In Statu Embarassmentionis
Six months have now passed since the event which will go down in history as the shoals struck in the slow, miserable shipwreck of the ELCA. It will be a slow, painful drowning, not a dramatic plunge like the fishing trawler at the end of the movie “The Perfect Storm.” It is a confused and confusing situation, a compound of panic and denial. Today we find ourselves not so much in statu confessionis at an apostate and persecuting church, but rather, so to speak, in statu embarassmentionis in a disintegrating one which has made us all de facto congregationalists...
Six months have now passed since the event which will go down in history as the shoals struck in the slow, miserable shipwreck of the ELCA. It will be a slow, painful drowning, not a dramatic plunge like the fishing trawler at the end of the movie “The Perfect Storm.” It is a confused and confusing situation, a compound of panic and denial. Today we find ourselves not so much in statu confessionis at an apostate and persecuting church, but rather, so to speak, in statu embarassmentionis in a disintegrating one which has made us all de facto congregationalists.
At a Word Alone consultation in the winter, Hans Hilldebrand rightly warned against invoking the apocalyptic clause “status confessionis” against the ELCA’s heterodoxy. A dispute over blessing homosexuality, serious as it is, does not rise to the level of standing up to be counted against Nazis, Apartheid or the invading armies of the Holy Roman Empire. Truth be told, we who are in opposition have not yet made it clear to the people of the ELCA that a false gospel of indiscriminate inclusiveness is being substituted for the real gospel of God who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself by not counting our trespasses against us. Moreover, there is a real danger (I do not say reality) in this still confused situation that a sub-evangelical and human-all-too-human revulsion at a vulnerable sexual minority animates us who are in opposition. We must fight through these confusions with the only weapons we have: Word and Spirit and the hard work of theology for clarity.
David Yeago makes a beginning at this by putting the matter before us with fitting nuance, when he said in January that we in the ELCA are now in a state of “impaired communion.” That is plenty bad—bad enough to require realigned forms for ministry and mission, without denying degrees of fellowship that exist with those who ignorantly and/or fearfully accede to the ELCA’s action last summer, and even those genuine theological Lutherans who erringly support it. Truth be told, it has been that way for years now. The root theological divergence mentioned above has become manifest for those with ears to hear and eyes to see since August of last year, even though clarity about the deeper reasons for this yawning chasm are still not widely understood. Something must be done about that.
Sarah Hinlicky Wilson has made a strong case for staying to fight with weapons of the Spirit despite our state of impaired communion, given the miserable track record of hot-headed and self-righteous schismatic movements. (I personally experienced just that in Seminex/ELIM/AELC days. To this day, forty years later, these folks are still driven by a passion to prove that they never came from the Missouri Synod. Their entire careers have been one huge, ever more radical reaction.) Wilson’s chief point, little noticed by friend or foe, is Jesus’ command to love our enemies—a difficult stance to take, but precisely what is called for in our embarrassment. Yet the decision to stay and fight (which is also my own) does not entail that the ELCA will remain, returning to “business as usual.” In fact, whether we stay or leave, the ELCA is falling apart. The ship is sinking. The “bound conscience” foolishness guarantees it. Let us in our confusion and embarrassment see that clearly.
Most of the Higgins Road team, in spite of massive personnel cuts since August, wants desperately to pretend to be back to business as usual. Lutheran CORE, by contrast, has wisely decided to minister not only to the steady stream of those who will secede from the ELCA to form a new denomination but to the larger numbers who will muddle along within it for the time being. The truth is, everyone who stays in the ELCA will be muddling along. Everyone is confused by what was actually done last summer, even the proponents of change, who are now begging us in the opposition to stay. There is next to no enthusiasm for what the ELCA hath wrought at the base, but fragile congregations sense that their own memberships are divided, so that any action one way or another will threaten their very existence. Even so, they are dimly aware that every single congregation of the ELCA will have now to decide one by one what its stance will be towards performing same-sex weddings and receiving pastors in such relationships. Just so, they are dimly aware that a day of reckoning will inevitably come. Those with the gumption to foresee this and leave now face the same bitter ad hominem attacks on “homophobia,” which the liberal Protestants will gleefully indulge and an eager and unsympathetic secular press will gladly publicize.
