Just Curious...

[Pacigoth13]

How many people here are ELCA and how many are Missouri synod or other?

Just curious...

[JMRE5150]

How many people here are ELCA and how many are Missouri synod or other?

Just curious...
While the ELCA has a 66 million membership worldwide, far outnumbering our LCMS mates, it appears not many use these boards.

On CF.com, in the Lutheran sections, the ELCA is the minority here. It does appear tha our LCMS brothers/sisters have larger numbers in the forums.

There are a handful of our WELS cousins as well, but they too are a minority.

The true number may be hard to obtain, as I know a few ELCA Lutherans on these boards that refuse to read through/post in the Lutheran forums. This is mainly due to the fact that we tend to be a bit harsh in here about our differences and debates. We do tend to do alittle more bickering back and forth than is needed, and that turns a few folks off I guess.
Point is, true numbers on the boards can't really be obtained, but the breakdown above is on the most frequent posters here in the Lutheran forums.

There is about 10-15 diehard daily posters that live in "Lutheran" forum, so you will see some of our names each and everyday.


***shoots a slingshot rock at ChiRho and Lotar and runs away***

[ChiRho]

LCMS

[Rechtgläubig]

There are a handful of our WELS cousins as well, but they too are a minority.

No, I think I am the lone WELS guy... :D

[ChiRho]

***shoots a slingshot rock at ChiRho and Lotar and runs away***

Typical ELCA! :P

[Jenna]

LCMS here :)

[Flipper]

The true number may be hard to obtain, as I know a few ELCA Lutherans on these boards that refuse to read through/post in the Lutheran forums. This is mainly due to the fact that we tend to be a bit harsh in here about our differences and debates. We do tend to do alittle more bickering back and forth than is needed, and that turns a few folks off I guess.
Point is, true numbers on the boards can't really be obtained, but the breakdown above is on the most frequent posters here in the Lutheran forums.
Trust me - this place doesn't know what true bickering is. Yes, the debates get heated, but at the end of the day, we all seem to kind of like each other, or do a really good job acting like it. Not many people take it too personally and there seems to be a mutual respect for those with opposing views. I've been on this other board, which was one of the many offshoots of the old LBMB. A simple discussion with opposing sides will turn into a debate, then a fight, then it will get personal. In that atmosphere, I have to admit, I've gotten pretty bad, in feeling that I need to defend myself. We shouldn't have to take personal jabs in order to defend our positions. Personal jabs here seem to be in jest or downright joking. All I know is that you all are all a much better example of how to conduct oneself in a message board.

BTW, I'm LCMS.

[JVAC]

A member of the Body of Christ, who labels himself EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH in America!

Up until lately, I have agreed with the Church completely and I do think that the ELCA is the closest resemblance of the Ancient Church.

-James

[ChiRho]

... I do think that the ELCA is the closest resemblance of the Ancient Church.

-James


Really? How many women do you think were administering the Sacrament in the early Church? ;)

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[JVAC]

17 ;)

-James

[Flipper]

You guys are bad.

[ChiRho]

You guys are bad.

I was wondering when Mom was gonna pay a visit! ;) :D

[Lexluther]

We have a Moravian too! :)

[Flipper]

I was wondering when Mom was gonna pay a visit! ;) :D
Mom???!!!!!! Oh Chi -- you are wanting to get slapped?

[Lotar]

While the ELCA has a 66 million membership worldwide, far outnumbering our LCMS mates, it appears not many use these boards.
Wow, you guys have gained a few members. :D
I think your equating LWF with ELCA, which would be correct theoretically, but not in practicality. Many members do not recognize the intercommunion that was mandated in the LWF. About 9 million of those also belong to the ILC, which requires such action for membership. But if you want to use the LWF for numbers, we should get to use the ILC, which puts us at somewhere between 11 to 12 million.




***shoots a slingshot rock at ChiRho and Lotar and runs away***

HA! You missed! :P

[Rechtgläubig]

Mom???!!!!!! Oh Chi -- you are wanting to get slapped?
LOL!!!

:D

[Flipper]

I'd like to be a mom one day. Maybe I can get some practice here with you petulant children. :D

[ByzantineDixie]

Thank goodness someone else got to be the mom for a change...unless that makes me the GRANDMA!!! :eek:

LCMS here.

Where has Danhead been lately? He's been another good ELCA rep.

Peace

Rose

[Flipper]

Grandma Rose... Has a nice ring to it.

[GlowingFirefly]

ELCA. :)

[Phoebe]

ELCA

:P

[theologia crucis]

I'm from the The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States.

Oh wait, we changed our name to The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States in 1917.

Wait, it's now The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod! Since 1947!

[Music4Hym777]

ELCA for now. (We shall see what happens in the 2005 voting)

[Pacigoth13]

Ok, then my feeling that I was in a minority's minority position wasn't wrong. ELCA does seem to be in minority, and within that minority are the LELCAs, "Liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America". I guess that makes sense why some LELCAs would not post/read here... but I still think we should all see ourselves in an ecumenical light, all as Lutherans who see the Christian tradition through "Lutheran lens". The ELCA church I go to is very conservative and is very much traditional Lutheran, but everyone is accepting and loving even if they disagree. I agree with John Dominic Crossan that the ease at which we tend to divide ourselves and form new "churches" is sinful. So hopefully no one here hates me too much...

[Rechtgläubig]

So hopefully no one here hates me too much...
I don't hate you man! :wave:

I don't have to agree with you on everything, but I don't hate you. :D

[LuxPerpetua]

I will soon be LCMS.

[LuxPerpetua]

. . . But I'm still very nice and will not argue til the point of death unlike "some" people around here (j/k) ;)

[Protoevangel]

How did I miss this thread?

ELCA

Much like Music4Hym777, we shall see in 2005 if I can continue this membership in good conscience.

