What will you do when the ELCA makes their decision?

[AngelusSax]

OK, just to get the fires rolling again, I thought this would be the perfect room to open up this discussion in. This isn't going to be a debate on whether homosexuality is a sin or not, and if it becomes one, I'll either close this thread myself or request it closed. This is simply a question about Church authority, using the current debate over homosexuals being ordained/blessed/whatever.
This is more for the ELCA than anyone, since they're the ones I know of that are having this debate right now.
Having said that, what will you do when the ELCA maked their decision on this issue?

Will you leave if their decision disagrees with your stance, or have you placed yourself under the authority of the church, realizing that the church excercises a right it always has--to determine what is adhered to and what is not (such as wearing a poly/cotton blend, for example).

BE ADVISED THIS IS A PUBLIC POLL!

[Music4Hym777]

Hey, what about, whatever my church decides....I wont leave my church, so if they decide to break off, then I will break off with them, if they dont, then I dont! I love my church and my pastors family too much to leave!

[AngelusSax]

That's what number 1 option says. Whatever they decide, you're with them.

I just realized that my semantics may be different than yours... when you say church, are you meaning the ELCA or your particular congregation?

[Melethiel]

My affiliation with the ELCA (which isn't official) is touchy at best. As there are no minor synods in my area, if the resolution passes I would probably move over to the LCMS, despite my disagreement with closed communion. Unless, of course, my church decides to break off. ;)

[Music4Hym777]

That's what number 1 option says. Whatever they decide, you're with them.

I just realized that my semantics may be different than yours... when you say church, are you meaning the ELCA or your particular congregation?

I mean my congregation.

[Protoevangel]

Interesting wording in the poll. I chose "If I disagree, I'll stay and try to get it overturned", but that's not exactly accurate.

I may leave either before or after the decision, the decision will not be the deciding factor however. If I do leave, it will not be about this single issue, and more about the blindness that got us there. The "homosexuality issue" is not the real problem, it is just a symptom of how the leadership is discounting the clear Word of God for a "different gospel". The church is only the Church if it declares the Word and Sacrament in it's purity. Without that, it has NO authority.

[AngelusSax]

I may leave either before or after the decision, the decision will not be the deciding factor however. If I do leave, it will not be about this single issue, and more about the blindness that got us there. The "homosexuality issue" is not the real problem, it is just a symptom of how the leadership is discounting the clear Word of God for a "different gospel". The church is only the Church if it declares the Word and Sacrament in it's purity. Without that, it has NO authority.

Of course, in the Council of Jersualem (which we read about in ACTS), there's 4 things listed that MUST be adhered to in order for one to be a Christian. And most of what the church debates today really does not appear there.

We are charged to "rightly divide" the Word. Now, if the Church disagrees with how we personally divide the Word, do we just assume we're right because it's hard to admit we might be wr...wr...wrrrrrrr....wr...wr......wr.....wrrroooo.....wr.... mistaken?

So the question is, do we hold ourselves under the Church and by direct line God, or do we hold ourselves only under our own interpretations (however literal or metaphorical, it's still an interpretation)? If the latter, are we not in danger of just letting Pride get to us and become, oh... deadly?

[Protoevangel]

Of course, in the Council of Jersualem (which we read about in ACTS), there's 4 things listed that MUST be adhered to in order for one to be a Christian. And most of what the church debates today really does not appear there.
But one of the things is at the core of the debate.


We are charged to "rightly divide" the Word. Now, if the Church disagrees with how we personally divide the Word, do we just assume we're right because it's hard to admit we might be wr...wr...wrrrrrrr....wr...wr......wr.....wrrroooo.....wr.... mistaken?
:D:D:D


So the question is, do we hold ourselves under the Church and by direct line God, or do we hold ourselves only under our own interpretations (however literal or metaphorical, it's still an interpretation)? If the latter, are we not in danger of just letting Pride get to us and become, oh... deadly?
You know, the same thoughts have crossed my mind many a time. I do not hold myself above the church, so how can I disagree with it?

The modern church does not stand alone, apart from it's histroy. Are the leaders of the ELCA today so much more wise than the entire church throughout history and all the other Lutheran synods? Are they now authorities over Scripture? No, Scripture is authoritative over the church, and when the church throws off that authority, it ceases to be the church. Please understand, I do not say those things, nor with impunity or mirth. It is with a heavy heart, trembling and tears (honestly) that I ask if my own church has departed from the true path.

[KagomeShuko]

I put the first one, but I don't think any of those choices can really describe how I feel about any of it. I don't know if any words could at all. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[GreekWeasel]

wr...wr...wrrrrrrr....wr...wr......wr.....wrrroooo.....wr.... mistaken?

Excuse me for butting in, but Porky Pig's my hero.;)


GW

[AngelusSax]

The modern church does not stand alone, apart from it's histroy. Are the leaders of the ELCA today so much more wise than the entire church throughout history and all the other Lutheran synods?

Not by virtue of the fact that they are here in this time, but it is a possibility that I, for one, cannot ignore or dismiss.

Are they now authorities over Scripture?

No, but then again they only seek interpretations of the Scriptures, and not new Scriptures.

It is with a heavy heart, trembling and tears (honestly) that I ask if my own church has departed from the true path.

Well, I haven't been quite moved to tears, but I have asked the same question. Then I asked another:

A heterosexual who drinks to excess, "repents" and then does it again, can be a pastor. But a homosexual cannot. Why?

A heterosexual who takes pride in his status can be pastor. A homosexual cannot. Why?

A heterosexual who lusts after women, yet doesn't physically have sex with them, can be a pastor, even though Jesus taught that lust IS adultery. A homosexual cannot be a pastor. Why?

The idea that homosexuals cannot be a pastor really seems to set up a heirarchy of sin. Now just as soon as someone can show me where Scripture sets up this heirarchy and says that homosexuality is worse than any or all of the top ten list, I may well be on my way to siding with the anti-homosexual-pastors crowd. But until I see, from Scripture, that homosexuality is one of those things one can't be and still be a Christian, or that it's worse than not honoring the Sabbath, I must in good conscience say that "a heterosexual sinner can be a pastor, so why not a homosexual sinner, since sin is sin?"

EDIT: Notice I'm not debating whether it's indeed sin or not. I'm even making the presumption that it is. I'm simply wondering why it's considered to be so much more icky than, say, Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Greed, Gluttony, and Lust.

[Protoevangel]

Well, I haven't been quite moved to tears, but I have asked the same question. Then I asked another:

A heterosexual who drinks to excess, "repents" and then does it again, can be a pastor. But a homosexual cannot. Why?

A heterosexual who takes pride in his status can be pastor. A homosexual cannot. Why?

A heterosexual who lusts after women, yet doesn't physically have sex with them, can be a pastor, even though Jesus taught that lust IS adultery. A homosexual cannot be a pastor. Why?

The idea that homosexuals cannot be a pastor really seems to set up a heirarchy of sin. Now just as soon as someone can show me where Scripture sets up this heirarchy and says that homosexuality is worse than any or all of the top ten list, I may well be on my way to siding with the anti-homosexual-pastors crowd. But until I see, from Scripture, that homosexuality is one of those things one can't be and still be a Christian, or that it's worse than not honoring the Sabbath, I must in good conscience say that "a heterosexual sinner can be a pastor, so why not a homosexual sinner, since sin is sin?"

EDIT: Notice I'm not debating whether it's indeed sin or not. I'm even making the presumption that it is. I'm simply wondering why it's considered to be so much more icky than, say, Pride, Envy, Anger, Sloth, Greed, Gluttony, and Lust.
I completely understand your concerns, I have also wrestled with them with much prayer. Here is my take on it...

I would call a pastor who struggles with homosexual temptation, and even falls into homosexual activity in times of weakness, but is repentant and recognizes the Biblical stance on homosexuality a thousand times before I would ever call a pastor who {drinks to excess}, or {is prideful}, or {actively lusts after the opposite sex}, and refuses to repent, and 'demands' that his lifestyle be accepted. I would be just as adamant in fighting it if the church were "un-sinning" those very real and destructive sins as well.

You are right that many in our church appear to be making a manmade "hierarchy of sins", of sorts. This is just as much of an error in need of correction as the un-sinning of homosexual activity (as declared in Holy Scripture). Honestly, I do find myself correcting both errors in my own church.

Last year I lead a "Journey Together Faithfully II" study in my church. On two different occasions people made comments about physically removing homosexual people from the church. My comment both times was that they would have to physically remove me first. My sin is just as heinous as that of any homosexual, and perhaps even worse. It is not a "holier-than-thou" mission I am on, it is simply to stand for the truth regardless of who hates me or ridicules me because of it. I have gotten my share of both, but I have been able to make peace with most of those who despised me, once they have been open enough to really listen to the whats and whys of my position.

[Music4Hym777]

I completely understand your concerns, I have also wrestled with them with much prayer. Here is my take on it...

I would call a pastor who struggles with homosexual temptation, and even falls into homosexual activity in times of weakness, but is repentant and recognizes the Biblical stance on homosexuality a thousand times before I would ever call a pastor who {drinks to excess}, or {is prideful}, or {actively lusts after the opposite sex}, and refuses to repent, and 'demands' that his lifestyle be accepted. I would be just as adamant in fighting it if the church were "un-sinning" those very real and destructive sins as well.

You are right that many in our church appear to be making a manmade "hierarchy of sins", of sorts. This is just as much of an error in need of correction as the un-sinning of homosexual activity (as declared in Holy Scripture). Honestly, I do find myself correcting both errors in my own church.

Last year I lead a "Journey Together Faithfully II" study in my church. On two different occasions people made comments about physically removing homosexual people from the church. My comment both times was that they would have to physically remove me first. My sin is just as heinous as that of any homosexual, and perhaps even worse. It is not a "holier-than-thou" mission I am on, it is simply to stand for the truth regardless of who hates me or ridicules me because of it. I have gotten my share of both, but I have been able to make peace with most of those who despised me, once they have been open enough to really listen to the whats and whys of my position.