My own prognostication is that it will take a few such demoralizing years before the inevitable liberal Protestant radicalization of the ELCA, along the lines of the ECUSA or the UCC, drives the remaining Lutheran core out.
So from every angle, it appears that the institutional edifice that was the ELCA sooner or later will crumble and collapse. Can that day be hastened? Jim Nestigen has argued that, even short of a status confessionis, all who hold to God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine should redirect their benevolence away from Higgins Road to trustworthy ministries. Is it so?
Word on the street confirms the appeal of Nestigen’s argument. Receipts to the ELCA are said to be down by 30+%; more than one ELCA seminary is in imminent danger of bankruptcy. In my own synod, under the leadership of a sound bishop who thanklessly sought a unity-saving compromise in August, not only was there a significant 2009 shortfall, but proportionate giving to the ELCA has now been cut from 50.6% to 36% (among other budget slashing moves locally) for the coming year. Congregational pledges to the Virginia Synod for 2010 in turn are down a half a million dollars, something like 25%. In an astonishing two-page letter from the Synod appealing for help, the name “ELCA” was named only once, in a curious paragraph telling the long history of the Virginia Synod through its various predecessor bodies. The pitch: no love lost with the ELCA, but that is not really who we are here, locally, anyway. A similar story is being repeated in many other synods. In statu embarassmentionis.
Also for those who support the ELCA’s heterodoxy. They also now choose to designate their benevolence accordingly. The trust is just gone. So we are all, like it or not, in this de facto situation now of congregationalism. Consequently, in statu embarassmentionis.
As I mentioned, my own embarrassment is that I am not voluntarily going to leave the ELCA. But neither will I in any way cooperate in “Churchwide’s” dysfunction any longer, and my non-cooperation will be a matter of the public witness of an ordained servant of the Word. I will insist upon my rights after 30+ years of service, and I will gladly continue in my congregation and other local ministries, but I will never again contribute a solitary dime, one volunteer hour, a prayer (except in the manner of praying for one’s enemies), or act of good will on behalf of this theological and moral bankruptcy. Thus I am going to act on my “bound conscience” in this de facto debacle of congregationalism that has been thrust upon us. I will work actively in Lutheran CORE for the new configuration of American Lutheranism that will someday emerge from these ruins.
Sensing the danger to “business as usual” facade in such clear thinking, ELCA Secretary David Swartling recently floated his own confused idea of expelling pastors and congregations who participate in CORE, on the grounds that the ELCA is an interdependent church. Wouldn’t it have been nice if he had thought about the ecclesiology of interdependence before the ELCA plunged headlong into the “bound conscience” sectarianism of last August? Wouldn’t it have been even a little bit plausible today if those congregations and pastors who have been part of the relentless agitprop of Goodsoil and the Reconciled in Christ movement had been threatened in this way?
But I say, more power to him! Swartling’s threat would do all the dirty work for the dissidents. No votes necessary, no painful and divisive congregational studies, no bad publicity in the local press, just a quiet letter from Higgins Road saying you are no longer welcome.
As if we didn’t already know that. That much has been clear since the formation of this misbegotten denomination, which destroyed the ministerium, established the skewed quota system in its place, treated congregations as local franchises of corporate headquarters, left the seminaries to their own devices, and in all this abandoned the chief mission of gospel evangelism for public policy advocacy with corresponding bloated bureaucracy.
What is now clear is that the ideal of a Lutheran church, “without Emperor, without Pope” and making all its decisions by means of theology, has been abandoned by the ELCA policymakers and assembly. That is the shipwreck. In response, the rest of us, every one of us, is summoned to resume the real theology of the church—not the ex post facto ideological decoration of a heterodox denomination that makes its decisions along other lines, but faithful Christian theology according to the canon, creeds, and confessions of Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. We must all begin again de novo. There only will we, Deo volente, begin to find some clarity in statu embarassmentionis. And maybe, just maybe, this shipwreck will turn into a phoenix rising from the ashes.
Paul R. Hinlicky is the Tise Professor of Lutheran Studies at Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia.
An Edit
de novo?
One of the oft-repeated mantras of the Good Soil-types has been that "God is doing a new thing" with homosexuality. As far as that crowd is concerned, August marked a new beginning.
How long will we continue to fracture the body of Christ because we want to have it our way?
Maybe it's time for us to begin again the old way -- not looking forward to a day when a new church will sprout from so much wreckage, but rather to the church from whence, 500 years ago, this wreckage came. Maybe it's time, as it is for many of our Anglican sisters and brothers, to go home.
de novo!
But you miss my meaning when I say we must begin anew, de novo. I mean, we must, as Pastor Biles citing Newbigin, write, begin with the always new beginning of the church in the midst of its very ambiguous history (included its history under the papacy): Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. We can and must be embarassed at this mess we are in. He is not, however, ashamed of us. Our repentance. His mercy. De novo.
Re: "de novo"
I'm shaking my head too...
What's the connection? Switching is "out of the frying pan, into the fire," as the saying goes. We Christians are all together in this mess, we are all one huge embarassment to the God of the gospel.
Now, materially: I regard the ordination of women as a historical development in material continuity with the Reformation's new validation of sex, marriatge and the family. I do not see an analogy, therefore, between ordaining women and ordaining homosexuals who claim that their orientation is a gift and blessing of God. I know that many on both the left and the right claim such an analogy. But the analogy is not, on my view aforementioned, valid.
Finally, please know that I have considered seriously "going to Rome," though for me that would not be "returning to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." I discussed this with Father Richard John Neuhaus in the early 90s. He warned me of the danger of mortal sin, if, being persuaded in my conscience that the fullness of the Church is the Roman Catholic, I should fail to act on that conscience. With that measure of gravity, I meditated and prayed.
I came to the conclusion that with the Council of Trent, and with the modern Marian and papal dogmas, the RC church had become the mirror opposite of the Lutheran church theologically: a denomination whose identity consisted in polemical opposition, rather than the Body of the risen Lord. Vatican II went some direction in correcting that ecclesial triumphalism but, not so far, as it still seems to me, to justify the end of the Lutheran protest.
It is of course my enormous and confessed embarassment that the liberal Protestant denomination to which I belong is no longer even confessionally Lutheran, is now de facto congregationalist, and thus is in no condition to act on its theoretical agreements with Rome in the Joint Declaration on Justification.
Paul Abbe is right!
If Jesus had wanted women ordained, he would have done it himself. I can't be a mother either and give birth to a child. Shall I start a new denomination too? No. Neither can I remain in one that has so little regard for the authority of Christ and his apostles and their successors. The Catholic Church is having its problems with the scandals, no doubt. But they haven't changed the teaching on what is and isn't sin. There are bad apples in the ELCA doing various things, they just don't get all the press because of the congregational nature of the ELCA and because the ELCA isn't hated near as much as the Catholic Church is. If we are going to look at the office holders and try to see which denomination is the best one, we will sadly find that all are greatly lacking. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is the closest to what Jesus set up and is the one and only church in the West that not only can say this but that also has held up all of his moral standards at the same time as far as official teaching goes. It is definitely time to swim the Tiber! Christ Jesus is Lord, not women pastors and not male ones either (remember no gender has a "right" to be ordained).
Re: "De Novo"
by, "returning to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church"
I assume you mean the LC-MS?
Amen, Rob!
Come Home to Biblical Christianity--Not Rome!
Says who??? Because Rome wants reunification of Christianity according to THEIR rules, therefore their path is right, and any other path is not for reunification? I think not!!! There is no reason the Church cannot return to a pre-Council of Trent catholicism, accepting the helpful corrections God revealed through Martinus Luther, with a politi more like Eastern Orthodoxy where bishops are co-exual, not subservant to the bishop of Rome. Do not brand the Lutheran communions in the USA and worldwide with the same brand you use on the ELCA.
As Paul Hinlicky rightly stated, the current Roman Catholic Church is not the same church of Augustine and the other Church Fathers. Their doctrines have changed, and they are still in need of Biblical reform. Unity can rightly be achieved through Augsburg--but true unity is lead by the Holy Spirit, based on the revealed Word of God, and not by human efforts and compromises. May God unite His Church, centered on the truth of His Holy Word. May we who hear His Word heed it.
And we dare not tell God, "I will go wherever You send me SO LONG AS women's ordination is accepted and celibrated." I can appreciate your personal situation, Professor Hinlicky, but we dare not tell God to do things our way. Jesus challenged His world when He spoke to the woman at the well. Nothing prohibited Him from calling women among His chosen Twelve disciples...yet he chose twelve men. Why? (Might Genesis have something to do with it?)
