wisely. The second thing this advise could do is indeed harmful, and the work of the enemy: "Don't think so much..." and similar thoughts can encourage us to withdraw from the reality of what has just happen, lulling us into a type of sleep that makes it possible for us to almost pretend the CWA '09 never even happened. But is it not now a time for action? To me, the advice above is not seeking to discern the Spirit from the written Word of God--which is the only source we have of the revelation of God in Christ Jesus. Instead, I get the impression that we are being asked to get in touch with our feelings, or perhaps our "inner self" or some such thing in order to guess at what the Spirit might say to us if He were to say something today." I see nothing in the Tanakh, the Gospels, the Epistles or History books which advices that we sit around and guess at what the Spirit is thinking. No, John certainly didn't say anything about "inner self", nor what I have to say next, but such focus and guessing and getting in touch with what the spirit might be projecting to our thoughts sounds more like what one might try to do with a ouiji board. We do well to avoid knee-jerk decisions, responding purely out of anger and frustration. But one will hardly take a stand against a church which has no-to-little-use for the whole counsel of the Word of God by resigning themselves to slip off into slumber and inaction. Apparantly, the majority at the CWA did not have a problem with distancing the ELCA from her sister churches on the other side of the globe, or her ecumenical partners, or the Church throuout the Ages. If one is to separate from such infidelity to Scripture and apostasy, now would be the ideal time, IMO. You would not be the ones causing divisions in the church. The ones who believe they over-rided the Bible, trumping it with their commitment to popular culture (read: the ways of the world)--they are the ones who caused divisions to the body, and healing will not take place by compromising with those who have left God's Word behind. May God grant all of us the wisdom we need at this crucial hour, and keep us alert when the enemy would softly seek to lull us off to compromise, helplessness, ineffectiveness, and spiritual sleep. I am not saying that this was the intent of John's post above. I am, however, warning against such an attack from the enemy. Use sober judgement, and "Speak the truth in love."
Feelings
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 25, 2009 11:22
Rik, you nailed it.
This was all about FEELINGS, nothing more than FEELINGS.
Those who FELT excluded by the nasty ELCA's policies.
It FELT like the right thing to do to overthrow them.
You are dead on. The revisionists are the ones who caused the division by being so myopically focussed on this issue that I think the ELCA finally cried "uncle!" I would hazard a guess that many who voted in favour of this just did so because they wanted it to be OVER.
Guess what? The fat lady hasn't sang yet.
This was all about FEELINGS, nothing more than FEELINGS.
Those who FELT excluded by the nasty ELCA's policies.
It FELT like the right thing to do to overthrow them.
You are dead on. The revisionists are the ones who caused the division by being so myopically focussed on this issue that I think the ELCA finally cried "uncle!" I would hazard a guess that many who voted in favour of this just did so because they wanted it to be OVER.
Guess what? The fat lady hasn't sang yet.
To bad
Posted by
John
at
August 25, 2009 14:07
Rik: Sorry you have to figure out what I am saying. It was really as simple as I could express it and it had no dark meaning. What you concluded from all your writing seemed quit inmature to me. Now make out something dark about that. John
To John:
Posted by
Rik
at
August 25, 2009 16:23
I think you missed what I really wrote: "John certainly didn't say anything about "inner self", nor what I have to say next, but such focus and guessing and getting in touch with what the spirit might be projecting to our thoughts..." and "I am not saying that this was the intent of John's post above." So obviously I wasn't accusing you of any 'dark meaning'. Here I went out of my way to put these statements in so it was obvious I was not saying "this is what John really intended to say" and you still assume that I blamed you for all these possible interpretations. I simply stated that it could be interpreted in a good way (get over the stress) or in a bad way. I have better things to do with my time than 'making something dark' about your posts. And what do you find immature? Warning people about spiritual warfare? It's too late for you to warn St. Paul about that...Ephesians chapter six was written centuries ago! Too bad, John.
Warfare
Posted by
John
at
August 25, 2009 16:43
Rik: Describe for me what warfare you are fighting. Who in our day and the present situation are the enemy? Why do we need to do war against them? Who are you fighting this war for? Who is your general and what is he asking of you? When do you know who has the victory? What will that victory mean for you if you win? Why is it too bad for me?
Rik and David have worked really hard . . .
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 25, 2009 17:49
. . . to describe why your written words are so alarming. Now you respond with nine straight requests/questions? You're asking for another Biblical butt-kicking from Rik.
"Don't think so much about what your going to do right now." Are you so self-absorbed . . . so insensitive. David just got his denomination taken away from him!!!
I'll say it out loud . . . you've been deceived.
This movement you support is about living a life "of the world, full of sin, obeying Satan, the mighty prince of the power of the air. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God." That's more Ephesians - Chapter 2. (Rik's earlier citation seemed lost on you)
There . . . . might this response answer a question or two?
--Mike
"Don't think so much about what your going to do right now." Are you so self-absorbed . . . so insensitive. David just got his denomination taken away from him!!!
I'll say it out loud . . . you've been deceived.
This movement you support is about living a life "of the world, full of sin, obeying Satan, the mighty prince of the power of the air. He is the spirit at work in the hearts of those who refuse to obey God." That's more Ephesians - Chapter 2. (Rik's earlier citation seemed lost on you)
There . . . . might this response answer a question or two?
--Mike
Talk
Posted by
John
at
August 25, 2009 19:55
Mike: You really don't know what your talking about.
At least not enough to judge another persons faith. John
At least not enough to judge another persons faith. John
Don't be so presumptuous!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 25, 2009 20:59
Deflect all you want. You know more than me . . . even about your truth? I disagree. I've compared your truth to Holy Scripture. It stinks!!
I'm not judging your faith. I'm judging your behaviors. The Bible doesn't say we should suspend our mental faculties. It says we should not judge another's eternal destination! That leaves me lots of room . . . constrained by the Truth that is the Bible . . . . of course!
Thinking more about recent events, I guess I am limited . . . . I can't make up a spirit . . . and suggest it work in you. That would not be truthful and faithful to the one and Holy God and Holy Spirit.
--Mike
I'm not judging your faith. I'm judging your behaviors. The Bible doesn't say we should suspend our mental faculties. It says we should not judge another's eternal destination! That leaves me lots of room . . . constrained by the Truth that is the Bible . . . . of course!
Thinking more about recent events, I guess I am limited . . . . I can't make up a spirit . . . and suggest it work in you. That would not be truthful and faithful to the one and Holy God and Holy Spirit.
--Mike
cut and paste link, please.
Posted by
Rik
at
August 25, 2009 19:36
Here's your answer, John.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:10-20&version=NIV And it''s too bad that it's too late for you to warn Paul vonTarsus about his alleged immaturity (if that was what you FELT was immature--You never did tell me what you were refering to re: immaturity. Be sure to read the link. If someone else is more advanced--more computer-savy--would you please insert a hyperlink (button?) for this link to BibleGateway, Ephesians 6:10-20 NIV. If someone can do this, thanks in advance!!!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:10-20&version=NIV And it''s too bad that it's too late for you to warn Paul vonTarsus about his alleged immaturity (if that was what you FELT was immature--You never did tell me what you were refering to re: immaturity. Be sure to read the link. If someone else is more advanced--more computer-savy--would you please insert a hyperlink (button?) for this link to BibleGateway, Ephesians 6:10-20 NIV. If someone can do this, thanks in advance!!!
I am truely interested.
Posted by
Rik
at
August 25, 2009 19:51
Rik: I am not making fun. I would truly like to know how you are applying
the last section of Eph. six to our day. Thus the questions. A answer from Gateway will not do the job. Do you want to share or not? Jack
the last section of Eph. six to our day. Thus the questions. A answer from Gateway will not do the job. Do you want to share or not? Jack
or not?
Posted by
Rik
at
August 27, 2009 12:45
I do not need to belabor the point by connecting the dots, Jack. If some don't have eyes to see, I guess that's just how it is. I've tried patiently to respond to you and others, but I am done explaining things in general ad infinitum, and St. Paul explains my specific point better than I would be able to myself.
On another point of business, I wonder what you think of a video on YouTube called "Lutherans Endorse Homosexuality God Sends Tornado!" by LogosApologia. I will try a bit of technology here to see if LF accepts this, but on the chance that it doesn't, the URL is http://www.casttv.com/search/ELCA%20tornado%20Minneapolis/1 "Miracle tornado"? You decide. If what's left of the ELCA is looking for a new, updated logo cross, I nominate the upside-down cross of Central Lutheran, Minneapolis, MN. That symbol speaks volumes. Now, I don't agree with everything in this video 100%, but it is definately worth watching and sharing. Any reactions? <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALk1z5euBxI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALk1z5euBxI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
On another point of business, I wonder what you think of a video on YouTube called "Lutherans Endorse Homosexuality God Sends Tornado!" by LogosApologia. I will try a bit of technology here to see if LF accepts this, but on the chance that it doesn't, the URL is http://www.casttv.com/search/ELCA%20tornado%20Minneapolis/1 "Miracle tornado"? You decide. If what's left of the ELCA is looking for a new, updated logo cross, I nominate the upside-down cross of Central Lutheran, Minneapolis, MN. That symbol speaks volumes. Now, I don't agree with everything in this video 100%, but it is definately worth watching and sharing. Any reactions? <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALk1z5euBxI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ALk1z5euBxI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
you left out an important detail
Posted by
Peter
at
August 29, 2009 01:46
Rik,
The sun came out as soon as the resolution passed and God provided exactly enough votes for it. The problem with weather signs is that tornado could well have been a warning to those against the sexuality statement.
The sun came out as soon as the resolution passed and God provided exactly enough votes for it. The problem with weather signs is that tornado could well have been a warning to those against the sexuality statement.
Idolatry on Display
Posted by
Henry
at
August 25, 2009 17:33
The events of this past week provide us with a great and tragic lesson about ourselves. They demonstrate the profound wickedness of mankind and the ease at which "Christians" can become idolaters.
Rather than praising our Lord for his constant Mercy in saving us sinners (an act that is totally unjust, but one which we surely desire) we prefer to protest the seeming unfairness of a inscrutable God who would prohibit us sinners from having what which we desire (an act that is totally just). . . So our trust in Him is wholly dependent on whether or not His actions agree with our interests!
It is in this way we convict ourselves: We follow a God of our own making!
Rather than praising our Lord for his constant Mercy in saving us sinners (an act that is totally unjust, but one which we surely desire) we prefer to protest the seeming unfairness of a inscrutable God who would prohibit us sinners from having what which we desire (an act that is totally just). . . So our trust in Him is wholly dependent on whether or not His actions agree with our interests!
It is in this way we convict ourselves: We follow a God of our own making!
Idolatry . . . one man's brief perspective
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 25, 2009 18:16
Great post Henry!
I referred to myself as a man. Oops. In the new and recent "truth", references to gender are frowned upon. We're now trying to minimalize such distinctions. Right?
Yes - you're right . . . a father we've fabricated . . . a father that doesn't know as well as we do . . . what's best for us.
One in three with a son that only saves . . . maybe (not) . . . he's certainly not our Lord and Teacher and Redeemer.
The third is a spirit that seems to be decreasingly described as Holy . . . a spirit that never convicts us of our sins. I'm not sure what this new spirit does . . . when he/she/it "moves" in us??
Let's read it again . . . . as we meditate on it - let's FEEL it this time . . . the spirit "MOVES" in us.
Nope . . nope . . . focus on your Ki this time.
I give up. I need lot's of practice to be a new lutheran.
Good thing many things are easier in this new lutheranism. Many lutheran pastors believe the devil is pure symbolism . . . a metaphor . . . nothing to be feared. Many lutheran pastors believe all roads lead to God. Jesus Christ is optional.
Maybe I don't need much practice? It's WONDERFUL! The sinner in me loves this new lutheranism!!! It makes me FEEL good!! After all, that's what it's all about!!
