Without getting into some of the technical aspects of Wilson's objection to taking this vote (for example, it actually is illegal for homosexuals to marry in five or so states), a general observation is that this vote (and, in fact, the vote on the other recommendation) would (if approved) move the ELCA much closer to a congregational model of authority and away from the bureaucratic, synodical and bishop-centered model of authority. After all, it is at the congregational level wherein the rubber hits the road with regard to ministry. A congregation that chooses to accept homosexual members and even to bless their committed, monogamous relationships obviously feels that its ministry to people is amplified by doing that--and certainly a biblical and theological basis can be articulated. At issue, then, is whether or not it is more useful to have in effect a strict-constructionist polity for the whole church or to enable a situation in which the point at which the real ministry is performed is validated with the latitude to do exactly that. Accordingly, in-the-pew members can make their own decisions regarding the congregation to which they will belong. I know the catholic (small "c") purists will yell and scream at this prospect, but in the end, the issue is not how man will manufacture a theology that suits himself but rather how God will view an effective ministry that meets all people at their points of need.

Regarding the current policy of the ELCA on Human Sexuality: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. We don't make the church more welcoming to outsiders by trying to change what God has said--otherwise it is no longer the church that God ordains. Bottom line here: Are we seeking God's approval or the approval of man? Dangerous heresy: Every interpretation of the Bible is just as valid as another--none are better or worse. Welcome ALL sinners to repentance and God's abundant, pure grace. Those who believe they are without sin should seek affirmation from a source other than the church God founded through Christ Jesus.

One of the issues is that there are many who feel that the current policy "is broken". And the other problem is that it isn't clear that the current policy is "what God has said."

Kurt,

You've made it clear in your piece on your website that we cannot really trust the canonical Scripture outright or apparently believe in alot of the what we are told in the creeds. So how per se do we determine in your book "what God has said"?

Jack, you know what the process is supposed to be based on higher biblical criticism. For example, which ending of Mark do you accept, and why?

Kurt, "you know what the process is supposed to be based on higher biblical criticism." This sentence doesn't make any sense. But here's what I think that you meant to say- something like we know what the original "Word" was because we can digg down through higher criticism and figure it out. Couple things about this.

1. First the question about Mark 16. The later part of Mark 16 is not a matter of higher criticism- but lower criticism (textual criticism). Certain early manuscripts don't have it, others do. The going assumption in textual criticism is that less is more. If that's not the original ending I have no problem with it since the process of transmission is not infallible even if the Scriptures as they stand in the "autograph" form are. That being said, William Farmer has pointed out that in terms of style, the end of Mark 16 is quite uniform with the rest of Mark. He suggest that there were two editions of Mark, one short one without the ending and a later one in which Mark adding onto the original ending. Possible- but I find NT Wright's explanation more likely. Mark must have had a larger ending- therefore it is most likely that the original ending was destroyed- this is quite common in ancient manuscripts. The great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran was totally in tact except for the end. Also, "autographs" in the ancient world were not one text, but several- since usually the author would dictate to several scribes. So, it might be possible to argue that one or more of the autographs lost the original ending and that the expanded ending (which as you recall is quite stylistically congruous with the rest of Mark) was after all the original ending preserved in one of the autographs that survived. Wright thinks that the ending might have been burned in the great fire of Rome in 63 AD.

2. Secondly, the text as we possess it in it's canonical form is that which is authoritative. The early Church Father and theologians of Lutheran orthodoxy all agreed that there were documents that made up the canonical texts as we have them. Nevertheless, whereas the authors of the canonical texts were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the sources were not.

3. "Higher Criticism" is basically a joke. First, it's mainly based on conjecture. No one has ever found any of the intermediate texts that are supposed to have made up the larger texts. We have never found Q or JEDP. Also, it's based on a series of assumptions about how religions develop which no serious religious studies prof. really believes in anymore. For one, you have a series of assumptions coming out of Spinoza and his revival of Epicureanism that religions were all created as a power play and therefore (and here's where source criticism comes from!) if anyone says that they're spoke with god/s then they're lying and just trying to control you. So the Bible can basically be divided up into a bunch of little sources which "wicked priests" are trying to fool you with what teaching that they received from God. It's also based on assumptions coming out of 19th century Germany philosophy (think Hegel) that assumes that more "primitive" religious thinking necessarily leads to higher religious ideas and therefore you can date texts based on that. So, poly theism is more primitive, so it must be older- even though all the people who live around me in Boston and in Portland Oregon (when I was there) believe in Wicca.

Form criticism is now on the ropes. Studies of comparative literature show that arhaic forms survive and are used in social setting in which you could no adduce their function from their form. Redaction criticism is voodoo- how can we "see" past the form that text have before us to some other stage. Most form critics do not agree with one another about what was the original text or tradition or whatever really was- why? Because it's conjecture.

Beyond this, there is a massive amount of archeaological evidence which disproves outright certain claims of liberal critics of the Bible. For example, Deuteronomy is written in the form of a Hittite vassal treaty which ceased to be used in the 11th century BC. All the treaty forms of the Penteteuch follow this. Leviticus uses a different language of sacrifice than the later books of the OT- the post-exilic P could not be its creator because the Second Temple Jews at times couldn't even understand its language.

In regad to the NT, with NT Wright (the no. 1 NT scholar in the English speaking world right now) demonstrating that the Gospels are completely historically accurate (See "Jesus and the Victory of God") and Richard Bauckham (the no. 2 NT scholar in Britain) demonstrating that the Gospel are based on eye-witness testimony (See "Jesus and the Eye-Witnesses" and "God Crucified")- why would I give any weigh to Bultmann and the absurdities of "History of the Synoptic Tradition" (Bultman gives a series of rules for the development of tradition- which as Bauckham points out have all been empirically disproven!)

BTW, I found your reference to Bart Ehrman in your piece highly amusing. He's something of a 2nd rate NT scholar, who more or less writes books with sensational titles. Though I must say I did think that "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium" was OK. He basically endorses the Schweitzer thesis- which is good minus the whole thing about Jesus failing in his mission.

Jack,

You make my point. The fact that you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to come to a conclusion about Mark's ending proves that analytical, interpretive filters are needed--the same as is true for these texts about sexuality which are at the heart of the ELCA debate.

And, you wrote:

"Higher criticism is a joke."

That being your position, you've marginalized yourself academically, and there's no point in even responding to it.

Kurt- I explained why I disapprove of it. I'd like an explanation of why you approve of it. My lengthy explanation demonstrates that I do not approve on it without grounds. What are your grounds?
Secondly, in my denomination-the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod- we reject the historical-critical method in favor of the historical-grammatical method. There are many fine and respected scholars who take this stance- read the Concordia Commentary series. There are also plenty of well respected Evangelical Biblical scholars who take the same stance- for example, Ben Whitherington III, D.A. Carson, G.K. Beale, etc. They are all well respected members of SBL and give papers and publish in academic journals. Their research is some of the most interesting going on right now.

This is very typical of you. In the piece on your website you cannot muster an argument in favor of homosexual practice. Here you cannot muster an argument in favor of the HCM. Again, why do you hold such positions if you do not have reasons to hold them? Why do hold such positions if you cannot defend them?

Also, I believe that textual criticism is needed (lower criticism). You missed my point about the canonical form of the text. I very sincerely doubt that textual criticism will play much role in the debate over homosexuality in the ELCA. The texts in question possess no textual variants.

The number of "textual variants" is not the only consideration. Other considerations are the contextual meaning of the text and the historical circumstance within which the text resides. The point you keep wanting to overlook is that these texts view the sexual activity as sexual exploitation, not as committed, monogamous relationships.

I don't know how many delegates to Minneapolis will change their minds (one way or the other) on this issue as a result of this scintillating discussion on Lutheran Forum, but my instinct tells me, "not many". These polarizing discussions, laced with invective (as found in Hinlicky's response to the LSTC faculty statement) simply cause delegates to dig their heels in more deeply.

You are correct that contextual meaning is important. You are incorrect that Paul rejects homosexual practice because of exploitation. Read Robert Gagnon work, and you will see this. Paul never gives the reason of exploitation- certain liberal Biblical scholars simply try to make that the implication when there is no textual evidence. When he does give a reason in Romans 1, he gives the reason that most Hellenistic Jews in the first century did- he refers to "males (and females) giving up the natural use"- in other words, for Paul as for all those who read Genesis 1-2 in the Judeo-Christian tradition (until 1970 or so) the problem with homosexual practice is that it stands at odds with God's creational purpose. BTW, the idea that pederasty was the exclusive form of homosexual practice in the ancient world is a myth- though it did predominant. For example, the Stoic philosophers were said to prefer mature men and were criticized for it.

Is present stance on sexuality broken or is it not reflective of what I want? There is a difference in our culture today and that of the past. Our culture enjoys a more congregational based processes of doing things. The family is more important than the state or nation. With this thought process, our culture does want or value the national church approach of statements if they do not fit into the values I may want.

Have we become a super market theology? I walk into the theology store and pick and choose my belief, not God's (?) What do you think?

Kurt Johnson wrote: "A congregation that chooses to accept homosexual members and even to bless their committed, monogamous relationships obviously feels that its ministry to people is amplified by doing that--and CERTAINLY a biblical and theological basis can be articulated. (EMPHASIS MINE)" "Certainly"??? Oh, really. Only by twisting Scripture. It is a devilish doctrine to believe that one can empty the words of the Word of God, and fill them up with whatever content pleases the would-be theologian. A true theologian begins with God's word, seeking to rightly understand, through context and basic hermaneutical principles, what God is actually speaking through His Word. Replacing the holy Spirit of God with the unholy Zeitgeist, and bowing down to him and his ancient trick ("Did God really say..."), is a sure way to get on to the fast track into apostasy and beyond! Oh, that we would instead approach God's Holy Word by sitting at the feet of our Good Shepherd, asking Him to explain to us the Scriptures by the power of the Spirit--not approaching God as one without wisdom, seeking to instruct the Almighty on how He needs to change with the times. Bringing such choice to the congregational level is a way of asserting the whole ELCA isn't ready for such heresy just yet, but let us not hinder individual congregations from doing what feels right. We'll just call it "agreeing to disagree." And this is the church in the 21st century? Perhaps it is time to find a church that treasures what God has revealed to us instead of one which is re-writable.

Rik is quite right. Not only as Luther puts it, is Scripture not a "wax nose"-but the ELCA is drifting into pure enthusiasm. The Spirit does not somehow get into to people in voting assembly and have them come up with new things every time white, upper-middle class culture changes it's mind about something. I have always been fascinated by the fact that according to many liberal mainline Protestant the Spirit choice to "do a new thing" (as they put it) always somehow coincides with a change in cultural attitudes among upper-middle class people in North America and Europe.

This so contrary to what the Lutheran Confessions and the Scriptures themselves say about the Word of God that its absurd. The Spirit never comes apart from the Word- and that means the the Word's historical-grammatical meaning. The leadership of the ELCA would do well to read the Smalkald articles and Luther's "Against the Heavenly Prophets" over again.

So, was Luther right or wrong when he said to burn down the Jews' synagouges and to wage war against the peasants?

Kurt, If you go back to Pt. 5 of Hinlicky's critique you will see my answers to both of these questions. But to give my answer yet again.....

