Only 3 out of 27? It seems like the recommendations are the result of an inherent bias in the makeup of the committee rather than a genuine movement of the Holy Spirit.

After looking at the article again, I realized it was 3 out of 30, which makes it even worse.

AMEN.
The Holy Spirit is NOT bringing New Revelation today as some seem to think!
The 27 seemed biased and wanting to be like the world system. The 27 are fearful of what the society might do to them by not following what the world is pushing. Nothing new here from society in general.
Noah had the same problem.

A hearty, "thank you" to you three for your fight and willingness to share your thoughts with the posting of this statement. I can tell you that you three are not alone; there is a silent majority ready to, ". . . take arms up against a sea of troubles."

Sincerely,
Dr. Dillner

Thank you for your encouraging support, Dr. Dillner... but just a point of clarification: your quote is from Hamlet, where that depressed Danish Lutheran prince is contemplating suicide. I hope this is not your preferred form of coping with the ecclesial situation!!

Thank you for your willingness to stand for the teaching of the church by seeking to uphold Vision and Expectations and to hold to the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Thank you for seeking to lead the ELCA back toward faithfulness to Scripture and the historical teaching of the church.

In the ELCA's own generated (as in slanted)questionnaire the results indicated that an overwhelming majority of respondents favored the orthodox and traditional position of the church. To not have that position reflected in the make-up of the task force is not only ill-logical but false logic. Shame on those who selected the task force members. Shame on those who falsely led and directed the Task Force. Those leaders who follow this faulty reasoning in Chicago and formerly on the Task Force are relevant to the church in the same way the leadership on Wall Street is relevant to the eroding economy. Instead of asking a question like the five year old child, "Why can't I do what I want" why not ask a question like "Why can't we follow scripture in an effort to please God instead of trying to please ourself"?

My personal thanks for your courage and conviction as stated in your clear and cogent dissent. I trust that my meager thanks is multiplied over and over again by the gratitude of the body of Christ that is not only Lutheran in tradition but every follower seeking only to be faithful.
Having suffered the frustration of "standing on the outside looking in" at this process -- and that's exactly how many "orthodox" voices feel -- I can only imagine the frustration and pain you endured from the inside at this slanted, biased, and wholly "un-churchlike" process.
Stacking the deck on behalf of narrow interest groups and agenda seekers as well as simply surrendering the Gospel "with itching ears" for the latest philosophical, psychological or sociological fad to make us somehow look more sophisticated and progressive has never brought the church to one of its finest moments but only to decay and destruction.
The wisdom of Luther's "semper reformanda" seems all the more wise. Let's pray for the CWA.
We owe you a great debt. God bless you.

I write here as a fellow Task Force member to state that it is a misperception to characterize the Task Force as having only three people who have a dissenting opinion to the statement and recommendations. There are, officially, two dissenting opinions that were published with the final report and recommendations. More than that, many of us on the Task Force personally disagree with various aspects of the statement and recommendations and yet we also understood our role as hearing and representing the multiple and often divergent views that we personally heard and read at hearings and in written responses. We sought to hear and represent the multiple voices in our church rather than advocate solely for our own personal preferences. Over and over, the members of the Task Force stated this commitment - to hear and represent the whole church, even when it contradicted one's own opinions and theological commitments.

I respect my fellow members of the Task Force who issued this current statement and I would like to clear up the perception that there are only three dissenting voices or perspectives. The documents released by the Task Force very carefully describe the levels of dissent and disagreement even while we were able to work faithfully as a group, earnestly keeping in mind and heart all of the responses our church offered for our work together.
Dr. Marit Trelstad, Associate Professor of Lutheran and Constructive Theology, Pacific Lutheran University

Dr Trelstad, as a scholar of theology you of all people should know that the ancient Greeks believed information not acted upon was useless, worthless, and meaningless. That is the real essence your statement lays out before us. You use many words to say, "Me too! Me too!" and in your own words explain why you should NOT be counted with them. Only three members of the task force were willing to sign their names to the dissenting statement, and provide rock solid biblical and theological foundations and justification for doing so. You and your cohorts did not. Instead, You and your cohorts failed to lead from your leadership positions, by wanting to represent "the multiple and often divergent views" without pointing out even when those very same views are fundamentally flawed, go against scripture, theology and reason, or are even outright apostasy. All the views can not be correct because the Holy Spirit never contradicts itself. You on the other hand do. Shame on you for attempting to minimize the faithful witness of these three leaders, while trying to "muddy with waters" in the name of "clarity".

A - men, A - men, A- - men!
Rev. Rodney Lilley hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

When I first read the preamble to the proposed social statement, it struck me that the focus of the task force seemed to be to make as many members as happy as possible. I quote, "They recognized that it is impossible to create a statement that will satisfy everyone in its entirety." As I read your response above, Dr. Trelstad, I'm hearing the same thing. Should not the question have been what would please God? Dr. Trelstad you said "We sought to hear and represent the multiple voices in our church rather than advocate solely for our own personal preferences." You should have, without compromise, advocated our Heavenly Father's preferences and no other. I applaud these members who have stood by, are lead by the living word of God.

In my above post the name Dr. Trelstad, where ever used, should be replaced with the name Rev. Rodney Lilley

the post I am trying to respond to is the one from Dr. Marit Trelstad.

If the task force had truly taken the time and sought to discern the will of the whole church, including the historic and ecumenical church, you could never have pursued the path that you have now set for the ELCA. That there were differing opinions beyond the 3 stated dissenters is not to be doubted. However, difference of opinion does not constitute dissent. Dissent requires an action. As Luther dissented against the medieval innovations of his time, I thank these three task force members for expressing their dissent against the task force innovations for the sake of the Whole Church.

I thank all of you on this task force for your time and your energy. Please know that you are appreciated for what you do. However, I am sorry but I have to comment on your quote "We sought to hear and represent the multiple voices in our church rather than advocate solely for our own personal preferences. . to hear and represent the whole church, even when it contradicted one's own opinions and theological commitments." 1)The church is made of up humans who are by nature sinful, it is their nature to want to live in the darkness, hence the multiple voices you hear from 2)We need Faithful, Christian, Spirit not Human led, Leadership. Look at the statistics of people who are not going to church, the world is headed in the wrong direction. God and his law is being removed from more and more places. We need strong and courageous leaders who are not afraid to stand out against the crowd and stand for what is right. 4)You may not win the popularity vote but that is not our final reward 5)to paraphrase: It would be better for one who causes one of these little ones of mine to stumble that a Millstone be tied around his neck . . . To those of you voting with the majority please don't lead my children to stumble. I pray for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit to lead you so that you can stand tall and lead us. I have no theological background, I am just a simple single mom of three who works hard and teaches Sunday School, but I am afraid of where our church is going and what that will mean for my children. God give us, give YOU strength to rebel and lead us. Thank you, Wendy Mayland

Dear Sir, As baptized christains we are called first, foremost and always to listen to and find the source and norm of our lives and the life of the church in scripture, in God's revealed Word not,repeat NOT,"in the multiple voices of the church" This is the whole problem in a nutshell! The church is not some club where its members decide the order of the day and age, such was set and given us by God. God help us all when we think we're smart enough to decide whats best. Luther said that time and time again. It is tragic that we have to keep re-learning that. Now we will do so at the expense of this denomination. Jesus said let your yes be yes and your no be no. I pray that individuals such as yourself will realize the need to take a firm stand concerning the faith. In Christ, Rev. Paul landeraaen

King Rehoboam listened to the young advisors rather than to the adevisors of King Solomon. The result was rebellion against his rule and the division of the kingdom. Truth is not voted on. According to the Constitution of the ELCA .2.03 "This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source
and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life."
How can the statement on Human Sexuality possibly be reconciled with Leviticus 18:22, Romans chapeter 1 and 1 Corinthians 6?

In an otherwise well-written statement, it appears the minority has bought into the majority's acceptance of the revisionist claim that current ELCA standards require that gay/lesbian clergy (and lay rostered leaders) be "celibate." This is simply untrue.

The standard of *Vision and Expectations* reads, "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life." Nowhere is celibacy required. The sentence about those "who are homosexual in their self-understanding" is really just a reminder of what "chaste" has always meant.

Rev. Suskovic, Rev. Johnson and Rev. Hendrix do not represent the majority of the ELCA. They have the right to their opinion, but it sounds like they would be more comfortable with the Missouri Synod weirdos.

Count me with the weirdos. As for me and my family, we will serve the Lord. He is not only God of all, but Lord of all.

May God turn around the runaway ELCA train.

Bill Payne
Moscow, Idaho

I, too will add my name to the list of "weirdos for Christ Jesus" if the alternative is bending the knee to Baal. Using language usually reserved for the Lutheran Confessions, I accept the Holy Bible "quia" (because) it is the truth of God's Word, and not merely "quatenus" (insofar) as it is true. A Unitarian Universalist would have no problem with the quatenus subscription to the Bible. And I believe Scripture interprets Scripture. From my perspective, the ELCA is high on a cliff, teeter-tottering high above a chasm. While faithfulness to God's word can be seen in the distance, apostacy is also in view. As she rocks back and forth, only God knows what lies ahead in her future. In my lifetime I have seen the United States become a much more diverse country, and the number of non-Christians have also increased here. How are Lutherans to deal with false prophets and man-made religions which would prey upon Christ Jesus's flock if they are wavering on something as basic as Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone)? Do we suppose that in the day of infrared technology we no longer need God's Word as a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path? Will somebody please turn on the Light? It's getting dark in here.

There are many of us in Las Vegas, NV that also feel that we are on that same runaway train. Our local congregation leadership has a deaf ear.

God bless us all for our quest for scriptural accuracy in our bible classes and messages from the pulpit.

Number the three among the ELCA weirdos instead, who work to maintain a solid gospel-centered proclamation and law-gospel hermeneutic. Even if they do not represent the majority of ELCA they are proclaiming what is Scriptural, Christian, and Lutheran.

It just so happened that we went through this process not only once, but twice in the 1990s when we tried to get a Sexuality Social statement brought before the CWA. The first draft was very liberal, comparable to what is going to be presented in August 2009. It received very unfavorable reviews. The second draft was much more in line with good and solid Biblical and Lutheran theology and received a majority favoral response. But then, because the second draft was so different from what the Higgins Rd. crowd wanted the Division for Church is Society quashed it, claiming that the issue was too divisive.

This, of course, gave the revisionists another decade to work on pushing their agenda. The homosexuality issue will not die until revisionists get what they want or Christ comes again, whichever comes first.

You are correct. The dissenters do not represent the religious beliefs of the majority of the ELCA. The ELCA majority has been led to believe that a no-fault, guilt-free religion is the essence of the Gospel. . .

Quoting JESUS' words from Rev. 1:14,15,16. I will paraphrase.

v 14-JESUS has a few words against the ELCA if they move forward with approving the resolutions which will change the policy of procedures. "Because you, ELCA, will have aprroved the doctrine of teaching an unpure word of scripture. You will be casting a stumbling stone before our children of the future. They will believe your teachings and may be lead to commit fornication".

v 15-"So you have also turned to hold the doctrine, which thing I (JESUS) hate.

v 16-Repent; or else I (JESUS) will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against you with the sword of my mouth.

Now I would love for all of you who read this comment to also read Rev. 3:12, my favorite as it gives us the hope and reason for why we want to stay true to our LORD'S word.

Having just completed a study by Kay Arthur on Precept upon Precept of book of Daniel, I will stand with the dissenters who still believe sin is our fault and we are not quilt free until we have repented, confessed, and with whole heart, mind and soul seek the forgiveness of our LORD JESUS CHRIST.

In fact I do think that the 3 dissenters represent the majority of the ELCA, but we have a governance process which stifles their voice. As for your ad hominem attack on the "Missouri Synod weirdos" I expect this to be is representative sample of the kind of respect for 'bound consciences' that the draft Social Statement recommends. What a sad farce.

If setting forth a solid, scripturally-based, objection to attempts to relativize scripture makes one a weirdo, I'll gladly be labeled as a weirdo. The Revs. Suskovic, Johnson, and Hendrix give voice to the majority who have been steamrollered by activists intent on turning the ELCA from a church based in scripture to a church based in the world.

The finacial statistics that came out of the recent ELCA Church Council meeting are devastating, necessitating budget adjustments, cuts in staff and programming, etc. Why? It's not just the economy. People who are disenfranchised by the prsent structure have only two ways to make their displeasure known: direct their giving elsewhere or leave the ELCA. They are voting with their wallets/purses and feet. The ELCA has been in steep membership and stewradship decline since its inception due to its misguided doctrines and failed policies. Even those at the top of the ELCA can see the handwriting on the wall and know the end of the ELCA as we know it is near. After August 2009 it may not matter who the ELCA choses to ordain, as the ELCA itself will be in tatters and virtually irrelevant.

The Majority is not always right. For example our beloved consistution allowed for slavery, which most people now disagree with. however the Lutheran mission has always taught that the bible teaches us to follow Gods will.

Beyond the bible, social studies indicate that one of the biggest problems today is children being raised without the guidance of two parents, especially without a loving father.

Enough of the model of fathers having children by multiple parteners leaving them in proverty. enough of children raised by two moms.

Let the church pomotes the nuculear familiar. I am not against single parent hood per see, but the stuggle of single women raising children alone is a well know fact.

what path will this change lead us to condone next? Polygamy? (alredy present in Phildelphia) incest? Child marriages already present in AZ and Utah) ?

I for one will seriously consider leaving the ELCA for the Missouri church if this change happens.

Have you visited any other congregations? I attend the second largest in my synod and a strong majority agree with these three brave souls. You sound like you hail from the left leaning Madison, WI. area.

Count me as one who has been a faithful member of our church for over 60 years and who will become one of Missouri synod " wierdos" if this proposal passes.

John,

Forgive me for asking, but why do you refer to those in the Missouri Synod as weirdos? I've heard derogatory things said about the LCMS before, but never weirdos. Is this a bad thing?

Maybe the Word Alone people should go with the Missouri Synod folks as they have their heads on straight and are not weirdos like previously said. They do not twist scripture like some in the ELCA. Congrats to the 3 dissenters! Keep up the fight.

It is not helpful to begin name-calling. If I remain true to the Word of God proclaimed in scripture and thus am labeled a "weirdo," then I will be grateful for that. Yet if we are to have any understanding of one another, then labels and innuendo are the last thing that should be part of the discussion

The Missouri Synod weirdos are on the right road. Their "map" for living in this sinful world is the Bible. They hold true to the Word of God. Praise the Lord!!!! It seems to me, the leaders of the ELCA, which I have been a member of since I was baptized 51 years ago, is creating their own "map" and dangerously leading many in the wrong direction. Obviously they don't know who their true "leader" is (it certainly isn't MAN) or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Just because the Missouri Synod selectively emphasizes a few verses of Scripture to oppose ordination for homosexuals and women does not automatically mean that they are following the "map" of the Bible. I am not saying that Missouri Synod is wrong in their social stances, but many early American preachers followed the "map" of the Bible straight into the evil of justifying American style slavery against those heathen abolitionists who wanted to destroy God's naturally created order and mix the races, etc. I don't think we would give an automatic, "PRAISE THE LORD!" to their faithfulness to Biblical accuracy, would we? Again, I am not saying that the Missouri Synod is wrong and the ELCA is right, but I get nervous by people taking one issue and automatically saying this side is following the Bible and the other side is not just because we agree with one side on their interpretation of some selective social issues. We all fail, we all misinterpret and we all must constantly repent and come at Scripture anew each and every day. Judging an entire denomination as "they don't know who their true'leader is'..." is inaccurate, stereotyping and ultimately does not truly honor who our true "leader", judge and savior is.

If this thing passes, how about changing our name to:

Ecclesiastically
Loose
Conglomeration of
Antinomians

But where would that leave those of us who are not antinomians?

Peace,
Gary

I agree that focusing on 'trust', 'freedom' and 'love of neighbor' as a starting point isnot likely to have any other result than 'whatever!'

Suppose instead, the starting point was our call to holiness. You shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy. Would the result be the same?

A word of thanks to The Revs. Suskovic, Johnson, and Hendrix for their dissent. In forming this document it appears the language and meaning of the New Testament has been sacrificed in the desire to represent every point of view, as though our views are what matter most. In the Gospels, Jesus appears proclaiming the Kingdom of God. It is a kingdom, not a caucus, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for: 'thy kingdom come, thy will be done'. We are not praying for our way to be God's way, but for God's way to be our way. It is telling that Jesus never sends a survey to his followers.

I'm LCMS, but this just seems so sad. Are there many endowments that these people want to get their hands on? Very sad for business purposes but mostly for serving Jesus.

After much prayer and counsel (including many pastors AND chaplains of several denominations), I accepted "the call" into seminary following my USAF retirement. Seminary itself was indeed an eye-opener -- I questioned how or if seminaries are held accountable to Visions and Expectations! But, to be brief here, I am most thankful for the boldness of the three PASTORS who publicized their dissenting statement. THANK YOU!

I find their words to be very pastoral at a time when far too many are in their ivory towers spewing out "endless words" of appeasement for the masses . . . rather than speaking / writing succinctly on the bedrock of scripture. The past 10 years have found me seriously wondering if accepting the call to a Lutheran seminary / Lutheran pastorate was correct. I find the published social statement to be far, far too wordy / lengthy . . . AND lukewarm when it comes to actually saying something of substance and scriptural basis! A lot of tap dancing! . . . or is it allemande left and allemande right. . . now DoSaDo and bring her on home . . . But where are "we" going home to?

I am a farmer by birth (and Vo-Ag / FFA teacher before flying for the USAF). I can assure you that sheep do indeed follow the voice of THEIR Shepherd . . . "The ELCA" is NOT immitating "The Shepherd" from my perspective (nor that of many others that I know). The ELCA is fast becoming as just another man-made attempt to be "the church" . . . I'm not sure anymore whose voice is being followed . . . (I sometimes wonder about that in seminary!) Sadly, this sexuality issue is already impacting ministries, as others "outside" the ELCA also wonder just what or whose voice "we" are following!

Again, THANK YOU Pastors Suskovic, Johnson and Hendrix for STANDING UP and SPEAKING UP . . . to sheep in need of Sola Scriptura leadership!
Shalom

Rev. Kramer is right on track.
The ELCA is definitely in need of Sola Scriptura leadership or they will be losing many to the LCMS - I will be one of them.

You echo exactly what I believe.

As someone who has also worn the Air Force Blue (ANG and CAP), I wish you God's blessings and clear skies!

What has happened to our church...and to the Word of God? A committee where only 3 out of 30 go in supporting one side?...how can anyone decide anything with a ratio like this!? I am tired of the church's weakness...going with social pressures - running the race of "political correctness". Living for and through God is hard enough without our leaders faltering. We have to have clear guildelines along the line of "love the sinner, hate the sin". I'm proud to say I love many women, but I do not wish to make love to/with any of them. Pastors, Rev., Dr.s, look back at Sodom (basis of the word sodomy!)and Gomorrah...use your own common sense not only as to what is wrong but what GOD has stated is wrong. I'm not wise in all the words of the bible etc. but I have common sense and know right from wrong. Don't you?

Like many others on this forum, I too have been very concerned about the future direction of the ELCA. I am so glad to hear that there are brave men and women with enough conviction and fortitude to stand up for the truth. This is a test for all of us. We must not stray away from scripture on this. Choose this day whom you will serve, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! (Joshua 24:15) May God's will be done and may the church come through these times stronger and with greater resolve to bear witness to His redeeming power!

Your brother in Christ,
Ken

The following is a quote from the task force chair. Is this statement really a breach of protocal?

(see http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4102)

The Rev. Peter Strommen, Shepherd of the Lake Lutheran Church, Prior Lake, Minn., and task force chair, called the dissenting statement "unfortunate and unnecessary."
"It was unnecessary because their dissenting view is already included in the Report and Recommendations Appendix, which was distributed widely February 19. It is unfortunate because by identifying their names and characterizing the process, they acted contrary to agreed upon protocol and ELCA practice. For instance, their statement might be interpreted to indicate that everyone else was of one mind when in fact the views of task force members were quite varied and diverse," Strommen said.
"Normally the chair of a task force is the person who speaks publicly on behalf of the task force. I do not believe it was their intent to disrespect the process but note that while individual task force members are free to express their personal views, it is not appropriate for task force members to make formal public statements or initiate what may be perceived as their own news release," he said.

Perhaps the ELCA should remove the name Luther from their title. One can only imagine based on what Luther wrote below of what he would think of the church giving it's approval to a Lutheran Pastor who participates in the act of sodomy with another man.

"The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which was implanted by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity"

As I expected, if you don’t succeed the first time try and try again. The ELCA task force has come up with yet another piece of junk theology much like a lot of junk science that makes its way into the mainstream of public thought.

In an effort to become relevant in this world, many of our ELCA Bishops, seminaries, synod leaders and seminarians have taken upon themselves the role of interpreting scripture to fit a new model of inclusivity (once called pantheism). Is it any wonder we see the ELCA decline in stewardship giving and membership? The sad thing is that with all this effort to re-image us into more worldly and politically correct human beings this denomination is losing its center, its ground of being, Jesus Christ.

I was brought up in a Lutheran congregation. In my early adulthood I wondered through other Christian denominations in search of a home to take my faith journey in and to raise my family. I chose to remain a Lutheran because of its emphasis upon grace, justification by faith and reliance upon Scripture as the final authority in matters of theology, catholic teaching and good and robust moral guidelines.

Jesus died for our daily sins so that we can be free to live as God created us to be, to live out our lives in harmony with his natural world and each other. Jesus taught us to love one another, to care for each other as we are allotted the capability to do. He also gave us the Church to keep us in fellowship with others in a deep spiritual bond through sound preaching and the sacraments He instituted.

My wife and I attended many Ohio Synod conventions during the 90s where it became evident to us where the ELCA was headed. I often marveled at where in Scripture did several of the workshops and speech givers ground their theology. I read and re-read the old and new testaments trying to find justification for many of the new age interpretations of the same scriptures I was reading. To date I haven't found any, particularly on homosexuality.

If one decides to lead a homosexual lifestyle that is his/her choice. I do not judge their choice because they are the ones that enjoy any blessings or suffer any consequences of their chosen relationships. But I do have serious concerns when anyone attempts to equate same-sex relationships with marriage between a man and a woman. It isn't the same and never will be, no matter how much re-imaging we attempt to delude ourselves into believing.

I don't know how the members of the Task Force on Human Sexuality were appointed. It doesn't matter. I pray that when this comes up for vote in the ELCA that it is rejected. Otherwise, I fear the ELCA will continue its further slide in to irrelevance.

By the way, that crack by another commentator about those "weirdoes" in the Missouri Synod probably speaks volumes about the current ELCA thinkers and opinion writers.

Miracles can be accomplished with only three! Let's not forget, Martin Luther was only one against a whole church, yet he stood up and persevered. Many of us do agree with the three, but unfortunately, we have remained silent and passive. I vow the remain silent no longer!

1. Beyond calling each other "weirdos" or "antinomian heretics", how, specifically, are we called to love our homosexual neighbors? Actual, real life narrative answers preferred over against academic gnostic answers.

2. And, given the words of Christ from Great Commandment Thursday, John 13:35, as the Others watch us interact here, would they say that we were disciples or fraud followers?

Tough questions, looking for heart answers,

Tim

I think St. Paul said it best in his letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 13, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal..."

Most contemporary biblical translations replace the word charity with the word love. But I get confused by the multiple meanings of the English word "love." The love that is "caritas" is distinguished by its origin, being Divinely infused into the soul. I have read about and believe that this love resides in the will rather than in emotion. I think this is a good and robust definition of the charity (or love if you prefer) that St. Paul refers to in Cornithians 13.

You ask, "are we called to love our homosexual neighbors?" My answer is yes. Does that mean that, "in love", I must condon and promote their relationship lifestyles? No. No more than I could "in love" condon or promote those that would bring harm to those who claim homosexuality to be their lot in life. God created us in his own image and gives us free will to chose His way. He has given us His Word in the Bible and His church to guide us to make the choices necessary to live a sanctified and holy life.

For this reason I commend the three who were brave enough to publically state their positions which is from all appearances, contrary to the majority on the human sexuality task force. To those on the task force who claim that they did not support all of the recommendations being presented, I ask, why then did you agree to any of it in its final form?

I hear that folks don't want to use the word "love" for a cover for "condone". That comes across loud and clear. I do hear.

Now I want to ask my question again. Clearly.

My question was NOT, "Are we called to love our homosexual neighbors?" I take as a given that we are.

My question was, "HOW do we love our homosexual neighbors?"

How do we do it... concretely... embodied in actual lives... agape... friendship... covenant... steadfast... faithful... love? What does it look like in actual practice? Do you have any stories of where you've seen it happen?

I am asking a hard question. I am looking for a heart answer.

Life is messy. Often there are no simple, clean cut, sinless answers. I'm looking for someone to write something here that is more human rather than academic and that avoids the "weirdos" versus the "antinomian heretics". Is there any heart in the Lutheran church?

Feeling deaf and dumb,

Tim

In response to Tim's question, I humbly suggest the following answer: 1) We ask God how we are to love our homosexual neighbor, 2) and we do not close our ears to what He tells us in the Holy Scriptures. 3)We ask God to empower us by His Holy Spirit to be able to live out what He has shown in the Scriptures. 4) Then we remember that our focus in life should be in pleasing God rather than simply pleasing man--we can never really please all people anyway. And if I might add #5), We need to serve God through serving our neighbor ("I was in prison and you visited me..."). Let's back up to point #1: "We ask God how we are to love our homosexual neighbor." It is one thing to consider this academically. It is quite another to set aside the time to truly ask God in prayer, being ready to listen for His voice. No, I'm not saying we should expect God to Bzzzzz an answer to us audially, but yes, we should expect God to answer. One place He has promised to speak to us is in His Holy Word. Which brings us to point #2: "...and we do not close our ears to what He tells us in the Holy Scriptures." In St. Paul's letter to the Church in Rome, the Holy Spirit says, "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." (Rom. 12:2 NIV) Point #3 was "We ask God to empower us by His Holy Spirit to be able to live out what He has shown in the Scriptures." A child might be told to stay away from homosexuals, they are bad people. Or, more likely in this day, they might be told, "there are people out there who are homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with that. They are just different. We need to tolerate everybody (read: ACCEPT the values of everybody, ignoring that they contradict each other and cannot all stand as true)." Okay, we are not to conform with the patterns of this world. Don't just "go with the flow. God says that what He says is "right." We are called to stand up for what is right, even if that means we go against the flow of society. The "pattern of this world" evolves from generation to generation, but our God is unchanging. Dare I agree with God that homosexuality is "bad." It is unnatural, as Genesis makes clear. Not only does God NOT say that homosexuality is wrong...God is not even merely silent on the issue, on the contrary, he makes it crystal clear that he considers it an abomination. He likewise strongly opposes adultary. "stay away from homosexuals." Yet the Gospels make it clear that Jesus didn't "stay away from" adulterers, dishonest tax-collectors, and other sinners. He did not err by condoning their sins. But His response was not like that of the Pharisees, to keep His distance. They were made aware of their sins, and when they expressed true repentance, He ate with them. He hated their sin, yet it was while they were yet sinners that Christ died for them. He didn't question the Father's judgement for their sins, whatever they were. Yet He loved them enough to stand in their place, taking their punishment (and ours) upon Himself. Jesus, too, was tempted in every way common to man, yet He did not sin. But His temptations were "real" none the less. He can identify with us when we are tempted with lust toward someone other than our spouse, and He can feel our pain when we desire someone in a sinful way, whether to harm them, or in a sinful sexual manner, or in away to discredit them in an attempt to feel superior to them, and so on. Just read about some of the temptations He experienced during the forty days after His baptism. He knew/knows what it means to be genuinely tempted, and he paid for each and every sin of ours when he was betrayed, denied by one close to him, mocked, brutally beaten, forced to walk with a heavy rude wooden cross, was stripped of his regular clothing, and was bound, nailed to a tree to suffer the most cruel and embarassing death. The penalty for any sin you could imagine, and even those you simply cannot imagine, was paid in full when Y'shua (Jesus) cried out "It is accomplished!" (it is finished! / tetelestai) We, too, should ask God to help us to not walk away from those branded with the stigma of homosexuality. May Emmanuel (God-with-us) be present as we wrestle with how we can show Christ's love and friendship to a person who struggles with a particular sin--without endorsing the sin or "looking the other way", pretending it doesn't exist. It's not easy, but who said "Do not conform..." would be easy. May God renew our minds as we strive by the power of the Holy Ghost to love people to Jesus--not the ones who appear to have no struggles and lead what seem to be perfect lives. May God help us explore how to be Jesus to another without condoning sin, but without withdrawing from them as they long for people who care. "pleasing God rather than simply pleasing man" was #4. And #5 was "We need to serve God through serving our neighbor." We don't need the ghost of Christmas future to take us to this event to learn from it now: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory...he will separate the people...as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." (Mt.25:31-32). 37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry...thirsty...a stranger...naked...in prison and go to visit you?" "The King (of kings) will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" God, in your mercy You have answered the question for us "Who is my neighbor." Be merciful again, we plead, and show us how to love you by loving our homosexual neighbor. Guide us, and keep us from straying to the left or to the right. Let love rule in our hearts, not worldly love and compromise, but the love that comes from You alone. Remove sinful desires from us as we seek to share your love in thought, word and action with a homosexual neighbor. We offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to you--our spiritual act of worship. Keep us from thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought, but grant us sober judgement, and humility. Teach us to love. Teach us to wash feet. Teach us to serve. Teach us to live your Word in every aspect of our lives, that your Light shines through us as we get to know, help, and befriend our neighbors. In Jesus' holy and precious name we pray. Amen.

Not only does God NOT say that homosexuality is OKAY...God is not even merely silent on the issue, on the contrary, he makes it crystal clear that he considers it an abomination. [Sorry for the previous mistake].

Thanks, Rik, for thoughtful reply.