--Mike
I referred to myself as a man. Oops. In the new and recent "truth", references to gender are frowned upon. We're now trying to minimalize such distinctions. Right?
Yes - you're right . . . a father we've fabricated . . . a father that doesn't know as well as we do . . . what's best for us.
One in three with a son that only saves . . . maybe (not) . . . he's certainly not our Lord and Teacher and Redeemer.
The third is a spirit that seems to be decreasingly described as Holy . . . a spirit that never convicts us of our sins. I'm not sure what this new spirit does . . . when he/she/it "moves" in us??
Let's read it again . . . . as we meditate on it - let's FEEL it this time . . . the spirit "MOVES" in us.
Nope . . nope . . . focus on your Ki this time.
I give up. I need lot's of practice to be a new lutheran.
Good thing many things are easier in this new lutheranism. Many lutheran pastors believe the devil is pure symbolism . . . a metaphor . . . nothing to be feared. Many lutheran pastors believe all roads lead to God. Jesus Christ is optional.
Maybe I don't need much practice? It's WONDERFUL! The sinner in me loves this new lutheranism!!! It makes me FEEL good!! After all, that's what it's all about!!
--Mike
Junk
Posted by
Mike
at
August 25, 2009 19:46
Mike: I would classify your last post as junk mail that has no true value in it. John
Junk?? That's ELCA theology!!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 25, 2009 20:32
Your "classification" is what spiritual warfare is all about!!
I'm not surprised you ignore the reality . . . the madness that is the ELCA these days. Wake up!
--Mike
I'm not surprised you ignore the reality . . . the madness that is the ELCA these days. Wake up!
--Mike
To John:
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 25, 2009 20:45
John,
Please don't ever author another post using my first name!! Your ambivalence and worldliness might confuse others.
This reprimand to you is fitting and a little ironic . . . just a few hours ago described how you've been deceived.
I think this could've been a Holy Spirit moment . . . which is very much unlike a spirit moment.
--Mike
Please don't ever author another post using my first name!! Your ambivalence and worldliness might confuse others.
This reprimand to you is fitting and a little ironic . . . just a few hours ago described how you've been deceived.
I think this could've been a Holy Spirit moment . . . which is very much unlike a spirit moment.
--Mike
Amen!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 25, 2009 22:43
Peace. Yes. Adding to your earlier sentiment . . . the Joy of the Lord our Master and Authority to you. Praise be to the Father . . . our King. Most High is the Holy Spirit!
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
"
May we all hear and respect and obey the Word in greater ways tomorrow.
--Mike
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
"
May we all hear and respect and obey the Word in greater ways tomorrow.
--Mike
Chilling effect
Posted by
Kurt Johnson
at
August 26, 2009 19:39
This last round of posts apparently has chilled out this blog, and it has dried up.
Hopeless
Posted by
John
at
August 26, 2009 22:10
Kurt: I think some have seen me as a hopeless sinner. I wonder if they would at least like to know where I stand on the vote. John
Dried up
Posted by
David Pross
at
August 26, 2009 22:59
You could well be right, Kurt.
This thread was about the CWA.
CWA is over.
The results are the results and cannot be changed.
I think most have said their bit, with various degrees of diplomacy or lack thereof.
There are a lot of ill feelings, and the respective parties are probably planning on what to do next.
The pro-gay lobby crowd are savouring their victory and acting on it; i.e., the lifting of (largely meaningless) sanctions against the churches who violated V&E and preparing to roster the "out" clergy who had been struck off charge (again largely meaningless) like Anita Hill, Steve Sabin and Bradley Schmeling.
Those of us who lost are licking our wounds and planning our next moves. I read a statement that said the ELCA could lose something like 200 congregations in the initial wave of defections.
So, really, to comment any more on what happened last week, from any perspective would be kind of like flogging a dead horse.
I have nothing more to say about it.
This thread was about the CWA.
CWA is over.
The results are the results and cannot be changed.
I think most have said their bit, with various degrees of diplomacy or lack thereof.
There are a lot of ill feelings, and the respective parties are probably planning on what to do next.
The pro-gay lobby crowd are savouring their victory and acting on it; i.e., the lifting of (largely meaningless) sanctions against the churches who violated V&E and preparing to roster the "out" clergy who had been struck off charge (again largely meaningless) like Anita Hill, Steve Sabin and Bradley Schmeling.
Those of us who lost are licking our wounds and planning our next moves. I read a statement that said the ELCA could lose something like 200 congregations in the initial wave of defections.
So, really, to comment any more on what happened last week, from any perspective would be kind of like flogging a dead horse.
I have nothing more to say about it.
The CWA aftermath . . . and diplomacy
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 26, 2009 23:44
I know I'm diplomatically-challenged . . . at least in cyberspace. My wife says I'm over-compensating since I generally avoid conflict in the real world. She's one of the brightest, intuitive people I've ever met. I over-achieved on the marriage front.
We're all sinners John!
I liken this debate to another "There is one True God vs. There is no God" I see little room for moral relativism here. We can't all be right about it.
Time will tell who was right . . . ultimately . . . I long for the day, even if I'm wrong.
I'm done with this thread too! Hooray!
I agree with David, other battle fields in this campaign will consume our energies.
--Mike
We're all sinners John!
I liken this debate to another "There is one True God vs. There is no God" I see little room for moral relativism here. We can't all be right about it.
Time will tell who was right . . . ultimately . . . I long for the day, even if I'm wrong.
I'm done with this thread too! Hooray!
I agree with David, other battle fields in this campaign will consume our energies.
--Mike
Please don't leave
Posted by
John
at
August 27, 2009 10:13
Mike: You write, "Time will tell who was right...ultimately, I long for the day even if I am wrong." You are now open to the possibility that you could be wrong. Any of us could be. Therefore, I am pleading that people do not make a drastic separation move based on a resolution about which we could be wrong. Our unity in Christ is to important and to firm to express non-reconciliation involving a resolution about which none of can be 100% sure. I was not trying to "win" or be on either "side". I was simply trying to show that there is the possibility of being wrong, therefore, go for preserving that which we can be sure of, our unity in Christ, rather than separation.John
"unity"???
Posted by
Rik
at
August 27, 2009 12:55
Could you please define that word? Unity? What unity? "No man can serve two masters..." -A Quote from Messiah Jesus.
post script
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 27, 2009 13:08
Please give it a rest John . . . I'm trying to be done here. This whole "unity in Christ" thing is a dubious argument. Why aren't you calling on WELS members to be "united in Christ" with you? LCMS? The Baptists?
There's no unity in staying. Where's the unity when half the congregation treats the Bible like toilet paper?
Using your logic, why resolve at all if one can't be 100% sure?? You and your idealogues have forced this crisis.
Now you plead for unity . . . because we can't be sure?? The Bible is clear on this matter.
Stop the pleading . . . it isn't attractive at all!
--Mike
There's no unity in staying. Where's the unity when half the congregation treats the Bible like toilet paper?
Using your logic, why resolve at all if one can't be 100% sure?? You and your idealogues have forced this crisis.
Now you plead for unity . . . because we can't be sure?? The Bible is clear on this matter.
Stop the pleading . . . it isn't attractive at all!
--Mike
Unity
Posted by
John
at
August 27, 2009 16:38
Mike: Have it your way. The Church will survive because Christ has died for her not because you come or go. Thats not pleading thats a biblical truth. John
It's not my way . . . .
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 27, 2009 18:22
. . . it is the Lord's way, truth, and life.
You got it your way at CWA.
Now this is getting interesting again.
Christ died for what "her"? For what "Church"?
I left the ELCA six years ago . . . because of its ambivalence about scripture and the historic episcopate, ELCA health plans paying for abortions, etc.
Your words are telling . . . . "not because you come or go."
Did I leave "The Church" that day? Is the ELCA "the Church"?
You insinuate that Jesus' death on the cross no longer applies to me.
You say the ""Church will survive . . . ".
My prayers are a little more ambitious than that. I have Higher hopes for the Body of Christ!! It should glorify God . . . it should not be a reflection of the world and its sexual desires.
--Mike
You got it your way at CWA.
Now this is getting interesting again.
Christ died for what "her"? For what "Church"?
I left the ELCA six years ago . . . because of its ambivalence about scripture and the historic episcopate, ELCA health plans paying for abortions, etc.
Your words are telling . . . . "not because you come or go."
Did I leave "The Church" that day? Is the ELCA "the Church"?
You insinuate that Jesus' death on the cross no longer applies to me.
You say the ""Church will survive . . . ".
My prayers are a little more ambitious than that. I have Higher hopes for the Body of Christ!! It should glorify God . . . it should not be a reflection of the world and its sexual desires.
--Mike
defensive
Posted by
John
at
August 27, 2009 18:36
Mike: That explains why you are so defensive in your last post. You have already made your move and now must defend what you did. No need for me to try to convience you there is a better way. John
I'm on the offensive . . . can't you tell?
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 27, 2009 19:50
Defend what I did years ago . . . now?
I've never really felt the need. If I were to try to muster a defense for the present, all I'd do is point to the new policy of the ELCA . . . . how it's blatantly disobedient to God. I would need nothing more.
--Mike
I've never really felt the need. If I were to try to muster a defense for the present, all I'd do is point to the new policy of the ELCA . . . . how it's blatantly disobedient to God. I would need nothing more.
--Mike
Mike
Posted by
John
at
August 27, 2009 22:45
Mike: This is really a waste of time. You feel so comfortable in your self-righteousness it's a shame on my part to disturb you. Therefore, I will let you rest. Bye John
Uncomfortable
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 28, 2009 08:34
Thanks for the opportunity to respond on this sub-topic.
No . . . I'm uncomfortable . . . . I'm a sinner . . . . just like practicing homosexuals.
The difference is I will admit my sin - practicing homosexuals are in denial.
--Mike
No . . . I'm uncomfortable . . . . I'm a sinner . . . . just like practicing homosexuals.
The difference is I will admit my sin - practicing homosexuals are in denial.
--Mike
Unity Ueber Alles?
Posted by
Henry
at
August 28, 2009 09:04
So John, you want traditionalists to get into a new ELCA boat with the revisionists. . .A boat which may or may not have a hole in the bottom. . . And one which quite possibly may be going in the wrong direction. . .Your Unity sounds rather dangerous to me. . . and smells fishy!
Gospel
Posted by
John
at
August 28, 2009 09:31
Mike and Henry: The Gospel is for ears that can hear. Bye John
There is no Gospel, without Law. . .
Posted by
Henry
at
August 28, 2009 10:22
But John. What about the Law? Not suitable for itching ears?
Law and Gospel
Posted by
John
at
August 28, 2009 12:22
Henry: It sounds like there is a misunderstanding of the relationship between law and gospel under the new covenant.Christ by His life, death, and resurrection made some very important changes from the Old Testament. What is your understanding of that relationship under the New Covenant? John
Law Destroyed?
Posted by
Henry
at
August 28, 2009 14:30
Hi John,
Christ, by his life, death and resurrection, did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. . .(Matt. 5:17). This understanding has been historically Lutheran. What's your understanding, Antinomian?
What is your understanding of how the Holy Spirit works in the heart of a Christian, John? Does the HS work solely through the Gospel (in the narrow sense of the the term, that is, words of comfort?) or does the HS also work through words of Law, prior to Gospel?
What do you think happens to the Law that is written upon the heart when one becomes a Christian, John? Is it destroyed under the New Covenant?
Christ, by his life, death and resurrection, did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. . .(Matt. 5:17). This understanding has been historically Lutheran. What's your understanding, Antinomian?
What is your understanding of how the Holy Spirit works in the heart of a Christian, John? Does the HS work solely through the Gospel (in the narrow sense of the the term, that is, words of comfort?) or does the HS also work through words of Law, prior to Gospel?
What do you think happens to the Law that is written upon the heart when one becomes a Christian, John? Is it destroyed under the New Covenant?