1. Luther was correct to say that the princes should go after the peasants. They were creating anarchy and had no right to revolt against the governing powers (see Romans 13). This does not mean that they were being treated 100% justly- and Luther points this out and tells the princes they must not act unjustly towards their subjects.

2. Luther was incorrect about burning the Synagogues and as you also point out about geocentrism- though there was no data at that point to demonstrate it either. Copericus didn't actually discover anything, he just proposed a theory which had no observations to support it at that point. It took Galileo to do that.

Kurt- These are pretty irrelevant though. What were debating is orthodox Lutheran theology- which is always based on the Scriptures as correctly interpreted by the Confessions. Neither Luther's position on the Jews, peasants or geocentrism are matters of Confessional concern- since they are not addressed. Neither do I have faith in human reason and progress the way you do. We may be more informed about the shape of the world, but regarding the truth of the gospel we are no better informed than they were on these issues. Furthermore, most modern Philosophers would laugh at such talk- progress and the universality of human reason is simply a myth of the modern meta-narrative.

You wrote:

" ... progress and the universality of human reason is (sic) simply a myth of the modern meta-narrative."

OK then. That's it. All I have to do is give up on progress and abandon human reason."

The point kurt, is that there is no universal human reason and that the narrative of progress is falsehood in that it can be empirically disproved. Rationality as Alister Mcintyre demonstrates in "Whose Justice, Whose Rational?" and "After Virtue", always operates within a historic tradition. Also, progress is a myth. The 20th century killed more people than the 13th- so much for the progress of modernity! Similarly, there is a question of what would constitute progress. Again, we always operate within a historical tradition and there is no universal answer, unlike modernists assume that there is (you apparently being one of them).

The point Kurt is this, since there is no such thing as neutral, universal human reason- but rather competing forms of traditional rationality- you cannot claim that you are throwing off the dead weight of the benighted past and bring us into the glorious light of reason and progress, which in this case you identify with the acceptance of homosexual practice. Rather because there are only historic, tradition bound rationalities, McIntetyre has pointed out that one can only substitute one form of rationality for another. Your claim to the contrary is simply the theological equivalent of Jacobinism.

If you read my article on the subject you would see this (there I used the term "paradigm" for Thomas Kuhn). There is a Lutheran ethical rationality based on the doctrine of vocation and the "orders of creation." This is incongruous with homosexual practice, as I show. By rejecting such a rationality and ethic, you are not breaking through to a more rational, scientific and progressive position, you are simply substituting one culturally and traditionally based rationality for another. There is no neutral ground. My assessment is that in your case it is based on the values of North American upper-middle class whites. The basis of that ethical tradition lies with Locke and Epicurus, not with Luther. As does the myth of the "Rational and Autonomous" self. The punctuated self, as Charles Taylor calls it.

Kilcrease wrote:

"The Spirit does not somehow get into to (sic) people in voting assembly and have them come up with new things every time white, upper-middle class culture changes it's mind about something. I have always been fascinated by the fact that according to many liberal mainline Protestant (sic) the Spirit choice to "do a new thing" (as they put it) always somehow coincides with a change in cultural attitudes among upper-middle class people in North America and Europe."

Was it the "Spirit" that caused social activitists and civil-rights advocates like Neuhaus and Benne to flip from their views, only to become neoconservative, mirror-opposites? Do you truly believe that there are no upper-middle-class people in North America who side with the conservatives on this current issue in the ELCA?

This issue is being driven by a realistic theological view which asserts that the message of Jesus Christ was and is reconciling and inclusive, and the biblical criteria for who qualifies as being included does not rule out homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships. White, upper-middle-class views have nothing to do with it--if they did, these recommendations of the ELCA Task Force would never have made it onto the agenda.

Kurt, I did not say that it was exclusively upper middle class whites. But, I would say that part of upper middle class white culture is believing that personal autonomy trump everything. So as long as it doesn't "break my bones or pick my pockets"(Jefferson) then it's fine. That's basically the argument in the ELCA right now. Neuhaus and Benne are fine men. Yes, they were moved by the Spirit, but through the Word in its historical-grammatical meaning- he lead them to a more Biblical position.

Furthermore, you position is not based on the gospel- but on a cultural trend. One cannot continued to deliberately sin and maintain faith "if we sin deliberately, a sacrifice no longer remain for us"(Heb 6) and "sinning against conscience destorys faith" (Luther, Smalkald articles). There seems to be a disconnect with you. You don't understand that faith and deliberating violating God's law cannot exist in the same person. So, no practicing homosexual can be a sincere person of faith. We are therefore talking about the unconverted who need the Word of God in the form of law and gospel, not people who sincerely believe and just need the world to be a more tolerant place. We need to stop "justifying sin, and justify the sinner" (Bonhoeffer).

You write:

"Furthermore, you position is not based on the gospel- but on a cultural trend."

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to short-shrift my access to the priesthood of all believers with the judgmental statement about the basis for my position. I really do know the basis for my position, and it isn't due to a cultural trend.

I read your piece and very well do know what your position is. You believe in the progress of civilization which is identical with what white, upper-middle class people believe in. It's an old game and the reason we got colonialism. It's not very difficult at all to decostruct.

Again, your piece demonstrated that you are completely unfamiliar with the basic structure of Lutheran theology- for example you at one point claim that the gospel has something to do with social justice. It does not. That's the law.

You apparently also do not follow quite what Luther means by the priesthood of all believers. Practicing homosexuals cannot be part of the priesthood of all believers because they cannot have sincere faith- sincere faith cannot co-exist with mortal sin. See 1 Cor. 6:9.

Jack,

You had best take caution with regard to your judgmental rhetoric about what I know and don't know about Lutheran theology or any of the other subjects for which you claim superior knowledge. In many ways, you tone takes the form of an authoritative Catholic prior to the Reformation.

I suppose that I am merely asking for arguments- not rhetoric. By calling me judgmental, you merely avoid the issue at hand. Give an answer to my arguments or cease you accusations of judgmentalism.

The difficulty with the Late Medieval opponents of Luther (I will not say Roman Catholic, since that is an identity constructed at the Council of Trent) was not that they sought to reject false teaching (which they believed Luther to be engaged in), but that they were incorrect that Luther was engaged in false teaching. Persons who occupy the office of ministry in the Church or are called by the Church the position of a teacher within it, have the right to reject false doctrine (See Augustana art. 28). Scripture is not a "matter of private interpretation" (1 Peter). According to the Lutheran Confessions and Luther in "Bondage of the Will," lay people have no right to privately interpret Scripture for themselves. Only person who occupy the office of ministry may do so publically. The idea that you floated in your piece that it is the individual in Luthean theology that has the right to interpret Scripture is completely incorrect. That is a principle of the first ammendment to the US constitution, not the Reformation.

I've answered your arguements referable to contextual texts, and that aspect of Jesus' mission and ministry having to do with reconciliation rather than alienation - and in the case of this ELCA issue, love and committment are at the heart of defining an acceptable relationship. This statement about you is not judgemental, because I don't judge you, but it's pretty clear that the nature of your views includes your own view of homosexuality in the absence of interpersonal considerations. Using the word "homophobe" here is too strong, because you're not driven by fear.

...But, it's too bad they always end up with name calling by the "progressive" side when they are up against the ropes and can't answer the argument.

Jonathan,

Saying so (can't answer) doesn't make it so if you do not reasonably consider the answer.

Kurt, you haven't answered. I have demonstrated that your answer regarding Jesus ministry is anachronistic in that it is simply a product of 19th century Protestant liberalism and has nothing to do with what the meaning of the kingdom was in the context of Second Temple Judaism. I have also showed above that Paul does not reject homosexual practice because of exploitation (which certain went on), but because it conflicted with creation. The irony is that you claim to have the high ground in terms of "contextual understandings" but you offer no real scholarship to back up your points. I have offered numerous pieces of scholarship and your response is effective to call me names. Again, my original point from a week ago stands- this is about a shift in American culture, the decision is bad for the denomination and irrational, and your side has absolutely no arguments that are even remotely convincing. My case rests- because you have mustered no real answers and disproved none of my claims.

Your references to Jesus are vague, liberal Protestant characterizations of Jesus' ministry. No NT scholar who knows anything about Second Temple Judaism would take such characterizations seriously.

Jesus' ministry to the marginalized was centered on the coming of the kingdom. The kingdom means the vindication of God's rule of grace against sin, death, the devil and the law. Jesus elects the downtroden because they are the most receptive to truth of the gospel, in that they lack physical or moral resources themselves. That is, they lack righteousness of the law, so they are repentant and receptive to the forgiveness of the gospel. This what becoming like "a little child" means- in the ancient world children were considered to be non-persons. It had nothing to do with doing away with moral judgment. He appoints the apostles to both retain and forgive sins. Also, remember, Jesus calls himself the the "Son of Man"- which is a designation of a cosmic judge in Second Temple Judaism. Jesus has much to say about immorality and seeks sinners to become rightoeus, not merely confirmed in their sins.

What does it mean to say:"but it's pretty clear that the nature of your views includes your own view of homosexuality in the absence of interpersonal considerations." Why should interpersonal relationships have anything to do with our decision about homosexuality? I went to seminary with many GLBT persons who I thought were perfectly nice. It doesn't mean that I believe that what they were doing wasn't sinful. Why should it? God's truth doesn't depend on my feeling- why should it?

Again, this is not an argument, this is rhetoric and sentiment.

It is the content of that "revelation" which is at the heart of this discussion--hence the need for exegesis of the operative verses. It's very difficult for you to get to where you want to go and completely dismiss the view of relationships which God sent to earth in his Son.

"It's very difficult for you to get to where you want to go and completely dismiss the view of relationships which God sent to earth in his Son." And just what relationships did you have in mind? God's Word in the Holy Bible tells us what relationships God approves of and which he does not. We can look at phileo and agape, but eros is reserved for a married couple, male and female. In Genesis, God tells us of a woman God made from a rib He had taken out of the man (Adam): "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Gen 2:24 NIV)." The woman completes the man. The two are complimentary to one another yet biologically different--made for each other. This is not said about men with men or women with women. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit speaks through St. Paul's letter to the Church in Rome with the words "...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion (Rom. 1:26f)." And there is talk of blessing same-sex "marriages" and the like among those in the ELCA? Oh, that the dress code at the Churchwide Assembly would be sackcloth and ashes, and that those who consider themselves Lutheran Christians would repent. Because of your high respect for the Historical-Critical Method of interpretation, do you have no respect for the plain word of Scripture? Sure, a man can care deeply about another. But this is not a sexual love. A woman can care deeply about a woman in a non-sexual way. But such care is not a replacement for marriage, nor is their room for lust, envy, sexual relations, etc. To arbitrarily choose a relationship (such as "publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships") and assume that it is somehow God-pleasing and should be blessed because you said so is not Biblical Scholarship, but activism disguised as Christian scholarship. Hopefully the people in the pews and those voting in Minneapolis will be able to tell the difference. God sent to earth His Son to be the once-for-all sacrifice, the ram in the thicket, the propitiation for our sin. Heterosexual sin, homosexual sin, all sin. We can repent and turn from all that offends Almighty God through the power of the Cross. We are clothed in robes of righteousness. When the Father looks at us H no longer sees our many sins and our good works which are filthy rags--He sees Jesus in our place. From this do we return to degrade our bodies in sin, and ask God to bless sin, hoping for "cheap grace?" May it never be! May God graciously forgive us and help us to turn away from sin, and to live as a new creation--the old is gone, the new has come!