Very well said, I agree on that one, especially the "removing the homosexuals" It is a sin, but did God not say that he came to heal the sick and not the healthy? You would have to remove me as well and I would probably put up a fight! I am not homosexual, but I believe that they should be allowed in churches!

As for the holier-than-thou comment, I have committed sins far worse as well. But God does not judge sin, anger is the same as murder. So it doesn't matter in God's eyes.

I am scared as I am praying about being a pastor that God will remove the biggest struggle in my life, I would feel like a hypocrite being a pastor and struggling with bulimia.

[ottaia]

I said I would stay but would try to change things.

People keep saying that it will fail this time but it will come up again and again until it finally passes. This is usually said disparagingly. I wonder if this is not the work of the Holy Spirit trying to nudge us into a different place? Jonah had to be in a fish belly to have his outlook changed.

There are other things we though were biblical which have changed. How is this different?

[AngelusSax]

DanHead, I think we finally can find something with which not to bicker over. :) See, I can very easily support a homosexual person for pastor as long as they are not saying that homosexuality is perfectly fine and dandy. And while I'm open to discussion to treat homosexuality the same way we treat wearing fabrics woven of 2 fibers, or of eating certain foods, I'm not sure I'm ready to totally flip to "the other side".

The one thing I would argue is about "falling into sin" and still being repentant of that sin... To me, the only true repentance means that we will absolutely NEVER do that sin again due to a radical life change that we do. Feeling sorry about it and saying you won't do it again isn't repentance... changing one's life is.

I am scared as I am praying about being a pastor that God will remove the biggest struggle in my life, I would feel like a hypocrite being a pastor and struggling with bulimia.

I know what you mean. I'm going through a similar situation, but my number 1 sins are a tie between anger and lust. I'm gonna start making a list of people so I don't forget to include their names in my prayers, and you'll be on it.

[Knowledge3]

That is why they didn't completely annihilate the forums and start over again. The main reasons of the sub forums are to talk about synod specific issues, such as the upcoming ELCA election about homosexual pastors.

It is in no way supposed to divide the common grounds we share as Lutherans, it is too try to keep the peace.

The homosexual issue is a sensitive one, and that requires God's close discretion. For that issue, I would take a close look at 1 Corinthians 6.9-10

1 Corinthians 7.7 is of utmost importance regarding that issue.

I studied the doctrine. It was beautiful,
I agree with this.


The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod accepts the Scriptures as the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and subscribes unconditionally to all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God. We accept the Confessions because they are drawn from the Word of God and on that account regard their doctrinal content as a true and binding exposition of Holy Scripture and as authoritative for all pastors, congregations and other rostered church workers of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.


I recommend using the Proverbs of Solomon to balance scales.

Proverb 12.12
I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion.

Proverbs 15.13
A happy face is cheerful,but heartache crushes the spirit.

Proverbs 8.4
To you, O men, I call out; I raise my voice to all mankind.



I really admire Paul's teachings, because they make sense to me.

That's all I wanted, was for things to make sense. :) To be honest, I was troubled for some time over the way certain idols and methods of prayer were being used other practices that are not ours, had to clear my conscience of that because it disagreed with me.

[Protoevangel]

DanHead, I think we finally can find something with which not to bicker over. :) See, I can very easily support a homosexual person for pastor as long as they are not saying that homosexuality is perfectly fine and dandy. And while I'm open to discussion to treat homosexuality the same way we treat wearing fabrics woven of 2 fibers, or of eating certain foods, I'm not sure I'm ready to totally flip to "the other side".
It is a good feeling to be in general agreement with you on even a little point! :)

Luther once said to Melanchthon:
"If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God's glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly--you too are a mighty sinner."

I have another quote at the bottom of this post that I think you may find pertinent here, but I just want to say this now: We are all flesh, and our flesh is bound in sin. I can forgive and forget behaviors. It is Doctrine and Teaching that must remain pure and untarnished by this world.

The one thing I would argue is about "falling into sin" and still being repentant of that sin... To me, the only true repentance means that we will absolutely NEVER do that sin again due to a radical life change that we do. Feeling sorry about it and saying you won't do it again isn't repentance... changing one's life is.
We can't look at our sins as trivialities that we can deal with and get rid of on our own. But on the other hand, we don't see them as so terrible that we fall into despair. We must believe that Christ was given for mountainous sins; not just one or two, but for all; not sins that we can defeat by our own will, but for sins that are so stubbornly ingrained that they will never let go of this flesh.

Luther says that we comfort the afflicted sinner in this manner: "Brother, you can never be perfect in this life, but you can be holy. He will say: 'How can I be holy when I feel my sins?' I answer: You feel sin? That is a good sign. To realize that one is ill is a step, and a very necessary step, toward recovery. 'But how will I get rid of my sin?' he will ask. I answer: See the heavenly Physician, Christ, who heals the broken-hearted. Do not consult that Quackdoctor, Reason. Believe in Christ and your sins will be pardoned. His righteousness will become your righteousness, and your sins will become His sins."

Repentance is the moving from trusting in human merit to trusting in the merit of Christ. The word 'repent' is translated from the Hebrew word Shuwb, which means to turn around, and from the Greek word Metanoeo, which means to change one's mind. We see that Peter repented of his racism in Acts 10. Then look at his treatment and hypocracy in his dealings with the Galatian church. Paul reminded Peter that he had been accepted by God purely because of his faith, and now Peter was expecting the Galatians to follow the law of the Judaizers. Peter repented yet again.

Just because I repent does not mean I will never commit that sin again. We are called to live our entire lives in repentance, but we will never stop sinning while in this flesh. As Paul says in Romans 7:19-20: "For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me."


I know what you mean. I'm going through a similar situation, but my number 1 sins are a tie between anger and lust. I'm gonna start making a list of people so I don't forget to include their names in my prayers, and you'll be on it.
Here is my point perfectly. Yea, work on defeating your anger and lust. These are two of the sins that eat away at me as well. Repent of these sins. Repent daily, repent hourly, repent constantly. But do not let your sins trouble your conscience, for you have already been fully pardoned. Your sins are of this world, and must be fought in this world, but your conscience is in heaven with Christ and cannot be bothered by the things of this world.

--

I cannot say it often enough, that we must carefully differentiate between doctrine and life. Doctrine is a piece of heaven, life is a piece of earth. Life is sin, error, uncleanness, misery, and charity must forbear, believe, hope, and suffer all things. Forgiveness of sins must be continuous so that sin and error may not be defended and sustained. But with doctrine there must be no error, no need of pardon. There can be no comparison between doctrine and life. The least little point of doctrine is of greater importance than heaven and earth. Therefore we cannot allow the least jot of doctrine to be corrupted. We may overlook the offenses and errors of life, for we daily sin much. Even the saints sin, as they themselves confess in the Lord’s Prayer and in the Creed. But our doctrine, God be praised, is pure, because all the articles of our faith are grounded on the Holy Scriptures.
Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians 5:10


God bless, my bloodsucking friend. :D

[RedneckAnglican]

Interesting wording in the poll. I chose "If I disagree, I'll stay and try to get it overturned", but that's not exactly accurate.

that's my vote...I not going to any more Churches...I'm staying here...I'll fight I say...fight, fight, fight...in Christian love and affection...

[KEPLER]

I am a poor Lutheran lost in the wilderness (er, in central North Carolina) and I am not up to date on this issue: when is this vote supposed to take place? I would like to "feel out" a couple of local ELCA congregations to see where they are on this issue...

[Melethiel]

I am a poor Lutheran lost in the wilderness (er, in central North Carolina) and I am not up to date on this issue: when is this vote supposed to take place? I would like to "feel out" a couple of local ELCA congregations to see where they are on this issue...
The Churchwide Assembly, sometime in August, I believe.

[KagomeShuko]

See, I can very easily support a homosexual person for pastor as long as they are not saying that homosexuality is perfectly fine and dandy.

I can agree with this, and the whole homosexualtiy issue/study/results is something that is constantly in my prayers.

I've known quite a few homosexuals. They are all nice people, of course. I don't think anybody would disagree on that point.

However, there's one incident that really sticks with me. That was that I knew one guy. . .he was in my group of high school friends. We were always together, having fun, dressing up for Spirit Days, and doing Bible studies together. . singing contemporary Christian songs and hymns. However, he wasn't interested in anybody at all. He didn't know why and we just liked him for who he was. He was ALWAYS in FCAS with us, we thought perhaps God would be calling him to be a pastor. We were never certain.

Well, my high school decided to have one of those "Mr. Beauty Pageants" where the guys wear dresses. My friends and I are together watching it. I go to talk to one of 'em after he was up, and she figured he must've been SO embarrassed. Yeah. THAT. He finds that he's attracted to males.

He didn't just suddenly leave his faith. We still accepted him for exactly who he was. We were never sure what God was doing in his life. However, we felt sorry for him, knowing that he'd have to deal with his family. It was one girl in this group of friends he first told.

I never thought he wasn't a good Christian. I never thought that he couldn't easily teach things from the Bible. I always respected him.

I'm always surprised that God is even using me. I've done some awful things in my life, and God must've even been using me then.

Acts 4:13 "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized that they were [i]uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus."

So, what is "ordinary" right?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Phoebe]

I didn't vote yet. I don't know yet. I would probably leave the ELCA.

[AngelusSax]

To those who would leave the ELCA, I feel I must go ahead and suggest you leave anyway, since you're not really placing yourselves under the authority of the Church. Find one that's more suitable to you, because frankly, if you don't leave over this, you'll leave over something else sooner or later anyway.

Of course, at least no one is being killed this time for doing away with meticulous rules and sacrifice systems, so that's a plus.

To put this in question form:
Even in disagreeance, does it have to be church-splitting? My answer is no, but I understand that I'm not looking at carbon copies of me either.