Law
Posted by
John
at
August 28, 2009 16:47
Henry:First, "Christ came to fulfill the law." I take it to be as stated he fulfilled the law. What does that mean for us. And by (us) I mean you and I who are "in Christ" as Eph. uses that phrase.For (us) I would like to refer to Romans 8:1-4 as my answer to your question."what is your understanding"?.
Not as a antinomian. But, a relationship to the law through the Spirit as stated by Paul
Second question: For the person in Christ, the Gospel is at home in his/her heart. The Spirt then works from within the person to sanctify. He moves the individual towards a more pleasing keeping of the law. The person again who is in Christ does not have to beat himself, or have someone beat him up as in the first and second use of the law. But the person will make use of the third use of the law. The persom in Christ trusts the Spirit to grow him/or her to Christlikeness.Romans:9-11 The law is not destroyed under the New Covenant but is brought to fulfill throughout ones life by the Spirit who sanitfies.So it is always the Gospel that is at work in us to change us for the law does not have that power as shown in the Old Covenant. The Spirit applies the Law to us, we are not to dam one another with it. It doesn"t help, thats the work of the Spirit. Only He can sanctify. Also look at Romans 3:27-31 Watch these verses they can be easily miss read. How do we uphold the law? By Faith in the Spirit who forever applies the Gospel to us he trains us with the law. Enough John
Not as a antinomian. But, a relationship to the law through the Spirit as stated by Paul
Second question: For the person in Christ, the Gospel is at home in his/her heart. The Spirt then works from within the person to sanctify. He moves the individual towards a more pleasing keeping of the law. The person again who is in Christ does not have to beat himself, or have someone beat him up as in the first and second use of the law. But the person will make use of the third use of the law. The persom in Christ trusts the Spirit to grow him/or her to Christlikeness.Romans:9-11 The law is not destroyed under the New Covenant but is brought to fulfill throughout ones life by the Spirit who sanitfies.So it is always the Gospel that is at work in us to change us for the law does not have that power as shown in the Old Covenant. The Spirit applies the Law to us, we are not to dam one another with it. It doesn"t help, thats the work of the Spirit. Only He can sanctify. Also look at Romans 3:27-31 Watch these verses they can be easily miss read. How do we uphold the law? By Faith in the Spirit who forever applies the Gospel to us he trains us with the law. Enough John
Semi-Antinomian? Universalist?
Posted by
Henry
at
August 28, 2009 19:03
Well John, it seems that you do maintain a 3rd use of the Law. . .and feel that this is useful for those who have been justified in Christ. Agreed. The Ephesians verse you cite also seems to be speaking about those who have already been justified. Agreed? But, you seem to deprecate the use of the Law (1st & 2nd use) for those you presume to be already justified? You also want to forbid us to speak God's word of Law to each other, preferring to let the Spirit "apply" it to us in some form or another. . .a way in which you don't exactly specify. What support do you have for this notion? Do you know the hearts of the Christ's disciples? Can you divide the sheep from the goats? Why do you assume that all who hear the Gospel (without Law) will also be touched by the Holy Spirit, and are therefore truly justified and born again? We know, for instance, that according to Scripture, not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom, do we not?
So, John, let's get to the meat of the issue. . . . the doctrine on the church stands or falls: Justification. Do you truly believe that over the past centuries, and even today, not one homosexual has heard God's word of Law spoken (been beaten up by the 1st & 2nd use of the Law, as you put it) repented of his homosexual behavior, heard that sweet Gospel, come to know Christ, died in the Lord, and subsequently obtained eternal life in heaven? Are you 100% sure that there are no souls of "repentant" homosexual in heaven, John? Are you 100% certain that the only way today's homosexual will ever come to know Christ is to give 'em that good Gospel, alone and only, without the Law? The CWA and the new ELCA seem to believe this. . .do you?
But if you believe there is but one soul of a "repentant" homosexual in Heaven who came to know Christ by hearing the Law first, Gospel second message, on what basis do you forbid the use of God's Law and bind the work of the Holy Spirit therein for all who find themselves drawn toward homosexual activity? On what basis do you forbid the church to use the office of the Keys to bind whatsoever on earth, as Christ himself commanded. Is it because you assume we're all saved, and once we're saved, nobody can use the 1st and 2nd use of the Law of God anymore, cause that's not nice?
So, John, let's get to the meat of the issue. . . . the doctrine on the church stands or falls: Justification. Do you truly believe that over the past centuries, and even today, not one homosexual has heard God's word of Law spoken (been beaten up by the 1st & 2nd use of the Law, as you put it) repented of his homosexual behavior, heard that sweet Gospel, come to know Christ, died in the Lord, and subsequently obtained eternal life in heaven? Are you 100% sure that there are no souls of "repentant" homosexual in heaven, John? Are you 100% certain that the only way today's homosexual will ever come to know Christ is to give 'em that good Gospel, alone and only, without the Law? The CWA and the new ELCA seem to believe this. . .do you?
But if you believe there is but one soul of a "repentant" homosexual in Heaven who came to know Christ by hearing the Law first, Gospel second message, on what basis do you forbid the use of God's Law and bind the work of the Holy Spirit therein for all who find themselves drawn toward homosexual activity? On what basis do you forbid the church to use the office of the Keys to bind whatsoever on earth, as Christ himself commanded. Is it because you assume we're all saved, and once we're saved, nobody can use the 1st and 2nd use of the Law of God anymore, cause that's not nice?
Repression
Posted by
Michael Dooley
at
August 28, 2009 16:44
I don't think a lot of you understand. This is not over and I believe a number of ELCA Lutherans think all settled so now we can go on to other things. But it is not over.
If you listened to some of the comments from the floor, the wheels of repression are already beginning to grind. Slowly, every commission, council, board will be required to have homosexual representation. Those in the opposition will be subtly excluded from such places because they are not sufficiently committed to "diversity".
For the sake of "diversity" and respect for "differing views", those in the opposition will be directed to shut their mouths for the sake of Christian fellowship and civility.
Another thing that many do not understand is that the ELCA has become a platform to launch struggles for the normalization of homosexual in society at large. You know that "justice" thing. We will never hear the end of how wonderful it is that we finally accepted the "gifts and commitments" of homosexuals. The gratuitous praise for our "progressive and enlightened" actions will never end. If you think The Lutheran will give us any space in their pages I have a bridge for you.
Two things will eventually come to a head somewhere down the road. The pool of homosexual Pastors who have no congregation will grow until we will get lectures on how we need to abandon our "congregationalism". Expect a fight on that one. The other is what we will when homosexual Pastors do not bind their sexual activity within their partnership. The reasoning would be "why should homosexuals have to live up to heterosexual expectations and norms. Stuff hetrosexuals don't exactly live up to themselves?" Get ready for discussions and outrage against hetro Hypocrisy. I predict a complete cave on this one.
Don’t forget: a lot of ELCA members will love every bit of it.
If you listened to some of the comments from the floor, the wheels of repression are already beginning to grind. Slowly, every commission, council, board will be required to have homosexual representation. Those in the opposition will be subtly excluded from such places because they are not sufficiently committed to "diversity".
For the sake of "diversity" and respect for "differing views", those in the opposition will be directed to shut their mouths for the sake of Christian fellowship and civility.
Another thing that many do not understand is that the ELCA has become a platform to launch struggles for the normalization of homosexual in society at large. You know that "justice" thing. We will never hear the end of how wonderful it is that we finally accepted the "gifts and commitments" of homosexuals. The gratuitous praise for our "progressive and enlightened" actions will never end. If you think The Lutheran will give us any space in their pages I have a bridge for you.
Two things will eventually come to a head somewhere down the road. The pool of homosexual Pastors who have no congregation will grow until we will get lectures on how we need to abandon our "congregationalism". Expect a fight on that one. The other is what we will when homosexual Pastors do not bind their sexual activity within their partnership. The reasoning would be "why should homosexuals have to live up to heterosexual expectations and norms. Stuff hetrosexuals don't exactly live up to themselves?" Get ready for discussions and outrage against hetro Hypocrisy. I predict a complete cave on this one.
Don’t forget: a lot of ELCA members will love every bit of it.
Scriptures
Posted by
John
at
August 28, 2009 19:53
Henry and Mike: Mike you are still angry, So angry in fact that you are projecting a lot of activity on other christians that I cannot agree with or respond adaquately.
Henry: I suggested some sciptures. You didn't have time to do adaquate study of them to respond to me. You have said over and over how the Scriptures are the Word of God. I agree, therefore, my response, is in the scritures I offered. If you wish to continue this discussion (I would) then I need your insights into what those texts written by Paul are saying. O.K.? I looked back and I can't find your last two posts Henry. The one I am working with is the one before this last one. John
Henry: I suggested some sciptures. You didn't have time to do adaquate study of them to respond to me. You have said over and over how the Scriptures are the Word of God. I agree, therefore, my response, is in the scritures I offered. If you wish to continue this discussion (I would) then I need your insights into what those texts written by Paul are saying. O.K.? I looked back and I can't find your last two posts Henry. The one I am working with is the one before this last one. John
Ohmigosh again!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 28, 2009 21:27
". . . projecting a lot of activity on other Christians . . "? You give me too much credit. I'm curious though - is that another reference to some sort of New Age behavior?
You say you "cannot . . . . respond adequately." For the first time, I agree with you. I haven't seen an adequate response from you in all my time in this forum!
--Mike
You say you "cannot . . . . respond adequately." For the first time, I agree with you. I haven't seen an adequate response from you in all my time in this forum!
--Mike
Response to John
Posted by
Henry
at
August 28, 2009 22:03
John. I guess one has to think like an antinomian to understand your interpretation. . .Are you saying that since Paul says in Rom. 8 verse 1, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," that we should not to "condemn" other "Christians". . Is this why you think it is wrong of me to condemn you, or any other revisionist, or any so-called "Christian" who has lapsed into unrighteousness, with God's Word of Law? Can't touch this? Then I guess Paul violated that verse quite a few times when he scolded and admonished the early Christian churches. . . You seem to have skipped reading Romans 6:1 and Romans 7:7, where Paul clearly defends the Law! And, of course, you skipped chapters 1 & 2, which is nothing but Law and were also written for the benefit of "Christians" but that is for another discussion.
Now, I hope you will do me the courtesy of answering my questions from my post entitled, "Semi-Antinomian? Universalist?" I believe this is the heart of the matter at hand!
Now, I hope you will do me the courtesy of answering my questions from my post entitled, "Semi-Antinomian? Universalist?" I believe this is the heart of the matter at hand!
Good stuff Michael!
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 28, 2009 21:28
Modern day prophecy . . . in my mind.
--Mike
--Mike
Sorry
Posted by
John
at
August 28, 2009 21:56
Mike: Your of no help. Your anger just stands in your way. Unless you change your self-righteous approach to this discussion I'm going resign from it. John
Resign John . . . I dare you.
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 28, 2009 22:15
You accuse me of self-righteousness. I claim to be a sinner . . . based on God's Word . . . the Holy Bible.
You claim righteousness for practicing homosexuals . . . in spite of the Bible.
Go figure!!
Here's a quick tip to you . . . I don't aim to help you John. You're going in the wrong direction.
Let me think . . . . . question for you . . . are you seventeen years old or younger? Did you steal your parents' password to the computer/internet? If so, I apologize for everything I've written to you!!!
If you're 18 or older . . . never mind the apology!
--Mike
You claim righteousness for practicing homosexuals . . . in spite of the Bible.
Go figure!!
Here's a quick tip to you . . . I don't aim to help you John. You're going in the wrong direction.
Let me think . . . . . question for you . . . are you seventeen years old or younger? Did you steal your parents' password to the computer/internet? If so, I apologize for everything I've written to you!!!
If you're 18 or older . . . never mind the apology!