It's not my fault if the theological methodology you have chosen causes higher biblical criticism to threaten your tap root to the faith. You have chosen that position.

I've preserved your above post. If either or both of the task force's recommendations is/are defeated, I'll circulate your post to all of those ELCA members and pastors living in same-sex, committed relationships who must face the choice of leaving their monogamous relationships or leaving the ELCA as a result of the vote so that they will have a clear understanding of the kind of thinking behind the conservative coterie's perspective which forced that choice.

I am captive to the Word of God. I'll not fashion a "theology" in my own image after my own likeness. The tap root is fine as God's Word stands with or without me. I do not need the crutch of the historical-critical method to distort what God's Spirit says through the changeless Word. ALL of us are sinners, in need of repentance--not just active homosexuals. I wish them a church that will witness to the truth no matter how unpopular that truth is, not a church body that could deceive the very elect if that were possible.

'Scuse me. Apparently here I stand, on my crutch, supporting a church vote to deceive the very elect. Woe is me. Bummer.

While the proposed changes allow for a degree of latitude vis-a-vis policies related to homoerotic activity in the rostered ministry of the ELCA, it is not unmitigated congregationalism. Each synod will have to choose what will apply within its own jurisdiction. Congregations will not be allowed to act apart from their synods. At the same time, a congregation of a more "traditionalist" stance which finds itself in a "revisionist" synod will, under the constitution, be free to reject a candidate for call on the basis of homoerotic activity--though one may wonder if a driven bishop might not opt to offer only homoerotically active candidates in order to "reform" such a congregation. It is in this light, that the "bound conscience" provision is offered as a poultice.

This poultice, however, is not an honest remedy. It presents itself as a way to maintain unity by allowing for diversity within the synod and at the congregational level by suggesting that one can disassociate oneself from the action/policy which is considered objectionable. While it may be true that within the synod (and the ELCA as a churchwide expression) an apparent disassociation from the specific action/policy can be claimed and even celebrated as a sign of compassion for those "not quite up to speed," it is only apparent, not real.

The politico-economic interdependence of the ELCA allows no such facile disassociation. Mission support dollars, distributed through proportional share, support all expressions of the church and their various ministries regardless of moral/ethical/theological objections. While a congregation or a synod may say, "No change in policy here," the mission support dollars generated and remitted through these structures will fund and underwrite ministries which directly support the very action/policy which is deemed objectionable.

No allowance has been made for economic disassociation. This is particularly troublesome because a drop in mission support at the congregational level–I think it safe to hypothesize such a drop–will have a cascade effect at the synodical and churchwide levels. Without provision for economic disassociation, mission critical ministries will be put at significant risk as individuals and congregations opt to withhold mission support.

It behooves someone attending as a voter at churchwide assembly–I’m not a voter–to offer an amendment to this recommendation which provides an alternative to proportional share under interdependence which supports those mission critical ministries without which the proper work of this expression of the ecclesia visibilis cannot be performed.

Dear Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the true and living God, have mercy on us all, for we all are rank sinners!!!! Deliver us from 'theologians' such as those responding to this true and accurate article written by an inspired leader.

...Thy Will be done.

Terry, I believe the debate is healthy and I have no problem when things getting heated. Perhaps it is because I am mostly a German Lutheran and only partly Norweigen one. Nevertheless, these are the kinds of arguments we need to have. Everyone's assumption need to be out in the open if this thing is going to get resolved. I have tried very hard to be respectful. Perhaps I have not done as good a job as I could have. If you have been offend by this, I am deeply sorry.

Absolutely no offense taken on my part. I wonder, however, if debate sometimes becomes an end in and of itself. That does concern me. But - I must be about my Father's business and leave the more heady stuff to others. Peace.

However, when it has been as protracted as this, the "debate" can progress from being "healthy" to being tiring, and, indeed, poisonous.

If there would have been a binding, up-and-down vote back in 2001, we could have either agreed to disagree, or had a "divorce," and got on with things.

I have done mediation, and one thing I strongly encourage is for the argument not to go on for any longer than necessary, because the longer it goes on, the more resentment can build up. I believe that is what has happened with the ELCA.

Plus, there is a suspicion among many traditionalists, myself included, that the deck has been stacked in favour of the pro-Lutherans Concerned "side." One of the most disingenuous parts of the issue to me has been Bishop Hanson's pretence of neutrality.

If I were mediating this conflict, I would say that the best thing for all sides to do would be to cut their losses and avoid any further rancour. Bring the process to an end, NOW, and carry on from there. If it means staying together, remember that can be potentially a lot more difficult than a separation.

I am half-Swiss and half-Scots-Irish, so I have no small amount of stubbornness myself.

I agree with Sarah Wilson in that there is nothing to be gained from passing this proposed Statement and it's related Recommendations. “The task force is not prepared to recommend the development of an official liturgical rite or order of public accountability because this church does not have biblical and theological consensus on this matter” (lines 318-9).
Absolutely. In our hurry to demonstrate love to the unloved and marginalized in society, let us use sober judgement and consider well: We dare not bless what God has not blessed. To say that it is pleasing to Holy God that men be joined in marital relationships with other men (and women with other women) which include homosexual sexual expression is turning ones back to God and His word, thinking he knows better than his Creator, who is forever blessed. It is practically the same as saying God desired Adam and Eve (if they truly existed) to eat the forbidden fruit anyway, and the author of such fanciful interpretations is none other than Satanos himself. We have the authority, and the responsibility, to say "Get thee behind me, Satan" to that which ridicules our Father and His teachings. Now, getting back to expressing God's love in society (although confronting sin is also loving), there is no reason why people with homosexual tendancies should feel left out from the Church which God ordained. The church has been called a "hospital for sinners." Jesus, Himself said he came for the sick, not those who feel they are not in need of His healing. I wish we could explore the difference between Sins of Weakness and Deliberate Sin. Nearly all the comments I have read on this Forum have been respectful of and caring for those whose thorn-in-the-flesh is homosexual desire. The difference is, some would welcome them in to Christ's church, saying there is no need for repentance of sinful thoughts, words and actions, and no need for them to be forgiven for such. This is not Biblical Christianity (the only Christianity there really is). But to say that one sins out of weakness, or even if willful, is truly sorry for their sins and seeks forgiveness from God and a change of direction, there is room for him/her or any other repentant sinner in the church of Jesus Christ. We have a commonality in that we all want to extend Christ's love to them. Some just don't recognize (or want to) that repentance followed by absoution is necessary first. May God fill us with a powerful desire to spread His love to others in word and deed, but let us not bypass his teachings in an attempt to do what we think is loving.

Rik mentioned, "I wish we could explore the difference between Sins of Weakness and Deliberate Sin."

Whoa! There's a good thought! I'd like to hear a calm discussion by our learned theologians on that one. I've struggled with this question for a long time. Is there a difference? You bet there is! All of our talk of welcoming and inclusion depend on whether homosexual erotic acts are sinful in the eyes of God. Our understanding of sin comes from Scripture. Christ proclaims repentance for the forgiveness of sin to all people. Some hear the message, recognize their sin, repent, and believe. Others fail to see their own sinfulness and kill the messenger in an attempt to silence Him.

Pr. Kevin, This is a good question to ask and one which I think is important to respond to. Part of the cloudiness of this debate is that the people involved do not recognize that Lutherans have classically understood there to be a distinction between mortal and venial sins. This distinction is present in fact in one of our chief confessional documents, the Smalkald Articles. The later are simply the result of weakness, giving into the daily temptation that we face. The former are faith destroying because they represent deliberate acts that violate God's law. The person effectively says "God, I do not trust you, I will do my own thing." This is the sin against the Holy Spirit that Jesus spoke about. When this happens, faith and the Holy Spirit are lost.
So, as I see it part of the problem with the other side is that they have several faulty assumptions. First, they assume that Faith in Jesus is not logically connected with the willingness to obey the law. Faith fulfills the law, because if I believe in Jesus and trust him, I will automatically also trust that what he wishes me to do is the best thing as well. Therefore justification by faith and sanctification are really two sides of the same coin. My opponents seem to think that faith in Jesus is simply an isolated act of trust in Jesus and can still go on sinning and claim to legitimately love God. Not so. From this they draw the conclusion that practicing homosexual are also part of the body of Christ and because salvation is not based on works and we are also sinners, we need to look the other way. Or even worse, because the law ends in in Christ, homosexual practice need no longer deemed sinful or impend fellowship with Christ. In fact, the problem is that since homosexual practice is a deliberate act of the violation of God's law, faith must always be lost as a result of it. Therefore, the claim of my opponents that we are dealing with sincere practicing homosexuals who simply wish the Church to be more tolerant of them is false. We are dealing with unrepentant persons who do not have sincere faith because they are in a state of mortal sin. As I state above and as Rik states, it is important therefore to have compassion on them in form of being understanding, working with them and engaging in liberal doses of pastoral care so that they can repent, believe the gospel and enter into the fullness of fellowship with Christ and his Church.

You wrote:

" ... homosexual practice is a deliberate act of the violation of God's law."

Does this statement take into account the proposition that homosexual practice for those who practice it is a natural inclination from birth as is the proposition that heterosexual practice for those who practice it is a natural inclination from birth? If such a proposition should happen to be true, then who are we to say that God did not create that circumstance that way? Are we to then blame God for creating a circumstance that is at variance with how the conservatives in this forum interpret God's position on this question?

Kurt- I have already responded to this objection several times. First, we live in a fallen creation, so we can't read God's will off of it. We don't let people die from AIDS or Small Pox just because sickness is part of nature and that would contradict God's will. Secondly, certain forms of criminality are now thought to have a genetic basis. Nevertheless, we still put people in prison for such criminality even if they have the genes that dispose them to say, greater violence or thief or whatever (I know how you think!- so here's a preemptive strike- I'm not saying homosexuality practice is a form of criminality, this is just an analogy!). Thirdly, Original Sin itself is passed down to us and causes us to be sinful from our conception and worthy of eternal destruction (see Psalm 51 and Ephesians 2:3). So, the concept that homosexual inclination would be sin only if they were entered into by free choice is absurd. I have all kinds of sinful desires that make me worthy of eternal destruction which I cannot control and which I in fact wish I did not have (see Romans 7!). But I am imputed with the righteousness of Christ and because I have the beginning of the work of the Spirit, I resist them even though I have them. This is why I constantly talk about "homosexual practice" and not "homosexuality." Homosexual persons of faith can certainly not engage in homosexual practice and resist the inclinations of their nature- just as all Christians are encouraged to do so in regard to whatever sinful inclinations they have-"crucify the flesh" as Paul says. I struggle with my own sinful inclinations everyday! Whatever causes homosexual inclinations (it actually hasn't been proved for certain that it is DNA- recent twin studies seem to suggest that that might play a factor, but is not a definitive explanation), giving into sinful inclinations that remain after Baptism is always sinful- no matter what those inclinations are.
In any case, the creature cannot talk back to the creator. Remember Paul's analogy in Romans- can the pot say to the potter, why did you make me this way? God is not the cause of evil (the evil will of humans and other fallen beings is to blame for the fall and evil- see Augustana article 19), but he certainly allows it to persist for the time being. Why he does so as Luther says at the end of "Bondage of the Will" will only make sense in heaven.

Well, it must be really comforting to have all the answers so systematically aligned. When it comes to reading God's mind, I'm not sure anyone has a lock on that, though many make the claim and use scripture as the proof. I plan to keep on searching while being as kind as possible to everyone I encounter.

Kurt- As Luther puts it when confronted with the same argument from Erasmus- "The Holy Spirit is no Skeptic!" God has spoken to us in Scripture. You are positing either an absurd and irrational God who does wish us to know and do certain things, but hasn't revealed them to us or a God who doesn't care about us if you do not believe that God has provided us with access to his mind through the Holy Scriptures. Either position is irrational or sub-Christian. I'm guessing you wish to be neither.

As Luther notes in "Bondage of the Will", Scripture is clear- both in its external and internal clarity. It's internal clarity is to be found in faith in Christ and comes via the Holy Spirit- Paul makes this same argument in 2 Cor. 2-3. Those who lack faith in Christ and the Holy Spirit cannot therefore understand its main meaning, which can only come via Divine enlightenment. It's external clarity consists in its being written in understandable grammar. There parts that are more clear than others in this regard, but the clear passages interpret the unclear passages.

The passages that we are dealing with are quite clear- furthermore, they do not possess any textual variants. You have not offered a single argument to rebuff my Scriptural or theological arguments thus far regarding these passages.

Kurt, it's not enough just to be "nice" (which BTW, I certain agree this is important). We are dealing with an important cultural and theological question here that needs to be answered based on Divine revelation. You have made it most clear that you have no answers and no arguments. Yet, for some reason you call other people who disagree with you names and publish ad hominen articles on your personal website using arguments like "I looked up an online evaluation of one of your students and they said you were boring!"

I again, must ask you- why do you hold such incredibly strong views that you lack the arguments to defend? Also, if you don't believe that the Scriptures are clear or can tell you the truth, then who or what do you intend to keep on "searching" with?

Obviously, with the tools for scriptural and analysis which you reject.

Kurt- This is not an answer- and you know it. You would have to believe that the Scriptures present truth and give access to God's mind to search them- whatever method you may choose. You have clearly rejected that option. Again, you are left with no argument.

I am a frequent reader of this blog who has never commented before. I have some concerns related to this subject and the votes that will come before the assembly this summer. From what I have seen so far, I suspect that each side in this debate is speaking in ways that the other side does not understand. On a personal level, I speak as someone who is opposed to recognition of same sex relationships, and I freely admit that when I hear advocates, such as Kurt, speak in favor of their position they sound to me as if they are speaking in a foreign language.

Some background about me: I am a lay person and member of an ELCA congregation with an interest in theological issues. While I have no formal education in theology, I have nine years of post-secondary education and three post-secondary degrees, and I have fifteen years of experience in a field that requires me to read and interpret texts, among other things. I do not consider that to be relevant to the debate--appeals to authority are merely a convenient way to avoid the substance of the arguments. Nevertheless, at the risk of being immodest, my education and background give me a certain level of confidence in my ability to read and understand Scripture.

Plainly speaking, I do not see any reasonable way that Holy Scripture can be read to support recognition of same-sex relationships of any kind. In fact, both the Old and New Testaments contain passages that look to me to be outright prohibitions of homosexual acts, regardless of the context. For example, I do not believe that Romans 1:18-32 can be interpreted honestly as saying anything other than that homosexual acts are sinful under all circumstances. How can it be read otherwise? How can secondary sources be more authoritative than the text itself? More specifically, when the original text makes several blanket prohibitions of homosexual sex and nowhere contains language limiting those blanket prohibitions to exploitive situations, how can a secondary source arguing for limitations be considered to be more authoritative than the primary text?

As to the argument that homosexuals are born with that inclination, there are several responses that are consistent with the text of Scripture. First and foremost, science has not conclusively established that homosexual inclinations are entirely attributable to nature. There does not seem to be a hereditary factor, as logic suggests that homosexuality would eventually cease to exist in that event. Next, longitudnal studies of identical twins separated at birth show that there is not a 100% correlation between the sexual preferences of both twins. If sexual orientation were entirely attributable to nature, the correlation must be 100%. Since the correlation is higher than the 1-2% seen elsewhere, there probably is a "nature" factor, but the fact that it is only about 30% indicates that there are environmental factors as well. Secondly, Original Sin explains homosexuality nicely. We live in a broken world scarred by sin. Homosexual orientation is no different than any other inclination to sin. Because kleptomaniacs have a strong "natural" desire to steal, does this mean that theft is not a sin?

More to the point, however, I fear that this is a problem that does not have a compromise solution. As I indicated above, I believe that Scripture unambiguously labels homosexual acts as sin. I believe that Scripture places the responsibility on homosexuals to refrain from acting on their desires. If and when they do act on their desires, they must, like everybody else, repent of their sins and seek to avoid further sinful conduct. Those who excuse the sins of others and encourage them to sin further are themselves committing sin. The logical extension of this is that homosexual acts cannot be legitimized by any church that is faithful to Scripture, because to legitimize them is to encourage sin.

If ELCA officially sanctions homosexual acts, their action will create a serious dilemma for me. First, it will call into question ELCA's teachings on other matters. If the Church is willing to sanction one type of conduct that is unambiguously sinful, in what other areas am I being deceived? Am I calling into question my own salvation by being led into sins that I am not even able to identify? Secondly, even if my own congregation and/or synod maintains traditional teachings, how can I ignore what is being officially sanctioned elsewhere. By maintaining my association with ELCA, am I encouraging others to sin and thereby sinning myself?

This is a fundamental question, because Biblical witness is unambiguous on this point. In my judgment, it is possible to continue association with ELCA without agreeing with ELCA's position on every issue because the issues on which we disagree are not fundamental to faith and/or are matters about which reasonable minds can differ. I simply do not see how reasonable minds can differ on this question, and I consider redefining what is sinful to be a matter fundamental to faith. Under those circumstances, how is it possible to live together within ELCA?

Very well said Ben! You're a much clearer writer than I am.

Do you believe that exploitive situations should be viewed differently than non-exploitive situations?

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the church as an institution and we as individuals should react differently to them--i.e., exploitive situations must be referred for prosecution where appropriate, while non-exploitive situations should be addressed with persuasion. No, in the sense that both are sinful, albeit for different reasons, and both impose the duty of repentence upon those involved (except to the extent that the exploited party did not participate voluntarily).

OK, it is ... BUT, it isn't. I see. So, I guess that passage from Romans really does have to be interpreted.

Your conclusion does not follow from my statement. I cited a passage from Romans that does not draw a distinction between exploitive and non-exploitive homosexual relationships. You asked whether, in my opinion, it matters whether the relationship is exploitive. I explained that it does with respect to how we as human beings living here and now but that it does not with respect to whether either or both types of relationships are sinful. You then conclude that this means that Romans must be interpreted. My response did not address the question that your conclusion purports to answer.

Kurt- As I point out above, the Paul does not condemn homosexual practice becasue it was exploitative in the ancient world. That is a myth of liberal mainline Protestantism. There is no textual evidence of that. Most homosexual relationship in the ancient world were exploitative- but again, Jewish and Christian critics of homosexual practice in the first century very rarely mention this aspect. When Paul gives a reason in Romans 1 (he just mentions it as a sin in 1 Cor. 6:9), he says that "men give up the natural use." The criticism has nothing to do with age difference (as I point out above the idea that same-sex relationship in the ancient world were exclusively of this nature is also a myth) and it doesn't have anything to do with exploitative aspect either (though certain passages in the Catholic and Pastoral Epistles can certainly be read as condemning the track in homosexual prostitution). It is because it goes against the created order- he lead us here a does Jesus in Matt. 19 to Genesis 1-2. That's the only reason- it has nothing do with with the other issue. I don't see why you don't drop this aspect of your argument which has already been demonstrated to be null and void.

It's null and void to you, but that doesn't mean it's truly cut and dried.

Kurt- But you haven't refuted my point- so how would I know that it wasn't cut and dried? You said nothing to prove the contrary, therefore I must conclude that it is. Again, make an argument!

You still haven't answer my question as to why you are so certain of your position when you have consistently demonstrated a total lack of arguments to back it up?

Jack,

Re-read my COMMENTARY regarding Hinlicky's attack on the LSTC faculty, and re-read the faculty statement itself. Just because you continue to say that there are no counter-arguments, it doesn't mean there aren't any. I'm not going to retype all of that here.

Kurt- I read it already and I sent it to many of my friends. The general consensus is that you have not made even one argument that holds water. My fiancee and I sat down read it together and were consistently amazed by the lack of cogency of your arguments. The thing is, you virtually made no arguments. You mainly just insulted Dr. Hinlick and myself. Again, you also seem confused about the basic categories of Lutheran theology. By far, the worst part of your argument is when you attempted to attack me by citing a student evaluation from ratemyprofessor.com. That was a very silly thing to do. I also find it funny that you think I'm older than I am. I turned 30 three months ago. Also, you call me a member of the "conservative coterie of the ELCA"- I'm Missouri Synod.

Although the English translations freely use "homosexual", what malakos and arsenokoites mean is not clear. The link to Leviticus in the LLX isn't proof, either, as many OT rules were reinterpreted in light of Christ (as all of The Rules continually need to be). But if we're going to put our trust in the Bible, we should put it wholly in what it says, and not just use it to justify our feelings that homoerotic love is wrong. In Romans 1, it explicitly talks about giving up or trading-- things which require active participation on part of the sinner. That means they must have originally been heterosexual, not just in original Creation, but in their lives on earth, so those who have never felt attracted to the opposite gender are clearly exempt as they have given nothing up. So homosexual sex is only a sin if you're bisexual or were formerly heterosexual. And if that were not enough, it talks about lusts and passions, so if the homosexuals are feeling actual love for each other, they're in the clear, too.

And all that without the blasphemous historical critical method that helped split the LCMS 35 years ago. HCM is valid in that it is an extension of human reason. It's a tool, and one that helps the Word course freely through God's people.

Because more than HCM itself, binding the Word is what caused that split. And this is the problem in the ELCA today. It is a question of faith, and of binding the Word. Like the LCMS does, we want to put our trust in the Bible, and in so doing, we forget that our trust belongs in Christ. We're trying to put God into our box. It may be the box that we think is His, but if Lutheran theology teaches anything, it's that we're sinful. That means we're going to screw up defining the box by definition. Our faith must be in Christ, not the Bible and even less so in "tradition". So says the OT in the prophecies on Christ, so said Jesus in his earthly ministry (why is it the church elite that are consistently his opponents? They put their faith in the Torah, and not God), so said Paul in his mission, and so said the Reformers. You say that the homosexuals cannot have faith because they are in sin, but you've got it backwards. There is no sin because they are walking in faith in Christ. And to be clear, I'm stating that part of their walking in faith is the loving, caring, tending and guiding their partner spiritually, emotionally AND physically. In those relationships they reflect the love that Christ has shown us every bit as much as heterosexuals do in their relationships.

Peter-

1. This is an absurd interpretation of Romans 1. You behave as if in the first century people had a concept of heterosexual and homosexual identity. They did not, this was developed in the 19th century! So, Paul could not possibly believe that the persons he was talking about were heterosexual and some how where not being true to themselves or something. In the first century, homosexuality is identified with a practice- not an identity. The "natural use" is what is being referred to here only assumes the the persons involved were engaged in heterosexual act before they moved the homosexual ones. I know plenty of homosexual persons that that could be said of. Also, that explanation is anachronistic in the extreme! You are imposing the logic of our culture on Paul- no Jew in the first century would have recognized that reasoning as valid, since they considered the act sinful in itself. In any case, yet again I find it odd that the Liberals consistently claim to have the higher ground on things historical and contextual, yet never make historical or exegetical arguments that hold much water. Also, I'd like to emphasize that I do not reject the historical investigation of the Scriptures- that is different than the HCM which comes with specific assumption which are antithetical to the Christian faith.

2. Again, why is it that no one learned the Lutheran distinction between mortal and venial sins in seminary? I have made myself clear above- this is the orthodox position. If they are actively defying God by willfully violating his law, then they are not in faith because they are saying "I do not trust that you know what is best for me." This has alway been the position of the Lutheran Church.

3. And again, what "re-interpretations" are you talking about? The NT is the restoration of God's original intention for the creation- it does not mean evolution into some new law because God's law is eternal as he is. The civil law of Israel doesn't hold because it was for the ancient state of Israel which doesn't exist- the ritual law doesn't exist either because it point to Christ. The moral law is also eliminated as far as the inner person is concerned, but regulates the external person.

Jack is right that the concept of a distinct and/or immutable homosexual identity (like a female or racial identity) did not exist until the late 19th century in Western Europe. Until then, the idea that someone was a "homosexual" did not exist and no one thought in those categories. There were people who committed homosexual acts, but this wasn't seen as fundamentally different from people who like to take a stroll in the garden every evening (with the caveat that homosexual acts were, of course, illegal). In the Anglophone world the idea of a homosexual identity, or that what we today call a "homosexual", first coalesced around the Oscar Wilde trial. Nevertheless, the idea that choosing to have "homosex" was necessarily an indicator of a "queer" or homosexual identity did not firmly develop in the Anglophone world until the mid-20th century. I would recommend Matt Houlbrook's "Queer London: Perils and Pleasures in the Sexual Metropolis" and George Chauncey's classic work "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940" for more on the history of the development of the identity and concept of the "homosexual" person.
Should I need to give credentials, I'm a professor of modern European history.

Dear Drs Kilcrease and Tanis,

I think you both made my intended point. Paul's writings are very specific to his culture and his understanding is locked in that culture. That does not mean the Spirit or the Law is locked in that culture. The homosexuality we deal with today is not the same thing as it was then. That description (not prescription!) of what is sin was understood entirely through the lens of that culture. And (for Dr Kilcrease), you can't rely on Genesis 1:26 or what Jesus says about it as only ordaining 1 man/1 woman. Logic shows that. If P, then Q. But if you have -P, you cannot conclude -Q.

As to the nature of sin, all sin is ultimately defiance of God. It all earns you damnation, even so-called 'venial sins'. Sin is sin which is separation from God and brings the penalty. The parable of the debtors illustrates that nicely.

And to God in a box, your explanation denies creatio continuit. Yes, salvation is only through Christ, but connection to Christ is not done by following a set of rules; it's done through faith. And faith is not confined to outward demonstrations of piety.

Peter, you have shown yourself yet again to endorse an Anti-Incarnational theology. First, everything is culture- you just end up substituting one culture for another- all that's going on is substituting American culture for Jewish-Christian culture. Secondly, there analogical similitude between cultures. So, Romantic love in ancient Israel isn't quite what is now- but I can still read Ruth and get what's going on. Why? analogical similitude. Homosexual practice was obviously different in the ancient world, but what God dislikes about in that cultural setting according to Paul, most certainly applies to how it is practiced in our setting. That is, it goes against creation. It's a biological fact. Human genital organs exist for a reason- they look the way they do for a reason. That reason is clearly contradicted by homosexual practice. And finally, yes, the Holy Spirit is locked into that cultural setting- why? Because he choose as a medium by which to express himself for all time! If you say something contrary, then your also going to say "God can't really be locked into the particularity of the historical Jesus?" or "God can't really be locked into Word and sacrament, can he?" The end result is enthusiasm. It's funny how this entire discussion was provoked by my insistence that the ELCA suffers from massive level of enthusiasm. I suspect this all goes back to the large number of Pietists in the ELCA's predecessor bodies.

Dr Kilcrease,

Analogical similtude is not the problem. You want to draw the similarities to the sexual practices that Paul condemns. I would say that marriage is the proper analogy for committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. Look at what happens in these relationships and explain exactly how they are different than heterosexual marriage. Same gender, sure. Bearing children, slightly problematic, but is procreation the major point of marriage? Is it solely to propagate the race? And given our current overpopulation and the number of unwanted children, having a set of people who are especially interested in adoption is good for the world.

Your assertion that it 'goes against creation' based on biology is somewhat problematic. They can still use their genitalia to grow closer to one another and strengthen their relationship, and that's as much what sex is about as it is about mere reproduction. And physically having the children yourself is even secondary to family, which adoption can address.

I don't think the Holy Spirit is locked into that culture. Yes, the Bible was written during that point in time, but we are also given reason to understand what is cultural as well as the Holy Spirit today. The Spirit didn't finish its work 1800 years ago. It's alive and moving today. Neither do I deny the historical Jesus, as it is God's coming into this world and reconciling it to Him in precisely that manner that is the entire point of Christianity. I would not say that God is limited to the historical Jesus, though. I think that's a denial of the Trinity or at the very least it ignores the risen Jesus. Your statements about Word and sacrament are also a little back-to-front. First, Word as the Jesus or the Gospel, that's God's promise to us, so He's as locked into that as any other promise. Word as Scripture (which is how I think you intend that term), God is not locked only into that. We can understand God's promise to us through Scripture, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. I think it's the best way, and vastly superior to any other way, but that doesn't mean God is limited to that, or the Sacraments.

Also, Peter- God has put himself in a box: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." The finite can contain the infinite- God's mind is know to us in Christ: "But we have the mind of Christ." How? Via Word and Sacrament- God doesn't reveal himself in other ways. God has only chosen to be the God in the box of the Scriptures. To claim otherwise is either to sink into enthusiasm or to agree with the Reformed criticism of Lutheranism that the finite is not capable of the infinite.

- Peter, another thought about "natural use" suggests that in the Greco-Roman world (and the contemporary world as well) where a man is the dominant "giver" in a sexual union, and the woman is the submissive "receiver," the "given up" or the the abomination to which Paul refers may be the trading of physical roles...not that men love men, but that the masculine becomes feminine (in some cases). Also, would someone explain the love between David and Jonathan?

Phil- that very well be part of the problem with homosexual acts for Paul's audience. Classical civilization tended to designate persons not on same-sex vs. heterosexual desire, but the role as a "penetrator" or "one who is penetrated." For older males, being a "penetrator" was a proper role, whereas it was the other for women or teenage boys. Personally, I don't see Paul's argument going that way for several reasons. First, he also attributes to women the sin of sexual practice as well. In terms of the dynamics of penetration (excuse the phrase) women who acted on lesbian desires won't be taking on a male role (for obvious reasons-in other words, they couldn't penetrate). Also, I think Paul's cultural background as a Hellenistic Jew is important to consider. Heterosexual marriage as it is described in Hellenistic Jewish wisdom literature is the ideal of human existence and is that way because it expresses one of the high points of God's wise ordering of the world. This seems to be the background of Paul's argument that the homosexual acts have their basis in the fallenness of creation and its idolatry. Actually, if the passage is read in this wider context, we can see that this a stock argument of Hellenistic Jews. They quite consistently attribute it to idolatry. So, here's how Paul's argument goes: The Gentiles know God exists because of nature and their consciences. They ignore the facts though, and instead worship idols. This inverts the order or creation, where the creature is supposed to be oriented to the creator and not other creatures. So, in order to punish them, Paul says, God allowed their sin to run wild. He did this particularly in the area of sexuality. Just as they have inverted creation by worship other creatures, such inversion is now expressed in their interest in persons of the same-sex.
Also, David and Jonathan were not homosexuals. The idea of deep, almost creepily close friendship (that is, in our cultural terms) was a very common motif in the ancient world without homosexual overtones (for the Greeks it sometimes was, but hey, that's a way different culture like 500 years later). Also, David later collected wives like they were sox, so the idea that he had homosexual inclinations doesn't really seem to hold water.

Peter, you wrote: "You say that the homosexuals cannot have faith because they are in sin, but you've got it backwards. There is no sin because they are walking in faith in Christ."
The Holy Spirit wrote through John Zebedeeson, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. " I John 1:8-10 NIV how are homosexuals walking in faith in Christ with no sin, when God has given us His Word that our sin is real, yet our forgiveness is real when we confess our sin before Him, seeking to amend our ways by His strength? I John is interesting. I John 2:4 states "The man who says, 'I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Peter, I respectfully suggest that your gripe is not with Jack or Ben or anyone else posting here--it is obviously with God Himself, who clearly speaks through His Word. The Bible is not the box which seeks to limit God. Perhaps your beloved HCM and approach to God and His full teachings is what is seeking to box God, but YHWH will not fit into your box. If I am correct, your God is too small, and I encourage you to let God challenge you by hearing and reading the plain Word of Scripture without trying to Swedenborgianize what He reveals to us.

Rik,

I'm not saying homosexuals are sin-free. They sin just as much as heterosexuals do. I'm saying that living in a committed, monogamous relationship with someone of the same gender is not a sin. If that was the only sin holding homosexuals back from perfection, we should have them running everything.

1 John can also applied to your arguments. The command spoken of there is not 'do everything in the Bible', it's 'love one another as Christ has loved us'. And in this issue, part of that is recognizing homosexuality as part of God's good creation.

There are a number of people on this Board who disagree with you and contend that the Bible does, too.

As I should have made more clear in my first reply, it does not follow logically from the proposition that "exploitive relationships are sinful" (as I think we both agree) that "non-exploitive relationships are not sinful." Both types of relationships sinful, even though different sins may be at play: In an exploitive situation, the exploitation is the sin; in a non-exploitive situation, the relationship itself is the sin. Because the underlying sin at issue in each of the two types of relationships differs, the question of whether one type of relationship is sinful has no bearing on whether the other type of relationship is sinful.

As the speed and complexity of these explanations accelerate in this circle, it is clear that we move deeper and deeper into interpretation, the need for which is a major aspect of this discussion.

It's going to be more than interesting when we arrive at the end of the third week in August and see just what rhetoric is invoked and what actions are taken as the rubber hits the road. The ELCA will continue to function with those who want to remain aligned, and God will continue to be in charge of determining who is saved, and why. Nothing that has been said in this forum is going to make any difference one way or the other, because no minds have been changed.

The arguments and explanations need not necessarily be complex. Revisionists such as you, as the ones seeking to make a radical reinterpretation of doctrine as it has been understood for 2,000 years, have the burden of explaining why Scripture says something different than what its plain meaning suggests. In my judgment, you have not done that.

1. The explanations that I have heard rely on novel theories that are open to considerable dispute. What reason is there to believe that these new methods of interpretation are clearly superior to traditional methods? It seems to me that an interpretation that is at odds with plain meaning must be clearly superior in order to be accepted in lieu of the plain meaning. No such showing has been made.

2. What external evidence exists to back up the claim that Scripture does not say what it means? If homosexual conduct is consistent with Scripture, can you account for why homosexuality is never spoken of in positive terms anywhere in the Bible? Why are there no positive Biblical accounts of homosexual relationships? Where is the historical evidence of homosexual relationships being an accepted part of the early church?

3. Scripture has existed in written form for almost 2,000 years. Bearing in mind that this does not involve a situation subject to testing by rigorous scientific means that would yield a result not subject to dispute by a reasonable person, how can you reasonably argue that we have completely misunderstood the meaning of a 2,000 year old document until 20-30 years ago?

In light of these types of questions, what level of confidence do you have, or can you have, in your interpretation of Scripture? It seems to me to be self-evident, absent significant extrinsic evidence, that one could only have limited confidence in the correctness of an interpretation that is at odds with plain meaning as it has been understood for millenia. To me, it does not seem reasonable or prudent to represent to others that a homosexual sex is permissible under the circumstances. What if you are wrong? Does this not subject people to grave consequences?

To what sort of "grave consequences" do you refer?

By "grave consequences" I mean the possibility of eternal damnation because of unrepentent sin.

OK. That's what I figured you meant. So, it's not up to God to decide ... it's up to the traditionalists to decide. Right?

Obviously it is up to God. BUT that does not mean that we should deliberately test him to see whether he means what he says.

Ben,

Also keep in mind that the Scripture people have been using has not always been that accurate. Even in the last 50 years, we've greatly improved our translations both because we know more about the languages and because we have found older manuscripts. All we can say about previous translations are that they were what that time/culture needed. The fact that we have new translations suggests that we are gaining what we need in our time/place.

I'd also point out that the Bible doesn't mention the kind of homosexual relationships that are under discussion today. There are certainly no passages specifically about one, named homosexual. If you want a category closest to what we're talking about today, that would be marriage. The problem with that category for some, is if we put homosexual relationships under the purview of marriage, all of this ordination/public recognition stuff becomes moot. As Drs Kilcrease and Tanis were so quick to point out, homosexuality is understood entirely differently today. Paul's condemnation of it is informed by his cultural background and may have been relevant for his day. In this day and age, however, we have the understanding that lets us treat homosexuals as we would hetersexuals in marriage. We have a better idea of this ordaining of the Creator, and need to adjust our rules appropriately.

The interpretation of Scripture that you accept is just that--an interpretation. Other interpretations come to exactly the opposite conclusion. The question, then, is which interpretation is correct? When interpreting a text, the first step is to look at its plain meaning. Here, the plain meaning is that homosexual sex is a sin. An interpretation of the text consistent with plain meaning must be viewed as more likely to be correct than an interpretation at variance with plain meaning, absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Your interpretation is at variance with plain meaning, and those supporting it have not put forth overwhelming evidence that they are correct. Until they do, they must be presumed to be incorrect.

It speaks volumes that the Bible does not contain a single positive reference to homosexual sex. It speaks volumes that secondary sources containing first-hand accounts of the Early Church do not make any positive references to homosexual sex. While it may be the case that we have a better understanding of ancient languages than we did 100 years ago, it strains credibility to suggest that we have a better understanding now than did the people who were living at the time the texts were written.

If it is true that homosexuals are "born that way," then it must also be true that some people were born with an inclination toward homosexual sex in the ancient world. You cannot argue that homosexuality is inborn and then argue that people in the ancient world did not know what homosexuality is. Moreover, it is commonly accepted that the Ancient Greeks knew what homosexual sex is and that the Early Church knew about the Ancient Greeks, to include their views respecting homosexual sex. All available evidence suggests that the Early Church rejected the view of the Ancient Greeks concerning homosexual sex. How, then, can we honestly argue that times have changed, therefore homosexual sex is no longer a sin?

If it is true that homosexual sex is a sin and that we have reason to know that it is a sin, then anyone who engages in homosexual sex knowing it to be a sin is an unrepentent sinner. Romans 6 makes clear that "the wages of sin is death" and assures us that through righteousness we can gain God's gift of eternal life. Those who are unrepentent sinners to not gain this gift.

At best, revisionists can claim that this matter is debatable. They cannot claim that all reasonable doubt has been resolved in their favor. Why, then, would one risk not receiving God's gift of eternal life?

Ben,

I think it does come down interpretation, or hermeneutics. Lutheran hermeneutics is outlined in AC IV, which is the law/promise lens, not the "plain meaning" lens. As mentioned with all of the cultural/etc specific issues, there are very few actual "plain" meanings. Also, Luther's breakthrough is that we need to read Scripture in light of Christ's death and resurrection. The law provides the diagnosis of our malady, but the prognosis comes from faith alone and only in Christ's death and resurrection. That is our criterion for righteousness-- Christ, who has made our unrighteousness into righteousness. That also means that the Bible is not our checklist of things to do or rules by which we please God. We cannot please God through trying to follow the rules. We can only trust in Christ's mercy. It is in trusting Christ that the rest follows, and if there are married homosexuals who trust Christ, it follows that their marriage is not unrighteousness.

As to the historical church, the NT was not assembled until years after the original authors' deaths and many of those compositions were done in very different places with varying degrees of knowledge of other sources. Also, as mentioned before, the Ancient Greeks' idea of homosexuality is very different than is ours today. A simple explanation is that it was not the right fullness of time to explain homosexuality. The Spirit has been waiting for us to come to a healthier understanding of homosexuality before springing it on us.

Peter,
Are you arguing that justification by faith alone absolves us from any and all constraints on our conduct? May we simply ignore the Ten Commandments because Christ died for us? Or, must we acknowledge that we are sinners and repent of those sins? Does true repentence then require us to endeavor not to sin in the future?
When I was speaking about plain meaning, I was advancing that as a means of keeping our bearings with respect to textual criticism. When, as in this debate, someone attempts to argue that a text does not say what plain meaning suggests that it does say, the person arguing for an interpretation contrary to plain meaning has a steep hill to climb in order to carry the day. Merely providing an alternative reading of the text that cannot be shown to be obviously correct, as the revisionists have done here, doesn't even begin to climb that hill.

Ben,

Justification by faith frees the newly regenerate completely from the law. Consider Galatians 5:18 "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law" and Ephesians 2:15 "[Christ] has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity". The law is irrelevant for the Christ-truster, as that person's new center is Jesus Christ. Having Christ as one's center is not a simple statement; it's a transformative event. Repentance and one's later conduct are both consequences of that transformative event--trusting Christ, not a prerequisite. Our criteria for sin is similarly changed: "what does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). The big problem with reading Paul's descriptive statements of life in faith as prescriptive statements is that it turns those statements into a new legal code. And if we're becoming holy by following those statements or by repenting of our behavior, we've made that our center in place of faith in Christ. For a church, the questions are "does this action necessitate Christ's death and resurrection" and "does it convey the benefits of Christ so that devout consciences are comforted", which is AC IV.

This also brings us to "plain meaning". Lutherans do believe in the clarity of the Bible, but that does not mean "literally whatever the latest translation says". (Else only Greek scholars could properly understand "plain meaning" and not even then in those places where the major textual witnesses disagree!) It means that anyone can read the Bible clearly. The catch is hermeneutics-- you need the right one, which I contend (and believe the Reformers contended) is the Law/Promise hermeneutic. Simply put, the Law diagnoses our malady, but it is Christ that cures it.

Obviously, we disagree completely on this. You and I appear to have very different views of the relationship between law and gospel. I point back to Sucriptural passages such as Romans 6 for the proposition that life in Christ entails obeying God's law. I argue that homosexual sex does not proceed from faith precisely because it is a violation of God's law. You apparently believe that once a person has placed his faith in Christ, he is no longer subject to God's law.

By way of example, I will give you an admittedly extreme illustration of why I believe you are wrong: Let us assume that X has faith in Christ; X believes that his faith in Christ entails killing gay rights advocates because X believes those advocates are encouraging other people to sin. X is acting completely upon his faith, yet he appears to be violating God's law. I would certainly argue, absent an extraordinary act of God, that X misunderstands his responsibilities as a person of faith.

How would you argue against what X is doing if you cannot claim that X was violating God's law? My assumption is that you will say that X does not have true faith in Christ, based upon his actions. That is the same argument that could be made with regard to those who have homosexual sex.

My point is that there must be some standards of conduct that arise out of faith in Christ, and I do not believe that your explanation above leads to any intellectually consistent way to determine what those standards are.

Ben,

That's a similar argument to those used by the Pharisees against Jesus when he violated the Sabbath and uncleanliness laws and by the Judaizers against Paul over whether Gentiles had to follow God's law and convert to Judaism.

The problem with your example is that although you posit "faith in Christ" you do not show how the murder proceeds from trusting Christ. How does murdering unrepentent sinners fit into trusting Christ? At the very least, killing them is contradictory to the love that God has shown them through Jesus Christ. To demonstrate that homosexuality is sin, you need to demonstrate how it betrays trust in Christ. And "Paul said so" isn't good enough, because Paul is a sinner who is not the final authority on Christ. That's why some of the others talk about how homosexual sex is "against Creation", though those arguments also either presuppose that it is a sin, or add their own interpretation to a couple of Bible passages to get to that point. Ask yourself, what are the tangible fruits of sex within a committed, monogamous homosexual relationship and both how they differ from those of sex within a committed, monogamous heterosexual relationship and whether they glorify Christ or lead one away from His glory.

Peter,

Homosexual sex is a sin because the Bible says it is a sin. Your side is the side attempting to ignore a clear Biblical directive, so your side has the obligation to show that it is not a sin. The killing arguably proceeds from faith in Christ for the reason I mentioned above -- the person killed is leading others into sin, which calls into question their salvation. The killer kills the sinner to save the innocent, which proceeds from trust in Christ. (Again, I do not agree with the example, I am simply saying that you cannot argue against it by saying that killing is wrong).

The "tangible fruits" of a homosexual relationship are not comparable to those of a heterosexual relationship. Marriage is NOT about love between two adults; it is about procreation, rearing and educating the next generation. By definition, a homosexual relationship is incapable of procreation. Therefore, by definition it is incapable of marriage. Homosexual relationships lead one away from the glory of Christ because they are sinful and against God's will.

The real debate here is not about homosexuality. It is about two competing and irreconcilable visions of the Gospel and God's grace. You and I can never agree about homosexual sex while we have such competing visions. I believe that the Bible defines certain conduct as sinful and that the unrepentant sinner is denied God's grace. You disagree, so we lack the common basis necessary to reach consensus.

Ben,

That's exactly the problem. "The Bible says so" is NOT what our faith is grounded in. Jesus Christ's taking of our sins upon Himself, His death and resurrection is the object of our faith. Look over AC IV. That's our justification. Scripture is certainly extremely helpful, but its only authority rests in Jesus Christ. Sin is failing to put our trust in Christ. Working on the Sabbath, the uncleanliness laws and prohibition of blood are also "clear directives" in the Bible, yet they do not measure up to AC IV. In the case of homosexuality, it's also far less than a clear directive, especially given the difficult etymology of the terms.