Chad Thompson's "Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would" offers one answer to my "how?" question.

A cool story from a book by Jim Henderson describes how an Indiana church served pizza to the cast of university theater group in the midst of dress rehearsals for a controversial play about Jesus and homosexuality. I found it very moving that while the congregation didn't support the content of the play they served those preparing for the play (as opposed to other "Christians" who delivered daily death threats).

In the midst of a potential church "divorce" over this confessional conflict I'm still looking for folks from both sides to embody Christ to one another rather than simply be cheerleaders for the people who agree with them.

Tim

I am a lifetime Lutheran-- soon to be baptized for 72 years. While the theologians can argue all they want about the sexuality situation, how many of you know anyone who is homeosexual or transgendered. What a heartbreak for a mother to have a son-in-law become a "woman". What a heartbreak to have a divorced son living with a divorced woman. My kids were raised in the ELCA Church and were taught right from wrong. Neither my ex son-in-law or my son have any intention of seeking ordination. But where are the Word Alone people in ministering to the spiritual needs of these people. You can judge all you want. You can be theologically RIGHT but that does not bring these people back to Jesus healing love.

Dear Ruth,
I have only recently discovered this Lutheran Forum which is taking place. I have read many of the letters but not all. I hear your pain! I empathize with your pain. I hope that you are still watching the developments on this web-site. It is obvious that for 20 years now the ELCA has been seeking to minister to those living out the homosexual lifestyle by condoning and blessing them and their situations. I would like to refer you to several ministries who have another approach...perhaps the one you are desiring!! I am FAMILIAR with only the first one, but I understand that the others have similar help available...not only for those actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle but for their family and friends. It has been several months since I have referred to these, but PLEASE check them out for yourself: May the Lord bring you comfort and help through one of these!!!
www.sbministries.org
www.exodusinternational.org
www.pathinfo.org
www.ha-fs.org
www.narth.com (perhaps basically a scientific approach rather than Christian)

My dear, you have no idea what kind of damage you are causing by your words.

For one, you obviously do not know any gay people. I am gay, and while the ELCA (at least the section of the ELCA I am involved with) affirms me as a man who is gay, I would hope they would not just "accept" any namby-pamby lifestyle choices I make! I would expect (and do expect) that my congregation keep me accountable in my sexual ethical behavior, meaning if I sleep around I sure as hell better be called on it and made accountable, just as they would with a single straight person! I would hope that should I fall in love with someone some day, that the integrity of that relationship would be celebrated.

In regard to ex-gay ministries: the American Psychological Association and the myriad of gay and lesbian people who have survived these ministries declare that attempts to change one's sexual orientation is psychologicall damaging and can lead to depression and suicide (I know far too many stories). The few out there who report that the Lord has "changed" them I'm pretty sure either already have a propensity toward being bisexual or are pretty good fakers due to the extreme social and religious pressure put on them to change. If you look at Exodus International's website, even THEY admit that the success rate for gay and lesbian people to "change" is really low, and then usually it takes years... YEARS???

If this is so, please answer this for me: why on earth would a loving God put someone through this, especially those who have been baptized and marked with the cross of Christ? Why would God allow such a one to go through such agony, mental and spiritual anguish, and rejection by family and friends without the hope of ever feeling that romantic love and connection that straight people are blessed to have, because such mutual loving committed expression will put them in hell because they both happen to be the same gender? Really? You're really going to say that this is UNEQUIVICALLY what the Bible teaches?

I have found THE CHURCH & HOMOSEXUALITY; SERCHING FOR A MIDDLE GROUND by Merton P. Strommen very helpful for me in my struggle with the issue of homosexuality.

Tim, if you are still monitoring this site, please reply and I will offer a response.

Thanks,
Greg

Why are we picking and choosing verses that either condone or chastise our own beliefs? Isn't there something about itching ears in there somewhere, when we pick out exactly what we want to hear?

As for me and my house, I'll stop eating shellfish. I won't borrow/lend money at interest. I won't shave and I won't mix fabrics. Doesn't that all seem a bit over the top? Then why is it so bad if I'm in love with another male?

nor are they tolerant. They are some of the most wicked people on the face of the earth. It is good to love people of the same sex... it is Christ like but two people of the same sex cannot engage in sex without committing sodomy. That is fact.

Mark (posted on 4/9/2009) raises a good question which should not simply be written off with ridicule. "Why are we picking and choosing verses that either condone or chastise our own beliefs?" Presuming that you are a Christian, Mark, I expect that your objection is not with the Bible itself, but rather how one uses the Bible. At least that is how I understand your first question. " Isn't there something about itching ears in there somewhere, when we pick out exactly what we want to hear?" 2 Timothy 4:3 says, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." In my opinion, there is a place for using proof texts, to show which scriptural passages you are referring to, yet individual passages should never replace looking up the passage in context to get the basic meaning of the text. Another way to say this is this: When we isolate a passage we risk treating it as a random message in a fortune cookie. Scripture interprets Scripture, and we do not want to tailor it to make it say what we want it to say (itching ears)--rather, as disciples, as students we sit at the feet of our Lord, seeking our will to conform to His will. "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine." Sound teaching is what God intends us to learn from the Bible. When one side picks verses to support one side and another side does the same to support their side, you have a debate. Which team will win? For Christians, we are to be selfless (No, not "shellfish!") Selfless in that it doen't matter who wins the debate. We desire the truth of God's Word to come out. A Christian who seeks to please his/her Lord does not approach Scripture to make a case for his/her argument. Rather, we humbly approach God's Word, ready to be corrected or confirmed, open to God's direction, not presupposing what we think His will should be. To understand His Word we need to get to know it through regularly reading and hearing it. And studying it. In time we learn that it contains Law (what we are told to do) and Gospel (what God has done for us). Both are necessary. I say this because you threw out some law passages from the Old Testament that was meant for the Israelites for that time, and generally assumed that therefore passages of Scripture are "over the top." As you grow in your knowledge of Scripture, you will better understand how a passage fits into the grand scheme of things, like finding where a puzzle piece fits. God's Law accuses us, and we deserve its accusation for having broken God's law. That's why confession is part of a Lutheran worship service. But if we repent from our sin, God in His mercy will forgive us. That is why the absolution follows our confession in the worship service. If we find Scripture offensive we have a different problem. Are we truly among God's sheep if we detest hearing our Shepherd's voice? Calling God's Word "over the top" could be meant in that manner. Only you and God know where your heart lies on this. As you learn the Bible better, you will better understand how to understand it. Joining a Bible Study would help. The question I hear you really asking was your final question: "Then why is it so bad if I'm in love with another male?" Depending on what you mean by "love', God answers your question in Romans 1:18-32. God created the world and those in it perfectly. God created human sexuality with a purpose, and with design, as indicated in Genesis 2:24 and elsewhere. My ears are not itching to hear this, and I do not desire to condemn anyone. I am merely communicating what God says regarding the matter. There are different types of love, as there are different Greek words in the original Greek New Testament for the different meanings that can be called "love." When God says "love one another as I have loved you..." He is not referring to a sexual love (eros). David and Jonathan loved each other, yet it was not a "love" of a homosexual nature. We should not be afraid to care about others, but desiring those of the same gender, or those other than your wife sexually is wrong according to God, and contrary to His plan. If you are tempted, you have not automatically sinned. Jesus was tempted too, but did not give into sin. Yet if we look at another with lust, we have committed adultery in our heart. Lust is not a godly love. Some people are tempted with homosexual desires, others are tempted with alcoholism or gluttony, thievery, gossip, etc. But we dare not blame God, saying we were "born that way." God is not the author of sin, and God does not tempt anyone (James 1:12-18). The evil that tempts us is a result of Adam and Eve's sin, which has poisoned every generation since. The world was corrupted as a result of their disobedience. Regardless of the sin, where we have sinful desires and sinful actions, we need to confess them to God. We should desire to be a part of His new creation. For some people, sinful desires (including homosexual desires) have been a cross Christians have had to bear. Others have overcome the desires through a combination of faith in Jesus Christ and therapy (see Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, January 2003 articles by Melito, Rosik, et al.), but peace comes from having faith in Jesus Christ as our Savior from sin, and as we look froward to a perfect life with Him in heaven. One who is not tempted by homosexuality really has no right to feel morally superior toward one who is. "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23). I, too have sinned and as a sinner, have asked God's forgiveness. If you are also repentant, I encourage you to read what God tells us in 2 Corinthians 5:19. May God's Word be your strength to help you in your struggles. May you truly feel His great love for you!

You speak with such authority on this matter: "two people of the same sex cannot engage in sex without committing sodomy. That is fact." Are you sure you're straight? Because sex is about a lot more than what plumbing goes where...

Thank you to those who dissented in this matter. You reflect the feelings of the great majority of us who typically would unfortunately sit back until the decision is made before acting on our dissent.

I can tell you that a great many of my friends and neighbors who attend ELCA churches have already begun the search for a church that reflects our views in this matter.

We see the way that the resolutions were written and recognize that it is not so much a group of resolutions as it is a sales presentation designed to funnel the voters to a pre-determined conclusion. The primrose path was made a super highway with the decision to allow a simple majority to pass, rather than the logical 2/3rds majority.

I'm certain that the sales pitch will be reinforced by a number of "educational" events where it will become evident that anyone who dissents is an un-educated, intolerant homophobe with outdated and uninformed feelings bordering on extreme fundamentalism.

How absurd is the idea that a lack of consensus merits action? Even the logic of a child would tell you that a lack of consensus is precisely the reason why no action to change should be made!

I don't need to recite chapter and verse from the scriptures (new and old testaments) that are in direct contradiction to these resolutions. You have no doubt seen them all. The intellectual and theological gymnastics performed in attempting to reconcile these scriptures with worldly social norms can only be compared to a circus contortion act.

Please understand that I love my gay friends and relatives. I celebrate their contributions to our church and community. However, no pastor can serve who continually and unrepentantly sins against God. And my conscience will not allow me to support an organization that disagrees with such a basic and simple tenant of faith.

The Rev. Steven Bowser was partly right above in his comment that the full context of this whole debate ought to be in remembering that we are citizens of the Kingdom of God and not of the Democratic Republic of Christians. We are called not to our own opinions but to only one opinion, that of the Triune God, period.

That said, we must also deal with the question of authority as it is manifest in the Church. There is no arguing that even though the study and the recommendations come from on high at Higgins Road, still, we have a democratic form of polity at all levels. Not only this, but the vast majority that vote at all levels are not much trained in the matters of Scriptural interpretation in concert with the Apostolic Church. Therefore, what we get, inherently, is a result that is a matter of personal opinion, and rarely in concert with what God has set forth in Scripture. Thus, if we moan about the current state of affairs, we only need look in the mirror when during the debate over the pulpit and altar fellowship with the Episcopalians for example, regardless of what side you were on, the final result was a local option for the "conscience bound" who could not go along with the prevailing policy of the church. The seeds of division have already been sown, (probably well before that decision came down as I am not old enough to remember details of the negotiations that led to the formation of the ELCA). Scripture and Lincoln both tell us, a house divided cannot long stand. The ELCA is not exempt from this.

To argue that "Scripture interprets Scripture" is like saying the Constitution of the United States interprets itself for our nation. Nothing could be more absurd. People, appointed justices - interpret the Constitution, and of course that is becoming less and less an exercise in objective rulings in accord with precedent and more and more a political exercise, but nonetheless they interpret the constitution. With regard to Scripture, like it or not, Martin Luther opened a pandora's box allowing each person to interpret for themselves and the result has been what we are experiencing now. There was no regard for Apostolic authority. I'm not arguing reforms in the 16th century weren't needed, but the Reformation in point of fact turned the Kingdom of God (at least among Protestants) into the Democratic Republic of Christians. The effort to throw off the Pope and the magisterium has resulted in an infinite plethora of popes with no regard to anything of historical precedent and doctrinal Church Tradition - not to mention the work of the Holy Spirit quite often being ignored.

What some confuse with the work of the Holy Spirit is in fact a work of Satan, trying to suggest that the Holy Spirit contradicts himself, teaching one thing thousands of years ago, and teaching something else today. All the play on taking Scripture out of context and blaming people who wish to uphold the Church's traditional understanding for not being consistent and having their children stoned to death due to certain Old Testament passages, etc., need to recall that Jesus was the one, not us, who negated the ceremonial laws and the laws of ritual purification and sacrifice. He upheld the Commandments and what was/is the heart of the law "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself", (upping the ante when he said "love one another as I have loved you"). Read the Sermon on the Mount - Jesus takes all the loopholes away so that not even the best lawyer can find an exception to the law of love. Not only this but Jesus says he came not to abolish the law (the law of love) but to fulfill it, and this is incarnational, not in Jesus alone, but in all who will follow him.

To love God, in part, is to respect what Jesus said about the created order, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." There is no room for any other "sexual expression" in the Kingdom of God, period. Any other behavior in this realm is sinful. And let us not forget that sin divides us from God, and unrepented leads to eternal death.

Having said that, the question was posed sincerely, "How do we love the homosexual neighbor?" My response is that we love them the same as God calls us to love anyone - in the pattern and image of Jesus Christ. We sit with them. We eat with them. We listen to them. We offer to walk with them, stand with them, help them in any way we can according to God's will. We remind them that they were created in God's image but as with all people, sin has marred that image. We teach them that through Baptism the image of God is restored in us and we are made one more of God's people and a citizen of his Kingdom. And then going back to the love God/love neighbor maxims, we teach them about what else God said, "I the Lord am holy - therefore you too shall be holy." And we talk about what a holy life is. We remind them that when they stumble, the love of God is always there offering forgiveness to the repentant, in Word and Sacrament. And we recall that to love God is to love him who first loved us, who gave up everything, even life itself for our sake. So to live for God, to love God, has nothing to do with personal preferences, fleeting feelings, or rights per se as the world defines them, but only to do with the plan and desire of God who created us to be in relationship with him, and whose gift of freedom to us is like the train whose greatest freedom of movement is to stay on the tracks, not veer off of them. (I have personally done this with a friend from high school who knew I cared and who may or may not have agreed, but who didn't doubt that I would help him in any way I could.) But we do not enable them in living an unrepentant lifestyle, no matter what the sin is. There is a judgement day where we shall all give an account. The first words out of Jesus' mouth in his ministry were, "Repent and believe in the good news!" To suggest that the homosexual lifestyle (committed relationship or otherwise) is not contrary to God's intended order is the blind leading the blind and both, in effect turn their back on God and choose Hell for themselves. God wishes the death of no one. If we reject God, that is our fault, not his.

People who uphold the teachings of the Triune God and his Church may be weirdos to the world at large, but they are precious servants of the Kingdom in the sight of God. Unfortunately, I wish I could say that the Missouri Synod was all that much better than the ELCA, but they are terribly divided as a denomination too - and that will not long stand either (not over the questions regarding homosexual lifestyles but others). There are many in the pews of the Wisconsin Synod who are faithful, but I'm afraid the leaders of that denomination are trying to turn their people into Pharisees. I challenge you to look not only at Scripture, but at the works of the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, the Didache - people and works that were generated from learning at the feet of the Apostles), and of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons (the next generation) and then ask yourself one question, "Which church looks the most like the one they speak of?" Then you will have your answer as to where God is calling you and all people. And mind you, remember, no matter where the Kingdom of God is found, no matter the church that is the answer to the question, Jesus taught the parable of the weeds among the wheat for a reason - no church has ever been a panacea of perfection, but rather a hospital for sinners, warts and all.

God bless everyone with what they need.

Alleluia, he is risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Along with most others who have posted here I greatly appreciate the words of these three task force members. I also appreciate those who plan to fight these proposals when they are voted on. However, I am now of the opinion that the vote really does not matter for many of us.

If the ELCA church that one attends is being led by clergy that support the proposals, then how does a vote really make a difference? Sure, the ELCA may not officially sanction something, yet the shepherd of your local church body does. In my opinion that means it is time to move on.

Brad, your comments above speak to me! I was raised a Lutheran and remained one for 60 years. Last summer after much struggle and inner turmoil because of the current ELCA issues, I found myself tuning into EWTN programs more and more. I found true peace, and the TRUTH. I was received into the Catholic Church last fall. I go to Mass daily, and I am so grateful for the call to be Catholic. The Catholic Church doesn't change its position on issues for the sake of being popular, or being politically correct. It sticks to the Truth of the Bible. I can't believe how easy it was to leave the ELCA.

You wrote, "To argue that 'Scripture interprets Scripture' is like saying the Constitution of the United States interprets itself for our nation. Nothing could be more absurd." By "Scripture interprets Scripture", that is to say that more difficult passages are understood better in light of clearer passages. There is nothing absurd about it. Refering to your example of the US Constitution, if there are parts that are difficult to understand, it would be wise for the judge interpreting it to look at where other parts of the Constitution deal with the same issue. There's nothing wrong with that. I highly respect the writings of the Church Fathers, but I'd sooner seek an interpretation from the inerrant, inspired Word of God, than the word of mere men albeit ones who lived shortly after the apostolic age. Son of WMC, you further wrote "Martin Luther opened a pandora's box allowing each person to interpret for themselves and the result has been what we are experiencing now. There was no regard for Apostolic authority..." Luther opened no such box. What we are experienceing now is not from a myriad of interpretations, but rather largly a result of those who prefer the ways of the world to God's Word. Jesus did not ask his followers to let their religious leaders interpret Scripture for them. He challenged them with plain words and through parables to interpret for themselves, and He guided them. Refering not to Peter but his confession ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") He said "on this rock (Peter's CONFESSION) I will build my church..." "In many and various ways God spoke to the people of old through the prophets. But now, in these last days He has spoken through His Son." You may keep Ignatius, Clement, the Didache, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, but I'll stick to Jesus and what He promised in St. John's Gospel ("It is important that I go..."): the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit has led and is leading God's people through the Holy Bible. Luther had great respect for the Church Fathers, and was well read on their writings. He didn't open any "pandora's box" that the Spirit didn't open centuries before. What closed the box is when, over time, the bishop of Rome was greedy for power and authority, and bound consciences by claiming that only the Church hierarchy (especially the pope) could rightly interpret Scripture. Is this what you would prefer? The pope claims to be the "Vicar of Christ." Do you believe that God left the succession of bishops of Rome to take His place until the Second Coming?! The pope claims to be able to speak "ex cathedra." Any child can speak infallibly by simply quoting God's Word in Holy Scripture. Jesus did not praise those who lord it over others, nor did He predict an ecclesiastical hierarchy, and He clearly stated His Kingdom "is not of this world." You may think it absurd, but I will find my interpretations from the Holy Spirit speaking through Holy Scripture itself. Where the "Fathers" properly restate what's in that Word, that's all fine and good too. But to God alone be the glory.

You assert that Jesus built his Church on the confession of Peter, but that makes the Church non-incarnational. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the Greek masks the fact that there is only one word for Rock in Aramaic which Jesus used to name Peter with. And without this your argument on Peter's confession falls flat when Jesus singularly gives Peter the keys to bind and loose which mimics Isaiah 22:20-22 and the giving of the key of the house of David (which has to do with authority). But you take my argument and focus on the Pope as if I didn't say "Pope and the magisterium". There needs to be an authority that promotes and safeguards the doctrine of the Church, otherwise we have chaos, just like we have in the ELCA, just like we have with a plethora of Protestant denominations all of whom say they adhere to "Sola Scriptura" but cannot agree on many fundamental doctrines of the faith. I can't believe for one minute God in Christ intended for there to be this much confusion, and so much division. The Apostles were an actual authority of oversight that Jesus, read Jesus not man, established. An authority that was not meant to die off with the Apostles. Thus a successor to Judas is chosen early in the book of Acts. Thus the same passage in the KJV refers to the position of overseer as "bishopric" telling us that in those times they understood that the position of Apostle was equivalent to that of a bishop. All the talk of power grabs amazes me when one thinks of the power grab so many protestants took in the 16th century to annoint themselves as authorities. Never mind Church councils that had a history of deciding doctrine since the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Never mind that it was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that determined the Cannon of New Testament Scripture around the 3rd and 4th centuries. Never mind that I Timothy 3:15 calls the "Church" the pillar and foundation of the truth (not Scripture) - which Church was Paul talking about (one with magisterial authority or one without)? Never mind that the Bible Jesus used was the Septuagint which contained the duterocanonical books that Luther chose to exclude from the Old Testament. And by the way, since Clement and Ignatius were both bishops who were duly ordained and succeeded the Apostles, pray tell what is it that they wrote that doesn't run consistent with Scripture? Jesus said, "Whoever receives you, receives me..." So their word and the Didache (which is widely recognized as the teaching of the Apostles) are valid. They are not Scripture, but they are just as valid if not more so in the understanding of Apostolic teaching than say the Lutheran Confessions that came 15 centuries later given that they were from the pens of people who learned at the feet of the Apostles. And anyway, the last time I checked, even the Lutheran Confessions don't receive much respect in the ELCA anymore since they routinely get ignored when they aren't convenient for the argument of the party who wishes to overturn long standing teaching.

Just where does the tradition come from that one does not recieve Holy Communion unless they have been baptized? You won't find it in Scripture! Its in chapter 9 of the Didache. So Scripture interpreting Scripture isn't entirely adequate. You need Tradition and the magisterium. Its not a power grab, its the way the Kingdom of God was set up (unlike the man made democracy we've tried to turn it into).

Read my original post again. Show me where I said anything that didn't intend to give all of the glory to the Triune God and uphold his Kingdom as his and not as a man made democracy where we can decide things how we like without respect to God's will.

The part where you call God's creation sin is where you fail to give all glory to the Triune God. If God has ordained people gay, who are you to gainsay Him?

It's unfortunate that the ELCA statement lacks real theology, but proposing law (and not even law as contemporary as Saxony law) in place of Gospel as these three pastors have, runs counter to Christ, Paul and the Reformation.

The Law is second to the Gospel, and where the two conflict, the Law loses. And that Gospel isn't 'try to do everything the Bible says', it's 'faith in Christ alone and only'. There are plenty of homosexuals who live out that faith in Christ through the love they show to their partner. These people we're talking about aren't people who woke up one day and decided they'd be gay. These are people who have loved (in every sense of that word) a partner for 5, 10, 20, 40, 50 years. Being able to stay with someone that long requires God's grace, and if He is bestowing it upon homosexuals, the church's only available course is to recognize this.

Peter,

Your theology is not Lutheran. It is antinomian. You have reversed the Law/Gospel order contrary to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. (Not surprised, cause this is believed, taught and confessed by many in the ELCA).

Christ never destroyed the Law: He fulfilled it....

God has created all of us incapable of being anything but sinners, yet He demands from us perfection. Same goes for the "ordained" homosexuals whom you imagine created holy. It is nothing new, except in the minds of those who feel themselves victims of a God is being unfair.

Contrary to your assertion, there is another "recourse" available to the Church, besides the antinomian blessing of same-sex relationships: the Christian one. Apply the Law, with all its force, and then the Gospel.

Your approach simply abused God's grace and puts Him to a foolish test!

The onus is on you, Peter, to somehow prove that Gospel before Law is not antinomian, but Lutheran. Good Luck!

Are you honestly telling me that you put the Law above the Gospel and call that Lutheran? How are people saved? Is it by Law or by Gospel? Christ's fulfillment of the Law is in dying under it (though He was sinless) and so purchasing our unearned salvation with His precious blood that any who believe in him have their sins forgiven and life eternal.

And note that I didn't say that there was no point to the Law in general, or that the sum total of the Law was entirely negated. I said that where the two conflict, Gospel wins, which was Luther's big revelation in 1530. This has already happened many times throughout both the Bible and Church history. Jesus broke most of the uncleanliness laws and laws against working on the Sabbath. Paul threw out the circumcision law and kosher laws. Luther threw out many of the Church laws. Since then, we've thrown out the slavery and misogynist laws. These haven't been thrown out willy-nilly, they've been thrown out because they conflict with the Gospel. And the Church's role is in proclaiming the Gospel. Not legislating marriage. Note that Lutherans allow divorced people to remarry others (and even ordain them, IIRC), even though Jesus explicitly calls that adultery. That is the direct result of Reformation theology and the Reformers secularizing marriage.

Hi Peter,

Your defense of the "Gospel" is admirable, but terribly reckless. And your anti-legalism sure sounds Lutheran, especially to the uneducated. But I can't help but believe that this confusion between Antinomianism and Lutheranism is the root cause of many of the problems faced by the ELCA today.

Typical of antinomians, you see Gospel and Law in conflict and proceed to demand that the Church choose between the two. But erring on the side of "grace" whenever you perceive a conflict between Law and Gospel is a rather a devilish game! This is particularly dangerous because Human Sentiment, masquerading as "gospel," can then trump anything in God's Law it doesn't like.

No one is denying the Gospel, Peter. But I'm afraid that you and many like you are trying to place Gospel before Law. You state: "The Law is second to the Gospel, and where the two conflict, the Law loses." That is antinomian.


Against the Antinomians, Martin Luther, 1539

"The Antinomians have invented a new method by which grace is to be preached first and after that the wrath of God. That is a pretty seesaw, which pleases them wonderfully, because by this trick they can turn the Scriptures up or down and think they have become lux mundi [a world’s marvel]. But they put the shoe on the foot the wrong way, trying to teach us the Law after the Gospel and wrath after grace. I am well aware of the devil’s aim. I see what abominable errors he is bent on introducing by means of this exegetical teeter-totter."


Smalcald Articles, Martin Luther, 1537

Therefore the two doctrines belong together, and should also be urged by the side of each other, but in a definite order and with a proper distinction; and the Antinomians or assailants of the Law are justly condemned, who abolish the preaching of the Law from the Church, and wish sins to be reproved. . .


The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, 1531

Here we hold that the Law was given by God, first, to restrain sin by threats and the dread of punishment, and by the promise and offer of grace and benefit. But all this miscarried on account of the wickedness which sin has wrought in man. For thereby a part were rendered worse, those, namely, who are hostile to the Law, because it forbids what they like to do, and enjoins what they do not like to do. Therefore, wherever they can escape punishment, they do more against the Law than before. These, then, are the rude and wicked men, who do evil wherever they have the opportunity.
But to this office the New Testament immediately adds the consolatory promise of grace through the Gospel, which must be believed, as Christ declares, Mark 1:15: Repent and believe the Gospel, i.e., become different and do otherwise, and believe My promise.


The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, CFW Walther, 1884 Thesis VII.

In the third place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is preached first and then the Law; sanctification first and then justification; faith first and then repentance; good works first and then grace..
In the first place, the order may be distorted if you preach the Gospel prior to the Law. You may think: “Can a person be so perverse? Why, every catechumen at school knows quite well that the Law comes first and then the Gospel.” However, this can easily happen. We have instances in history which show that even entire religious associations became addicted to this error. For instance, the Antinomians in Luther’s time, with Agricola, of Eisleben, as their leader; and the Herrnhuters (Moravians) in the eighteenth century. Their hearers were never made aware of their deep sinful depravity; they were never made to realize that they were enemies of God, worthy to be cast down to perdition rather than to be saved.

Peter,

Seriously, quote from my writing above where I call God's creation sin. I do not and dare not suggest that any one person was not created with the image of the Creator intended or that they are beyond redemption and the restoration of that image. I say all people are "sinners". You need to read my postings more carefully. God doesn't will to ordain people who willfully and openly defy his will, I don't care what the sin is. Just because some bishop or pastor chooses to do this doesn't mean God had anything to do with it. So I am not gainsaying anything in regard to God or his actions. What you on the otherhand are suggesting is that God contradicts himself. That God in Christ, who calls himself, the way, the truth, and the life - can't himself be consistent in promoting any of these. Do humans make poor choices and act inconsistently - oh you bet! But don't blame God for that.

Your charge that I replace Gospel with Law is beyond words. The Law is supposed to drive us to Christ, to repentence, to seek to be lovingly obedient to Christ our Lord while we trust in his grace and mercy. As another has said, you are suporting an antinomian position that says there is essentially no such thing as sin - you can do whatever you want because God loves you the way you are. Well he does love us the way we are in this moment, but he does not want us to stay that way - he wants us to be holy as he is holy and this is not merely forensic or theoretical, it is incarnational. God wants us to be holy inside and out. His grace and forgiveness is meant not only to forgive our sins and restore to us holiness, but also to empower us to resist sin in our lives as much as possible - so we can indeed be with him eternally and so that we can be a light to the world pointing to the work of Christ who actually transforms lives now and not just in the hereafter. It may well be true that people are born with a tendency towards a homosexual self-understanding and feelings. However, whatever the case, if it is in contradiction to God's holy will, my feelings don't matter. Sin is what divides us from God and we better be clear on what that is or our assumption that we stand will lead to a great fall. Thus, the Word of God must be authoritative as well as the tradition that has for 2,000 years upheld it. Romans 1:26-28 (not the Old Testament that you want to throw out) calls the acting out of what we call homosexual behavior a) degrading, b) unnatural, c) lustful, d) shameful, e) perverse, and f) improper - all words associated with what is sinful. I don't know how it gets any clearer than that. Then you have Jesus endorsing one and only one expression of sexuality, namely the hererosexual kind when he says a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Jesus is Lord for crying out loud. You want to contradict him? You want me to believe that somehow now he has changed his mind as if to say, "Sorry, I was wrong before." What kind of savior can Jesus Christ be if he has ever been wrong? He can't. Your position on the subject blows up the Christian faith into a fraud. It just can't be - the logic isn't there.

Hi Henry and Son of WMC,

I think you're jumping a few conclusions about my beliefs based on the box (antinomianism) you eagerly try to fit my statements into. First, when I'm talking about Gospel before Law, I'm talking about importance, not which one you preach first. Again, which one has the power to save you?