--Mike
It's easy when it's someone else
Posted by
Peter
at
August 29, 2009 02:19
Henry,
It's easy to talk about God's unfairness when the action in question does not directly affect you. Do you support celibacy for heterosexual pastors? This isn't a matter of people wanting to be justified in their sin so much as people saying this is no sin... it's not about trying to escape divine judgement (which whether homosexual or heterosexual, or repentent or not we cannot escape). This isn't a sin because those relationships uphold those people in faith in Christ and help them spread God's Word. And that Word is God's Promise of forgiveness for sinners on Christ's behalf. No one is saying homosexuals no longer need that forgiveness when their relationships fail to measure up (which happens just as much as in our hetero relationships, ie all the time). This means God's Law is intact.
I think the bigger concern is making an idol out of the Bible. When you take the letter of the Bible over that of the Spirit, you've lost Christ.
It's easy to talk about God's unfairness when the action in question does not directly affect you. Do you support celibacy for heterosexual pastors? This isn't a matter of people wanting to be justified in their sin so much as people saying this is no sin... it's not about trying to escape divine judgement (which whether homosexual or heterosexual, or repentent or not we cannot escape). This isn't a sin because those relationships uphold those people in faith in Christ and help them spread God's Word. And that Word is God's Promise of forgiveness for sinners on Christ's behalf. No one is saying homosexuals no longer need that forgiveness when their relationships fail to measure up (which happens just as much as in our hetero relationships, ie all the time). This means God's Law is intact.
I think the bigger concern is making an idol out of the Bible. When you take the letter of the Bible over that of the Spirit, you've lost Christ.
Truth or "Spirit"
Posted by
Henry
at
August 29, 2009 06:56
Peter. The Theology of the Cross is this: That God, through His Word and in everyday life, gives each and every Christian a cross to bear. He promises to be with us in our struggles and that His Grace is sufficient. Am I not afflicted in some way too? We all blame God for some thorn in our life, for which we pray it be removed. . .some perceived unfairness for which we cry "foul" and want to play the part of the victim. But God insists that sinners be redeemed, not victims. But both God's Grace and His Justice must be revered. . .
The thorn for the homosexual is that their inclination is apparently against God's Word. Now, one can do what you advocate and make God's Word silent, null and void concerning of homosexuality. . .that way, the same-sex inclinations are no longer a sin. God's Law remains intact, you maintain, but not against homosexuality. . . But the question is, is this Truth, or could it be a great delusion, sent by the Great Deceiver himself? Is the homosexual's anger at God for making him different really removed by your approach, or is it just suppressed, redirected and projected upon the traditionalist?
To accept your position requires a leap of faith. But then one never knows if that leap may be spiritually fatal. You seem to remain supremely confident in your position that homosexuality cannot be sin, because those doing the leaping are also doing such great things in the name of Christ. But then that nasty bible verse from Matthew 7:21-23 keeps popping into my head (from either the Holy Spirit, or a Biblicist indoctrination, no doubt) and that spoils the chance for unity in the spirit that you so desire on this issue. Darn that Bible!
Your "homosexuality is not a sin" position has now sets up a new scenario for the justification of the homosexual within the ELCA. . . .one that could be spiritually deadly for not only the homosexual, but for the church and future souls, if your are wrong.
So, if you can convince me that there are no souls of "repentant" homosexuals in Heaven. . .or that their "repentance" was somehow overkill. . .or that this "repentance" was some form of synergism, or that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Law (against homosexuality). . .followed by the Gospel, of course. . .then I must maintain that you are just asking me, and other traditionalists, to join the revisionists in a game of spiritual Russian Roulette.
The thorn for the homosexual is that their inclination is apparently against God's Word. Now, one can do what you advocate and make God's Word silent, null and void concerning of homosexuality. . .that way, the same-sex inclinations are no longer a sin. God's Law remains intact, you maintain, but not against homosexuality. . . But the question is, is this Truth, or could it be a great delusion, sent by the Great Deceiver himself? Is the homosexual's anger at God for making him different really removed by your approach, or is it just suppressed, redirected and projected upon the traditionalist?
To accept your position requires a leap of faith. But then one never knows if that leap may be spiritually fatal. You seem to remain supremely confident in your position that homosexuality cannot be sin, because those doing the leaping are also doing such great things in the name of Christ. But then that nasty bible verse from Matthew 7:21-23 keeps popping into my head (from either the Holy Spirit, or a Biblicist indoctrination, no doubt) and that spoils the chance for unity in the spirit that you so desire on this issue. Darn that Bible!
Your "homosexuality is not a sin" position has now sets up a new scenario for the justification of the homosexual within the ELCA. . . .one that could be spiritually deadly for not only the homosexual, but for the church and future souls, if your are wrong.
So, if you can convince me that there are no souls of "repentant" homosexuals in Heaven. . .or that their "repentance" was somehow overkill. . .or that this "repentance" was some form of synergism, or that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Law (against homosexuality). . .followed by the Gospel, of course. . .then I must maintain that you are just asking me, and other traditionalists, to join the revisionists in a game of spiritual Russian Roulette.
It's easy when . . .
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 29, 2009 08:42
. . . . it's someone else? The Holy Scripture was written for me too!!
I don't make up the will of the Father. I'm called to act when the world (the subset that is the ELCA) moves in a manner contrary to the will of the Father, however. Would you or John deny such a call?
Start a movement to bless gossip in the church!!! It's probably more damaging than sexual sin. I'd fight the movement . . . and I'm guilty.
Peter says . . . "This isn't a sin because those relationships uphold those people in faith in Christ and help them spread God's Word."
Sounds to me like "Pastor's adultery is not a sin because he led his mistress to Christ."
I'm an "equal opportunity" guy. I wouldn't support the heterosexual pastor living and denying sexual sin. I'd love such a guy though. . . he was my friend in a Bible. He lost his job at a church down the road. Darn those FEELINGS and actions toward the church secretary . . . so contrary to the will of the Father. In the new truth, sex outside of marriage is ok. Maybe he'll get his job back!!!
Idol out of the Bible? That's a big hand grenade tossed at the enemy.
The Bible . . . God's Word to us . . . warns against FALSE idols. It's early on a Saturday, but I think making an idol out of the Bible is always a good thing.
One more cup of coffee now . . . we need more "idolatry" of the Bible in this world!! I must reiterate Henry's words " . . . God, through His Word". God is three in One . . . that includes our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Christ would not be lost. Idolatry of the Bible . . so to speak . . . builds a relationship with Jesus . . . the authoritative One who admonished the sexual sinner . . . . . "go, and sin no more."
"When you take the letter of the Bible over that of the Spirit, you've lost Christ."
I had no idea the Bible was a competition for souls and/or obedience amongst the Three? Or is that an all lower case "three" . . . since the true Persons of the Trinity don't compete . . . they are One in the same. (I need some training in how to punctuate false assertions versus Biblical assertions)
Where's the Biblical support for pitting One of the Three against One of the Others . . . based on a pivot point in the Holy Scriptures? I must've missed that chapter and verse.
Oh . . . dumb question. The Holy Scripture is secondary to our experiences now. We now know better. Never mind.
I still wonder why those in the 13th century . . . . or the 15th century . . . or in the 17th century . . . despite their sin didn't attempt to revise Holy Scripture? My how bold we've become!!
--Mike
I don't make up the will of the Father. I'm called to act when the world (the subset that is the ELCA) moves in a manner contrary to the will of the Father, however. Would you or John deny such a call?
Start a movement to bless gossip in the church!!! It's probably more damaging than sexual sin. I'd fight the movement . . . and I'm guilty.
Peter says . . . "This isn't a sin because those relationships uphold those people in faith in Christ and help them spread God's Word."
Sounds to me like "Pastor's adultery is not a sin because he led his mistress to Christ."
I'm an "equal opportunity" guy. I wouldn't support the heterosexual pastor living and denying sexual sin. I'd love such a guy though. . . he was my friend in a Bible. He lost his job at a church down the road. Darn those FEELINGS and actions toward the church secretary . . . so contrary to the will of the Father. In the new truth, sex outside of marriage is ok. Maybe he'll get his job back!!!
Idol out of the Bible? That's a big hand grenade tossed at the enemy.
The Bible . . . God's Word to us . . . warns against FALSE idols. It's early on a Saturday, but I think making an idol out of the Bible is always a good thing.
One more cup of coffee now . . . we need more "idolatry" of the Bible in this world!! I must reiterate Henry's words " . . . God, through His Word". God is three in One . . . that includes our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Christ would not be lost. Idolatry of the Bible . . so to speak . . . builds a relationship with Jesus . . . the authoritative One who admonished the sexual sinner . . . . . "go, and sin no more."
"When you take the letter of the Bible over that of the Spirit, you've lost Christ."
I had no idea the Bible was a competition for souls and/or obedience amongst the Three? Or is that an all lower case "three" . . . since the true Persons of the Trinity don't compete . . . they are One in the same. (I need some training in how to punctuate false assertions versus Biblical assertions)
Where's the Biblical support for pitting One of the Three against One of the Others . . . based on a pivot point in the Holy Scriptures? I must've missed that chapter and verse.
Oh . . . dumb question. The Holy Scripture is secondary to our experiences now. We now know better. Never mind.
I still wonder why those in the 13th century . . . . or the 15th century . . . or in the 17th century . . . despite their sin didn't attempt to revise Holy Scripture? My how bold we've become!!
--Mike
wow... just... wow
Posted by
Peter
at
August 29, 2009 18:16
Mike,
Actually I think your scope of call is too narrow. You're called to act regardless of whether the rest of the world is in accord with either God's Will or your view of it. But that action is not 'enforce everything the Bible says', it's 'proclaim the Gospel'. Enforcement is God's job, not the church's.
The problem with your adultery example is that it isn't just the pastor and his mistress... his wife is also part of that and the adultery is leading her from Christ. The other problem with a lot of your 'heterosexual sins' is also that the two joined in sex are not living up to the commitment that they have just made. Two homosexuals joined together in marriage are both intent upon living up to a life of commitment and support for each other.
As to idolatry, wow. Idols are false by definition in that they are constructs of man on which we hang our hearts in place of hanging our hearts on God. In every single case, the idol was built out of one of God's gifts (be that gold, ivory, or Scripture itself). How is Scripture an idol?, you ask. We'll start easy. Can it be used to lead one away from the Gospel? The answer to that question is yes-- look to one of the atheist 'the Bible condones horrible things' websites. Or to get more subtle, look to a group like Mormons, or look to others who insist on the literal truth of their translation and subsequently uphold things like Creationism. Especially with literal truth people, they have made the Bible their idol. How is that any different from the Pharisees' treatment of the Law of Moses during Christ's time? Why didn't Christ stone the woman caught in adultery, especially after his declaration 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. The Bible is inherently good, but it can be used for wrong ends, especially when people turn to it to be the final word. As Christians, our final Word is not the Bible, but Christ's death and resurrection on the cross. The Bible is not God. Oh, and for "revisions" what do you consider the apostles' requirement to abstain from blood (from the NT) that had been lifted by Luther's time (See AC 28:65)?
It's also odd that you are unaware of any conflict between the Three in One. If there's no difference, how are they Three? Do you not see any conflict in justification, especially between Law and Gospel? God the Father, through the Law, condemns us, yet God the Son saves us.
Actually I think your scope of call is too narrow. You're called to act regardless of whether the rest of the world is in accord with either God's Will or your view of it. But that action is not 'enforce everything the Bible says', it's 'proclaim the Gospel'. Enforcement is God's job, not the church's.
The problem with your adultery example is that it isn't just the pastor and his mistress... his wife is also part of that and the adultery is leading her from Christ. The other problem with a lot of your 'heterosexual sins' is also that the two joined in sex are not living up to the commitment that they have just made. Two homosexuals joined together in marriage are both intent upon living up to a life of commitment and support for each other.