[ctobola]

Angelus,

Be very careful about equating the ELCA with the Church (capital C). The ELCA is a religious corporation just like the LC-MS, the WELS and the Roman Catholic denomination. There is likely some crossover between the people who hold allegiance to these corporations and "the Church," but they are not synonymous.

As for me, I have always belonged to my local congregation and I have always had a good relationship with our synod president (aka the bishop). Beyond that, I don't know the folks at the ELCA office in Chicago and I don't consider them in authority over "the Church."

If we had a group that was more akin to the Councils in the early Church, I'd feel obligated to follow them (just like I feel obligated to follow the Creeds they wrote); but I consider the activities of denominational executives to be ecclestiastical busywork.

In Christ, -Cloy

To those who would leave the ELCA, I feel I must go ahead and suggest you leave anyway, since you're not really placing yourselves under the authority of the Church.

[AngelusSax]

Be very careful about equating the ELCA with the Church (capital C).

Trust me, it was very, very deliberate. You may not agree, but it's how I see it right now.

[ctobola]

I guess I can't vote, because I don't see an answer that fits me.

A couple points of explaination....

First, I don't belong to the ELCA. I belong to a congregation that happens to consider itself a member of the ELCA... but I belong to my congregation and that's where my allegiance ends. I don't see any Scriptural support for denominiations -- they are simply adiophora.

Second, I tend to see the Scriptural condemnation of homosexuality aimed at thoughtless, promiscuous sex, not necessarily at sex within a committed relationship.

Third, while I'm not as averse to homosexuality as some ELCA Lutherans, I sincerely hope the ELCA does not pass this resolution. It will split the ELCA and/or it will force a lot of sincere people into positions that violate their beliefs.

Before the Episcopal/Lutheran issue came up several years ago, a very wise old pastor noted that those sorts of ecumenical questions (as well as questions about homosexuality) should never be asked.

So, would I leave the ELCA? I guess my loyalties are to my congregation and the bishop. If they depart from what I think is appropriate, I'll probably consider it.

In Christ, -Cloy

[AngelusSax]

Third, while I'm not as averse to homosexuality as some ELCA Lutherans, I sincerely hope the ELCA does not pass this resolution. It will split the ELCA and/or it will force a lot of sincere people into positions that violate their beliefs.

The only real problem with this line of thinking is:

No matter what is decided, some people are definitely leaving. Some will leave if the resolution does not pass, and some will leave if it does... and both groups may leave if there's a compromise position that's a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" thing.

[Music4Hym777]

I know that this is a heated issue, but I am going with my home church on it, as "no" especially because MOST not all homosexuals are not repentant of it as a sin. If they were repentant, sure I would be right there with them saying go ahead and be the pastor of my church because we are human and sin.

I know that this will definately split the issues. The Lutheran Student Movement- USA is starting to split because of it. We decided "no" at almost 50/50 but I know that many people who have been involved with the LSM for years probably wont return because of the direction it is going just with homosexuality issue. I have no doubt that the ELCA will do the same thing as the LSM is, so I am prepared to deal with it and stand by my home church and synod bishop.

[RedneckAnglican]

If they were repentant, sure I would be right there with them saying go ahead and be the pastor of my church because we are human and sin.

this has also been my experience..."It can't be a sin...GOD created me with these feelings"...what do you say to that?...we ALL have feelings and urges...but mine are sinful and yours are from GOD?...how does THAT work?...

[ottaia]

You know, Jesus never talked about homosexuality. Jesus talked a lot about money and justice. We seem to be focusing on homosexuality because we can point fingers at others. What if we barred all pastors that didn't tithe? What if we didn't ordain people who are unrepentant of pride?

[Protoevangel]

You know, Jesus never talked about homosexuality. Jesus talked a lot about money and justice. We seem to be focusing on homosexuality because we can point fingers at others. What if we barred all pastors that didn't tithe? What if we didn't ordain people who are unrepentant of pride?
You know, you're right. Jesus never said anything about bestiality or child molestation either. Thanks ottaia, you've really opened my mind!

[ottaia]

You know, you're right. Jesus never said anything about bestiality or child molestation either. Thanks ottaia, you've really opened my mind!

Glad I could!

[JMRE5150]

Glad I could!

I believe Dan was being overly sacrastic trying to make his point.

[Protoevangel]

I believe Dan was being overly sacrastic trying to make his point.
Come on Jim, open your mind. It's time to start having orgies at the alter! Jesus never said anything about it, so it MUST be OK!

[AngelusSax]

Come on Jim, open your mind. It's time to start having orgies at the alter! Jesus never said anything about it, so it MUST be OK!

I don't see what's wrong about using an argument of silence to make a point. After all, the same argument of silence can be made in favor of not overturning some laws as can be for not needing to uphold them anymore.

It's a 2 way street if we want to be intellectually honest. If we don't... then it can be done just in the way that suits us.

PS: The first companions offered to Adam were animals, not Eve. Not saying that makes bestiality okay, but just making a point that Eve was, as the story goes, the last resort.

[ctobola]

My answer is two-fold...

1. As I posted earlier, some questions in the Church aren't worth asking.

2. Those who support homosexual clergy (and the other provisions that will be voted on in August) have either changed their views since they joined the ELCA, or they joined the ELCA when the policies were in place.
Their request that the ELCA reverse its policies (to match up with their views) is FAR less compelling than those who say, "The existing view is important to us -- don't pull it out from under us."

Like I said, I don't have major problems with the issue. I do have problems with an organization fundamentally changing its value system by fiat. Which brings me back to #1.

Excelsior! -Cloy


The only real problem with this line of thinking is:

No matter what is decided, some people are definitely leaving. Some will leave if the resolution does not pass, and some will leave if it does... and both groups may leave if there's a compromise position that's a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" thing.

[ottaia]

Come on Jim, open your mind. It's time to start having orgies at the alter! Jesus never said anything about it, so it MUST be OK!

My point is that there are so many other things that we overlook that Jesus didn't overlook. I this whole thing has a "straw man" feel to me.

[ottaia]

I believe Dan was being overly sacrastic trying to make his point.

Really?;)

[AngelusSax]

My point is that there are so many other things that we overlook that Jesus didn't overlook. I this whole thing has a "straw man" feel to me.

Me too. We'll split a church over homosexuality, but on stuff Jesus got really ticked over (like a lack of helping the poor), we won't bother talking about...

[Willy]

I said I would stay but would try to change things.

People keep saying that it will fail this time but it will come up again and again until it finally passes. This is usually said disparagingly. I wonder if this is not the work of the Holy Spirit trying to nudge us into a different place? Jonah had to be in a fish belly to have his outlook changed.

There are other things we though were biblical which have changed. How is this different?
Wow! I am impressed with you. I appreciate your thoughts. Keep them coming!

[Willy]

You know, Jesus never talked about homosexuality. Jesus talked a lot about money and justice. We seem to be focusing on homosexuality because we can point fingers at others. What if we barred all pastors that didn't tithe? What if we didn't ordain people who are unrepentant of pride?
Let's face it. Our gods often have to do with money and power. WE don't like when our gods are revealed. So we won't talk about the stuff that matters. If we can talk about sexuality matters we can avoid dealing with the true misorientation of our hearts.

[Willy]

Ottaia, thanks for posting. We needed another person who could take some of the heat.

[AngelusSax]

What if we didn't ordain people who are unrepentant of pride?

My guess is we'd have about half the pastors we do have now.

And if we didn't ordain anyone who had at least one sin they were unrepentant of, then there would be absolutely no pastors.

[KagomeShuko]

Me too. We'll split a church over homosexuality, but on stuff Jesus got really ticked over (like a lack of helping the poor), we won't bother talking about...
This is something that really irritates me, especially with my home congregation. *is a kitchen really that important?*

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Protoevangel]

My point is that there are so many other things that we overlook that Jesus didn't overlook. I this whole thing has a "straw man" feel to me.
A straw man is a misrepresentation of an argument created by the attacker which sidesteps the real argument so as to make the opposing view appear weaker than it actually is. Reductio ad absurdum, on the other hand, is a perfectly valid form of logic where one assumes the claim of one's opponent for the sake of argument, and arrives at an absurd result. We can then conclude the original assumption must have been wrong, since it gave us this absurd result.

You said: You know, Jesus never talked about homosexuality. Jesus talked a lot about money and justice. We seem to be focusing on homosexuality because we can point fingers at others.
So, does the fact that Jesus never talked about homosexuality per se, mean that we just ignore that He continually upheld the truthfulness of the entire testimony of Scripture? He strongly upheld the only God-ordained sexual union. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh".

If you turn your back on Scriptural authority in relation to homosexual activity, where is your authority to say pedophilia is wrong? After all, some "good Christians" would say that these activities harm no one, and can be beneficial for all parties involved. Where is your authority to say bestiality is wrong, as long as no one is hurt? Where is your authority to say that a congregational orgy on the altar is wrong?

That was not a straw man; that was reductio ad absurdum. It is ridiculous to assert that just because Jesus did not speak against X, then it is therefore less important than Y. Jesus continually upheld the authority of the Torah, and we have no reason to believe there was any reason to mention it. If he had, I'm sure his reaction would have been just as loving and firm as His reaction to the adulterous woman he saved from being stoned: Neither do I condemn you... Now go and sin no more.



What if we barred all pastors that didn't tithe? What if we didn't ordain people who are unrepentant of pride?
Absolutely, pastors who refuse to offer any kind of gift to the church, and demand that their selfishness must be accepted should be given leave of responsibility in the church. Just as the prideful pastor, who refuses to admit to the sinfulness of this behavior, and demands that his arrogance must be accepted should not be a pastor.

In fact, as I have said this before and will probably have to repeat again, I would a thousand times prefer to have a pastor who has homosexual urges, and even sins in that way, but fully acknowledges this as sinful, and repents (Hebrew: shuv {to return} and nicham {to feel sorrow} for this sinfulness, than I would ever want those two pastors you mentioned.

