Personal tools
You are here: Home Sexuality The Severity of the Scriptural Warnings
Categories
Archive  February 17, 2010
Blogs  August 21, 2007
Book Reviews  August 21, 2007
Categories  August 17, 2007
Columnists  January 23, 2008
Editorials  August 21, 2007
ELCA Sexuality Statement  August 21, 2007
Extras  August 21, 2007
Hymns  August 15, 2007
Sermons  August 21, 2007
Prayers


Year A  October 18, 2011
Year B  October 18, 2011
Year C  October 18, 2011
 
Document Actions

The Severity of the Scriptural Warnings

by Sarah Wilson July 29, 2009

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...

Posted by David Pross at July 29, 2009 02:36
When I was in the Methodist church, our pastor (good guy), in one of his sermons that had to do with the topic of sin, he prefaced it with a disclaimer. He said "OK, I know some of you are going to think, 'Ah, man, the preacher's gonna talk about SIIINN.' Yes, I am." And he did, linking it to Wesleyan repentance and free grace.

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.

Sin. . .

Posted by Paul at July 29, 2009 11:05
I would just add this from 1 Cor. 5:1-5 to the list of scriptures often glossed over:

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.

Posted by Scott at July 29, 2009 11:26
Well put, in many regards what is currently happening in the ELCA is the result of an ever-prevailing Gospel Reductionism.

Thank you Sarah

Posted by Ron at July 29, 2009 12:39
I appreciate your faithfulness and courage to stand up for the Gospel.
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

Posted by David Pross at July 29, 2009 13:36
I have to admit that the Lutheran Study Bible, although it has much to commend, is also very, very weak not only in regard to the sexuality issue, but also in its dogged insistence in "re-naming" God the Father. The universalist interpretation of Mt 28 is also not good.

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.

Posted by Steven D. McGinley at July 29, 2009 12:42
Good catch on these scriptures that refer to moral practices of people within the church. WITHIN THE CHURCH. Don't sell yourself short; these scriptures you have assembled do add to the debate something I have not heard yet to this point this summer.


Sarah, You've Hit Upon a Gold-Mine of Scripture Which Dare Not Be Ignored!

Posted by Rik at July 29, 2009 13:22
"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. (emphasis mine)" BINGO! Lutherans dare not drift into the once-saved-always-saved theology. God's Word tells us that it is possible for us to fall from the faith. Therefore we must press on. Run the race, etc. "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? (I Cor 5)" You dare not quote that or you will likely to be tarred and feathered by those whose limited Biblical knowledge is distilled in the mantra: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." As Lutheran Christians, it comes down to this: Do we seek to learn what GOD would teach US, yearning to follow Him as one "after His own heart", or do we approach the Bible as a lawyer searching for loopholes, or as an atheist, somewhat sure that God and the Scriptures do not matter, but ready to defend ourselves against a fundamentalist who might happen to challenge us? Sure, we are under one great big circus tent of beliefs, and we can play games like the Jesus Seminar ball-juggling game, or the Clintonian game of redefining terms such as "sexual relations", or in this case, redefine "sexual immorality." There are pleny of games to engage in, such as "All interpretations are created equal--and are just as valid as the next one" and "Did God really say..." of Genesis origins. The circus tent is up, and the excitement has begun. The performance has yet to begin, I think. What if we tried something radically different, and left the carnival for the Church Jesus started: a community of fellow believers, called to be brothers and sisters in Him--parts of the Body of which Christ is the head. Are we willing to let our LORD Jesus Christ be who He is: the Head, or must we compete with Him for that place of prominence, trying to dictate to God what is what as if we have greater wisdom. "To see Thee more clearly, love Thee more dearly, FOLLOW THEE MORE NEARLY Day by day." This is my prayer for the Lutheran Church. Lord, in Your Mercy...


I am praying for the ELCA

Posted by Padre Dave at July 29, 2009 14:52
This paper is excellent, as is your habit Sarah. Well done, and definitely better than what I had planned to write for my column, when I was still writing columns.