[Willy]

To no one's surprise, I am ELCA. The vote in 2005 will have no consequence for my commitment to my church. It is a great church, and if we fully embrace gays and their gifts I will be grateful. If we don't, I know that some day we will. I hope my gay brothers and sisters can hang in there long enough.

[ChiRho]

To no one's surprise, I am ELCA. The vote in 2005 will have no consequence for my commitment to my church. It is a great church, and if we fully embrace gays and their gifts I will be grateful. If we don't, I know that some day we will. I hope my gay brothers and sisters can hang in there long enough.

How very un-Lutheran and unScriptural of you!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[SiSSYGAL]

I'm new to this thread and ELCA

[Protoevangel]

Welcome to the thread and to the ELCA SiSSYGAL!!!

[Protoevangel]

To no one's surprise, I am ELCA. The vote in 2005 will have no consequence for my commitment to my church. It is a great church, and if we fully embrace gays and their gifts I will be grateful. If we don't, I know that some day we will. I hope my gay brothers and sisters can hang in there long enough.Hi Willy,

Actually, I fully support embracing homosexual people and their gifts. I do not however support condoning, blessing, a behavior which is unequivocally denounced in Scripture. I am a sinner as much as any homosexual, and I am in need of the same grace and forgiveness they are. It would be wrong of the church, however, to bless same sex unions, giving the impression that there is no sin there to be confessed. It would be just as wrong for the church to condone my sins.

You may be right, the ELCA may very well be destined to eventually fall into apostasy. There certainly are enough people out there who don’t want the Gospel; who only want their ears to be tickled. There are plenty who want to be told that they are justified in themselves, with nothing to repent for. I hope you are wrong, though.

[Lotar]

Just to put my two cents in, I think that LCMS is heading down the road to apostasy as well.

[ByzantineDixie]

Just to put my two cents in, I think that LCMS is heading down the road to apostasy as well.

Specific issues? -----R

[filosofer]

I am an orthodox, evangelical, catholic, conservative Christian confessing the faith as a Lutheran according to The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (which is NOT a denomination), who is presently a "member" of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

[ChiRho]

Just to put my two cents in, I think that LCMS is heading down the road to apostasy as well.

I am an orthodox, evangelical, catholic, conservative Christian confessing the faith as a Lutheran according to The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (which is NOT a denomination), who is presently a "member" of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

I know what you both mean....and I agree!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ByzantineDixie]

I am an orthodox, evangelical, catholic, conservative Christian confessing the faith as a Lutheran according to The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (which is NOT a denomination), who is presently a "member" of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Hey, filosofer, I like the way you put this.

Did I read somewhere on this forum that you attended sem in STL? Or is that just my wild imagination?

Don't be a stranger.... :wave:

Peace

Rose

[filosofer]

Hey, filosofer, I like the way you put this.

Thanks. Over the years I have found that people are open and curious about the statement. There is so much confusion about what it means to be "Lutheran" (usually ranging from RCC siblings to conservative/legalists) that I try to use historically accurate terms to describe what it means to be Lutheran, but ones which stress the Gospel centeredness of our confession of the faith.

By using this phrasing I have done two things: piqued others' interest so that they are receptive to it, and provided a faithful testimony to that which we believe.

Did I read somewhere on this forum that you attended sem in STL? Or is that just my wild imagination?

'tis true, also STM in Exegetical Theology

[SPALATIN]

To no one's surprise, I am ELCA. The vote in 2005 will have no consequence for my commitment to my church. It is a great church, and if we fully embrace gays and their gifts I will be grateful. If we don't, I know that some day we will. I hope my gay brothers and sisters can hang in there long enough.
Willy, Willy, Willy,

Have you not read Romans 1. I suggest you take it out now and read the whole chapter because it will tell you what happens to those who give up natural relations for unnatural relations.

BTW I am LCMS

[Willy]

How very un-Lutheran and unScriptural of you!

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
At the heart of the Lutheran movement is the tradition of reformation. It is part of what makes Lutherans Lutheran. I happen to believe that embracing gays and lesbians fully is a matter of reformation that refelcts the spirit of inclusion that Jesus lived out. To do this is not apostasy, but a matter of reflecting more fully the one we call Lord and Savior. Thinking this way, though, I know is not possible for many of you. It just isn't in your world view. Nothing I will say will convince you otherwise. My point about the ELCA eventually ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians is simply my conviction that eventually many churches (those most willing to receive the gifts of modernity) will do so because homosexuality will be embraced more fully in the culture. My sixteen year old son doesn't understand why this is a subject for the church. Why shouldn't non-celibate homosexuals be ordained, he wonders? He doesn't get why people would oppose this. Increasingly, I believe, the culture will reflect his thought. And I know that some of you will respond that the church is to be "in the world but not of it." You are right, but I don't think this is the issue to utilize this thought, although I would point out that the world values people on the basis of popularity, success, money, appearance, race, sexual orientation, gender. The church is to operate differently.

[SPALATIN]

At the heart of the Lutheran movement is the tradition of reformation. It is part of what makes Lutherans Lutheran. I happen to believe that embracing gays and lesbians fully is a matter of reformation that refelcts the spirit of inclusion that Jesus lived out. To do this is not apostasy, but a matter of reflecting more fully the one we call Lord and Savior. Thinking this way, though, I know is not possible for many of you. It just isn't in your world view. Nothing I will say will convince you otherwise. My point about the ELCA eventually ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians is simply my conviction that eventually many churches (those most willing to receive the gifts of modernity) will do so because homosexuality will be embraced more fully in the culture. My sixteen year old son doesn't understand why this is a subject for the church. Why shouldn't non-celibate homosexuals be ordained, he wonders? He doesn't get why people would oppose this. Increasingly, I believe, the culture will reflect his thought. And I know that some of you will respond that the church is to be "in the world but not of it." You are right, but I don't think this is the issue to utilize this thought, although I would point out that the world values people on the basis of popularity, success, money, appearance, race, sexual orientation, gender. The church is to operate differently.
Willy,

To promote the sin is to condemn the sinner.

