I think your summary of the pro-change arguments is really well-done, though I'm a bit confused about the "Lutheran veneer" you attribute to the latter argument. To be a clearer, I would have called it "cheap grace" ala Bonnhoefer, or "universalism" which our Lutheran Confessions condemn. Still, I suppose I see your point that, to the useful idiots who will be voting, any argument that has the words "grace" or "gospel" attached to it must somehow be "Lutheran."

Assuming these arguments were to carry the day, could we take a poll on whether we will be staying or going?

Could we also take a poll regarding whether or not we ought to be characterizing any group as "idiots" within this conversation?

If I remember my Greek correctly, idiot comes from idiotes, denoting someone that is ignorant and laking experience in a field of knowledge. If Peter is ascribing this term to all the voting members of the churchwide assembly, he has most obviously misapplied the term--they can't all be idiots. If, however, he meant it to refer to a subset within the voting membership--as he put it, ..."who will be voting, any argument that has the words "grace" or "gospel" attached to it must somehow be "Lutheran.""--then I think it safe to say that he used the term correctly, for surely anyone who assumes that the mere use of the terms "grace" or "gospel" without reflection upon their technical use is indeed an idiot for such are ignorant of the theological content of the words within the framework of our confessions.

What an interesting rationalization of a statement which is really quite atrocious! This very example speaks directly to the real nature of the problem.

Agreed, Kurt.

If the voting members are the sort who will robotically vote any argument that has the words "grace" or "gospel" in it, then they are misinformed. However, I still would not use the word "idiot."

Mark Hanson may very well turn out to be our John Shelby Spong, but I still wouldn't call him, Herbert Chilstrom, or anyone else pushing this agenda an "idiot."

Anyone that would call a group idiots in this discussion could not possible understand another point of view.

I agree with both you gentlemen, that "idiots" is not a term that should be thrown at others, especially not among Christians. "Useful idiot" is metaphoric, but highly inappropriate nonetheless.

The post titled "Idiots" was posted by me, not Kurt and John. It was ADDRESSED to them.

DP

Because of the political correctness foisted upon us by the originators of the "useful idiot" concept, we can no longer call a spade a spade. This is the problem many in the ELCA have, as they can no longer call sin sin.

You've submitted another rationalization to try to make the use of the pejorative "idiots" somehow acceptable. A "sin" is not a sinner, and a sinner is not necessarily an "idiot". The "idiot" statement is still out of line despite the rationalizations.

You don't get it at all. Sin is sin, but many Lutherans, wishing to be politically correct, are too "polite" to call sexual perversion what it is, sin.

No, you're the one who doesn't "get it." We were addressing the issue of whether or not posters should be calling ELCA delegates "idiots" and how that poster's defenders were rationalizing the pejorative statement. THAT is what we were talking about.

Sorry, Kurt, I didn't realized you ran things here.

That kind of irrelevant sarcasm gets the discussion nowhere. I was trying to keep the discussion on point.

the whole "idiots" comment and all the comments posted thereafter relating to it have become a RED HERRING FALLACY, the issue at hand is not over a name calling comment, but is the fact that the original poster of this topic made, neither side of the debate is willing to validate the other side as people, and yet the two arguments from the more "liberal" side, refuse to really call sin sin. quit the semantics, get back to the issue. you are all supposed to be adults here, some of you are pastors and theologians. ACT LIKE IT. READ YOUR BIBLES, LEAD IN SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY, LOVE, AND REAL GRACE. quit cheapening your positions in the Kingdom. this whole deal is bigger than any petty stupid Lutheran politics or the misinformed pundits on each side... what i see it that the Lutheran church has lost its appropriate "holy fear" of the Position of a Holy God, who offers free grace for the sinner and for repentant struggling saint.
There is a REAL spiritual eternal consequence when people treat God that way... to quote the original thread author regarding the MAIN POINT: "I suspect the latter argument, though weaker, is more widespread because it has the veneer of Lutheranism and doesn’t come out with the really shocking claim of the former. But, ironically again, the former is the one you can actually talk to. It recognizes both law and gospel; the latter stubbornly refuses to. The former says certain Bible passages don’t apply; the latter says certain Bible passages don’t matter. The difference is tremendously important.

A God that does not judge is a God that does not love. The effort to exonerate God from anyone’s possible damnation, to justify God in this way, doesn’t satisfy the theodicy problem regarding salvation, but actually makes it worse and even makes God immoral: nothing is finally evil, for God tolerates all and blesses all. This is not the faith of the martyrs on whose blood the church was built.

Fine post. Grace has no meaning without at least the POSSIBILITY of condemnation.

In the end, all may be saved. But we dare not PRESUME that this side of eternity. We must act and evangelize AS IF people really will be condemned. J.I. Packer, among others, has stressed this.

And among those martyrs on whose blood the church was built, is Lawrence, whose feast we celebrate today, August 10. Please indulge me this mention of my patron saint, whose name I am honored to bear.

Both arguments are thin on Scriptural grounds, but the second is worse than the first.

The first changes the nature of sin according to societal mores and suggests that the very nature of God changes. After all, if two people love one another, God is love, so He must approve, right? At the risk of sounding like "Jerry Springer," what then is to stop a brother and sister who fall in love and want the church to bless their "union"? After all, they LOVE each other, and Abraham and Sarah were half-brother/sister, so God must be good with it, right? OK, it's not good with Leviticus, but it's the same as not eating shellfish, right? It's adiaphora. Come to think of it, EVERYTHING is adiaphora.

The second is an "argument" more suited to a Unitarian Universalist or Unity Church "theologian." I am somewhat familiar with this as I used to attend a support group for which the local Unitarian assembly generously offered building space. I remember reading some of their literature. In their view, which is strong in the second view, even those who have committed horrible evils, like Adolf Hitler, will be forgiven because "God is love" and "grace" trumps everything. That way, we do not have to be accountable for our behaviour. It completely ignores what Paul says about "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial." It is not Lutheran, because it is all "Gospel" and no Law.

Both of the arguments are much more out of Marcion than Luther.

Sarah is right, that there is no way to proceed with a constructive argument with the second lot. I have tried to do so and have been called "legalist," "fundamentalist," "homophobic," etc. and told that I should "go back to the Missouri Synod."

I heard a joke once that said that much of modern Christendom would probably prefer a Bible written in 2B pencil, so that passages you don't like can conveniently be "erased."

Here is a quote from the ELCA official 2009 CWG page summarizing the social statement for the laity and voting members: "'Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust' addresses key Lutheran principles about living faithfully in a complex world, social structures, trust in relationships, cohabitation, sexual exploitation, abuses of the ministerial office and healthy workplaces." Obviously it is carefully crafted to avoid even any hint of anything potentially controversial and under no circumstance that it seeks to radically dispose of biblical truth as taught by the church throughout the ages. From this quote, there is no question which side and which particular argument outlined in the original post that the church leadership are promoting. It's a 'feel-good' veneer with tacit church endorsement under the guise of "Lutheran," and it talks about "faithfulness" and "social justice." So how could the useful idiots be wrong to vote for it?

What about untangling biblicism/legalism from Lutheranism on the other side of the debate? I don't think there's been any greater recognition of this than the idea that universalists are on the 'pass the resolution' side.