As to idolatry, wow. Idols are false by definition in that they are constructs of man on which we hang our hearts in place of hanging our hearts on God. In every single case, the idol was built out of one of God's gifts (be that gold, ivory, or Scripture itself). How is Scripture an idol?, you ask. We'll start easy. Can it be used to lead one away from the Gospel? The answer to that question is yes-- look to one of the atheist 'the Bible condones horrible things' websites. Or to get more subtle, look to a group like Mormons, or look to others who insist on the literal truth of their translation and subsequently uphold things like Creationism. Especially with literal truth people, they have made the Bible their idol. How is that any different from the Pharisees' treatment of the Law of Moses during Christ's time? Why didn't Christ stone the woman caught in adultery, especially after his declaration 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. The Bible is inherently good, but it can be used for wrong ends, especially when people turn to it to be the final word. As Christians, our final Word is not the Bible, but Christ's death and resurrection on the cross. The Bible is not God. Oh, and for "revisions" what do you consider the apostles' requirement to abstain from blood (from the NT) that had been lifted by Luther's time (See AC 28:65)?
It's also odd that you are unaware of any conflict between the Three in One. If there's no difference, how are they Three? Do you not see any conflict in justification, especially between Law and Gospel? God the Father, through the Law, condemns us, yet God the Son saves us.
look to the fruits
Posted by
Peter
at
August 29, 2009 17:44
Henry,
I don't think the 'homosexual's anger at God for making him different' is a direct result of his homosexuality any more than a black man's anger at God for making him black is a direct result of his race. The sin there is not that homosexuality is against God's Word, but that instead of receiving the gift of homosexuality with joy and using it as one of God's good gifts, that homosexual is taught that his homosexuality is a broken gift, one that isn't a very good gift at all. That teaching-- that homosexuality is inherently sinful-- is a denial of what God has given, and the homosexual is damned when he believes that, not when he uses God's gift. That it is a good gift is apparent from the fruits that come out of homosexual relationships-- the loving care that they provide for each other and how they uplift and support each other. I think we also need to be clear that I am not arguing that any and all expression of homosexuality is good... I'm saying it's the same as with heterosexuals. Will homosexuals misuse their homosexuality and fall under the Law's condemnation for that? Certainly. However, homosexuals placing their sexuality in the context of same-sex marriage are sinning no more than heterosexuals who place their sexuality in the context of opposite-sex marriage. Marriage, same-sex or not, cannot be of the devil because a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. So I would say that the test is not 'are there "repentent" homosexuals in Heaven?' but 'are they there because of their "repentance" or despite it?' I think such "repentence" is rebellion against God, and that leads to damnation. It still remains possible for Christ to save a soul on track for damnation, though... that's the very essence of the Good News.
It's interesting that you describe my position as requiring a leap of faith. If being in Christ didn't require faith, what would be the point? Matthew 7:21-23 is indeed sobering, but I think it is a mistake to think of the other as the one who says 'Lord, Lord'. That verse applies to you and it applies to me and as God's Law, it should terrify us both. Also, John's Gospel (6:29) puts Matthew 7:21-23 in context. It's not by doing works (prophecy, miracles, etc) that we are justified, even if those works are supposedly in Jesus' name. If we rely on that, we're damned. We can try to repent of every possible sin we can think of, and even include clauses for sins we don't know about (note the ELW's: 'sins known and unknown' for which we receive absolution), but that repentence doesn't get us anywhere. It is only by believing that Christ's death and resurrection alone and only is our salvation that we are justified. From that trust, we are led to repentance and renewed to carry the Gospel message to the nations, but repentance isn't the precondition.
I don't think the 'homosexual's anger at God for making him different' is a direct result of his homosexuality any more than a black man's anger at God for making him black is a direct result of his race. The sin there is not that homosexuality is against God's Word, but that instead of receiving the gift of homosexuality with joy and using it as one of God's good gifts, that homosexual is taught that his homosexuality is a broken gift, one that isn't a very good gift at all. That teaching-- that homosexuality is inherently sinful-- is a denial of what God has given, and the homosexual is damned when he believes that, not when he uses God's gift. That it is a good gift is apparent from the fruits that come out of homosexual relationships-- the loving care that they provide for each other and how they uplift and support each other. I think we also need to be clear that I am not arguing that any and all expression of homosexuality is good... I'm saying it's the same as with heterosexuals. Will homosexuals misuse their homosexuality and fall under the Law's condemnation for that? Certainly. However, homosexuals placing their sexuality in the context of same-sex marriage are sinning no more than heterosexuals who place their sexuality in the context of opposite-sex marriage. Marriage, same-sex or not, cannot be of the devil because a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. So I would say that the test is not 'are there "repentent" homosexuals in Heaven?' but 'are they there because of their "repentance" or despite it?' I think such "repentence" is rebellion against God, and that leads to damnation. It still remains possible for Christ to save a soul on track for damnation, though... that's the very essence of the Good News.
It's interesting that you describe my position as requiring a leap of faith. If being in Christ didn't require faith, what would be the point? Matthew 7:21-23 is indeed sobering, but I think it is a mistake to think of the other as the one who says 'Lord, Lord'. That verse applies to you and it applies to me and as God's Law, it should terrify us both. Also, John's Gospel (6:29) puts Matthew 7:21-23 in context. It's not by doing works (prophecy, miracles, etc) that we are justified, even if those works are supposedly in Jesus' name. If we rely on that, we're damned. We can try to repent of every possible sin we can think of, and even include clauses for sins we don't know about (note the ELW's: 'sins known and unknown' for which we receive absolution), but that repentence doesn't get us anywhere. It is only by believing that Christ's death and resurrection alone and only is our salvation that we are justified. From that trust, we are led to repentance and renewed to carry the Gospel message to the nations, but repentance isn't the precondition.
Homosexuality, a Gift from God!
Posted by
Henry
at
August 29, 2009 19:52
There is absolutely nothing in biblical text that even hints of homosexuality being a gift, Peter. But, I did see some a couple of ministers try to argue this once on Oprah! Maybe you watched it too?
For those who are still not sure if they should remain in the ELCA, you've certainly given us a very good road map of where the ELCA is heading, Peter.
For those who are still not sure if they should remain in the ELCA, you've certainly given us a very good road map of where the ELCA is heading, Peter.
I hope that's the direction it's heading
Posted by
Peter
at
August 30, 2009 13:05
Henry,
There isn't anything in biblical text that talks about the internet and whether that's a gift from God, either, or even things like democracy, which was still unknown in Luther's time. The examples of homosexuality in the Bible reflect a fundamentally different understanding of homosexuality than we have today. Even assuming arsenokoites and malakoi are intended to be translated as homosexuality, there are no specific examples of any homosexual pair being condemned in the Bible.
There is plenty of stuff in there about usury, though. Is it ok to work at a large company, that routinely makes short-term loans to meet payroll, or to deposit your money in a bank, knowing that money gets lent out?
If you're looking for biblical laws to serve as a mirror and curb for homosexual relationships, Christ's command to love one another is a good place to start. The adultery commandment is also easily applied to homosexual relationships, and with Luther's understanding of it, that contains God's ordaining of marriage. There's a lot of other laws discussing marriage. We can also turn to the Augsburg Confession, where XXIII considers marriage or XXVIII considers the ability of the church to recognize God's continuing creation and how to accommodate that in the church's mission. (and if David's also reading this, note the absence of ACIV this time).
There isn't anything in biblical text that talks about the internet and whether that's a gift from God, either, or even things like democracy, which was still unknown in Luther's time. The examples of homosexuality in the Bible reflect a fundamentally different understanding of homosexuality than we have today. Even assuming arsenokoites and malakoi are intended to be translated as homosexuality, there are no specific examples of any homosexual pair being condemned in the Bible.
There is plenty of stuff in there about usury, though. Is it ok to work at a large company, that routinely makes short-term loans to meet payroll, or to deposit your money in a bank, knowing that money gets lent out?
If you're looking for biblical laws to serve as a mirror and curb for homosexual relationships, Christ's command to love one another is a good place to start. The adultery commandment is also easily applied to homosexual relationships, and with Luther's understanding of it, that contains God's ordaining of marriage. There's a lot of other laws discussing marriage. We can also turn to the Augsburg Confession, where XXIII considers marriage or XXVIII considers the ability of the church to recognize God's continuing creation and how to accommodate that in the church's mission. (and if David's also reading this, note the absence of ACIV this time).
Understanding
Posted by
John
at
August 29, 2009 20:20
Henry:I am writing about homosexuals that not only have been reconciled to God through Christ but about homosexuals who have experienced this justification through faith. These same people have accepted their sexual orientation and have found expression of who and what they are in a loving, and commited relationship. I think that how they want or are able to express their love for their partner is their business and there is no problem until the third party gets involved. (such as you or me). I believe if Christ's command to love one another(John 13:34)(Galatians 5) is being honored, as they live in the Spirit in that relationship, how are they expressing this love is not the question. The command to love is greater than any other laws even the 10 commandments.I want to ask once again (as I did with Mike)to give me your comentary on Romans 8:1-2ff. What is Paul saying their within the context of all of Romans. If you would give me that I think we could conclude this discussion one way or the other. John
Command to Love. . . .homosexual legalism?
Posted by
Henry
at
August 29, 2009 22:22
It means this, John: Nature is happy and content as long as it has everything it wants. When it doesn't get what it wants, it is disturbed. Not so grace. Grace loves and observes everything that God wills, regardless how bitter it may be. It means that those who try to obey the command to love with their natural powers, such as the loving homosexuals you describe, are really powerless to fulfill that law of love, nor do they have the ability to fulfill it the way God wants it fulfilled, which is namely by grace.
Henry
Posted by
John
at
August 29, 2009 08:21
Henry: The concern I have is the mis-use of the B9ble. Plead Read and study all of Chapter seven in the context of all of Romans. Thats why people who put the law before the Gospel use the scriptures as proof texts. Read it with the Gospel in mind not condemnation. I can reply to your other commends at another time. John
Misuse of the Bible?
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 29, 2009 08:57
John,
Please don't bear false witness. I'm quite confident Henry does not put Law before Gospel.
I'm also quite confident he has not torn his pick of pages out of his Bible (Romans, Jude, etc.) . . . asserting they no longer apply to him. That would be mis-use of the Bible.
I invite Henry to amend anything I may have misrepresented.
--Mike
Please don't bear false witness. I'm quite confident Henry does not put Law before Gospel.
I'm also quite confident he has not torn his pick of pages out of his Bible (Romans, Jude, etc.) . . . asserting they no longer apply to him. That would be mis-use of the Bible.
I invite Henry to amend anything I may have misrepresented.
--Mike
Sorry
Posted by
John
at
August 29, 2009 09:14
Mike:Sorry Mike your anger causes you to miss the point once again. I'm sure Henry does not need you to defend him. John
I'm quite sure Henry is more capable than me, but . . .
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
August 29, 2009 09:55
John,
. . . . I will say again, don't bear false witness!! Have you torn the 10 commandments out of your Bible?
I'm not angry. Your characterization . . . while it may further your cause . . . is not accurate.
I believe you're still working on your agenda. i believe your accusation is dubious at best. I won't describe the worst. You know I saw this coming 6 years ago. The joy of the Lord superseded my anger 5.5 years ago.
You haven't made a viable point yet . . . . . "Read it with the Gospel in mind not condemnation." That's a great one . . . more false witness of another.
God judge's your behavior . . . the learned elders of the denomination voice the judgment . . . and you accuse them?
I believe that's false witness . . . again . . . in the truest sense!
You and you ideologues should be criticizing the One who gave you life. After all . . . He is who He is . . . and He's promised He won't change to accept your supposed truth.
Accuse the One who is the Word, or find a new god John!
--Mike
. . . . I will say again, don't bear false witness!! Have you torn the 10 commandments out of your Bible?
I'm not angry. Your characterization . . . while it may further your cause . . . is not accurate.
I believe you're still working on your agenda. i believe your accusation is dubious at best. I won't describe the worst. You know I saw this coming 6 years ago. The joy of the Lord superseded my anger 5.5 years ago.