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

Posted by David Pross at July 29, 2009 15:20
I am a former member of LCMS, so there's no way I could view you as an outsider! My LCMS pastor was one of the best clergymen I have ever known.

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?

Posted by Son of WMC at July 29, 2009 16:38
Sarah and others,

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

Posted by Ben at July 29, 2009 19:12
In a previous thread, those of us opposed to the Task Force Recommendations were asked how we would counsel a young Lutheran with homosexual inclinations who would never be able to experience love in the way a heterosexual does. In light of this post, here is a question for the proponents of the Task Force Recommendations: Assume the proponents are wrong and Sarah is right. On the day of judgment, what do the people who told our hypothetical young homosexual that it was okay to act on his desires propose to tell him when he does not inherit the Kingdom of God?

Judgment

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 30, 2009 09:57
I would tell him that his experience on the day of judgment was an illusion, that the God described by Lutheran Forum theologians is not that small or narrow-minded, that such a God gains nothing by damning people for living out their lives in the way that they were created. If he were still fearful, I would direct him to John 3:16.

Anything goes?

Posted by David Pross at July 30, 2009 11:06
So, would you tell him that, since God is love (which He is), and God loves him (which He does), that "anything goes?" Would you tell him that he can cherry-pick among parts of the Bible he finds "intolerant?"

Do you believe in universalism?

Reply to Pross

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 30, 2009 11:52
No, I believe in doing the best I can in trying to figure it out. Cherry-picking is a two-way street. I do not believe in universalism. And I don't believe in elitism either.

Reply to Kurt

Posted by Ben at July 30, 2009 13:54
You have defined away the problem. The scenario starts with "Assume the proponents are wrong and Sarah is right." By definition his experience was not an illusion because the question assumes that it is reality. In other words, what if you are wrong?

Response to Ben

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 30, 2009 14:53
Excuse me. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. In my previous post, when I said I am opposed to elitism, I also meant that I am opposed to self-appointed elitism. Perhaps you believe that John 3:16 should have a phrase added at the end of the verse to the effect: " ... except for homosexuals, including homosexuals in monogamous and committed relationships.

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

Posted by Ben at July 30, 2009 18:09
I cannot possibly understand how you read elitism into my question, which has nothing whatsoever to do with your response. My question is very simple: What if you are wrong?

Elitism

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 30, 2009 19:06
Let me make the connection for you. Someone is elitist who believes that he or she is superior to others, in this case, as it has to do with a particular perspective of morality. You have chosen to assume an elitist position by assuming you can interpret God's mind and intention in such a circumstance as "judgment". I can't be wrong because I can't accept your stilted hypothesis. This medieval view of reward-punishment, salvation-damnation needs to be at least tempered by our more enlightened understanding of both theology and scripture. I suppose it is easier to be so black-and-white about this matter, but I can't go there. If you're comfortable there, so be it, but don't condemn others because they don't see things as precisely black-and-white as you do.

Reply to Kurt

Posted by Ben at July 30, 2009 19:37
It is amazing how much you have read into my question. My question makes no value judgment whatsoever regarding my position. I did not say that I am right and cannot be wrong. In fact, I have made no statement at all about my own views on the matter. I simply asked, "What if you are wrong?" You still have not answered my question.

...and into mine

Posted by David Pross at July 30, 2009 20:56
...and into my questions/responses.

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?

Posted by Phil at August 03, 2009 14:55
How about the simple but effective, "Doh!" Or, there's always the popular, "Sorry, my bad!" Or, my personal favorite, "You didn't really think I was serious, did you? I mean, come on!"

Addendum to previous post

Posted by Ben at July 30, 2009 19:42
Interestingly, you are the one practicing elitism according to your definition. I have asked you to deal with what consequences may follow in the event you are wrong. You have chosen to answer by saying that you cannot be wrong.