[ChiRho]

At the heart of the Lutheran movement is the tradition of reformation. It is part of what makes Lutherans Lutheran. I happen to believe that embracing gays and lesbians fully is a matter of reformation that refelcts the spirit of inclusion that Jesus lived out. To do this is not apostasy, but a matter of reflecting more fully the one we call Lord and Savior. Thinking this way, though, I know is not possible for many of you. It just isn't in your world view. Nothing I will say will convince you otherwise. My point about the ELCA eventually ordaining non-celibate gays and lesbians is simply my conviction that eventually many churches (those most willing to receive the gifts of modernity) will do so because homosexuality will be embraced more fully in the culture. My sixteen year old son doesn't understand why this is a subject for the church. Why shouldn't non-celibate homosexuals be ordained, he wonders? He doesn't get why people would oppose this. Increasingly, I believe, the culture will reflect his thought. And I know that some of you will respond that the church is to be "in the world but not of it." You are right, but I don't think this is the issue to utilize this thought, although I would point out that the world values people on the basis of popularity, success, money, appearance, race, sexual orientation, gender. The church is to operate differently.

To reform for the sake of reform is not reform at all. This is not Lutheranism...in fact, to promote this view is to do the work of Satan. To deny homosexuality as a sin, is to seek justification outside of Christ.

I am saddened and angry by what you have taught your sixteen year old boy. You are helping Satan attack his faith and you dont even realize it. If there was anything you could have said to elevate my anger....this is it. You have hurt your son by your words. I pray for you and your son.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[JVAC]

:sigh:

-James

[Willy]

To reform for the sake of reform is not reform at all. This is not Lutheranism...in fact, to promote this view is to do the work of Satan. To deny homosexuality as a sin, is to seek justification outside of Christ.

I am saddened and angry by what you have taught your sixteen year old boy. You are helping Satan attack his faith and you dont even realize it. If there was anything you could have said to elevate my anger....this is it. You have hurt your son by your words. I pray for you and your son.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho
Wow! That takes care of that! What if, of all things, my son has taught me some things? What if gay people have taught me things? What if life is much richer and more complictated than we ever thought? Thanks for your prayers. My son really is quite an amazing person, someone who is eager to be faithful in a world and a life where things aren't always crystal clear. I am grateful for his willingness to go deeper and his attentiveness to those the world would rather forget, neglect, or despise.

[SPALATIN]

Wow! That takes care of that! What if, of all things, my son has taught me some things? What if gay people have taught me things? What if life is much richer and more complictated than we ever thought? Thanks for your prayers. My son really is quite an amazing person, someone who is eager to be faithful in a world and a life where things aren't always crystal clear. I am grateful for his willingness to go deeper and his attentiveness to those the world would rather forget, neglect, or despise.
Willy,

Think about this for a minute. The Bible clearly says that Homosexuality is wrong and sinful. For what were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Do you think they call it Sodomy for any other reason than what it is? Sin is Sin and by not teaching your child the difference he is going to think everything is permissable if you are prone to it.

We are all sinful and need to confess that sin daily. Now that doesn't mean we should hate the person who is committing that sin but to show them that their sin is keeping them from true fellowship with God.

Start reading the Bible and stop letting the culture shape your worldview. :mad:

[Willy]

Willy,

Think about this for a minute. The Bible clearly says that Homosexuality is wrong and sinful. For what were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Do you think they call it Sodomy for any other reason than what it is? Sin is Sin and by not teaching your child the difference he is going to think everything is permissable if you are prone to it.

We are all sinful and need to confess that sin daily. Now that doesn't mean we should hate the person who is committing that sin but to show them that their sin is keeping them from true fellowship with God.

Start reading the Bible and stop letting the culture shape your worldview. :mad:
I read the Bible all the time. The story of Sodom is not about homosexuality. It is primarily about hospitality. Other parts of the Bible point that out. If it has anything to do with homosexuality, it is about homosexual rape. Please read the story and tell me if you are comfortable with the conclusion that it's okay for women to be given up for sex for these "hungry" men. Would you agree with that kind of morality? The Bible must be understood in its historical context. Using it for our own purposes is less than helpful. By the way, I think my son will be fine. He has a strong ethical foundation, working hard to defend the earth, practice inclusion, embrace the forgotten, feed the hungry.

[Lotar]

And I am sure that when Paul spoke of Sodomites, he was refering to inhospitable people. I am so glad that we have had this recent revelation, that has so long eluded past generations. I cannot understand why those generations following the Apostles could not understand this, especially in a culture where homosexual relations was socially acceptable.

[SPALATIN]

I read the Bible all the time. The story of Sodom is not about homosexuality. It is primarily about hospitality. Other parts of the Bible point that out. If it has anything to do with homosexuality, it is about homosexual rape. Please read the story and tell me if you are comfortable with the conclusion that it's okay for women to be given up for sex for these "hungry" men. Would you agree with that kind of morality? The Bible must be understood in its historical context. Using it for our own purposes is less than helpful. By the way, I think my son will be fine. He has a strong ethical foundation, working hard to defend the earth, practice inclusion, embrace the forgotten, feed the hungry.
Genesis 19:2-8 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

The verses I have highlighted say something different than what you are saying. Lot was offering his daughters to them so that their sin would not be worse than what they wanted. Sure there is a minor theme of hospitality here but it was to show the sinful wickedness of the people of that city.

[Protoevangel]

I read the Bible all the time. The story of Sodom is not about homosexuality. It is primarily about hospitality. Other parts of the Bible point that out. If it has anything to do with homosexuality, it is about homosexual rape. Please read the story and tell me if you are comfortable with the conclusion that it's okay for women to be given up for sex for these "hungry" men. Would you agree with that kind of morality? The Bible must be understood in its historical context. Using it for our own purposes is less than helpful. By the way, I think my son will be fine. He has a strong ethical foundation, working hard to defend the earth, practice inclusion, embrace the forgotten, feed the hungry.Hi Willy,

I completely agree with you about the story of Sodom. The sin the people were judged for went way beyond simple homosexuality. They were judged before the Angels got there, their inhospitality and attempted rape simply sparked the destruction.