You haven't made a viable point yet . . . . . "Read it with the Gospel in mind not condemnation." That's a great one . . . more false witness of another.
God judge's your behavior . . . the learned elders of the denomination voice the judgment . . . and you accuse them?
I believe that's false witness . . . again . . . in the truest sense!
You and you ideologues should be criticizing the One who gave you life. After all . . . He is who He is . . . and He's promised He won't change to accept your supposed truth.
Accuse the One who is the Word, or find a new god John!
--Mike
Condemnation
Posted by
John
at
August 29, 2009 19:39
Mike:I pray God that I am not bearing false witness. But I will ask of you to prove to me from scripture where and how I am bearing false witness. Study Romans 8:1-2ff and give me a comentary on what Paul is proclaiming in those two verses. John
Biblical Misuse, Revisited. . . .
Posted by
Henry
at
August 29, 2009 09:54
John. When I read Scripture, and Romans in particular, I begin by reading Romans 1, then Romans 2, then Romans 3. . . . In Romans 1 & 2, Paul talks about God's Law as it applies to Christians and non-Christians alike. It is like a hammer, crushing the pride of everyone. Then, in Chapter 3, Paul introduces the doctrine of Justification, and thereafter, he talks about Sanctification. Therefore, I put Law BEFORE Gospel, chronologically, so that I may better understand the Truth about myself, address the Law in my heart, and understand what this Gospel and life in Christ is all about. The Gospel is above the Law, true, but not before it, and not exclusive of it. In fact, if the Law is in my heart, put there by God, the the Gospel always must come second.
Revisionists like to begin with Chapter 3 first and thereafter. It supports their view of things. If anything, it is the antinomian revisionists who misuse the Bible, because they constantly like to put the sanctification cart before the justification horse, absolution before confession. They invert the Law/Gospel order as a clever way of nullifying the Law.
I know that this is difficult for you and for many who have spent years sitting in the ELCA pew to understand. For I know that many have heard a milquetoast message of Christ the Great Enabler and a message of Grace which has conveniently omitted addressing God's Righteous Will beforehand. Why shake up the congregation with Law, as a mirror, it reasons, cause we've been there, done that. We're all Christians here anyway, right?
Then, when the heart, which retains a law, hears this "Gospel", the conscience immediately turns it into Law. . .Unwittingly, the hearer uses this Gospel as a mechanism for self-justification. So, in the ELCA pew today, one is often left with a message kind of like this: "We're all in (saved). . .So we oughta ________"(fill in the blank). Justification is gone, for it is assumed that the listener no longer needs to hear that they are a sinner. The message that is heard is no longer Mercy for Sinners, but Justice for Victims. Gradually this law within the heart begins to believe that its prior guilt was illegitimate, caused by decades of false guilt perpetrated by a mean-spirited cadre of biblicists, legalists, homophobes, and bigots in the church. Sadly, nobody is guilty anymore, except the aforementioned. Everyone is just "broken". And the job of the church is no longer to bring sinners to repentance, and show them the Mercy of Christ, but to demand justice within the Church and throughout the world. And as the law in the heart is hardened, psychopathy sets in, which some like to call "the spirit". . . .
So, John, I have read your verses. I just want you to come out of your sanctification shadow, which assumes we no longer bother ourselves with the weightier matters of faith and the souls of others, and come into the justification light!
Revisionists like to begin with Chapter 3 first and thereafter. It supports their view of things. If anything, it is the antinomian revisionists who misuse the Bible, because they constantly like to put the sanctification cart before the justification horse, absolution before confession. They invert the Law/Gospel order as a clever way of nullifying the Law.
I know that this is difficult for you and for many who have spent years sitting in the ELCA pew to understand. For I know that many have heard a milquetoast message of Christ the Great Enabler and a message of Grace which has conveniently omitted addressing God's Righteous Will beforehand. Why shake up the congregation with Law, as a mirror, it reasons, cause we've been there, done that. We're all Christians here anyway, right?
Then, when the heart, which retains a law, hears this "Gospel", the conscience immediately turns it into Law. . .Unwittingly, the hearer uses this Gospel as a mechanism for self-justification. So, in the ELCA pew today, one is often left with a message kind of like this: "We're all in (saved). . .So we oughta ________"(fill in the blank). Justification is gone, for it is assumed that the listener no longer needs to hear that they are a sinner. The message that is heard is no longer Mercy for Sinners, but Justice for Victims. Gradually this law within the heart begins to believe that its prior guilt was illegitimate, caused by decades of false guilt perpetrated by a mean-spirited cadre of biblicists, legalists, homophobes, and bigots in the church. Sadly, nobody is guilty anymore, except the aforementioned. Everyone is just "broken". And the job of the church is no longer to bring sinners to repentance, and show them the Mercy of Christ, but to demand justice within the Church and throughout the world. And as the law in the heart is hardened, psychopathy sets in, which some like to call "the spirit". . . .
So, John, I have read your verses. I just want you to come out of your sanctification shadow, which assumes we no longer bother ourselves with the weightier matters of faith and the souls of others, and come into the justification light!
My commentary
Posted by
John
at
August 30, 2009 21:14
Henry:I am writing this from the point of view of a person who is in Christ and is very much interested in the Spirit's work in me.
I invite you to study this carefully and tell me what you discover there and where you want to evaluate what I have written.
We start with Romans 1.
(1)The Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. (Note that it says everyone)
(10)Righteousness which we all need to come into the presence of God is found in the Gospel.
(18)The wrath of God is being revealed in Pauls day against those who suppress the truth by their own wickness.
At this point Paul's writing turns to past tense.
He now in no uncertain terms describes human wickness.
Chapter two:
(l) We have no excuse to pass judgement on someone els4e for all humans do the same thing. (Sinner)
(12)Those who sin without knowing the law will perish apart from the law. Those who sin under the law will be judged by the law. Those who obey the law will be declared rigteous in God's sight. The Gospel declares God will judge lhuman secrets through Jesus Christ.(Notice this happens in the secrets of the heart)
(28)The law is the law of the heart, by the Spirit, not by a written code.
Chapter three:
(20) No one will be declared righteous by observing the law we only become conscious of sin.(The law)has no power in itself to change us only make us aware of sin)
(11) No one was become righteous, not even one. (Under the law)
(21)A righteousness from God apart from the law has been msade known.
(22) This righteousness came through faith. (not the law)
(22)This God accomplished through Jesus christ to all who believe.
(24)All are justified freely by grace through redemtion that came by Jesus Christ.
(25)Where then is boasting? It is excluded. Why? Not because of the law.(We can't boast of being righteous because of the law)
But by faith.
(28)A person is justified by faith apart from the law. (Law has no value in this situation)
(31)Do we nullify law by faith. No, we uphold the law. (We uphold the law not by our own effort,but by faith in Jesus Christ)
Chapter four:
Paul writes about the covenant with Abraham.
(22)Abraham faith was accredited to him as rightiousness.(Abraham was righteous in God's eyes because of faith)
(25) These words were written for you and me. (Thats you and me also)
(24) God will credit righteousness to us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
(25)We are justified by Christ's death and resurrection.
Chapter four:
(15) Consequently, just as the result of one mans trespass was condemnation for all humans, so also the result lof one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to humans.
(20) The law was given so that the trepass might increase. When sin increased, grace increalsed all the more.
Chapter Six:
(1) We died to sin in baptism. How can we live in sin any longer?
(4)Rather, as Christ was reaised from death, we can live a new life. (Here Paul starts his writing about our new life in Christ)
(11) We are to count ourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.(Why? Because of Christ and His moving into us in baptism. We can do it by using the gift of faith)(The faith person's desire becomes that of giving ourselves to God as one who has been bought from death into life.)(This giving of ones self is not brought on by the law it is brought on by the Spirit within us)
(15) Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?)
(17) Once as slaves to sin(under the law) we now obey the form of teaching to which we have been entruseted. (Under the Spirit)
(18)We are set free from sin (law) and having become slaves of righteousness.
(19)Under the law we reaped death.
(22)Set free from sin and having become slaves to God the benefit we reap leads to holiness and the result is eternal life.
Chapter eight:
(4) So, brothers and sisters, you also deied to the law though the body of Christ and we belong to him to bear fruit to God.(Remember we are faith people)
(7) The law is not sin. The law made us aware of sin.
(!!) For sin seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived us and
through the commandment put us to death. What the law did was good therefore the law shoud not be condemned. (Remember were in Christ)
(25)I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Chapter Eight:
(Now Paul turn to life in the Spirit. Life under the New Covenant)
(1) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life sets me free from the law of sin and death (This law of sin and death is the very law we have been talking about)(We are free of it and are now in the law of the Spirit, the new covenant)
(3)What the law was powerless to do God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinfull humans to be a sin offering. He condemned sin in us, in order that the righteous requriments of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according our sinful nature (by the power of the Spirit)but according to the Spirit.
(5) Those who live according to the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind controled by the Spirit is life and peace.
(9) We who are in Christ are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit if the Spirit of God lives in us
(15) For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear(or the law) but you received the Spirit of sonship.
(16) We are God's children.
(The Spirit sanctifies us.
Ephesians
Chapter two
(14)Christ is our peace, who has made the two one and distroyed the barrier,the driving wall of hostililty, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
His purpose 3was to create onbe new man out of two(unity in Christ)
thus making peace.And in this one body to rreconcile both or them to God through the cross by which he put to death their hostility.In Christ we are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by the Spirit.
Galatians
Chapter Three
(23)Before jaityh came, we were held prisoners by the law (no freedom) locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith.
(25)Now that faith has come, we are no longerunder supervision of the law.
Chapter Four:
(6) Because you are sons and daughters God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, tye Spirit who calls out Aba , Father.
(7) So you are no longer a slave but a son, and sence you are a son, God has made you an Heir.
My conclusion to this is we no longer live under that law as slaves. But live in the Spirit as free people in Christ. The Spirit,however, brings our attention to the law and corrects and, grows us in His own time, place, and way. People are brought to the awareness of sin by the law, when they turn to Christ in faith the Spirit not the law grows them.
Remember that the homosexual we are talking about have already come to faith and are already in Christ as the Spirit has drawn them. The law is out of place to use on them. The Gospel of love is what will change them if that is what the Spirit call for. I look forward to your insights and writings. This may not be all that needs to be said to convince anyone. John
I invite you to study this carefully and tell me what you discover there and where you want to evaluate what I have written.
We start with Romans 1.
(1)The Gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes. (Note that it says everyone)
(10)Righteousness which we all need to come into the presence of God is found in the Gospel.
(18)The wrath of God is being revealed in Pauls day against those who suppress the truth by their own wickness.
At this point Paul's writing turns to past tense.
He now in no uncertain terms describes human wickness.
Chapter two:
(l) We have no excuse to pass judgement on someone els4e for all humans do the same thing. (Sinner)
(12)Those who sin without knowing the law will perish apart from the law. Those who sin under the law will be judged by the law. Those who obey the law will be declared rigteous in God's sight. The Gospel declares God will judge lhuman secrets through Jesus Christ.(Notice this happens in the secrets of the heart)
(28)The law is the law of the heart, by the Spirit, not by a written code.
Chapter three:
(20) No one will be declared righteous by observing the law we only become conscious of sin.(The law)has no power in itself to change us only make us aware of sin)
(11) No one was become righteous, not even one. (Under the law)
(21)A righteousness from God apart from the law has been msade known.
(22) This righteousness came through faith. (not the law)
(22)This God accomplished through Jesus christ to all who believe.
(24)All are justified freely by grace through redemtion that came by Jesus Christ.
(25)Where then is boasting? It is excluded. Why? Not because of the law.(We can't boast of being righteous because of the law)
But by faith.
(28)A person is justified by faith apart from the law. (Law has no value in this situation)
(31)Do we nullify law by faith. No, we uphold the law. (We uphold the law not by our own effort,but by faith in Jesus Christ)
Chapter four:
Paul writes about the covenant with Abraham.