Response to Peter

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 30, 2009 19:53
I'm not elitist because I don't judge you or others. I can't say that I'm wrong referable to an hypothesis I don't accept. That's not elitism. That's an opinion. Eltism is thinking of yourself as better than others to the point that you can say whether or not they are condemned in the eyes of God. I just can't go there.

Reply to Kurt

Posted by Ben at July 30, 2009 21:21
Again, you answer a question that I have not asked. Paraphrasing my initial post: "Assume you are wrong and Sarah is right. On the day of judgment, what do you propose to tell the hypothetical young homosexual, whom you advised that it was okay to act on his desires, when he does not inherit the Kingdom of God?" In other words, if your interpreation of Scripture turns out to be wrong and our hypothetical young homosexual does not inherit the Kingdom of God after taking your advice, what will you say to him?

Ben's God

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 30, 2009 22:14
I will say, "Ben's God would condemn you, but mine would not."

Another Dodge

Posted by Ben at July 31, 2009 11:55
The question assumes God did condemn him. It assumes the day of judgment is here and you are wrong. What do you say?

Another Dodge

Posted by Ben at July 31, 2009 11:55
The question assumes God did condemn him. It assumes the day of judgment is here and you are wrong. What do you say?

Lost Christ

Posted by Peter at July 30, 2009 18:35
When we stand before God on Judgement Day, we're all damned. Not just the married homosexual, but you, me and everyone else here, too. The only way out is trusting Christ's promise to forgive sinners on account of His sinless life, death and resurrection. If that Gospel doesn't pass muster, I'm lost.

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

Posted by Ben at August 03, 2009 10:37
Your interpretation is not Lutheran. The Lutheran expression of the proper place of law and the relationship between law and Gospel is spelled out nicely in the Formula of Concord, among other places.
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

Posted by Son of WMC at July 31, 2009 11:17
You all do realize what is the great irony here, don't you? Kurt defines elitism as a belief that oneself is superior to another - in the manner of the condemn not lest ye be condemned. Ironically, for him to suggest those who oppose the Task Force recommendations are elitists is in fact to put himself in a position superior to them because he does not consider himself to be an elitist! Ironically he, Kurt, is judging souls here, whereas, those on this thread in opposition to the recommendations are trying to correctly judge truth from falsehood, sin from what is not sin. I bristle at the fact that by implication I am accused to be judging souls, when in fact the one accusing me is the one who is doing just that!

furthermore

Posted by Son of WMC at July 31, 2009 11:22
Kurt's God apparently condemns no one for unrepentantly and eternally turning their back on God. That is universalism! Thus it is imperative we resolve the question as to whether or not the blessing of same gender unions and the ordaining of persons in such unions is in fact justifying sin or not - because, contrary to Bishop Hanson's opinion, salvation of souls is at stake in this debate and vote.

Response to Son of WMC

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 31, 2009 11:32
Son of WMC writes:

"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

Posted by Son of WMC at July 31, 2009 12:11
The problem is Kurt, your particularization is just one slip down the slippery slide of anything goes on its way to universalism. If we can overturn what has always been understood as sin in one instance today, what is to stop it from happening in any or all other instances tomorrow?

Domino theory

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 31, 2009 12:22
What stops it is continuing diligence and integrity on all issues which arise, not the overgeneralized "slippery slope" argument which is no different that the manner in which some traditionalists have tried to morph this homosexual issue into a one-size-fits all mentality.
.
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?

Posted by David Pross at July 31, 2009 15:30
"People with integrity will handle matters on a case-by-case basis."

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

Posted by Kurt Johnson at July 31, 2009 20:48
You're firing off in all directions there, David, so let's start with this one. You wrote:

"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"

Posted by David Pross at August 01, 2009 02:04
It sounds like what the proponents of overturning V&E want is for each person to make that decision for him/herself on what is sin or not.

"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

Posted by Kurt Johnson at August 01, 2009 09:55
You still haven't said WHO should make that decision in this day and time.