It is not all about the behavior, it is about acknowledging the authority of Scripture.

[Protoevangel]

Me too. We'll split a church over homosexuality, but on stuff Jesus got really ticked over (like a lack of helping the poor), we won't bother talking about...
Who won't talk about these things? Are you accusing someone specifically, or is this a sort of general judging?


Oh, and I wonder who is pushing the divisive, church-splitting issue in the first place? Maybe those trying to change, and are willing to ignore the perspicuous testimony of Scripture? It would certianly appear that those are the people willing to divide the church to get their way. You are pointing your finger, Angelus... You might want to think about where you are pointing it.

I am not dead-set against change Angelus. It is just that those proposing change have the burden of proof.

[ottaia]

We have equated Onanism with masturbation so that means all pastors who masturbate are out. The Torah bans pork and shellfish so all pastors who enjoy BBQ or go to Red Lobster; Otta Here! Tattooed pastors? Blends in fabrics? Should we shave or not? And all the women out there, KEEP SILENCE!

We have chosen our interpretation of Scripture pretty much since Scripture began.

[AngelusSax]

Who won't talk about these things? Are you accusing someone specifically, or is this a sort of general judging?

Specifically my congregation, and also the fact that I see so much "homosexuality is teh devil" arguments here on CF while any discussion of how to help the poor (whether being for or against doing it) just isn't here in the mass droves that it should be.

You are pointing your finger, Angelus... You might want to think about where you are pointing it.

I point at everyone who deserves to be pointed at. Which would be, frankly, everyone, whether on the "absolutely yes or I'm gone" side or on the "absolutely not or I'm gone" side.

Jesus helped the outcasts of society. Homosexuals are outcasts in our society. The Pharisees thought they were justified in shunning lepers. We think we're justified in shunning homosexuals.

Who are we REALLY more like? I think it's the Pharisees, who weren't exactly told they'd make it to Heaven.

[SPALATIN]

Specifically my congregation, and also the fact that I see so much "homosexuality is the devil" arguments here on CF while any discussion of how to help the poor (whether being for or against doing it) just isn't here in the mass droves that it should be.

I don't think that anyone is saying to shun them, but that they shouldn't have an office in the church and that marriage is between a man and woman.

The Office of Holy Ministry should not have an active gay preaching because then the sin won't even be called a sin anylonger. This is what happens when the church becomes overly tolerant. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't love them and to love them as God would love them means preaching law to show them that they are sinning and then the Gospel to show them that by repentance they will be in that Grace. Where is the love in allowing them to keep sinning?



I point at everyone who deserves to be pointed at. Which would be, frankly, everyone, whether on the "absolutely yes or I'm gone" side or on the "absolutely not or I'm gone" side.

Jesus helped the outcasts of society. Homosexuals are outcasts in our society. The Pharisees thought they were justified in shunning lepers. We think we're justified in shunning homosexuals.

Who are we REALLY more like? I think it's the Pharisees, who weren't exactly told they'd make it to Heaven.

Y'know Angelus, you're right, we all have a little bit of that Pharisee still living in us. While I agree that we should not shun them, we also shouldn't hand over the keys to the castle in welcoming them. The keys belong to those who have repented and are in God's grace.

When Jesus encountered these outcasts such as the woman who was to be stoned for adultery, he told them to "sin no more" I don't see the ELCA leadership saying this in their desire to 'let bygones be bygones'.

Sorry to hone in on this conversation, but aren't you a little bit one sided here when it comes to this issue? If this passes, there are those who are going to wonder what happened to this arm of the church. They are going to feel that the church has abandoned it's mission to preach the Gospel and instead joined the opposition.

Now there are a lot of ELCA congregations out there that want what is right, what is good, what is noble, and what is just, but if this passes will they have that? I don't think so. I spent 2 years in an ELCA church and I get the WordAlone newsletter. I know this issue and the direction that the Group on Higgins Road wants to take it. I think they need a wake up call and a split will achieve that purpose.

[ottaia]

Now there are a lot of ELCA congregations out there that want what is right, what is good, what is noble, and what is just, but if this passes will they have that? I don't think so.

Remember, the same can be said if this doesn't pass. Both sides fervently, and prayerfully, believe in what they are saying. I, with fear and trembling, say we need to move forward.

[ottaia]

Let's face it. Our gods often have to do with money and power. WE don't like when our gods are revealed. So we won't talk about the stuff that matters. If we can talk about sexuality matters we can avoid dealing with the true misorientation of our hearts.

Well stated, Willy!

[Willy]

We have equated Onanism with masturbation so that means all pastors who masturbate are out. The Torah bans pork and shellfish so all pastors who enjoy BBQ or go to Red Lobster; Otta Here! Tattooed pastors? Blends in fabrics? Should we shave or not? And all the women out there, KEEP SILENCE!

We have chosen our interpretation of Scripture pretty much since Scripture began.
Good, good stuff. By the way, it is probably a bad move to equate onanism with masturbation. Onanism is more appropriately coitus interuptis. And all of this has to do with the ancient Jewish view of the sanctity of body fluids. Ottaia, it is so nice to have you on this forum. Some fresh air has just blown in.

[GreekWeasel]

We have equated Onanism with masturbation so that means all pastors who masturbate are out. The Torah bans pork and shellfish so all pastors who enjoy BBQ or go to Red Lobster; Otta Here! Tattooed pastors? Blends in fabrics? Should we shave or not? And all the women out there, KEEP SILENCE!

We have chosen our interpretation of Scripture pretty much since Scripture began.

One thing that the Weasel has noticed from the people on this side is that y'all have no concept of the difference between civil Law, ceremonial Law, and moral Law. Y'all want to equate things like homosexuality (moral Law issue) with fabrics or pork products (ceremonial Law).

The ceremonial Law was in preparation of the coming of Christ. When He came, that Law was fulfilled. This is exactly what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5:17. So the issues concerning fabrics or foods or shaving and whatnot are fulfilled. Issues concerning homosexuality, adultery, women in the ministry are still valid Law. We know this because the New Testament makes this very clear.


GW

[Protoevangel]

We have equated Onanism with masturbation so that means all pastors who masturbate are out. The Torah bans pork and shellfish so all pastors who enjoy BBQ or go to Red Lobster; Otta Here! Tattooed pastors? Blends in fabrics? Should we shave or not? And all the women out there, KEEP SILENCE!

We have chosen our interpretation of Scripture pretty much since Scripture began.
Talk about your strawmen! http://www.techfocus.org/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[RedneckAnglican]

out of curiosity what would be worng with a pastor with tattoos?...I have several myself and have been praying about ordination for awhile now...so if I have ink I shouldn't even try?...

[Willy]

One thing that the Weasel has noticed from the people on this side is that y'all have no concept of the difference between civil Law, ceremonial Law, and moral Law. Y'all want to equate things like homosexuality (moral Law issue) with fabrics or pork products (ceremonial Law).

The ceremonial Law was in preparation of the coming of Christ. When He came, that Law was fulfilled. This is exactly what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5:17. So the issues concerning fabrics or foods or shaving and whatnot are fulfilled. Issues concerning homosexuality, adultery, women in the ministry are still valid Law. We know this because the New Testament makes this very clear.


GW
huh? That's some very questionable Biblical work.

[Willy]

out of curiosity what would be worng with a pastor with tattoos?...I have several myself and have been praying about ordination for awhile now...so if I have ink I shouldn't even try?...
Ya, Ottaia, what's wrong with wearing tattoos? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Protoevangel]

Specifically my congregation, and also the fact that I see so much "homosexuality is teh devil" arguments here on CF while any discussion of how to help the poor (whether being for or against doing it) just isn't here in the mass droves that it should be.
Gee, who started this conversation, fully knowing where it would lead?

So, I haven't seen you starting any threads on how we could help the poor, either. But you sure aren't shy in pointing your finger when using that as an argument to promote other sinful behaviors!

Go ahead, start that thread! I'm game. How about one on how we can help the families of prisoners? That's one I'm greatly interested in. How about how we can help young mothers and their children? I've been trying to get my church to support our local crisis pregnancy center for years (who happens to also support the women after they have their children as well.)


I point at everyone who deserves to be pointed at. Which would be, frankly, everyone, whether on the "absolutely yes or I'm gone" side or on the "absolutely not or I'm gone" side.
Well, I would agree with you here and say that there tends to be a bit of blindness for people on both extremes.


Jesus helped the outcasts of society. Homosexuals are outcasts in our society. The Pharisees thought they were justified in shunning lepers. We think we're justified in shunning homosexuals.
Once again, I wonder who, specifically, you are being so judgemental about here. You say "we", but I doubt you shun homosexuals, and I know I do not. If I shunned all sinners, I couldn't go anywhere near myself.

Other than that, I would fully agree with you on this point. The church has a great responsibility to the outcasts in our society... Including the homosexuals. We have failed them time and again. Our doors must always be open, and we should always be ready to genuinly care for those who are suffering in our midst, hetero or homo sexual. I certianly would kick a Fred Phelps out of my church, but I would always be ready to accept and embrace a Matthew Sheppard.



Who are we REALLY more like? I think it's the Pharisees, who weren't exactly told they'd make it to Heaven.
I don't know, Angelus. Your judgements are getting pretty wild. Here is a suggestion. Don't "take sides" on this issue. The retoric on both sides is full of error. Learn to divide the issue rightly. Scripture does teach that homosexual activity is against God's plan. It also teaches that we are not saved by our own merits. It also teaches that we must be merciful to the stranger. These, and many other teachings are good and Holy. They do not have to be mutually exclusive, although most people (on both sides of the issue) will try to make it appear that they are.

I think I see that you have a good heart and want to do and teach the right thing. I think I see that you have a genuine desire to care for the weak and poor. These are good, and they are why I still try to be so open and frank with you Angelus, even while we are both being snide to each other. I think there is a third option between hedonism and legalism. That third option is the Gospel, which rejects both licentiousness and moralism. Here, and only here, can we -- can our church, heal the wounds that are dividing us.