(22)Abraham faith was accredited to him as rightiousness.(Abraham was righteous in God's eyes because of faith)
(25) These words were written for you and me. (Thats you and me also)
(24) God will credit righteousness to us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
(25)We are justified by Christ's death and resurrection.
Chapter four:
(15) Consequently, just as the result of one mans trespass was condemnation for all humans, so also the result lof one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to humans.
(20) The law was given so that the trepass might increase. When sin increased, grace increalsed all the more.
Chapter Six:
(1) We died to sin in baptism. How can we live in sin any longer?
(4)Rather, as Christ was reaised from death, we can live a new life. (Here Paul starts his writing about our new life in Christ)
(11) We are to count ourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.(Why? Because of Christ and His moving into us in baptism. We can do it by using the gift of faith)(The faith person's desire becomes that of giving ourselves to God as one who has been bought from death into life.)(This giving of ones self is not brought on by the law it is brought on by the Spirit within us)
(15) Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?)
(17) Once as slaves to sin(under the law) we now obey the form of teaching to which we have been entruseted. (Under the Spirit)
(18)We are set free from sin (law) and having become slaves of righteousness.
(19)Under the law we reaped death.
(22)Set free from sin and having become slaves to God the benefit we reap leads to holiness and the result is eternal life.
Chapter eight:
(4) So, brothers and sisters, you also deied to the law though the body of Christ and we belong to him to bear fruit to God.(Remember we are faith people)
(7) The law is not sin. The law made us aware of sin.
(!!) For sin seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived us and
through the commandment put us to death. What the law did was good therefore the law shoud not be condemned. (Remember were in Christ)
(25)I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Chapter Eight:
(Now Paul turn to life in the Spirit. Life under the New Covenant)
(1) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life sets me free from the law of sin and death (This law of sin and death is the very law we have been talking about)(We are free of it and are now in the law of the Spirit, the new covenant)
(3)What the law was powerless to do God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinfull humans to be a sin offering. He condemned sin in us, in order that the righteous requriments of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according our sinful nature (by the power of the Spirit)but according to the Spirit.
(5) Those who live according to the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind controled by the Spirit is life and peace.
(9) We who are in Christ are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit if the Spirit of God lives in us
(15) For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear(or the law) but you received the Spirit of sonship.
(16) We are God's children.
(The Spirit sanctifies us.
Ephesians
Chapter two
(14)Christ is our peace, who has made the two one and distroyed the barrier,the driving wall of hostililty, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
His purpose 3was to create onbe new man out of two(unity in Christ)
thus making peace.And in this one body to rreconcile both or them to God through the cross by which he put to death their hostility.In Christ we are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by the Spirit.
Galatians
Chapter Three
(23)Before jaityh came, we were held prisoners by the law (no freedom) locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith.
(25)Now that faith has come, we are no longerunder supervision of the law.
Chapter Four:
(6) Because you are sons and daughters God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, tye Spirit who calls out Aba , Father.
(7) So you are no longer a slave but a son, and sence you are a son, God has made you an Heir.
My conclusion to this is we no longer live under that law as slaves. But live in the Spirit as free people in Christ. The Spirit,however, brings our attention to the law and corrects and, grows us in His own time, place, and way. People are brought to the awareness of sin by the law, when they turn to Christ in faith the Spirit not the law grows them.
Remember that the homosexual we are talking about have already come to faith and are already in Christ as the Spirit has drawn them. The law is out of place to use on them. The Gospel of love is what will change them if that is what the Spirit call for. I look forward to your insights and writings. This may not be all that needs to be said to convince anyone. John
The Antinomian Error: A Tribute to the ELCA
Posted by
Henry
at
August 31, 2009 08:38
John. I do not doubt your sincerity in these theological matters one bit. Your anti-synergistic zeal, as seen above, is to be highly commended. But we now can see by what you have written that you have made a common error. What you have written is not Lutheran, but Antinomian.
Antinomianism is an ancient error, starting back in the time of Paul and the early "gnostics". It is a term coined by Luther against Johann Agricola, who's entire theology you could have just Xeroxed.
Sadly, I feel that this error may not be all your fault. Your thoughts have been aided and abetted by a willing accomplice, the ELCA. I have read this sentiment countless times in THE LUTHERAN magazine, and other pieces of ELCA literature over the years. I've heard it Sunday after Sunday. It is a theology that deprecates the Law for fear of fundamentalism, biblicism, legalism, synergism. It considers this The Battle that "Christians" with the spirit must fight. It assumes that Law abuse is all there is, giving nary a thought to Grace abuse. Erring on the side of Law, well that's unconscionable for a Lutheran, but erring on the side of "grace", well, who could be against that?
But one who is already "justified" and no longer hears the Law can no longer be declared guilty. And if one is not guilty, one cannot be a sinner. So when troubles occur, it's never my fault, I have love. It must be someone else's fault. And we all become a bunch of Victims while the church becomes a house of self-righteous malcontents thinking their "love" is better than anyone else's "love," for sure!
To be effective, this theology tries to put Gospel in front of the Law. I saw this back in 1994, when the 2nd Human Sexuality document was released and boldly stated, "“This church’s ‘Confession of Faith’ begins with the Gospel, instead of the sequence implied in the phrase ‘Law and Gospel’. . .” (Human Sexuality, Working Draft: a Possible Social Statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, October 1994). It amazed me that no-body, not even the so-called Lutheran theologians on the draft committee, caught this blatant antinomian error. We read it in countless posts on this website when we are told that it is Gospel that brings about repentance, not Law, cause that would be a "precondition" on unconditional love. And we read it in posts that all but claim that the Gospel, in the narrow sense of the term (words of comfort) is the only doctrine by which the Holy Spirit works.
If you get a chance, please pick up a copy of Walther's "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel". Perhaps you will discover, someday, that I am not the enemy. The Law is not the enemy. Sin is the enemy. And to believe that once you are a Christian, the Law is dangerous and is of no affect, then you must also believe that once in Christ, one is without Sin (or perhaps just sin, with a small s). True, the Law can ensnare a person into "works righteousness". But the reality is, the Christian who goes about covering their ears whenever the Law is mentioned, for fear of hindering "the spirit", has a heart that is becoming ever hardened and it is deluded by a new spirit of radical skepticism toward His Holy Word. Curious, isn't it, that this skepticism which only questions word of Law never questions words of comfort? How convenient! Scripture always seems to agree with that which it desires.
If, on the other hand, you continue to espouse the theology of which you write, please have the intellectual honesty not to call it "Lutheran".
Antinomianism is an ancient error, starting back in the time of Paul and the early "gnostics". It is a term coined by Luther against Johann Agricola, who's entire theology you could have just Xeroxed.
Sadly, I feel that this error may not be all your fault. Your thoughts have been aided and abetted by a willing accomplice, the ELCA. I have read this sentiment countless times in THE LUTHERAN magazine, and other pieces of ELCA literature over the years. I've heard it Sunday after Sunday. It is a theology that deprecates the Law for fear of fundamentalism, biblicism, legalism, synergism. It considers this The Battle that "Christians" with the spirit must fight. It assumes that Law abuse is all there is, giving nary a thought to Grace abuse. Erring on the side of Law, well that's unconscionable for a Lutheran, but erring on the side of "grace", well, who could be against that?
But one who is already "justified" and no longer hears the Law can no longer be declared guilty. And if one is not guilty, one cannot be a sinner. So when troubles occur, it's never my fault, I have love. It must be someone else's fault. And we all become a bunch of Victims while the church becomes a house of self-righteous malcontents thinking their "love" is better than anyone else's "love," for sure!
To be effective, this theology tries to put Gospel in front of the Law. I saw this back in 1994, when the 2nd Human Sexuality document was released and boldly stated, "“This church’s ‘Confession of Faith’ begins with the Gospel, instead of the sequence implied in the phrase ‘Law and Gospel’. . .” (Human Sexuality, Working Draft: a Possible Social Statement of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, October 1994). It amazed me that no-body, not even the so-called Lutheran theologians on the draft committee, caught this blatant antinomian error. We read it in countless posts on this website when we are told that it is Gospel that brings about repentance, not Law, cause that would be a "precondition" on unconditional love. And we read it in posts that all but claim that the Gospel, in the narrow sense of the term (words of comfort) is the only doctrine by which the Holy Spirit works.
If you get a chance, please pick up a copy of Walther's "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel". Perhaps you will discover, someday, that I am not the enemy. The Law is not the enemy. Sin is the enemy. And to believe that once you are a Christian, the Law is dangerous and is of no affect, then you must also believe that once in Christ, one is without Sin (or perhaps just sin, with a small s). True, the Law can ensnare a person into "works righteousness". But the reality is, the Christian who goes about covering their ears whenever the Law is mentioned, for fear of hindering "the spirit", has a heart that is becoming ever hardened and it is deluded by a new spirit of radical skepticism toward His Holy Word. Curious, isn't it, that this skepticism which only questions word of Law never questions words of comfort? How convenient! Scripture always seems to agree with that which it desires.
If, on the other hand, you continue to espouse the theology of which you write, please have the intellectual honesty not to call it "Lutheran".
John
Posted by
Rik
at
August 31, 2009 12:23
John,
Henry Wrote, "If you get a chance, please pick up a copy of Walther's 'The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel'." I disagree with his words "if you get a chance." It is a high priority, and I'm anxious to hear what you think of this classic Lutheran book. A condensed version is available under the title "God's Yes and God's No." (CPH) Better that than nothing, although the classic volume Henty recommended is a far better choice. Also, I would personally suggest "Handling the Word of Truth: Law and Gospel in the Church Today" by John T. Pless (CPH). May God's Spirit guide you, and may God bless your studies as you grow in the wisdom and knowledge of His revealed Word. Thank you (in advance) for considering these titles in your continuing encounter with God.
Pless, John T
Henry Wrote, "If you get a chance, please pick up a copy of Walther's 'The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel'." I disagree with his words "if you get a chance." It is a high priority, and I'm anxious to hear what you think of this classic Lutheran book. A condensed version is available under the title "God's Yes and God's No." (CPH) Better that than nothing, although the classic volume Henty recommended is a far better choice. Also, I would personally suggest "Handling the Word of Truth: Law and Gospel in the Church Today" by John T. Pless (CPH). May God's Spirit guide you, and may God bless your studies as you grow in the wisdom and knowledge of His revealed Word. Thank you (in advance) for considering these titles in your continuing encounter with God.
Pless, John T
Word processing errors
Posted by
Rik
at
August 31, 2009 12:28
I apologize for my error in accidentally misspelling Henry's name, and in the name "Pless, John T. appearing at the end of my comment. The comment was entirely mine, as J. Pless is the author of one of the books I recommended. Please forgive my fingers for missing the mark.
Reading assignment
Posted by
John
at
August 31, 2009 19:22
Henry and Rik:You must show me from what I wrote that I am Antinomian. You will notice what I wrote is direct from Romans. You need to show me how I am reading Paul wrong. I do believe in the need for the law. But under the new covenant Paul makes it clear that its use is changed from the Old Testment. How law is applied me is different than you fellows wish to see it. But I am willing to hear your interpretation of Romans as a commentary.
By the way I know and have stutied both book in Seminary. P.S. I just went back and re-read what you both wrote. Henry, you are so far removed from what I was expressing I can't believe you really
studyed what I shared from Paul. Please if you wish to continue this discussion try to capture what I am confessing with out fitting it into your mould of what you think I am. By the way what Lutheran body do you fellas belong too. John
By the way I know and have stutied both book in Seminary. P.S. I just went back and re-read what you both wrote. Henry, you are so far removed from what I was expressing I can't believe you really
studyed what I shared from Paul. Please if you wish to continue this discussion try to capture what I am confessing with out fitting it into your mould of what you think I am. By the way what Lutheran body do you fellas belong too. John
Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much
Posted by
Henry
at
August 31, 2009 20:58
John. The best commentary on Romans I know of is Luther's.