I can not see the following explained away so easily, though:

Leviticus 18:22: 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable',
Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.'

Shakab (the Hebrew transliteration for the bolded words) means "to lie down, to lodge, to lie (of sexual relations), to lie down (in death), to rest, relax (fig), to be lain with (sexually), to be lain with (sexually), to make to lie down, to be laid". Unless rape is how one is expected to lie with a woman, I don’t see how your argument holds any water.

How about this:

1Corinthians 6:9: 'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders',
1Timothy 1:10: 'for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine'

Arsenokoites (the Greek transliteration for the words highlighted in bold) simply means "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual". Nothing in the context indicates that it means rape or anything like that.


I am not stating that what you are saying is absolutely wrong, it is possible that I understand Scripture wrong. If I can be convinced by Scripture that my position is wrong, I will accept the correction with a grateful heart. I wat to know the truth, not simply someone's opinion, This is your chance, show me, using Scripture how homosexuality is actually approved and blessed by God. God made the covenant for men and women, is there any mention in the Bible of a similar covenant where a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his male life-partner? If not, do you have any suggestions as to why it does not?

[Lotar]

Paul actually invented that word ;)

Yes, the sins of Sodom went beyond homosexuality, but niether were they solely inhospitality. The most obvious sin was sexual depravity, but also there was inhospitality, violence, etc.

[Protoevangel]

Arsenokoites?

Yes he did. He did not, however, invent the root words.


Arsen: Man
Koites: Bed

[Bulldog]

Just to put my two cents in, I think that LCMS is heading down the road to apostasy as well.

Why?

[Lotar]

Because of pietists in the church. LCMS tried to fix it in the 70s, resulting in the ELCA ;) , but I think they may have only delayed the inevitable.

Look through the long history of the Church, and you will see periods of apostacy followed by periods of reformation. Right now we are in a period of the former, now we just have to wait for God to raise up the next Augustine, or Luther. ;)

[SPALATIN]

Because of pietists in the church. LCMS tried to fix it in the 70s, resulting in the ELCA ;) , but I think they may have only delayed the inevitable.

Look through the long history of the Church, and you will see periods of apostacy followed by periods of reformation. Right now we are in a period of the former, now we just have to wait for God to raise up the next Augustine, or Luther. ;)
Correction Lotar, The ELCA is a result of the American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America and another minor synod that did come from the Seminex walkout in the 70s. The ELCA is not just from the LCMS 70s split.

Right now the big debate is regarding the Benke/Yankee Stadium debacle. The President of the LCMS Gerald Kieschnick is under a lot of scrutiny because he supposedly gave Pastor Benke permission to take part in a unionistic prayer service after the 9/11 terrorist attack.

I personally would like to see Daniel Preus become the President of the Synod. I am currently reading his book "Why I am Lutheran, Jesus at the Center." I wouldn't call what is happening in the LCMS to be apostasy but it is a problem that could be devastating. Like the game of Baseball there are the Purists who want to keep it pure and there are those who want change because they feel that change is necessary.

Change for the sake of change is never a good idea if it takes away from Christ.

Scott Strohkirch

[Lotar]

Yes, I know that there were others (actually more than those three ;) ) who joined to for ELCA.

I think it's more than the unionism at Yankee Stadium. I think there was real damage done with the years before the thing with Seminex. The new pastors may be orthodox in their beliefs, but it is also harder for them to retain their positions in many congregations if they enforce doctrine like closed communion.

[Willy]

Hi Willy,

I completely agree with you about the story of Sodom. The sin the people were judged for went way beyond simple homosexuality. They were judged before the Angels got there, their inhospitality and attempted rape simply sparked the destruction.

I can not see the following explained away so easily, though:

Leviticus 18:22: 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable',
Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.'

Shakab (the Hebrew transliteration for the bolded words) means "to lie down, to lodge, to lie (of sexual relations), to lie down (in death), to rest, relax (fig), to be lain with (sexually), to be lain with (sexually), to make to lie down, to be laid". Unless rape is how one is expected to lie with a woman, I don’t see how your argument holds any water.

How about this:

1Corinthians 6:9: 'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders',
1Timothy 1:10: 'for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine'

Arsenokoites (the Greek transliteration for the words highlighted in bold) simply means "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite, a homosexual". Nothing in the context indicates that it means rape or anything like that.


I am not stating that what you are saying is absolutely wrong, it is possible that I understand Scripture wrong. If I can be convinced by Scripture that my position is wrong, I will accept the correction with a grateful heart. I wat to know the truth, not simply someone's opinion, This is your chance, show me, using Scripture how homosexuality is actually approved and blessed by God. God made the covenant for men and women, is there any mention in the Bible of a similar covenant where a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his male life-partner? If not, do you have any suggestions as to why it does not?
I don't view the Bible as a prooftext book that can validate my or any body's position. If I were ask to point to Biblical passages that help make my point I probably would refer to the passages that address the struggle in Acts and the gospels over those who are unclean. I would also highlight Paul's notion that in Christ there is neither male or female, etc... It would be stupid for me to argue that the Bible is friendly to homosexual practice. It obviously isn't. But I think that it is important for people to understand the context of the passages they quote. The Leviticus passages are not the most helpful to quote to validate the anit-gay bias. If you are going to quote to me Leviticus about homosexual practice you should also quote to me the passage about how it is wrong to wear clothes made of two different materials and to sow two different kinds of seeds in the same field. Leviticus clearly believes that homosexual practice violates the order that God has devised for creation. Levictus is primarily about order, not morality. The Romans one passage is probably the strongest to support your view. But like Leviticus it must be understood in its historical context. Both passages are dealing with a situation in which the "other" (the practitioners of other religions) are using sexual (sometimes homosexual) rites in their holy places. It's a matter of being different from those who are worshiping false gods. The big issue for me when talking about the Bible and homosexuality is to recognize that the culture of the Biblical world dealt with homosexuality as a practice of assumed heterosexual people. Do things change when it appears that homosexuality is viewed as an orientation, not simply as a matter of perverted behavior? I obviously think that homosexuality is primarily an orientation. It comes with the territory of most of those who consider themselves to be gay. It is a part of the giftedness of their createdness. This understanding changes everything about this conversation. Trust me. Those who think differently about this subject than many of you do can be thought of as faithful Christians. We are struggling to make sense of our faith in a complex world. We are not "terribly deceived of Satan," as some think. WE often resort to this kind of language to demonize those we disagree with.