I'm not saying there's no such thing as sin. "Sin is that they do not believe in me" (John 16:9). Lack of trust in Christ is THE sin, though that manifests in all sorts of ways (many of which the Law also intends to curb). While I can see how one might jump to "you can do whatever you want because God loves you the way you are." from faith in Christ alone and only, especially when the ELCA tends to go this way, that's not what I said. If you really think that with faith, but without the law, we'd degenerate into shameless hedonists, you have no conception of faith. Faith is something more than one box on the Biblical checklist of things needed for salvation: it's exemplified by Paul's life. What Law was Paul obeying after his conversion? In fact, his failure to follow "the Law" led to this same Law/Gospel problem with the other apostles (re: Galatians) who insisted that the Jewish Law was meant for all. Paul couldn't make this any clearer than: "For Christ is the end of the law" (Romans 10:4).

This claim that WE should be the ones using God's Law is also setting us up in God's place. God, not us, uses His Law. When we try to use the Church to enforce our perception of God's Law, we've lost the Gospel. That's one reason why I accuse you, Henry, and others here, of denying the Gospel. We're called to live in faith and proclaim the Gospel, not proclaim the Law.

Son of WMC, here are the quotes:

"There is no room for any other "sexual expression" in the Kingdom of God, period. Any other behavior in this realm is sinful."

That's not your call to make, nor is it supported by the verse you cite. If I said that my orange is a fruit, does that mean I'm saying strawberries aren't? Or that my "endorsement" of oranges means strawberries have no place?

"To suggest that the homosexual lifestyle (committed relationship or otherwise) is not contrary to God's intended order is the blind leading the blind and both, in effect turn their back on God and choose Hell for themselves."

My assertion is that calling all homosexuality a sin is contrary to Christ's Gospel. If that wasn't enough, homosexual is how God has created some people and He gave them that romantic love that you want them to deny. Who are they, or you, to tell them to waste God's gift? And note that I'm not saying here it should be one big orgy.

Finally, let's talk a bit about that 2000 years of church tradition and the importance of consistency. The Gospel is what must remain unchanged, and we still have it, despite Catholicism, the LCMS and the ELCA. And let's face it: saying homosexuality is not a sin is not going to suddenly let people start earning their way into heaven. It does not negate the condemnation of the Law that lies over all sinners. But back to church laws, which can and do change without destroying Christianity. Recall "what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). Or, if everything must be exactly as it was 2000 years ago, how do you reconcile the lack of slavery today? Or the fact that the Lutheran church allows divorced people to remarry? Even if you insist on assuming that Paul was talking about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships in Romans and elsewhere (and that's probably NOT the case), he could be wrong. He was wrong about slavery and women. That doesn't make what he said about the Gospel stand on any shakier ground. Our faith is supposed to be built on the Gospel... that's why it doesn't matter if there are contradictions, changes, or translation errors in the Bible. We don't worship that.

Peter,

I think we need to agree on what constitutes "God's creation". A sexual expression is not God's creation, its a human behavior. I have according to God's Word (see Romans 1:26-28 which you have yet to deal with here)called a particualr behavior that is against God's will and an abuse of his created order a sin. Your quote then says, "My assertion is that calling all homosexuality a sin is contrary to Christ's Gospel." I did not call "homosexuality" (meaning the self understanding of ones sexual preference) a sin, only the unrepentant living out of the behaviors that might be acted out by one who is homosexual who does not seek, with God's grace, to resist such behaviors. My sins or the sins of others are not God's creation.

Then you quote the verse that speaks of sin as not believing in Christ Jesus. But what does such belief entail? Head knowledge? No. Trust in Jesus? Yes! Trust only in his promises apart from what he himself demands of us, "Deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me"? No, never. We cannot claim to trust his mercy if at the same time we choose not to trust his will for the transformatin of our lives - the new life we were given at baptism to live for him. This is not a program of take what you like and leave the rest. Its a package deal. So if you do not wish to respect God's law, then you do not trust in Christ no matter how much you protest to the contrary.

Finally, as to consistency - basically your assertion claims that "the Church" advocated for slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. Individuals, in the name of Jesus have done many terrible things, even individual pastors, congregations, and perhaps even some denominations, but "the Church" has never supported slavery as a good and righteous thing. The fact that the ELCA allows divorced people to remarry is not something I support any longer. I have been wrong in my past thinking on this. Unless the marriage was not properly entered into, in which case it was not a marriage in the first place, to break a marriage and remarry is adultery and those who sanctioned this to begin with will have something to answer for on the judgement day. As I have argued above in previous posts, read the early Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and the Didache, and see which Church they speak of. Then ponder the consistency of the moral teachings of that Church. To do thus will, by God's grace, bring us all to repentance.

Peter,

Somehow, Peter, you, like many others in the ELCA, are of the opinion that the only way a homosexual can have true faith in Christ is to withhold God's Law (which is always suspect anyway) and just give 'em that good "Gospel" (in a narrow sense of the term).

A God who would create someone a certain way, with certain traits and characteristics, with certain impulses and desires, and then forbid that person to act upon them is, to you, inconceivable! A God who would call someone guilty through no fault of their own is rather unthinkable! To you, as it is with all antinomians, God must be "fair," according to your own understanding of fairness, of course, in order for Him to be believable. In essence, you are willing to accept only that God who agrees with you. But in so doing, you have, unwittingly, seriously broken the first Commandment. How did that happen?

When things go your way, you play the part of the good Christian and "Praise the Lord". But when things don't go your way, you withhold your praise. And it is in this way, my friend, that you convict yourself: You follow a God of your own making.

What you fail to realize is that each one of us, because of sin, are ememies of God. We all hate Him for one reason or another: We're not rich enough, not good enough, not pretty enough; we were born into the wrong family, we were born with lifelong physical disabilities, we were born the wrong gender, we were born homosexual, etc. As much as we profess our love for Him, in reality we hate Him.

We hate Him because He creates us to be nothing but sinful people, and then holds us accountable for that which we cannot help but be. How unfair is that?!

Nevertheless, we keep insisting that we love God, cause to state otherwise would make us rather irreligious. So instead of blaming God for perceived injustices in the church, it is much easier to blame others: "We worship the true God. They're trying to set themselves up as God."

Instead of looking at God's supreme justice at damning the undeserved, an act which we feel is somehow "unjust", we look upon the supreme mercy God gives us damnable sinners and consider this to be somehow good and "just".

There is another way, however, for the homosexual and for us. It is believing in a God whose ways are past finding out. It comes by embracing all of God's counsel, not just the parts that we agree with. It is having a faith both in God's wrath and in his promises, through Christ. It is a faith that surpasses all understanding which allows us to put aside our selfish desires and sense of victimhood as we pick up the cross we have been given and follow Christ.

It is in believing that the Church must use words of Law, "Thou shalt not put the Lord to a foolish test" when it is challenged to take an antinomian leap off the top of the ELCA temple.

To undermine the faith of the lost homosexual who may come to know his need for a Savior cause you feel it is more "loving" to withhold God's Law is antinomian, my friend, and it breeds nothing but a false security. It is a false Gospel which you advocate, for which the Church must someday give an answer. May God have mercy on us all.

Henry and Son of WMC,

You're still trying to put words in my mouth based on what you think I believe, not based on what has been said. If I was to talk about God's fairness, I would say that He most certainly isn't fair, since we are given Christ's mercy when we have not earned it.

In any Lutheran statement of theology, the authority of Christ must be present, as laid out in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in Article 4, Justification:

"the chief topic of Christian doctrine...which, understood aright, illumines and amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of especial service for the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and brings necessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences"

This means that anything claiming to be Christian needs to fulfill two things: Are Christ's merits and benefits used? and Does it give the benefits of Christ to people so that their consciences are comforted? These are the measuring sticks of the Book of Concord that are used there and must be used for "correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures". The statement by the dissenters and your arguments fail to pass these two tests. You're trying to use a legalist reading of the Bible as your measuring stick, and that fails to proclaim that it is Christ's death and resurrection that brings salvation and forgiveness as well as failling to bring consolation to devout consciences.

I wonder if the reason you leap to calls of antinomianism is due to this legalist (which is a non-Lutheran) reading of the Bible. Reading the Bible as a rulebook of what to believe and how to behave is using a scholastic hermeneutic-- exactly how the Catholics of Luther's day read it (and how the Pharisees of Jeseus' time read the Torah). The Lutheran Hermeneutic (stated above) means that faith in Christ is the criterion for both salvation and sin. God's Law illumines our malady, but it does not provide ethics. The healing comes through Christ, not through the Law. That makes all of these 'do this/don't do that's' not automatically universal. Once you are connected to Christ, you are under the new commandment-- and that's not a new version of 'do this, don't do that', it's a complete transformation. For Paul, this was "the mind of Christ" and "being led by, walking by, his Holy Spirit", not just living the law (see Galatians 5). Luther understood this aspect as well: hence "Juden-Sachsenspiegel", the civil law code in the ancient Jewish theocracy, similar to the civil law code in Saxony. Each society has different rules, though the same God works through them all. Those civil authorities are the vehicle God uses for the Law. I affirm that Law is for giving people what they have coming and keeping a fallen Creation from completely falling apart Every funeral is a testament to God's third use of the Law. This is also why marriage is not a sacrament-- it falls under the civil, not the salvational. That means we're not going against God when we understand that many aspects of a 2600-year old legal code fail to apply today. God still works through the proper agencies (not the Church!) to dispense Law, and God will continue, even if we did go to anarchy (see Judges). The Church's purpose is salvational, not civil-- to spread the Promise, not the Law. As soon as it tries to dispense the Law, it loses the Gospel, because it contaminates and obscures Christ. The Law is for God to dispense, and I believe that He does just that. This is exactly why the Reformation happened-- the Church was trying to dispense the Law and in so doing, lost the Gospel.

And to address a few points I haven't yet. You can't have sexuality without sex. Ditto for hetero and homosexuality. That's all God's creation. Or, to put it physically: do animals make a conscious choice to have sex? Another consideration is Luther's explanation of the adultery commandment in the Large Catechism and the reasons why priests should not marry. Those reasons all apply to homosexuals as well. The Romans passage I have dealt with above (I'm Lutheran, not Gnostic). As to slavery: I didn't say the Church advocated for it, but that it is an institution that existed in Biblical times, which both Jews and Christians readily accepted (see Ephesians 6:5-8 for the command for slaves to obey their masters and Philemon 12 for Paul returning a slave). Given this acceptance, and the tradition of slavery, how do you justify the Church standing against slavery?

Peter,

You want God's mercy but you don't want there to be anything for which you need God's mercy. The law doesn't save us but it sure does show us what we need to repent of and what we need God's mercy for. To repent is not only to be sorry, it is to make amends for the wrong, it is to resist by God's grace giving into temptation and repeating the wrong. It would appear that for you there is nothing to repent of and therefore, really no need for God's mercy. So there is no point in us discussing this any further. As far as you being Lutheran and not gnostic, Lutheran seems to pass for anything anybody wants it to these days since as I've argued many times previously, there is no authority for the ELCA. Surely the Bible is no authority because anybody can quote it or ignore it to their hearts content for any purpose they deem fit. Gnostic is to take things way out of context and assert that you know better than the authority Jesus put into place, the magisterium that upholds his teachings from one century to the next, and therefore you are the one to be listened to because you have the "special gnosis" the rest of us lack. I'm sorry, but I hope for your sake your eyes are opened to this patent incorrectness before it is too late. God have mercy on all of us.

Peter,

Sadly, your anti-synergistic zeal, and that of the ELCA, gives Satan a golden opportunity to wreak havoc in the Church. You affirm the use of God's Law in a civil sense, or in its third use, but avoid it like the plague when it is used in its salutary function in an accusatory role.

Like Jonah, you and the ELCA reason, "Why preach repentence to these Ninevites, Christ will save everyone anyway?!"

And so the Holy Spirit, in the new "Lutheran" hermeneutic, works only through one doctrine, not two. Why else, in countless churches for at least two decades, is narry a word of Law heard from the pulpit in the ELCA?

We can look like the good guys now. Breaking down injustices all over the world with our Gospel only approach: A magnet for anyone with a grudge or grievance, real or imagined.

And so the church has lost its salt.

Bon appetit!

Hi guys,

Unfaith in Jesus is still sufficient to convict every single one of us. We're all guilty of it. You, me, the homosexuals, the heterosexuals, we all fall short of God's glory and fail to trust in Christ's promise of redemption. The second use of the Law still holds using the Lutheran Hermeneutic I stated above. I'm not saying there's no such thing as sin, or that we can win our way into Heaven on our own. I'm saying that the root sin, the original sin, is not trusting God, and we still fail miserably against that metric. Homosexuality, however, is not a sin by itself under this metric because it does not lead to not trusting Christ's promise. Repentance is still important, but Jesus doesn't lock us into the mores of a culture from 2000 years ago, which is what those prohibitions on homosexuality are. Trying to condemn people based on an ancient culture when there's a far more glaring sin (unfaith) is like trying to prosecute Saddam for chewing gum. If faith in Christ alone and only is the "new" metric, repentance and trust in Christ is more important than ever.

I, too, think the ELCA would be stronger if it preached the Gospel, and I do agree with you that the ELCA is in danger of losing the Gospel to Universalism. But when we use a legalist approach, we just fall off the other side of the horse. We might as well turn back to the scholastic hermeneutics the LCMS and Catholics use and undo everything the Reformation has wrought.

First, let me apologize in advance that I am in a hurry at the moment and simply do not have the time to reply to your many points. By not addressing them, please understand that I am not implying they are not worthy of a response, neither am I conceding to what you have written above. You wrote: "Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the Greek masks the fact that there is only one word for Rock in Aramaic which Jesus used to name Peter with." You base your whole argument on Jesus speaking in Aramaic. Show me an authentic manuscript which predates any known manuscript, which clearly indicates that Jesus here spoke Aramaic (at least including Aramaic in the text as in St. Matt. 27:46). Better still, show me an earlier manuscript written in Aramaic which can be shown to be authentic. We have no reason to suspect that Jesus did not speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why would our Koine Greek text indicate a distinction between "petra" and "petros" if in His alledgedly original words He made no such distinction." If you deny verbal inspiration or approach interpretation in the manner of the Jesus Seminar, then we have nothing to discuss. I am not looking for a new discussion on the meaning of "inspired" or "God-breathed" Are you accusing the Holy Spirit of making a mistake in this distinction in St. Matt. 16:16-18? I hope you can respond to this.

Rik,

Even for the sake of argument, if I concede your point that because we cannot produce an Aramaic manuscript and therefore there is no relevancy to the fact that in Aramaic there is only one word for "rock", you haven't dealt with the singular delegation of the keys to Peter in the same passage. Why is Peter the first in every list of the Apostles? Why is he by far and away the one who speaks most often for the group? If Peter is not holding a distinct position among the Apostles, why does Paul (arguing about the right of marriage for them) say in I Cor. 9:5 "Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Why single him out here? The early church fathers know why and you will not give them the credit.

Nonetheless, you singularly focus on the small piece of my argument regarding the office of the papacy as though the rest of what I said matters not with regard to the mageisterium (meaning one that acutally has doctrinal authority and not merely one that functions like a glorified set of administrators and activists) and the fact that without it we have chaos in Protestantism - so much so that now the ELCA is just about ready to follow the Episcopalians and the UCC into calling that which is sin not to be so. Obviously Scripture interpreting Scripture isn't helping this one bit. A magisterium guarding the faith and promoting it properly in accordance with accepted tradition and not contrary to it is what is needed. We don't worship the Bible, we worship the Risen and Living Lord Jesus Christ who gave us the Apostles, the Church, the prophets, and all that produced the Bible and its cannon making it sacred Scripture. Jesus is the Word who gives us the Word that is authoritative. We must obey him! In the other thread, Peter (the blogger) thinks that Luther or others can simply take a scissors to the Bible and therefore make a completely unbiblical statement that "the Gospel trumps the Law" as if they were working at cross purposes. Read Matthew 7:21 again, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."

Jesus set up his Church with his Apostles in authority, succeeded by his bishops and said the gates of hades will never prevail against it. To say any other form of polity is ok, is not only a recipe for chaos and to render any hope of unifying the Church vis-a-vis Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17 null and void, but it is to make Jesus promise a lie - because somehow, without Luther to find it again, the implication is that the church before him had died. As I said before, there was a need for reform, and the Council of Trent did that, but there was no need for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Now where are the Protestant churches and where is the Catholic church? The mainline Protestant churches are dying or shooting themselves in the foot - the extreme Protestant churches are way off when it comes to basic teaching on things like the Sacraments and when they have internal problems their solution is another schism. The Catholic Church, in spite of the scandals of the last decade, is strong in protecting its doctrine, in upholding its moral teachings, and in maintaining the absolute need for (and dispensing) the means of grace. The USCCB has put in place a system by which the same abuse by priests with ineffective Bishops cannot happen again. Now search the internet and see if you can find a similiar reaction in most Protestant churches (where the problem has been identified as being just as bad but without all the negative press). Again I ask you, which church comes closest to the one Jesus established? Read Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch and the Didache, people and writings written on the heels of the Apostles that have wide acceptance - they are far better at interpreting what the Apostles and Christ Jesus intended than anything since - which church do they speak of? Jaroslav Pelikan in his book "The Riddle of Roman Catholicism" stated that a Lutheran or a Protestant ought to every day ask him or herself why they should remain so given that Luther supposedly never intended for schism. The current ELCA, given the trend path it is on, wants nothing to do with healing that schism and neither does the rest of Protestantism. The actual movement of the Reformation has not been to reform the Church but to divide from it and go its own way. So I guess there's no need for John 17 anymore either - better rip that chapter out of our Bibles. So much for Sola Scriptura.

As one who is considering joining an ELCA congregation, I am carefully watching this issue to see whether the ELCA will adhere to Luther's "Word alone" and the scriptural doctrines you have outlined, or if the ELCA will turn its back on Biblical authority and choose instead to value current secular cultural trends more than the Word of God. I pray your position will prevail.

I just read with disgust Bishop Chilstrom's endorsement of the ECLA task force recommendations.

What kind of people have been leading our church these past 30 years?

The ELCA hierarchy and the secular gay movement have been pushing this issue down our throats since the mid-1990s. And, it's clear they have hired guns running a sophisticated political campaign to finally get their way this year.

In my opinion, Bishop Hanson and others of his ilk need to step down from their leadership positions in the ELCA, or we should force them out! They need to go... now!

Chilstrom, and others in the ELCA, talk about having "changed their minds" concerning same-sex relationships. They want the opponents of change in ELCA to do the same.

But to them, the issue has nothing to do with how homosexuals are justified. They are not worried about their souls: Homosexuals who profess Christ without repentance are already "in". It is simply a little matter of how homosexuals should live out a sanctified life.

To have such a "change of mind", two things must happen: 1.) God's Word of Law in Scripture must be nutralized 2.) The Law written upon the heart, the conscience, must be destroyed.

The absence of a conscience is called psychopathy. Schizophrenia describes personality for which two opposing views on reality coexist.

Isn't this "grace" amazing?!

I, for one, will never change my mind – no matter how hard Bishops Chilton, Hanson, and others, try to convince me otherwise.

And I won't journey faithfully with them either, despite the statement adopted by the 2005 CWA. I expect thousands, if not millions of other faithful Lutherans, feel the same way I do.

If the Bishops, the gay and lesbian clergy, and the seminarians in the ELCA want to teach and preach under this unprecedented "schizophrenic" policy, let them step down and establish a church movement of their own.

We shouldn't be forced to choose.

The ELCA leadership needs to go voluntarily.

If not, mainstream congregations ought to force them out using the almighty dollar. Our congregations help pay their salaries and pensions, fund their overseas missions, and build and maintain their church sanctuaries, etc.

What would happen if we cut off all funding to the ELCA mothership? I wonder?

Nor will I, Julie.

It is a shame that the LC/NA people are so ardent about this that they don't seem to care that the ELCA could be destroyed over it.

They could also have had a "change of mind" from the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives. I think explaining the justification would have helped, too, but I trust God.

I seriously doubt it. The Holy Spirit never contradicts himself. This is the work of something or someone much more sinister.

What's the deal with circumcision, then? Or temple law or anything else Jesus and/or the apostles changed?

Peter,

This has entered the theater of the absurd. A change in covenants because humankind would not/could not be faithful is not a contradiction. Saying something is sin and then saying its not - that's a contradition. The Holy Spirit does not do the latter.

Also I should have responded to your charge of Biblicism earlier. I really would like a definition of that term from you. Are you suggesting that one can allow Scripture to be too authoritative? You certainly depart from the Lutheran reformers on that point - never mind all your efforts at defending your position as Lutheran. That and this idea that the only sin is unfaith (as if being unfaithful were only in the realm of the heart and had nothing to do with one's actions). Read your Bible again. If it were as simple as you say, then there would be no need for the 10 Commandments or even for Jesus to sum them up with love God and love neighbor. So according to your logic I can do whatever I want, I can hurt my neighbor in any way I like, I can even ignore God most of the time as long as I trust him to bring me to heaven one day. You can't be serious? Just for example, what do you do then with the passage that says you cannot love the God whom you cannot see if you do not love the brother you can see? Love is not about feelings here - its about what you do or don't do. To trust God is by definition to seek to obey him. If I say I trust God but do not follow his precepts, how is it that I trust him? The same is true regarding a chair that I say I trust to hold me up when I sit down. If I am unwilling to sit in the chair, do I really trust it? You do remember Jesus saying, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." Matt. 7:21

That change in covenants has also resulted in a change in the understanding of sin. Even leaving aside for a moment that with Christ's coming, sin is now unbelief, with the change from Mosiac law, Paul threw out the vast majority of Mosaic laws, many of which were considered sins. That is saying something was a sin and then it was not. The only way you can pull that off theologically is to appeal to Christ's authority. That same authority is what I'm appealing to. I also think we have slightly different notions of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Bible. The Spirit did not write the Bible-- humankind did. Those people writing the Bible were certainly inspired by the Spirit, but they were just as fallible as we are. Consider all of the different extant NT manuscripts. Or, better still, consider a minor factual detail that the writers of the Gospels are inconsistent on: Quirinius did not census Judea until 6 AD, nor was he even stationed in Syria until 2 AD (and as chief advisor, not governor). Herod the Great died in 3 BC. Luke places Christ's birth after Quirinius and Matthew places Christ's birth before Herod's death. How do you resolve that if both accounts must be correct?

Biblicism is taking the Bible as the word of God for exactly what it says, passage after passage and then try to be faithful by believing what we've been told and doing exactly what we've been told. While that may sound fine and dandy, Biblicism and legalism go hand-in-glove with each other. And how you read the Bible is directly linked to how you think people get saved. Jeremiah nicely pointed out some examples of this in the early church above and some of the insurmountable problems with legalism. The problem is that with Biblicism, faith is based upon the authority the Bible, not upon the authority of Christ. And when one doubts about the Bible's authority, one's faith comes crashing down. As soon as you learn the historical critical method, for example, or permitting committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. The problem is that this is idolatry. The trust is placed in God through the Bible, not God through Christ. Christ's authority supersedes the human writers of the Bible.

You also have some misconceptions about what I mean when I say that the only sin is lack of faith (or as Paul says it, "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23)). Although unfaith is the root sin, it does manifest in many ways, some of which both you and Henry have mentioned in various posts. There are a lot of guidelines for what the fruits of faith are, or various ways in which one does not trust Christ, such as idolatry. The clearest fruit, which is repeated by just about everyone is "love". But those still aren't "you gottas", those are guidelines and descriptors. The only "you gotta" is faith in Christ alone and only.

And yet, even with that one "you gotta", we still fail. We all fail to do God's will, as you cite in Matthew. That verse alone brings greater condemnation to everyone than all the passages on homosexuality put together. Trying isn't good enough. It takes the One who does the will of the Father, Christ, to bring us into the kingdom of heaven.

Trust is also not the same as obey. If you manage to avoid legalism, Islam (submission to God) is the other end of that route. You can't submit to a promise. We're not passive agents waiting for God to work his will upon us. Faith in Christ means actively living out that Promise. But faith is not something that can be contained in any book of rules.

It makes me truly wonder how Carol Hendrix and Corinne Johnson can sign such statement?! WHO do these two women think they are? How dare they to invoke Scripture and tradition, let alone make mention of the Roman Catholic church, in their so-called “letter of dissent”. These two have left the Lutheran Confessions as well as the foundation of the Scriptures and 2000 years of church's teachings. But they haughtily want to reprimand others? I WISHED these two women, who self-righteously claim the title REVEREND, would join the Roman church or the LCMS. These churches would teach these two a lesson in the use and application of Scripture and tradition.
President Berry (LCMS) wrote:
"[...] The LCMS believes that the Bible is actually the Word of God, and therefore, is totally truthful, reliable and free from any error. We believe that the Scriptures are the final standard by which we must judge everything that we believe, teach and confess... The ELCA tolerates and encourages methods of interpreting the Scripture that presuppose that the Bible contains error and is unclear about various doctrinal matters. Our difference over the Bible explains other more visible differences. For example, our churches disagree about the ordination of women to the pastoral office, the issue of homosexuality and the question of abortion. The LCMS does not ordain women to the pastoral office, while the ELCA does, in spite of the fact that Holy Scripture clearly teaches otherwise." (lifeoftheworld.com)

Carol, Corinne, hope you read this!

And again: "The LCMS believes that those Scripture passages which say that women should not 'teach' or 'have authority' in the church (see, for example, 1 Cor. 11 and 14; 1 Timothy 2) mean that women ought not hold the authoritative teaching office in the church--that is, the office of pastor. Women are allowed to hold other offices in the church, as long as these offices do not involve the one holding them in carrying out the distinctive functions of the pastoral office. The involvement of women in non-pastoral aspects of the worship service (for example, reading the lessons, etc.), is left to the judgment of individual congregations. In 1994, the Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations prepared a report on "The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices" which is helpful in this regard….For more information, see the Commission on Theology and Church Relations 1985 report 'Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice.' "


Carol and Corinne, "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brothers’ [and sisters’] eye[s], but do not notice the log that is in your own eye[s]?” (cf. Mt 7:3) The "letter of dissent" is absurd and laughingstock when signed by [these] two women!

This August will be just another rotten harvest season in the ten year partnership in our Called to Common Mistakes (Mission?). In addition to the stacked deck on the Task Force, ELCA Church Council and those who owe their income to the Churchwide Headquarters; several of our slippery partners continue to grease the skids for the ELCA's demise. The Human Sexuality revisions are but a part of the tragic comedy that includes goddess rosaries, Bishops who also have Buddhist ordinations, denials of Christ as The Way-Truth and the The Life...the list will go on even after the dreaded debacle in Minneapolis this summer.
The three dissenters represented what little remains of a desire to uphold a God of Divine Redemption in addition to the Divine Acceptance only that our revisionist colleagues promote. Following the revisionist path continues the Baal of a Christless, Crossless, Lawless love-love-love. For the sake of Christ who came to save, may these churches drop the term church and just call themselves philosophical societies, enlightenment centers or another branch of the Unitarian-Universal band. The Episcopal Church and the United Church of C-something is already there and waiting for the party to begin.

First, let me say thank you to all those contributing to this discussion. I've read all the responses to date, and the level of passion for earnest engagement is helpful as I try to come to some sort of conclusion as to what I think an appropriate stance on this issue is.

I'm deeply, deeply conflicted. On the one side, as many have pointed out, Lutheran doctrine is that Scripture is our authority. This makes sense, because if we do not use Scripture as our authority, what CAN we claim as authority for understanding what God wants for us? We can't base doctrine on simple reason or personal revelation because different perspectives will always conflict, and that DOES lead to "church by popular opinion," effectively discarding any sense of church identity, and allowing us to silence any word God tries to get in edgewise. Tradition's out, too, since "traditional authority" was the papal justification for the abuses Luther railed against. We're sinful people, and as history so plainly shows, we're not very good at articulating the difference between "authoritative, Godly tradition" and "abusive, sin-centered tradition," except in hindsight.

But on the other hand - what is Scripture, if not personal revelation and tradition that, along the line, was canonized? And if we stick strictly to Scripture as our authority against any and all challenges, how are was any different from the teachers of the law of Jesus' time when they condemned him for acting in ways that conflicted with traditional interpretation of the Law? Or the early Jewish Christians, who fought with Paul over his insistence on the inclusion of the gentile Christians who didn't follow the codified cleanliness laws? God HAS done new and exciting things throughout scriptural history, from the covenant with Moses all the way through Jesus' ministry and Paul's evangelism.

If we adhere only to how God has acted in the past - are we not, effectively, closing ourselves off from anything that God chooses to do here and now?

I don't know, maybe my struggles with figuring out where we get doctrinal authority mean I don't qualify as a Lutheran. For this particular issue, my personal piety (not an authoritative source, I know) would certainly lead me to say that the God I've experienced wouldn't allow someone's behavior or stance on this topic to get in the way of his love - to my understanding, that's the entire reason for the Christ event. Perhaps that's leaning towards antinomianism - but I'll be the first to admit that I knowingly act in ways contrary to scripture every day of my life. I own more than one coat. I am selfish with my free time. I pass by people stalled out on the freeway. I pray with a hat on.

And yet, I am reminded on a daily basis how much God loves me, CHOOSES to love me, regardless of the fact that I never really seem to improve much.

But, maybe I'm wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. I'll continue to read, and pray, and listen. Perhaps something along the way will cast everything into clarity. I can dream, eh?

Grace and thanks to you all for contributing your thoughts. May God grant us understanding of his will, and of each other.

Jeremiah,

The quest for truth is a noble one indeed. However, I must encourage you to research more deeply and not only on the Protestant side of the argument when you say, "Tradition's out, too, since "traditional authority" was the papal justification for the abuses Luther railed against." The papacy didn't justify all of the abuses Luther railed against, and some of the things Luther railed against weren't necessarily abuses. It would be wise to read the decrees of the Council of Trent (and if you wish the commentary on them by Martin Chemnitz) before making this statement. I think you will find out some things you didn't realize beforehand.

I'll concede that I don't have much knowledge as far as the Council of Trent goes. I'm not sure, however, that any defense it provides could show that tradition is an infallible source of divine revelation. I didn't intend to imply that the abuses that led to the reformation were the sole proof that tradition isn't a reliable source of authority, merely to use the instance as one example.