"<i>Posted by Son of WMC at April 16, 2010 15:07
As soon as I am able, I am heading home. Not just this episode in Lutheran/Protestant history, but numerous things I have learned lead me to believe the needed reformation of the 1,500's threw out the baby with the bath water. The ELCA and the rest of the Lutheran denominations in the USA (or the world for that matter) are not on a path to reunification, but rather permanent separation. That is in violation of Jesus' prayer in John 17. I cannot remain in a denomination with this lack of desire to obey the Lord Christ!</i>
Thank you
so much anger
Response to Hinlicky
Response to Kurt
Bush derangement syndrom.
Anger
As for your statement: "... that won't cut it when we stand before God and are asked why we may have insisted on rights we are so deservedly owed... ". It would have been great if the reformers had given some thought to this idea before their march at CWA 2006, and before many, many subsequent political machinations to follow that led to this mess.
The past is past. I again challenge those who espouse the noble ideal of "respect for bound conscience" to afford others the same consideration. Those who were the oppressed minority have become the oppressors.
You disagree with CORE -- are you supporting it with your benevolence? They would likely welcome your donation!
To Gregory
I agree with your point
+Pax
past is past?
At this point, we on both sides should be looking to how to ease that anger and live together as members of the body of Christ. For all the rhetoric about oppressors, and oppression, it seems that the "oppressive" move has been to affirm that we did, indeed, decide to include people in same-gendered relationships in the ministry, and to say that those who want to actually break with the ELCA need to make a clean break.
There are calls for unity and moving forward. I'm not sure how else they could try to deal with this anger. This isn't saying 'shut up, you have no problems', but saying 'despite our disagreements, we are still the church'. What would be the appropriate response from the ELCA HQ, or even LC?
Response to Peter
The folks at Higgins Road seem to want it both ways: Centralized authority and intolerance for disagreement, but with a nice facade of congregationalism. Bound conscience comes hard up against political reality. Actions speak louder than words. To quote Yogi Berra, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."
This whole thing looks more and more like some sort of palace coup. Step One: Takeover. Step Two: Purge.
purge?
The ELCA and even LC are both trying for unity and not through purging dissidents. I ask again: what practical actions should they be doing to further actual Christian unity? How should we strive for actual unity in Christ?
Purge, you bet!
You haven't been hanging around the folks of my synod have you? I've been biting my tongue so much its ready to fall off. All over I'm hearing anger at those who are seeking separation. In numerous cases I hear "good riddance", "we're getting more things done now than ever before", "this was just an excuse to finally leave after being bitter for years", "it's too bad they couldn't have left sooner", etc., etc. Its not an official act, just the masked feeling of those who think they are talking to a sympathizer. I don't let on because I'm tired of the whole thing. So much for bound consciences!
let's work through that anger
There is a lot of anger on both sides on this issue. We can point fingers, or we can work together to deal with the anger. If you are getting this as a 'supposed sympathizer', there is some management there. If they aren't lashing out at the people with whom they're angry, that's a positive step. In this case, they are making the conscious effort to set that anger aside in the interest of unity. If you are viewed in the 'sympathizer' category, why not use that to help them turn that anger and hurt from 'good riddance to these troublemakers' to a constructive use in building up the church? I don't mean 'persuade them the other side is right', but love your enemy and try to work through the anger with them.
Comment on Response to Peter
If thats true then Piepkorn was wrong.
St. Augustine pushed for for tolerance and reconciliation with the Donatists. This is exactly the stance the ELCA is attempting to take with CORE.
Following Cyprian's lead, Augustine argued that the Donatists we welcome to disagree with the Church's decision to readmit the Lapsed in their various forms. They were also welcome to disagree with the Church's practice regarding baptism and ordination in connection with this. But they were not welcomed to divide the Church - which is exactly what WordAlone/CORE has been trying to do for over a decade. It is a a very thin line that separates Schism and Heresy. WordAlone/CORE teeters on that line.
Eventually, Augustine argued for full reception of Donatists, with their ordinations, back into the Church (so long as they brought their congregations with them).
CORE represents Donatism (the belief that purity in Doctrine can be maintained via Schism). The ELCA, in defining unity in Christ and the Sacraments is rooted more in the ancient Augustinian/Cyprian tradition.
Get Your Facts Straight
Noah, please get your facts straight: It was the ELCA which was schismatic by violating their constitution, and voting against God's Word in Scripture. Lutheran CORE and others are in the life-boats as the SS ELCA continues to sink--don't blame them for schism!
Pipe Dream
Charles Porterfield Krauth
Anger...
.
Exodus 34:14
"for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God"
lack of faith
Also consider the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35). When we dwell in our anger are we actually able to forgive our sisters and brothers from our heart?
Any follower of Christ should think long and hard about how to deal anger, and think twice if they come up with 'lash out'.
no anger?
that does not justify it
There is lots of anger on all sides. No question about that. It was especially evident at the CWA in Indianapolis. That left a very lasting impression on people. Was that same anger present at CWA2009, though? The same actors were all still there.
My question is how do we deal with that anger in such a way that we're not guilty of murder as per Matthew 5:22? In a way, this is common ground both "sides" have-- lots of anger that each side feels is justified. How do we step out of that anger and into reconciliation?
Indianapolis CWA
Peter response to anger.
who was "modifying" God's Law?
If the law was clear about anything, it was 'don't equate yourself with God' and 'don't work on Saturdays'. And yet, Jesus did both, and encouraged his disciples to violate all of the various purity laws/Sabbath laws. As to modifying, the law, how do you understand the Sermon on the Mount? "The law says: x, but I tell you x+5". Or even among early Christians the whole welcoming of the Gentiles was the exact same issue.
I think you also read the anger completely wrong. One problem is that WE don't have righteous anger simply because we are not righteous. There is certainly proud anger, and anger that tempts us by saying 'you are right, and you need to show them just how wrong they are', but that anger leads away from God. The best case example to look at is the "righteous" anger displayed by many individuals at CWA2005 in Indianapolis. That is the mirror that shows just what kind of fruits so-called righteous anger brings.
Is Anger Always Wrong?
By Christ's enjoinder to love one another, did Jesus affirm the Pharisees in their works-righteousness? And did not turn the tables and drive out those who turned the temple into a marketplace? Jesus was angry. Jesus never said that we should ignore sin and overlook divisions in the name of celebrating unity, or even theological diversity. Pastor Hinlicky's church (the ELCA) was schismatic when it turned on 2000 years of biblical interpretation and tradition, and thought their Church Wide Assembly had the authority to over-ride the Word of God with a vote! Sola Scriptura was broken, and the good ship ELCA descended deeper in the freezing waters, as the assembly in Minneapolis replaced Sola Scriptura with Sola Cultura--societal values--or in Pauline language, "the ways of the world." I applaud those who have set up the lifeboats such as LCMC and Lutheran CORE (soon to become NALC), but they would do well to make sure they do not fall into the same errors that their mother-ship hit: the iceberg is still there and can threaten their rescue as well.
So little love!
The bonds of Christian love, rooted in baptism, do not bind us to the failed merger of this denomination, which no one loves but everyone uses for her or his agenda. You persistently confuse the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church with a liberal Protestant denomination, the ELCA. But Christian love binds us in fact to all the baptized, with whom the ELCA broke ranks in August. That move to congregationalism is the evil I scorn, as anyone reading my piece without your chip on the shoulder sees. Yes, I confess to hating with sincere Christian love the self-righteous fanaticism that justified the ELCA's act of heterodoxy and schism in August. That was rather the point of my piece.
You substitute (pretended)therapy for argument and psycho-prattle for theology. The dominance in the ELCA of your kind of arguing is the reason why the shipwreck is beyond redemption, as it is also the reason why I concluded by calling us back to real theology. Indeed, Peter, believe it or not, I am sincerely embarassed for you and the circle of former Missourians in the Crossings Community who desparately want the success of the ELCA to justify their existence. Not that I expect you to receive my witness against you "lovingly." Indeed, I have to accuse you of insincerity as in Romans 12:9. You actually think that anyone who rejects same-sex marriage and the ordination of persons in such marriages is sub-evangelical. You have expressed this clear rejection many times. Why would you then want us to continue to preach and teach and confess this rejection, when it can only contradict and damage our cooperation is mission and ministry? No, Peter, your love is not "sincere."