[ByzantineDixie]

Yes, I know that there were others (actually more than those three ;) ) who joined to for ELCA.

I think it's more than the unionism at Yankee Stadium. I think there was real damage done with the years before the thing with Seminex. The new pastors may be orthodox in their beliefs, but it is also harder for them to retain their positions in many congregations if they enforce doctrine like closed communion.

While I wasn't a Lutheran when the whole Seminex thing happened I do understand this was a group of LCMS seminary professors and students who left and started a "seminary in exile" as a result of their support for the use of the historical critical method of interpreting scripture. It isn't difficult to see the damage this approach causes! That was a very real issue that needed resolution and unfortunately necessitated division.

Closed communion or open? You know what, even though I am in the other camp, apostate from your perspective, I do think it may be a big enough issue that it could unfortunately necessitate division.

Benke praying at Yankee Stadium after 9/11? If that causes division in our synod then shame on us! (Couldn't those opposed to this one just become WELS??? ;) j/k )

Love y'all anyway.....R

[Lotar]

I wouldn't have had a problem with that prayer if it wasn't pluralistic. Prayer with other Christians is okay by me, prayer with other religions is not.

[ByzantineDixie]

I wouldn't have had a problem with that prayer if it wasn't pluralistic. Prayer with other Christians is okay by me, prayer with other religions is not.

But is this specific issue so big or error so grave and unforgivable that it should split a synod?

I agree our participation in public prayer should be limited to prayer being offered to the one true God but I do not see how we should let this incident (with its unique set of circumstances--that is a nation in crisis) divide us. The issue seems to have become more political than one of loving correction. (But that just may be me viewing the world through my apostate colored glasses.... :cool: ;) )

Peace

Rose

[Lotar]

No, I don't think so, but wrong doing should have been admitted to. Anyways, that isn't really the main issue I have with him. To tell the truth, most of what I've heard about him is from those who want him gone, and believe me there's a lot of them. I've heard enough to know I'd rather him not be there, but I must admit my main reason is because I want us to enter talks with WELS not ELCA. Which one it is will depend on the upcoming election.

[SiSSYGAL]

Hi Everyone on this thread
I signed on hoping to find this discussion. I'm unconfortable just discussing what my theology should be and being allowed to have a say in it. It's doctrine by popular demand. To me the outcome is less serious than involving me in the discussions.
(still, I'm planning to attend the discussions. How about the rest of you?)

[Protoevangel]

Hi SiSSYGAL,:wave:
Please feel free to join in. We all have a good time whether we agree or disagree, and we will come away friends.

[SPALATIN]

I don't view the Bible as a prooftext book that can validate my or any body's position. If I were ask to point to Biblical passages that help make my point I probably would refer to the passages that address the struggle in Acts and the gospels over those who are unclean. I would also highlight Paul's notion that in Christ there is neither male or female, etc... It would be stupid for me to argue that the Bible is friendly to homosexual practice. It obviously isn't. But I think that it is important for people to understand the context of the passages they quote. The Leviticus passages are not the most helpful to quote to validate the anit-gay bias. If you are going to quote to me Leviticus about homosexual practice you should also quote to me the passage about how it is wrong to wear clothes made of two different materials and to sow two different kinds of seeds in the same field. Leviticus clearly believes that homosexual practice violates the order that God has devised for creation. Levictus is primarily about order, not morality. The Romans one passage is probably the strongest to support your view. But like Leviticus it must be understood in its historical context. Both passages are dealing with a situation in which the "other" (the practitioners of other religions) are using sexual (sometimes homosexual) rites in their holy places. It's a matter of being different from those who are worshiping false gods. The big issue for me when talking about the Bible and homosexuality is to recognize that the culture of the Biblical world dealt with homosexuality as a practice of assumed heterosexual people. Do things change when it appears that homosexuality is viewed as an orientation, not simply as a matter of perverted behavior? I obviously think that homosexuality is primarily an orientation. It comes with the territory of most of those who consider themselves to be gay. It is a part of the giftedness of their createdness. This understanding changes everything about this conversation. Trust me. Those who think differently about this subject than many of you do can be thought of as faithful Christians. We are struggling to make sense of our faith in a complex world. We are not "terribly deceived of Satan," as some think. WE often resort to this kind of language to demonize those we disagree with.
Willy,

Since you consider the Bible to be only a book for the time in which it was written and not pertinent to today's culture I can't debate with you any longer. Sorry. I take the Bible to be the Authoritative word of God for all time not just for the times it was written. I just won't argue with you on it. Homosexuality is Sin. Now I am not saying that I am any less sinful than they are but until they who practice it confess that it is sin than we have nothing to talk about.

Scott Strohkirch

[Willy]

Willy,

Since you consider the Bible to be only a book for the time in which it was written and not pertinent to today's culture I can't debate with you any longer. Sorry. I take the Bible to be the Authoritative word of God for all time not just for the times it was written. I just won't argue with you on it. Homosexuality is Sin. Now I am not saying that I am any less sinful than they are but until they who practice it confess that it is sin than we have nothing to talk about.

Scott Strohkirch
Certainly I never said that the Bible is pertinent only for the time it was written. We Christians believe that it is inspired, that is, the Spirit continues to speak anew to each generation through it. WE probably have different views of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that dialogue must stop.

[SPALATIN]

Certainly I never said that the Bible is pertinent only for the time it was written. We Christians believe that it is inspired, that is, the Spirit continues to speak anew to each generation through it. WE probably have different views of the Bible, but that doesn't mean that dialogue must stop.
I would say though that you use "Historical-Critical" methods to apply scripture to your life. You also believe that the Culture should lead the church and I believe vice versa.

[Willy]

I would say though that you use "Historical-Critical" methods to apply scripture to your life. You also believe that the Culture should lead the church and I believe vice versa.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I believe strongly that the church needs to be a set-apart community that walks to the beat that the rhythm of Jesus' life is. Of course, I use the historical-critical method. It is the method utilized by the majority of mainline Christianity. I also understand the limits of this method. It has caused some to tear apart the scriptures, leaving us with a Bible that can't speak anymore. But I certainly don't want to go back to a time when the scriptures were understood apart from their historical context. Generally, understanding that context makes them even more meaningful and less detached from real human experience.

[SPALATIN]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I believe strongly that the church needs to be a set-apart community that walks to the beat that the rhythm of Jesus' life is. Of course, I use the historical-critical method. It is the method utilized by the majority of mainline Christianity. I also understand the limits of this method. It has caused some to tear apart the scriptures, leaving us with a Bible that can't speak anymore. But I certainly don't want to go back to a time when the scriptures were understood apart from their historical context. Generally, understanding that context makes them even more meaningful and less detached from real human experience.

Paul's Charge to Timothy

10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings--what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So tell me how do we use the "Historical-Critical" method with these verses?

[Willy]

So tell me how do we use the "Historical-Critical" method with these verses?
I hope you know that the writer of First Timothy when speaking about "all scripture" is probably refering to the then-known Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't yet in existence. I do believe that the Bible is an experience of the Spirit. The church needs to read it, hear it read, have it preached on. A high view of the Bible requires that it be used to shape the community who created it and claimed as its authority. The authority that it has is to set the community free, not to bind it to every word it says. The Bible brings the gospel. It is not the end all, be all. If it is, it becomes an idol. Its role is to point to God, who is the ultimate ultimate.

[SPALATIN]

I hope you know that the writer of First Timothy when speaking about "all scripture" is probably refering to the then-known Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't yet in existence. I do believe that the Bible is an experience of the Spirit. The church needs to read it, hear it read, have it preached on. A high view of the Bible requires that it be used to shape the community who created it and claimed as its authority. The authority that it has is to set the community free, not to bind it to every word it says. The Bible brings the gospel. It is not the end all, be all. If it is, it becomes an idol. Its role is to point to God, who is the ultimate ultimate.
That which is loosed in heaven is loosed on earth and that which is bound in heaven is bound on earth. If I bind myself to the word whether it be New or Old Testament it is still the word and whether they only had the Written Old testament they still had the Apostles words of Christ which they wrote down so that we have it after they are gone. I don't worship the Bible but I am bound to the word of God.

Scott S.

[Protoevangel]

I don't view the Bible as a prooftext book that can validate my or any body's position. I would think you are looking at this backwards. The Bible is not “proof text” for any person’s position. The Bible is the source.

If I were ask to point to Biblical passages that help make my point I probably would refer to the passages that address the struggle in Acts and the gospels over those who are unclean. Well, go ahead and reference the passages, and we can discuss them.

I would also highlight Paul's notion that in Christ there is neither male or female, etc... “There is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

This is a simple case of intentionally pulling “proof text” clearly out of context. Truly there is no male nor female in Christ, all are of equal value. This speaks nothing to order nor to sexuality.

It would be stupid for me to argue that the Bible is friendly to homosexual practice. It obviously isn't. Agreed.

But I think that it is important for people to understand the context of the passages they quote. Physician, heal thyself (male or female…)

The Leviticus passages are not the most helpful to quote to validate the anit-gay bias. If you are going to quote to me Leviticus about homosexual practice you should also quote to me the passage about how it is wrong to wear clothes made of two different materials and to sow two different kinds of seeds in the same field. Leviticus clearly believes that homosexual practice violates the order that God has devised for creation. Levictus is primarily about order, not morality.But your position appears to be that it is perfectly ok to willfully violate the order God has devised for creation with no need for repentance or a savior. According to your argument, there should be no problem with stealing or lying, no moral problem with committing adultery, bestiality, or with incest. Look, the law is the Law, and it stands as is. Just because we are not able to keep the law, or because we are under grace, is not reason to deny the law in a misguided attempt to justify our, or others sin.

The Romans one passage is probably the strongest to support your view. But like Leviticus it must be understood in its historical context. Both passages are dealing with a situation in which the "other" (the practitioners of other religions) are using sexual (sometimes homosexual) rites in their holy places. It's a matter of being different from those who are worshiping false gods. Show me how Romans is referring specifically to “practitioners of other religions”, as you claim. For that matter, show how Leviticus references the same.

The big issue for me when talking about the Bible and homosexuality is to recognize that the culture of the Biblical world dealt with homosexuality as a practice of assumed heterosexual people. So what’s the issue? You earlier admit that “Leviticus clearly believes that homosexual practice violates the order that God has devised for creation”. The Biblical worldview always has and always will deal with homosexuality as aberrant.

Do things change when it appears that homosexuality is viewed as an orientation, not simply as a matter of perverted behavior? I obviously think that homosexuality is primarily an orientation. It comes with the territory of most of those who consider themselves to be gay. It is a part of the giftedness of their createdness. This understanding changes everything about this conversation. Trust me. Sorry, but I cannot trust you on that because I know the lie all too well. I completely agree that homosexuality is an orientation. It is an orientation that is contrary to God. It is an orientation that we all share in common, but exhibits itself uniquely in every person. It is an orientation called sin. I have an orientation to sin as well. It is a product of the fall, we are all infected with it. Denying it does not change that fact. I myself am not guiltless regarding the very sin which we are discussing. Christ is my only righteousness, not my own thoughts or actions.

Now, before you call me on equivocation, I understand that you are most probably talking about a biological or genetic component to homosexuality. That changes my statement not at all. We are all born into a sinful world and while we live here, we all have our crosses to bear. Did God create people with a sinful nature? No, but we all have to deal with it. It is the same with genetic disease, sin, and evil; they are all part of the same problem.

Those who think differently about this subject than many of you do can be thought of as faithful Christians. We are struggling to make sense of our faith in a complex world. We are not "terribly deceived of Satan," as some think. WE often resort to this kind of language to demonize those we disagree with.

Sorry, but I must here disagree again; it is not faithful to call acceptable, that which is clearly sin. "Terribly deceived of Satan," is a good and accurate statement. I don’t demonize anybody, I simply observe peoples teaching and contrast that with God’s word. I do not demonize you, nor do I demonize homosexuals. Incorrect teaching is not evil, but we are called to correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.

[SiSSYGAL]

Incorrect teaching is not evil, but we are called to correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.
I think incorrect teaching is evil. Satan is subtle. Things that are horrible are easily seen. There's no deceipt in the terror of it. The Bible reminds us in numerous spots to beware of false teachers and incorrect teaching. Therein lies the deceipt
Incorrect teaching inches us away from truth and Jesus. Often it is cunning because it seems correct--it's socially acceptable or something along that line.

[SiSSYGAL]

BTW: Obviously there were homosexuals in Biblical times. It's what makes me rely more heavily on the Word of God because it was a known phenomenon and it was reproved. I personally feel there's not a whole lot to discuss. I contrast this to birth control and early abortion--unknown in Biblical times -- (almost all forms of birth control do not prevent pregnancy, but rather cause early spontaneous abortion) This is unmentioned specifically. Here the church finds it's stance easy and unquestioned. Hmmm.

[Willy]

I'm glad that we have all this stuff figured out. Life is so much easier when we don't have to struggle, when right is right and wrong is wrong, when faith is not a matter of trust but dogmatic certainty. I'm sorry that I don't share your certainty. Enough said from my little "narrow" world view. There's no discussing things when dogmatism rules.

[Protoevangel]

There is enough in this world that is uncertain. The human heart is like a ship on a stormy sea driven about by winds blowing from all four corners of heaven. You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you. The Bible is the cradle wherein Christ is laid. There is no need to be uncertain about what God tells us so clearly in His word.

Yes, of sin I am certain; I am as equally certain of the Gospel, a good and joyful message that God will not punish sins, but forgive them for Christ's sake. I would encourage you to be certain of the latter, and of the former; for if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. Although we sin daily and deserve nothing but punishment, God, in His superabundant grace and favor, for Christ's sake, pardons and forgives us. That is what I am certian of!

[SPALATIN]

I'm glad that we have all this stuff figured out. Life is so much easier when we don't have to struggle, when right is right and wrong is wrong, when faith is not a matter of trust but dogmatic certainty. I'm sorry that I don't share your certainty. Enough said from my little "narrow" world view. There's no discussing things when dogmatism rules.
Don't get Dogma mixed up with good sound doctrine. Willy, I think you are openly rebelling against good Christian Doctrine. I agree with Dan about many things he said in response to your second to last post. I would add to what he said in that all of us are attracted to certain sins over others.

Some are attracted to food and have the potential for gluttony, Some have the potential for Homosexuality, Some have the potential for Murder, others stealing, others Gossip. It is how we face these temptations in life that make a difference. We can either give in to them and thus sin or we can ask God to help us to stand up under the temptation and beat it.

We are all sinners and fall short of God's glory, but thanks be to Christ who has paid the price and gives us hope of eternal life. It is all his doing. He chose you you do not choose him.

:clap:

[ChiRho]

I'm glad that we have all this stuff figured out. Life is so much easier when we don't have to struggle, when right is right and wrong is wrong, when faith is not a matter of trust but dogmatic certainty. I'm sorry that I don't share your certainty. Enough said from my little "narrow" world view. There's no discussing things when dogmatism rules.

...Nor when heresy is embraced.


Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

There is enough in this world that is uncertain. The human heart is like a ship on a stormy sea driven about by winds blowing from all four corners of heaven. You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the word which the Lord who receives sinners preaches to you. The Bible is the cradle wherein Christ is laid. There is no need to be uncertain about what God tells us so clearly in His word.

Yes, of sin I am certain; I am as equally certain of the Gospel, a good and joyful message that God will not punish sins, but forgive them for Christ's sake. I would encourage you to be certain of the latter, and of the former; for if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. Although we sin daily and deserve nothing but punishment, God, in His superabundant grace and favor, for Christ's sake, pardons and forgives us. That is what I am certian of!

I stand corrected. There are Confessional Lutherans still fighting for truth within the ELCA! Continue to fight the good fight my brother!

Your posts last few posts have been outstanding!

Your fellow Lutheran,

ChiRho

[ChiRho]

SLStrohkirch

"We can either give in to them and thus sin or we can ask God to help us to stand up under the temptation and beat it."



Huh?

What do you mean by "beat it?"

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Willy]

...Nor when heresy is embraced.


Pax Christi,

ChiRho
Boy it's kind of fun to be called a heretic and Satan-led. In my little circle I'm thought by most to be pretty mainstream. The folks I lead would find it hard to believe that I am a heretic, but I know that labels helped justify our own little worlds vis a vis the worlds of others. Only if I know who is wrong or heretical, can I know that my position is justiifed. This little human experiment is quite funny, if not at times quite tragic.