The problem with your example is that there are two sinners in need of redemption, and murdering one fails to help that one. Reconciliation cannot be brought about by the sword. You can't force anyone to Christ. Christ must come to them. And I'm not sure how receptive someone would be to Christ if His self-proclaimed representative just killed someone he knew. That's why I do not believe the killer is acting in faith.

Procreation cannot be a reason for homosexuality as a sin, unless you're going to call infertility in general a sin. Two homosexuals are no different than an infertile couple. They can still raise a new generation, and in this overpopulated world, procreation is not quite the pressing need it might have been thousands of years ago.

I do agree that we have a different grounding for faith. I think yours is not the AC, though, but scholasticism, which is what the Catholic church upholds. Your requirements for repentence and adherence to the Bible also makes for Gospel plus-- repentence is a consequence, not a prerequisite, and adherence to the Bible is NOT how we please God. That's back to Moses and living under the Law.

Peter:

Two points:
1. You miss the point of my example. It is not about two people who need redemption. It is about the killer keeping OTHERS from sinning by removing the temptation. I do not agree with the killer because he is violating Scriptural commands. You cannot make that argument because you have already said that Scriptural commands do not matter. With that in mind, how can you argue that the killer is wrong without reference to Scripture and bearing in mind that he BELIEVES that he is acting out of love of Jesus?
2. I doubt very much that Luther would recognize the "Lutheran" theology you claim to reference. What about the Catechisms and the Apology, for example, both of which make reference to Scriptural commandments? In addition, both argue against your position concerning homosexuality by making clear that sex is appropriate ONLY in the context of a marriage between one man and one woman.

Ben,

1. You still haven't made the essential connection between love for Jesus and either trying to keep others from sin or murdering them to do so. Faith in Christ is trusting Jesus. How does murdering others reflect that trust in anything other than a betrayal of it? Let me try to ask it a different way: how would the killer explain that murder specifically reflects the love of Christ? I think the problem is that you're missing the transformative power of the Gospel... you have this feeling that faith needs outside constraints and without them, one could and would do anything and abuse the term 'faith'. That's not what faith is about. It's putting your trust entirely in Christ and that transforms your life as a result. Christ puts you in the right place in your relationship with God.

2. The Lutheran writings are grounded in ACIV. That is their measuring stick for everything else, and it is always bounced off the light that is Christ. Although they mention Scripture may call us to do something, that is always rooted in Christ's authority, not 'well, the Bible says it, so we must do it'. Specifically, the prohibition against blood is specifically changed (AC28:65, I think). As to the Apology, etc "making clear" that it's only 1 man/1 woman, I see that as trying to serve the letter of the law instead of the spirit. To take ACXXIII as an example, yes, it continually refers to a man and a woman. But to read into that a command that it MUST be 1 man/1 woman misses the point of ACXXIII, which is that marriage is a divine institution into which all (except possibly a very few) are called, in their case specifically priests, monks and nuns.

Peter,
1. I have absolutely explained how the killer is trusting Christ -- he is protecting other people. Killing reflects trust because, in this hypothetical case, the killer believes that he is acting as Christ's agent and the means by which Christ protects those too weak to protect themselves. God often uses agents to accomplish things here. Your argument boils down to "the killer shouldn't do it because killing is wrong." The problem with your argument is that you have removed the metrics by which right and wrong are measured. You are defining "trust," "love" and "faith" entirely from your own frame of reference and discounting the possibility that they are properly defined by God and communicated to us through His Word. What if the Bible says what it means and means what it says?
2. You continue to ignore the actual words of the documents that you cite. The Bible, the Augsburg Confessions, the Apology, the Catechisms and other foundational documents of our faith are clear and provide ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT for your interpretation. The words of the documents say what they say; every signle time they mention homosexual sex, they condemn it -- no ifs, ands or buts. You arrive at your conclusion by looking to historical interpretaitons and secondary sources, none of which can possibly be more authoritative than the primary documents.
The Christian faith has existed for more than 2,000 yearas. Luther posted his 95 Theses more than 500 years ago. During the entire sweep of the history of Christianity and Lutheranism, homosexual sex has been universally regarded as a sin. To the extent contemporaneous secondary sources exist, they all confirm the traditional interpretation of Scripture on this point. Only in the last 30 years or so have interpretaions been made to contradict this view of Scripture. Those recent interpretations are a self-serving, self-justifying attempt to explain away conduct that is clearly sinful. Rather than working to justify the person, this is an attempt to justify the conduct. It is deceptive and dangerous. God does not serve us -- we serve Him.

Ben,

1. We do have measuring sticks laid out in ACIV. The 2 questions you must ask of any supposedly Christian idea are: "does it necessitate faith in Christ's death and resurrection" and "does it comfort devout consciences such that the benefits of Christ are not wasted". You've finally been more clear about the killer's motivations, saying that he's doing it to protect those weaker than himself. However, as Luther rightly states, the only defense that can be made for the Gospel in the Gospel is proclamation of the Gospel. You cannot defend the Gospel through murder because in so doing, you're no longer proclaiming the Gospel.

2. Your argument here is now 'the letter of the law is the spirit' and that fundamentally contradicts the Lutheran Confessions.

It's also not "clear" how two homosexuals who have lived together in marriage for the last 30 years, supporting each other in love and faith is sin. You have to rely on "The Bible says so" for your justification and that is contrary to the Christ alone and only proposed in the Augsburg Confession. Justification must be grounded in Christ.

The other problem with legalism is that you need to know exactly what the text says. And the Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoites" do not even necessarily mean 'homosexual'. Sloth and gluttony are other possible translations. If you can't be sure of the law, it's awfully hard to follow it.

In reply:
1. Your reading of the Augsburg Confession would surprise Luther himself. Luther does emphasize the centrality of Christ; however, he is also clear that one must at least try to avoid sin. I think that using Luther's words to define sinful conduct as not sinful would surprise Luther. For example, in the catechisms, Luther goes to great lengths to describe sin. Why would this be necessary if sin does not exist? Indeed, you still have not dealt with my question regarding the basis by which you can say killing is wrong. If it is not a sin, how can it be wrong if it advances a utilitarian end?
2. Lutheran Theology has always emphasized the importance of both Gospel AND law. If you are unable to see that the Bible clearly says that homosexual conduct is wrong, I cannot add anything more to the discussion. I think that the Bible is very clear on this point. Consult the relevant texts in Leviticus, Romans and First Corinthians, for example -- I just do not see any way that you can claim that those passages say anything else. I come back to the fact that an interpretation cannot contradict plain language without very compelling evidence. You do not have it.

Ben,

1. Avoidance of sin follows from trust in Christ. If one is in Christ, one is not sinning. To show that it is a sin, you have to demonstrate how it directly contradicts trust in Christ's reconciliation of the entire world unto Him through his life, death and resurrection. There are plenty descriptions of how various people experience life in Christ. While they tend to be very good guides, they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Any action must be bounced off the Light of Christ, not the Bible, nor anyone else's list of sins.

2. Killing in your example is wrong because it is contrary to the Gospel. That action runs contrary to the Gospel because it attempts to enforce the Gospel proclamation with the sword, which is back to legalism which contradicts faith. The Gospel must be trusted, and to attach any other penalty to not following the Gospel means one is not trusting the Gospel, but following in order to avoid penalty (ie, living under the law). Killing in your example further does not advance a utilitarian end as it is a lack of trust in Christ on the killer's behalf and the proclamation to the world is one of Law, not Gospel, both of which are contrary to the Gospel.

3. I'm not saying Law is unimportant. I'm saying it's not how we're redeemed. The task of executing God's Law is the left-hand task of government, not the right-hand task of the church. The church's job is redemption.

4. What do "malakoi" and "arsenokoites" mean? Are those words "plain language" to anyone? Is it not an interpretation to claim that any particular situation in a particular time and culture applies to us? Luther certainly read much of the Bible that way-- as laws holding force only for the Jewish theocracy of the time. More fundamentally, though, you're replacing Christ with the Bible. The Bible's authority rests solely in Christ. Without Christ, the Bible is just so many words.

Your interpretation is not Lutheran. I offer the following excerpt from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, "The Third Use of the Law":

"1] Since the Law of God is useful, 1. not only to the end that external discipline and decency are maintained by it against wild, disobedient men; 2. likewise, that through it men are brought to a knowledge of their sins; 3. but also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law….

...

4] For the explanation and final settlement of this dissent we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing.

5] For although the Law is not made for a righteous man, as the apostle testifies 1 Tim. 1:9, but for the unrighteous, yet this is not to be understood in the bare meaning, that the justified are to live without law. For the Law of God has been written in their heart, and also to the first man immediately after his creation a law was given according to which he was to conduct himself. But the meaning of St. Paul is that the Law cannot burden with its curse those who have been reconciled to God through Christ; nor must it vex the regenerate with its coercion, because they have pleasure in God's Law after the inner man.

...

9] Therefore, because of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God, as it is written Ps. 119:71: It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Thy statutes. And again, 1 Cor. 9:27: I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that, by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. And again, Heb. 12:8: But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons; as Dr. Luther has fully explained this at greater length in the Summer Part of the Church Postil, on the Epistle for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity.

...

20] So, too, this doctrine of the Law is needful for believers, in order that they may not hit upon a holiness and devotion of their own, and under the pretext of the Spirit of God set up a self-chosen worship, without God's Word and command, as it is written Deut. 12:8,28,32: Ye shall not do ... every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes, etc., but observe and hear all these words which I command thee. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.

...

26] Accordingly, we reject and condemn as an error pernicious and detrimental to Christian discipline, as also to true godliness, the teaching that the Law, in the above-mentioned way and degree, should not be urged upon Christians and the true believers, but only upon the unbelieving, unchristians, and impenitent."

Ben,

The 3rd use is one use of the Law that was heavily debated following Luther's death and the FC still isn't as clear as one might like, see particularly parts 4 and 5 that you quoted above. That says straight up that the believer IS free from the Law's curse. Yes, the Law is still useful to preach to the regenerate, because no one is ever fully regenerate. The Old Adam still resides in each of us, up until God's final use of this aspect of the Law when He terminates us for our sins. The 3rd use is there to mortify sinners.

You cannot read the first part of the quote and ignore the second. From Paragraph 4: "yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing." Also, see Paragraph 9: "Therefore, because of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God...."

In addition, see this excerpt from the Epitome of the Form of Concord, I. Original Sin, Antitheses:
"11] 1. Therefore we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a reatus or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.
12] 2. Also, that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature, or, as though the above-mentioned defect and damage were not truly sin, because of which man without Christ [not ingrafted into Christ] would be a child of wrath.
13] 3. We likewise reject the Pelagian error, by which it is alleged that man's nature even after the Fall is incorrupt, and especially with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers."

These very clearly establish that believers must follow God's law.

Ben,

Two problems. One is that 'should' and 'must' are not synonyms. The only 'must' is faith alone and only in Christ which they acknowledge. Also, God's Law is not 'everything written in the Bible', nor are the laws and recommendations in there equal to God's Law. You have to remember what Jesus says in John's Gospel in regards to what should be done (6:29): "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

The Law is a curb and a mirror, and what it shows we should not ignore. However, our cure is not doing the Law. We cannot correct that defect. It takes life in Christ. And that life in Christ fixes our problems.

Agree in part. Acknowledged that should is not must and that faith alone is necessary for salvation. HOWEVER, "we reject and condemn the teaching that ... evil lusts are not sin...." "[B]ecause of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God...."