[ctobola]

GW,

Ceremonial, moral and civil law are interesting taxonomies, but law is law is law; and it does two things:

1. Keeps order in society.
2. Convicts us.

That's it. (I'm not even gonna mention #3 cuz I think #3 is "#2" -- literally and figuratively.) :P

In Christ! -Cloy


One thing that the Weasel has noticed from the people on this side is that y'all have no concept of the difference between civil Law, ceremonial Law, and moral Law. Y'all want to equate things like homosexuality (moral Law issue) with fabrics or pork products (ceremonial Law).

[Protoevangel]

Dividing the Law into different classifications is useful and beneficial to understand the groupings within "the" Law. There can, indeed be usefulness in understanding what the ceremonial Law, and the Moral Law's primary purposes and scope are.

The danger comes when we begin thinking that one or another part of the Law still in force and commands the conscience of the Christian. When Paul declares that we are delivered from the curse of the Law he means the whole Law, particularly the moral law. The Moral Law has no right to condemn that conscience in which Jesus dwells, for Jesus has taken from the Moral Law the right and power to curse us. As Christ is greater than the Law, so much more excellent is the righteousness of Christ than the righteousness of the Law.

[GreekWeasel]

GW,

Ceremonial, moral and civil law are interesting taxonomies, but law is law is law; and it does two things:

1. Keeps order in society.
2. Convicts us.


Unless of course it has been fulfilled and no longer applies.
Who is convicted and going to hell because they eat pork or lobster?? Or wears blended fabric?? No one.

Who is convicted and going to hell for being unrepentant homosexuals?? All of them. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor thecovetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

There is a difference.


GW

[GreekWeasel]

The church has a great responsibility to the outcasts in our society... Including the homosexuals. We have failed them time and again. Our doors must always be open, and we should always be ready to genuinly care for those who are suffering in our midst, hetero or homo sexual. I certianly would kick a Fred Phelps out of my church, but I would always be ready to accept and embrace a Matthew Sheppard.

Here's a question: Just how would you help a Matthew Sheppard? Would you help him by showing him his sinfulness and aiding him in his repentance and in changing his lifestyle to a more God-pleasing way? Or would you "help" him by accepting and embracing his lifestyle that God clearly tells us is an abomination and will lead him to hell as Scripture clearly teaches?

I, like you, believe that the Church could and should reach out and minister to homosexuals. The Church, however, has to be the place that advocates for the former instead of the latter. People who are afflicted with homosexuality can and have been ministered to and have been able to move to recovery from a sinful condemning lifestyle. By telling them that this sin is OK and acceptable is a lie and dangerous to them spiritually.


GW

[Protoevangel]

Here's a question: Just how would you help a Matthew Sheppard? Would you help him by showing him his sinfulness and aiding him in his repentance and in changing his lifestyle to a more God-pleasing way? Or would you "help" him by accepting and embracing his lifestyle that God clearly tells us is an abomination and will lead him to hell as Scripture clearly teaches?

I, like you, believe that the Church could and should reach out and minister to homosexuals. The Church, however, has to be the place that advocates for the former instead of the latter. People who are afflicted with homosexuality can and have been ministered to and have been able to move to recovery from a sinful condemning lifestyle. By telling them that this sin is OK and acceptable is a lie and dangerous to them spiritually.
Do you really have to ask me that? :( I thought I was much more transparent than that. I'll try to answer you later this afternoon, if work slows down, or when I get home.

[AngelusSax]

Who is convicted and going to hell for being unrepentant homosexuals?? All of them. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,nor thieves, nor thecovetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

So if a guy happens to like pink (an effeminate trait in our society), he's hellbound. Nice.

Also nice to know that the stuff about homosexuality is a guess on translators' part, but only once we get to the KJV and beyond... before that, and we don't see it.

Of course, I guess unrepentant heterosexual prideful and slothful people are off the hook though.

[Music4Hym777]

MOD HAT ON!!!


Okay everyone, please calm down! Here are a few red flags that have been brought to mind when reading through this!

#1 This is the ELCA ONLY Sub Forum, I see many LCMS/WELS etc debating in here! This is not allowed as well as it is causing some ruffled feathers. I know that TCCL has been under a lot of stress lately, so please from now on, PLEASE ONLY DEBATE SYNODICAL ISSUES IN THE SYNOD FORUM THAT YOU BELONG TOO!

#2 There is flaming, warnable flaming going on, so far we have not given out warnings, but simply trashed threads! If the flaming conntinues we will start handing out warnings! Ya'll know I HATE giving them out, but if this flaming continues I will be forced too!

Thanks ya'll if you have any questions please feel free to PM Me!

Monica

MOD HAT OFF!!!

[Protoevangel]

Hey Music,


I appreciate what you are trying to do, but maybe we can have some rules discussed and posted before we start busting out the ticket book?


Thank you for being you! ;)

[GreekWeasel]

So if a guy happens to like pink (an effeminate trait in our society), he's hellbound. Nice.

ROFLWHO!!!^_^ ^_^

Also nice to know that the stuff about homosexuality is a guess on translators' part, but only once we get to the KJV and beyond... before that, and we don't see it.

Where did you do your Greek studies? Just curious.

Of course, I guess unrepentant heterosexual prideful and slothful people are off the hook though.

The key word is "unrepentant." Any unrepentant sin is not forgiven and will lead to judgement. If someone is homosexual, he is unrepentant, otherwise he wouldn't be homosexual anymore but would rather repent of that lifestyle and seek help to recovery. Our society needs to get over this false idea that homosexuals constitute another "gender." They can and many have overcome. This should be the goal of the Church and not embracing a behavior that is clearly an abomination.


GW

[Music4Hym777]

The mods are still trying to figure out the specific rules, however, the rules that Erwin posted when he said that the new forums were opening are in place. Flaming is a CF rule, you can check it out under the FAQ's #1.1 (I had ever so much fun learning all of those when I became a mod:D ) As well as their are rules about debating in other denominational forums(sorry haven't memorized the Christian Only specific rule numbers yet). You can post there for fellowship, but no debating, this is the same with TCCL dividing into synods. When you go into the "opposing" synod forum, you are under the same rules as if you are going into a different denomination forum.

[Protoevangel]

Here's a question: Just how would you help a Matthew Sheppard? Would you help him by showing him his sinfulness and aiding him in his repentance and in changing his lifestyle to a more God-pleasing way? Or would you "help" him by accepting and embracing his lifestyle that God clearly tells us is an abomination and will lead him to hell as Scripture clearly teaches?

I, like you, believe that the Church could and should reach out and minister to homosexuals. The Church, however, has to be the place that advocates for the former instead of the latter. People who are afflicted with homosexuality can and have been ministered to and have been able to move to recovery from a sinful condemning lifestyle. By telling them that this sin is OK and acceptable is a lie and dangerous to them spiritually.

GW
How would I help and teach a Matthew Sheppard? I would teach him that the true way of becoming a Christian is to be justified by faith in Jesus Christ. We know that we must also teach the Law and good works, but they must be taught in their proper time, when the discussion is concerning works and not the article of Justification. Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." (John 6:29). Christ is not the minister of sin, not a cruel tyrant of the Law, but the Dispenser of Righteousness and the Giver of life. All who believe in Him are delivered from law, sin and death.

Paul says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Does he say that none of these people (who were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus) would never sin again? No. He did say, though, that this is no longer who you are. They did not stop being what they once were by someone telling them, "do this or go to hell", no, it was the Grace of God that changed what they were.

Paul even says of himself, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:14-25)

As a Christian, I cannot condone a lifestyle God calls sinful, I cannot condone the breaking of any jot or tittle of the Law. But the Law still has no right to tell me that I must be Justified by it, it has no right to tell me how to be delivered from sin, death, and Hell. That is the Gospel’s business, not to tell me not what I must do, but what Jesus Christ the Son of God has done for me. To be at peace with God, we need to have a far better mediator than the Law. We must know that we are nothing. We must understand that we are merely beneficiaries and recipients of the treasures of Christ.

[ottaia]

As a Christian, I cannot condone a lifestyle God calls sinful, I cannot condone the breaking of any jot or tittle of the Law.

A lifestyle God calls sinful or Paul calls sinful?

[SPALATIN]

A lifestyle God calls sinful or Paul calls sinful?

God.

[ctobola]

As I said, Law is Law is Law is Law. It convicts us and shows that we need a savior. It convicts the unrepentant in all sexual areas, those who steal office supplies, those who covet, etc., etc.

In the end, we all end up convicted and sentenced to death.

-Cloy

[Protoevangel]

A lifestyle God calls sinful or Paul calls sinful?
You would pit Paul against God? Paul's doctrine is not man's, but God's; to reject Paul is to reject Christ, who sent him.

[Willy]

A lifestyle God calls sinful or Paul calls sinful?
Thank you, thank you, thank you. ACtually I am not sure that Paul calls what we know as homosexual orientation "sinful." But nonetheless, thank you for making it clear that Paul wrote Paul. To say that God wrote Paul is particularly problematic. If God wrote the Bible, God certainly has a plethora, sometimes very contradicting, perspectives on matters. Thanks Ottaia. I sure appreciate your bravery. WE should meet some day.

[AngelusSax]

You would pit Paul against God? Paul's doctrine is not man's, but God's; to reject Paul is to reject Christ, who sent him.

I'm sorry, but the more I read the Bible, the more I have to disagree with this line of reasoning. Yes, Christ sent Paul. But Christ didn't tell Paul every word to write either.