Particular?

Posted by David Pross at July 31, 2009 15:31
A particularisation based on what?

re: elitism

Posted by Ben at August 03, 2009 14:27
I noticed the irony as soon as I understood how "elitism" was being defined. When I think of elitism, I view it more as applying when a small group of people believe that the beknighted majority is wrong while the revealed truth rests alone in them. The revisionists look a lot more like elitists in this light.

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

Posted by Melancthon at August 02, 2009 16:31
Watch this, and chill out :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

Wedding on YouTube

Posted by Kurt Johnson at August 02, 2009 17:44
Well, it's a marriage between a man and a woman, and nothing that I saw violates scripture or the Lutheran confessions. Without question, it's not traditional, but its nonetheless tamer than a lot of Lutheran wedding receptions I've attended.

Who Decides What Is Sin? Can't We Just Agree to Disagree?

Posted by Isaiah (Son of Amoz) at August 02, 2009 17:08
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness...Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!...for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. (Is.5.20,21,24b)

While I am quoting the Form of Concord

Posted by Ben at August 03, 2009 20:11
I offer this particularly telling excerpt from the Epitome of the Form of Concord, I. Original Sin, Antitheses:
"11] 1. Therefore we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a reatus or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.
12] 2. Also, that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature, or, as though the above-mentioned defect and damage were not truly sin, because of which man without Christ [not ingrafted into Christ] would be a child of wrath.
13] 3. We likewise reject the Pelagian error, by which it is alleged that man's nature even after the Fall is incorrupt, and especially with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers.
...
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

Posted by Rik at August 05, 2009 03:01
Sarah, would this count in your book as a "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.

Reconciling St. Paul with Jesus

Posted by Rik at August 05, 2009 04:00
Above, I quoted St. Matthew 5.20 (NRSV) "For I tell you, unless..." (which is better read in context--Matt. 5.17-20). Why does Jesus speak these words? St. Paul would clearly state that our righteousness is imputed to us from Christ Himself, that we are "covered over with a robe of righteousness." When the Father sees us, He sees Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection in our stead. Right? Well, why didn't Jesus simply tell the crowds what was to happpen to him, and describe Himself as the sacrifice, and tell them to believe on Him and they will be saved. Instead, it comes across as teaching works righteousnesss as a means of salvation. Or, is he stating that those who are forgiven through him will demonstrate righteousness in their lives (bear fruit) better than the Pharisees, who sought the appearance of righteousness, yet had a heart that was "far from Him"? In the later sense, it would seem similar to the Athenasian Creed's "Whoever will be saved must hold to the one Christian faith...without will surely perish..." Not saying our works will save us, but if we are grafted on to Christ, our vine, we will automatically bear fruit because that is our new nature. He will work in us and through us. Christ's righteousness exceeds/surpasses that of the Pharisees. He became our sin, to pay our penalty ("the wages for sin is death..."). In exchange, we became His righteousness (...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord"). I still wonder why He didn't just explain this to the crowds. Would they have then prevented Him from going to the cross for us, the whole reason for which He came? With the frailty and short supply of human compassion, I think even if the crowds had been aware, they would still have abandoned Him between Palm Sunday and Maundy Thursday. But that is merely my speculation. Who can help me develop these thoughts?

Now in Print

Winter 2011


Winter 2011 Cover

In this issue:

Finding the Missio in Promissio

Law and Gospel
(with Some Help from St. John)

From Mission Church
to Missionary Church in
Malaysia and Singapore

St. Dag Hammarskjold

The Cost of Commenting
on the Emperor's Attire

Practicing a Theopaschite
Christology with St. Cyril
of Alexandria

American Lutheranism's
First Dispute

...and much, much more!

Subscribe online!

Submissions
We always welcome thoughtful articles, letters to the editor, hymns, and artwork.

Submission guidelines
 

Powered by Plone CMS, the Open Source Content Management System

This site conforms to the following standards: