Gay Lutheran Pastor Removed over Partner [Archive]

Studeclunker

9th February 2007, 04:33 PM

It actually has been proven that there is a chemical difference between homosexual and hetrosexual men's brains. What is not popularly published, is that this chemical imbalance of the homosexual brain can be corrected. The situation with this man (and by the way the SF church worshiping Ashera), is illustrative of the dangers involved when allowing popular culture to influence church policy and doctrine.

The first is that "the OT also tells us to stone adulterers and not to cut our beards". If that is outmoded and no longer believed, why should we call homosexuality an abomination?

The second argument is that Jesus NEVER mentioned gays. So are you a Pauline or are you a Christian?

As to the first argument, see the above. It is an abnormality. This therefore disqualifies anyone, suffering from this condition, from holding any leadership position in the church.

As to the second argument; Be careful when challenging the apostles. They were established by Christ himself as the leaders of his new church. Are any of us greater than the least of them? The second argument is circular and moot. There is no difference. The Via Paulinica is Christianity, period. As a Lutheran, you have no other choice. Luther wanted to name his new church the Via Paulinica. It is through the Pauline sections of the NT that the Reformation was born. If you reject this, then you are Roman Catholic, as you lose all of the basic tennets of the Reformation. And their stand on homosexuality is even more conservative than the Lutheran.

Flipper

9th February 2007, 05:05 PM

As to the first argument, see the above. It is an abnormality. This therefore disqualifies anyone, suffering from this condition, from holding any leadership position in the church.

I know what you are saying, but that logic would suggest that someone who has depression and takes medication to control that depression can't be a pastor either.

You can't be a pastor if you can't lead by example, and if you continue in specific sins - it's nothing to do with whether or not you have an abnormality or not.

Studeclunker

9th February 2007, 05:27 PM

Actually, Flipper, yes. It depends upon the severity of the individual's condition. If the medication the pastor takes completely alleviates his condition, then there's no problem. The condition has been delt with.

The problem comes when the person is losing the ability to make proper moral decisions. An individual who is a homosexual and (as in the case of this pastor) doesn't recognize the moral implications of this condition, is not in any way qualified to be a Christian leader of any kind (as this man has demonstrated).

There are times when even pastors need to step down from their position to deal with personal issues. This does'nt mean that they can never return. They just need time away. In the case of the homosexual, they are (as the British say) bent. Their moral and idealogical thinking is skewed in a way that makes them a poor choice to lead a congregation of believers. I would go so far as to say, that for the forseeable future, the homosexual has no hope of being eligible to be a pastor in the Christian church. Any church that knowingly ordains a homosexual (of either sex) is in error. In this statement, the Bible, both old and new testament, backs me.

porterross

9th February 2007, 08:43 PM

Blimey, I'm afraid to post at all now. :(

Studeclunker

9th February 2007, 08:56 PM

That makes two of us, luv.

porterross

9th February 2007, 09:16 PM

Well, if you're going to talk like that I'll really be missin' me bloke an' start to feeling I might go all floppy.

Flipper

9th February 2007, 09:18 PM

Now I really am clueless

jcj3803

10th February 2007, 02:21 AM

Stude,

I am not challenging Paul. I have heard the Christian/Pauline argument used though and was wondering how one might respond. I'll use your response should it come up again.

BigNorsk

10th February 2007, 04:03 AM

Question concerning rule 3.5.

You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on CF except in Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology, Christian Philosophy, or any subforums in the Congregation or Recovery* categories:

drug use
gambling
polygamy
extramarital or premarital sexual activity
homosexuality
transsexuality
abortion

*You will not make posts promoting or endorsing any of these subjects in Recovery forums.

I thought this is a subforum in the Congregation category, am I mistaken? Or would it be the subforums in this subforum where such topics could be discussed? I'm a little confused by all this because I thought the various congregational forums were specifically where such things were to be discussed.

Marv

Flipper

10th February 2007, 11:45 AM

So, we can talk about homosexuality in the context of ministry, but not about homosexuality itself?

Would it be easier to move this to a forum where it can be discussed? Or, are we through discussing? I'm not going to be around much the next couple days so I won't have much to say.

CaliforniaJosiah

10th February 2007, 12:58 PM

MOD HAT ON

There was previously a mod hat on reminder concerning a rule.
Upon reconsideration, staff has determined that the reminder was unnecessary.
It therefore has been removed.
We apologize for any confusion.

MOD HAT OFF

BigNorsk

10th February 2007, 01:45 PM

Josiah,

The reason I am confused is because the rule on discussion of homosexuality specifically says that the Congregational subforums permit that type of discussion.

Such a discussion could be off topic in a thread here, and it really seems to me it would be a bit off topic in this thread. But I don't understand why it would be moved out of this subforum on the basis of talking about homosexuality.

"Theologia-Crucis Lutherans" seems to me to be specifically included in Rule 3.5 as one of the proper places to talk about such subjects.

You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on CF except in Ethics & Morality, Liberal Theology, Christian Philosophy, or any subforums in the Congregation or Recovery* categories:

Doesn't the bolded part of the rule above specifically pertain to "Theologica Crucis-Lutherans?"

That's the part I don't understand, why would topics specifically authorized to be spoken about here, be moved to a different forum?

If this isn't a subforum in the Congregation category, please clarify what exactly is a subforum in the Congregation category.

Thanks.
Marv

Zecryphon

10th February 2007, 09:34 PM

Obviously not. The real question: Is he talking about the REAL Holy Spirit?

The real Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the texts of Scripture that clearly say that this sin is an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22) and that those who practice such will not enter the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10).
Yeah but the objection I always run into when I cite those verses to someone who supports homosexual clergy or anything else that is an abomination to God is, "oh, well, that's just YOUR interpretation of the scriptures. Who are you to say, that's what God really meant?" It's sad.

Zecryphon

10th February 2007, 09:43 PM

For the record, I believe homosexuality is biological as opposed to psychological but I am opposed to ordaining gays. I believe by definition that homosexuality is not normal, no matter what the gays might argue and I do not condone their lifestyle any more than I condone hetero adultery.

Anyway, I have heard two arguments about passages like you mention and I'd like to hear what the reponse should be:

The first is that "the OT also tells us to stone adulterers and not to cut our beards". If that is outmoded and no longer believed, why should we call homosexuality an abomination?

The second argument is that Jesus NEVER mentioned gays. So are you a Pauline or are you a Christian?

(And then that goes back to inerrancy and...)
There is supposedly evidence that being homosexual may be due to a defect in the Hypocampus that is present at birth. I received this information from a transgendered person I talk to in another forum. I told him/her to stop spreading this information around as it gives convservative Christians the "smoking gun" they have always been looking for. By saying there is a defect in the Hypocampus,and using that as a justification for the statement of "see! We are born this way!" conservative Christians can now say, "see, there is something wrong with you, just like we've always said!" Whether or not there actually is any evidence of this finding about the state of the Hypocampus is not known to me at this time, as I have not really investigated this claim.

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 05:57 AM

The fitness of one individual over another is really the core of this thread. Why must homosexuality always overwhelm and obscure the central facts of an issue. Sorry, that was in context to what we have been discussing.

1 an individual who leads a congregation needs to be of outstanding character and ethical behaviour and able to make biblical, proper, and moral decisions for such.

2 an individual who leads a congregation needs to be able to properly counsel members of said congregation.

3 an individual who leads a congregation needs to be able to proclaim the word, law, and grace of God and the Saviour without slanting this message in any way.

As fallen humans we will all find the last the most difficult of these. We can only perform the third task with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

As a person who is not only one of the rest of us fallen humans, and also handicapped ethically with homosexuality, all three are not possible. At least consistantly.

I'm feeling rather tentative, and gun-shy. :eek: Not to mention exhausted.:yawn:

Lord's blessings to you all. And good night.:sleep:

jcj3803

11th February 2007, 11:18 AM

There is supposedly evidence that being homosexual may be due to a defect in the Hypocampus that is present at birth. [...] Whether or not there actually is any evidence of this finding about the state of the Hypocampus is not known to me at this time, as I have not really investigated this claim.

I was referring to the hormone flood in the womb. Too much male hormone on a female fetus produces a "manly" girl, too little on a male fetus produces a "girly" boy or something along those lines - it's been awhile since I've done any reading on origins.

Either would explain why many "know" they are gay when they hit puberty or even before. But that's a discussion for another thread.

DaRev

11th February 2007, 03:38 PM

I was referring to the hormone flood in the womb. Too much male hormone on a female fetus produces a "manly" girl, too little on a male fetus produces a "girly" boy or something along those lines - it's been awhile since I've done any reading on origins.

Either would explain why many "know" they are gay when they hit puberty or even before. But that's a discussion for another thread.

If this comment is in violation of a rule, the moderator may delete it.

The human sexual drive is the strongest drive in the human body. It is chemically driven. An imbalance of hormones can and does affect the sex drive. This may account for one's "attraction" to one sexor another.
But God has clearly set His plan for humans. Marriage is between one man and one woman. The chemical make-up of humans is designed for this. Thus any "attraction" that goes against God's plan is inherantly sinful. It is an abnormality. And despite the APA it can be treated if the one so afflicted desires.
But one who is called to serve the Lord in His church must strive, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to comply with what God has ordained. To go outside of His will is itself sinful, which would exclude such from being serving in such a capacity. To succumb to sinful desires is just that - sinful.

We must all pray that God's revealed will be done on earth just as it is in heaven.:groupray:

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 03:43 PM

DaRev

11th February 2007, 03:56 PM

By the way, the Bible is crystal clear on the requriements of clergy. Rather more so than usual. There is no room for intrepretation.

Exactly!:thumbsup:

Good to see you're still here.

porterross

11th February 2007, 04:05 PM

Homosexuality defies the basic laws of nature so even those who want to argue the point apart from Scripture have nothing to substantiate a position to support it as being in any way normal. If it were, why would God have created them, male and female.

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 04:36 PM

Spot on, Porterross, and yes, Reverand. Still here, bruised and weary, but still here. Much calmer than yesterday.:sigh:

BigNorsk

11th February 2007, 06:07 PM

Please, do let us not forget the focus of this thread. The cause of and homosexuality or any other sin is not it. Once again, the side issue is becoming a problem.

If you wish to start another thread I would be willing to join you there and discuss (carefully) this problem.

By the way, the Bible is crystal clear on the requriements of clergy. Rather more so than usual. There is no room for intrepretation.

Since the requirements are crystal clear from scripture. Maybe you would care to share with us all the scriptural requirements? Maybe you would also share the requirements your synod has.

Marv

CaliforniaJosiah

11th February 2007, 06:44 PM

Some some thoughts....

1. Being drunk is a sin. Do we disqualify anyone from the pastoral office who has been drunk? What if they have been so but repent of that?

2. Overeating is a sin. Do we disqualify anyone from the pastoral office who has ever overeaten? What about a man who has had a DESIRE to overeat but never has? What if he has repented of that Thanksgiving meal? Or that DESIRE he once had to overeat?

3. I believe that homosexual acts are sins. I also believe that homosexual thoughts are sins. I also believe that heterosexual thoughts toward one who is not one's wife are sins. I've been encouraged to consider Lutheran seminary. I confess that I have had heterosexual thoughts toward one who is not my wife (I'm not married). I DO repent of that, but am I now disqualified from being a pastor? BTW, I've also been drunk (BOY am I TOTALLY sorry for that - I'll never do THAT again) and I've overeaten before - for which I'm also repentant.

When do biblical sins disqualify one from being a pastor? When do they not?

Just wondering....
No point being suggested....

Thank you!

Pax!

- Josiah

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 07:16 PM

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 07:27 PM

Since the requirements are crystal clear from scripture. Maybe you would care to share with us all the scriptural requirements? Maybe you would also share the requirements your synod has.

Marv

Oh my!:eek: That's a loaded one. As to the Synod, I think any biblical referrence will do. As to the biblical referrences, If you insist, I can do the research and post them. My memory doesn't reliably serve me in this respect. I'll post them here by edit later this evening.

Reverand, perhaps you would be able to fill in the synodical requirements? I've never been to Seminary nor have I explored these requirements beyond the bible itself. Hence the main reason I've never gone to Seminary myself. I don't qualify.:(

CaliforniaJosiah

11th February 2007, 07:52 PM

Well, I don't know about gluttony, seems like the whole country is suffering with that (LOL)!:D :( As to alcoholism, yes, I believe that would be a problem. Look to your scriptures, they are very clear on this, neither a drunkard, nor an adulterer, nor a fornicator... a bishop (pastor) must be of outstanding character, his house in order... etc...

We're Lutherans, the occasional beer or getting a bit drunk, isn't a problem. Please, (LOL) leave that to the Baptists. The problem comes when it's a constant issue. That which affects judgement is the case at hand. After all, Luther himself liked his beer too!;)

Just trying to understand your position, my bother...

So, when do biblical sins disqualify someone from the pastoral office?

Why, in your opinion, are the sins of drunkenness and gluttany okay - they don't disqualify?

Why does alcholoism disqualify if the pastor or candidate is never drunk - say has been "dry" for decades? He's still an alchololic (as any AA member will tell you) - the disease, the propensity is there - but he abstains. What is your view on that? Particularly with my next question...

As I confessed, I have been guilty of the 6th commandment, since I have had sexual thoughts toward one not my wife (yet, anyway, LOL). I DO repent, and I didn't act on those thoughts - I've abstained (I'm a virgin). But I certainly have that propensity - I just repent when it leads me to sin and I don't act on it. Am I disqualified from being a pastor in your opinion? What if I was homosexual? What if I repented of the thoughts and never acted on them, I sexually abstained. Would I be disqualified from the pastoral office in your opinion?

All this gets to the question I'm raising in this thread (and, lacking the wisdom of others here, not advancing an opinion). What sins disqualify a person from being a pastor? Of course, ALL candidates for the office are sinners - as they all freely and publicly state at the beginning of every worship service. Of course, we want our pastors to be repentant, and that includes genuinely using His strength to resist and to not perform the sin (Luther's bird flying over your head but not making a nest thing comes to my mind), but do we say he cannot commit any sins? What sins are permitted by you, which aren't? Why?

Question for you: As you know, overeating is the #1 preventable cause of death in the USA - a violation of the 5th Commandment. It is literally commiting suicide. I know a pastor (he happens to be Baptist) of a large and excellent church. He probably weighs nearly 400 pounds - and I've seen him eat at a church event - he can REALLY pack it away. Should he be defrocked?

Just wondering about your position. Not just purely theoretical either, since seminary is one option I'm considering for my future, and I am a sinner.

Thank you!

Pax!

- Josiah

porterross

11th February 2007, 08:14 PM

DaRev

11th February 2007, 08:23 PM

The issue of sin and qualifications for the pastoral office are the same as for anyone else. Forgivness requires repentance. Homosexuality is a sin. Scripture is extremely clear on that. One who is an active participant in that sin is clearly unrepentant. (Repent means to stop and change your attitude/behavior.)

We all sin, but we are forgiven through repentance and absolution. If I were an alcoholic (practicing), I could not be a pastor. If I were living in a relationship with someone with whom I am not married, I could not be a pastor. (I've known pastors who have been defrocked because of extra-marital affairs.)

We have to remember, it's not about what we want, it's about what God wants. And He tells us plainly what He wants in His word.

porterross

11th February 2007, 08:37 PM

I've known pastors who have been defrocked because of extra-marital affairs.

Yes, it amazes me how this can happen, but I guess that's my naivety showing. It's heartbreaking on so many levels.:(

CaliforniaJosiah

11th February 2007, 08:49 PM

Thank you, Porterross and DaRev...

Soooooooo....

IF I'm understanding your position (and to purposely re-phrase), ANY sin would be permissiable - as long as there was genuine repentant. The pastor or candidate's repentance would be the key factor - rather than any specific sin. The SIN is not the disqualifying factor, but rather the pastor or candidates opinion/heart concerning that?

Questions:

1. Do you place the thought of sin equal with the act of sin? What if I told you that I'm still a virgin - and will remain so until my wedding night (oh, but on... no, let's not go there), but I confess that sinful thoughts is a struggle of mine - for which I truely repent. Am I disqualified from the pastoral office?

2. However you answered #1, what if those feelings were not for my girlfriend but for a boyfriend? I am truely sorry and repent for my errant thoughts and have (and will) never act on those feelings. Am I disqualified? If your answer to #3 is different than # 2, why?

3. What about my Baptist pastor example in the my post above? Let's say (for the sake of the discussion here, because I do not know) that this 400 pound hefty eating pastor sees no sin in this aspect of his life, and does not repent, and is continuing his several thousand calorie per meal behavior. Should he be removed from the pastoral office? Should a candidate likewise be rendered unacceptable? What if he was repentant but still - at least occasionally - bidged and terribly overate?

4. Should the homosexual pastor who repents of his desires and never acts on them be treated differently than the unmarried heterosexual pastor who repents of his desires and never acts on them? Why/why not? Should the alcholic who repents of his sin and never drinks be treated differently? The severely overweight candidate who repents of his struggle and is truely trying to loose some weight?

5. How does this relate to the issue of this thread? And what, if any, specific sin do you feel would automatically disqualify someone from the ministry regardless of his repentance and lack of acting upon it? (That's NOT intended to be a "loaded" question - I think it's a honest one).

I'd like your input and help as I struggle with this (not altogether theoretically)....

Pax!

- Josiah

CaliforniaJosiah

11th February 2007, 09:03 PM

It's not a matter of what sins you've committed or sinful thoughts you have, but rather how you conduct your life while holding the office of ministry.

Would you respect a pastor who lived with a girlfriend and willfully fornicated, thumbing his nose at the church members and Scripture?

There is no difference. If celibacy or marriage is the requirement of the office, then there should be no surprise that this will be upheld.

IMHO,

These are EXCELLENT and highly relevant questions - but terribly subjective. So, I wonder how UNIVERSAL POLICIES could be made regarding them...

My HIGHLY, HIGHLY subjective, personal views....

Yes, I could respect a pastor who lived with his wife before they were married, but did marry her and now repents of that and counsels others to not do as he did. If my pastor CURRENTLY was living with his girlfriend and defending that? It might not be a deal breaker for me, I might not leave the church, but my respect for him would be greatly harmed. But that's ME. I would TOTALLY understand a whole range of opinions about that.

Yes, a pastor who was an alcoholic - but abstained and never drank. Frankly, I think my respect for him would grow. A single very heterosexual pastor who did NOT live with his girlfriend and was a virgin - my respect for him would grow. Been there, doing that, it ain't easy. I would ID with that man.

PERSONALLY, a homosexual pastor who repented of that and did NOT act on that would not be a deal braker for me, I actually would have little problem with that. But I strongly suspect many would!

BUT, a man who had beaten his wife. Or a pastor who was a convicted child molester. THAT I would have huge problems with. That probably says MUCH more about me than about him, but I'm sorry - that's real. I could forgive him, I honestly could, but I would never respect him. What does that say to ME? God called Moses who was a murderer! God considered Moses qualified!! And what about ME? Am I better than than man who beat his wife???????? What a Pharisee I can be sometimes. Yet, I confess it. If I knew (KNEW) he had so much as touched some kid or had hurt his wife, I (???!!!!) would just have a hard time respecting him. Good? No. Real? Yeah. To ME, a wife beater would be MUCH higher grounds for defrocking than a homosexual struggling, repenting and refraining.

And counsel? Advise?
How does this relate to the issue of this thread?

:scratch:

Sorry.

Pax!

- Josiah

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 09:55 PM

Sorry Josiah, it was Marv that requested this.

Josiah, you are delving deeper than a layman, like myself, really has the right to go. I'm a member of the LCMS and I suspect you are ELCA. Our pastors are not going to agree on this. I can only give you a layman's viewpoint.

With that caviet, I'll do my best. All I ask from you is an honest response and that's where I'm going to leave it. This forum (as you yourself have publicly stated) is not the proper venue for a more detailed answer.

One more request from everyone. I have attached to my computer Damien the demonically possessed mouse (just kidding). It seems to have a will of it's own. I've been trying to answer this for an hour and have been logged off, bumped out, and my text deleted twice by Damien. So, if you see a partial post, please have patience with me. I'm going to have to do this by degrees.

Let's start here:

If you don't mind I'm going to use the Phillips pharaphrase as it uses modern english and grammatical structure. Therefore, though it's not a superior translation, it is clear:
First Timothy, chapter three, verse one:

It is quite true to say that a man who sets his heart on holding office has laudable ambition. Well for the office of a bishop ( what we now call pastor) a man must be of blameless reputation, he must be married to one wife only, and be a man of self control and discretion. He must be a man of disciplined life, he must be hospitable and have the gift of teaching. He must be neither intemperate (alcoholic) nor violent, but gentle. He must not be a controversialist nor must he be fond of money-grabbing. He must have proper authority in his own house-hold, and be able to cotrol and command the respect of his children. ({this from Paul}For if a man cannot rule in his own house how can he look after the Church of God?) He must not be a beginner in the faith, for fear of his becoming conceited and sharing the devil's downfall. (pride) He should, in addition to the above qualifications, have a good reputation with the outside world, in case his good name is attacked and he is caught by the devil in that way.

All except one of the comments in paranthesis are mine. The exception is labeled {this from Paul}.

So, what does 1Tim have to say? Well first, an alcolholic is out, as are drug abusers, wife beaters, fornicators, child molesters, womanizers, gluttons, polygamists, ad nauseum. Notice that Paul says that a pastor must be Hospitable. The gift of teaching would be a given. He also states that the pastor must not be a controversalist (RSV says not quarrelesome. KJV says brawler) and so on. In otherwords a man of impeccable character. I have met very few pastors that didn't meet these qualifications. The difference, Josh, between our thoughts and our deeds is considerable. If you have repented of unworthy thoughts and not acted upon them, then you're fine. Jesus brought this up to the pharasees because they thought themselves better than others. They held themselves up for prase and adulation as the 'Holy Rollers' of their day. In otherwords, they "fall into reproach and the snare of the Devil." ie: Pride. Pride is what God hates the most. It causes more sin than anything else. Jesus cut the conceited pharasees of his day no slack at all.

Where does this relate to the pastor that was ordained as a homosexual? He broke the LCMS covenant of his ordination by committing fornication (taking on a Homosexual partner). You know very well that the bible, both new and old testaments, condemn homosexuality. It is not acceptable in any form or practice. Do I believe that there is no place for the homosexual in the Church of God? Of my personal (not biblically supported) opinion, yes. I do firmly believe salvation is available to the homosexual of any type. The problem lies in their attitude and behaviour. The same goes for the alcoholic, the gluttonist, etc, ad nauseum. Jesus died for our sins. All of them. None of these people are suitable for the office of pastor. This is because they lack the self-controll necessary for their office. The gluttonous pastor earlier mentioned, would be (in my layman's opinion) in deep trouble and risk of being de-frocked. However, some people also have glandular problems that cause them to be obese without a problem with gluttony. Don't let the outside apperance decieve you. Just because someone is very large doesn't necessarily condemn them of gluttony.

This post is long enough. I'll continue in another post.

CaliforniaJosiah

11th February 2007, 10:06 PM

Josiah, you are delving deeper than a layman, like myself, really has the right to go.

Why?

I think the issue of the thread is relevant, both from a layperson's perspective since it's usually laypeople who call a pastor and request a pastor's resignation. Also, because I'm a sinner who has seminary as an option I'm considering. It's not just theoretical in my case from the candidate's perspective nor from a layperson's perspective. These seem like VERY relevant issues that we SHOULD delve into.

I'm a member of the LCMS and I suspect you are ELCA.

I participate in an LCMS congregation.

I can only give you a layman's viewpoint.

With that caviet, I'll do my best. All I ask from you is an honest response and that's where I'm going to leave it.

Cool. I wasn't suggesting we'd resolve this here today or that anyone here should change the policies of any denomination. I was just sharing my views, as I suspect the others in this thread are doing. I suspect the LCMS will do whatever the majority of delegates at a convention vote to do on whatever resolutions come to the floor. You and I may or may not agree, but we "walk together" as a Synod.

I'm ONLY sharing the questions and very flawed thoughts of one very flawed guy.

My $0.01

Pax!

- Josiah
Nothing more.

synger

11th February 2007, 10:17 PM

We ran into many of the same issues in the Presbyterian church when I was a member there. We had huge debates over what was called the "fidelity and chastity rule (http://www.pcusa.org/ga217/newsandphotos/ga06101.htm)", which was eventually added to our constitution (http://www.pcusa.org/oga/publications/boo-04-05.pdf).

a. To those called to exercise special functions in the church —deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament—God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world. They must have the approval of God’s people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.

b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.

Are there exceptions? Yes, there are some openly gay, practicing pastors in the PCUSA. It is, after all, the "liberal" branch of Presbyterianism. But the rule is in place, and they are subject to church discipline.

Although it doesn't really address Josiah's concern about former sins that have been repented of, or living day-to-day as a called and ordained servant and yet being a sinful man (just like any other Christian), it might at least shed some light on the struggles another tradition has had, and continues to have, with similar issues.

porterross

11th February 2007, 11:02 PM

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 11:05 PM

Jooooosh, you're not being paaaatient!:sigh:

One more request from everyone. I have attached to my computer Damien the demonically possessed mouse (just kidding). It seems to have a will of it's own. I've been trying to answer this for an hour and have been logged off, bumped out, and my text deleted twice by Damien. So, if you see a partial post, please have patience with me. I'm going to have to do this by degrees.

Sorry folks, one of the problems with poverty and isolation. I have to live with this little distraction, and right now... so do you (LOL)!;) Please go back and read my previous post. Then begin this one.

Ok, let's continue with Titus one verse five. This time I'm switching to RSV:

This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are belivers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubornate.
For a bishop (pastor), as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and decievers, espically the circumcision party (jewdizers); they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach...
...But as for you, teach what befits sound doctrine

Here Paul goes on to exhort Titus on how to teach and encourage the people under his authority.

Paul has repeated himself again. Not surprising. Paul was very consistant in his teachings. Most of the New Testament is written by him. It's no small wonder that Martin Luther wanted to call the new church the Via Paulinica. Melanthion informed Luther, that no one would be able to pronounce it.;)

Often in the LCMS the pastor wears a black cossack under a white robe. This is to symbolize, through the black cossack, that he is a sinful man. The white robe symbolizes the garments of riteousness that Christ himself robes us in. When I see this it really affects me deeply. Even though we are filthy, sinful, base, and rebellious, our Lord died and continues to suffer for us. Do not believe that the condition of the current world doesn't grieve Christ and the Holy Spirit. God would reduce the whole ball to ash. Christ and the Spirit stand between us and him and he sees us filtered through Christ's perfection. But, I'm off on a rabbit trail.

Ok, where was I? Oh yes. You mentioned the option of Seminary. I envy you. This is something I've desired all my life. Yet I've no self-control. So because of that, the pastorate isn't for me. You mention that unworthy thoughts occur to you regularly. Do you act on them? Ever? Do you pray in repentance of them? Do you still act on them in spite of this prayer and repentance? If not, no problem. I pronounce you completely fallen, normal, and human You get this from your parents, its their fault (lol) and their parents fault, and their parents fault... all the way to the Lord Adam and Lady Eve. To quote C.S. Lewis, your decendency from Adam and Eve, "... is enough to make the meanest begger lift his head in pride, and enough to make the greatest of kings hang his head in shame." Be comforted that our Lord took care of this all in one afternoon.

Josh,
As to homosexuality, I have answered this question (in regards to this subject), as has the Reverand, Porterross, and Synger. If you yet don't understand, I have no more I can say to make it clear to you. Perhaps, just perhaps, you have something blocking you from understanding. Pray and ask the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to assist you to understand, and I think you will find the answer comes, much as the sun dispells the darkness of night at dawn.

This is the last I will say on this subject and in this thread. My argument is finished and complete. Thank you all for your kind patience with me.

synger

11th February 2007, 11:13 PM

I really don't understand the dilemma. All unmarried Christians know they are to remain chaste. Why it has to be reiterated for clergy makes me wonder about their depth of Scriptural knowledge. :scratch:
I think there are a lot of things that "all Christians know" when it comes to morality. But we live in a fallen world, and we hear over and over again how some things are okay "so long as you're not hurting anyone." That's a powerful temptation for anyone, lay or clergy.

I think that's one reason why it's important to have and use the Confessions, and why laying out the expectations clearly for our ordained servants is important. They have no excuse, if we clearly point out from Scripture and from our church constitution what behaviour is and is not acceptable.

DaRev

11th February 2007, 11:14 PM

The question concerning a pastor's qualifications is answered by our Lord in His word where He says that one who is or seeks to be a pastor "must be above reproach."
If a pastor or candidate has a binge problem and repents and then does the necessary things to control that habit, would that disqualify his as a pastor? Would that particular sin be enough to instill doubt and distrust in his parishioners? Most likely not. But if he continues to fail and keeps going back to that sin, perhaps his ability to shepherd his flock could be in jeopardy. I've known pastors who have been relieved for gambling problems.

If a pastor has been a practicing homosexual or a child molestor or has committed murder, but has repented and received absolution (which means that the sin is erased in God's eyes), would that be enough to instill distrust in his parishioners? Most definately.

It boils down to his ability to preach the Gospel by both word and example, and to be a trustworthy steward of the mysteries. If he can't be trusted by his sheep, then he can't be a pastor.

Studeclunker

11th February 2007, 11:31 PM

I'm a liar, I'm going to post again! (LOL):D

Reverand, we are in complete accord on this. ie: I agree with you completely!

The question concerning a pastor's qualifications is answered by our Lord in His word where He says that one who is or seeks to be a pastor "must be above reproach."
If a pastor or candidate has a binge problem and repents and then does the necessary things to control that habit, would that disqualify his as a pastor? Would that particular sin be enough to instill doubt and distrust in his parishioners? Most likely not. But if he continues to fail and keeps going back to that sin, perhaps his ability to shepherd his flock could be in jeopardy. I've known pastors who have been relieved for gambling problems.

If a pastor has been a practicing homosexual or a child molestor or has committed murder, but has repented and received absolution (which means that the sin is erased in God's eyes), would that be enough to instill distrust in his parishioners? Most definately.

It boils down to his ability to preach the Gospel by both word and example, and to be a trustworthy steward of the mysteries. If he can't be trusted by his sheep, then he can't be a pastor.

AMEN!:thumbsup: :amen:

UberLutheran

11th February 2007, 11:54 PM

All too often, I find the responses posted by TCL members damaging to my relationship with God.

Hence, I only rarely post in Lutheran forums anymore.

If I really need to have contention in my life, I can always attend a synod assembly.

Studeclunker

12th February 2007, 12:32 AM

If I really need to have contention in my life, I can always attend a synod assembly.

LOL! Oh my! Well said! LOL:D :D :D

Dare I add to that congregational board meetings? Some of those would make money on ticket sales! (LOL):D

CaliforniaJosiah

12th February 2007, 01:20 PM

.

I Timothy 3:1-7

If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble taks. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, abel to tech, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, now quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and se that his children obey him with proper respect. He must not be a recent convert or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also ahve a good reputation with outsiders so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap."

Some comments as one considering the pastoral office:

I don't met those qualifications, at least in any absolute sense. And I'm in conflict with some (I'm not married and have no children, for example). In a GENERAL sense, I'm okay - but that's kinda my question in this thread - what is meant by "GENERAL?" What sins are okay and which aren't? What situations do we wave where there is sincere repentance and abstainance, and which ones don't we? It seems rather subjective to me. Not so black and white. Some in this thread seem to think it is, but I'm not so sure.

So, what does 1Tim have to say? Well first, an alcolholic is out, as are drug abusers, wife beaters, fornicators, child molesters, womanizers, gluttons, polygamists, ad nauseum.

Actually, I'm not sure these issues are all in the text. And homosexuality isn't there, either. BUT it does say "of good reputation with OUTSIDERS (ie nonchristians?)" which seems important to me.

In otherwords a man of impeccable character.

Thus, disqualifying me (and everyone known to me). All candidates for the pastoral office are sinners. We may have different sins that we struggle with, but we're ALL sinners. I think the laypeople know that their pastor is a sinner. If that man LIVES in such or is not repentant, then I suspect in most cases, we don't like that. We may feel more passionately about some than others (an abstaining homosexual doesn't bother me, a man who beat his wife does - but that's MY very, very subjective and personal feelings).

I have met very few pastors that didn't meet these qualifications.

I've met none that do. And I'm the son and grandson of pastors. Among my parent's friends are many pastors of various denominations. And my father is a supervisor of sorts of pastors, and I've heard some stories.... I think that all pastors are sinners.

The difference, Josh, between our thoughts and our deeds is considerable. If you have repented of unworthy thoughts and not acted upon them, then you're fine.

That would be my "bottom line" too, although we need a spirit of forgiveness toward the pastor to "slips up," too. But I think Scripture DOES suggest that we hold the pastoral office up to a slightly higher bar, I just don't have a clue what that bar is - and I think that's probably HIGHLY subjective.

But to the point of this thread: What about the man with homosexual propensities but repents of his thoughts and never acts on them? Hasn't he met your qualification here? Should he not be allowed to enter the pastoral office? Should he be defrocked? What about me? I've had sinful heterosexual thoughts but I repent of them and have never acted on them. I hope you're following my line of thought here.

Jesus brought this up to the pharasees because they thought themselves better than others. They held themselves up for prase and adulation as the 'Holy Rollers' of their day. In otherwords, they "fall into reproach and the snare of the Devil." ie: Pride. Pride is what God hates the most. It causes more sin than anything else. Jesus cut the conceited pharasees of his day no slack at all.

I think it could also be applied to the man who thinks he's not a sinner and IS qualified. As I consider the pastoral office, i KNOW - on every level - that I'm NOT qualified. But I can apply, asking for His forgiveness and mercy and strength.

Where does this relate to the pastor that was ordained as a homosexual? He broke the LCMS covenant of his ordination by committing fornication (taking on a Homosexual partner). You know very well that the bible, both new and old testaments, condemn homosexuality. It is not acceptable in any form or practice. Do I believe that there is no place for the homosexual in the Church of God? Of my personal (not biblically supported) opinion, yes. I do firmly believe salvation is available to the homosexual of any type. The problem lies in their attitude and behaviour. The same goes for the alcoholic, the gluttonist, etc, ad nauseum. Jesus died for our sins. All of them. None of these people are suitable for the office of pastor. This is because they lack the self-controll necessary for their office. The gluttonous pastor earlier mentioned, would be (in my layman's opinion) in deep trouble and risk of being de-frocked.

Yes, if the man is NOT repentant and IS acting on this, that's a problem. Whether he would not be accepted into the pastoral office or should be defrocked seems not so easy to ME. What about the pastor who gets drunk - and his actions show he's not repentant? What about the pastor who "pigs out" at a church potluck and is not repentant? You seem to be suggesting that the problem isn't the sin, per se, but whether the man is repentant and not acting on it. I think you are on to something there. But then a man with homosexual propensities who is repentant of his feelings and doesn't act on them would be acceptable to you as a pastor under that rubric, and the pastor who pigs out at a potluck and doesn't repent would not be.

In another post, I'll share some of my thoughts about this (they'll do doubt be unpopular, LOL)....

Thank you!

- Josiah

BigNorsk

12th February 2007, 01:31 PM

CaliforniaJosiah

12th February 2007, 02:43 PM

Thanks for your effort Studeclunker, I asked the question, because I wanted to make a point, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

The passages that you gave said the pastor had to be married, have children and what's more, the children needed to be believers. Yet no synod I know of imposes that. I don't know of any pastor who has been removed from office directly because his children did not act properly.

Also, I don't think a single synod requires either marriage or children to be ordained.

So the requirements from scripture might seem crystal clear, but obviously it's not. And to throw out the idea that it is crystal clear seemed to me to basically be an attempt to belittle someone else. It's kind of like the Geico caveman spoof commercials. So simple a caveman can do it. Pastor qualifications so simple it's crystal clear.

I wanted to point out that if it was quite so crystal clear, there wouldn't be as much dispute, and the dispute isn't really so much on the general qualifications, it comes about when an individual is disciplined because often that person has many very good qualities and has served well, and it becomes a question of does this one thing disqualify him. And of course it should be noted as it has that there often only seems to be enforcement on certain qualifications and not on others.

Marv

Thank you.

I raised some questions in a similar line in post # 50.

I know we ALL want to uphold God's holy inerrant written Word here in 1 Timothy. I'm just not so sure it's as black and white and simple as some might conclude.

I see the practical side of this, too, being a PK - both from the perspective of my dad and from mine (because I'm mentioned in that verse). My 3 sibs and I never gave our dad TOO much reason for concern or TOO much ammunition to the laity who might have been looking for justification for a hanging. But my sis was dating this kinda not good choice when she was in high school - and I know there was some talk about that. And for YEARS, I was more active in my Catholic church than in my dad's church, and I know my dad got asked about that. One of the reasons I did NOT participate much in my father's church was because I couldn't speak my mind (it's one reason I got so involved in websites like this, too). I'm sensitve to this stuff.

I'm just wondering (that's all, just wondering) why some get VERY focused on a same-gender sexual orientation (which Paul doesn't mention) but I know we allow pastor's whose wives don't go to church, whose kids are pretty rebellious, who smoke, over-eat, are recovering alchololics, who are single, who are not very hospitable, etc. And I KNOW that all pastors are sinners. All of them. NONE of them meet those qualifications in any absolute sense.

I stuggle a bit with all this.
I think all denominations do, too.
I think that's understandable.

But I seek the wisdom of others, as to how potential candidates like me, congregations, denominations and pastors should deal with the reality that no one meets the qualifications and all are sinners. And, it seems to ME, HOWEVER we choose to apply our wisdom, it will be subjective and open to disagreement and abuse. I don't think all this is as simple or as black-and-white as some of my brothers and sisters seem to think. To ME, it's more complex and difficult than "Do you believe the Bible or not?"

Just MY $0.00

Pax!

- Josiah

.

CaliforniaJosiah

12th February 2007, 03:12 PM

.

MY humble, personal, subjective, fallible, incomplete, potentially totally wrong OPINION about this....
And that's ALL.
NO offensive intended.
No arguements desired.
Disagreements welcomed.
I'm 19 so it's good to cut me some slack, LOL

I Timothy 3:1-7 If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble taks. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, abel to tech, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, now quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and se that his children obey him with proper respect. He must not be a recent convert or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also ahve a good reputation with outsiders so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap."

1. Bishops (and pastors) are to be men of character. I don't take ANY of these specifics as "deal breakers" or "deal makers" and nor do I take them in any absolute sense (in which case, no one would be qualified). I embrace them as a whole, as a set, as a way of indicating that character counts. We are to appoint honorable men wrothy of respect. Perfect? Sinless? Without flaw? No.

2. ALL pastors fall short of the ideal. ALL pastors are sinful, as Paul (the APOSTLE) noted about himself. As Paul called himself "the chief of sinners," I think any honest pastor should do the same. Frankly, I would not respect the pastor who hesitates to freely admit this. The clergymen who holds himself as better than the rest is one I would run away from. So, to ME, what I look for is his heart. And that includes humility and repentance. We ALL have our sins, our struggles, our sins. My pastor's may not be the same as mine, but I KNOW what it is to sin and struggle with that, and I know what it is to cry late into the night to the Lord about that. If my pastor does the same, I do not respect him less. We're ALL sinners here - and if pastor OR layman forgets that, we're in BIG trouble and have ceased to be the church.

3. To ME, the key lies here, He must also ahve a good reputation with outsiders so that he will not fall into disgrace." CHRISTIANS might be willing to forgive and help, but NONCHRISTIANS aren't. We've had lots of examples of this as we've seen what's happened to the public's perception of Christianity vis-a-vis the molestation cases in the RCC (and among some Lutherans, too!!!!!!!!!!!!). The press gets ahold of this and it ends up harming the Gospel. THIS, I THINK, IS A MAJOR PART OF PAUL'S POINT. We are being watched by nonchristians - especially the clergy - and any conflict between what we say and what we do will be magnified and used to disgrace us and discredit Christianity. I've seen it several times in my short life. When I was in the CC, I understood that the rationale for the horrible way they at times handled this was to try to avoid this public discrediting - and I honestly do 'get it' but of course they only made matters worse. BUT, IMHO, that's the key to this. It's not JUST so Christians would have a man THEY respect, but one NONCHRISTIANS (who know nothing of grace or forgiveness) will also respect.

4. THAT, to me, is very, very difficult. The truth is, there is no universal secular morality anymore. One nonchristian thinks that excluding a homosexual pastor is unloving, uncaring, a violation of the very things Christianity is SUPPOSE to stand for. Another thinks that a man with a single sexual thought toward another man should be shot on sight and to allow it proves Christians are all a bunch of immoral hypocrites. THEREFORE, in my humble opinion, while some basic guidelines are necessary on a denominational level, we need to allow individual judgement. I KNOW this is very, very threatening to some - because they fear some District President will not judge the situation as they themselves would, but I think it's our only option. What is true in the case of Pastor Schmidt in Davenport, Iowa may be very different than with Pastor Hartmann in San Jose, CA. There may be very different parish situations, very different issues with repentance and lifestyle, very different communities. Those two situations might be handled in very different ways - depending on the situations! There needs to be a process for deciding these things, and some pastoral trust given. It's not always easy - or good - to pin all this down TOO sharply and percisely. Law and Gospel need to be allowed to be applied - AS THEY APPLY. We sometimes need to trust our pastors, circuit counselors, district presidents and denominational leaders to do that, and avoid DEMANDING that Law ALWAYS be applied - to the letter, OR that Gospel ALWAYS be applied - without condition.

No one said ministry is always easy.
And IMHO, our walking together need not be in lock step.
Pastors are individuals, and they need to be ministered to as such.
Law and Gospel need to be APPLIED as they apply.

My perspective.
Sorry, I'm sure it angers some, and I'd rather be a unifying poster than one who stirs things.

Please forgive.

Pax!

- Josiah

.

C.F.W. Walther

12th February 2007, 03:31 PM

Why is it so easy for people to defend their, and other peoples, opinions than to defend what the Bbile says? It is black and white.

We are to strive Josiah.

Edial

12th February 2007, 05:02 PM

Responded below ...

Edial

12th February 2007, 05:05 PM

...

I'm just wondering (that's all, just wondering) why some get VERY focused on a same-gender sexual orientation (which Paul doesn't mention) but I know we allow pastor's whose wives don't go to church, whose kids are pretty rebellious, who smoke, over-eat, are recovering alchololics, who are single, who are not very hospitable, etc. And I KNOW that all pastors are sinners. All of them. NONE of them meet those qualifications in any absolute sense.

I stuggle a bit with all this.
I think all denominations do, too.
I think that's understandable.

But I seek the wisdom of others, as to how potential candidates like me, congregations, denominations and pastors should deal with the reality that no one meets the qualifications and all are sinners. ...
Good question.

From a judicial perspective all sins are the same in the eyes of God.

However, there are certain sins that are personally detestable to God.

Here is a short list ...

DT 18:9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in n the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, ...

These texts present a personal feeling of being detested that God has while we are involved in these.

This is not a matter of Law at all, but the matter of how God FEELS concerning such things.

Below is a "longer list" of things that are PERSONALLY detestable to God.

LEV 18:6 " `No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

LEV 18:7 " `Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

LEV 18:8 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

LEV 18:9 " `Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

LEV 18:10 " `Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

LEV 18:11 " `Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

LEV 18:12 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

LEV 18:13 " `Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

LEV 18:14 " `Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

LEV 18:15 " `Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

LEV 18:16 " `Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

LEV 18:18 " `Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

LEV 18:19 " `Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

LEV 18:20 " `Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

LEV 18:21 " `Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed n to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

LEV 18:23 " `Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

LEV 18:24 " `Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
LEV 18:29 " `Everyone who does any of these detestable things--such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' "

Thanks,
Ed

Studeclunker

12th February 2007, 11:19 PM

SHORT???:eek:

Yes, this illustrates my point. If these things are detestable to God, a minister should not be guilty of them.

The passages that you gave said the pastor had to be married, have children and what's more, the children needed to be believers. Yet no synod I know of imposes that. I don't know of any pastor who has been removed from office directly because his children did not act properly.

Yes, Marv, I had an idea you would use the passages in that way. Neither of those passages insist that the pastor be married. Only that he be married to ONE woman. ie: not a polygamist. No where does scripture insist that a church leader be single or married. Paul did say,
"For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry."

He goes on to praise the institution of marriage and to instruct that neither party involved is greater than the other. That one actually belongs to the other and has specific responsibility to each other.

Now, obviously, Paul considered himself a capable and qualified minister of the Word. He indeed had his faults and openly laments them. Still, though we are of the world, and asked to remain in it (not cloistering ourselves like the Amish), we are called to be separate as in, though not of, the world. That is to say not to take up the world's vices, or be influenced by it.

Also, if Paul were to say, "For I wish all men were as I myself," then it's rather rediculously obvious that he doesn't consider a single man to be inappropriate for the ministry. Elsewise he would be himself excluded!

Josiah,
You, God bless you, present your arguments heavily in the world's wisdom. Romans should speak directly to you. The problem is that the world's logic is flawed. Yes, logic is a good way to approach many things. Still, one must not get too tied up with it. Also, much of what Paul had spelled out were guidelines for leaders of the church. He recognized that all of us were and are fallen human beings, haters of God by nature. Paul himself lamented, "Oh foolish man that I am, that which I should do I do not, and that which I hate is what I do." Again, this was an apostle of God himself.
The logic you have presented, that according to the scriptures presented no-one would qualify for a pastoral position except Christ himself, is the world's logic. Yes, pastors are fallen sinful human beings (I've admitted to this several times already), as such, they need the support and assistance that their congregation are called to give them. Still, they must not become engaged in vile, debased, repetitave, and destructive behaviour patterns. The definition of these patterns are exhaustively spelled out in the above post. Should a pastor fall from grace, they must step down or be removed. If it is determined that the individual can return to the pastorate, without another episode of failure, then fine. Otherwise it ends their effiectiveness.

This is why the pastor that this thread is discussing was a poor choice for the ministry. He had a prospensity to one of the worst forms of behaviour known to man (biblically speaking). Whether this is a heriditary trait or not is really beside the point. This man, and many like him, are encumbered by this problem and unable to defeat it.

ALL of us struggle with sin. The Holy Spirit enables us to hobble along and, some of us, are able, with this assistance, to resist the world's clarion call to sin. Others of us have problems with self-control. Just because someone is stronger in the Lord doesn't in any way make them better than our weaker brother. This is why Paul calls for tenderness in this area. Still, he was quite clear that the world is not to influence the teachings of the church. He cut no slack with the heretics of the day, and the same heresies are being promoted today. The packaging is just a bit different.

Two thousand years, and nothing has changed overmuch.

The Lord's blessings to you all. My appologies about returning to this thread when I had promised to step out.

CaliforniaJosiah

13th February 2007, 02:06 PM

Josiah,
You, God bless you, present your arguments heavily in the world's wisdom. Romans should speak directly to you. The problem is that the world's logic is flawed. Yes, logic is a good way to approach many things. Still, one must not get too tied up with it.