[Protoevangel]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. ACtually I am not sure that Paul calls what we know as homosexual orientation "sinful." But nonetheless, thank you for making it clear that Paul wrote Paul. To say that God wrote Paul is particularly problematic. If God wrote the Bible, God certainly has a plethora, sometimes very contradicting, perspectives on matters. Thanks Ottaia. I sure appreciate your bravery. WE should meet some day.
But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds.
Acts 17:13

Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, "Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city." And he continued there a year and six months,teaching the word of God among them.
Acts 18:9-11

If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1 Corinthians 14:37-38

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)
Galatians 1:1

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:13


What Paul says about Scripture:
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 3:16

What Peter says about Paul's Epistles:
consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:15-16


So you would make Luke, Paul and Peter all out to be liars?

[AngelusSax]

I wouldn't call them liars, but I also am cogniscantly aware enough to realize the Jewish heritage found in their teachings, speaking of having to uphold laws that supposedly Christ came to be sacrificed so that we don't have to... Not that we shouldn't, but it's no longer a "have to" issue.

[Willy]

But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was preached by Paul at Berea, they came there also and stirred up the crowds.
Acts 17:13

Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, "Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city." And he continued there a year and six months,teaching the word of God among them.
Acts 18:9-11

If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
1 Corinthians 14:37-38

Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead)
Galatians 1:1

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:13


What Paul says about Scripture:
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 3:16

What Peter says about Paul's Epistles:
consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
2 Peter 3:15-16


So you would make Luke, Paul and Peter all out to be liars?
Did I say that? It would be helpful for you to have a more nuanced understanding of what the Word of God meant to Hebrew people.

[sculpturegirl]

We have equated Onanism with masturbation so that means all pastors who masturbate are out. The Torah bans pork and shellfish so all pastors who enjoy BBQ or go to Red Lobster; Otta Here! Tattooed pastors? Blends in fabrics? Should we shave or not? And all the women out there, KEEP SILENCE!

We have chosen our interpretation of Scripture pretty much since Scripture began.

There is a difference with ceremonial cleanliness and moral purity. Blending two fabrics together is about ceremonial cleanliness, not eating pork is about ceremonial cleanliness (in fact, the New Testement states that all of God's creatures are clean), what we do sexually has moral and spiritual connotations for we are God's Holy Temple.

By the way, women shouldn't be chattering away during services anyway. :P

[AngelusSax]

what we do sexually has moral and spiritual connotations for we are God's Holy Temple.

Of course. As for whether homosexuality goes with or against that, can we please not use this thread?

I'd prefer this to be more about Church authority (homosexuality just happens to be the current issue with which to ask the question in a less-than-hypothetical manner) than about the sinfulness of homosexuality, or lack thereof.

[Protoevangel]

A lifestyle God calls sinful or Paul calls sinful?Paul wrote Paul. To say that God wrote Paul is particularly problematic....not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God...Did I say that? It would be helpful for you to have a more nuanced understanding of what the Word of God meant to Hebrew people.

Don’t play dumb, Willy, it doesn’t suit you. That’s exactly what you were implying. Of course the human authors were not amanuenses; their freedom and individuality were not abridged, nor were their personalities suppressed. These are not necessary suppositions for theopneustos; all Scripture! And Paul, Luke and Peter all tell us that Paul’s writings are indeed Scripture, it's as simple as that. Paul wrote God because God breathed through Paul.

There is no need to assume subtle nuances or fine particularities of word meanings in God’s message, because His Word is not esoteric. His Word is perspicuous and incontrovertible. This has been the position of the Lutheran church throughout history, and was one of the most basic precepts of the very reformation. Read all the nuances you want to into Scripture, I won’t say that has no value. It still does not change the perspicuity of Scripture.

You can be as subtle as you want when you call me ignorant, Willy. I won’t argue with you about that. I do not pride myself on my intellectual triumph, you can have all of that you want.

[Willy]

Wow! My words were not meant to be personal nor an attack on your intellect. "Word of God" for Hebrews could never be contained in a book. Experienced in a book? Yes. Mediated by scriptures? Yes. But word of God and scriptures are not the same thing. Luther recognized that. That's why he referred to the scriptures as the manger of the Christ. I'm impressed with your vocabulary. Can't say I know what all those words mean.

[sculpturegirl]

Of course. As for whether homosexuality goes with or against that, can we please not use this thread?

I'd prefer this to be more about Church authority (homosexuality just happens to be the current issue with which to ask the question in a less-than-hypothetical manner) than about the sinfulness of homosexuality, or lack thereof.

Sorry. I am not sure what I will do. I think that the ELCA is spending too much time ignoring the Scriptures these days. It seems that the leadership is very liberal, while the congregations tend to be more moderate and th eliberal leaders are just dragging the parishes along. Though, I do love my congregation, so I am not going anywhere just yet. I will stand up a fight. If we move, I might go to the Missouri Synod, whose beliefs I feel are more confessional. Honestly, there is a part of my that hopes the church splits and that there is a big to-do because we need to show that we won't take this ignoring the Gospel lying down. The Episcopal church hasn't split, but it is hemmoraging members and the international community is very divided. How will it be different for us?

[Protoevangel]

I'd prefer this to be more about Church authority (homosexuality just happens to be the current issue with which to ask the question in a less-than-hypothetical manner) than about the sinfulness of homosexuality, or lack thereof.
That is a fair question, and one that really does need to be asked. But before that question can even be intelligible, we must answer the question "what is the church?"

I would propose that the ELCA is not "the church", although it may be a "part" of the church. Therefore, leaving the ELCA over this, or another issue in no way equates to "not submitting to church authority". In fact, it may very well be the ELCA that is not submitting to church authority. A part of the church cannot act with impunity, independent of the church as a whole, without the danger of no longer being of "the church".

[UberLutheran]

It was in the ELCA that I finally "got it" regarding justification by grace, through faith -- that I didn't "earn" my justification by performing sacramentals, or making sure that I had all my Sacraments all lined up and all in a row, or being The Best Little Boy In The Whole World -- and for someone who had been raised as an ultra-fundamentalist who ended up an equally strict Anglo-Catholic that was quite an epiphany!

It has been in the ELCA where I have found a happy medium of a liturgy I love, with music I love; where I've been able to re-establish a connection to Scripture without Scripture being a "weapon" (particularly a weapon with which to self-inflict wounds), and where I've been able to step past "rules" into "faith".

My own parish is liberal: our pastor is a woman; we're very open to gay and lesbian members; we're very involved in our community trying to make it a better place. My parish is also the most truly Christ-focused church I've ever attended in my life.

How the ELCA votes as a whole won't have an effect on whether I leave the ELCA or not. I may be disappointed with the vote; but the ELCA has served me very, very well and supported me spiritually in a way that no other denomination has -- and they have my support.

[Protoevangel]

Wow! My words were not meant to be personal nor an attack on your intellect. "Word of God" for Hebrews could never be contained in a book. Experienced in a book? Yes. Mediated by scriptures? Yes. But word of God and scriptures are not the same thing. Luther recognized that. That's why he referred to the scriptures as the manger of the Christ. I'm impressed with your vocabulary. Can't say I know what all those words mean.
:sorry: Sorry, I've been reading a lot about Sacred Hermeneutics lately, and have had to keep a dictionary handy myself. Once I leaned the words though, they just seem to flow and fit the conversation.

Yes, Luther called Holy Scripture the manger where Christ lies. But making your claims based on that is a non sequitur. Luther also said, “The preacher must preach only the Word of Holy Scripture, for the Bible is the very Scripture of the Spirit...It cannot be otherwise, for the Scriptures are divine; in them God speaks, and they are His Word. To hear or to read the Scriptures is nothing else than to hear God.”

Should I believe what Luther said himself, or should I believe what you allege he understood?

[Melethiel]

Sorry. I am not sure what I will do. I think that the ELCA is spending too much time ignoring the Scriptures these days. It seems that the leadership is very liberal, while the congregations tend to be more moderate and th eliberal leaders are just dragging the parishes along. Though, I do love my congregation, so I am not going anywhere just yet. I will stand up a fight. If we move, I might go to the Missouri Synod, whose beliefs I feel are more confessional. Honestly, there is a part of my that hopes the church splits and that there is a big to-do because we need to show that we won't take this ignoring the Gospel lying down. The Episcopal church hasn't split, but it is hemmoraging members and the international community is very divided. How will it be different for us?

I also admit to hoping that the ELCA splits over this. :o
This post pretty much sums my views up. I won't be leaving my congregation (unless it becomes overly liberal), but when I move, I will be looking into minor synods or the LCMS.

[adamanitos]

Greetings All!! My good friend Dan Head referred me to this forum.

RE: THE VOTE:
I would "contend for the faith (Jude 3)" and seek to challenge blessing same sex marriage and ordaining homosexuals to the ministry. For the foreseeable future, I wouldn't leave my ELCA congregation. I came there 2 years ago as a missionary. I'm sharing the gospel and "like a lion let out of a cage" it is doing it's work.
I'm not fed by the sermons at our church. I never have been. They are actually harmful to the babes in Christ. Akin to Aesop's Fables the sermons contain lots of moralism which could be easily summed up as "try harder next week." Calvin said of the medieval church that "Christ passed unnoticed like one of the saints." It's the same today. I outsource for the gospel. It wouldn't make any sense for me to leave that congregation because most of the churches in the Pacific NorthWest are bleeding out of every orifice.

RE: CHURCH -V- SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY
I affirm with the reformers the "autopistis" (self-evidencing) nature of the scriptures. The scriptures create the church (Eph. 2:20; Mt. 16:17-18). God's word has a nature, a divine essence ("the sheep follow him because they recognize his voice" - John 10:4).
In individuals we can distinguish 'possessing' vs. 'professing' faith. In the church at large it's expressed as both 'visible' and invisible'. What's the litmus test in either case?

RE: THE GOSPEL - THE "SINE QUA NON"
Charles Hodge used the analogy of currency to explain the quality of the church. Every demonimation wants to consider itself "A Ben Franklin" ($100 bill) but the fact is in terms of allegiance to Christ's word some are only a $1 bill. Whether a $1 bill or $100 bill the key is that we are dealing with "Gospel Currency."
For me the gospel is the "sine qua non" (the one essential quality) for determining whether a congregation is a church or not. Paul laid this down well in Gal. 1:9. Much is required to "be a Christian" but to "become a Christian" nothing is required except to stop working...impossible for man to do but with God all things are possible.