There is also a third argument in between the legalism of 'the Bible has the final say' and the universalism of 'do as you will, nothing matters'. It puts Christ as the final authority, and says that what is important is not the right ethic, but the right ethos. The correct ethics follow automatically from having the right ethos. Also, it is not the ethics that allows for salvation. That requires the correct ethos, or faith.

We cannot "untangle" Biblicism from Lutheranism. Luther appealed to the Bible as his final source of doctrine. And, yes, the GOSPEL is found in the BIBLE. It is not, as I heard one Lutheran churchman say after 2001 CWA, a matter of "we'll have to see if the Gospel goes beyond the Bible."

I have experienced REAL legalism (not in a Lutheran church), in a "Holiness" church. What those of us in WordAlone/Lutheran CORE doesn't even come close to that.

Your "Christ is the final authority" argument is baseless without going to the BIBLE. There is NO OTHER REVELATION of Christ, not unless you want to go to very doubtful works like the "Gospel of Thomas."

Do you even believe in Law and Gospel?

David,

The Bible's authority rests on Christ's authority. The Bible is our textual witness to Christ, not Christ is our witness to the Bible. I don't deny that there's plenty of very important stuff in the Bible, but the most important thing is Christ. Without Christ, the Bible is just so many ancient words. That also means Christ is the lens through which we read the Bible. We can't understand what the Bible says without Christ's death and resurrection.

Disentangling legalism from the Gospel is exactly what Luther was about. His whole Augsburg Aha! was that Christ is not a souped-up version of Moses, but something entirely new. The Law is not our source of salvation. Christ alone and only is. The Law certainly accuses us, and accuses all of us, but it does not hold us to living by laws of the Jewish theocracy or the laws of Paul's time. It holds us to the demand for total love of God and neighbor and accuses us of failing in that demand. It provides a curb against our excesses that destroy creation. Placing one's homosexuality into the ordaining of marriage does not destroy creation... if anything it upholds marriage as a divine institution by their participation in it.

And where in the Bible does Christ disregard the Hebrew Scriptures?

Again, I think you use "Christ" as a secular justice worldview to try and advance something which is NOT spoken of positively ANYWHERE in Scripture. ANYWHERE.

I would like to know, as before, what your source of revelation is. Just knowing some gay people in your congregation is hardly a "lens" for interpreting Scripture. And I already know your view on AC4 and reject it as theologically unsound.

I have never said that the Law is our source of salvation. However, what you seem to be proposing is that since we are saved through Christ, and He is our only source of salvation (which is true) then we can just stick a middle finger up at the Law and disregard it. Strong terminology, I know, but that's how it seems to me.

And, again, you have not answered my question on where do we draw the line? What if a couple related by blood want to have their relationship blessed and recognised by God simply because they "love one another and are in a monogamous, committed relationship," and because Abraham and Sarah were half-brother/sister?

Is recognising such a "relationship" under your definition of "Gospel?"

David,

Here're some examples of Christ violating Mosiac laws from John's Gospel:

John 2:13-22 cleansing the temple

John 4:7-30 speaking and sharing water with an unclean Samaritan woman

John 5:1-18 healing on the Sabbath

John 6:51-59 promoting cannibalism and from the synagogue, no less

John 8:1-11 failure to stone/condemn the adulteress as written in the Law of Moses

John 9:1-19 healing on the Sabbath

that leaves out the places where He claims to be God's equal, as well as the witnesses of the other 3 Gospels, which have him touching unclean people all over the place (Peter's mother-in-law, the leper right before that, many of these healings on the Sabbath no less, talking and eating with women, sinners, etc)

Also, I think you're incorrect in your statements that lifelong, committed monogamous homosexual relationships is not spoken positively in the Bible. It talks positively about marriage in many places and those are the passages that are most directly relevant to them.

Why do you think my understanding of AC4 is theologically unsound?

So far as salvation is concerned, we are entirely free from the Law. Maybe not being bound by it in Christ does seem like giving it the middle finger. However, the Law is not useless nor impotent and it immediately applies again the moment we stop trusting Christ. Also, the Law is fulfilled as a consequence of life in Christ. Most importantly, the Law and laws in the Bible are not synonymous. We understand this about the OT thanks to Luther. Unfortunately, we still need to learn this about the NT. In theory, it should be easier, since Paul laid down guidelines and descriptions. And this is the problem with this hue and cry about Scriptural interpretations. Of the 7 or so passages, half of them are OT. Those are best understood as not actually about homosexuality (ie the gang-rapes in Genesis), or part of the theocratic law (see Leviticus). In the NT, most of what we have about homosexuality is Paul's understanding of it (assuming for a moment that arsenokoites and malakoi actually refer to homosexuality, which is debatable). Paul was a sinner, which means we can't just take his word for it (even assuming for a moment that our culture and their culture has a similar enough understanding of the cause/source/origins/practice/etc of homosexuality that we could consider these passages as actually relating to homosexuality today). We need to read those passages through the light of Christ because to read those passages without necessitating Christ alone and only and understanding how Christ's benefits may comfort the devout conscience, is to fail the tests AC4 proposes for what is Christian.

So far as God recognizing and blessing relationships, He does that regardless of what we're doing as a church body or individuals. I believe He already "recognizes and blesses" same-sex relationships-- as evidenced by the love, joy, support and growth in Christian faith such relationships bring. The problem is that those of us tasked with spreading His promise of forgiveness are telling people that they cannot spread that promise unless they conform to our ideas of what God intends for them and that there is no life for those people in that promise unless they do what we, supposedly acting on God's behalf, tell them to do. The social justice end of equal marriage rights recognized by the state is an entirely different problem.

So, all that said, where we "draw the line". I don't believe that we are the ones that draw the line, and part of this problem is that we cling to the illusion that we have the power to 'draw the line'. The moment two people of any gender have sex with each other they are married. No ifs ands or buts about it. I also think if the church put this emphasis on sex, people might take it a whole lot more seriously. How the church deals with divorced, unfaithful and adulterous people depends on those people's specific situation. I think Melanchthon's understanding of concession to sin is useful for any such dialogue, and certainly how they from their position move forward to lead new lives in Christ is indispensible. The role of Pastoral Care in pre-marital counseling and the ceremony should be to speak with the couple in where they currently fail to live up to God's demand for total love (ie, the Law), especially in regards to their relationship together, and how the the couple can move forward together in new life in Christ. The only reason a pastor should be involved in a wedding is to help the new couple understand how they can glorify and proclaim Christ through their married life. I think the church community recognizing a wedding is important as well, but that's the community acting as a community, not as a church.

To follow your line of thinking, I am "married" to the first girl I had sexual relations with, not my wife. That would go clear back to when I was 14 years old, 30 YEARS AGO, and I don't even know where she is now. Was that wrong? YES. Was it sinful? YES.

Ummm...I suggest you read Jude 7 for just one other NT account, since you seem to disregard the OT, of homosexual behaviour being condemned.

And I just don't get what you mean about all this reading the Bible "through the light of Christ" stuff. It still sounds like you're reading the Bible to make it say what you want instead of the plain text interpretations LUTHER used.

In light of what Luther had to say about homosexuals, I think he would be quite horrified at your invocation of him to support your arguments.

So we don't have the power to "draw the line" at incest? At what NAMBLA advocates? At child brides? At the stuff one sees on "Jerry Springer?" "Just as long as they love each other?" Where do you get this stuff, man?

If you want to invoke science, I'll let you in on something that I learnt in a developmental psychology setting for counselling couples about to be married. Check out "genetic counselling," and see how that fits in with, for example, a brother and sister who want to marry (something you continue to ignore).

I've said before where I think you are incorrect on AC4, and the passages in the Bible referring to marriage do NOT refer to homosexuality. Period.

I've heard the "gang rape" argument for the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. It has truth to it. However, it's not all there is to it. If God would have wanted the text to say "this is to be differentiated from committed, same-sex relationships," He jolly well would have said so.

I have never said that we are saved by the Law. However, that does not give us licence to shoot the bird at the OT. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called that "cheap grace": "I'm saved by grace, so I can do what I want." I don't believe that, and you will never convince me of it.

Believe what you want, but I'm just not on board.

Here I stand.

David,

Yes, it means that you were married to the first girl you had sex with. I'd say that you've subsequently divorced her and remarried. The sin wasn't necessarily that you'd had sex without being formally married, but if you were not committed totally to that woman, if it had been done for selfish reasons rather than to help bind the two of you together and most importantly that your relationship was subsequently broken. The formal marriage stuff is important insofar as it helps us guard against divorce, because the legal entanglements and big deal it is rams home just how important it is to be married to your spouse, and only to your spouse. That's why marriage is set in the secular world-- it's not about redemption, it's about protective legislation. Homosexuals are in just as much need of that protective legislation as heterosexuals. (actually, I'd argue they need it more so).

I think you have a different idea from me about "loving each other". The problem with child brides is that most of the time one person is betraying the trust of a child. The stuff on Jerry Springer shows us the fruits of divorce and sexual infidelity. None of that encourages faith in Christ or spreads Christ's promise. As to brother/sister pairings, I think there have already existed some such relationships that were not sinful. That doesn't mean that all of them are not sinful. There are bigger things at play.

The passage in Jude has the same problem that most of the others do- what does 'strange flesh' mean? Put most plainly, strangers could easily be described as 'strange flesh'. And does God really need to clarify that homosexual rape (say like we find in prisons today) is different than homoseuxal marriage?

Finally, I'm not out to convince you that "cheap grace" is the rule of the day. What I am out to say is that what is demanded by the Law in certain parts of Scripture has been relativised by Christ's coming. We must "consider the perpetual aim of the Gospel" as the AC says.

...where you get this stuff.

Your statement that some brother-sister relationships are "not sinful" is hideous, and not shared by ANYONE I have met in the mental health/behavioural science community. ANYONE. But I suppose they/we don't "look at it through the lens of Christ, the Gospel," or whatever, do we? We poor, uninformed lot, many of whom have Ph.D.s (sometimes multiple), Psy.D. (which I'm working on), MSW's, M.D./D.O. psychiatrists, just "don't have the Gospel" do we? I know a lot of my colleagues who would differ from you, quite vociferously, especially some who work in Christian counselling practices.

I will tell you this, and I do not budge from it, and, as cruel as it sounds, I don't particularly care if it offends you. Incest is NEVER, EVER a good thing. There are ALWAYS consequences, if not physically, then emotionally. I have seen it all too many times.

And even if you may consider sex between adults and children to not be "sinful," I am REQUIRED BY LAW to report it, and take part in prosecution if need be. It doesn't matter if it was "consensual" or if "they love each other" or not.

And your assertion that I was married to my teenage girlfriend is absolute Bravo Sierra (old Air Force term, look it up). So, if a man who is a member of NAMBLA (an organisation those in my field are working hard to shut down) has "consensual" sex with an eight-year-old (their motto is "sex before eight or it's too late"), then in your eyes are they "married," and it's "Gospel?"

If so, I think you would benefit from a visit to some of my colleagues' practices.

Who draws the line at what parts of the law are "relativised by Christ's coming?" It sounds like the old sixties ethos of "if it feels good, do it."

If I may, how old are you? Fifty will be here for me sooner rather than later.

David,

I'm not saying that brother/sister relationships are to be encouraged. I'm saying the fact that it's brother/sister is not what makes it sinful. It's all of those emotional and physical problems that come from it. Even if the Bible said nothing about incest, those problems would be sufficient to condemn that behavior as sinful. If you could find a brother/sister relationship that was as healthy as a normal marriage (normal instead of an especially broken one), it would not be any more sinful than that normal marriage. That's my statement. I do not expect to find many or even any brother/sister relationships that would qualify, but it is theoretically possible.

So to marriage and NAMBLA and sex with children. I didn't say consensual sex with children was not a sin. Children can't give their consent... that's a large part of why you're required to report such things by law, and rightly so. But consider ancient Rome, when people got married in their teens. Was it sinful for two 14 year-olds to get married and start producing children then? Today it probably is, and I say 'probably' only to leave in the possibility that the marriage is a lasting and stable one and not to indicate that such marriages will generally be stable.

But are they married? I'd say so. Sin is thoroughly mixed up with marriage, and some decisions to marry are sinful (and I'm not just talking about the obvious ones here). Hence we are given divorce as a concession to sin. Marriage is not automatically a good thing-- it gets twisted by sin just like everything else.

So drawing that line. I'd say it's back to AC4 again. It's not 'feel good, do it', it's 'encourages trust in God's promise to forgive sinners through Christ alone and only' and 'spreads the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted'. I'd argue that was the very line used to justify relativizing the OT theocracy laws or the later apostles' abstention from blood. For secular things, it's very much up to the culture-- that's how we do government and all of the other left-hand things, including marriage, although with Bonhoeffer's caveat that we can't properly treat left and right hands as entirely separate.

Sounds like I'm about 20 years behind you, age-wise.

The age difference, that is.

I don't mean that as a knock. Really. In fact, I have to chuckle a little bit. When I was in my teens-early 20s, I thought I knew everything, and that people who are the age I am now were just stodgy old (censored) still living in the past. My first day at Lackland Air Force Base disabused me of that notion (loudly).

But seriously, there is a generational divide (I hesitate to use "generation gap") on how many view sexuality and religion between "baby boomers," "Generation X" and "Generation Y/millenials." I am on the cusp between "baby boomers" and "Generation X" (i.e., "That '70s Show" was reality pie for me).

I won't bore you with sociological minutiae, but suffice it to say that people your age are generally a lot less tied to religious orthodoxy and tend to see homosexuality and bisexuality as equally normative with heterosexuality.

David,

If orthodoxy wasn't important to me, I think I'd be arguing differently. My argument is that orthodoxy to the Gospel requires the church to recognize and support marriage of homosexuals. There are plenty of arguments on the pro-homosexual marriage side that I don't buy, either (universalism and liberal biblicism to name the two biggest ones).

I suspect that by the time I'm 50, I'll still think I know everything, even if I've refined (how's that as a euphemism for 'was totally wrong about'?) my beliefs.

Peter: You and I are near the same page. Big difference you can state it so much better than I can. Question: "Lens of Christ" is that not also refering to "New Covenant" We live under a new covenant with Christ as the center. To understand how life in Christ we need to have insight into the New Covenant.How do you see this, Peter.

...or are you just trying to be outrageous to get a response?

I think Sarah might also agree that the second position comes down to ideology. I wouldn't say this applies to all theologians, but the position she describes--and which Paul Hinlicky ably writes about in a recent posting--tends to connect the pro-gay position with a whole range of other positions--inclusive language, feminism, political liberationism. It's the idea that gospel is about progressivism and inclusivity. It it was just a matter of a relatively orthodox and non-ideological denomination debating what the Bible says on homosexuality, there would be a great deal less division and threat of schism.

I think you are right in many cases, Richard.

I think that the "neutered" versions of God the Father in the ELW and the commentary in the Lutheran Study Bible show that, as well as the heresy (yes, I'll call it that) of www.herchurch.org.

It's ironic on my part, because I hold political beliefs that could be called socialist (I'm not scared of the word). That was one of my problems in the LCMS, where it was assumed that you were Republican and an unquestioning supporter of George W. Bush. In 2004 I was "advised" not to put John Kerry campaign bumper stickers on my car.

However, when it comes to theology, I reject almost all of the things that you mention, at least in context.

Inclusive language - a heresy denying God the Father. The dogged refusal to assign a male pronoun to God the Father in ELW and LSB just sounds silly.

Feminism - see "inclusive language" and all the "goddess" stuff advanced by herchurch.org.

Political liberationism - which is why I voted for Obama; I did not like the way the country I once served in uniform was going under Bush.

Progressivism - that is a wide net, ranging from universal health care (which I support) to the positions Peter advocates.

Inclusivity - that is a buzzword rarely used outside the issue of gay marriage/ordination.

Virtually all of the posts on this issue across several articles essentially boil down to being driven the premise of arguing about the components of a salvific theology. I find the entire premise very interesting, namely that God sets up creation to play these games with people to determine who will be saved, and meanwhile, in order to even make that transition, we have to grieve over death in the process.

Kurt, a Calvinist would say that it is all pre-ordained anyway who will be saved and who will not.

An Arminian would say that it is a matter of human free choice choosing to accept or reject God's free grace.

Lutherans believe in neither. We believe that God chooses us, but we can choose to reject His free gift.

However one wants to structure it, emphasis on a salvific theology nonetheless becomes a game God has set up.

Kurt said,

"Virtually all of the posts on this issue across several articles essentially boil down to being driven the premise of arguing about the components of a salvific theology. I find the entire premise very interesting, namely that God sets up creation to play these games with people to determine who will be saved, and meanwhile, in order to even make that transition, we have to grieve over death in the process."

So you clearly identify with the author's 2nd group that argues that Gospel trumps law, and that essentially God is universalistic. Isn't that more absurd to believe that God set up everything such that people would hurt each other in the myriad of ways that they do, and experience death, and that there would be no one who would not be saved, (particularly those who are not repentant in any way for the hurts, crimes, evils they committed)? God didn't set up any game. He created people in his own image, meaning he didn't create them as puppets or robots, he didn't create them as animals who do most things instinctively or reactively. He created people who could genuinely love, but that meant taking a risk of those same people genuinely not loving (and not only not loving God but one another). God didn't need anything, but he wanted relationships with you, me, and all people, genuine relationships of love (not lust, not manipulation, not self seeking) but of selfless love. When the Garden of Eden thing went awry, God didn't play a game, he showed that there is no hope in getting rid of sin because that means getting rid of all the people ala Noah and the Ark. So he chooses to send his Son Jesus who seeks to rescue those who will trust him and follow him to be rescued from out of the sin that holds them captive. But as the first group noted in the above article has problem with, one must know what is and isn't sin in order to agree to be rescued from it (even if its by God's grace, as I surely believe). Indeed salvation is at the heart of this issue, because the definition of what is and isn't sin is at the heart of this issue and so thus what does and does not need God's grace is at the heart of this issue. This is no game. Its a matter of life and death, both temporally and also eternally.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to package me into a group. Actually, if I'm a member of either group, it is the first group and not the second, so you're wrong on that analysis. And, you've agreed with me that the salvific component is at the heart of this issue, and regardless of how the traditionalists exposit on it, God still set it up, unless one believes that God is not omnipotent.

From Adam and Eve the issue has been relationships not behaviors.
What God judges is our relationships not our individual behaviors. When a behavior hurts a relationship it is sin. The first sin was the separation that came about when Eve and Adam thumbed their nose at God. The expression of that broken relationship (sins behavior) was the eating of the tree. The result of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was humans forever thinking they could judge behaviors.
Christ brought us back to the real concern of relationahips with his commandment of love.(reconciliation with God and neighbor)
When we fail to love (sins, behaviors)we are under judgement not because of behaviors but because of broken relatioships.
The knowledge of good and evil became ours in a broken (separation) relationship (sin) with God. Therefore we need to own the truth that we don't know what good and evil behaviors are (sins). Those behaviors that promote loving, commited relatioships are not (sins) because they are expressing the love of the couple. Behaviors are not evil in themselves but are evil (sins) when they destroy a relationship. We need to be careful, it seems to me, when we put the emphasis on behaviors and judge those behavior as though we knew good from evil, like gods, rather than on relationships of love and commitment. I plead for someone to discuss with me what I started to express above and correct me from a full study of the scriptures. I need help here because I think our discussion ln the Church right now is because we have confused the about issues.As an example. The Lev. text and Romans text is not about behaviors its about relationships. Simply stated the life destroying relationships between adult men and young boys. What hurt God here is not the behaviors, but the relationships. Behaviors are not good or evil until they are expressed in a relationship. When behaviors are expressed in a loving, committed relationship in a love expressing way God is pleased. Behaviors have no desinated power of good of evil in themselves. Therefore, (Christ said) we should not judge. Relationships are different in that you will know a good relationship by the fruits of the spirit present there. So lets not judge relationship by the behaviors expressed there but rather Judge the relationship with the fruits of the Spirit present there.

I agree that relationships can be good or they can be bad, but behaviors matter as well. From your opening statement, “From Adam and Eve the issue has been relationships not behaviors” you dismiss the clear fact that the “behavior” of Adam and Eve is what separated them from God in the first place. Their choice to behave contrary to God’s instructions caused their separation from God and their decent into sin and death. So clearly, God judges hour behaviors as well as our relationships.

In your analyses of the story of Adam and Eve, you condemn their relationship with God before the behavior of the sin itself. And by saying that their bad relationship with God is made evident by the eating of the forbidden fruit, you’ve placed the cart before the horse.

When you say: “Therefore we need to own the truth that we don't know what good and evil behaviors are (sins),” I think you are correct, but that is why God gave us the gospels and the scripture, because we are not capable of knowing intrinsically what is good and bad, we have to evaluate what we think based on what the scriptures says is right.

Behaviors in relationships most certainly are important to God, and they should be important to us as representatives of our faith in him and his presence in us. I can have a proper relationship with my parents, with my children, with my spouse and with my neighbors, but my behaviors in each those relationships are different from my behaviors in the others. There are proper behaviors for each of those relationships and there are improper behaviors for each of those relationships.

When you make the generic description, “When behaviors are expressed in a loving, committed relationship in a love expressing way God is pleased”, you give free reign to any relationship behavior whatsoever, which clearly God has not ordained. You make no distinction between any one relationship or another, but that has no scriptural support whatsoever. The Bible is choke full of people who behave improperly in relationships, yet you would have us think that their bad behaviors were not condemned, only their eventual outcome of ruining their relationships. We are not free to make any relationship behavior ‘appropriate behaviors’ simply because we love and are committed to that relationship. Jesus once said that if we love only the ones that love us, we are not better than the sinners because even they love those who love them, you would have us believe that they couldn’t be sinners if they love each other. Christ asks Christians to do more though, he says to love him and to do as he commands, not love him and do whatever we want. John 14:23-24 "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.”