History, both inside and outside Scripture, shows many instances where the fact that a tradition or belief stands the test of time doesn't necessarily assure that it's correct, or useful, or Godly.

I will do as you suggest, though, and look more deeply into the accomplishments of the CoT. Thanks for the suggestion.

Gee Jeremy. . .I would think it'd be a no-brainer! Stay with the ELCA and the antinomian advantage, my friend! Let's review what we've learned:

1.) We really only need to emphasize one doctrine in the ELCA, not two! This Gospel before Law approach is much less complicated. And preaching repentance is such a downer. Think unity. Think church growth.

2.) We don't have to defend Paul and his 2000 year-old antiquated warnings anymore, which we know have no bearing on us today. (Remember, he's been proven wrong time and time again, except for the good stuff, like God's Grace. That's trustworthy, I think).

3.) When Gospel and Law appear to conflict, Gospel always wins. This should help advance any cause we deem important and destroy anyone who tries to stand in the way. Again, think church growth.

4.) When the Gospel alone approach doesn't work, for whatever reason, we can always resurrect God's Law whenever it suits our purposes. Guilt works. Try this: "You're being a Pharisaical, Romanist, LCMSer, Legalist/Biblicist!" That should shut them up. Unless, of course, your opponent is another antinomian. Then their Gospel will trump your Law (see #3).

3.) Since unfaith in Christ is the only real sin, just profess your faith in Christ and don't worry about your soul, or anyone else's for that matter. We're in, brother!

4.) When two homosexuals approach the altar for communion in the ELCA, each with opposing belief systems regarding their homosexuality, you can rest assured that in whatever church they attend, they're sins will be forgiven and they both will return home justified. Cause we respect their consciences!

Hallelujah!

And have a nice day!

I'm not sure if this makes it any easier, but the differences of perspective also extend to how we understand and interpret Scripture and directly impacts our ideas of salvation. That was the fundamental difference between the Reformers and Catholics. The Catholics read the Bible with scholastic hermeneutics, that is, reading the Bible as revelationist. It gives us information we wouldn't otherwise have-- what we're supposed to believe, how we're supposed to act, worship, etc. Scholastic hermeneutics leads to the same idea about salvation. Salvation here is following God's will by believing what God wants us to believe, acting as God instructs us to behave, etc, etc. With this outlook the Gospel is just one more thing, albeit the most important one, that God has revealed. It's at the top of the list. Righteousness comes when you believe what you "oughtta" and you're moral when you do everything revealed by God. For all that the list is impossibly long, the emphasis here is on doing. It also puts Christ in the same ballpark as Moses.

This is not the law/promise hermeneutic that is explained in Article IV of the Book of Concord. That hermeneutic looks to Christ for our authority-- faith in Christ's death and resurrection as necessary and sufficient for our salvation. Sinners are saved when they get Christ-connected. God's Law is a diagnosis of our sin, not the remedy. It "pushes us to Christ". But the healing comes from God's promise in Christ, and once we're connected to Christ, we're under a new commandment that supercedes the old. That means the point of all of those regulations is to bring sinners to trust Christ. Paul may have thought that homosexuality was incompatible with trusting Christ. I think if you speak with faithful homosexual couples, you'll see for yourself what bearing homosexuality has on faith in Christ and whether those relationships have nurtured that faith or worked against it.

And while Henry seems to think that trusting Christ is fairly simple, reflecting that trust in your actions is very difficult. For all that I say there is one root sin, unbelief, it is still sufficient to damn all of us. Luther's concept of sinner-saints may be helpful for you here, too.

Thanks, Peter, that does help. Your point about Christ being our authority is well taken - and it squares well with my understanding of Lutheran theology. It gives me something to think on, at any rate.

Peter,

You said, "...the differences of perspective also extend to how we understand and interpret Scripture and directly impacts our ideas of salvation."

O.k. so we interpret differently. (I might argue you don't interpret, you ignore Scripture but I'll concede this point for the time being). Show me where in Scripture your method of interpretation is authoritative! This has been my overall point all along. If you are so Lutheran, you then believe in Sola Scriptura. But that formula has led to the infinite varieties of interpretations that allow for so much confusion and chaos in the ELCA and elsewhere. To suggest that God left us to fend for ourselves this way is to suggest that God doesn't really care about us, he lied about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth (I Timothy 3:15), or he doesn't really exist and this is all a vain argument because we are all dead in our sins without hope. Jesus promised his Holy Spirit would remind us of what he said and lead us into all the truth. But who did he leave in charge? Peter (the Gallilean fisherman) and the Apostles, and those who would succeed them. Not the antinomian Peter of this thread. You cannot annoint yourself as an authority. My assertions are based on the authority Jesus established and used to teach us over the centuries. Where does yours come from?

Finally, since it is a "Lutheran hermeneutic" you wish to follow, perhaps reading the Formula of Concord, Epitome Article VI paragraph 8 would be of interest to you: "...we condemn as dangerous and subversive of Christian discipline and true piety the erroneous teaching that the law is not to be urged, in the manner and measure above described, upon Christians and genuine believers, but only upon unbelievers, non-Christians, and the impenitent."

Why would this be found there? Because of what is said in the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article VI, paragraphs 11-12: "The law indeed tells us that it is God's will and command that we should walk in the new life, but it does not give the power and ability to begin it or to do it. It is the Holy Spirit, who is not given and received through the law but through the preaching of the Gospel (Gal. 3:2, 14), who renews the heart. Then he employs the law to instruct the regenerate out of it and to show and indicate to them in the Ten Commandments what the acceptable will of God is (Rom. 12:2) and in what good works, which God has prepared beforehand, they SHOULD walk (Eph 2:10)."

In other words, after the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit stirs us to live the new life given to us in Baptism, which means following God's law, not because we have to, but because we want to, because we love God - yet if we think for one minute that we don't need to walk in the new life of Christ, then we neither have faith, nor love God. This is the Lutheran hermeneutic in play here, and frankly on this sub-point the Catholic Church would not disagree in the least. So what say you now?

The Scriptural authority for the Lutheran Hermeneutic comes from Christ's death and resurrection, not agents claiming to be His later down the line. In fact, this hermeneutic was specificially formulated as a different route from the scholastic hermeneutics those agents were using at the time. The Gospel of John does the best job of laying out belief in Christ as what's important: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:16-17). Unbelief is sin throughout John's Gospel, and belief is the climax. "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31). Paul also picks up on this when he's given the hermeneutic on the road to Damascus, seen most clearly in Galatians (esp chapter 5) and Romans.

As to Apostolic succession, recall that it wasn't Peter who took over, it was James the Just. (Acts and Galatians). And, for all that we hear about the 12 in the Gospels, Acts switches to Paul ASAP, and Galatians indicates he didn't get along too well with them (over these very hermeneutics, no less!). Apostolic succession was something either claimed or invented to help the proto-orthodox church leadership cement power. Recall Luther's view, "every man with his Bible is his own priest." The Holy Spirit works through all of us.

As for FC6, lol. That article was disputed before it was written down, and writing it down hasn't made things much better. It's not entirely clear exactly what it means. For me, this is where Luther's concept of sinner-saints is especially helpful. The law does indeed mortify the sinner, so much so that it eventually kills us, but it does not apply to the saint.

I also think you're incorrect in the final paragraph about the hermeneutic there being Lutheran... you're letting slightly redressed Biblicism back in, which is why the Catholics would not disagree with your statement. Our measure for what holds up is Article IV: Are Christ's benefits used or wasted? Does it give the benefits of Christ to people so that their consciences are comforted?

Peter,

Given your arguments, please explain the following:

1) What does it mean to believe?

2) You said, "Recall Luther's view, "every man with his Bible is his own priest." The Holy Spirit works through all of us. Where is this in Scripture? Where is this in the documents of Concord? If found in neither, then what makes Luther's statment authoritative? Luther himself? Who annointed him? And if Luther's statement is true, then why are there so many denominations and so many schisms within denominational groupings? Is the Holy Spirit confused?

3) If I cannot quote a portion of the Formula of Concord as authoritative for Lutherans, then what can I quote? Obviously Scripture is useless because its too caught up in cultural things according to your arguments, and any time I bring something up I am charged with Biblicism. So in a circular way, once again I am asking what actually is or should be authoritative for the Church? Seems to me you've cooked up a recipe for chaos based on what everyone's personal opinion is.

Now if I am wrong, you need to quote for me what is authoritative and why it carries authority.

Believing in Christ is trusting that forgiveness of your sins, and eternal life, is a free gift from God granted on behalf of Christ, who suffered and died to sin, though he knew no sin, and was raised from the dead. It means that although you are condemned by your own sin, you are given mercy because Christ loves you and died on your behalf. In His resurrection He destroyed sin and death forever, leaving us free to live our lives.

I think the question you mean to ask is 'how do I live in the freedom that Christ has given me?' And the specific answers to that question are as numerous as the people on the earth. Generally speaking, you proclaim the Gospel and try to show the same selfless love to others that Christ has shown you. You walk in the Spirit. It's a life lived that is centered on Christ, not on blind obedience or just going to church on Sundays. It's showing others the same mercy that has been shown to you.

As to authority of Luther's statements and mine, they follow directly from the Gospels, Acts and Paul. Apart from OT prophecy, we can start with John the Baptist who declares that Christ will baptize with the Holy Spirit. And Matthew ends with the call to spread this baptism to all the ends of the earth. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends upon those there, but Peter also proclaims to all: "you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Paul speaks of people in the Spirit and possessing gifts of the Spirit in many places. Jesus tells the disciples that he will send his Advocate to them.

As to point 3, that's just it. There is exactly one thing that is authoritative and that is the Gospel-- faith that God will do as promised and forgive our sins and grant eternal life due only to Christ's death on our behalf and resurrection alone. That's all there is, but it means eternal life for us. There is no 'set of rules that you must follow to obtain salvation'. You just have to trust God's promise. Scripture isn't useless unless you want it to be your rulebook, in which case it's worse than useless, it stifles the Gospel.

There is one, true church on earth, and that is the body of believers who trust Christ's promise and preach His Gospel. They may carry different labels, or be from different cultures, but we're unified by the Gospel. The reason there is no single human institution for this is that churches are built by humans and thus tainted by sin. We need to continually try to reform our church so that it can preach the true Gospel.

Out of curiosity, (and this isn't meant as an attack or an insult) in what ways does your position differ from Catholicism? You've recommended learning from the Council of Trent's decrees a couple times, and that's the council that pretty much laid out the counter-Reformation. By definition that's not going to be Reformation theology. It's almost like suggesting someone reads the Confutations for Gospel.

Peter,

You really didn't answer #2 at all. You say Luther's quote is based on the Gospels but you don't show anything from them that backs up that statement that everyone is their own interpreter - nor do you answer my point on the chaos in the ELCA, in Protestantism, etc. Sure baptism gives the Holy Spirit, but this gift of the Spirit was not geared toward specifically assuring that each believer would have no trouble in apprehending the truth of the Gospel. The evidence is patently before us - the tremendous division we see on all sorts of matters, with people on all sides claiming sincerity of belief, the authority of the Word, and the guidance of the Spirit.

On #3, you say, "There is one, true church on earth, and that is the body of believers who trust Christ's promise and preach His Gospel. They may carry different labels, or be from different cultures, but we're unified by the Gospel. The reason there is no single human institution for this is that churches are built by humans and thus tainted by sin." There is two problems with this statement. First, Jesus, not other humans built his Church and promised that not even the gates of death would prevail against it. That holds for all time and all centuries. Since he built it by the authority given him, he has the power to delegate authority and did so to the Apostles who were succeeded by the Bishops (the term of which specifically deals with "oversight"). To suggest that Peter and Paul were at loggerheads (except for the momentary lapse of Peter when he strayed on the issue of eating with Gentiles - to which Peter responded properly with repentance) is to turn Scripture and history on its head. And if James was the key leader of the Church, then there is no reason for the history of the first centuries of the Church to have its primary repository of authority to develop in Rome. Your argument would suggest it was a power grab - but that would have led to an immediate schism, which didn't happen, with no protest from Jerusalem. This argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever. Secondly, the problem with your statement is this supposed unity in the Gospel. If there isn't a clear and agreed upon definition of what the "Gospel" is, how can there be such unity. I daresay, within the group of people who would find agreement with you on this whole issue, I bet there isn't always 100% agreement on what the Gospel is - for the simple reason that the Gospel in your scheme is subject to personal opinion to determine its parameters. Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the Holy Spirit is not vague like this. The Spirit speaks what he hears from the Father and proclaims consistently what the Son did and taught or he isn't one person of the Trinity.

Finally, with regard to #1, please explain to me how one is condemned by one's own sin, when the charge of Biblicism makes any preaching of the law that would therefore accuse one of sin null and void thus leaving us with no such thing as sin at all. Oh, wait, you said that unbelief is the one and only sin. Unbelief in the promises of mercy, forgiveness and everlasting life. Ok, if that is the only sin there is, why get so bent out of shape that many wish to leave the Church where it has been vis-a-vis the question of blessing same gender unions and the ordaining of persons openly in the same. It would appear that opponents of your position are committing some sort of sin, perhaps bigotry, otherwise why the fuss? If this is a sin, then unbelief is more than not just trusting Jesus' promises. I have no doubt that some, even many in your own camp will agree with me that my opposition is indeed a form of bigotry, and therefore a sin, and therefore upend your whole theological scheme. So you and those who are pushing this agenda do not, in fact, agree on what the Gospel is!

Furthermore, why does Jesus enjoin us to forgive one another or the Father will not forgive us, unless there are sins other than the sin of unbelief? My lack of trust in Jesus' promises may be a contributing factor, but knowing myself, I sincerely believe in the promises you say I need to to have faith, and yet I still manage on a daily basis to wound people around me, in small or large ways. Your argument doesn't hold water. Can you see this?

Your claim that I and others treat the Bible as merely a law book is ridiculous. You make Jesus into a split personality person who opposes himself because he offers the very promises you mention while at the same time he preaches the Sermon on the Mount, which is about as full of law as any sermon I've read, and he condemns a whole lot more than mere unbelief (unless you define unbelief as I do, to not only not trust Jesus' promises, but also to disregard his commandments to love God and one another - and this isn't about feelings - its about summing up the ten commandments).

Your theology is grasping for straws to justify something that you know deep down in your gut can't be justified. That is the nature of human sin, to justify the unjustifiable, to try to be gods in place of God and set our own watered down standards or non-standards. If unbelief as you define it were what the Gospel were about only, then why O why did Adam and Eve get thrown out of the Garden of Eden (whether figuratively or literally)?

Peter, you need to think this through a whole lot better than you have.

As to the comment at the end of your post - you are spot on - I am arguing that the Protestant Reformaion has in a very real way led to the chaos we are experiencing now. Again, I say there was a need for real reform of abuses in Luther's day, but he went overboard and threw out tried and true doctrine with the attempt to correct abuses of power and position. I have been looking into this for 10 or more years and I am quickly coming to the conclusion, prompted by but not exclusively because or even mainly because of the current argument over these issues of sexuality in the ELCA, that conversion to Rome is what God is demanding of me. So many have spewed what they did not themselves know, but what they were ignorantly taught by others, that the Catholic Church was so off the mark theologically in Luther's day. But let's take just one example to help give a taste of why this isn't so. If I Tim. 3:15 is true and the Church is the pillar and the foundation of the truth held in conjunction with Jesus' promise that the gates of death would never prevail against the Church he himself built, then the argument that the Church went so astray in its teachings in Luther's day cannot hold water - because then Jesus' promise and the passage in I Tim. 3:15 are empty promises. There must always be a recognizable Church where the truth in its entirety is always present and upheld/proclaimed by the power of the Holy Spirit or these Scriptures and pretty much all of Scripture is undermined. I do not argue that individuals, even those in positions of authority, cannot go astray, but in the end when this happens either the truth wins out in the Church every time and perseveres or the Church has ceased to be. If this is not true, then I am totally lost because all I have to go by is my own pathetic personal opinion and that is no help to me when trying to find the church Jesus' established and when seeking to follow him (actually follow him as he says in Scripture I and every believer should do - which I might point out has to do with more than merely trusting him). The ELCA cannot be that church because it is saying it doesn't know what the truth is with its local option policy on the question of same gender unions and the ordaining of persons in the same. Jesus taught with authority and I believe his Church would do the same.

I have only recently discovered this Lutheran Forum. I have read most but not all of the comments. I have responded to Ruth's letter of April 27 because I could feel her pain. AND...how many more "Ruth's" are out there?!?! I have one brief statement which sums up much of this issue. I heard this a couple of years ago on Christian radio and feel that it is a "news in a nutshell" account of what is happening:
1. The CHURCH (not only the ELCA) "flirted" with the WORLD.
2. The CHURCH "dated" the WORLD
3. The CHURCH "fell in love" with the WORLD
4. The CHURCH is seeking to "marry" the WORLD

....may the Lord have MERCY on the CHURCH and help her!!!

I have discovered this morning that in order to read Ruth's plea for help a person must scroll back to the BEGINNING of the April responses...it is not in chronological order. I hope and pray that she is still watching and can find comfort and encouragement!!

Today I have researched to verify the websites that I listed in my response to Ruth (her cry for help and my response posted about mid-April). They are all still functioning and I found one more that appears to have a Christ centered ministry to serve and help the struggling: www.masteringlife.org Perhaps we would all benefit from PRAYERFULLY looking into these ministries and how they function and serve (most of them in the name of our Lord...relying on Him for guidance and provisions...we would need to seek to check that out first!)

There's a lot there. I'm going to jump around a bit in addressing your points. We'll start with the Gospel. Where are you finding multiple Gospels in my posting? Or do you mean that the ELCA is contaminated with other Gospels, and this is a challenge to you because you believe that there ought to be one, true church with the same label that is uncontaminated by other Gospels? Ain't no such thing, because the churches are all run by sinners. Christ certainly charged us sinners with spreading the Gospel (which is what the church is, when you get down to it), but being given a task does not free us from sin. Our authority isn't the Church, it isn't the Bible. It's Christ. Yes, Christ did say that the gates of death would not prevail against those spreading the Gospel. That doesn't protect any particular human institution for all time, especially when that institution teaches a false Gospel. Also, the true church IS recognizable, but by its Gospel, not whether it calls itself Catholic, ELCA or whatever. Even Lutherans affirm that it is adherence to the Gospel that will keep the church going. But it must adhere to the Gospel, which stops happening the moment you try to make it into "Gospel plus". And what is your Gospel?

Adam and Eve were thrown out of the Garden for not trusting God. Thinking you can be God, desiring to be God or thinking you know better than God are all very much lacking in faith in Christ's promise. Promoting other gospels is also very much a lack of trust in the true Gospel. And speaking of sin, I do accuse those who tell gay couples that their relationship is a sin by definition or who refuse to ordain homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships on the grounds of that relationship of sinning. But, that sin is unbelief. They put their faith in the authority of the Bible instead of in Christ and tell God that His Creation is flawed. Bigotry can often result from not a God-problem, but bigotry itself isn't the root sin.

I'm out of time, but I'll just address the last point, about the ELCA's local option policy. I do agree that the ELCA should stick to the Gospel and not try to compromise. I think here, though, there is hope that a compromise will give more time to bring the wayward sheep back into the fold, instead of the chasm that stands between us and the LCMS.

For the beginnings of the Catholic church and early Christianity, I'd recommend EH White's "From Jesus to Christianity", WH Freund's "The Rise of Christianity" and Butz's "James the Brother of Jesus". That starts on the subject way better than I can on a forum and provides references.

As for the Church, we DO have one, clear authority: Jesus Christ. There is confusion and chaos because the church has lost that authority on account of our sin, which is unbelief. The Catholic church set itself as God in His place. It still does that today with its Gospel plus Church plus Bible doctrine. The other groups similarly have problems because they proclaim "other" Gospels. But whether it's one giant heresy or many smaller heresies doesn't really matter. What matters is that they're heresy. The world has always been one giant mission field, and while it changed quite a bit with Paul, there've always been other Gospels, be it paganism, Islam, Manicheism, Gnosticism, Catholicism, etc. Only by grounding ourselves in Christ's death and resurrection-- Gospel alone and only, not Gospel plus anything, nor Gospel minus anything, can we speak with any authority. Luther tried to restore the church, but the church refused, and does so still.

You seem to think we're lost without the Church. We're not. We have Christ. We're lost without Christ, not lost without the Church.

Matthew 28:19 supports the "every man with a Bible is his own priest", as it is the charge to go and spread the Gospel to the nations and baptize in Christ's name. What other priestly functions are there for us? Holy Communion? "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am also." Or "Do this in remembrance of me.". It's also permitted by the measures for the Gospel. Unless you can show that this fails either of the measures for Gospel (necessitates Christ and gives his benefits to all). Personally, I think there are great benefits to having salaried clergy, but that is largely a bureaucratic detail-- left-handed stuff.

Peter,

You have made it clear that you advocate "Gospel alone and only, not Gospel plus anything, nor Gospel minus anything." You have made it clear that you don't want Scripture to stifle the message of the Gospel, which would be Biblicism, to your thinking.

Now can you explain what antinomianism is?

Then, can you show how an antinomian Christocentric hermeneutic is different from your system, so that we don't "fall off the other side of the horse?"

Antinomianism is saying "no" to the uses of God's Law by God. God uses God's law to preserve creation, accuse sinners who fail to preserve creation (which is everyone), and execute judgement upon sinners.

An antinomian hermeneutic misses God's wrath. It doesn't acknowledge God as our accuser or as our harshest critic. This leads ultimately to universalism, which fails to necessitate Christ. I do acknowledge God's wrath and the Law still has full force under the hermeneutics I've described- unbelief is sufficient to damn us all. I acknowledge that Scripture reveals both God's law and His Gospel, but with Christ's coming, the laws listed there have been relativized (remember, those were laws handed down to a culture before Christ's advent. If we didn't read them any differently now that we're in Christ, we wouldn't be necessitating Christ). Hence, the specific laws in Leviticus apply to the ancient Hebrew theocracy, not to us. We can find parallels for some situations, certainly, but culture has moved on for many others. Laws concerning slavery, marrying your brother's wife after he's died, etc, etc, are all culture-specific. However, the NT is also subject to this treatment. It was written in a specific culture with very culture-specific rules. Saying 'no' to these laws isn't saying 'no' to God's Law. Rather, taking these laws as our carved-in-stone instructions defeats the Gospel. Instead we ought to be looking to what we do today where we fail to put our trust in Christ-- how we violate God's Law. On the homosexuality issue, I see failure to trust Christ evident in excluding homosexuals from ordination or other leadership roles within the church and not acknowledging their marriages. By doing this, we're telling God that He screwed up by creating people homosexual-- we tell them they shouldn't live out their sexuality, which is a gift from God.

Peter,

Let me get this straight: To you, antinomianism is saying "no" to God's Law by God. What is meant by your phrase, "by God?" Are you saying that antinomianism is saying "no" to God's Law only if that Law is uttered by God, and it is not antinomian if people say "no" to a Law of God that is uttered by people? What is God's Law, if not his righteous will, revealed to us in Scripture? If I am understanding you correctly, by what revelation do you discern what is God's Law "by God" and not "by people"?

You seem to want to uphold God's Law for the use of preserving creation and executing judgment on sinners, but depricate its use whenevever it is determined to be culture-specific. But by what revelation do you determine which Law of God is culture-specific and which Law of God is not? Historical Criticism? But why use this method so selectively then? Why do you still retain God's wrath and judgment in your theology? Could not this Law of God also be considered culture-specific? Isn't that how these cultures thought, way back then? And why stop there? Why not apply the same enlightened principles of cultural specificity to God's words of Grace? We know Paul was wrong on the negative stuff. . .couldn't he be just as wrong on the positive stuff?

You state that God still executes his wrath and judgment on "sinners", and you also state that failure to trust Christ is also damning. So, on the one hand, I could be damned if I discard one of God's Laws that may calling me, a sinner, to repentance, thereby abusing his Grace. But on the other hand, I don't want to defeat the Gospel, so I should discard and not repent of that "Law of God" that is culture-specific and therefore non-applicable, since this action may really be biblicism and quite damning, because it reveals a lack of trust in Christ.

In other words, if I don't allow homosexuals to live out their sexuality and believe that it is God-given, as you assert, I am showing a lack of faith in Christ by telling God he screwed up. And this is a damnable offense. But if I do jump off the ELCA temple top by endorsing same-sex relationships, Scripture tells me I may be putting God's to a foolish test. And this is damnable offense.

Oh my,God! What to do? What to do? Damned if I do, and damned if I don't! Why would God do this to me? Why has he forsaken me and left me without any certainty as to what his will for me and his church?

Thankfully, he gives me his whole counsel, and his Holy Spirit, which works through both Law and Gospel, not just the parts of Scripture that I determine to be culturally applicable.

Despite your rejecion of universalism, there is nothing in your writing, Peter, that is not antinomian nonsense disguised as enlightened Lutheranism. As Luther says, you, along with many in the ELCA, like to play on an exegetical teeter-totter that resurrects Law and Gospel whenever you seem fit. . .

Henry,

What I mean with "use of God's law by God" is a reminder that it is God, not us, who uses the Law to accomplish His ends. And that end is to "push sinners to Christ".

As to my criteria for determining whether a given rule is relevant, I don't just pick and choose. I use the measuring sticks given us by the Reformers, who took them from Paul who got them from Christ. They are outlined in Article IV of the Book of Concord, which puts our authority in Christ's death and resurrection, alone and only. It's a very easy measuring stick and it doesn't rely on my "picking and choosing". It's not a measuring stick I invented, but rather that with which the Reformers winnowed the church. What do you think Luther meant by Juden-Sachsenspiegel? And do you really worry/try to follow all those other minor rules? For example, do you believe that it is a Christian's duty to marry his brother's wife should his brother die? Or what IS the deal with women? Are they not allowed to speak at all in church, or is prophecy and prayer all they are permitted, and THAT is a sin unless their heads are covered? (1 Corinthians 11:5 vs 14:34).

Christ's authority is what gives Scripture its authority. That's why we don't need to fear losing the "positive stuff". And note that I'm not saying there is no more "negative stuff"... a lot of what Paul talks about is how people have stopped trusting Christ, which is still critically important today. Scripture is very useful, but it is not a rule book. To suggest otherwise hangs our faith on Scripture rather than on Christ.

If it is a rulebook, then it is really, really critical that you understand those rules, which is what the Pharisees tried to do. It's also why they criticized Jesus for working on the Sabbath, because it's pretty clear in the Torah that working on the Sabbath is a sin. And homosexuality in the Bible is a lot more convoluted than that. It's not clear that the words Paul uses actually mean homosexuality. For that matter, why are we even relying on translations? We should do everything in the original Greek and Hebrew, much like the Muslims' insistence that the Koran is only read in Arabic. But then, there's also that small problem of the differences in the testimony of our earliest Biblical witnesses. Which one is authoritative? Seems to me that we're going to be doing just as much "picking and choosing" on which translation of which set of words of the Bible is THE authoritative one. What measuring sticks do you propose we use to pick and choose in this matter?

Your entire argument is based on a false dichotomy. You argue that people will either use the bible as a "rule-book," and be a legalist, or must use your Christ-centered metric, which you call Lutheran (and I call antinomian.)

Your hermeneutic is to "trust Christ". No different than the antinomians. But which Christ, Peter? The "rule-book" Christ who says, "Think not that I have come to bring peace, but a sword", "I tell you, anyone who hates his brother is a murderer", and "Whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the depths of the sea!"?

Or do you preach the reassuring, enabling Christ of your imagination who came to forbid any and all such future words of Law, lest we fall into unbelief.

So what about the dilemma I've outlined above, Peter? I've charged you, and the progressives in the ELCA, of putting God to a Foolish Test by abusing His grace and insisting that same-sex relationships be sanctioned by the church. I'm not using the Law uttered by Paul, or Leviticus, or any of the other verses you find so outdated, misunderstood and otherwise detrimental to the purity of your hermeneutic. I am using the Law uttered by Christ.

Feeling that you are trusting in a false Christ, Peter, by urging others to join you in an antinomian leap of faith, is the use of this Law by me, its purpose meant to push you and others to see the true Christ, Lutheran? Or am I just trying to use the Law to suit my legalistic, bigoted and biblicist bias?

Henry,

There is no dichotomy underlying my argument. As much as I wish it were down to only the "conservative" scholastic hermeneutics vs the Gospel, there are other Gospels that similarly don't measure up. Liberal Biblicism and antinomian/universalism are two other options that don't measure up with the Christ-centered hermeutic. Antinomians reject that the Law accuses them of sin and/or that they are condemned by it. I think the Law does accuse (and ultimately condemn) us of sin, but the sin we must answer for is unbelief. For antinomians (and from some of your comments, it seems you agree), unbelief isn't all that big a deal, but I've never stated that. I would say that those Gospel passages you cited do accuse us of that very sin of unbelief and make it clear that unbelief is no small matter.

Thus, I'm not entirely clear what dilemma you think there is. Or do you hold that there is no salvation in Christ's death and resurrection? I'm also not clear on exactly how sanctioning same-sex relationships is putting a "Foolish Test" to God nor how we could possibly go about abusing God's grace in general. Maybe you have another Gospel, but the Gospel directly addresses God's grace. It is His to give, not ours, and the promise we have regarding grace is that God will give us His grace not because we've done anything at all to earn it (in fact, all we've done is damn ourselves), but because, out of mercy for us, Christ took our sin upon Himself, died, and was raised from the dead.

And where there arise other Gospels, the Law may help, but what will be more helpful, I think, is to lay these Gospels side-by-side so that we can see which one is grounded in Christ. The Judaizing Christians could just as easily have claimed that they were using the Law to push Gentiles to Christ when they insisted that one had to follow the Torah in order to be Christian. They, just like you, thought that they had the Gospel and that the Gospel was strict adherence to Scripture. What did Paul have to say about that in Galatians?