Cheers...

[adamanitos]

My parish is also the most truly Christ-focused church I've ever attended in my life.

UberLutheran,

I realize you are just expressing an emotional state in the above quote (describing opinion vs. prescribing knowledge). I was curious if you could elaborate and try to quantify how your current ELCA parish is the "most truly Christ-focused church" that you've ever attended.

How specifically does it compare to past churches and how would you quantify such a claim?

Blessings,
Adam

[AngelusSax]

I would propose that the ELCA is not "the church", although it may be a "part" of the church. Therefore, leaving the ELCA over this, or another issue in no way equates to "not submitting to church authority".

I would say it does, because it means that no matter what part of the church does this, one won't submit to it. You're either going to submit or you're not.

I am not sure what I will do. I think that the ELCA is spending too much time ignoring the Scriptures these days.

Or maybe they're just finally reading the OTHER parts of Scripture which don't let us say "your sins are more icky so we won't let you in any authority position".

Ever think of that?

If we fall to one aspect of the Law, we fall to ALL of the Law... so if I lust, I also fall to the Law that says don't commit homosexual acts (or don't steal, don't commit adultery [since lust is adultery according to Jesus], don't murder, etc.).

Here's the best question to ask, in my opinion. It helps against having a prideful heart, too. Instead of seeing a decision and saying "they're wrong and I'm right", say "Have I been wrong all this time?"

And then seriously consider the possibility that you were. It helps me both to sharpen beliefs I already hold, as well as to do away with ones I find to be just plain stupid (not saying your beliefs are stupid, but some of my old ones were).

[Willy]

:sorry: Sorry, I've been reading a lot about Sacred Hermeneutics lately, and have had to keep a dictionary handy myself. Once I leaned the words though, they just seem to flow and fit the conversation.

Yes, Luther called Holy Scripture the manger where Christ lies. But making your claims based on that is a non sequitur. Luther also said, “The preacher must preach only the Word of Holy Scripture, for the Bible is the very Scripture of the Spirit...It cannot be otherwise, for the Scriptures are divine; in them God speaks, and they are His Word. To hear or to read the Scriptures is nothing else than to hear God.”

Should I believe what Luther said himself, or should I believe what you allege he understood?
Why do you have to ask questions like that? Why not just express your opinion and then seek a response? The question is like the folks who call on the phone asking you to support their cause with handicapped persons. Oh, so you are not in favor of helping hadicapped kids, they ask after you say you don't want to send them money? That's right. I'm opposed to it. I don't want to help anybody in need. Yes, of course you should believe what I allege Luther to say. No, I don't want you to read him yourself. Just accept my words. The world will be a much better place then. Come on.

[Protoevangel]

I would say it does, because it means that no matter what part of the church does this, one won't submit to it. You're either going to submit or you're not.I would say it does, because it means that no matter what part of the church does this, one won't submit to it. You're either going to submit or you're not.
In quoting me, you missed the essence of what I was getting at. Let me share that quote in context again:
I would propose that the ELCA is not "the church", although it may be a "part" of the church. Therefore, leaving the ELCA over this, or another issue in no way equates to "not submitting to church authority". In fact, it may very well be the ELCA that is not submitting to church authority. A part of the church cannot act with impunity, independent of the church as a whole, without the danger of no longer being of "the church".
When the church turns away from Scripture, it ceases to be the Church. In this, the ELCA is clearly turning away from the Word.

Are there other areas where the church can do better? Yes, of course there is. It is your (and my) responsibility to try to correct these failings... without embracing and teaching other errors! Has the church allowed the unfair discrimination against homosexuals? Yes, I think it has. This is an area that the ELCA is trying to correct. I do applaud this. I do not applaud, however, the fact that they are overdoing it to the point where they are ignoring the clear testimony of Scripture.

[Willy]

A decision about whether non-celibate gays should or should not be ordained is not a gospel question. The brilliance of the Reformation is the belief that the unity of the church rises and falls on the basis of the gospel, not on matters related to sexuality.

[Protoevangel]

Why do you have to ask questions like that? Why not just express your opinion and then seek a response? The question is like the folks who call on the phone asking you to support their cause with handicapped persons. Oh, so you are not in favor of helping hadicapped kids, they ask after you say you don't want to send them money? That's right. I'm opposed to it. I don't want to help anybody in need. Yes, of course you should believe what I allege Luther to say. No, I don't want you to read him yourself. Just accept my words. The world will be a much better place then. Come on.

Because talking to you is like wrestling with jell-o.


A decision about whether non-celibate gays should or should not be ordained is not a gospel question. The brilliance of the Reformation is the belief that the unity of the church rises and falls on the basis of the gospel, not on matters related to sexuality.
You are correct. A decision about whether non-celibate gays should or should not be ordained is not a gospel question. The Gospel is about Justification, about Heavenly things. Things like sexuality, and who should be or not be ordaned are questions related to the Law and earthly things. In matters such as these, the commands and demands of the Law are paramount.


Edit: :confused: Wait a minute. Did we just agree on something? :eek: If we did, that has got to be a first in the year or so I've known you on Christian Forums!

[sculpturegirl]

RE: THE VOTE:
I would "contend for the faith (Jude 3)" and seek to challenge blessing same sex marriage and ordaining homosexuals to the ministry. For the foreseeable future, I wouldn't leave my ELCA congregation. I came there 2 years ago as a missionary. I'm sharing the gospel and "like a lion let out of a cage" it is doing it's work.
I'm not fed by the sermons at our church. I never have been. They are actually harmful to the babes in Christ. Akin to Aesop's Fables the sermons contain lots of moralism which could be easily summed up as "try harder next week." Calvin said of the medieval church that "Christ passed unnoticed like one of the saints." It's the same today. I outsource for the gospel. It wouldn't make any sense for me to leave that congregation because most of the churches in the Pacific NorthWest are bleeding out of every orifice.


Wow, this is exactly how I feel about my church. Every Sunday we hear "God loves you! Try to be a good person!" When I joined they didn't even ask me if I was baptized or not. I read the Augsburg Confession and the Catechisms on my own, though with a little prodding we DID get an adult catechism going :)

I sometimes feel like a missionary in my own church. Right now I am on a chastity kick. Did you know that there are NO chastity resources in the ELCA. NOT ONE! No one is teaching chastity, not even to our young people. So, I am writing a chastity resource for the Augsburg Fortress, they just don't know it yet :P

We need to be a little more hard core gospel in the ELCA! YEAH!:amen:

[sculpturegirl]

Or maybe they're just finally reading the OTHER parts of Scripture which don't let us say "your sins are more icky so we won't let you in any authority position".

Ever think of that?



Yes, we need to be honest about the ickiness of our sins, but the homosexual agenda is to have them BLESSED. There is a big difference here. I would have no problem with a minister who admits to having homosexual attractions, but repents and chooses to live a chaste lifestyle. In fact, I would high respect him!

[Protoevangel]

Welcome to CF adamanitos! It is good to have you on board!!!

[adamanitos]

[QUOTE=AngelusSax]If we fall to one aspect of the Law, we fall to ALL of the Law... so if I lust, I also fall to the Law that says don't commit homosexual acts (or don't steal, don't commit adultery [since lust is adultery according to Jesus], don't murder, etc.).
QUOTE]

As iron sharpens iron I offer the following...

I agree that to fall in one sin is to be guilty of them all for James 2:10 teaches "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." The law is a golden chain. When Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit they broke all 10 commandments simultaneously.

Not to be confrontational but I think the portion quoted reflects the "fallacy of division." What's true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts. Ex. A normal human is a conscious entity but not every cell or molecule of that human is a conscious entity.

Consider: All sin is equally sin but not all sin is equally sinful. Some sins are merely sin, some sins are also 'crimes,' that is, they have social consequences. This is easily is supported from scripture as follows...

Luke 12:47-48
"And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required"

Matt. 11:21-22
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.

When you study OT penology (i.e. - the holiness code of Ex. 21-23, Lev. 18-21, Deut. 5-25) there are different penal sanctions depending on the offense. Coveting is a sin but it is not a crime. In other words, there is no penal sanction against coveting because the magistrate aka "God's minister" (Rom. 13:4 "doesn't bear the sword in vain...") does not have omniscience to judge coveting. That will have to wait for God's final judgement since only He can see the heart. Martin Luther King, jr. captured this well in his comment "you can pass laws to keep men from killing me but you can't pass laws to keep men from hating me." Sins such as homosexuality, adultery, stealing, perjury, are observable and therefore publically provable ("with two of three witnesses"). Crimes have punitive consequences both now and in the final judgment.

Paul says in 1 Tim. 1:8-10 that the law is good if one uses it lawfully and he goes on to say in verse 10 that the law rightfully restrains sins such as...and then he names homosexuality among others. In Lev. 18:22 homosexuality is described as "an abomination" because it is "against nature" as Paul states in Rom. 1. Therefore, homosexuality and other perverse abominations are qualitively different than other sins (i.e. - coveting, lust, etc.) from the standpoint of social and divine justice.

To prevent recovering Pharisees like myself from puffing out our chests, we should ask "Could anything be worse in degree than homosexuality?" Absolutely, "self-righteous conservative religion" which is much more common than homosexuality. Jesus said to the Pharisees (chief priests & elders) in Mt. 21:31 that "tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you." A chilling rebuke that should cause any conservatives who are relying on their outward purity and apparent victory over the sins, as C.S. Lewis terms them, "of the animal nature" to see ourselves as more clean than others. Moral conservatives who don't repent of trusting in their good works are in a far worse condition than the debauched individuals they look down upon. I'd rather be a penitent homosexual than an impenitent heterosexual.