If it were otherwise then unsaved people would see no difference between their behavior and the behaviors of Christians, and when a person becomes a Christian they would not think that they need to behave any differently than they did before they converted. Jesus seems to expect otherwise. And as you already used the example of Adam and Eve, Jesus also used that example when the topic of marriage relationships came up, he said: Matthew 19:3-5 "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?”

And in that way Jesus shows that our relationships change and evolve, relationships between children and their parents and their relationships to their spouses, and that those relationships have acceptable behaviors, (not to cheat on your spouse or to have sexual relations outside of the Adam and Eve example/foundation…

You wrote: "Behaviors are not good or evil until they are expressed in a relationship." How do you explain Matt. 5 28 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart"? (NIV).

From Adam and Eve the issue has been relationships not behaviors.
What God judges is our relationships not our individual behaviors. When a behavior hurts a relationship it is sin. The first sin was the separation that came about when Eve and Adam thumbed their nose at God. The expression of that broken relationship (sins behavior) was the eating of the tree. The result of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was humans forever thinking they could judge behaviors.
Christ brought us back to the real concern of relationahips with his commandment of love.(reconciliation with God and neighbor)
When we fail to love (sins, behaviors)we are under judgement not because of behaviors but because of broken relatioships.
The knowledge of good and evil became ours in a broken (separation) relationship (sin) with God. Therefore we need to own the truth that we don't know what good and evil behaviors are (sins). Those behaviors that promote loving, commited relatioships are not (sins) because they are expressing the love of the couple. Behaviors are not evil in themselves but are evil (sins) when they destroy a relationship. We need to be careful, it seems to me, when we put the emphasis on behaviors and judge those behavior as though we knew good from evil, like gods, rather than on relationships of love and commitment. I plead for someone to discuss with me what I started to express above and correct me from a full study of the scriptures. I need help here because I think our discussion ln the Church right now is because we have confused the about issues.As an example. The Lev. text and Romans text is not about behaviors its about relationships. Simply stated the life destroying relationships between adult men and young boys. What hurt God here is not the behaviors, but the relationships. Behaviors are not good or evil until they are expressed in a relationship. When behaviors are expressed in a loving, committed relationship in a love expressing way God is pleased. Behaviors have no desinated power of good of evil in themselves. Therefore, (Christ said) we should not judge. Relationships are different in that you will know a good relationship by the fruits of the spirit present there. So lets not judge relationship by the behaviors expressed there but rather Judge the relationship with the fruits of the Spirit present there.

Mr Friedli:

If I understand you, our behaviour and conduct toward our fellow human beings mean nothing to God, only relationships.

As a behaviourist, I strongly dissent, and since behaviourism is my field of study, of course I place stress on it.

That said, am I to take it that the following behaviours are not important to God?

Adolf Hitler's murder of 6+ million Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, pacifists, Jehovah's Witnesses, political prisoners and POW's? Or his incestuous "relationship" with his niece, Geli Raubal, which brought about her suicide or (more likely) murder at the hands of the SS?

The subservience of most Lutheran churchmen in Nazi Germany to the "Volkskirche," which included deleting the Old Testament and much of the writings of "Rabbi Paul," which also "re-imagined" Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew, as a "prototypical Aryan?"

The murder, on direct order of Adolf Hitler, of the Lutheran churchman Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who openly preached against the Nazi regime and sheltered Jews?

Murderers like John Couey in Florida, who brutally raped and then buried alive a little girl (Jessica Lunsford)?

The terrorists who flew jet airliners into the World Trade Centre in the name of "Allah?"

Are all those the result of "broken relationships?"

Do you deny the reality of pure evil? If so, I once had a girlfriend who thought as you do. She was an adherent of the Unity Church.

Sorry, mate, but whether you recognise it or not, it doesn't all come down to "broken relationships," and there is NO Scriptural precedent for blessing homosexual relationships, and your interpretation of Leviticus and Romans is very ambiguous, as well as leaving out other passages (such as Jude 7) that do not present homosexuality in a favourable light.

Please.

Further, I think that Dr. Friedlii's writings speak directly *against* the Holocaust. Relationships have everything to do with behavior and vice versa.

Finally, thank you for bringing up Dr. Bonhoeffer who ignored the precedents present both in Scripture and in the tradition of the Church to ignore the plight of the Jews to speak and live a life of justice and active work against the Nazis by which he also sidestepped the 10 commandments. In *Ethics* there is a kernel of the solution that the ELCA is trying to work here by seeking out what is just over what is in the law and while there are folks spread out all over the charts in that regard I still have not seen or heard in this forum any sense of humility or even an iota of desire to seek to understand why our gay brothers and sisters are asking to be treated with equality and dignity in this church.

But comparing it to the Holocaust? Way, way, way, way, WAY over the line.

Chris Enstad

Wasn't there a rule, akin to Murphy's Law, that says that if a debate goes on long enough, eventually one or more of the parties will deploy the Holocaust as rhetorical example?

Has anyone else heard of this?

It is called Godwin's Law.

I used Hitler and the Nazis as an example because I cannot think of any behaviour more intrinsically evil.

For what it's worth, I was compared to the Nazis on another board for opposing homosexual marriage.

Jet back. I am not familiar with Dr Friedlii's other writings, outside of what he has posted on this board.

Neither am I comparing what the ELCA is doing to the Holocaust.

The point I was making, is that if the only thing mattering is "broken relationships" and not behaviour, then does God overlook the (unrepentant) behaviour of someone like Hitler, John Couey, etc., in the name of "grace"?

Where in Scripture is there precedent for ignoring the plight of the Jews?

In some church tradition, perhaps. I am aware, of course, of Luther's late-in-life inexcusable tirades against Jews who refused to convert.

Pope Pius XII has often been criticised for making a concordat with Nazi Germany, and for not doing more to alleviate the suffering of the Jewish people. Of course, the Jews were officially blamed by Rome for "killing Christ" until Vatican II.

The only "churches" I can think of who still promulgate that kind of anti-Semitism are the "Christian Identity" lot.

Yes there is precedent in Scripture and that is what led to the tradition of the church to ignore and even work against the Jews... it was a form of reading the Bible and taking what it said as a prescriptive for how to relate with people of another faith.

The Gospel of John is the touchstone for much of this starting in the first verse of the first chapter and cascading from there.

But don't neglect to touch down at John 8:44 for instance.

My point is this, I'm not trying to push forward a relativist argument here... and to find a way through this minefield that avoids either the trap of Biblioidolotry or liberalism takes hard work and community and conversation because one must balance Scripture with tradition AND experience and then use our God-given brains and hearts to figure it out people.

Because also present in John, for instance, are the sayings of Jesus and the author that give primacy to Israel. It is the Gospel that has Jesus saying, "I am the way to the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but by me." While also saying, "The true light that gathers *all people* to him" a statement that seems a nicely radical Lutheran one indeed.

And thanks to the guy who reminded us about Godwin's law!

Chris

I was the guy who reminded of Godwin's Law. I've seen it at work a LOT on other boards. As I cited, I was once compared to the Nazis because I oppose these resolutions. I do not use such comparisons lightly. Once one has seen Dachau and other examples of Hitler's handiwork, one doesn't view it in the same way again.