I believe you, Peter, when you express astonishment as to how God's Grace could ever be abused so that God would be put to a Foolish Test. Your Christo-centric approach, as was championed by Johann Agricola in Luther's day and is rampant within ELCA today, sounds too darned reasonable. Why use the Law, which leads to legalism, when we have the Gospel? And when a dispute arises, we'll just lay out each other's Gospels, as you suggest, and choose whichever one seems to us to be more loving, caring, and, you know, in line with the "Gospel". Cause despite our fallen nature, I'm confident we know what God's will is. Besides, he's promised to send his angels to guard over us, lest we dash our feet against a stone.

But this method, as well as the Task Force's Report and Recommendation, is simply putting Christ back on trial. Dissatisfied with a Christ who does not fit their image of the Messiah, the membership is being urged to reject that undeserved grace freely given to a repentant homosexual in favor of a grace which can be held up as the unrepentant homosexual's guaranteed entitlement. We free Barabbas and crucify the law in our hearts, cause we've arrogantly determined that the homosexual, found guiltless from our new hermeneutic, deserves God's "grace" just as much as we do! Then, when it is all over, the ELCA leadership can wash their hands of the entire affair, pat themselves on the back and declare that at least the masses voted their conscience! And oh, those words from that book of Jude? That doesn't apply here. . .those words were culture-specific.

But the spiritual reality which is conveniently ignored by so many in this dispute is that the faith of the repentant homosexual, who because of the mirror of the Law has come to know his need for Christ, and has placed his trust in the redemptive blood of this Christ for his salvation, is being undermined by a new, false Gospel, which tells the homosexual that his former faith was not only foolhardy, but a fraud.


P.S. I was taught that Paul's words in Galations are culture-specific, so they don't apply to me.

I didn't say pick the most "loving, caring, etc". My measures are those laid out at the beginning of Article IV of the Book of Concord. I propose we pick the one that best fits those. (and while you're welcome to call Article IV culture-specific, your hermeneutic cannot be called Lutheran if it doesn't fit that). That hermeneutic lays out sin as lack of faith. If you can demonstrate that homosexuality is, in fact, lack of faith, it's a sin. And the homosexual is still condemned under this hermeneutic... just not for being created homosexual. What is your hermeneutic and how does it differ from the scholasticism that the Catholics did and do preach? (do you agree with Son of WMC that Catholicism is the one, true way?) If the Bible is just a rulebook, then you need to answer charges that you don't have the rules quite right. Instead of crying foul over my charges of legalism, can you show how those charges do not hold?

The reason the spiritual reality you speak about isn't something that is talked about here is because I generally agree with you. The only difference is that homosexuality does not need to be a sin for any of that to hold. This is not an abandonment of the Law... there is still sin, and it still condemns us all (and of a much more serious charge!). This Christ-grounded hermeneutic is not that of Agricola. There's still more than enough condemnation to go around. You're not spared from it. I'm not spared from it. The homosexual is not spared from it. Law's mission: accomplished.

So your gospel reductionism has morphed into Book of Concord reductionism, I see.

Well, let's look at the faith of the homosexual, as you propose. And I will even grant you, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is entirely a created condition given by God to some and not to others.

Let's imagine a person, so afflicted, now reaches an age that they understand that they are "different" from others in terms of their sexual urges. Having been raised in a non-antinomian home, they, of course, have been wrongly taught that homosexuality is a "sin". The conscience, so burdened by such indoctrination, is now terrified, and quite angry! For out of no apparent fault of their own, they are being told by God that they, in their homosexual condition, are sinners, and in need of repentance for the sin of their condition for which they had no choice! What homosexual in their right mind would have faith in such a God? In order to remain a Christian and love God, as they have been taught, and believe that God loves them through Christ, the struggle for faith is rather difficult, to say the least. Is repentance an option? And for what offense?

Let's see, is there anywhere in Holy Scripture where someone's faith has been sorely tested by God? Why yes, in the Book of Job. Here's a guy who had every reason to curse God for what happened to him. Yet he didn't. Nevertheless, in the end God still declares Job guilty. How's that? Guilty of what?

Job had the audacity to say that he was innocent and that God was guilty: A pride that accuses God of being unrighteous. Any other place in Scripture where this is addressed? How about Romans 9, where it says God's sovereignty supercedes even our notions of salvation? How about Romans 1, where God, in seeming contradiction to his will to have all men saved, gives people up?

Do you not see, Peter, how this same pride and insistance in one's innocence is also in the heart of the homosexual? And do you not see that the circumstances homosexuals find themselves in are not all that unique, as you presume, but are exactly the same as ours? We have all, at one time or another, declared Him to be unfair and demanded that He answer for something we didn't understand, rather than let His Law crush our pride! We all have had the audacity to say to the Potter, why did you make me this way?

But in your mind, the situation for the homosexual is unique and one that is not shared by heterosexuals. It is special, you reason, in that God didn't think about this situation when he allowed Paul to deliver his hate speech on homosexuality to the church and have it recorded in Scripture. You have come to the conclusion that those words will be a hindrance to God's grace, and the faith of the homosexual.

You are uncomfortable with God's sovereignty, and so you feel it your duty to give the Gospel some assistance through your Gospel reductionist hermeneutic. That way, these culture-specific words of Law can be eliminated! Otherwise, how will the homosexual ever believe?

Today, homosexuals have their modern-day "friends of Job" who through misguided love have come to their aid. Rather than allow for one's pride to be crushed by God's Law, so that repentance of homosexuality and true belief in Christ reign in the heart of the homosexual, he is deceived into believing a new Gospel that allows one to engage in one's desired behaviors, keep pride intact, and demand that God's promises through Christ apply to him too, cause, hey, he deserves it. Other words of Law can remain to convict, but not the one against homosexuality! Besides, this belief system does not contradict Article IV!

But this faith is not the same as the faith of the repentant homosexuality. Cause pride remains, albeit hidden. A deep-seated hate and resentment lingers, not against the God of their imaginations whom they presume to love, mind you, but against people. To God and the Church, they declare themselves to be innocent victims, not sinners.

And so accusations of legalism, biblicism, scholasticism, homophobia, and exclusiveness continue as the hate, harbored in the ever-hardening heart, continues to convict, behind all the smiles and reassurances.

Such is the new counterfeit faith that you, and the Task Force's Report and Recommendation, encourage. Of course, those words of warning against false teachers don't apply here. . .

Henry,

The problem with considering the "faith of the homosexual" in the homosexuality-is-sin model is that you don't see the actual double-standard that is applied. The church currently ordains unrepentant sinners. (Or are you going to try to argue that pastors successfully repent of all of their sins? That sounds like they're earning their way into heaven) To remove or block someone from the roster, or lay or youth ministry on account of their homosexuality is to selectively apply the Law to them, because you're not throwing out all of the other unrepentant sinners running things on account of their sins. It's not about calling homosexuals innocent so much as calling everyone else so that makes it a double-standard. This is the exegetical teeter-totter Luther warns us against. As to pride, I don't think there would be any more pride in the homosexual's heart if you didn't call it a sin than there would be pride in a heterosexual's heart. As you say, we all have reason to hate God, and adding homosexuality is hardly necessary. Even if homosexuality is not a sin, the homosexual is still crushed by the weight of the lack of trust in Christ.

As the homosexual is condemned either way, my concern is more for the faith of those who preach an other Gospel-- one that is Gospel plus-- and the church that places its trust in an other Gospel. I think the verse you quoted about what happens to those who make the little ones stumbles is very pertinent here. We could even toss in some "Woe to the Pharisees" in here, too.

Before I get into this "counterfeit faith", I'm curious: Do you really believe that God arbitrarily condemns people through no fault of their own? Are we in the hands of a whimsical God who just listed the first 100 things to come to mind as sin? That the rhyme and reason behind what is and is not sin is only known (or can only be known) to God? I thought that in order for the Law to effectively accuse us, we need to be able to understand that Law. I also think that we've actually earned God's condemnation, that it doesn't require an arbitrary list to ensure we're all condemned. Unbelief as sin solves both of these problems handily. It's easily understood, and it gets us all. Job's sin is that he wants an accounting from God. He doesn't trust God. Sinner condemned. But note that it's not the result of a disconnect between God's Law and creation (if homosexuality is created by God, it is good... see Genesis 1), but it's about unpleasant things happening to him.

So back to your "counterfeit faith". Resenting other people is still a sin against God for which one should be repentant. That's going to exist no matter what the church's position is. "How do I love my neighbor?" is always going to be a pertinent question. Telling them that homosexuality is not a sin does nothing to change that question. I think there's a close parallel with bigotry (note that I'm not accusing you of bigotry here-- I think that if you saw homosexuality as not a sin, you would not hold it against them). Christ makes it very clear we should love those who make bigoted remarks about us, regardless of whether the church says those are 'ok' or not.

And while the hate of which you speak is something we must guard against, there's not always malice in the use of some of these smear words. I don't think you're accusing me of antinomianism out of malice or because you dislike my views. I'm not accusing you (or the others) of legalism, biblicism or scholasticism out of malice or because I dislike your views. We're using these words because we think they describe the arguments that have been put forth. They're all bad because they mean "other Gospel".

You and I hold mutually exclusive Gospels. Any way it gets sliced, one of us is condemned for proclaiming a false Gospel and the other is condemned for failing to teach the true Gospel. I think the easiest way to sort this out is to lay out just what our Gospels are. Mine is that God promises to everyone that He will forgive our sin and grant us eternal life not through any of our works, but on account of His Christ, Jesus, who, although he knew no sin, took on our sin, died, and for that reason was resurrected from the dead. Faith in Christ alone and only follows logically from this: only, in that our works or striving to follow the Law will not save us. Alone because if we do not trust God's promise, we don't reap any benefit. The church is called to follow Christ; spreading this promise to everyone comes from that.

Peter, you have absolutely, positively hit the nail on the head! We are in total agreement on something!

Indeed, a huge double standard would exist within the ELCA if it were to use the homosexuality-is-sin model (your term). And why is this? It is simply because the ELCA has, over the years, abdicated its duty given to it by Christ: That is, to preach the Law of repentance in its Gospel (Gospel in the broad sense of the term, i.e. "Law and Gospel"). It'll preach it in the narrow sense, but that is about it. And this is because it has adopted an historcical critical, Gospel reductionist heremeneutic and rejected what it views is a Biblicist hermeneutic.

As Pastor Hinlicky states so well in his blog this past April, it's not about homosexuality--really! It's about what the church is, and is not! The ELCA long ago threw away one of the Keys given to the church by Christ: The one that Christ gave to his church to withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant, as long as they do not repent. WordAlone, CORE, LC3 and other such groups are still hopeful they will find that key someday, but I'm not sure they ever really had it to begin with.

The antinomianism of the ELCA goes way back. In 1994, the ELCA accidentally revealed its hand in the 2nd Human Sexuality Working Draft when it stated,"This church’s ‘Confession of Faith’ begins with the Gospel, instead of the sequence implied in the phrase ‘Law and Gospel’. . ." This stuff masquerades as Lutheran, and continues to do so today.

I suspect that it is this potential of a double standard, which you have so astutely referenced, that is the real stumbling block for anyone advocating same-sex approval by the church! We cannot be hypocrites! No Sirree!

But guess what. No double standard would exist if the ELCA had been faithful to its calling in the preaching of repentance!

Here is how you and the ELCA Task Force differ, Peter. You still retain something akin to a conscience, cause you correctly understand that there are two mutually exclusive "Gospels" at play here. And their coexistence in one church under the umbrella of "unity" would simply be schizophrenic! Unlike the psychopathic ELCA, which allows the new "Gospel" to create mischief and destroy the law within its heart, you understand the seriousness of these divergent Gospels and the spiritual consequences that exist for their respective adherents.

And so, if one of our Gospels is heretical and damning, then the faith of the homosexual and the heterosexual in the ELCA, as you say, is of extreme and utmost importance!

So, when the ELCA homosexual, or heterosexual, communicant approaches the communion rail in the ELCA, each with a divergent understanding of "Gospel" within their heart, which one goes away forgiven and justified, Peter? Both? Cause, they both will believe they are justified under such a solution that the ELCA proposes.

Unless you are able to judge the heart, I'm afraid no simple sorting out of truth can be accomplished by your Gospel comparison proposal. But this might work: ". . . continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:14-16

And so these words of Luther somehow seem eerily appropriate to our situation in the ELCA, “. . .what enormities that man must be compelled unknowingly to broach, who undertakes a bad cause. And what it is to run against divine things and truths, when, in mere compliance with others and against our conscience, we put on an act to please others. It is neither a game nor jest, to undertake to teach sacred truths and godliness: for it is very easy to fall here, as James says, 'He who offends in one point is guilty of all.' (James 2). So it is when we are disposed to trifle, to the least degree, and not hold sacred Scripture in due reverence. We are soon involved in impieties and overwhelmed with blasphemies, as it has happened to you, Erasmus. May God have mercy on you!”

Henry,

In your communion rail scenario, are you arguing that for grace to apply to a person, they must have a correct and complete understanding of the full meaning of the Gospel? Can anyone really, in their heart of hearts, honestly lay claim to such an understanding prior to actually seeing our Lord face to face? And even if so, isn't that justification through our own merit?

Something from Augsburg that seems applicable:

Article IV Of Justification
Our churches by common consent...teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.


Still really enjoying the discussion, thanks for all the contributions.

Jeremiah,

In my communion rail scenario, where both the penitent and impenitent expect forgiveness, (and apparently receive it, according to the majority members of the ELCA Task Force), I do not feel that grace is dispensed mechanically or 'ex opere operato', as is championed by many.

But I do hold that the Law, which is also a divine Word used by the Holy Spirit, is required in a preparatory way in order to work contrition, without which there can be no saving faith. But it does not then follow that faith makes the means of grace effective. Faith is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, instruction is not to be disparaged and the Law should not be withheld, as is commonly done, supposedly as a way to avoid it becoming a "work".

In my church's by-laws, not long ago, they voted to get rid of the word "repentance" as a requirement for communion, cause repentance was viewed as a condition on unconditional love. It was argued that we needed to be more "inclusive".

As for your reference to Justification in Article IV,(and chapters 3 and 4 of Romans, referenced therein), this is good. But, let me suggest starting with Romans 1 and then reading the rest of the Confessions as well.

Henry,

From my perspective, it seems that the position you're advocating has a lot in common with the way the Old Testament describes God's action. Knowledge of one's misdeeds, rejection of those ways, and adhering to the Law was the path to reconciliation with God even then. Reference 2 Kings 22, Beginning of Jeremiah 36, and Jonah 3 for a few examples.

If reconciliation with and adherence to the law is still a necessary part of the restoration of the broken God/human relationship, I'm curious as to what you see as the significance of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. If such behavior could rehabilitate our relationship with God without Jesus in the picture, why do we claim that he's so important?

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your position, feel free to clarify.

Are you saying, Jeremiah, that since Christ came and offers us his free gift of salvation, that we are no longer sinners in this world? Does the Gospel destroy the Law, including the Law in our hearts? Or if you agree that we are still sinners, how will we know it if the Law no longer applies?

Johann Agricola, the antinomian, accused Luther of turning his theology of Grace back into a theology of Law. Luther's discovery was that the Law works as a mirror and has a salutary function to drive people to utter despair, even of themselves, so that Christ is the only way out.

I am not saying that in order for there to be forgiveness, there must be remorse, which would be a kind of legalism. But the Law as a mirror continues to drive us to Christ through daily repentance. Eliminate this Law, as is happening today in the ELCA, and you will adulterate the gospel. The law in the heart, which remains, will still operate, but now it will do so without any divine guidance and will grab hold of some sort of pietism or egotism as a replacement. As a result, gospel will no longer be gospel and sinners will no longer be sinners, but innocent victims. And people will approach the Christ of their own imaginations, Christ the Enabler, rather than Christ the Redeemer.

The Lutheran Confessions state: "In order that both doctrines, Law and Gospel, may not be mingled together and confused (so that what belongs to one doctrine is ascribed to the other), it is necessary to urge and to maintain with all diligence the true and proper distinction between Law and Gospel. This careful distinction is made to avoid anything that might give occasion for a confusion between them by which the two doctrines would be tangled together and made into one doctrine. Such a confusion would easily darken the merits and benefits of Christ, [and] once more make the Gospel a teaching of the Law . . ." (Lutheran Confessions - Solid Declaration, Article V. 24, 26 - 27).

It might be worthwhile for you to read, "Against the Antinomians," by Luther as well as Walther's, "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel".

Henry, I agree with your paragraph here:

"I am not saying that in order for there to be forgiveness, there must be remorse, which would be a kind of legalism. But the Law as a mirror continues to drive us to Christ through daily repentance. Eliminate this Law, as is happening today in the ELCA, and you will adulterate the gospel. The law in the heart, which remains, will still operate, but now it will do so without any divine guidance and will grab hold of some sort of pietism or egotism as a replacement. As a result, gospel will no longer be gospel and sinners will no longer be sinners, but innocent victims. And people will approach the Christ of their own imaginations, Christ the Enabler, rather than Christ the Redeemer."

Absolutely, Law is necessary to act as that mirror into our own sin. It's why the confession/absolution is so important - we need to be constantly reminded that Christ is necessary.

However, it seems to me that this conflicts with what you wrote here:

"In my communion rail scenario, where both the penitent and impenitent expect forgiveness, (and apparently receive it, according to the majority members of the ELCA Task Force), I do not feel that grace is dispensed mechanically or 'ex opere operato', as is championed by many."

This also seems to contradict directly with both Luther's explanation of the Sacrament of the Altar in the Small Catechism and with Article VII of the Formula of Concord.

From the SC: "How can eating and Drinking do such a great thing? Answer: Eating and Drinking certainly do not do it, but rather the words that are recorded: 'given for you' and 'shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.' these words, when accompanied by the physical eating and drinking, are the essential thing in the sacrament, and whoever believes these very words has what they declare and state, namely, 'forgiveness of sins.'"

From FoC article VII: "We believe, teach, and confess that the entire worthiness of the guests at the table of his heavenly meal is and consists alone in the most holy obedience and perfect merit of Christ. We make his obedience and merit our own through true faith, concerning which we receive through the sacrament. Worthiness consists in no way in our our own virtues, or in internal or external preparations."

These points are reflected in the Use of the Means of Grace, Principle 42: "Forms of preparation for Holy Communion focus the community of faith both on the breadth of creation's need for redemption and the depth of God's redemptive actions. Such forms of preparation are recommended, but not required, for that person 'is worthy and well prepared who believes these words, 'for you' and 'for the forgiveness of sins.'"

Am I incorrect in my understanding of the situation?

Jeremiah,

I am not sure that I understand where you feel the two paragraphs I wrote are in conflict or where they contradict each other. But what I was attempting to convey in my communion rail scenario is that the ELCA, as evidenced by the Task Force's Report and Recommendation, seems unable or unwilling to apply that key which was given to the church by Christ to retain the sins of the impenitent when they refuse to repent. Therefore, because the ELCA wishes to use only that one key which forgives upon both the penitent and the impenitent, supposedly for the sake of unity, it abrogates Christ's command.

Two homosexuals, each with divergent faiths regarding whether God approves or disapproves of their homosexuality. One repents of what he feels is sin, the other sees no sin, and so does not repent. Both receive "absolution" from the church. Which one is justified?

Because the ELCA statement is agnostic here, it is content to allow everyone to just believe whatever they want, and Salvation has become relativized!

I believe this is because of a growing antinomianism and/or universalism within the ELCA, where instruction in communion and the Law are disparaged in favor of a grace that is given not to sinners anymore, but to victims. And this grace is conveyed upon the communicant, "ex opere operato," without faith or the heart. It is as if the church wishes to pronounce absolution without confession so as not to offend anyone. Kind of a guilt-free, no-fault religion. As such, a type of "indulgence" seems to have re-emerged as a substitute for the true Sacrament.

But back to what I think you are asking. The benefits of communion (absolution) are not conveyed upon the unrepentant sinner because he does not accept the forgiveness offered him; for he does not believe in his absolution. If he believed the Holy Spirit, he would repent! He may say or imagine that he accepts forgiveness, but his heart is resolved to continue the sinful life. It is a false security. In fact, Paul tells us that these unworthy communicants eat and drink damnation unto themselves.

Solid Declaration: But such persons receive them to condemnation, as St. Paul says; for they misuse the holy Sacrament, because they receive it without true repentance and without faith.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession: For he says, 1 Cor. 11:27: Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, sins not merely against the bread and wine, not merely against the signs or symbols and emblems of the body and blood, but shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which, as there [in the Holy Supper] present, he dishonors, abuses, and disgraces, as the Jews, who in very deed violated the body of Christ and killed Him. . . But it must [also] be carefully explained who are the unworthy guests of this Supper, namely, those who go to this Sacrament without true repentance and sorrow for their sins, and without true faith and the good intention of amending their lives, and by their unworthy oral eating of the body of Christ load themselves with damnation, that is, with temporal and eternal punishments, and become guilty of the body and blood of Christ.

To be sure, the forgiveness of sins are not based on our contrition or worthiness whatsoever. Contrition merits no forgiveness at all. Forgiveness conveyed through the sacrament is valid because of the Word. And our contrition is built upon the Word. But it does not then follow that one needs not be contrite. It just means the efficacy of the keys does not depend on my act of contrition. Our Lord does not forgive or remit sins for my sake but for His own sake, out of pure grace.

Henry,

What about two people at the communion rail who have divergent beliefs regarding whether not being circumcised is a sin against God? Seems to me it's the same example as the homosexuals. Or you could invent all sorts of sins that you stand in need of repentence for. Are you wearing polyester/cotton blends? The criteria for sin comes from the Article IV measuring sticks, one of which is faith in Christ alone and only. By that stick, homosexuality is not a sin.

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” - Martin Luther

Henry,

That's all well and good, but misses the main thrust of my question: how do we determine which behaviors constitute sin? If the Bible is the rulebook, how do you stand on the "little point" of wearing cotton/polyester blends, or all of those other "little points"? It's also far less than clear that the sinfulness of homosexuality is "the truth of God". Repentance of an action "just to be on the safe side" trivializes the depth of true sin. And in this case, where one is "repenting" of his God-given sexuality, he's spurning one of God's gifts, which is sin.

Or, to play the legalist, what about those who earnestly try to repent of those sins they have committed without realizing they are sins? That sinner knows with sorrow, etc, that they have failed God so much so that they do not even understand the extent to which they have failed, but still trust Christ's promise of forgiveness for those sins. Seems a mechanism whereby the "homosexual who isn't repentent of his homosexuality" could still receive absolution even if the church is not teaching that.

Peter, I have a confession to make. Well, let's say yesterday it would have been a "confession" . . . but today it is a "celebration". I used to be a closeted polyamorist. I once thought that my polyamorous thoughts, drives and impulses were a sin against the 6th Commandment.

But in no small thanks to you, I have also discovered that my former confessions are actually damnable, because I failed to see my polyamory as a "gift". My former confessions were sinful because I was spurning my Maker.

Your Gospel has saved me from the torments of hell!

Now that I'm out, I must celebrate my God-given sexuality by becoming a polygamist, so as to not spurn God further and earn damnation for my former sin of "repentance".

Just think of all the past polyamorists throughout history who lived a life of celebacy or monogamy and are now languishing in hell because they spurned God's gift of polygamy with their false Christianity!

Speaking of false Christianity, shouldn't one of us tell the ELCA leaderships and Task Force that their message of non-repentance for homosexuality is incomplete and a false Christianity if it does not also call for the "repentant" homosexual to repent of their repentance?

Peter, I have a confession to make. Well, let's say yesterday it would have been a "confession" . . . but today it is a "celebration". I used to be a closeted polyamorist. I once thought that my polyamorous thoughts, drives and impulses were a sin against the 6th Commandment.

But in no small thanks to you, I have also discovered that my former confessions are actually damnable, because I failed to see my polyamory as a "gift". My former confessions were sinful because I was spurning my Maker.

Your Gospel has saved me from the torments of hell!

Now that I'm out, I must celebrate my God-given sexuality by becoming a polygamist, so as to not spurn God further and earn damnation for my former sin of "repentance".

Just think of all the past polyamorists throughout history who lived a life of celebacy or monogamy and are now languishing in hell because they spurned God's gift of polygamy with their false Christianity!

Speaking of false Christianity, shouldn't one of us tell the ELCA leaderships and Task Force that their message of non-repentance for homosexuality is incomplete and a false Christianity if it does not also call for the "repentant" homosexual to repent of their repentance?

Henry,

Jacob was a polygamist. In fact, winning his second wife is portrayed to his credit, not as a sin. So unless you're saying that he (and the other ancient polygamists) are damned for that, it's hard to support polygamy = burning in hell. Given that, does it mean we should all look for polyamorous relationships? Of course not. We've got to judge the presence of sin in any relationship by our measuring sticks-- do these relationships strengthen faith in Christ and the spreading of the Gospel, or do these relationships destroy faith or lead one away from Christ? My bet is that in most polyamory settings the people fail to provide the level of care, love and support that goes with a healthy sexual relationship, and that is the sin there. Or when they get so obsessed with sex and pleasure that they lose sight of the Gospel.

But this shouldn't be too much of a surprise, as the Reformers themselves tried to de-church marriage. It belongs in God's left-hand along with the other civil institutions that change over time.

Peter,

If I understand you correctly, polyamory and polygamy should be acceptable in the ELCA and not considered to be a sin as long these relationships meet the Article IV metric. That is, they are God-approved as long as they do not destroy the faith or lead one from Christ. Is this correct?

Halleluah! I think I have this gift.

As long as my partners and I are consensually agreeable, can I also go to Seminary and become an ordained pastor in the ELCA?

Henry,

The measuring sticks are such that any question of "is behavior X ok, so long as it fits the measuring sticks?" should be answered in the affirmative. However, if you choose behaviors that are inherently incompatible with those measuring sticks, you'll end up with a nonsensical question. (Can God create a rock so large that He cannot lift it?) The key condition is "fits those measuring sticks". In practice, I highly doubt such relationships would pass either test. Most people I know have a hard enough time trying to live up to those measuring sticks when they're only married to one person. I also think certain restraints on one's time and resources would prevent one from showing the expected degree of trust, love and support to more than one person. There's also problems with playing favorites (which Jacob is just as guilty of). And it would be terribly easy for such a relationship to fall into casual sex, which is a lack of care, love and trust in both your partner and Christ. So while theoretically, I think it's in the realm of possibility that polygamy or polyamory could fit the measuring sticks, I also don't think it's very likely. Sufficiently unlikely that I'm not planning on crusading for the ELCA to start sanctioning polygamy any time in the foreseeable future.

I think you still have this perception that trusting Christ is easy. In a way it is simple enough that anybody can "get it", but we all still manage to screw it up every day of our lives. This metric is no easier than your understanding of the Law, and failure to trust Christ is every bit as dire as you understand the consequences of sin to be. The really big difference is that I rely on Christ's authority (which is what Article IV is all about) while you're ascribing His authority to your interpretation of a collection of texts written over 1500 years ago by various sinners. I don't dispute that the collection of texts has authority, but only insofar as it comes from Christ. The parts that sinners have screwed up does not have authority. We know which parts have been "screwed up" by bouncing them off our Authority, which is Christ. We're also not the only audiences of those texts. First and foremost, they addressed real problems specific to their time and culture. As the times and culture has changed, we need to be really careful about applying the superficial solutions (do this, don't do that) to our time and culture. The way we can do this is by bouncing it off Christ. If connection to Christ still leads to the same solution, it's a good idea. If not, it's no longer good. This is what Paul realized in regards to circumcision and Jewish law, and Luther realized in regards to Catholicism. Today we need to understand that sexual orientation is not something by itself that distracts us from Christ.

What is it with you and your theology, Peter? When we began this discussion over a month ago, you promoted a Gospel that trumps Law and advocated a faith in Christ alone as the only valid measuring stick by which we can determine what is sin and what isn’t sin and the way to salvation. You described such a faith as difficult and went so far as to condemn those who oppose homosexuality as committing a spiritually damnable offense because of their unfaith.

I tried to point out how your gospel reductionist attempts to collapse everything into the doctrine of justification (Article IV) relativizes sin and renders “faith in Christ” as subjective. I defended the Law, along with the other articles of the Lutheranism Confessions. In so doing was accused of Biblicism, legalism, revelationism, Gospel-plusism, turning Christ into Moses, trying to set myself up in God’s place, gainsaying and spurning God’s ordinances, denying the Gospel, worshipping the Bible rather than Christ, having a faith that was merely head knowledge, denying Christ’s authority, and Judaizing Christianity.

Suddenly, when I adopt your faith in Christ, Article IV, cultural-specific, minimalist hermeneutic to advocate polygamy, I get qualifiers, footnotes, addendums, and doublespeak from you. Rather than live and die by your metric, you have changed the rules by lacing your measuring stick with opinion, doubt and uncertainty as to what is sin and what isn’t.

How is it that you so easily maintain the validity of faith for the homosexual, yet at the same time deny the validity of faith for the polygamist? One can only describe your Gospel as being nothing but arbitrary and subjective.

What is your Gospel, other than another form of legalism, where a certain level care, love, and trust must be also added by the believer in order for their faith to be salvific? And what I am I to make of your not-so-easy faith which is no longer a free gift, but one which must labor to be righteous, contradicting Article IV?

You comingle Law and Gospel, Justification and Sanctification, and throw salvation back onto some relativistic metric which you call “Christ’s authority”, which basically means whatever one wants it to mean.

Despite your reluctance to crusade for polygamy within the ELCA, Peter, your theology does not only this, but much, much more. . . . So it is with gospel reductionist antinomians. As much as they profess faith in Christ, they turn Christ into Moses and become twice the legalist as those they condemn.

Henry,

I am still standing by my measuring sticks. What I said about polygamy was how I believed that it failed to hold up to those measuring sticks. Homosexuality yet passes those measuring sticks in the same manner heterosexuality passes them. Polygamy has additional factors, mainly the multiple partners end and how one can faithfully serve that many people at once.