I didn't use "logic" at all - I just asked practical questions. Ones with profound personal ramifications.

We're talking about who should or should not be permitted in the pastoral office.

Also, much of what Paul had spelled out were guidelines for leaders of the church. He recognized that all of us were and are fallen human beings, haters of God by nature. Paul himself lamented, "Oh foolish man that I am, that which I should do I do not, and that which I hate is what I do." Again, this was an apostle of God himself.

Thus, IMHO, it's not black and white, cut and dry.
There is an APPLICATION of this, since no one fully meets the guidelines in all regards.

The logic you have presented, that according to the scriptures presented no-one would qualify for a pastoral position except Christ himself, is the world's logic.

Lost me, friend....

Are you saying that all 9000 pastors in the LCMS ARE in full compliance with everything mentioned in 1 Timothy 3 and elsewhere in His holy Word? I thought we were in agreement that no one is, so we are dealing with persons in various ways falling short. THAT, to me, suggests that it's not an objective, black-and-white matter. It's a subjective matter of determining what is acceptable to us and what is not.

Still, they must not become engaged in vile, debased, repetitave, and destructive behaviour patterns. The definition of these patterns are exhaustively spelled out in the above post. Should a pastor fall from grace, they must step down or be removed. If it is determined that the individual can return to the pastorate, without another episode of failure, then fine. Otherwise it ends their effiectiveness.

I've agreed that one who lives in sin, where sin reigns in them, where there is not true repentance, they are disqualified. I think we've all agreed on that point. What I'm wondering about is the pastor or candidate who is a sinner but who is repentant and does not act on it (at least not habitually). That's the issue I'm addressing. Thus, my initial question: what sins do we forgive and do not forbid or defrock a pastor over, and which ones do we? And WHY? And in doing so, are we being cultural and subjective rather than stickly biblical?

For example, some seem to think that a man struggling with sexual thoughts toward other men - but is absolutely repentant of those thoughts and never acts on them - should be defrocked and never allowed into the pastoral office, but another (say me, LOL) struggling in the same way with heterosexual thoughts but absolutely repentant of those thoughts and never acting on them - I should be allowed. Some might see that as pretty arbitrary and not biblically founded (and not mentioned in 1 Tim 3). Others might forbid a pastor who was divorced by his wife but not a pastor who habitually overeats.

I wonder (that's all, wonder) how much of this is OUR stuff and not God's. How much of these distinctions WE make are not a black-and-white issue of using God's inerrant written Word as our norm, but using our cultural morals and biases as the norm - and admitting (as I did in my post above) that may not be altogther wrong to do so.

ALL of us struggle with sin. The Holy Spirit enables us to hobble along and, some of us, are able, with this assistance, to resist the world's clarion call to sin.

I don't always resist.
Sometimes I sin.
I think most pastors do.

Just because someone is stronger in the Lord doesn't in any way make them better than our weaker brother. This is why Paul calls for tenderness in this area.

Well, maybe it does....

But I'm just not sure the Bible is so obviously clear that a homosexual desire excludes one from ministry, but a gluttonous desire does not. I'm not sure the BIBLE says that. We might. But then it's OUR stuff, OUR decision, OUR rule - not God's.

You've indicated it's okay that I'm unmarried and have no kids (violating 1 Tim 3) and you seem very evangelical about my admitted struggles with the 6th Commandment (thank you), so we've agreed that a candidate does NOT need to meet the requirements in any absolute or complete sense, or need be sinless. So, now we're discussing to what DEGREE he may fall short of the requirements, to what DEGREE he may be struggling, and to the issue of this thread, in what AREAS do we allow him to struggle? Seems a tad bit subjective and arbitrary to ME - and perhaps it's meant to be.

Still, he was quite clear that the world is not to influence the teachings of the church. He cut no slack with the heretics of the day, and the same heresies are being promoted today. The packaging is just a bit different.

I agree completely (easier said than done, however).
I wonder if that includes a certain detest of a homosexual propensity but a certain understanding of a heterosexual propensity, of gluttony but not of divorce, of smoking but not of a lack of exercise? Seems to ME a lot of those attitudes are more cultural than biblical. I mean, you could biblically counsel me to pluck out my eyes and tell me that as such a sinner, I am disqualified from the pastoral office - but because I'm truely repentance and control those desires, you forgive and consider that not a barrier (thank you). But I think because of strong cultural biases, we seem to have very different conclusions regarding one with homosexual thoughts - but equally repents and equally controls. I'm NOT saying we are wrong to make that distinction (in fact, my post obove notes that may, in fact, be appropriate), I'm just saying WE are making arbitrary and subjective rulings here - it's not merely a matter of abiding by God's holy inerrant written Word.

It is MY opinion that we have Law and Gospel working here. I think the proper application of such is what is called for, and it is MY view that is best done on an individual basis, with pastoral wisdom. General guidelines are good (as Paul does by inspiration in 1 Tim 3), but we need to look pastorally at each case - just as you did in mine. I think it requires pastoral wisdom in the application of Law and Gospel, I don't think it's simply a case of abiding by the Word or not, not so black and white.

I was (and am) addressing the wider issue of who is and who is not "qualified" to serve - not MERELY the issue of the specific example in the OP. Sorry if in doing so, I caused confusion.

Thank you for your helpful and insightful thoughts. They are appreciated.

My $0.01

Pax!

- Josiah

.

DaRev

13th February 2007, 02:46 PM

You are making a mountain out of a mile hill on this issue. You are making it WAAAYYYY more complicated than it really is. We can't simply take one or two passages out of Scriptural context and base our whole practice on it. It simply does not work that way.

To answer your concerns (and I do believe that they are valid concerns for someone who is contemplating the ministry) more completely, you would do well to address them to the admissions counselors of either of the LCMS seminaries. They will be more than happy to respond to your inquiries.

You've indicated it's okay that I'm unmarried and have no kids (violating 1 Tim 3)

How is that in "violation" of 1 Timothy 3? This is a perfect example of what I said above about taking something out of Scriptural context. Paul is not saying that one must be married and have children to be an overseer (pastor). He is saying that a pastor should not be a polygamist. Paul makes many other comments about being married and unmarried. There is no command for pastors to be wed or even have children.

Your confusion over adultery is also a bit out of proportion. God made humans male and female and placed between them an attraction. It is normal for that attraction to be there. Yes, we all sin in such ways, but there is a big difference between normal, natural, God-made attractions and improper, unnatural, man-made attractions. One attraction, when properly controlled, is God pleasing. The other attraction, regardless of control is not. Scripture clearly states this.

Each issue you raise must be taken in light of Scriptural context as a whole and not in light of a couple of verses here and there.

Again, I strongly urge you to discuss these with the seminary admission counselors. Their email addresses are available on their respective web sites.

God bless you in your endeavor,
DaRev

Edial

13th February 2007, 03:37 PM

I didn't use "logic" at all - I just asked practical questions. Ones with profound personal ramifications.

We're talking about who should or should not be permitted in the pastoral office.

Thus, IMHO, it's not black and white, cut and dry.
There is an APPLICATION of this, since no one fully meets the guidelines in all regards.

Lost me, friend....

Are you saying that all 9000 pastors in the LCMS ARE in full compliance with everything mentioned in 1 Timothy 3 and elsewhere in His holy Word? I thought we were in agreement that no one is, so we are dealing with persons in various ways falling short. THAT, to me, suggests that it's not an objective, black-and-white matter. It's a subjective matter of determining what is acceptable to us and what is not.

I've agreed that one who lives in sin, where sin reigns in them, where there is not true repentance, they are disqualified. I think we've all agreed on that point. What I'm wondering about is the pastor or candidate who is a sinner but who is repentant and does not act on it (at least not habitually). That's the issue I'm addressing. Thus, my initial question: what sins do we forgive and do not forbid or defrock a pastor over, and which ones do we? And WHY? And in doing so, are we being cultural and subjective rather than stickly biblical?

For example, some seem to think that a man struggling with sexual thoughts toward other men - but is absolutely repentant of those thoughts and never acts on them - should be defrocked and never allowed into the pastoral office, but another (say me, LOL) struggling in the same way with heterosexual thoughts but absolutely repentant of those thoughts and never acting on them - I should be allowed. Some might see that as pretty arbitrary and not biblically founded (and not mentioned in 1 Tim 3). Others might forbid a pastor who was divorced by his wife but not a pastor who habitually overeats.

I wonder (that's all, wonder) how much of this is OUR stuff and not God's. How much of these distinctions WE make are not a black-and-white issue of using God's inerrant written Word as our norm, but using our cultural morals and biases as the norm - and admitting (as I did in my post above) that may not be altogther wrong to do so.

I don't always resist.
Sometimes I sin.
I think most pastors do.

Well, maybe it does....

But I'm just not sure the Bible is so obviously clear that a homosexual desire excludes one from ministry, but a gluttonous desire does not. I'm not sure the BIBLE says that. We might. But then it's OUR stuff, OUR decision, OUR rule - not God's.

You've indicated it's okay that I'm unmarried and have no kids (violating 1 Tim 3) and you seem very evangelical about my admitted struggles with the 6th Commandment (thank you), so we've agreed that a candidate does NOT need to meet the requirements in any absolute or complete sense, or need be sinless. So, now we're discussing to what DEGREE he may fall short of the requirements, to what DEGREE he may be struggling, and to the issue of this thread, in what AREAS do we allow him to struggle? Seems a tad bit subjective and arbitrary to ME - and perhaps it's meant to be.

I agree completely (easier said than done, however).
I wonder if that includes a certain detest of a homosexual propensity but a certain understanding of a heterosexual propensity, of gluttony but not of divorce, of smoking but not of a lack of exercise? Seems to ME a lot of those attitudes are more cultural than biblical. I mean, you could biblically counsel me to pluck out my eyes and tell me that as such a sinner, I am disqualified from the pastoral office - but because I'm truely repentance and control those desires, you forgive and consider that not a barrier (thank you). But I think because of strong cultural biases, we seem to have very different conclusions regarding one with homosexual thoughts - but equally repents and equally controls. I'm NOT saying we are wrong to make that distinction (in fact, my post obove notes that may, in fact, be appropriate), I'm just saying WE are making arbitrary and subjective rulings here - it's not merely a matter of abiding by God's holy inerrant written Word.

It is MY opinion that we have Law and Gospel working here. I think the proper application of such is what is called for, and it is MY view that is best done on an individual basis, with pastoral wisdom. General guidelines are good (as Paul does by inspiration in 1 Tim 3), but we need to look pastorally at each case - just as you did in mine. I think it requires pastoral wisdom in the application of Law and Gospel, I don't think it's simply a case of abiding by the Word or not, not so black and white.

I was (and am) addressing the wider issue of who is and who is not "qualified" to serve - not MERELY the issue of the specific example in the OP. Sorry if in doing so, I caused confusion.

Thank you for your helpful and insightful thoughts. They are appreciated.

My $0.01

Pax!

- Josiah

.
We do need to look pastorally on each case.

Struggling with sin is different than justifying one's sin.

The one's that justify it, certainly need to resign or be removed from their positions of pastors.

Pastor is a shepherd of people, so he must be an example to people.
Now, does that mean he needs to be the holiest man in the congregation?
No.
He just needs to abstain from sins that are naturally obvious TO people.
(I am not talking about thoughts. That is obvious to God.)
Now, the unrepentant thoughts will eventually manifest themselves in actions that would be obvious to all, but that is a trek of inner unrepentance that God will reveal, so the congragants act.

Sins "of Pastors" that are obvious to people are defined in Timothy and Titus.

That however, does not give them a permission to act on various other sins that are not allowed to your "basic" believer.

And definitions in Timothy and Titus are not that hard to keep.
(That might sound like an "insane" statement, but it is not really). :)

I know a number of Pastors that fit the definitions.

I also know some that are missing on some points.

I really would be glad to discuss some of the definite points that you might have.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Studeclunker

13th February 2007, 04:47 PM

You are making a mountain out of a mile hill on this issue. You are making it WAAAYYYY more complicated than it really is. We can't simply take one or two passages out of Scriptural context and base our whole practice on it. It simply does not work that way.

Exactly!:amen:

Thank you Ed. Well said. However, some of the admissions counselours are admitting people into the seminary who are openly not suitable. Hence this discussion.

Josiah, I said that you are USING earthly logic, not saying the word logic. Paul referred to the practice as sophistry (referring to the debaters on Athens hill). Also, having gone back and read your last several posts, and mine as well, I find you are not listening as well as you could. Read more carefully and consider before you jump to respond, please. I don't say this as a rebuke, just out of weariness. I really am getting weary of repeating myself. You keep saying Pax, yet don't practice it.

"They cry Peace, Peace, yet there is no peace."

If you are really striving to understand, please, permit me to be so bold as to request you go back through this and read again our posts. Consider what you see, and then formulate an answer. I'm quite sure that if you calmly, carefully examine, not just my answers, all the responses given, you will find your answers. Your questions have all been answered several times over.

Peace, Josiah!

ByzantineDixie

13th February 2007, 05:08 PM

So the requirements from scripture might seem crystal clear, but obviously it's not. And to throw out the idea that it is crystal clear seemed to me to basically be an attempt to belittle someone else. It's kind of like the Geico caveman spoof commercials. So simple a caveman can do it.

Just had to comment...this is my most absolute favorite commericial...especially when the guy is in the airport on the moving walkway with tennis or racketball racket slung over his shoulder and he passes by the caveman and computer advertisement...the look on his face is priceless.

Oh and since I barged in on this thread...might as well say that this gay pastor's church was just blocks away from the Lutheran Church were I took my lay ministry courses...small world.

DaRev

13th February 2007, 06:03 PM

Confess

13th February 2007, 07:26 PM

Issues Etc., had a Word Alone guest on talking about this subject.

It was interesting to listen to. It can be found on the second half of the program. http://worldwide.kfuo.org/kfuo/issues_etc7/Issues_Etc_Feb_12a.wma

Studeclunker

14th February 2007, 05:11 AM

I'm getting very weary of this thread. It's not just the constant hair-splitting, my mouse has been acting up and causing me to lose my posts before I can save them. It takes me an avarage of three to four tries per post to finish one here.
That long whine aside...

Yes, Reverand, I'm aware of who posted what. I was growing weary of Josh's endless sofistic arguments. Frankly, see the above.

Yes, you are entirely right about the admissions counselours. Only God can see into an applicant's heart and tell if he or she is lying. Please keep in mind we are dealing with an ELCA pastor in this discussion. Praise God that LCMS doesn't admit known homosexuals at this time into their seminary.

ELCA on the other hand, has been admitting openly homosexual applicants into their seminary for many years. This started many years ago before I parted fellowship with them. Originally, we were told that these people wouldn't be ordained. Nobody was fooled. I and most other people knew that it would only be a matter of time.

Ordaining a homosexual is really unfair to the individual. They are asked not to ever take a life partner. They are charged that they must remain celebate. The problems that the Catholic church is experiencing with this practice is a perfect example of how stupid it is. Even Paul stated, 'for those of you without self control, marry, that you may not be tempted into sin.' Now, we all know he was talking about a hetrosexual union. Still, if one is going to ordain homosexuals, one cannot ask any more of them than one would of a hetrosexual. Do you see the pit I'm decending into here? Once one starts down that path, the whole of scriptural ethics fall apart.

This is what I meant by openly not suitable.

We are dealing in this discussion with a church that's ordaining people who have no place in the ministry at all. It's a church that I lament about, having come out from them. It's just a matter of time (again, and no one's fooled) before the ELCA begins same sex unions.

Now, I've gone deeply into sophistry with this, and I hate sophistry. I'm done with this discussion. I will no longer participate in this. Should have quit the first time. Besides, I'm dealing with some personal issues (having nothing to do with this) that are making it difficult to concentrate properly on my response. Better to quit before making a complete idiot out of myself (I know, too late:sigh: ).

IowaLutheran

14th February 2007, 10:30 AM

Better to quit before making a complete idiot out of myself (I know, too late:sigh: ).

Whenever I have times I feel like that, I try to remember Luther's "sin boldly, but believe more boldly" advice.

In other words - don't worry about it - better to be bold and try to say what you feel than to hold it back! ;)

CaliforniaJosiah

14th February 2007, 11:34 AM

Good question.

From a judicial perspective all sins are the same in the eyes of God.

However, there are certain sins that are personally detestable to God.

Here is a short list ...

DT 18:9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in n the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, ...

These texts present a personal feeling of being detested that God has while we are involved in these.

This is not a matter of Law at all, but the matter of how God FEELS concerning such things.

Below is a "longer list" of things that are PERSONALLY detestable to God.

LEV 18:6 " `No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

LEV 18:7 " `Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

LEV 18:8 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

LEV 18:9 " `Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

LEV 18:10 " `Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

LEV 18:11 " `Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

LEV 18:12 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

LEV 18:13 " `Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

LEV 18:14 " `Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

LEV 18:15 " `Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

LEV 18:16 " `Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

LEV 18:18 " `Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

LEV 18:19 " `Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

LEV 18:20 " `Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

LEV 18:21 " `Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed n to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

LEV 18:23 " `Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

LEV 18:24 " `Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
LEV 18:29 " `Everyone who does any of these detestable things--such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.' "

Thanks,
Ed

Ed, don't you think that having sexual relationships outside of marriage is detestable unto the Lord? Or do you think that homosexual thoughts are unforgiveable in some sense whereas heterosexual thoughts are forgiveable?

And I think we're all in agreement that a man who is not repentant and who is living in sin (whether that be gluttony or homosexuality or any other sin) is one who should not be in office. I'm struggling with the situation of a man who IS repentant and does NOT act on the sin. In THAT situation, what repentant sins of thought are okay and which are not?

I gave my opinion on that; that it's NOT a black-and-white issue of enforcing the letter of the law equally in all matters (or else every pastor who wanted a second piece of pie at a church potluck would need to be defrocked), IHOM, it's a matter of pastoral application of Law and Gospel. Taking the heart of the man, the situation of the congregation, and the community in which the church serves into consideration. I think we need some pastoral wisdom in the application of Law and Gospel, and that perhaps it's not a case of "one size fits all situations." I'm NOT suggesting this is easy (NOTHING pastoral is easy), and it certainly can be done badly (witness the mess in the CC handling priests accused of molestation!), but I think it's better than a legalistic "letter of the law" application of SOME verses while ignoring OTHER verses.

That's my view (at this juncture anyway). I realize that, as often happens, I'm alone in my view. And that's okay (I'm pretty use to it, LOL). BTW, I HAVE carefully read all the posts in this thread and I'm profoundly thankful to those who realize this isn't just theoretical for me and have been so helpful and thoughtful in thier replies.

Thank you!

Pax!

- Josiah

.

C.F.W. Walther

14th February 2007, 09:53 PM

So if "one size fits all" then why is suicide an unforgivable sin Josiah?

It seems there are different degrees of sin maybe?