[JVAC]

What do you mean by "beat it?"
"Just beat it, beat it,...." Michael Jackson

Now that song is in my head

-James

[Protoevangel]

Boy it's kind of fun to be called a heretic and Satan-led. In my little circle I'm thought by most to be pretty mainstream. The folks I lead would find it hard to believe that I am a heretic, but I know that labels helped justify our own little worlds vis a vis the worlds of others. Only if I know who is wrong or heretical, can I know that my position is justiifed. This little human experiment is quite funny, if not at times quite tragic.In your last couple of posts, all you have done is show cynicism and sarcasm. If you truly fine it “fun” to be called Satan-led, this is the best kind of behavior to exhibit. There is no need to be so defensive; we are not attacking you, we are dealing with the false teaching.

I have told you that if you can show me where I am wrong, I will accept the correction... Gratefully. I am ready to change my view, how about you? Are you open to correction? Can your doctrine stand up to the light of the Bible's truth; or when it is exposed, does it run and hide?

“He who heeds discipline shows the way to life,
but whoever ignores correction leads others astray”
- Proverbs 10:17

[SPALATIN]

Boy it's kind of fun to be called a heretic and Satan-led. In my little circle I'm thought by most to be pretty mainstream. The folks I lead would find it hard to believe that I am a heretic, but I know that labels helped justify our own little worlds vis a vis the worlds of others. Only if I know who is wrong or heretical, can I know that my position is justiifed. This little human experiment is quite funny, if not at times quite tragic.
What is sad is that you have embraced the culture of this world and made scriptures to bend so that certain sins are justified. God wants us to repent of sin but if we are told that because of the way things are in the world that what was once a sin is now an acceptable practice why would we need to repent.

God has not changed his mind on these matters. Homosexuality is just as much a sin today as it was yesterday and 6000 years ago. Nothing has changed there. So why do you claim that it is not a sin. When wrong teaching is put forth it is up to those who hold fast to the doctrines of the church to reprove the wrong teaching. If the person is heretical in his teaching or beliefs he must be corrected. We have shown you the scriptures which prove our stand and you reject them.

I think your Pastor and Church have done you an injustice in either teaching you incorrectly or have never corrected you. I can not judge them for I don't know from where you derived your beliefs.

Scott Strohkirch:sigh:

[ChiRho]

Willy

Boy it's kind of fun to be called a heretic and Satan-led.

Your view is supported neither by Scripture nor our Confessions, but instead condemned. That is, by definition, heresy. If you have verses from Holy Scripture that plainly support your position, then present them...until then, we are punching the gas, while failing to shift from neutral.


In my little circle I'm thought by most to be pretty mainstream.

umm...my friends think that God is potato salad...


The folks I lead would find it hard to believe that I am a heretic, but I know that labels helped justify our own little worlds vis a vis the worlds of others.

What was it? Do you remember the moment when you came to this new found truth? What switched on the light? If you claim God...how? (and please be specific)


Only if I know who is wrong or heretical, can I know that my position is justiifed.

It is always wise to know one's enemy. The Book of Concord is not only a statement of the true Lutheran Faith, but it also rightly identifies heretical doctrine and beliefs. The purpose of identifying heresy was to clarify and support...to instruct the Christian with right teaching so that the claimed Christian is better equipped to defend against Satan and His lies. One needs to look no further than Paul's Epistle to Galatia...the main theme of the letter is the identification of heresy (that is slithering into the Church and devouring the faith of the believers), the "harsh" words condemning the herectical beliefs, and the faith sustaining truth of Solus Christus.

Homosexuality is proclaimed by Holy Scripture as heresy...the burden of proof for the contrary lies with you.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

[Willy]

Man, it is hard for me to believe folks still think this way. We hang out in very different circles. There is absolutely no discussing with people who use terms like "false beliefs." I can either take your belief or remain in falsehood. I won't get anywhere with this discussion, because in this little dogmatic world there's no discussion. There's only truth and falsehood. Too bad that it's always the other who lives in falsehood. I hope your systems serve you well. I'm out of here.

[Lotar]

And the only acceptable belief system is relativism...oh wait...isn't that contradictory? ;)


T.C.B., baby

[Protoevangel]

Man, it is hard for me to believe folks still think this way. We hang out in very different circles. There is absolutely no discussing with people who use terms like "false beliefs." I can either take your belief or remain in falsehood. I won't get anywhere with this discussion, because in this little dogmatic world there's no discussion. There's only truth and falsehood. Too bad that it's always the other who lives in falsehood. I hope your systems serve you well. I'm out of here.If you feel the need to go, that is your decision.
You are welcome back at at any time! :hug:

[Willy]

I am truly out of here. But I have to admit that I learned something quite significant in this dialogue process. The orthodox folks tend to see the world through the eyes of statements that come out of holy documents of the past (sometimes, obviously, not in their context, but that's an other matter), and some of us more progressive sorts see the world through psychological eyes. (I read some of the statements here and wonder how many of you come out of alcoholic homes or other alcoholic systems or how many of you are dealing with sexual issues of all sorts.) The orthodox folks absolutize the Bible and the Confessions and the progressives like me may absolutize the insights of the psychological realm. Neither systems are worthy of absolutism. But we all need some kind of justification system (we can't stand it that ultimately it is God who justifies). So instead of throwing down ourselves at the cross from which the grace of God pours, we resort to systems that try to justify us. Sadly, though, they are puny systems. Psychology while helpful is not ultimate. The Bible and the Confessions, while absolutely essential, are not ultimate. Only God is ultimate. I wish you all well, and hope that truly you will discover the Absolute who is above all the absolutes we like to create.

[Protoevangel]

Go in peace Willy.

Like I said, you are always welcome back.

[ottaia]

Homosexuality is proclaimed by Holy Scripture as heresy...the burden of proof for the contrary lies with you.

Pax Christi,

ChiRho

Actually, the burden of proof is on the one trying to prove something, not the one trying to disprove it.