The Severity of the Scriptural Warnings
When I was studying the Bible in seminary, I was taught a very important lesson: when you come across a passage you don’t like or want to gloss over, that’s exactly the time to start paying attention. Your own personal canon-within-a-canon will all too easily drown out the other voices of Scripture otherwise. Here are some passages I have run across lately that I would personally like to gloss over—and I expect there is a fair number of other people in our church who would like to gloss over them too...
When I was studying the Bible in seminary, I was taught a very important lesson: when you come across a passage you don’t like or want to gloss over, that’s exactly the time to start paying attention. Your own personal canon-within-a-canon will all too easily drown out the other voices of Scripture otherwise.
Here are some passages (cited from the ESV) I have run across lately that I would personally like to gloss over—and I expect there is a fair number of other people in our church who would like to gloss over them too.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.” (I Corinthians 6:9-11)
“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” (Ephesians 5:5)
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” (Hebrews 13:14)
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” (Revelation 22:15)
I read these kind of warnings against sin and its consequences and find myself wondering with the disciples, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus gives the only possible answer: “With humans it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” This of course is the good news, the possibility of God overcoming the impossible problem of our sin.
But this typically Lutheran rebuttal, valid as it is, ignores the context of these severe scriptural warnings. They are warnings to and for believers, those already assured of their salvation in Christ. This is not the first or second use of the law, to use our usual parlance. This is addressed to those already in the community of faith, instructing us that our behavior still has consequences, and dire ones, at that.
In fact, in I Corinthians Paul even implies that on some level sins committed by unbelievers are of little concern to us—for these people are not claiming to be a part of the community of those redeemed by Christ. He says:
“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.” (I Corinthians 5:9-13)
Even further, in Colossians, it is precisely the holy conduct of the believers that enable them to overcome all the infamous earthly divisions of race, ethnicity, class, etc.:
“Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:5-11)
Common among these warnings and exhortations is the commandment to avoid sexual immorality. This encompasses a fairly broad spectrum of vices, though it’s not the only kind of sin to avoid—by no means! In our American consumerist culture in particular, the comparison of covetousness to idolatry is a timely and much-needed rebuke.
Nevertheless, the issue our church is facing in just a month’s time is judging that a matter previously considered to fall under the category of “sexual immorality” is no longer that at all. I have nothing new to contribute to the discussion, which now seems to be at an impasse, as to whether the kind of monogamous, lifelong, same-sex partnerships being proposed fall under these condemnations.
All I would like to say is this. I have yet to hear any acknowledgement of the potential danger involved in saying something formerly considered to be a sin is no longer a sin. The danger is in misleading persons as to the extreme severity of the Scriptures’ warnings against sexual immorality. I don’t know if this is a basic denial of the possibility of real judgment by God, a shallow universalism, a convenient neglect of these awkward texts, or something else entirely. But I have never seen anywhere near the kind of gravity in the face of potential divine judgment that would lead me to take the arguments for same-sex partnerships as serious interpretations of the Scriptures. And this in turn makes me think of another kind of severe warning in James 3:1:
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."
Sin. . .
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved e in the day of the Lord.
Scriptural warnings.
Thank you Sarah
Your posting has been very helpful. I have been using three Study Bibles in attempt learn God’s Word on this subject. Two of them are somewhat helpful, but I am ashamed to admit the “Lutheran Study Bible” has discredited itself because of its white washing this subject.
This is a very trying time for us and sometimes easy to question our faith as we watch the values and identity of the ELCA being led away. I know this is not a joking matter, but as I pray each day for the ELCA I find encouragement is this old joke.
A dust bowl preacher in the 1930’s
started his sermon by saying: “I know most
of you came here this morning to pray for
rain. My question to you is: Where are you’re
umbrellas?”
Lutheran Study Bible
Those at the "top" should take note of one thing on the "slick" pages (p. 1530) of LSB:
"So, what do Lutherans mean by sola scriptura? They mean that "scripture alone" has authority to serve as a source of divine revelation. Not councils. Not popes. NOT CHURCHWIDE ASSEMBLIES. Not bishops or seminary professors. Only the Bible has the authority of divine revelation." (Emphasis mine) Frankly, I'm a little surprised that was included.
The ESV Study Bible is not bad, but on the issues of the sacraments and the Office of the Keys, it is definitely very Calvinist/Zwinglian/Reformed.
I am looking forward to CPH's Lutheran Study Bible on Reformation Day. It is much more "pan-Lutheran," with Lutheran scholars from the U.S. (including a couple of ELCA scholars!), Canada, Germany, Australia, England and elsewhere.
My guess is that Augsburg Fortress' editorial team was heavily influenced by Lutherans Concerned, or didn't want to rock the boat with them.
Personally, I think they should have waited until after CWA to publish the LSB.
Well put, Sarah.
Sarah, You've Hit Upon a Gold-Mine of Scripture Which Dare Not Be Ignored!
I am praying for the ELCA
To all who are reading this: please join me in praying for the ELCA. I serve in the LCMS, and do not want to imply any sort of superiority or make any disparaging comments regarding the ELCA. That is not helpful right now, especially from an "outsider" (though I know that we are really ONE CHURCH).
I serve as Spiritual Director for a pan-Lutheran expression of Cursillo in my state, and there is already rumbling about whether we can continue to hold this renewal weekend with "those ELCA'ers who promote gay sex". I am counseling patience and prayer as we wait for the CWA results and the response of the ELCA congregations that are part of our Cursillo Community. I fully expect that whatever the outcome of the CWA, we will be in a "no-win" situation whatever decision we make about future fellowship.
I share this only to show that the decisions of the ELCA in their CWA impact relationships that are far beyond the ELCA itself.
So, my prayer for the ELCA is that the Assembly will maintain the current V&E document as normative and will return to at least a canonical criticism approach to God's Word.
Pastor Dave
I have long wished for closer ties between us, but with the way our "leadership" has been going, I can see why it hasn't happened.
Please emphasise to your community and colleagues that we are not all like what is going on that makes the news. Except for semi-open communion, and of course female pastors, you could go to some ELCA congregations and not feel too "alien" at all. Mine is one of those.
I don't believe that those who are pushing for V&E to be overturned have taken note (or don't care) what it will do to our ecumenical relationships, especially given that the Presbyterians have now declared that they are not changing their standards. It's just what they want, kind of like tunnel vision as I see it.
Please continue your prayers for us. We have lost our way, but we are not lost.
Sola Fide?
This was indeed a very good article! I have posted many times about the sin/not sin problem, but the supporters of the Task Force recommendations can't or won't go there because that takes away from their making this a question of civil justice.
One thing I noticed in this article was where Sarah pointed to, "...the context of these severe scriptural warnings. They are warnings to and for believers, those already assured of their salvation in Christ. This is not the first or second use of the law, to use our usual parlance. This is addressed to those already in the community of faith, instructing us that our behavior still has consequences, and dire ones, at that." Thus the argument is given by our Catholic brethren that Sola Fide doesn't work. Such a doctrine leads to the antinomian arguments of the supporters of the Task Force recommendations. No we cannot earn our justification, but we surely can throw it away once it has been given to us. We cannot trust in Christ and the free gift of justification if at the same time we turn our back on him and say "I'll do it my way..." vis-a-vis any question of faith or morals. The faith that is true faith issues in obedience, and in the very least (as with deathbed conversions) in repentance.
Question for Proponents of the Task Force Recommendations
Judgment
Anything goes?
Do you believe in universalism?
Reply to Pross
Reply to Kurt
Response to Ben
Luther was opposed to self-appointed elitism by virtue of the way in which it got in the way of an indivual's relationship to God.
Reply to Kurt
Elitism
Reply to Kurt
...and into mine
If taking the Scriptures at what they say is "elitism"...good night nurse.
And I never said that John 3.16 was not applicable to the homosexual, nor did I ever say that God does not love homosexual people. Christ died for all.
But I think such exchanges are a bit telling as to just how polarised this issue is; either you're "with" us (pro-ordination/marriage) or "against" ("unwelcoming," "not inclusive") us.
I don't think anyone here is claiming to know the mind of God, which is impossible anyway. But what we have of God and His will revealed in the pages of Scripture speaks to what is sin and what is not, ranging from homosexual behaviour to gluttony. Unless God chooses to have another Mount Sinai, we have to go with what we've got.
Lutherans have always emphasised sola scriptura. If we abandon that in favour of a feel-good, Deepak Chopra-ish "theology," are we still "Lutheran?"
Will these work?
Addendum to previous post
Response to Peter
Reply to Kurt
Ben's God
Another Dodge
Another Dodge
Lost Christ
In the meanwhile, trusting Christ on earth still transforms the believer. Repentence for one's wrongdoings is perhaps the easiest aspect of this transformation to grasp, but it is only one of many parts of new life in Christ. We're certainly free to cease trusting Christ, and most of passages are descriptive (not prescriptive!) of those who have ceased trusting Him. The solution is not frantically doing every little thing on the hopes that it will earn you salvation or restore your relationship with God. The solution is putting your trust back into Christ, and living your life accordingly.
I think Genesis 2:17 is one passage that many want to gloss over. Ask yourselves: did God pick "knowledge of good and evil" randomly, or is claiming knowledge of good and evil sin?
Re: Reply to Peter
From the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, "Law and Gospel":
"14] So, too, the Smalcald Articles say: The New Testament retains and urges the office of the Law, which reveals sins and God's wrath; but to this office it immediately adds the promise of grace through the Gospel.
15] And the Apology says: To a true and salutary repentance the preaching of the Law alone is not sufficient, but the Gospel should be added thereto. 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, and repentance and sorrow to be taught, not from the Law, but from the Gospel.
...
17] Therefore [we shall set forth our meaning:] we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that the Law is properly a divine doctrine, in which the righteous, immutable will of God is revealed, what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God; and it threatens its transgressors with God's wrath and temporal and eternal punishments. For as Luther writes against the law-stormers [Antinomians]: Everything that reproves sin is and belongs to the Law, whose peculiar office it is to reprove sin and to lead to the knowledge of sins, Rom. 3:20,7:7; and as unbelief is the root and well-spring of all reprehensible sins [all sins that must be censured and reproved], the Law reproves unbelief also."
From the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, "The Third Use of the Law":
"4] ... we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing.
5] For although the Law is not made for a righteous man, as the apostle testifies 1 Tim. 1:9, but for the unrighteous, yet this is not to be understood in the bare meaning, that the justified are to live without law. For the Law of God has been written in their heart, and also to the first man immediately after his creation a law was given according to which he was to conduct himself. But the meaning of St. Paul is that the Law cannot burden with its curse those who have been reconciled to God through Christ; nor must it vex the regenerate with its coercion, because they have pleasure in God's Law after the inner man.
...
9] Therefore, because of these lusts of the flesh the truly believing, elect, and regenerate children of God need in this life not only the daily instruction and admonition, warning, and threatening of the Law, but also frequently punishments, that they may be roused [the old man is driven out of them] and follow the Spirit of God, as it is written Ps. 119:71: It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I might learn Thy statutes. And again, 1 Cor. 9:27: I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that, by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. And again, Heb. 12:8: But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards and not sons; as Dr. Luther has fully explained this at greater length in the Summer Part of the Church Postil, on the Epistle for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity.
...
20] So, too, this doctrine of the Law is needful for believers, in order that they may not hit upon a holiness and devotion of their own, and under the pretext of the Spirit of God set up a self-chosen worship, without God's Word and command, as it is written Deut. 12:8,28,32: Ye shall not do ... every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes, etc., but observe and hear all these words which I command thee. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.
...
26] Accordingly, we reject and condemn as an error pernicious and detrimental to Christian discipline, as also to true godliness, the teaching that the Law, in the above-mentioned way and degree, should not be urged upon Christians and the true believers, but only upon the unbelieving, unchristians, and impenitent."
elitism
furthermore
Response to Son of WMC
"Kurt's God apparently condemns no one for unrepentantly and eternally turning their back on God."
That's not what I said. You are imputing as a generalization that homosexual behavior in a committed relationship is "unrepentantly and eternally turning their back on God." Your statement is a clear example of what is wrong with the discussion this issue. You try to fit a particular issue into a general concept of universalism, but it doesn't work, because my position (if you were to take time to understand it rather than generalize it into a one-size-fits-all)is a particularization and not universalism.
perhaps
Domino theory
.
Your slippery slope argument reminds me of LBJ's infamous "domino theory" about the spread of communism as a rationale for pursuing the Viet Nam war. The communists took South Vietnam, and I'm still waiting for the other dominoes to fall.
The slippery slope "logic" only works when people try to use bad rationalizations rather than precise documentation and justification for making such subjective judgments. People with integrity will handle matters on a case-by-case basis.
Sin with integrity?
What is "integrity" in this context?
How is the decision made as to what is "sin" and what is not?
Who will make that decision?
What is the benchmark for analysing a particular behaviour to see if it is "sinful?"
Are people in disagreement without "integrity?"
Is not designating some people as having "integrity" the sort of generalisation you don't like?
What "precise documentation and justification" will be used, and who will construct it?
I'm particularly interested in the last one. In the Air Force, we of course had a myriad of regulations and paperwork...including paperwork to tell you how to do paperwork! A supervising officer I knew said the reason for a regulation is usually because "someone has done something wrong and the Pentagon comes up with a regulation to try and correct it."
In this case he was referring to DOD, whose directives have the force of law (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Who will formulate directives for the ELCA, and will they have any "teeth," especially given our history of nonbinding resolutions and not wishing to offend?
Response to David
"How is the decision made as to what is "sin" and what is not? Who will make that decision?"
OK, you tell me. Who will make that decision?
Making the "decision"
"In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
Judges 21:25 (NASB)
Response to Pross
re: elitism
In addition, I think of this dispute more as a question of epistemological modesty -- or, in the case of the revisionists, the lack thereof. I have been careful in my posts to state that I am not presuming to speak for God or against homosexuals, per se. In my view, until such time as an extraordinary work of God has occurred, we must assume that God says what He means and means what He says. A group of people, selected by human agency, claiming that the Holy Spirit has led them to something contrary to the Word, does not count as an extraordinary work of God.
When a group of people advocate a position not only in opposition to the plain meaning of the Word but also in opposition to 2,000 years of unanimous consensus in the Church Catholic, I am doubly skeptical. When one is swimming against such a strong tide, and in light of the consequences of being wrong, I think that some epistemological modesty is called for on the part of the advocates of the recommendations.
Watch this, chill out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0
Wedding on YouTube
Who Decides What Is Sin? Can't We Just Agree to Disagree?
While I am quoting the Form of Concord
"11] 1. Therefore we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a reatus or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.
12] 2. Also, that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature, or, as though the above-mentioned defect and damage were not truly sin, because of which man without Christ [not ingrafted into Christ] would be a child of wrath.
13] 3. We likewise reject the Pelagian error, by which it is alleged that man's nature even after the Fall is incorrupt, and especially with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers.
...
22] 12. Thus there is also to be noted well the diverse signification of the word nature, whereby the Manicheans cover their error and lead astray many simple men. For sometimes it means the essence [the very substance] of man, as when it is said: God created human nature. But at other times it means the disposition and the vicious quality [disposition, condition, defect, or vice] of a thing, which inheres in the nature or essence, as when it is said: The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and disposition of man is to sin, and is sin; here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that inheres in the nature or substance.
23] 13. But as to the Latin terms substantia and accidens, because they are not words of Holy Scripture, and besides unknown to the ordinary man, they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be spared them.
24] But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.
25] For the distinction between God's work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, by the providence of God [God permitting], corrupt the substance created by God."
Gloss Over Passage
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matt.15:9, from Isaiah)
It's even stronger in context: Matthew 15:1-20 It's particulaarly clear in the Contemporary English Version (CEV). If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's one of the translations available at http://www.biblegateway.com/
The above reading includes v.6b: "You ignore God's commands in order to follow your own teaching." (CEV) Yes, this is directed toward the Pharisees, yet I see room for "if the shoe fits, wear it" here. Jesus did say, "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." I understand what you mean about "the Severity of the Scriptural Warnings." We dare not respond by laughing at such passages that don't square with creative post-modern theology. "We are to fear and love God so that..." I guess the fear / respect part of that quote went out of vogue several decades ago. Thank you for drawing your readers back to the Bible. Thank you for another great essay.
Sin...
As I've said, one of my pastor's favourite sayings is "Sin is worse than we think it is."
Unfortunately, I've seen a disturbing tendency toward Marcionism in this sexuality "debate," to either excise Biblical passages that are "inconvenient," or to somehow rewrite them in light of today's secularist thinking, to just "be nice" and "welcoming," re-framing it in the concept of "that's what Jesus would want." Jesus spoke a lot about sin, as I'm sure we all know.
If there is no sin, then there is no need for a Saviour. And if we take it upon ourselves to adjudicate against Scripture that something (not just homosexuality) is not a sin, using flawed human pseudoscience...on Judgement Day, I don't want to be the ones who have done this.
And you're right, Sarah. There really is nothing more to add to this. The battle lines are drawn, and the positions have hardened.