"Scripture, tradition and reason" is used as a rubric by Methodists (I know this, as a former Methodist), and I believe by Anglicans. They call it the "three-legged stool" that they use to interpret Scripture.

However, it is not Lutheran. Sola gratia, sola fide, sola Scriptura.

Chris Enstad misquoted Scripture when he wrote "It is the Gospel that has Jesus saying, 'I am the way to the truth and the life no one comes to the Father but by me.'" The actual quote in Scripture comes from John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life (Egō eimi hē hodos kai hē alētheia kai hē zōē). No one comes to the Father except through me.'" (NIV; UBS) Not the "way to the truth." The Way. The Truth. The Life. Please be more accurate when quoting Scripture, as your paraphrase does alter the meaning of the original text. Thank you.

"In *Ethics* there is a kernel of the solution that the ELCA is trying to work here by seeking out what is just over what is in the law." --In other words, we know what God's law says, but we believe it is unjust. Therefore, as in any democracy, if you don't like the law, you can vote to "throw the bums out" and change the law. Problem solved.

Since when is the rule of God a democracy?

He is our Lord, and we are His subjects.

I think it's a tougher process than that... as evidenced by what we're seeing all around us.

But thank goodness we made it through the slavery codes in one piece, hm?

What we are witnessing around us is the attempted dismantling of teaching that the Church has held to since antiquity because of hurt feelings and SECULAR concepts of "justice" and "inclusion."

The slavery issue, is, as you postulated in your misinterpretation of my citation of the Holiness movement, a "straw man" argument. Slavery is not endorsed or condoned in the Bible (though I concede some of the "holy war" stuff in Joshua and Judges comes close to that), BUT it was an extant condition at that time.

Again, it comes down to saying a behaviour that is not endorsed anywhere in Scripture, and is condemned in many places, is OK.

So, then, when do we start marrying brothers and sisters who love one another and are in a committed, monogamous relationship?

My apologies to you for saying you were the one who raised my citation of the Holiness movement as a "straw man" argument. Of course, you were not.

With love to David and anyone elso that wish to respond. I would like to hear your thoughts.But, please, I don't think I am an Idiot:
Adam and Eve broke the relationship (sin,separation) with God in the "instant" before eating of the tree. Eating of the tree(behavior,sins)came as the result of the (sin) separation Note that the sin came in the attitude (of the spirit) that came before eating of the tree. God's heart break came in the sin first, but, yes, in the behavior of eating of the tree because the behavior expressed not a loving relationship but a hurtful separation. So God cares about the separation(sin) because He loves us, and also the behavior because no love is show in that behavior. All of the behaviors you mentioned are painful to God because they reflect only broken relationship. The Nazi hated first and then expressed that hate. Broken relationship first then behavior. I belive the behaviors, many want to condemn, between two loving males in a loving and committed relationsip is an expression of love(good relationship)and we have no right to judge them or the behaviors.Such relationships of love is what reconciliation is all about. These insights of mine come from many texts but more importantly from the whole context of scripture as a whole. The Lev. and Romans text when seen in there context (no knowledge of homosexuality as we know it) forces us to look at relatioships but we are so steeped in judging behaviors with law that we condemn what went on back then because of the behaviors and don't even consider the pain and suffering in the relationship. Lev. and Romans are concerned about the unhealthy relationlships involved between (for instance)adult men and young boys. Lives were being destroyed. This is not true with what we are talking about tody. The relationship between to males in a loving and committed relatioship is expressing the reconciliation Jesus brought about. This can be understood only from God is love point of veiw. God is alway experienced in relationship.
I would like to believe that you mean that their is no scripture supporting unhealthy, hurting, selfcentered etc relationships. I would say in that case you are right and the behaviors are wrong. But I am talking about loving, committed, faithful to God relationships.and in these relationships there is all of scripture to witness to God being glorified by such love, (relationships) and the behaviors expressed there. This, in God's great and wonderful includsive love, includes a loving, committed, otherscentered, relationship and behaviors between two people of the same sexual orientation. It looks to me that many get hung up on homeosexual behaviors judging them as out side of a loving relationships. This is putting the cart before the horse. Behavior before relationships. When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they took that knowledger into a separated from God lives the result being we don't know right from wrong. We keep judging behaviors ,however, because we want to be like God knowing good from evil. Perhaps we need to concentrate on relationships so the Spirit can sanctify us with better behaviors whatever they might be that are an expression our loving relationships. Enough for this round. John

Mr. Rev. John Friedli wrote, "Lev. and Romans are concerned about the unhealthy relationlships involved between (for instance)adult men and young boys. Lives were being destroyed. This is not true with what we are talking about tody." I just looked up Romans 1:26-27 in both English and the original Greek. No where do I see a reference to adult men and young boys in this passage. The Greek word "arsēn refers to male; man, and not boy. The word "teknon does not appear, so please be accurate when reporting what Scripture says. It only takes a moment to look it up! Please let me know which translation you are working from.

Rik, check an earlier post I made rebutting Peter's statement that even some brother-and-sister incestuous sexual relationships are "not sinful" when "viewed through the lens of Christ" (which he never defines).

If we follow that line of (il)logic, who will be the next CWA keynote speaker? A representative from NAMBLA saying that the Church should bless their "relationships" because they are "monogamous and they love each other"?

David,

The definition of that lens is AC4. It says for anything to be properly called Christian, it needs to follow from faith alone and only in Christ's death and resurrection and it needs to spread the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted.

...on AC4.

I've read it, at least as many times as you have.

It says NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING about homosexual marriage! It is about JUSTIFICATION, and neither I nor anyone on this board that I can think of is saying that homosexuals are not justified by faith, or that they are outside God's grace for REPENTANT sinners.

Maybe you're not reading the same one I am. Mine is from "The Book Of Concord," Kolb/Wengert, Fortress Press, 2000.

I ask you again:

Where do we draw the line on what the Church blesses?

Do we say that what NAMBLA does is "Gospel" just because an 40-year-old man who is molesting (that's what it is) a 10-year-old boy because he "loves" him?

Do we say that, in his own way, Jeffrey Dahmer "loved" his victims and what he did is not prohibited by the Law?

For that matter, do we relegate the 10 Commandments to "10 Guidelines-to-be-taken-or-left-as-you-see-fit?"

You say that some parts of the law have been "relativised" by Christ. Which ones? Why? What leads you to that conclusion (and, PLEASE, don't say "AC4" yet again)? Did you arrive at this conclusion alone, or in concert with others? Isn't that "drawing the line," which you say we should not do on the issue of homosexuality?

In any case, I have not encountered a Lutheran, besides you, who places any part of the Lutheran Confessions above what the Bible says.

I do not speak Greek. However, I do speak German. If you can find a German version of the verses about homosexuality you cite as "problematic," I will be glad to translate into English.

David,

The problem is that final part of your statement about justification, the 'for repentent sinners' part. It's not repentance that is required but faith. Repetance flows from faith, but as a consequence, not as a condition. This is how we please God-- faith in Christ. That pops up in John 6:29: "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." That is what gives us the ability to say, as Paul and Luther did, that large chunks of the OT are specific to the situations in which they were given. Likewise, the negative parts about homosexuality can be understood as a result of those cultures' understandings of homosexuality, and hence not normative for us.

The church draws the line on what it 'blesses' as to those activities that further faith alone and only in Christ and allow the comfort of devout consciences. I know, AC4 again. But apply it to your examples. How does molesting a 10-year old further faith in Christ? Or backing up, does molesting a 10-year old lead one or both closer to or further from faith in Christ? I also don't think we mean the same thing when we talk about loving people. If you have to put love in quotes, it's not what I mean when I say love.

As to which laws are relativised, I'm going to say 'all of them'. That doesn't mean we just discard ones we don't like, or that none of them hold, but that we need to weigh our understanding of a given law with the consequences of that law in our specific time and place. Or, a better way of putting it is how does a given law demonstrate how in our concrete place in time and space we are hanging our hearts on something other than Christ. Note the lower case 'l' there. Our understanding of God's Law is necessarily imperfect, so it cannot be one and the same as His Law. God's Law is immutable and we die under that Law regardless of what we think that Law to be. The power of the Decalogue is that in all societies so far, they demonstrate how we fail to hang our hearts on Christ. Chances are, they will continue to do so until He comes again in judgement. But consider the adultery commandment for a moment. We understand it today (as they did in Luther's time) to also uphold marriage between exactly two people. Back when that commandment was received, though, polygamy was still practiced and polygamy was not seen as contrary to the commandment. Two different behaviors, but still consistent with same commandment. This is an example of how that commandment is already relative. Both are acceptable to the church so long as they are not contrary to AC4. Does that mean polygamy is right for us, here and now? I don't think so, because polygamy would weaken our ability to have faith in Christ alone and only. Would one person's claim be sufficient to justify an action? I don't think so-- I think you have to see what the fruits of that action are as well. With child molestation, I think you are in a better position than I to describe exactly what bad fruits that brings. With homosexuals marrying, I think the fruits are exactly what you get with a heterosexual couple. Also, as I mentioned before, this understanding also sharpens the Law in that it can be applied even in areas the Bible does not explicitly cover. The best examples come from Christ, where he sharpens the adultery commandment into even looking upon a woman with lust or the murder commandment into speaking in anger.

I'm not actually putting the Lutheran Confessions above the Bible, any more than you're putting your method of reading the Bible above it or HCM is put above the Bible. These are all lenses through which we read Scripture. When you read it as a list of instructions, you lose Christ. He becomes just one more, certainly the most important, but just one more, instruction. You need to trust Christ instead of the instructions. Trust in Christ makes the instructions work out, even if it doesn't include the ritual purity or circumcision Jews expected, or celibacy from homosexuals others expect. Also, the Lutheran Confessions are based in Scripture in that they claim to use the same understanding of Scripture that Paul and Christ used, as documented in Scripture.

The Greek problem words the biblicists on both sides contest are 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoites' in most of the NT passages. I don't have a German translation handy, but the intrawobs claim that Luther used 'Knabenschaender' for 'arsenokoites' in 1 corinthian 6:9 and possibly again in 1 Timothy 1:10.

Or does your copy only have AC4?

There are also the Small and Large Catechisms.

We also (on paper) hold to the three Ecumenical Creeds, even if the nasty Athanasian Creed has been excised from ELW.

I don't know where you got this fixation on AC4 to the exclusion of all else.

And whether you want to recognise it or not, the Scripture clearly states that repentance is required. Luther said that a Christian's life is one of daily repentance, of drowning ourselves in the waters of baptism.

I'm not terribly familiar with that word from Luther you quoted, but the etymology of it would seem to suggest something close to "boy defiler;" i.e., "child molester." There are a lot of different dialects just within Germany, to say nothing of Swiss and Austrian German. The German language was not standardised at the time of Luther, which his German Bible contributed greatly toward.

And I wear the title "biblicist" proudly.

David,

It's not to the exclusion of all else, but as a means for reading everything else. That's how the Reformers set it up. The rest of the AC is grounded in the hermeneutic laid out in AC4. This was necessary because the Reformation was a fundamental change from Catholicism on how the Scripture should be read. The Catholics of Luther's day read the Bible as you do, and the Judaizing Christians before them and the Pharisees before them. The problem with biblicism's way of reading the Bible is that it does not proclaim Good News. It leads to legalism instead and legalism obscures the Good News. How does your view of reading the Bible differ from the pre-Christ Jews? If it's the same, why hasn't Christ changed it? If it's different, how is it different? Is Christ just a new requirement along with all of the other ones? What was actually wrong with the Sinai covenant? Or even if there are bonus requirements besides Christ, what happened to sola fide?

I'm not challenging that repentance should be a daily event. Luther's statement is descriptive, though, and not prescriptive. The only prescriptive part is faith alone and only in Christ. Once you have Christ, everything follows. Of course, even as Christians we continue to discard Christ daily, and that's why we constantly need to be reconnected.

Here are 3 of the NT passages listing the KJV and Luther's Bibel (1912 edition). In Corinthians and Timothy, malakoi and arsenokoites are the underlying Greek words in there, again with arsenokoites as Knabenschändern. So do these passages actually witness to homosexuality in the first place?

1 Corinthians 6

9  ¶Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

9  Wisset ihr nicht, daß die Ungerechten das Reich Gottes nicht ererben werden? Lasset euch nicht verführen! Weder die Hurer noch die Abgöttischen noch die Ehebrecher noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschänder

1 Timothy 1

10  For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

10  den Hurern, den Knabenschändern, den Menschendieben, den Lügnern, den Meineidigen und so etwas mehr der heilsamen Lehre zuwider ist,


Jude 1

7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire

7  Wie auch Sodom und Gomorra und die umliegenden Städte, die gleicherweise wie diese Unzucht getrieben haben und nach einem andern Fleisch gegangen sind, zum Beispiel gesetzt sind und leiden des ewigen Feuers Pein.

John Friedli said,

"What God judges is our relationships not our individual behaviors."

Just how does one judge a relationship if not by ones behaviors?

If has been argued among the responses on this blog that much (if not all) the debate depends upon ones understanding of salvation (grace, forgiveness, etc..). In the midst of the back and forth on this question, I cannot escape the conviction that an important locus of conversation has been ignored: sanctification. Even if universalism is accurate...even if one has eternal security following justification...even if one is predestined...the life lived in God is a life of sanctification. This sanctification is understood in both the narrow sense and the broad (wide) sense. It is not merely "getting used to being salvationed," as Forde put it. It is also life lived in conformity to the will and ways of God.

There are several ways various churches define the term.

Pentecostals use it when one experiences "baptism in the Holy Spirit" (ie "tongues").

Holiness churches (Nazarene, Wesleyan, Free Methodist) use it in the sense that one can be "entirely sanctified" (meaning: sinless) in this life by what they call "the second work of grace." I don't find that to be Scriptural, especially since in my experience (and I have experienced it) they do so by a long list of "don'ts": DON'T go to movies, DON'T play secular music, DON'T dress a certain way, DON'T drink alcohol of any kind, DON'T play cards, DON'T dance...think of the movie "Footloose." I got booted out of a congregation like that as a teenager.

Mainstream Methodists take it as John Wesley taught, basically that sanctification is a lifelong process for those who are saved, "being perfected in the love of Christ and for one's neighbour." I think most Lutherans have a similar understanding.