This is also not a new legalism, as these measuring sticks don't prescribe any specific action. Rather, it's "walking with the Spirit" or "loving your neighbor", which are described as fruits of the faith, not requirements to prove faith. Conversely, there are actions that reflect a lack of faith, and these are proscribed, along with everything else that results in a lack of faith. However, the reason for this proscription is that these actions have the root cause of "not trusting Christ". The penalty for these proscribed actions is damnation. We are guilty of these actions in our lives, and hence are damned. It takes Christ, not us, to bridge that gap and offer forgiveness to us sinners. We're given new life in Christ, and we promptly squander it again and again. That's what Luther is talking about with his "sinner-saints". There's nothing arbitrary about the Gospel I propose-- I believe it is the same one Paul and Luther preached. It's just that you can't use the scholastic lens for reading the Bible, nor can you take "the Bible says so" as sufficient reason for something-- it needs to be grounded in Christ.

What actually is Gospel reductionism? It seems to me that there is one Gospel, and that Gospel is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. Article 4 handles justification, so any reductionism must be from "Gospel plus" to just "Gospel". But, Article 28 may shed some light on the role of ecclesiastic laws as well:

"The Apostles commanded Acts (15:20) to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is."

Laws are relative, the Gospel is not, and the Law/Promise lens is our tool for seeing that.

Henry,

I am still standing by my measuring sticks. What I said about polygamy was how I believed that it failed to hold up to those measuring sticks. Homosexuality yet passes those measuring sticks in the same manner heterosexuality passes them. Polygamy has additional factors, mainly the multiple partners end and how one can faithfully serve that many people at once.

This is also not a new legalism, as these measuring sticks don't prescribe any specific action. Rather, it's "walking with the Spirit" or "loving your neighbor", which are described as fruits of the faith, not requirements to prove faith. Conversely, there are actions that reflect a lack of faith, and these are proscribed, along with everything else that results in a lack of faith. However, the reason for this proscription is that these actions have the root cause of "not trusting Christ". The penalty for these proscribed actions is damnation. We are guilty of these actions in our lives, and hence are damned. It takes Christ, not us, to bridge that gap and offer forgiveness to us sinners. We're given new life in Christ, and we promptly squander it again and again. That's what Luther is talking about with his "sinner-saints". There's nothing arbitrary about the Gospel I propose-- I believe it is the same one Paul and Luther preached. It's just that you can't use the scholastic lens for reading the Bible, nor can you take "the Bible says so" as sufficient reason for something-- it needs to be grounded in Christ.

What actually is Gospel reductionism? It seems to me that there is one Gospel, and that Gospel is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. Article 4 handles justification, so any reductionism must be from "Gospel plus" to just "Gospel". But, Article 28 may shed some light on the role of ecclesiastic laws as well:

"The Apostles commanded Acts (15:20) to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is."

Laws are relative, the Gospel is not, and the Law/Promise lens is our tool for seeing that.

Peter,

Your claim that Paul, Luther and the apostles also set up a hermeneutic of "either Gospel or Scripture, one or the other" system such as yours is simply false! They started with Scripture, which then led them to the Gospel. The early Christians and the Reformers read Romans 1-2 first, prior to Romans 3-4, not the other way around. It was Scripture that led the Eunuch, with Philip's guidance, to Christ. The Gospel as seen by Paul, Luther and the apostles, permeates the entire Scriptures and does not make Scripture, or Law, serve any sub-Christian, Gospel-plus, function whatsoever.

Trying to excise God's Law revealed in Scripture is a nice thought. Wouldn't it be nice to have just a simple "Faith in Christ" authority to judge everything by? But this system always forgets about the law in the heart, which remains.

Without an objective Law of Scripture guiding and correcting our conscience, the ego is simply allowed to operate carte blanche, and quickly becomes misguided by some emotion-laden notion of justice. This ends up spoiling your "Gospel alone" scheme, cause that Law in the heart, along with sin, is unavoidable.

And so, if one reads your "Gospel", you always give it a law function, as I have noted above. Law is subsumed into your Gospel, cause it always contains such legal concepts, such as how to know if something is sin or not, "how to love your neighbor" or "how to walk in the spirit".

But this is not Gospel, but Law. Your Gospel is simply a co-mingling of Law and Gospel and the Gospel has been turned into Law. . . something the early Reformers fought desperately to avoid.

It is here that grace is always abused with your approach. You use the "Gospel" to criticize and blast away all that is central to Christian teachings, something that is foreign to the Gospel's function.

Neither is the Law written upon the heart immune to such assaults. With both the objective written Law and the conscience neatly disposed of, this Gospel can now be interpreted any way it darn well pleases. It is no longer grace, the gift, but grace, the hammer: a coup-de-grace. It is a grace that is no longer "free, for all" but an antinomian "free-for-all"!

The interpreter of your "Gospel", the ego, is now the real Lord of the church. And this Gospel, so reduced to its simplistic minimum, which tries to eliminate everything "not Gospel," is no longer any Gospel at all! It is just subjective, feel-good rubbish.

Today homosexuality passes our subjectively arranged interpretation of Article IV measuring sticks, and polygamy fails. Tomorrow, who knows? We can't demand that future generations adhere to the cultural mores of the early 21st century! How unChristian!

I believe your hermenteutic is simply a thinly-veiled hate for authority which you feel is stifling the Holy Spirit and is detrimental to the church. This assault on Scripture and the expulsion of the Holy Spirit, which is active there-in, in favor of your gospel, renders truth simply an existential, subjective experience.

We're now left with our ego-led, ego-driven gospel experience, which you have conveniently labeled Christ's authority. Scripture-led authority is now the evil that must be expelled in the church, in your view. But, unwittingly, there goes the Holy Spirit with it!

But without a theology where God's righteousness and holiness is confirmed in the Law and a Christ who derives His authority from Scripture, your Gospel can never be criticized by anyone at anytime.

As a result, nothing is really objective and authoritative as everything becomes relative. . . including your "Gospel"! And your saying that "Gospel" is not relative does not make it so, despite your authoritative claims! What we are left with, as the ELCA's recent actions so clearly demonstrate, is salvation by survey!

Henry,

Christ often flatly contradicted Scripture (working on Saturdays, visiting, speaking and touching unclean women, etc), and whenever he was challenged by the religious authorities, he took Scriptural language that normally applied to God and applied it to Himself. That's Christ placing Scripture as subservient to Himself. Paul picked up on this, and that's what Galatians and Romans are trying to explain. The entire purpose of Scripture is Christ, and his coming meant a totally new understanding of Scripture. That Scripture is still very important, but its authority is derivative. Remember that it wasn't Scripture that brought the Eunuch to Christ, but Philip's explanation. In fact, the Eunuch even says that he can't understand Scripture without the right lens, which Philip provides.

As to subjectivity, this hermeneutic is no more subjective than scholasticism. If anything, I'd say that it's less so, as we have one eternal center for our faith that doesn't change as the cultures and laws do. Scripture cannot provide "objective law" as it's always colored by the hermeneutics you use. Beyond that, it's also susceptible to legalism, and since we're operating through imperfect translations, errors of translation as well. Many do construct 'homosexuality is no sin' arguments grounded in only Scripture, instead of grounded in Christ.

What makes grounding in Christ not relative is that it is a metric that surpasses all cultures. We don't need any culture-specific understanding to understand faith in Christ. For all of the rules recorded in Scripture, a culture-specific understanding is essential. I'm also not clear on why you're worried that in the future the Gospel will not be reliant on 21st-century mores, especially given the state the ELCA and other church bodies are in. How important do you think our culture-specific rules and regulations are for the Gospel? Faith in Christ is also not open to whatever the ego desires, as any behavior must be grounded in that faith for it to be ok. As to not being able to criticize the Gospel, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you think something does run counter to the Gospel, you can certainly make your criticisms based on that. And for comparing Gospels, what else should we use besides Article IV? And if we're using something else, don't we cease to be Lutheran?

Nor is this an attempt to destroy all authority, rather, it's an acknowledgement that all authority belongs to Christ, not us or any body we set up. Any authority we wield is entirely derivative from Christ. But this hermeneutic is going to threaten those who set something else up as authority in place of Christ. That's why the Catholics couldn't tolerate this hermeneutic. And why the LCMS couldn't tolerate it back in the 1970's.

I don't think the historical critical method or what you call Gospel reductionism is to blame for the ELCA's problem. I think it's universalism, pure and simple, and neither historical critical methodology or "Gospel reductionism" automatically lead to that. The ELCA has lost sight of the fact that it is the Law's condemnation that necessitates Christ.

However, I have not been arguing from the "we're hypocrites if we don't permit homosexual relationships" standpoint, or even the liberal Biblicist "homosexual relationships aren't actually condemned in the Bible", but my argument derives from Christ's authority. Sin, at its root, is lack of trust in Christ's redemptive death and resurrection, and any sinful behavior must have that as its underlying, root cause. I don't think you can do that for homosexuality. Lack of reverence for God's creation and God's decisions (similar to the example of Job), however, easily has lack of trust in Christ as its underpinning. Calling homosexuality a sin tries to put us in God's place, and shows a lack of reverence for both our Creator and His decisions, which means the church cannot condone that condemnation of same-sex relationships. That leaves it with supporting same-sex relationships to the same degree that it supports hetero relationships.

I do think comparing Gospels side-by-side will help even without knowing individual's hearts. We should be able to get the message we're supposed to preach straight. And that starts with the Gospel. I do agree that having multiple gospels in the ELCA (and in Lutheranism world-wide for that matter) is a serious problem.

However, I don't think purging the other gospels from the ELCA (or LWF) can be done successfully overnight short of casting out everyone who holds an other gospel. Alternatively, if the ELCA ever did have the chutzpah to lay out the Gospel, most of the universalists and the biblicists would probably quit. Neither way solves the problem, though, since the true Gospel needs to be spread to the universalists and biblicists, and that becomes a lot harder once they're out. I see the compromise (ie the resolutions attached to the sexuality statement), while not ideal, as at least allowing those with the true Gospel to preach it, and providing time to bring the true Gospel to those who cling to other gospels. Although the theology in the sexuality statement is sorely wanting, nevertheless they've managed to stumble towards the correct decision on this matter, and with Christ's help, the ELCA will get there. Just as in Luther's day, the Gospel needs to be spread to those who already think they have it. And we're the ones tasked with that job, so we need to get that Gospel straight, and work hard to make sure they hear it.

The passage from Timothy is useful, but also supports my measuring sticks (aka Article IV) for Gospel. The key line is "which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." That's faith alone. Historical criticism also rears its head here, in that when Timothy was written (120-130 AD), the NT wasn't yet Scripture (it was "the things which you have learned and been assured of"). By "All Scripture" he means the OT, including those parts which Christ and Paul overturned and those parts that Luther called Juden-Sachsenspeigel. We can learn from it, but it cannot be our measuring stick for sin. To do so would be to disagree with Christ, Paul, Luther, and say that Christ's death is irrelevant. Scripture can be profitable, as he says, but only when we read it in light of Christ's death and resurrection. That means this passage does not uphold using the Bible as our rulebook. And in order to contest that, you're back to the problem of hermeneutics. Can you lay out a hermeneutic that marks homosexuality a sin while simultaneously upholding Christ's, Paul's and Luther's decisions on what were not sins?

Somehow, Peter, you have become enamored with the notion of God's good creation. But, would you not agree that because of our fallen nature, our conscience, including that of the homosexual, is constantly trying to get us to flee from God's judgment?

You see homosexuality as the actualization of a God-given goodness: physicality fulfilling its normal biological/psychological duty. You see the sin of the Church as inhibiting that expression of God's good creation. So, to refuse to allow for homosexuality is to go against God's holy ordinances, and the Gospel (in an narrow sense of the term). You see prohibiting it as a lack of trust in Christ.

You further assume that all is well with the homosexual, in Christ, once this simple misunderstanding has been corrected through proper hermeneutics. You reason that since Paul, Luther, and Christ purged the church of "Laws" (illegitimate burdens upon the conscience) that we are obliged to do get rid of a few too. (And, curiously, this abolitionist movement has a rather convenient benefit. The Laws we intend to get rid of just happen to be those Laws that forbid us to do the things that we enjoy. . .What a coincidence!)

I see homosexuality as simply an acting out of one's spritual rebellion against the Law within the heart and God's Word of Law. I see the sin of the homosexual as being a continued flight from God, expressed, of course, in their sexuality. I see the sin of the Church as enabling this continued flight from God through a false Gospel, because it refuses to trust in the true Gospel (in a wide sense of the term, i.e. "Law and Gospel".)

I contend that we are all in a spiritual battle: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood or human enemies, but against principalities and powers, the rulers of darkness of this wicked world and all their followers.” Ephesians 6:12

So the proof you seek is best seen through one's fruits. Give homosexuals your Gospel, and they'll "Praise the Lord" until the cows come home.

But give them first the Law, including the Word directed against their homosexuality, then the sweet Gospel, and watch how this "Praise" is suddenly withheld, while pearls get trampled underfoot. . .

Except, of course, for that lost sheep who suddenly hears the voice of the Master, comes to his senses, and believes in Christ the Redeemer. He may not have his demons abolished entirely in his lifetime, as he may desire, but he can have the courage to say to those held captive to a homosexual lifestyle, "Do you not fear God? We are guilty and deserving of our punishment, but this man has done nothing wrong. Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

Peter,

You said, "Sin, at its root, is lack of trust in Christ's redemptive death and resurrection, and any sinful behavior must have that as its underlying, root cause. I don't think you can do that for homosexuality. Lack of reverence for God's creation and God's decisions (similar to the example of Job), however, easily has lack of trust in Christ as its underpinning. Calling homosexuality a sin tries to put us in God's place..." You have also equated "gospel" with "the promises of God through Christ".

Now read Romans 1:1-6 (which is about as detailed a definition of the "gospel" as we are likely to find in Scripture). Paul says, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended frm David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God withpower according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship TO BRING ABOUT THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH AMONG ALL THE GENTILES for the sake of his name..."

Now you might take the phrase "obedience of faith" and suggest that it has only to do with trusting the promises of Christ. But like a wise pastor once taught me, trust is more. He said its like the high wire artist who asked a bystander if he believed that the high wire artist could ride a bicycle with rims for wheels across a wire stretched over a block or more of New York City. The bystander said he believed the artist could do it. The artist said, "Do you really believe I can do it?" The bystander said, "Yes". "Well then," said the highwire artist, "get on my back and I will pedal you across the high wire to the other side."

In our case, trusting the promises of Christ coincides with living a new life in Christ, a life he gives us, a life he calls us to live.

Now the same Paul who wrote about the obedience of faith also writes, "...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth...Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another...They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die - yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them..." (Rom. 1:18, 24-27a, 32)

Even the Apostle Paul who vociferously argues for salvation by grace through faith clearly says there are many things (including the practicing of the homosexual lifestyle), unrepented of will forfeit the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. To call my quoting of this "Biblicism" is to suggest that I take everything in Scripture literally, for that is the definition of Biblicism. I know the difference between a parable, an allegory, and literal speaking. Here Paul is speaking in a literal manner. I defy anyone to show me otherwise with proof.

The charge of "Biblicism" that has come against me and others is tinged with the idea that there is no authority to Scripture, or at least not to the parts advocates of same gender unions and ordaining persons involved in the same don't agree with. That is the suppression of the truth Paul talks about above. Traditional Lutheranism has advocated "Sola Scriptura", the authority of the Scirptures, all of the Scriptures in the way each portion of the Scriptures teaches and not in a Biblicist sort of way. Peter, you depart from this, so you charging others with abandoning their Lutheranism is beyond amazing.

My argument is that with the dawn of Sola Scriptura came anti-clericalism and an anti-magisterial movement (under the guise of the priesthood of all believers that Biblically defined does not make every person their own Bible interpreter much less their own Pope - given what it says in I Peter 1:20 that, "...no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation...") that took away the very authority Jesus delegated to the Apostles and their successors to interpret Scripture and teach doctrine that holds consistently from one century to the next, and only develops from that which was already present in the time of Jesus (like the Creed which formally amalgamates the doctrine of the Trinity from what had always been in place through Scripture and tradition related to each of the persons of the Trinity being divine and holding this together with the Old Testament proclamation that the Lord our God is one). No one, and certainly not the Holy Spirit is free to contradict what has been clearly put down by God.

Furthermore the practice of homosexual behaviors (not being homosexual) is a lack of trust in the promises of Christ and a rejection of his authority. Jesus established his Church, and he gave authority to oversee his Church to the Apostles, including to the Apostle Paul who teaches what I quoted above and which has been widely identified as Scripture and the Word of God for 2,000 years. To practice such behaviors also endangers the neighbor, in this case the partner who is also led to believe wrongly that homosexual behavior is not a sin and therefore not that which breaks the personal relationshp with God. It further endangers other neighbors in society who take from this example and learn to believe the same falsehood, endangering their own salvation.

Now, what authority can you truly point to that says the opposite. Luther doesn't count. He arrogated authority to himself to change teachings that he had no authority to change. If you say the Holy Spirit, as I said before, the Spirit doesn't contradict himself, and surely it was he speaking through the Apostle Paul above. If you say Jesus Christ, then you deny the Trinity because the Spirit only speaks what he hears from the Father and the Son, and given what the Spirit spoke through Paul, we must assume that it has the imprimatur of God the Father and Christ the Son. There is absolutely no authority for what you advocate here, period.

It's quite possible more rationalizations to the contrary will be offered but the above says enough. I'm not going to spend any more time on this thread, because if the truth isn't obvious here, then no greater amount of my saying it will convince you or open your eyes.

God have mercy on us all.

Peter,

Add to my previous post this word from Jesus at the end of Matthew's Gospel (28:18-20a):

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and TEACHING THEM TO OBEY EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU..."

This quote doesn't deny grace nor faith, but it does emphasize the necessity of obedience!

Henry,

I'm not assuming all will be well for the homosexual once the church corrects this misunderstanding. Saying that homosexuality is not a sin is not the same as saying they're not sinners, or that they've got a one way ticket to heaven. They're under the exact same Law we are, and it still condemns them as sinners.

I think you are right that the fruits will shed light on this issue. So let's consider the fruits of what the church wants to permit. You have two people who are committed to each other for all the days of their life, loving each other, and helping each other stand fast in their faith. Together they persevere against demons one alone could not. We're talking about people who have been committed to each other in some cases for 20+ years. Their entire relationship nurtures, supports and strengthens their faith. Their homosexuality does not reflect a spiritual flight from God, but rather one TO Christ.

It's certainly possible to see a spiritual flight from God in one's sexuality, hetero or homo. One night stands, promiscuity, cheating on one's spouse, rape... there are plenty of sexual acts that do reflect a spiritual flight from God, and there are ways a homosexual can abuse his sexuality much as a hetero might. Thing is, there are ways that a homosexual's sexuality can help him proclaim the Gospel and trust Christ, without denying it.

And note that abolishing this law doesn't "just happen to be those Laws that forbid us to do the things that we enjoy". It's not about an unrestrained homosexual orgy. It's about sex in the context of a marriage. You seem to see telling homosexuals that homosexuality is not a sin as a blank check for them to run rampant. But that's really not the case at all. How is it functionally different than allowing priests to marry?

We are in a spiritual battle, and while we're reliant on Christ for victory, other people can help us rely on Him. The most important person to do that is our spouse. By denying a homosexual that help, the church is pushing a homosexual from Christ, not to Christ.

Son of WMC,

If you're going to slot homosexuality as a sin into the authority of the church, that falls under the "bound in earth, bound in heaven, loosed on earth, loosed in heaven", which means as soon as the church says it's no longer a sin, it isn't. And you can't take any earthly authority as absolute because of sin, which means Paul can be wrong. Divine inspiration, human editing. Or what about those parts of the OT that Christ (and Paul) said no longer apply? Wasn't the Holy Spirit inspiring those, too? And you failed to answer my question about dating Christ's birth.

Scripture does have authority, but that authority does not derive from itself, but rather it's reliant on God and Christ. When you take Scripture as authority over Christ, or as a rulebook telling you exactly what to do, how to believe (which is the same as putting it over Christ) that's when you read the Bible as a Biblicist. Much like trusting Christ isn't just stating "I trust you, Jesus", Biblicism is more than just reading the Bible literally or openly worshiping the Bible. You need to read the Bible through the lens of faith in Christ, which is the Lutheran hermeneutic.

PS Christ himself doesn't say anything about homosexuality. That's all Paul and the OT.

Well, I've got to hand it to you, Peter. You sure are committed to your Gospel. And you certainly have painted a quaint image of the committed "Christian" same-sex couple, which should go a long way toward promoting your cause.

Your Gospel comparison strategy is in place so that you, and others who think as you do, can judge that which is sound doctrine and which is false. And you've got the ELCA Task Force on your side, hopefully giving you the precious time you need to proselytize others and convert those who have yet to come out so that they, too, can self-actualize their God-given rights and express their love for God, all with the blessings of the church.

But, as you say, you have a lot of work to do getting rid of all those false Gospels out there. . .

Wish I could say "peace" or "good luck" or "see you in the hereafter". But I think you understand why I cannot.

Henry,

If every change is "of the world", what room is there for the Spirit to work today? While many of the ELCA's changes have been "of the world", have they all? Really? Have women pastors helped spread the Gospel or hindered it? Please, meet with Christian homosexual couples and get to know them. Not from a proclaiming Law or Gospel point of view, or even as a test of your faith (and how do you know that it isn't a call to your repentance and new life in Christ? If it comes down to stubbornly holding fast to your view of faith in the face of all evidence presented, how do you know that isn't pride? Aren't you closing off any chance for God to speak in your heart? Isn't that ignoring God the Critic telling you when you're wrong? And if God only agrees with your view of the world, what do you need Him for? How do you "grow in faith"? Isn't that what Article IV, and our grounding in Christ alone and only, is for?).

But anyways, please get to know some homosexual couples and just see if there is any truth in my "quaint" description of how homosexual couples can live a married life and the fruit that life bears. Because if there is truth in it, it doesn't mean your faith is in vain (or even that universalism is the only way nor do we even need to concede that the ELCA is 100% right). It just means God plays a different game than you thought, and it really isn't that much of a different game. There are a few important differences, like centering in Christ instead of church or Bible, but there's still Law and there's still Gospel. There's still right and wrong, repentance and forgiveness. Heaven and hell.

God's peace be with you, and I think despite our differences, we share the common prayer that the Spirit grant us both guidance.

Peter, I do not in the least dismiss or diminish the sincerity of women pastors or homosexual couples who think they are spreading the Gospel. We all want God's grace, through Christ. But His grace which justifies us is not justice, but mercy. And as long as the woman pastors, same-sex couples, or people sitting in pew see themselves as not guilty, they have been deceived, and the grace they seek, and promote, is His Justice, not His Mercy.

Henry,

How do you think women pastors and same-sex couples see themselves as less guilty than the married male pastor? I don't understand why you think certain groups feel owed God's grace. Do you think the woman pastor or the homosexual needs to repent more than the married male pastor? It seems to me that the same Law that brings you and I low brings them down, too. While there may be a trend in the ELCA to forget that we are all guilty under the Law, if we're all guilty under the Law, we're on equal footing.

Peter,

"If you're going to slot homosexuality as a sin into the authority of the church, that falls under the "bound in earth, bound in heaven, loosed on earth, loosed in heaven", which means as soon as the church says it's no longer a sin, it isn't."

- I stand corrected, now the ELCA is the Church and the rest of our brothers and sisters in Christ don't count for anything. Funny thing, I don't remember the ELCA being around when the cannon of Scripture was decided. Nor is it clear that the ELCA's authority is from Christ.


"And you can't take any earthly authority as absolute because of sin, which means Paul can be wrong."

- Again, I stand corrected. Now it is plain to me that sin is greater than God's power to communicate fully to humankind what he intends. Also I need to find my pair of scissors and cut out that section of my Bible John 15:12-14 because Jesus obviously can be wrong too "(Jesus speaking) I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, beccause he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

And of course I will need to also cut out the reference in I Timothy 3:15 which states, "...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bullwark of the truth." I will cut these out because now I see that truth is relative, it can change - in fact there is no way really to know the truth for sure so as it appears everything is up for grabs. In fact, if the ELCA voted tomorrow that Jesus isn't the Messiah, that too would be true under the bind and loose understanding you, Peter, have opened my eyes to. So much for the authority of Christ that you espouse - it has evaporated. By it we are dead in our sins and completely lost. 'Nuff said.

Son of WMC,

I don't try to slot homosexuality into Christ via the church's authority. My point is that if you do, the church (which I didn't say had to be the ELCA, for the purpose of this point it could just as easily be the Catholic church) has the power to change it. If the church cannot change it, you can't slot homosexuality into the church's authority. And if you need more evidence that the Catholic church has also overturned its share of "Apostolic authority", what about 1 Timothy 3:2 "a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." or 3:4 where it talks about his children? How does the Catholic church justify forbidding marriage among priests in light of that? Married to Church/Christ clearly doesn't cut it.

Also, we have to be careful with statements like: "Now it is plain to me that sin is greater than God's power to communicate fully to humankind what he intends". Sin is lack of faith and opposition to God, so that does manage a pretty good job of severing us from God. In fact, that's why we're all condemned to hell. Sin isn't greater than God, and that's evident in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. It is greater than the rest of us, though, including those folks who wrote the Bible and run the church. That's why we need to be anchored in only Christ, not Christ and the Bible, nor Christ and the Church. The Trinity is God the Father, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit, not Christ, Church and Bible.

As to the Spirit guiding us into the truth, note that Christ doesn't say it will happen all at once (and is that even a fair description of your own faith life? Every single question, answered in one moment?). Guiding is something one does on a journey to find the way, not something that is done once you know where you're at.

The truth isn't up for grabs, though. We have our authority in Christ, not in a perishable and fallible church, nor in a Bible written by sinners. This is exactly why the Reformers laid out Article IV and why it is the measuring stick Christ used, Paul used and Luther used. Just because someone important to the faith made a miskate, it doesn't mean we have to uphold that mistake. Do we encourage adultery on account of David and Bathsheba? Or drunkenness on account of Noah?

The two main sins that make Catholicism an other gospel are trust in the Bible over Christ (scholasticism/ Biblicism) and trust in the Catholic church over Christ. You cannot serve two masters, so which will it be? Christ or Pope?

Peter,

The Christ I serve established the Church - promising that the gates of hades would not prevail against it; promising that the Holy Spirit would lead his Church into all truth (yes gradually but not inconsistently since truth is always true or it isn't truth); promising that the Church would be the pillar and bullwark of the truth through his Apostle Paul; and who gave the keys of authority uniquely to Peter and his successors (ala Isaiah 22:19-23) and to a lesser degree to the rest of the Apostles and their successors the Bishops. You set up a false choice between Christ or Pope. On the other hand I trust the above promises you reject. One who trusts Christ trusts the Word of God in Scripture since it is from and inspired by the living Word who is Christ our Lord. I don't even know the Christ that you speak of.

Son of WMC,

The problem is that you proclaim a Christ subservient to the Church, where it should be the other way around. Assuming those promises apply to the Catholic church is also a bad assumption-- there's plenty of evidence throughout history-- Crusades, Papal Wars, sale of indulgences, noninvolvement in the Holocaust, etc that the Catholic church has entirely given up any authority it might have had. See, its authority derives from Christ, so the moment it stops following Christ, it loses all of its authority. Still claiming such authority is setting itself up in the place of God.

Also truth is a funny thing. It's a squirrelly thing to pin down. In regards to morals, all we can say about moral imperatives is that they applied to the exact situation for which they were given. Any application beyond that is our interpretation-- hermeneutics. And no matter which side of this discussion you're on, it should be pretty evident that hermeneutics can be fallible. Thus, we need to measure our hermeneutics to ensure that they remain consistent with the Gospel.

You also use a curious choice of words "the Word of God in Scripture"... I certainly agree that the Word of God is IN Scripture. But Scripture is not pure, unadulterated Word of God. It went through sinners and we've screwed it up. What do you think Christ was talking about when he rejected certain Scriptural teachings (don't work on Saturday, etc)? There was a group that told Christ that they didn't recognize the Father He seemed to know, either, specifically because Christ's teachings were contrary to Scripture. We know them today as the Pharisees. Never forget that it was the religious establishment that was supposed to be God's Chosen For Eternity that crucified Christ. It wasn't the Jews, it was "the Church". And the Catholic church is keeping that tradition alive and well today, largely because it insists it knows better than God. The veracity of Christ's promise to keep the body of believers alive is seen in Christianity's continued existance in spite of Catholicism, not because of it.

Peter,

The sins of individuals do not render the promises of Christ null and void, if that were the case there would be no Church anywhere. And I don't know where you get that the Catholic Church wasn't involved in helping people during the Holocaust, you don't know your history. Indulgences were abused but your blanket condemnation of them fails to understand what they are - everybody assumes they are about buying forgiveness and nothing could be further from the truth.

The Church is subservient to Christ, that is why the moral teachings have continued to hold within Catholicism whereas they are changing left and right everywhere else. Why else would Catholicism be so under attack, even from within by many of its own who constantly say "the Church is too strict, you need to keep up with the times, this is the 21st century, etc."? Following the prevalent culture is no substitute for truth. Peter, you do not realize this, and I expect you to deny it, but you have set yourself over Christ by assuming he would favor the change you advocate. There is nothing more to argue about as we will not see eye to eye, that is clear.

The Catholic church is "constantly under attack" precisely because it has lost Christ. That is God's Law at work chastising an errant Church (along with those voices in the Church trying to lead the rest of it to the Gospel, but that's still a call to repentance). But instead of repentance, the Church refuses change. We know what happened to Israel when it did not repent. You also have that bit about "sins of the individual" backwards. Because all are in one body in the church, when one sins, it isn't only on that individual. Instead, when one sins, all are guilty. Even worse, the Church organization itself enables the commission of sins, as it attacks any who dare to question its misappropriation of Christ's authority, places rules and strictures that lead people away from Christ and protects the sins of its members. Insistence on the "good, old ways" is a poor choice when those ways are sin. It's also a poor choice when we have more accurate translations of the Bible and more knowledge of the events surrounding the beginning of Christianity. Refusal to change is pride, and the Church compounds that by priding itself on that pride. This is really the whole argument Christ Himself had with the Pharisees and Saducees... should faith be grounded in the religious institution that claims to be from God, or directly in God?