In other words, even though Christ alone is necessary for salvation, we are still expected to follow the law. Homosexual acts and other "lusts of the flesh" are sin, according to the law. Therefore we, as a church, have a responsibility to provide "daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law ... [and] also frequently punishments that ... [our members] may be roused ... and follow the Spirit of God." ELCA will be derelict in its responsibility to instruct and admonish our membership if it legitimizes conduct that violates the law.

Finally, one can question the extent to which a person who ignores the law truly follows Christ. A person who ignores the law and does what he wants to do, in contrast to what is pleasing to God, at the very least has raised serious questions concerning his committment to Christ. The Ten Commandments are not the Ten Suggestions. Similarly, where God, through his written Word, has clearly set forth what is pleasing to Him, we ignore that at our peril.

Ben,

There are two problems here. The homosexuality discussion is not about "evil lusts". It's about two people who are as committed to each other as a heterosexual couple. Speaking of 'lusts' in this context makes as much sense as calling it 'lust' between a married couple. There are certainly homosexual acts that ARE lusts, but the fight isn't to say 'you can have sex with anyone of the same gender', it's to say that marriage can be between two people, regardless of gender.

Other problem is that you're still erring too much on 'we must do the law anyways'. The law is helpful, but remember that all of our righteous works are as dirty rags in God's eyes. What pleases God is faith in Christ, NOT obedience to the Bible. Actions should proceed from faith in Christ. The Law is useful in showing where one's actions may not be proceeding from faith, but Christ, not the Law is the final Word. Also, I'm not advocating 'doing whatever you want' in place of the law, but 'walking in Christ'. The difference is AC4: does the action follow from only trusting Christ's promise alone to forgive sinners on account of His death and resurrection, and does it communicate the benefits of Christ such that devout consciences are comforted?

Peter,
Thus, the dispute. The nub of the problem, as I see it, is that Scripture admonishes against homosexual sex under every circumstance. It is an "evil lust" in the context referred to above even when practiced between two people who are committed to each other. It is analogous to me having sexual relations with my neighbor's wife--no matter how committed we may be to each other, sexual acts between us are still sinful; and also to me having sex with a single neighbor--again, no matter how committed, the act is still sinful. I believe that ANY sexual act outside of the bonds of heterosexual marriage is sinful, and Scripture as I read it confirms this belief. The level of committment between two persons simply does not provide the definitive answer to the question of whether sexual relations between them is pleasing to God.
Secondly, as I indicated above, one cannot walk in Christ while ignoring God's law. You do not appear to be considering the triune nature of God. Through the lens of the Trinity, no part of the Word of God is more important than any other part. You seem to want to focus only on Gospel, without giving due regard to law. As I indicated above, I believe faith in Christ is all that is necessary for salvation; nevertheless, true faith in Christ does not exist when one ignores God's law. What matters most is what God wants us to do, not what we want to do.
I believe that persons with homosexual inclinations must make every effort to avoid acting on those inclinations. Since we are fallen creatures, I have no doubt that they are as liable to sin as I am. All of us, whatever our sinful inclinations, are called to attempt to resist sin. If we say that sin is not sin, we are no longer working to resist it.

Ben,

Your statement "faith in Christ is all that is necessary for salvation; nevertheless, true faith in Christ does not exist when one ignores God's law" gives a rather strange definition of faith. At the least, it sets obeying God's law as a condition on faith, which makes faith contingent on works. The Law is not a precondition for faith or life in Christ-- if anything, Paul makes it very clear that the Law is the precondition of death.

The other problem with legalism is that it is "Scripture as you see it". "Scripture as others see it" gives a very different reading of Scripture, and without AC4, you have no way of discriminating between "Scripture as you see it" and "Scripture as others see it". Always trusting yourself for interpretations of Scripture is extreme hubris. Others challenge the very notion that malakoi or arsenokoites can even be properly translated as "homosexual", and there is nothing in Scripture stating that "ANY sexual act outside of the bonds of heterosexual marriage is sinful", especially considering the polygamy rampant in the OT and the fact that the whole concept of "heterosexual vs homosexual" didn't exist in Biblical times.

Peter,
The clear witness of Scripture condemns homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is mentioned directly only a few times in the Bible, and every time it is condemned. There are no instances in which homosexual conduct is spoken of in positive terms. In addition, there are numerous instances in which it is made clear that sex is proper only within the bonds of marriage. The statement you quote may not have been made directly in Scripture, but that seems to be the message that is being conveyed.
Your statement concerning alternate readings of Scripture has some merit. There certainly are some instances in which Scripture may not be as clear to us as we would wish. Nevertheless, I have some level of confidence in my interpretation. There are no positive, or even neutral, statements in the Bible regarding homosexual conduct. In order to find a neutral meaning for committed relationships, you must discount what appears to be the plain meaning of what is written and make inferences and interpretations which are, at best, debatable. Coupled with the fact that you have 2,000 years of Christian consensus against you, it is unequivocally the case that you must produce overwhelming evidence in favor of your interpretaion in order to show that it is reasonable.
Finally, as to my view of faith and avoiding sin, I will raise two points. First, since we believe in a Triune God, all of God's statements must be given equal weight. You cannot focus on Jesus and simply ignore the rest. Secondly, I will quote a portion of Luther's discussion of the Ten Commandments from the Large Catechism:
"322] Now, there is comprehended in these words (as said before) both an angry word of threatening and a friendly promise to terrify and warn us, and, moreover, to induce and encourage us to receive and highly esteem His Word as a matter of divine earnestness, because He Himself declares how much He is concerned about it, and how rigidly He will enforce it, namely, that He will horribly and terribly punish all who despise and transgress His commandments; 323] and again, how richly He will reward, bless, and do all good to those who hold them in high esteem, and gladly do and live according to them. Thus He demands that all our works proceed from a heart which fears and regards God alone, and from such fear avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath; and, on the other hand, also trusts in Him alone and from love to Him does all He wishes, because he speaks to us as friendly as a father, and offers us all grace and every good."
I may not have explained the necessity of cleaving to God's Word as well as Luther, but this excerpt is saying essentially the same thing that I was attempting to say.

Ben,

That quote from Luther is a statement about the law and our relationship to God under the Law. We fail to keep that Law, no matter who we are. That is our fate by our own merit. It takes Christ's death and resurrection (not adherence to our understanding of the Bible) to save us. When we say it is only through Christ alone that we are forgiven, it means only and alone. We don't "ignore" the rest, but our focus in the church MUST be on Jesus and carrying His redemptive Word to all the people.

So back to the "clear witness" of Scripture and your "some level of confidence" in your reading of it. On what grounds do you have any confidence? Considering homosexuality was understood entirely differently (ie, there was no such thing as "homosexual orientation"... see Drs Kilcrease's and Tapis' comments elsewhere in this thread), and the words-- malakoi and arsenokoites-- probably don't even refer to homosexuality-- it's not clear at all that bringing homosexuals to participate in marriage is contrary to God's will. If anything, AC23 states that marriage should be the context of all sexual relationships. From that, it follows that the church ought to marry those homosexuals wishing to tie the knot, and encourage them all to marriage. Also, think of how long the Jews held the Torah before Christ and Paul told them they had it wrong. Saying 'the church has been doing something for 2000 years' doesn't mean anything. If anything, if you really believe that argument, you should consider Catholicism, since they try exceptionally hard to remain true to that tradition even at the cost of remaining true to the living Christ.

Peter,
1. You have ignored my central point. Every time Scripture mentions homosexual sex, it is declared to be sinful. At no time does Scripture have anything positive, or even neutral, to say about homosexual sex. To suggest that at the time the Bible was written people did not know about committed homosexual relationships borders on the absurd. There were homosexuals during and prior to Biblical times. Their relationships were not exclusively exploitive, as your side likes to argue. Historical evidence simply does not back up your extremely tenuous claims regarding the early church not knowing what homosexuality is.
2. Your interpretation of Luther's words makes me wonder whether we are reading the same passage. When Luther says, "He demands that all our works proceed from a heart which fears and regards God alone, and from such fear avoids everything that is contrary to His will, lest it should move Him to wrath; and, on the other hand, also trusts in Him alone and from love to Him does all He wishes," I interpret his words to mean that God expects us to follow his commandments and to trust Him. We cannot be perfect, but if we trust God, He will take care of us. On the other hand, if we ignore His Word, he will punish us terribly.

Ben,

1. The same argument could have been applied to Paul in regards to circumcision. Where in the OT is there support for no circumcision? As you recall, Paul doesn't cite a passage that says 'circumcision is unnecessary'. His Scriptural argument is to say that God came to Abraham before he was circumcised. Similarly today, God comes to homosexuals while they are in their relationships. Also, I'm not relying on "my side's" understanding of homosexuality during that time here. Read elsewhere on this thread for what Drs Kilcrease and Tanis said about cultural understandings of homosexuality during Paul's time. If Dr Kilcrease is on "my side" on this issue, that's news to both of us. That homosexuality was not an issue up until today does not mean anything. Slavery wasn't a major issue during Biblical times either. There is also plenty of Scriptural witness to the importance of marriage and that our sexuality properly belongs in the context of marriage. That is the Scriptural witness that is appropriate to this question today.

2. The Law makes demands. The Gospel is promise. This is the fundamental distinction of Lutheranism. Although the Law's demand is total-- Christ makes it so with the Golden Rule-- living up to that demand is NOT how we please God. This is Good News to us, because we cannot live up to that demand. Not you, not me, not anyone. God doesn't save us through the Law's demand. God saves us through the promise to forgive sinners out of mercy for Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection. He doesn't save us through trusting Christ and doing the Law, He saves us through Christ alone. Trusting Christ's promise of forgiveness changes our lives. Now, the Law is still useful, but not directly as a tool for salvation. The best it can do is reveal our sin, and that sin is always not trusting God. That's a very important role, but that does not save. The Church's task is spreading Christ's promise of salvation, not the sword that comes with the Law's judgement.

Kurt-
In your "Reply to Jack" you wrote: "It's going to be more than interesting when we arrive at the end of the third week in August and see just what rhetoric is invoked and what actions are taken as the rubber hits the road." Perhaps it would be best if the revisionists who cannot accept a Quia subscription, and who seek a liberal serving of liberal protestantism with just a dash of Lutheran heritage to taste--perhaps they could walk out and merge with those who call themselves the "United Church of Christ (UCC)." Perhaps those who do not take part in this ex-hodos could then rediscover historic Lutheranism, which was a return to pre-corrupted Catholicism. Wouldn't this be a win-win situation? Those who find God's Word in the Bible too "binding" could boast a merger, which they could add to their ecumenical score, and the remnant could drop their anchor in Sola Scriptura--a Lamp for their feet and a Light for their path.

I've never thought of this matter as a "zero sum game" in which there are celebratory press releases, claims of victory, or other political affectations.

The real issue is that of the people who are in need of ministry, and how those who love the church deal with that.

Good points, except there are those in the UCC who are just as alarmed as to what has happened to their church body as we are to what is happening to the ELCA.

It is fallacious, and a "Pollyanna" approach, as I see it, to continue to promulgate, as the ELCA leadership has, that everything will all work out in the end.

I see this potentially being as nasty as Seminex was.

We are expected to believe that we can 'cut the baby in half' without killing the baby.