Lutherans believe S. begins in baptism. Being perfected in and able to sustain our ability to enter into loving, caring, compassionate relationships

"Lutherans believe S. begins in baptism. Being perfected in and able to sustain our ability to enter into loving, caring, compassionate relationships." I hear this over and over and over again: "loving, caring, compassionate relationships." Who decides whether they are loving or caring or compassionate. If a consenting couple made up of an adult man and a young boy declared their relationship as loving, caring, and compassionate", should I take their word for it? If a polygamous group of spouses referto themselves in similar terms, should I say, "well, that's alright, then?" If two teen women or two adult males say this, I should assume they are correct? As a Christian, I will let God define what human relationships are healthy and acceptable and Godly, not people who may sound sincere but share in the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve. God knows what is truly loving, what is truly caring, and what is truly compassionate. Oh, that I would set apart more time each day to learn His teachings, rather than listening to the ways of the world, a voice that is rather dominant in these last days.

Rik: Ultimately God does. But also the scriptures teach us that we shall know by their fruits.
Humans really do have a hard time giving up their control over the lives of others. We want to control what and where the church is, when the sacraments should or should not be administered, who has sinned and who has not. Many pastors are nortorious for wanting to keep control of everthing in their congregation. Im gradually coming to be able to trust God to sanctify his people without to much help from me. As I learn
to trust Him I find more joy and peace in the Church. Something that is in short supply these days. I invite others to let it go just a bit and allow God to do His thing in His way. We will be much more at peace in Christ.

Indeed, other traditions use the term (sanctification) and sometimes have very misshapen notions of what the term denotes. If rank & file Lutherans have drifted into these notions, it is not the fault of the term sanctification. It is the fault of Lutheran clergy and Lutheran teachers alike. There is a Lutheran tradition of sanctification confessed in the confessions, written about by Luther and Melanchthon, argued about during the first and second antinomian controversies, and exposited and explored by the Lutheran dogmaticians of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. To raise up the excesses of the Holiness movement and Pentecostalism as a rebuttal is to offer a straw man argument.

I raised the excesses of the Holiness movement simply as an example of how "sanctification" can be distorted.

Sarah,
You say that promoters of these changes take the position that the changes are either not sinful or avoid that question altogether.
Lets distill that to its essence. One pro-change position takes a stance on what promoters think God Thinks. The other pro-change, predominant position does not take a stance on what they think God Thinks.
In this regard, Take a look at the 4 final conclusion options in the sexuality study. Two of them that say these changes are wrong cite God and Natural Law as the Subject of the sentences. The other two important statements that promote these changes do not cite God in the subject. This is more than simple semantics.
The predominant postion of promotors is amoral. God has an opinion. We humble beings should try to align our thoughts and opinions with what we think He thinks. We can differ on that but at least we're on the same playing field.
The current debate is like two sports teams meeting at different fields of play. A real debate can't happen.
That is what we have allowed to happen. Incredibly, this church is about to make these changes without clearly stating that this is what 'We think God Thinks'.

The amoral ruse is quite effective at disarming arguments scriptural and otherwise.

In my opinion though it is the heart of understanding why this issue is not really about homosexuality but instead about pious, Godless people taking over the church.
I respect those who make a case that homosexuality is Good and is God's Will. That's not who we're dealing with.

Well said. Chris Scharen (sic?) asks if homosexuals are part of God's good creation. As a humble layman, I don't know that I am equipped to speak to that point.

It occurs, however, that we imperfect (read: products of original sin) humans are all capable of behavior which does not please God. Should the church bless such behavior, on the premise that we are all saved anyway? Of course, we can argue forever about what pleases God, but the scriptures are pretty clear on what does NOT please God.

It is instructive that although Bp. Hanson concedes that we "do not have consensus" on this point, the hierarchy in Chicago has refused to let the matter be decided by a CLEAR majority -- ONE VOTE will tip the scales!

That is because the homosexual lobby recognises that they do not have enough votes for a 2/3 majority, and if a vote would fall far short of a 2/3 majority, their argument would be effectively ended.

Again I use the example of Quebec separatists in Canada. They take the position that "50%+1" is a clear enough example for them to form their own country (no matter where they might find that extra "1").

But you can also bet that if the CWA resolutions were to fail by a 50%-49% margin there would be very loud calls for a recount...

Tetchy. Tetchy. Tetchy. "Useful idiots" is a commonplace, attributed to Lenin, but probably apochryphal, about easily-gulled Western intellectuals who wishfully ignored the bloody aspects of the revolution.

Whatever its origin, it is a commonplace, used all across the political spectrum. I do not think it needs to inflame tender sensibilities.

I haven't followed the conversation here closely enough to say whether it has made an appearance, but there is a third revisionist argument out there that I think merits discussion. This is the one that emphasizes the dynamic relationship between law and creation, that God can alter law over time to fit changing circumstances in his work of preserving the creation. Even an "order of creation," which Bonhoeffer was right to call instead "order of preservation," can be altered or added to for the good of the creation. Thus, there is an argument that effectively says that homosexual activity (even within lifelong commitment, if it was known in the ancient near east) WAS a sin, but isn't any longer.

This position recognizes for instance that for most of human history "be fruitful and multiply" has been a very urgent command for the survival and preservation of the community. A pairing that could not produce biological offspring would have been an offense to the community on a level we probably can't understand at least in the modern West. And an offense to God too--in such a context.

Today, we live on a planet that is severely overpopulated, with countless children orphaned by disease, war, or neglect. It is at least conceivable that a God who cares about preserving his creation would increase the number of those with a genetic attraction to the same sex, and then call them to mutual, lifelong commitment and in many cases parenthood through adoption. God's greatest obstacle in a plan like that would be Christians who were committed to a static law and a neatly closed canon of scripture (while not recognizing the "movement" already present therein).

In Lutheran terms, this argument probably deserves the branding "speculative," and I assume it is influenced by process thought. But it is not an "antinomian" argument (#2 above) and I have heard it advanced by Lutherans. So I think it also merits a response.

The Mormons have an open canon. Perhaps try there.

Such an assertion is not scientific. It would also have to take into account things like China's "one-child" policy, which has led to countless infants (mostly girls) being murdered. I think it comes perilously close to Margaret Sanger's views, which are barbaric. The fact is, WE are responsible for overpopulating our world.

My wife and I have CHOSEN not to have children, in part because it would be very difficult to provide properly for children. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

There are far too many who, through the drive for sexual self-gratification, end up contributing to the problem of overpopulation.

As for "canon"...it depends on which group of Christians you're talking about.

Some Protestants are committed absolutely to a 66-book canon. My wife, who was raised Baptist, had never heard of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon before becoming Lutheran. They regard it as "Catholic" and thus "heretical."

Anglicans think the Apocrypha is good, and even use it in their services.

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox all agree that the Apocrypha is inspired Scripture, but they don't agree on which books to include.

Luther, of course, called the Apocrypha "useful and good for reading," but I know very few Lutherans of any synod who have actually READ it, outside of clergy who studied it in seminary.

I've referred to him before, but the idea that we have to start messing about with what Scripture we believe and what we don't is perilously close to views of the heretic Marcion.

And, yes, I'm aware that Luther himself had problems with certain books of the Bible, especially James. Nonetheless, we have the Bible, and, like it or not, it is our ONLY source of revelation in matters of doctrine and faith.

xzlepurx http://iyzpaofq.com yhxrygnk ukpkkrqq [URL=http://emrgarst.com]uvjzoxsx[/URL] <a href="http://onekfuqe.com">oavjwzxq</a>