"God loves His people even when he afflicts them and hates the impenitent even when He befriends them." - Dr. John Gerstner.

[adamanitos]

A decision about whether non-celibate gays should or should not be ordained is not a gospel question. The brilliance of the Reformation is the belief that the unity of the church rises and falls on the basis of the gospel, not on matters related to sexuality.

Hi Willy.

Premise 1: The gospel "good news" is offered to penitent sinners.
Premise 2: Repentance includes all violations of sexual infidelity.
Conclusion: Therefore, reception of the gospel and repentance from sexual perversion is unavoidable.

If one repents they are no longer seen as dressed in their righteousness. In other words, repentant homosexuals are not homosexuals. They are clothed in Christ and perfectly righteous. Remember Luther's "simul iustus et pecattor" -- "simultaneously justified and sinful."

Celibate and non-celibate gays are both under the condemnation of God for Paul condemns both the lust (desire; orientation) and the practice of the homosexual (Rom.1:24&C). The good news is they must repent and God promises to send His spirit to enable them to repent. He does not leave us helpless against the onslaught of indwelling sin.

A pastor friend of mine related the following exchange. A woman told him that she wanted to become a Christian but had a question. She wanted to know if she could become a Christian even though she hated her sister-in-law. I'm willing to hazard a guess that most fundementalist pastors would reply "yes, you must overcome the hatred towards your sister-in-law before you become a Christian." That is not the gospel though. In other words, Jesus can save you from all of your other sins but you first need to save yourself from your bitterness. Wrong! The gospel can uproot your bitterness over time as it does it's lifechanging work just like it helped the apostle Peter overcome his racism and cowardice (Gal. 2:14).

[Willy]

Because talking to you is like wrestling with jell-o.



You are correct. A decision about whether non-celibate gays should or should not be ordained is not a gospel question. The Gospel is about Justification, about Heavenly things. Things like sexuality, and who should be or not be ordaned are questions related to the Law and earthly things. In matters such as these, the commands and demands of the Law are paramount.


Edit: :confused: Wait a minute. Did we just agree on something? :eek: If we did, that has got to be a first in the year or so I've known you on Christian Forums!
Wrestling with jell-o sounds like fun.

[RedneckAnglican]

I sometimes feel like a missionary in my own church. Right now I am on a chastity kick. Did you know that there are NO chastity resources in the ELCA. NOT ONE! No one is teaching chastity, not even to our young people. So, I am writing a chastity resource for the Augsburg Fortress, they just don't know it yet :P

We need to be a little more hard core gospel in the ELCA! YEAH!:amen:

I know exactly how you feel...I had to teach my Sunday School class a couple of weeks ago...we're doing lessons over the Holy Spirit right now...I used some of the Small Catachism for the text of the lesson...there were about 2 folks in the class that knew what I was reading from...add this to the fact that most of these folks can quote from John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Kenneth Copeland and the rest of the TBN crowd...just makes me shudder sometimes...

my family and I just joined the Church about a month or so ago...been going since Febuary...I had to get a copy of the small catachism on my own...I downloaded a copy of the Book of Concord on my own...nobody in the Church told me about this stuff...I heard about it here on this site...Although, in my Churches defense...they did ask if we had been baptised or not...

[AngelusSax]

I sometimes feel like a missionary in my own church. Right now I am on a chastity kick. Did you know that there are NO chastity resources in the ELCA. NOT ONE! No one is teaching chastity, not even to our young people. So, I am writing a chastity resource for the Augsburg Fortress, they just don't know it yet :P


I'd be interested in learning how that goes for you. Keep us posted, will ya?

[Willy]

Larry Rasmussen in the latest edition of The Lutheran has an interesting article about the nature of "reformation churches." He argues that some of the changes in the church regarding our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters represent a perfect occasion for the church to live out its reformation (Lutheran) identity. It's an interesting and compelling article. He argues that we shouldn't be so concerned about unity, but about our chance to be faithful in a new way in a new generation. This is what Lutherans have been about since the beginning (e.g., change in the language of the mass, the opposition to slavery, the ordination of women). Interesting and helpful perspective.

[ctobola]

The Lutheran said we shouldn't be concerned about unity!!!!!

I think the Vikings are about to win the SuperBowl... Hell must have frozen over!

-Cloy

Larry Rasmussen in the latest edition of The Lutheran has an interesting article about the nature of "reformation churches." He argues that some of the changes in the church regarding our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters represent a perfect occasion for the church to live out its reformation (Lutheran) identity. It's an interesting and compelling article. He argues that we shouldn't be so concerned about unity, but about our chance to be faithful in a new way in a new generation. This is what Lutherans have been about since the beginning (e.g., change in the language of the mass, the opposition to slavery, the ordination of women). Interesting and helpful perspective.

[SPALATIN]

The Lutheran said we shouldn't be concerned about unity!!!!!

I think the Vikings are about to win the SuperBowl... Hell must have frozen over!

-Cloy

It's about time. We deserve a Super Bowl win let alone an appearance. ;)

[sculpturegirl]

Key words: "penitent homosexual"

We all need to be a little more penitent, huh?

[adamanitos]

Key words: "penitent homosexual"

We all need to be a little more penitent, huh?

My stars!!

<sarcasm>
Albeit a soundbite I'm glad to see a response to something I wrote.

I was fearing, as a Concordia professor friend said of daytime TV, "if there was a thought there it would die from loneliness." ;).
</sarcasm>.

Theology, "Study of God." Forum, "doorway."

I love your name "ScriptureGirl." May your tribe increase!

[ChiRho]

Larry Rasmussen in the latest edition of The Lutheran has an interesting article about the nature of "reformation churches." He argues that some of the changes in the church regarding our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters represent a perfect occasion for the church to live out its reformation (Lutheran) identity. It's an interesting and compelling article. He argues that we shouldn't be so concerned about unity, but about our chance to be faithful in a new way in a new generation. This is what Lutherans have been about since the beginning (e.g., change in the language of the mass, the opposition to slavery, the ordination of women). Interesting and helpful perspective.


There it is.

[sculpturegirl]

ScriptureGirl would have been a cooler name, but mine is sculpturegirl because I make sculptures.

:)

[Willy]

There it is.
That's true. There it is.

[cableguy]

Larry Rasmussen in the latest edition of The Lutheran has an interesting article about the nature of "reformation churches." He argues that some of the changes in the church regarding our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters represent a perfect occasion for the church to live out its reformation (Lutheran) identity. It's an interesting and compelling article. He argues that we shouldn't be so concerned about unity, but about our chance to be faithful in a new way in a new generation. This is what Lutherans have been about since the beginning (e.g., change in the language of the mass, the opposition to slavery, the ordination of women). Interesting and helpful perspective.


Sounds like culture over scripure to me

[cableguy]

In this whole argument I’ve tried to keep an open mind. Perhaps those who I had a disagreement with could show me my error with the aid of scripture. I’ve kept pretty quite during the whole debate. My feelings were that perhaps I did not know enough about the issue or the Word to make a good argument one way or another. Heck, I might have even been afraid to step on either side. Confrontation has never been my strong suit.

During this whole debate on this thread I have been waiting, even hoping, that those on the liberal side of the issue could make a strong, scripture based argument to pursued me that homosexuality, though a sin, was not a disqualifying factor in choosing a pastor. Every once in a while some good, heart felt points would be make, but with little or no scripture behind it. I was then taken way back when the word of Paul was questioned. Some of the debate has even shifted to an almost anti-scripture argument. That is choosing what part of the Word would fit the argument, and discarding the rest as " old prejudice " not worthy of serious thought. It has a very disgusting Bishop Spong quality to it.

I have a feeling those who want a progressive church just for the sake of progressiveness rather then Christ will not like my reaction. I may even get the old " If you don’t like the direction we’re heading then get out" line. For those I would ask to keep your knee jerk reaction to yourself. I want someone on the other side to give me a sane scripture filled argument, not progressive banter. Convince me that your view are in keeping with the Word of our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles who followed.

[JCrawf]

I was then taken way back when the word of Paul was questioned. Some of the debate has even shifted to an almost anti-scripture argument. That is choosing what part of the Word would fit the argument, and discarding the rest as "old prejudice" not worthy of serious thought. It has a very disgusting Bishop Spong quality to it.


In Catholicism, this would basically be called being a 'cafeteria Catholic', among other things.

At any rate, I don't mean to get into a debate here about the dealings of the ELCA and the issue of what authority they have. That's for among you who are in the ELCA to debate over. I was ECLA before becoming Catholic. The Church I was at (Immanuel Lutheran) was a good and quite concervative church. Though I didn't care about the ELCA's stance on abortion, that wasn't why I left. If I didn't have a personal conviction about the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, I would have more than likely stayed with the Lutheran Church. But that's a whole different issue. Both that and the issue of authority are for you to decide.

But, if you would like to see how Catholics are doing on this issue, here's one article from the more concervative side of the Catholic Church:

The "Gay" Priest Solution
(http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0405fr.asp)

Peace Be With You,

John

[cableguy]

very interesting.

[ottaia]

Cableguy,

http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/background.html

You can check this out. Unfortunately, most people will say they are "twisting" the scripture to say what they want. Knowing Wally Taylor personally, he would never compromise his integrity to "make" the scriptures say anything. Historical criticism is not "twisting."

[AngelusSax]

Historical criticism is not "twisting."

AMEN! If anything is twisting, it's the highly selective literalism that is done in many many circles. And it's not selective based on the writings, but of the preconceived notions of the reader.

[JCrawf]

AMEN! If anything is twisting, it's the highly selective literalism that is done in many many circles. And it's not selective based on the writings, but of the preconceived notions of the reader.

What about literary criticism?

Pax Tecum,

John

[AngelusSax]

Literary criticism... define please? (As in, defining words based on other literary writings of the day with the same words in them, or what?)

[ottaia]

What I know of literary criticism is bringing the tools of cha