As to the charge that I set myself over Christ, that is demonstrably false. My insistence has been on two measuring sticks that I did not create nor really have anything to do with me... instead they relate to Christ and the necessity of grounding the Gospel in Him alone and only instead of grounding it in a sinful Church, or a Book written by sinners. Christ calls his sheep by name... He doesn't ask one of the other sheep to do the calling for him or set one above another. His promises regarding church relate entirely to the body of believers (=those with the Gospel), not the corporate organization that grew out of Constantine's Romanization of Christianity.

Peter,

There's no more point in going back and forth, you simply pull things out of thin air. You say you place this all on Christ's authority but then you denigrate his authority by denying his Scriptures, his Church and anything spoken by his Apostles or anyone else duly annointed with the Spirit that has been recognized by Christians as authoritative for 2,000 years. Your Christ is your creation made in your own image. You can have him.

Son of WMC,

What I've denied is your interpretation of the Scriptures and the authority you place in the Catholic church. That's a big difference from denying the Scripture itself, or "anything spoken by his Apostles". Paul has an awful lot to say about Lutheran hermeneutics, as that's where Luther discovered them. And that's also the heart of your sin... you equate Christ with your "2000 years of Tradition" (and duly anointed by the spirit? I think the orthodox might have a different view of that, and their claim to "Apostolic authority" is just as firm, if not more so, than the RC) and "the Church". That makes Christ the same as Moses-- just a law-giver, and not substantially different. New set of laws to obey, but it's still the same system, and that system means death to sinners. But Christ is completely different from Moses-- he redeems sinners out of mercy for them. That's not a law we can follow or something we can do to make ourselves worthy of Christ. We aren't. That's what makes it Good News.

Thank you on your dissenting position. Someone is standing in the gap for the faith and church that I call home. I do however believe it will pass and the evil one has his foot in the door. Now what do I do? I cry for the church that I love and is lost.
thanks again for your stand. My God bless you richly and you give me a bit of hope that God will prevail or give me direction.

Caryl,
Thank you for your heartfelt comment. Let me reassure you: Congregations may be pastored by people teaching the culture and not the Bible ... the ELCA denomination seems to be intent on self-destruction ... but the Church of God throughout the world is doing fine ... God's Spirit sees to that.

If your pastor is not teaching the truth of the Bible, is not humbling himself/herself before the Word of God, then you need to find another congregation. A pastor's job is to teach the Word of God and anyone who is not is leading the congregation astray, intentional or not.

And for anyone who believes the rhetoric of the media as to people being born gay, have you ever actually looked into the research on this matter? There is a recent study out of the Netherlands on identical twins and sexual orientation. One would imagine if homosexuality is purely (or even primarily) genetic that twins who have the identical genetic makeup would have the identical orientation. Surprise! If one of the twins self-identifies as "gay", his identical twin is no more likely to self-identify as gay as anyone else in the culture. How can this be, since as identical twins they would both share the gay gene (if it ever existed!). And no, it's not because the culture is oppressing the second twin from becoming his true self ... you won't find a more gay friendly society in the world than the Netherlands!

And how do people explain the fact that roughly 47% of men who have same sex attraction (ssa) have been sexually molested when they were children by other men? In comparison, 6.5% of heterosexual men reported being molested as children. (Women molested as girls by other women: Those with same sex attraction - 22%; heterosexual women - 1%). In other words, men who have same sex attraction are 7 times more likely to have been molested as boys than their heterosexual counterparts. Women who have same sex attraction are 22 times more likely to have been molested as children than heterosexual women.

I would invite anyone to find a reputable study in the last 10 years that proports to have found a genetic basis for homosexuality. (Although a couple of studies made the claim, they were subsequently tested by other researchers with larger samplings and found to be false.)

Many people struggle with same sex attraction. They have much higher rates of violence, suicide and depression than heterosexuals. All the gay community gives them is "You're born that way. Deal with it." And this is love?

We are learning more and more about reparative therapy. Don't take my word for it. Go to the Narth website and research it yourself.

Long and short of it is, the Bible is correct... once again. Homosexuality is not God's intention. We will continue to speak the truth of God's Word in love, no matter how secular this denomination becomes.

And Caryl, know that your Heavenly Father will never leave you nor forsake you. He will use you in powerful ways, whether in your current congregation or another. Stay close to God ... He'll take care of everything else.

We are opening the door, once you say that active gays can be leaders of the church, the first ELCA church to not hire a gay pastor, will be sued, we are allowing the gay agenda to take over our church, the word of God the bible, tells us this is wrong, but yet we let hollywood and all of the anti church people take over, some act like they believe, but they are out to destroy the foundation of God, why else would they change the voting rules for this, it has always taken 2/3 to pass a new bill within the church, the people who want this know they don't have a 2/3 vote, so by only needing 51%, they probelly stacked the deck in there favor, God help us all if this passes.

Absolutely agreed, Justin. Allowing sinful people to take leadership roles in the church is just another sign that the ELCA has moved away from the Biblical foundations of the Mosaic Covenant. You'd think that they actually hold the book of Galatians to be canonical! God help us all, if we don't put our trust in the Law.

I was bapisted Lutheran and confirmed Lutheran. A member for 57 years. When the ELCA first voted to spend $2,000,000 million to study this issue I left the Lutheran church. I am one of those who you mention who left. I have been a member of the Roman Catholic Church since 2000. My heart is still with the Lutheran Church and I pray the vote comes out to support God's law which has not changed

What was the rationale for welcoming Gentiles into the church? As Peter so eloquently states in Acts 10, It was clear that the Holy Spirit was active in them, and to hold to the Law instead of what God was obviously doing would have been foolish, and left the church in the dust of God's will.

Is the Holy Spirit active in the ministry of women? Without a doubt, I've seen it with my own eyes.
Is the Holy Spirit active in the ministry of active homosexuals? Without a doubt, I've seen it with my own eyes.

We can hem and haw all we like, but at the end of the day, we can choose to follow what God is doing or we can choose to remain behind. As for me and my house, we will serve the LIVING Lord.

Oh, different Peter than the one involved in the discussion earlier, by the way. Don't want to put words in his mouth.

In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus tells of sheep and goats who are separated at the judgment. The sheep are welcomed into eternal life and the goats are sent to eternal punishment. When they ask why one group goes to heaven and one does not they are told that one group, the sheep, visited the sick, fed the hungry, clothed the naked. As a result, they really did those things for Jesus. The other group, the goats, failed to do so and as a result failed to do so for Jesus. What is amazing is that Jesus said to the goats, away from me, I never knew you. Incredibly, these goats called him Lord in the story. They claimed to know who he was, but he denied knowing them.
So what are we to make of this? Is Jesus teaching that we are saved by works? Is he saying that we can earn our way to heaven when other parts of the Bible clearly say otherwise? Is he saying that we can lose our salvation if we don’t do enough good works? The answer is going to be found in understanding the less clear parts of the Bible, in light of the perfectly clear parts. We have to use Scripture to understand Scripture.

This was a quote taken from the website Provacativechristian.wordpress.com. I would not want anyone to think that I am more eloquent than I truly am. I truly don’t even know what the context of the above paragraph is. Weird huh? But the point I am making is simple. Peter the second, speaking above, talks about active ministries of active homosexuals. And I suppose outwardly they can be. But they will be asking, “Lord, when did we…”and they will be told that they He never knew them.

If one does not deny him or herself first, they aren’t doing anything for Christ. Perhaps for themselves and the way they choose to perceive Christ’s mercy but certainly not for Christ. That takes sacrifice, that takes commitment, that takes not having all the answers and yet being content with what is given.

Do you want to argue about women serving in ministry? There are examples of women being favorably shown as leaders. There are examples of gentiles being favorably shown as converts. There are no examples of homosexuals in a positive light. Not one. You simply don’t put that aside because you want to be inclusive or politically correct. You just can’t!

Sincerely, Ralph

Ralph,

Your interpretations of the Gospel are not Lutheran. The Gospel is God's unconditional promise to forgive sinners on account of Christ's death and resurrection. Trusting in that promise is faith, and that alone is our salvation. Double check Article IV. That sets out our Lutheran understanding of justification. And, it doesn't include any conditions other than faith... in fact, it goes so far as to say faith alone and only. Setting any other conditions on the Gospel, such as how you must live, or like you do to with your interpretation that "denying oneself" is DOING certain things, is contrary to that unconditional Gospel promise. There's nothing any of us can do to make ourselves deserving of the Gospel. In fact, that passage in particular is a reminder that it is not even our rules, or those of 500, 1000, 2000 or 4000 years ago that are our center, but Christ and the cross that are our center. If active homosexuals are proclaiming the Gospel, you are denying that very Gospel when you stand in their way of proclaiming it. If the Holy Spirit is active in a ministry, any ministry, that needs to be nurtured and encouraged. Putting extreme conditions (no marriage at all) on that ministry neither nurtures nor encourages.

And to your concern about who the sheep and goats are, Jesus' words according to Matthew 10:32 may shed some light on the matter: "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven." Is acknowledgement works or faith? The Lutheran answer should be very clear.

PS The "1" should help distinguish me from the Peter to whom you were just responding.

Peter, I think it is safe to say that I do understand my chosen faith. Of key importance is the fact that homosexuals are saying that the practice of it (homosexuality) is not a sin. If you wish to consider repentance a work, feel free.

And setting conditions is part of the gospel. You walk in the light, darkness no longer. We will sin, of course, but we are to repent (change direction) and fight the good fight.

I did a poor job of explaining that there are examples of new testament women being considered of equal worth while there are verses that women should submit to men. There are examples in the new testament of Gentiles being counted worthy. This is not true of homosexuals. In no place does it (nt or ot) are homosexuals shown in a positive light. And for myself, I would insist that even what appears outwardly to be good ministry, if not set in place by a true Christian, would still be faulty and likely lead people astray rather than save. Is it your contention that a practicing homosexual would preach against it in a ministry or perhaps (as I think likely) lead potential converts into a false sense of assurity that homosexuality is scripturally sound? …thought not.

Thanks for the response but you do need to work on Luther himself. He said (and I quote) “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature."

Sincerely, Ralph

Ralph,

Deciding what is and is not sin is not the purpose of the church, and only relevant insofar as it is necessary to remind people why we absolutely need Christ. The church's purpose not condemnation, it's redemption. It's the difference between Law and Gospel, and the church is not the tool God uses to carry out His Law. The church's task is spreading the Gospel, which is God's promise to forgive sinners not on their account but on account of Christ. And our universal condemnation means that active homosexual or not, everyone tasked with spreading (lay and ordained) the Gospel is a sinner. By our very nature, sinners are running the church. If we're going to prevent people from spreading the Gospel on account of their sins, there won't be anyone to preach the Gospel.

But even if we do wade into the question of 'what is sin', the answer isn't 'what the Bible (or even Luther) declares sin'. Sin is opposition to God. And given that God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ, denying Christ is sin. And saying a particular rule in the Bible does not hold for us is not denying Christ. Luther made that very clear. The Bible does record rules that a given society had, but those are rules for that given society. These rules are not set in stone, but must be considered with what the perpetual aim of the Gospel is. (Augsburg Confession 28.65). So when these rules conflict with the Gospel, they do not hold for us. Even worse, insisting on them when they are in conflict with the Gospel is a denial of the Gospel. So homosexuality is a sin if and only if you can show that it is contrary to the perpetual aim of the Gospel. And that means grounding it in the Gospel, not the rules of an ancient culture. If you cannot, excluding people on the grounds of that non-sin is contrary to the Gospel.

To Peter1,

Deciding what is sin is everyone’s purpose. I do understand why others found you impossible to deal with. You obviously want to accept that which is not biblical and mean to make it stick by any or all means necessary. Including circular arguments and disagreeing with the bible, the members of the church, and even Luther himself. You do realize that in deciding what is not sin, you ARE deciding what IS sin. Just naming what you want personally not to be, not to be. Altogether the same.

Let’s tear your letter down, practically sentence by sentence to make you realize where you err.

You said: The church's purpose not condemnation, it's redemption.

In a way you are right. But if we allow all, we allow heresy. A pedophile is acceptable who will continue to molest children because he says he is a christian. Though possibly both partners of a homosexual relationship ARE adults, the ramification is the same. You are simply allowing the homosexual to choose that his sin is not sin. Also a function of redemption is being TRULY redeemed, not some little play-act, as you seem to think. You would let sin in and call it okay and redeemed based on nothing, and then not judge because WE can’t judge. Totally circular!

You said: It's the difference between Law and Gospel, and the church is not the tool God uses to carry out His Law.

God uses everything to carry out His law. God allows good and bad governments, good and bad men, good and bad creatures to carry out His purposes. It is God, over everything, makes and determines the circumstances. IF he chooses to make people a certain way, and it is his own word that prevents them from being able to act on that proclivity, then that is HIS business, not ours.

You said: The church's task is spreading the Gospel, which is God's promise to forgive sinners not on their account but on account of Christ.

But that forgiveness IS based on repentance, not some other way around. You seem to think that we choose our terms of salvation and then Christ accepts them.

You said: And our universal condemnation means that active homosexual or not, everyone tasked with spreading (lay and ordained) the Gospel is a sinner.

‘Pretty fancy box you think you’ve set on Christians. They MUST accept this or they are sinners. ACCEPT for the fact that they already ARE sinners. You think that accepting homosexuality is like some acid test? I don’t know about you, But I can’t live one day, one hour without the crushing reality that I am a sinner. But I accept that, not deny it as your homosexual friends do. And if you accept it as sin, you try not to do it, not just accept it as sin and continue in it. Nothing you are saying is making any sense. You do realize that, right?

And it just goes on and on from there. Somehow we are denying Christ as a church if we deny homosexuals. I mean, what DO you think you’re doing? Anything and every unblessed thing is okay in the church you would promulgate? Do you really mean that or will you draw your line after the inclusion of homosexuals? ‘Just curious how far you’d let the sickness spread before it’s enough.

The only other thing that is potentially worthy of comment is from this line where you use Luther to disprove Luther, or at least you think you do. You say that it doesn’t matter what Luther wanted to say concerning homosexuality BUT it does matter what he says about the perpetual nature of the Gospel. ‘Sound pretty silly to me.

Then while you’re at it, explain in anything approaching rational words, how saving people falsely will help them or the church.

I mean to help you in these last words. You seem to be suffering from some mental illness or something. There is something wrong in your feel to me. You seem somewhat genuine but...like crazy. Adding 1 and 3 together to get 94 and not seeing that. I am very sorry for you.

Ralph
Ralph

Ralph,

I'm sorry that I'm not explaining myself clearly. Some Albertans in the ELCIC have also tried to explain the same general idea in the context of their church, and you can find their statement at http://www.webelieveinthegospel.org/2652.html I hope it lays things out more clearly, but I'm still going to try to address your points.

I'll start with Luther, because that's the easiest point: his authority is contingent on the Gospel, which he readily acknowledges. Luther was spot-on about a lot of things, but not everything. His writings on the Jews are probably the best example of where he was wrong. Also, acceptance of the Augsburg Confession is part of what makes us Lutheran.

I also need to comment on your statement about how God uses everything in carrying out His Law. The church is involved in carrying out God's Law only insofar as it is a secular human institution run by people who are part of the secular world. It's mission, however, is not the left-handed task of Law, but the right-handed task of Gospel.

Let's move to salvation next. That isn't a contract between us and God. It is not "God will forgive us conditional on our repentance". It is "God will forgive sinners." The Gospel promise is about what God has done in Christ, not about what we do. We baptize infants because we are no more able to receive God's promise in baptism than they. When's the last time you heard the infant renounce the devil? He can't, you can't and I can't. Christ comes to us in the midst of our sin. Faith is necessary because the only way the promise can work is if it's trusted. Ceasing to sin, however, is not. It proceeds from faith, but that is downstream of faith. Furthermore, it's not how we please God. We don't please God when we keep an ancient list of rules, even one as well-liked as the 10 Commandments. We please Him when we trust in Christ. Trusting Christ is neither knowing wisdom nor following a set of rules carved in stone. (that "foolishness to Gentiles" and "stumbling block to Jews" Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians). It's also not making the statement 'I trust Christ' and then living in such a manner as to make a lie out of that statement. It is relative, and varies by the circumstances into which each person is placed (sin as lack of trust in Christ is not relative, but how one fails to trust Christ is specific to the exact situation one is in). This is borne out by Paul's lists of gifts of the Spirit and exhortations to abstain from certain behaviors. He's not giving this as a list of rules, but as guidelines... these are behaviors that he, in his time and place, could not reconcile with that freedom that comes from trusting Christ. Yes, it's possible (though I doubt it) that Paul thought homosexuality was completely sinful. However, the witness we receive from the Spirit today is that homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships can live trusting Christ and through that very relationship, nurture faith in Christ. This isn't simply picking some facet of 21st century America that I like and claiming that the Spirit says this isn't a sin. LOOK at the fruits of these relationships... as Christ says in John's Gospel, the branches connected to the True Vine will bear good fruit. That you see can see these 'outwardly signs and ministry' shows you that they are connected to Christ. Consider Christ's answer to John the Baptist: "The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them." (Matthew 11:5). He doesn't simply say, "Yes, I'm God's Messiah".

To your pedophile example, what makes that a sin? Because the Bible says 'don't have sex with children' and/or 'don't rape people'? (would it suddenly be ok if the Bible had neglected to mention this issue?) Or because that's a failure to trust in Christ? What are the fruits of pedophilia?

Let me try to sum up my point. Faith in Christ gives us a new ethos, ie lifestyle, not a new ethics, ie rules by which we are to live. It is up to each of us to Cross that new ethos with our unique life situations. That's not just a rubber stamp on our life situations. When the faithful homosexual does that and remains married to his partner, it isn't our place to call that sin. In the sense that we need to understand how the Gospel applies to our lives, we are sorting out how we're going to live. You might be inclined to call those 'rules'. However, that label moves one away from a Christocentric ethos into a fixed ethic. It also helps one forget that as we grow in faith, we have new understandings of how the Gospel applies to our lives, and that these 'rules' need to change to reflect that. So long as they remain Gospel-grounded, though, they're fine.

Or if this all still seems like 1+3=94, phrase your argument against practicing homosexuals in terms of the Gospel. As in how does disallowing their ordination/marriage follow directly from the Gospel, not the Bible.

To Peter1

To answer then, the final answer which may (or more likely may not) waken you from your delusion. I have lost all patience in reviewing and rereviewing nonsense in order to understand how nonsense is not nonsense. It is not that you aren’t explaining correctly, what you’ve explained is nonsense.

First, I have read the dissertation “On Jews and their lies.” I take it you have not. While more than a trifle anti-Semitic, Luther is correct in his 15th century understanding of God’s chosen people (though) perhaps not their significance in connection with Christians. If he had heard that Jews were claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was not born of a virgin or other heresies to insinuate that Jesus wasn’t the Christ, I’m pretty sure he handled it strongly and correctly. In our PC world, you can’t call a spade a spade.

To reply to your reply, churches aren’t secular. They may at times function as though they were (bad churches, anyhow) but they are nothing if they ARE secular. If I run a church, for example, I MAY be secular when not doing the business of my church, but MUST not be when I am.

I am pretty sure I’ve never heard anything so little Lutheran as the way in which you define salvation. Why do you think repentance isn’t necessary? I don’t care about the gobbledygook about salvation being about what God did through Christ, the point is that the next step, the important step is to invite the Lord into our lives. And (not that it’s much of a repentance) but
we must repent, change directions to live in Christ. If we did no wrong, we wouldn’t NEED salvation.

And as to infant baptism, a Church of Christ pastor has been telling me that that is where all the protestant faiths mess up anyway and that I shouldn’t be a Lutheran if I want salvation. But the correct Lutheran answer is that we are dedicating the parents and godparents to raise the child in a Christian home and we renew that promise in confirmation (affirmation of baptism).

It’s funny that you mention 1st Corinthians. Do you have a copy handy? Try reading 1st Cor 6:9 and following. Paul says gays aint going? Read the whole end of that chapter. It has everything you need to realize how dumb your argument is. I have been saying since the ELCA chose to offer this to a committee, “all I need is two weeks with the NT – NRS version, a six-pack of beer, and two ministers. Oh and what are you going to do about that? Gotta change the words to be something else I guess.

Absolutely NOTHING is relative in the Bible. That is the start of your problem, I think. When you think that nothing means what it says, you have lost your way. Sola scriptura and all that.

You say: (and I gotta quote it) “However, the witness we receive from the Spirit today is that homosexuals in committed, monogamous relationships can live trusting Christ and through that very relationship, nurture faith in Christ…blah, blah, blah. All that you say is WRONG!! Who is judging that the Spirit witnesses anything of the kind? I read your earlier stuff and I get that you think that you’ve met gays who fulfill that but I will tell you that you are absolutely deluded on that point! I have spoken for wearying years on this matter and have never met one homosexual who would serve Christ if he/she must serve celibately. NOT ONE! That’s too much to ask, that’s more than I could bear, …yada yada yada. Would you tell a active murderer that he can do that and be a Christian? Child molester? Anything? AND not only that, but you are going to let them LEAD the worship. I refuse to believe that you are serious!

Again I gotta quote you again!: This isn't simply picking some facet of 21st century America that I like and claiming that the Spirit says this isn't a sin. LOOK at the fruits of these relationships... as Christ says in John's Gospel, the branches connected to the True Vine will bear good fruit. That you see can see these 'outwardly signs and ministry' shows you that they are connected to Christ. Consider Christ's answer to John the Baptist: "The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them." (Matthew 11:5). He doesn't simply say, "Yes, I'm God's Messiah".

What ARE you saying? Gays are curing people? I wouldn’t believe it for a minute but hey, you obviously live in a different neighborhood (Venus, Mars?) than I do. What you are seeing is wrong people bring wrong people to a spiritual dead end. That is the whole point

Oh man, here we are again, Gotta quote: To your pedophile example, what makes that a sin? Because the Bible says 'don't have sex with children' and/or 'don't rape people'? (would it suddenly be ok if the Bible had neglected to mention this issue?) Or because that's a failure to trust in Christ? What are the fruits of pedophilia?

WHAT ARE THE FRUITS OF HOMOSEXUALITY ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? There you are. You just made it impossible to ignore your own senselessness! There are none! Thank you very much. There are no fruits in pedophilia either. That’s why we don’t do it. Remember my first letter? I do. You CAN’T let this happen. (read MUSN’T) But let’s finish this anyway. You haven’t, by the way, made a single point that IS actually valid to this point.

So let me get this straight (pardon the pun), When the faithful homosexual does that and remains married to his partner, it isn't our place to call that sin. But the ELCA allows heterosexuals to divorce. How long will your caveat remain? Hmmm. Then you allow multiple homosexual relationships. ‘kinda dumb.

And no, we don’t get to sort how we are going to live. Christ inhabits us in Spirit and we live his way, not the other way around. ‘Just another way you aren’t Lutheran, Christian, or rational.

You said: Or if this all still seems like 1+3=94, phrase your argument against practicing homosexuals in terms of the Gospel. As in how does disallowing their ordination/marriage follow directly from the Gospel, not the Bible.

Though you haven’t given me anything that I haven’t successfully disputed, I will give you this. You have the quote from 1 Corinthians but that’s only Paul, right? Though he wrote more books in the entire BIBLE than any other author, by the way. That he is the most interpreted and quoted and used for references for our denomination’s beliefs doesn’t matter either I suppose. Let’s review Matthew 19:4-6. Jesus is validating the Old Testament and reaffirming it at once! Add that to His discussion on hypocrites in Matthew 15, verses 7-9. There you have it in one gospel. What are the chances that you will accept reason instead of foolishness?

Ralph

Ralph,

There's exactly one thing necessary for salvation and that is faith in God's promise to forgive sinners solely on account of Christ's death and resurrection. Repentence proceeds directly from that faith, but it is a consequence of, not a requirement for, faith. It's not that we need to change direction in order to live in Christ, but that living in Christ changes our direction. Christ comes to us while we are in sin and to hold that we must repent before Christ will come to us, is to place our justification in our ability/work to repent, not solely in Christ's death and resurrection.

To your concern that you have yet to meet a homosexual who would not be a Christian if they had to be celibate, I have two questions. How many pastors would quit if the ELCA decreed that pastors must leave their spouse and remain celibate in order to serve as pastors? And if you really think those leaving shouldn't have been pastors in the first place, consider what the Reformers had to say about celibacy in the priesthood. I offer a second interpretation to the witness of these homosexuals that they will have no part of a church that requires their celibacy: that is a statement of the Spirit warning the church that it will not last when it builds on the sands of tradition instead of on the rock of Christ.

Which brings us to Matthew 15:7-9. The subject of that discourse is that the church leadership is concerned that Christ's disciples are sinning against tradition by not washing their hands. And this tradition has its roots in Moses, who received the law directly from God Himself. This happens again and again with working on the Sabbath, touching and speaking with unclean women and other conduct of the disciples. If the Old Testament tells us nothing else, it makes it perfectly clear that these behaviors are not just wrong, but sins against God. And Christ's answer is Matthew 15:3: "Why do you transgress against the commandment of God with your tradition?" Having Christ in your heart is NOT simply following tradition, it's living your life with your trust entirely in Him.

Oh, and by Gospel-grounded, I didn't mean you can only quote from the 4Gospels. I meant you had to relate it to the Gospel-- God's promise of redemption through faith alone and only in Christ.

You are wasting my time and your own. You know nothing of the gospel message of Christ, understand nothing of the work of salvation, and realistically understand nothing of this issue.

I think people basically resist sense when they care deeply about issues. They scramble to make scripture fit their circumstance, they say that this must not apply because of (fill in the blank), or they argue the loving god (small g) who lets them do whatever they want.

I think that you are either one of the twenty-seven persons who went with this madness or are someone who too much likes the sound of their own voice (sub typing). Your arguments are nonsense and yet you insist that they have substance.

I stood in front of the presiding bishop a few years years ago and said at that time that it is better for the elca to fold. It is happening before our very eyes. Thanks to him and you.

In disgust and shame for you, Ralph

Ralph,

Dismissing an argument as nonsense because it does not lead to the conclusion you want does not actually make said argument nonsense. So why do you care so deeply about this issue as to resist any sense? What Gospel will you confess when you stand before Christ on Judgment Day?

It's curious that all 27 other people on the task force are assumed to be in full support of the resolution. The other 27 are actually doing what they were supposed to: produce a resolution and leave it for the church to sort out. Those on the yes and no side each produced a dissenting position as well. Maybe it's a sign that it's a good compromise that no one's happy with it. I'm disappointed with it because they don't ground it in the Gospel. This is clear in the resulting wishy-washy 'we'll maybe let some people if they really want it possibly call married homosexuals if we vote 4 more times on it' resolution that is proposed. Had the statement been grounded in the Gospel, it would be much, much stronger and it would be bringing Visions and Expectations into line with the Gospel. But at least the document is stumbling in the right direction.

It is a sad statement indeed, when you think that I am the one not making sense. Take your own challenge if you want. Find one time in the bible, just one, where homosexuality is put into a positive light. Tell me how this can be about anything BUT about being P.C.?

I dismiss nonsense as nonsense, not rational argument as nonsense because I do not understand it or disagree with it. I have easily disproven all that you have said with the least effort. You seem to have this idea that not judging means everything is allowed. How about taking the 1st Corinthians passage and finding how it doesn’t relate? Or the Romans passage. It matters not. Your arguments are nonsense and you should see it without me even having to point it out.

The problem is that the vote will likely go the wrong way, for passage, and will slowly drag the way you want. And with any luck at all, much more than half of the ELCA membership will realize how wrong it is and abandon this wickedness. Then you and your deceived bishop can stumble in all the right new directions you care to.

As I have said, I have little patience for fools. Follow this link and listen to a message by the Reverend James MacDonald.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermon+Series/80
and look for sermon 45-12.


Don’t read, listen. Then understand where you’re heading. Delusion and darkness.

May the Lord help you in your spiritual struggle with evil.

Ralph

I use the "Star Trek" metaphor because those who know what I'm talking about will recognise the Borg (not Marcus Borg) analogy - resistance is futile, you will comply. That is the sense I get from those who are forcing this policy change through.

I too am distressed that only three out of 30 stood up to dissent in the tradition of Martin Luther.

It seems to me that the LC/NA, Goodsoil, etc. crowd aren't concerned that what they are doing could destroy the ELCA as we know it (if it hasn't already), just as long as they get what they want.

I shake my head in dismay at those in the ELCA (mostly higher-ups) who believe that it will just be pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye, the resolutions will pass, we'll all join hands and sing Kum-Ba-Ya, and all will be hunky-dory. It ain't necessarily so.

There is no centre in U.S. Lutheranism any more. The ELCA is going further headlong off a cliff at the end of left field, and the LCMS, WELS, etc. stay on the isolationist right.

I will resist, but is resistance futile? Will we be told "get on board or get out?"

My fellow Christian, should the ELCA ever actually be bold enough to say "get on board or get out" then we should politely and firmly reply, "no". Reform can never come if no one is willing to stay and call for it. We must wait for the Holy Spirit, for whenever our Heavenly Father gives it, its grace causes God's kingdom to come among us. Come quickly, Lord Jesus. Amen!
May the God of all grace keep us and the ELCA in his Word and Spirit.
Pax Vobiscum

...in 2001, when this all started to hit the fan. We lived near Indianapolis, where '01 CWA was held, and so we saw coverage on the local news that perhaps wasn't shown nationally. I was so embarrassed to be a member of the ELCA. Anita Hill and a load of her colleagues were dropping to the street in prayer (?) and being taken away by the Indianapolis Police Department. Others, who wanted V&E ended then and now, were shrieking into the camera in outrage. Bishop Hanson was interviewed on local TV. He should not deceive by making a pretence of impartiality on the issue. It is clear from the interview I saw in 2001 that he wants this.