As for your confession, you have made your beliefs abundantly clear. Once "justified" (which includes homosexuals who have accepted their sexual orientation and have found expression of who and what they are in a loving and committed relationship, but apparently excludes homosexuals who have repented of what they consider to be a sin) a "Christian" (meaning anyone who professes Christ, cause there are no false prophets in the church) is to place one's trust in the working of the "Spirit" who works in mysterious ways (apparently not through the mirror of the Law, only through Gospel) and tells us not to judge others in the church (contrary to 1 Cor 5:12), maintain unity over truth (contrary to 2 Corinthian 6:14), remain dubious about the meanings of Paul's letters (historical criticism, of course), be suspicious those who talk about the Law (cause they usually use misuse Scripture) and be loving.
As for your confession, you have made your beliefs abundantly clear. Once "justified" (which includes homosexuals who have accepted their sexual orientation and have found expression of who and what they are in a loving and committed relationship, but apparently excludes homosexuals who have repented of what they consider to be a sin) a "Christian" (meaning anyone who professes Christ, cause there are no false prophets in the church) is to place one's trust in the working of the "Spirit" who works in mysterious ways (apparently not through the mirror of the Law, only through Gospel) and tells us not to judge others in the church (contrary to 1 Cor 5:12), maintain unity over truth (contrary to 2 Corinthian 6:14), remain dubious about the meanings of Paul's letters (historical criticism, of course), be suspicious those who talk about the Law (cause they usually use misuse Scripture) and be loving.
The Word
Posted by
John
at
August 31, 2009 22:21
Dear Fellows: You who spoke so loudly about the Word being our authority. Why will you not take a hold of Romans as I did and give me your insights and with the Word in hand look at what I wrote and discuss it with me. Do this sentence at a time as I did. This would be a lot more helpful than labeling me and telling me what I believe and who I am as a person. Are you afraid you may learn something? Why can't you tell me what Lutheran body you belong to. Are you ashamed? If you don't want to search the scriptures with me forget it. John
I remain hopeful you will learn something
Posted by
Mike Bauman
at
September 02, 2009 01:05
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
It's me now . . . "but have pleasure in them that do them.". That's what it's all about . . . . so called "feeling".
--Mike
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
It's me now . . . "but have pleasure in them that do them.". That's what it's all about . . . . so called "feeling".
--Mike
What ?
Posted by
John
at
September 02, 2009 09:25
Mike: What are wanting to show by the use of these separtate texts? Surely, you realize that you must use them in the context of at least the first 8 chapters of Romans. If you do realize this you certainly know that these texts cannot be used to condemn others who are Christ. Look at what I wrote a few posts back on the first 8 chapters plus Eph and Gal. Tell me what you think in that context.John
Re: What?
Posted by
Ben
at
September 02, 2009 11:16
Yet, you omitted those verses from your review of Romans 1.
Left out
Posted by
Ben
at
September 02, 2009 11:36
Ben: I did so because they were not all needed to follow Paul's line of thought. I thought "non are righteous no not one" was adaquate and I did not want to copy the whole letter. If you have read my whole post you see that what I just explained makes sense. Sorry you apparently took it that I left them out to cover something up. I don't use scripture as proof texts. I tend to study scripture with the whole message in mind. I invite you to read my complete post(Aug 30, 31:14) and share with me how you think I am interpreting it and then share with me how you see the whole message of Paul in those chapters of Romans.I am trying to get someone(s) to get serious with me about bible study rather than just pooling what we have though all these years. John
Re: Left out
Posted by
Ben
at
September 02, 2009 16:54
John,
I did read your whole post. I agree that what you said makes sense (i.e., is internally consistent); however, I disagree that it is an accurate reflection of what Paul is saying. I am not going to go through all of Romans, because I think you have made a critical error in your interpretation of Romans 1. I think the message of Romans 1 is that we are all sinners. God has made clear to us the difference between right and wrong; notwithstanding that, we do what we know to be wrong and omit what we know to be right. On our own, we are not capable of living the lives God would have us live. Because God is merciful, he sent his Son to die for our sins; by faith in Him we are delivered from condemnation. We cannot cause our own deliverance because of our own depravity. The worst example of our depravity is the self-deception we use to justify conduct we know to be wrong. In those situations, God gives us over to our own desires, and we do not have the righteousness necessary to appear before Him.
I do not think that any of this negates the necessity of following the law. You seem to be arguing that once we follow Christ, it is no longer necessary to follow the law as written; rather, the law is to be found by us through our relationship with the Spirit. I think Romans 1 identifies at least one important flaw in this line of thinking. Specifically, the lengths we are willing to go to in order to practice self-deception. The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity--God is also the Father and the Son, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot be understood apart from each other. The Holy Scriptures are the written Word of God; the Holy Spirit will never lead us to anything contrary to the Word. Therefore, if we are lead to something contrary to the Word by what we believe to be the Spirit, we can know that it is not the Spirit doing the leading.
I did read your whole post. I agree that what you said makes sense (i.e., is internally consistent); however, I disagree that it is an accurate reflection of what Paul is saying. I am not going to go through all of Romans, because I think you have made a critical error in your interpretation of Romans 1. I think the message of Romans 1 is that we are all sinners. God has made clear to us the difference between right and wrong; notwithstanding that, we do what we know to be wrong and omit what we know to be right. On our own, we are not capable of living the lives God would have us live. Because God is merciful, he sent his Son to die for our sins; by faith in Him we are delivered from condemnation. We cannot cause our own deliverance because of our own depravity. The worst example of our depravity is the self-deception we use to justify conduct we know to be wrong. In those situations, God gives us over to our own desires, and we do not have the righteousness necessary to appear before Him.
I do not think that any of this negates the necessity of following the law. You seem to be arguing that once we follow Christ, it is no longer necessary to follow the law as written; rather, the law is to be found by us through our relationship with the Spirit. I think Romans 1 identifies at least one important flaw in this line of thinking. Specifically, the lengths we are willing to go to in order to practice self-deception. The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity--God is also the Father and the Son, and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit cannot be understood apart from each other. The Holy Scriptures are the written Word of God; the Holy Spirit will never lead us to anything contrary to the Word. Therefore, if we are lead to something contrary to the Word by what we believe to be the Spirit, we can know that it is not the Spirit doing the leading.
Sin yes, Law different relationship to it
Posted by
John
at
September 02, 2009 20:42
Ben: I really do appreciate your response. I agree with everything you have written.
We are and always will be sinners. God does in deed make clear to us what is right and wrong. We cannot know right and wrong on our own. The Spirit making use of the law helps us in knowing. I am not sure that living in the Spirit I would do deliberatly what the Spirit makes known to me is wrong. Unless I turn my back on Him. But one thing is sure I can't deliver myself,
That is why Christ did it for us. I have been delivered in the eyes of God from sin and death. He sees me as righteous as with Abraham. Forgivness every breathing second of my life is so real to me that I am free to do as Paul says,"Consider myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus"
Knowing the love of God allows me to rejoice in what Paul says again in chaper 8.
"There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according the sinful nature but according to the Spirit". Notice according to the Spirit. There is more good stuff in the next verses about life in the Spirit. There is a description of the relationship we have with the law. Law is still inportant to our lives but our trust, ability to change, etc is not by the law it is powerless to change our behavior. That is done by the Spirit. You are correct in writing that the Trinity is in tact. And the Spirit will not move us contrary to the law. And if we act contrary to the law it is not the Spirit. The law of the Spirit of life is different from the law of sin and death of which I have been set free.
The question becomes, what is life in the Spirit like. I do not think the life in the Spirit is a life where the law is beating up on us all the time, making me a slave to it. "Such condemnation is gone" verse eight. So what do I have left. I have the Spirit who has promised in baptism to give me new life. He will give it to me not the law. One of the most beautiful experiences of my life was when I finaly learned and believed I could trust Him. He is sanctifying me. What a sense of freedom there is under his care. To know that He has and will use His power, and love to keep me in Christ is wonderful. The law was thought to be able to change people in the Old Covenant. It has no such power. The lesson of the Old Covenant. We needed something more, and by God's mercy that more was Jesus. In the form of sinful man he went to the cross for us. He did and does what the law could not do. God accounts to me, through faith, righteousness. Then the Spirit moulds and shaps me into what He wants me to be. I trust Him. I don't have to do it on my own, I can't, but the law of the Spirit of life can. I would like reading from you again, Ben. Thanks for responding. John
We are and always will be sinners. God does in deed make clear to us what is right and wrong. We cannot know right and wrong on our own. The Spirit making use of the law helps us in knowing. I am not sure that living in the Spirit I would do deliberatly what the Spirit makes known to me is wrong. Unless I turn my back on Him. But one thing is sure I can't deliver myself,
That is why Christ did it for us. I have been delivered in the eyes of God from sin and death. He sees me as righteous as with Abraham. Forgivness every breathing second of my life is so real to me that I am free to do as Paul says,"Consider myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus"
Knowing the love of God allows me to rejoice in what Paul says again in chaper 8.
"There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according the sinful nature but according to the Spirit". Notice according to the Spirit. There is more good stuff in the next verses about life in the Spirit. There is a description of the relationship we have with the law. Law is still inportant to our lives but our trust, ability to change, etc is not by the law it is powerless to change our behavior. That is done by the Spirit. You are correct in writing that the Trinity is in tact. And the Spirit will not move us contrary to the law. And if we act contrary to the law it is not the Spirit. The law of the Spirit of life is different from the law of sin and death of which I have been set free.
The question becomes, what is life in the Spirit like. I do not think the life in the Spirit is a life where the law is beating up on us all the time, making me a slave to it. "Such condemnation is gone" verse eight. So what do I have left. I have the Spirit who has promised in baptism to give me new life. He will give it to me not the law. One of the most beautiful experiences of my life was when I finaly learned and believed I could trust Him. He is sanctifying me. What a sense of freedom there is under his care. To know that He has and will use His power, and love to keep me in Christ is wonderful. The law was thought to be able to change people in the Old Covenant. It has no such power. The lesson of the Old Covenant. We needed something more, and by God's mercy that more was Jesus. In the form of sinful man he went to the cross for us. He did and does what the law could not do. God accounts to me, through faith, righteousness. Then the Spirit moulds and shaps me into what He wants me to be. I trust Him. I don't have to do it on my own, I can't, but the law of the Spirit of life can. I would like reading from you again, Ben. Thanks for responding. John
correction to my post of Sept 2, 9:25
Posted by
Mike
at
September 02, 2009 11:42
Mike First line should read, "what are you wanting to show me"
"who are in Christ" where I left out the "in"
"who are in Christ" where I left out the "in"
sinning in Christ?
Posted by
Peter
at
August 31, 2009 20:59
Henry,
You set up the condition: "And to believe that once you are a Christian, the Law is dangerous and is of no affect, then you must also believe that once in Christ, one is without Sin"
How do you think someone could be simultaneously in Christ and in Sin? How would holding such a belief be consistent with Christ's forgiveness of sins?
You set up the condition: "And to believe that once you are a Christian, the Law is dangerous and is of no affect, then you must also believe that once in Christ, one is without Sin"
How do you think someone could be simultaneously in Christ and in Sin? How would holding such a belief be consistent with Christ's forgiveness of sins?
simul iustus et peccator
Posted by
Henry
at
September 01, 2009 06:47
Its a Lutheran concept. Although we are justified apart from the Law, by the vicarious atonement of Christ's death and resurrection, while we remain on this earth we are never sinless. It is by the law we know that we know sin.
Law and it's use
Posted by
John
at
September 01, 2009 19:52
Henry: Of course, we remain sinners, but we are to consider ourselfves dead to sin and alive in Christ Jesus. Romans 6:11 Explain! Why dead to sin. John
If there still IS an ELCA...