Phoebe

18th February 2007, 08:04 PM

I brought this subject up with the current pastor, he was new to our congregation. I said that fornicators (current, unrepentant) should not be ordained. He asked me why it was anyone's business what was going on behind closed doors. (Not exact words, but you get the gist.) I about fell out of my chair!
I guess I'm conservative ELCA. They tabled the study on homosexuality at the last meeting. I pray they hold to the current standards.

Phoebe

18th February 2007, 08:06 PM

BTW- Is 1 Corinthians 7 speaking of the call to priesthood? (specifically, verse 20)

Studeclunker

20th February 2007, 01:56 AM

Phoebe, not as the Roman Catholics practice it.

Edial

20th February 2007, 03:02 AM

to Josiah ... Ed, don't you think that having sexual relationships outside of marriage is detestable unto the Lord?
I tried presenting the word "detestable" as related to certain sexual behavior. It was a long list.
Relationship outside of marriage is not on that list.
But incest, bestiality, homosexuality and some other practices are on that list.

I am not saying that adultery is acceptable. It is not.
But that other things do fall into a "special" category.

Or do you think that homosexual thoughts are unforgiveable in some sense whereas heterosexual thoughts are forgiveable?
When one acts on these thoughts is what is in question.

People might have various thoughts and many are repentant while having them. They struggle.
That is OK.

It is the ones that say in their hearts that such thoughts are not a problem.
Such people eventually manifest such thoughts into action.

And I think we're all in agreement that a man who is not repentant and who is living in sin (whether that be gluttony or homosexuality or any other sin) is one who should not be in office. I'm struggling with the situation of a man who IS repentant and does NOT act on the sin. In THAT situation, what repentant sins of thought are okay and which are not?
All repentant thoughts are OK.

Once one is repentant, he knows it is wrong and the thought pattern will be changed for him in time.

There is no man who thinks right all the time.
I gave my opinion on that; that it's NOT a black-and-white issue of enforcing the letter of the law equally in all matters (or else every pastor who wanted a second piece of pie at a church potluck would need to be defrocked), IHOM, it's a matter of pastoral application of Law and Gospel. Taking the heart of the man, the situation of the congregation, and the community in which the church serves into consideration. I think we need some pastoral wisdom in the application of Law and Gospel, and that perhaps it's not a case of "one size fits all situations." I'm NOT suggesting this is easy (NOTHING pastoral is easy), and it certainly can be done badly (witness the mess in the CC handling priests accused of molestation!), but I think it's better than a legalistic "letter of the law" application of SOME verses while ignoring OTHER verses.
It needs to be pastoral.
However, the pastoral approach must be based on some findamentals.

You brought up gluttony.

Why don't you look it up in the NT.
Concerning gluttony it presents that it is a problem when their stomach becomes their god.

I am about 25 lbs overweight and I struggle with it.
I do not entertain all the high calorie foods, but try to cut them.
My stomach is not god to me.

I knew one Pastor who was quiet overweight.
His lunch included 2 Big Macs and he was eating together with the congregants.
People talked, since he was fat.

Then he got ill and lost much, much weight.
He was HAPPY.
He did not look to gain that weight back, because his stomach was not god for him. :)

He did gain some back, but he was sad after that.

That's my view (at this juncture anyway). I realize that, as often happens, I'm alone in my view. And that's okay (I'm pretty use to it, LOL). BTW, I HAVE carefully read all the posts in this thread and I'm profoundly thankful to those who realize this isn't just theoretical for me and have been so helpful and thoughtful in thier replies.

.
In my opinion you have very good and thoughtful posts, Josiah.

I find it hard to believe that you are often alone in your views.
People might not share it with you, but there is no way that people do not see significant benefit in your posts.

I find you to be an intelligent, humble, gentle and good man.

Thanks, :)
Ed

CaliforniaJosiah

20th February 2007, 02:00 PM

to Josiah ...
I tried presenting the word "detestable" as related to certain sexual behavior. It was a long list.
Relationship outside of marriage is not on that list.
But incest, bestiality, homosexuality and some other practices are on that list.

I am not saying that adultery is acceptable. It is not.
But that other things do fall into a "special" category.

I understand your point, and consider it helpful and valid.

I already shared in an earlier post here that, like all people I suppose, I have my own subjective and inconsistent views about sins - some I seem to "pass over" easily, some I've very legalistic and intolerant about. I struggle a bit with that because that's ME imposing my sensitivies there rather than listening to what God says. Frankly, to be less than humble, I don't think I"m alone. I think everyone does this.

And I shared in an earlier post that MAYBE cultural sensitivites IS the point. MAYBE (that's not meant to be a fact) the issue is not discrediting and hindering the Gospel by having a spokesman who is disrespected. MAYBE the definitions of what makes a speaker respected or disrespected by the nonchristian audience is partly cultural? In some settings, my arriving in jean shorts and a T-shirt would - in and off itself - be a 'problem' that might distract from my message; I should be sensitive to that, and so should anyone supervising me. Paul speaks of not giving offense so as to discredit the Gospel. I wonder (that's all, just wonder) if that's not a signfiicant part of this issue. It's not so much because we have an unforgiveable sin here but that SOCIETY - the audience - discredits the one who is so guilty, and thus the message is hindered? Just a crazy theory I'm pondering.

When one acts on these thoughts is what is in question.

People might have various thoughts and many are repentant while having them. They struggle.
That is OK.

It is the ones that say in their hearts that such thoughts are not a problem.
Such people eventually manifest such thoughts into action.

EXACTLY my point.

Therefore, I don't have a huge problem with a pastor who struggles with sexual thoughts (heterosexual or homosexual) or with overeating or with alcohol or whatever. I think such a pastor is likely to be in good company, I think a lot of Christians have SOMETHING that we struggle with. I'm not too sure the pastor should be too explicite about telling us all the details there (do I WANT to know??!!!) but in a general sense, a pastor who admits he is a sinner has GAINED respect from me, not given me reasons to defrock him. Do you follow me?

But like you, the ISSUE for me is not the struggle or the admission of sin - it's control. I can respect the "recovering alcoholic" and even celebrate his sobriety! But the pastor who is habitually drunk - and is not repentant, THAT'S where I have an issue. I think we need to be pastoral with our pastor - but that includes the wise application of Law and Gospel, and sometimes we all NEED the Law (even me, LOL).

IMHO, the pastor who has homosexual propensities but while the bird flies over his head, he does not allow it to make a nest in his hair - he is sincerely repentant and does NOT act on this. Frankly, to ME, I wouldn't have a problem with him as my pastor. But the womanizing heterosexual pastor who is neither repentant nor abstaining - HE I have a problem with. So, I agree with you, to ME, as a member of the church, the issue is REPENTANCE and CONTROL - not what specific sin we're talking about.

And I think such should always be handled pastorally - with wise application of Law and Gospel, not with legalism to some rule not found in Scripture. I think we need to look at what's inside of the man and avoid a Pharisical legalistic "letter of the law" universal condemnation.

BUT, again, the issue here isn't just ME or even just CHRISTIANS! A pastor is a public figure. He speaks not ONLY to Christians who know Law and Gospel, who know forgiveness and grace and mercy. His audience, his "congregation" of sorts, is his entire community which in this day is mostly secular and nonreligious. THAT "congregation" needs to be considered, too, IMHO.

All repentant thoughts are OK.

I think so.

It needs to be pastoral.
However, the pastoral approach must be based on some findamentals.

That's my point.

I am about 25 lbs overweight and I struggle with it.
I do not entertain all the high calorie foods, but try to cut them.
My stomach is not god to me.

I knew one Pastor who was quiet overweight.
His lunch included 2 Big Macs and he was eating together with the congregants.
People talked, since he was fat.

Then he got ill and lost much, much weight.
He was HAPPY.
He did not look to gain that weight back, because his stomach was not god for him. :)

He did gain some back, but he was sad after that.

Thank you.

I brought up gluttany only because it IS specified as a sin, whereas I'm not sure that homosexual thoughts is (acts - yes). AND because it seems to be the one sin nearly all Christians seem to "pass" on. If there's any "sin" Christians seem to allow their pastor to have, it's this one. A pastor making a pig of himself at a church potluck is winked at. I ONLY brought it up to show the inconsistancy and subjectivity of the issue before us.

And isn't it interesting how this works!!!! SOOOO often, Jesus' log and speck thing comes to my mind. See, isn't it EASY for me to use THAT illustration? I'm a nearly perfect weight. I've never dieted (at least in terms of calories). See, it's not MY sin - so I used that illustration (was I even aware of that when I did?). Soooooooooo easy to see sin in others, especially if we think it's not in us. I wonder how much of that is a part of our discussion here??? (Wonder!) I'm as straight - as HETEROsexual as anyone could possibly be, so it's easy for ME to say "Those bad homosexuals!!!!) but maybe not so easy for me to say, "Those bad heterosexuals!" Follow me? "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." I think about that verse.

And that verse seems to apply to the issue of who should be allowed to enter the pastoral office of our denominations, as well as those who we decide to defrock from it. I don't think it's such a clear "black and white" doing what the Bible says (as it seems to ME some here have suggested). I think it's more complex than that. I think it takes some pastoral wisdom, the right application and distinction of Law and Gospel, a look into the heart. To ME, it's not simply a universal legalistic application of some ruling a denomination passes as thier convention.

In my opinion you have very good and thoughtful posts, Josiah.

I find it hard to believe that you are often alone in your views.
People might not share it with you, but there is no way that people do not see significant benefit in your posts.

I find you to be an intelligent, humble, gentle and good man.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Thank you.

I hope our exchange has clarified MY current perspective here.

I know I can be passionate sometimes, and I have quite a reputation in the Theology fo