We tried to talk to our then-pastor about it but were repeatedly stonewalled. Finally, he told us (in a sermon!) basically to get on board or get out. So we did, and we were members of a very good LCMS congregation for about seven years. However, after we moved, a lot of the nasty stuff in the LCMS (i.e.; don't think about attending another Christian church without clearing it with the pastor) kind of soured us on that.

We're now in a very good ELCA congregation, one that used to be LCMS, then AELC (Seminex) and then ELCA. I personally know of one very large ELCA congregation that is preparing to leave if this sexuality nonsense passes at CWA '09. I don't know what our congregation will do, but I do know there are a lot of very orthodox Lutherans in the congregation who are firmly against all this stuff.

The problem is that I am in the SE Michigan Synod, which is one of the most rah-rah, pro-RIC, LC/NA, synods in the country. There is no LCMC, WordAlone or Lutheran CORE representation here to speak of.

My wife and I like our congregation, but we are sick to death of this. We don't want to leave yet again, but we know that if we stay there's going to be serious conflict, because we will not change our beliefs to suit what's currently PC.

As Saints and Soldiers working in the name of the Lord, led by the Holy Spirit and the Word are we really surprized by yet another attack by the evil one on a weak link in our family? The evil on uses what ever it can, people, things, etc..If it were not this issue it would be another. As we face this let us realize that if we look at this as war tactics we would say that we have lost ground in this battle. I would also say that the battle is not lost, that if we put on the whold armor of God and stand firm with passionate prayer, God's Will will be done. I thank the 3 dissenters for their willingness to stand up and be counted. It gave me the courage to write this. Perhaps it will call others to action also.

I am a former ELCA pastor, a graduate of Luther Seminary, who recently joined the Catholic Church. This was a very difficult decision for me to make, yet I did so because I felt the ELCA had lost its scriptural and traditional footing, and because I found the fullness of my Lutheran faith in the universality of Catholic teaching and practice. In short, I came to believe that the Reformation ended long ago, and now it's time to be united as Christians in "one holy, apostolic and catholic faith."
The three dissenting members have admirably expressed the unanimous scriptural and traditional teaching of the Church since the time of Christ. For a small group of Christians in North America in the 21st century (i.e., the ELCA) to spurn that teaching is simple hubris. It is both unfaithful to the global Church today, and to the "cloud of witnesses" who have lived the faith before us, who are very much "voting members" alongside this present generation of believers.
One thing I would mention, though: many of those commenting have argued that "scripture alone" must be our authority. However, is not abundantly clear, especially given the current crisis, that scripture requires faithful interpretation? Both sides of the same-sex argument claim to be interpreting scripture correctly. Furthermore, the Word of God in the Bible is not static, nor is it exhaustive. This is why the Christian Church needs teaching authority--without it, the current problems of relativism will continue and there will be little of what we call "truth" left.
I applaud all of those in every denomination who honour the voices of the Christians that have gone before us, both in scripture and in the tradition of the Church. My hope is that we will find increasing unity. Our actions are intimately tied with the faith we profess--our morality with our intellect. To divorce the two can only result in a vapid, and ultimately meaningless faith.

Sigurd,

You have made the move I suspect I will be making soon. Have you heard of the Coming Home Network? Have you resolved all of the theological issues that stood out prior to conversion for you? I would be curious to know.

I have not seen this issue addressed (but have not read all postings). We are now being thrown the pacifier that "they won't make a congregation call a gay pastor, unless the congregation wants to". Now, as a lifelong Lutheran, I have yet to see a congregation agree on carpet colors, let alone such a divisive issue. We will be struggling at the congregational level every time a Pastor is called. Gay, not gay, will we get two lists? Will congregations vote, or only the call comittee? What a mess! I see only bad times ahead for this wishy washy stance, trying to sell a few more congregations or delegates on the enlightened idea of calling practicing homosexual pastors.
I keep coming back to what one member of our study group (for one of the sexuality studies.....we WILL keep getting them until we "get it right"). This member stated, as much as you may prefer to not picture in your mind the sexual acts of homosexual sex, try to think of God (or Jesus if that is easier to imagine), with his raised hand over them saying "I Bless this activity".


Please, any voting members who may read this, save us from the mass exodus, hemmorage of giving, loss of fellowship with most other Christian Churches, and grieving of the Holy Spirit that passage of these changes will surely bring. I Remain, Still Hopeful I Can Keep on Being an ELCA Lutheran

God bless you and all of us in this difficult time.

I wonder what the odds were for the prophets? To be sure it was only 1 or 2 out of tens of thousands! I think you need to read and heed what they say, just as if they were prophets of old!

You cannot be a Lutheran and be for same sex unions. Martin Luther, himself, defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This makes it pretty clear that this is more about furthering the homosexual agenda rather than following the Bible. God will not be mocked... and neither will I. I have left the ELCA and now play the lottery in the hopes I can win and sue the ELCA to extract my beloved ALC back out of it.

Thanks for the lottery comment.....it gave me a lighter moment in this grim situation. I see only one way for each of us to do something that can change this sad moment for our church at this, the last hours before our "Change of Life Convention".

PRAY, like your life depended on it, because our Lutheran lives are going to be changed forever, should this terrible thing come to pass. Really, get down on your knees and pray, asking God to change hearts (and votes) to uphold biblical and theological truth.

I have spent a good amount of time reading the Lutherans Concerned and Goodsoil web sites (sites devoted to homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons and their supporters). Members have plans to be very present at the Assembly and to fill the halls etc. influencing voters (if there are any neutral voters at this point). They have devoted the last ten years to getting this passed. And I do fear, that while we were busy raising children and earning a living for the past 30 years, homosexuals, lesbians and their supporters were arranging, positioning and planning for this moment. They have never been content to branch out (as historically has been done when groups within churches had a disagreement on doctrine), and form a new church. Why not create a church that would meet their belief that sex outside marriage is just fine (and don't give me the life long mono committed relationship arguement-most couples think they are going to be, but statistics show otherwise)? This would be a church where ordaining those who practice homosexual sex and their suporters can be very comfortable, surrounded by like thinkers.

I am still waiting for God to bop me over the head, or speak from the heavens, that he has changed his mind on this subject. We were so misguided in the past, and now should be pleased that the leaders of the ELCA (the learned ones, aka the arrogant ones) are straightening us out with the truths in scripture that escaped most Christian Churches for the past 2000 years. I feel that we have returned to the stage where ONLY the Educated can tell us what the Bible REALLY means. In Confirmation, we always learned "Go to the scripture", were we foolish thinking that the Bible spoke to us and our hearts individually? We were also taught that God's Plan of Salvation was for all who confessed their sin, and honestly tried to not repeat it (although it would not work to sin more, so that grace might abound). We also learned that this Plan of Salvation was so simple that CHILDREN could understand it (even that we should become like children). I always thought that was because adults would try to think it through and their intellect would get in the way of receiving the free gift of Jesus dying on the cross and taking the punishment we deserved for our sinful ways. We also learned that our daily sin kept Jesus on the cross just a little longer. It was good to resist what might be our natural inclination to sin, but of course, all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

By our lack of doing what God seems to have clearly prohibited, and passing these profound changes to the Lutheran Church, will we be keeping Jesus on the cross a little longer?

Please, I beg of all of you who may read this, PRAY and pray some more. Humble yourselves before God.

Hi Ann,

I'm a gay man in his early 30s. I'm a member of the ELCA. I did not plan on being gay, having been born and raised in a somewhat nominal Christian home but attended church on my own from the time I was about 8 or 9 years old, without the support of my family. I was baptized when I was 10 at my own request and not because my parents wanted me to be. Imagine my shock when I discovered I was attracted to other men. And what the Bible said... *shudder* How could I have allowed this to happen? What on earth did I do wrong? Needless to say, years of prayer and self-loathing ensued.

So, Ann, while the "homosexuals, lesbians and their supporters were arranging, positioning and planning for this moment" I was bouncing in and out of therapy and eventually in and out of church, until finally I stopped all together. This is classic self-fulfilling prophecy, Ann: tell gay and lesbian people they are evil and perverted enough and they will act on and become that very thing, desperately trying to fill that void that only God and the community of God's Beloved can fill.

You are probably sitting there thinking, but it's so simple, just trust God, come back to Jesus, don't give in to that "lifestyle." However, it's not that easy, Ann. It just isn't. If you study sociology you will find these types of behaviors among all oppressed minority groups, not just gay and lesbian people. Telling gay and lesbian people that God loves you as you are but loves you too much to keep you where you are IS good news, but it isn't good news to say that part of that transformation really has little to do with your characted and more to do with your sexual orientation. In other words, "God loves you and will keep you in his grace as long as you don't fall in love with someone of the same sex as you" isn't going to make gay and lesbian knock down the door of the church. I know the Gospel isn't about what *we" want to hear, but the Gospel *will* call gay and lesbian people OUT of their isolation and sexually destructive behaviors and into light and covenant (keeping gay and lesbian people accountable the same as with straight people).

By the way, when you said "and don't give me the life long mono committed relationship arguement-most couples think they are going to be, but statistics show otherwise," straight people aren't much better at it, they just hide it a little better than gay people do. Just goes to show you, every last one of us, whether we are straight or gay, fall short of God's glory and all of us are dependent upon God's grace in Jesus Christ.

And that's all I'm sayin,' because if it weren't for a compassionate ELCA pastor reaching out to me, who knows where I'd be right now (and I don't want to think about that to be perfectly honest).

In God's peace and joy,

RWM

Hi, I wanted to reply although if you read my stuff above, I come off as a heavy-weight against this issue. And I am.

But having said that, there is compassion in the attitude. Did your pastor lead you to believe that homosexuality WASN'T a sin? He or she would have been very wrong to say that. The pastor offered (probably) Christ's compassion which was meet and right. You are God's child.

Let me ask you something. We all know that we have, perhaps, one hundred years on this world. If you had every one of those years and suffered alone sexually speaking, because there was no one without a penis attached for you, is that really too much to ask when you consider FOREVER in heaven? Or hell? And realistically, we know that people don't typically live 100 years. And most people don't have sexual contact with either gender until the mid teens and aren't sexually active until death so it's more like 60 years.

And then take someone like me. I married when I was 31 the first time, she divorced me 4 years later though I don't believe in divorce. I am now married again several months and will turn 50 this year. How much actual sex have I gone without? Do you think that heterosex, because it is allowed, is easier to live without than homosex? You give yourself too little credit. Walking with God is the ONLY important thing, if that means never having sex.

Homosexuality is sin and I wish you God's grace to learn and live that. Homosexuals live too attached to the idea that they can't and shouldn't have to live without.

In grace and peace, Ralph

Well, probably a difference in our theology is that I don't believe that the Christian life is about avoiding hell and Jesus is more than "fire insurance" for me. I do believe in heaven and hell but I am not quick to decide who is going there and who isn't (yes, I know 1 Cor. 6:9 but there are entire volumes that talk about "arsenokoites" and "malakos" etc). And yes, my pastor proclaimed to me that my sexual orientation is not a sin. He would not condone promiscuity, but he would celebrate a loving, committed relationship should I enter into one at some point.

Personally, Ralph, I am not sexually active. I am single, I am unpartnered. I am not dating at this time. However, this is MY choice and for my own reasons, which I believe are honoring to God and to myself. Will I suffer if I never experience a loving relationship again? Probably not. Would I like one someday? You bet. Am I going to tell others they can't? Absolutely not, because just as in innumerable ways you are heterosexual and so much of who you are, how you think, how you respond, how you see the world, stuff that you take for granted every single day stems from your sexual identity (even without you being cognizant of it) so it is for people who are GLBT.

Ralph, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. However, if you REALLY want to understand this beyond being an "issue" (because people are not issues) then I would encourage you to hear the stories of gay and lesbian Christians. Not just be one of the ones who spout the 6 verses in the Bible used against gay and lesbian people, but enter into relationship with them, even if it's uncomfortable and even with the possibility you may never end up reconciling the matter for yourself.

I was reading one of your above posts about not knowing one celibate gay person committed to serving Christ, etc. I actually do know one celibate lesbian who has committed herself in this way because she believes that someone has to be willing to "play by the rules" so to speak in order to effect change from within. So, by two degrees of separation, you do know at least one committed-to-celibacy gay person. And then there's me by default who is celibate but maybe in 10 years I'll be in a relationship, who knows? I'm picky, I tell ya, but check back...

Weeelll, I've turned your replies around and around and am still trying to figure out whether to be insulted or not. In the above debate, if you want to call the homosexual side that, I have explained that I've studied the issue for a long time. It seems like you seem to think that I just need to get out a little more and meet some people.

Biblically, the idea that the bible supports homosexuality is ludicrous and any pastor who would think to defend that position should loose his or her accreditation. It's that serious an issue. That's why I am surprised that your pastor seems so enlightened, meaning nothing but bad.

I have done the research, of course, on arsenokoites and malakos and the argument on context doesn't wash. But then I expect someone who wants to find a way to practice homosexuality to strain scripture to find a way. So I guess that you would say that I do not believe there is such a thing as a gay or lesbian christian. To have the understanding that the scripture solidly condemns homosexuality and to think that it's okay if there was such a thing as a "loving, committed relationship" is insane.

At any rate, I do get that this is about people, not just the issue. Do you think that scripture becomes flexible because someone I like is homosexual? Do you think that I should care more about your feelings (for example) than clear biblical text? My 18 year old daughter claims that she is bisexual and I have a 12 year old that is questioning his gender. Do you think that I should be more ammenable to the idea that scripture is irrelevant and that they can attain heaven with these beliefs? Oh and then I don't usually mention my oldest stepchild (14) is in state custody for the sexual assault of a child and has had homosexual relations. So I understand perversion. Homosexuality doesn't rate high enough on the percentage chart to even be considered an alternative lifestyle. It is a deviancy. And yet I love all of my children.

Now of course if you and I were talking as pastor and congregation member plagued by this problem, I would suggest a Christian counselor or similiar. Someone who understands that this is defeatable and would work from that direction rather than humouring the notion along that this is an acceptable and normal choice.

Anyway, if you wish to discuss the matter, please use your best argument. Please understand that not everyone is not against the issue simply because they are homophobes or unstudied. Or don't know any gay people.

With God's grace, Ralph

I agree that, "if you study sociology you will find these types of behaviors among all oppressed minority groups" but when were gay and lesbians added to the list of "oppressed minority groups." What makes a person homosexual? It's NOT the color of your skin, nor anything remotely close to it. Also, are we to never call anything evil or perverted for fear of alienating someone, and causing them to bounce in and out of therepy. Even if you ARE part of an oppressed minority group, that doesn't automatically make your sin not a sin anymore. We are called to love our neighbor, but loving our neighbor does not mean condoning their sin. Please, RMW, reconsider the idea that there is evil in this world. The devil is clearly at work in peoples minds and has already won so many over, by convincing them that their sin is not a sin, that they were born that way, that those were the cards they were dealt.
What comes next, attraction to animals? It's already out there. Some people were just born that way. Or, what about attraction to children? It's already out there. Some you could say were born with that disposition. Sorry, I tend to get sarcastic. But, seriously, where will you draw the line?
God does answer prayers! And, if you are willing to humbly recognize your sin and ask Him for guidance, He will answer.

As a seminary student, I was quite surprised and amused to read that Martin Luther was at least in some situations supportive of polygamous marriages, too. Hmm. Good luck with that lottery.

Hi, I wasn't really expecting a refutation of anything I said, because I tend to be very direct and confrontational, but I was expecting something since you seemed to think that I didn't know any gay people or people with problems. I at least expected an acknowledgement.

Sorry if I offended.

With grace and peace, Ralph

Why in GOD'S name can the ELCA santify something that is an abonomination to him. Last time I checked that his WORD endures for ever which means to me that it does not change. So why is the ELCA going to do just that? Having said that I'll abide in Paul's letter to the Corinthians and leave the ELCA to those who would twist the WORD of GOD to the ways of this secular society. As in the days of Sodom and Gamora if the LORD get in a smitting mood again I will be else as was Lot.

Ever since the Philadelphia Assembly, it has been an every two year attempt to abrogate certain portions of the Bible. I believe it is time to require the Book of Concord, hand in hand with the Bible, as a mandatory teaching duo in our churches. If we don't understand the teachings of Martin Luther on what it means, and requires, to be a Lutheran, how do we perpetuate belief in the one true God and the teachings from both the Law and the Gospel.

I keep wondering who will police whether those who have been rostered and are in same gender, long term comitted relationships have remained in them? Will they fill out a form each year? Will church members report? Who will act as the long term comittment police? It has been made clear that ONLY those in Lifelong, Committed, Mono, Same Sex Relationships will be rostered. I keep wondering who will decide who is in a short term, non Mono relationship. I would guess that GLBT persons sometimes end up ending a relationship....what then..dating? Will they have to be removed from their Administrative or Pastoral Position? This all seems so poorly thought out to me.....the pell mell rush to satisfy the very politically active GLBT groups and supporters should not be cause for a lack of good order. I have always appreciated the good order of the church in my lifelong journey as a Lutheran.

For those of you who are "church shopping", might I suggest looking to see if there is a Lutheran Free Church in your area. I would miss the liturgy, but I believe that they sincerely try to follow and preach the Word of God.

I do hope these questions will be moot, in the face of a failure of the vote to enact these church splitting measures. I will be too embarassed to continue our ELCA Membership. Our many Christian Friends of many denominations will not understand how we could stay in a church with such devilish teaching, and I would wonder that about myself. (Yes, DEVILISH, sounds harsh, but how much more harsh to not speak the truth in love to the misguided approvers of pastors or other church leaders in homosexual relationships.)

Remember, those sent to the outer darkness (hell) who begged for a chance to go back and warn others. They were denied. I believe there will be a heavy judgement on those who should be warning and teaching all those in unrepentant sin. How can theologians be so arrogant as to un-sin SIN. We all have struggles with our weakness. Have you ever noticed that Satan goes after your weak spots? He does not tempt me with what does not interest me. We are called to resist temptation. If we are honest, we know where our problems are. To say that we must continue in something that is our natural inclination...eating too much, using profanity, gossip etc. would be to deny that God is able to help us in our weakness. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us!

Lastly, I have always felt that if we are not sinners (or excuse some or all of our sin), The Son of God, dying on a cross in terrible agony, suffering for our sins, paying the penalty we deserved was such a terrible waste. And He would have done it just for me, if I was the only person on earth. In my gratitude for this great sacrifice, I want to make every possible effort to live by the rules and commandments that are given to us whether in the Old or New Testaments. (Other Bloggers, please, don't go off into a rant concerning headcoverings, slaves or pork.)

Thank you, Son of God, for your love of your Children!

I'VE READ THE SOCIAL POLICY, DISENTING OPINION, AND IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTIONS - I FIND IT AMAZING THAT THE ECLA BY LAWS REQUIRE A 2/3RDS VOTE ON A IMPORTANT SOCIAL STATEMENT BUT ONLY A MAJORITY ON THE IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTION WHERE THE REAL "CHANGE" TAKES PLACE - THE WORDS "STACKED DECK" COMES TO MIND.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LETTER TO MY PASTOR. IT'S LONG, BUT IT APPROACHES THE ISSUE MORE FROM A SECULAR PERSPECTIVE:


After being surprised by the announcement, this last Sunday, that the ELCA will vote on whether to ordain "practicing" gays as clergy, I felt compelled to outline my "views "of that possible action by the church. Like most people, this is the last thing I would like to be doing this evening; I've had a hard day and I'm extremely tired. But I don't want this decision, made by my church, to pass without speaking up. If you think it will make the slightest difference to the people making this momentous decision, please feel free to pass this e-mail on.

Ordaining Practicing Gays Will Require the Acceptance of Gay Marriage:

It is a clear and irrefutable truth that ordaining "practicing" gay clergy will also require the church to bless and support gay marriage. Obviously, the church cannot sanction two people being sexually involved without permitting them to be married within the church. That, of course, will lead to the promotion of the gay lifestyle as part of church's life and activities.

Promoting the Gay Lifestyle and Marriage - Will Lead to Some People "Choosing" that Lifestyle:

Some people are truly gay as a result of how God made them. And, that is one of the strongest reasons for not condemning anyone who is gay, practicing or not. However, people can choose to be gay. In history, there have been societies that have fully accepted the gay life style with a substantial portion of their population practicing homosexuality. However, is this what God wants for his world? It would appear that both the natural world and the practical world indicate that the preferable lifestyle for a family is to be headed by one mother and one father. The marriage of one woman and one man has also been the western world's model for family life and society for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Could there possibly be "wisdom" in that preference or have all the good people who came before us simply been blinded by pointless bigotry? I believe most children benefit from having both a masculine and a feminine influence in their lives. Unfortunately, promoting homosexuality will lead people, who are not necessarily gay, to experiment with it, and perhaps make a conscious decision to go down that path in their life. Currently, we are having a national debate as to what the proper place for homosexuality is in America. Ordaining practicing gays will, of course, be a step closer to normalizing that lifestyle and equating a gay marriage to a heterosexual marriage. Once that is accepted as "truth," our children will be taught in school that there is no difference between the two and anyone should be able to choose the path they're most comfortable with. Of course, anyone who would finds fault with that "truth," will be labeled a bigot.

Candidates for Seminary are Discriminated on All Kinds of Factors:

Gay candidates are not discriminated because they're gay. As I understand the current policy, adopted not that long ago, a gay person can be ordained as a Lutheran pastor as long as he's committed to the church to the extent that they will not to be a practicing gay. This does not seem to be far from the Catholic's request that priest show the same dedication by not being a practicing heterosexual. I'm sure the church looks at many factors concerning a candidate to determine if they should pursue the ministry: aptitude, dedication, talents, and even age. If it's permissible to discern appropriate candidates by those factors, why shouldn't their commitment and dedication be sought through a pledge to not practice homosexuality?

The Same Arguments Support Polygamy Even Better:

One of my concerns is that once you start "redefining" thousands of years of wisdom and tradition, e.g. one woman and one man make a marriage, there really is no reason to stop. Every argument for approving practicing gay clergy in the name of "justice" can also be made for accepting polygamy. While no world religion has ever promoted homosexuality, Polygamy has been accepted by several. Closest to home, of course, were the Mormons who practiced polygamy in the 19th century. The United States "discriminated" against the polygamist by requiring Utah to outlaw the practice in order to join the Union. In recent media interviews, polygamists have stated their belief that they are in a "loving" and supporting relationship. (By the way, there is no reason that polygamy can't involve one woman with multiple husbands.) As far as nature's verdict/inclination goes, most people would acknowledge that men are naturally polygamist. It is by social norms and personal commitments that they are monogamist. One could easily argue that a many-parent family would even do a better job of raising children.

Society Has a Right and Duty to Define Marriage as One Man and One Woman:

While not likely tomorrow or the day after, the scenario that polygamy becomes legalized in the name of "fairness," clarifies the obvious fact that society has a right and even a duty to define what a marriage is and what the ideal family structure should be. That, of course, does not deny that a gay couple can have a loving and beautiful family with children. However, for the reasons we are all aware of in our daily lives, it is obvious that gay unions should not be put on the same plain with a union of one-man and one-woman and that society and children, in general, benefit from heterosexual commitments.

Open Mindedness is not a "Safe Harbor" from Consequences:

I'm not sure what would drive the clergy, the church, and individuals to promote the homosexual agenda. My guess is a feeling that it is unjust to request that a gay person be asked to deny who they really are. Possibly, it's a question of fairness. While it is right to oppose perceived injustice, there also should be thinking beyond one's feelings. As I tried to explain above, most of us that oppose gay marriage don't do so because of an innate dislike of gay people. We believe, however, there are real consequences to equating homosexuality with heterosexuality. There are also real consequences for determining that society cannot discriminate in this area, e.g., the acceptance of polygamy. I would hope that those who want this change would take a moment and think of what it will mean.


Fiat Through Elitism:

With a national debate going on as to the proper place for homosexuality in American life, why would the ECLA choose, at this time, to enter the fray on the side of approving gay marriage? The current policy of ordaining gays who promise not to practice homosexuality appears completely reasonable - a policy the church had previously accepted not that long ago. The vast majority of Americans are opposed to equating homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage. Yet, the church feels compelled to push the gay agenda further by changing a reasonable policy to one that promotes the practice of homosexuality and gay marriage. There is no doubt in my mind, that if the proposal were put before the rank-and-file members of the church, it would not be accepted. But my guess is that will never happen. It's also amazing that this issue was not discussed with congregations. I can only think of a couple of possible explanations for leaving members out, and none of them are good.

There have been several times in American history when elitism prevailed over common sense with disastrous results. Most notably, in the Supreme Court's decision Roe Vs Wade, five judges decided they knew the moral and social answer to abortion and decided that a woman's right was "unconditional." Since that decision in the early 1970s, millions of children have been murdered. What was the outdated, outrageous Georgia law that was overturned? The overturned state law allowed a woman to have an abortion in the case of incest, rape, or a threat to her life. Which represents true humanity, the Supreme Court's decision (five judges) or the old Georgia law? In any case, my point is that when a few people presume they have the wisdom and insight to speak for a much larger body of people, thereby denying the larger group the opportunity to debate and consider the issue, we've often had very bad decisions with terrible unintended consequences.

The Oddity of Promoting Gay Living - While Accepting the Killing of the Unborn Without Opposition:

I truly find it odd, that the leadership in the ECLA wants to "tackle" the gay issue, but are mute concerning abortion on demand. It really wasn't surprising to learn that one of the country's few abortionist who would conduct late term abortions for any reason was a member of a Lutheran Church. Years ago I looked into issues concerning abortion. I was amazed to learn that one of the two large Lutheran churches, before they merged, had actually passed a social statement declaring that abortion was permissible (it was later rescinded) as long as the couple prayerfully considered the action. One of the things to consider according to the statement was their economic situation. No doubt the congregations were also left out of that discussion and final decision. As a side point, the bottom-line explanation in the statement for accepting abortion, under any circumstance was with respect to "evangelical ethic." I never did find out what those crucial words meant - words that would defend the murder of thousands. So, this oddity, for what ever reason, speaks to me that there is a political agenda behind these stands by the church. I don't believe they are, in fact, scripturally driven.


A Simmering Reduction of Perspective:

Well this is my perspective. I hope you'll consider it, and please pass it on if you think it will help. When these controversies come up, the mainline churches eventually take what I would call the liberal path. From that, I see a continuing reduction of ideas as conservative members leave the churches, like that of a simmering sauce pan, until the only thoughts that are left are the "right" ones.


Sincerely,

Don

To those of us who believed that prayer and supplication would pull the ELCA out of it's tailspin into debautchery, we see now that even an act of God himself is insufficient.

If a tornado touching down outside of the convention center and hitting a nearby church which houses some of the activities doesn't muster any concern, then this was a lost cause for many months or years.

These are my plans:


I will try to save my region of the synod that my church belongs to. I will draft a statement that asks us to leave the ELCA. If that is defeated, I will then travel to all the churches that did seem interested in leaving and immediately begin the search now to find an alternative to the wicked ELCA. I will petition my own local parishes to find a safe haven away from this sickness.

Do any of you doubt that if the sexuality statement that needed a super majority has passed, that the rest will follow? Do any doubt that the overwhelming majority of delegates will walk away feeling proud and of the rest, most will knuckle under because they don't want to seem like bigots or get a presiding bishop mad at them?

I will work within the system until the system fails, then abandon the church that has embraced Satan.

Lord, Jesus, come quickly.

Amen! May God continue to bless you with strength to stand firm on the truth. He created man and woman to perfectly compliment each other. Anyone who tries to change the perfect order that God created is seriously on a selfish path, and really ought to consider their motive.

I hope you will accept prayers from an humble United Methodist pastor who is deeply grieved by the similar struggle within our denomination. I believe this is a universal attack by the "principalities and spiritual forces" that Ephesians 6 instructs us how to win - by putting on the whole armor of God. People are not the enemy - the enemy is the enemy. I believe those of us who reverently fear God are still the majority and that we can move the heart and hand of God by our prayers. II Chron. 7:14. Our evangelical renewal group in Mississippi (which is exploding in numbers since 2 lesbians gave testimony during one of our worship services at the statewide conference)is praying each day at noon CST - for our Bishops and our churches to humble ourselves and follow carefully the true Biblical teachings. I will pray for you each day and for those who are earnestly seeking God in every denomination. I invite you to pray even for a few moments every day at noon for us. May we find ways to reach out in love to those who are tempted, who have been abused or neglected and who are open to the overwhelming healing and mercy of the Lord.

At the South Central Synod Assembly in June, my husband and I were in a vast minority, listening to speakers note that the Bible is "not clear" on matters of homosexuality. I wonder what book they are reading - it's not the same Bible that we have in our home.

God forgive us for our sins and for straying from his Word.

After reading numerous articles today (21 Aug 20009) on a vote by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly, I was sickened to learn this group has failed to follow the word of our Living God. The next 12 to 18 months will be critical for individuals and congregations as they deal with the aftermath of this terrible slippery path the ELCA Assembly has taken us. I pray that a national ground-swell will develop to correct and straighten this very crooked path taken by the Assembly. God help us all!

Three cheers for the three dissenters.
I'm a lifelong member of the Lutheran Church, the son of a Lutheran Minister, and a sinner in dire need of God's Grace.
I agree whole-heartedly with the two recommendations made above.
The issue is not whether there is sin, but that a lifestyle of sin has been consciously chosen, which flies in the face of true repentance.
Thanks to you, Rev. Dr. Scott Suskovic, Rev. Corinne Johnson and Rev. Carol S. Hendrix for speaking out and standing firm in your Faith.
YBIC,
Randy