Thus I bear sincere witness against you, one last time, since you persistently fail to understand me: we don't have the same Christ. My Christ, the Christ of Mark 10, is also the Christ of John 2, who formed a cord of whips to drive out the moneychangers from the Temple. I am following Him, who refused to cooperate with the corruption any longer. Neither am I fleeing. The people of the ELCA are deciding which is the way of Christ.
When I stand before God, I will sing as I live: "nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling." That is the Gospel of God who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself by not counting trespasses against us. That is the Gospel which the ELCA is abandoning. How will you stand before God for cooperating with the heterodoxy today which will become apostasy tomorrow?
leave it to the theologian to say that Christian love is expressed through hatred
Like many involved in this issue, I do believe that at the heart is a question of how we proclaim the Gospel and what that Gospel is. The ELCA decision is also one that does not exclude any of these positions, much as you or I might wish it otherwise. We also have agreement that our proclamations are different, but we yet have some common ground. Your statement: ""nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling." That is the Gospel of God who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself by not counting trespasses against us." is not one with which I disagree. To my eyes, you take a radical departure from that Gospel into works-righteousness by saying that trespasses don't count, except those that do. It is a serious charge, but do we resolve it as brothers who trust our Heavenly Father, or as enemies?
Regardless of our differences, anger still separates us from God. We can try to demonize institutions we don't like because they allowed a decision we don't like to come to pass, but what does that really help? Can you convince people to be mad and feed that anger? Certainly. Will actions borne out of anger bear good fruit? Speaking of "hating with sincere Christian love", have you ever hated your daughter like that? How would you respond if a family member hated you with this "sincere Christian love"?
If the Crossings Community expects to be justified by anything other than Christ's death and resurrection, that's news to me. I support the ELCA because I believe that despite its flaws, it is the best vehicle for Lutheranism in the US, and has the best chance of keeping Lutheranism from dying out. From Dr Benne's piece, I think CORE is trying to repeat the LCMS experiment, only with a slight cosmetic changes.
Reply to Peter - Get Off It
So, can we get off this topic and back to the actual substance of Hinlicky's article?
well, he's just an excitable boy?
The anger of the tolerant
On a side note, a quick survey of the Crossings website will reveal a good deal of unresolved anger directed at various targets.
Crossings "tolerance"
The research I have done tells me that if, not quite cultic, they are close to it. Probably the most worrying aspect in that regard is they seem to put their faith for Biblical interpretation in one man (Ed Schroeder). They also seem to regard their own interpretations as "Gospel," almost to the exclusion of others.
But, as has been stated, there seems to be a lot of anger among them.
Peter, who, by his own admission, has little experience with the LCMS and would have not been born (or very young; I was grammar school age) during the Seminex era, falls back quite a bit on the "literal interpretation of Jonah" that was often used by the Seminex dissidents.
Since he does not have this direct experience, it is logical to assume that he has got this from his Crossings cohorts.
I notice quite a bit of axe-grinding toward the LCMS on Crossings' website. But that is not exclusive to Crossings. I notice it quite a bit out of most of the clergy who went through Seminex, including my former ELCA pastor. He kept his cards close to his chest before the CWA vote but afterward showed himself to have been in favour of what CWA '09 did all along, and erroneously believes that it was a matter of "justice" and not theology. If so, it is a secular idea of "justice."
David Charlton presents a similar picture of "tolerance" from the elements now in control of the ELCA that I have noticed.
One example is Emily Eastwood's assertion that those who are opposing the CWA decisions and/or leaving the ELCA are "opposed to full inclusion." Such a statement is, at best, logical disjunction, and, more likely, a loaded statement, since it wrongly implies that opponents of current ELCA policy somehow want to "exclude," which is an unnecessarily broad term.
more tolerant than before
I think Emily Eastwood's statement was intended descriptively, rather than pejoratively. Whether those upset with the CWA decision have intended to or not, they have worked to exclude people with their actions, and still do with their anger and actions. Most clearly is the desire to prevent the ordination of married homosexuals. Whatever the reason, it's still excluding them from ministry. "Excluded" and "not welcome" are how many people in the LGBT community feel. Another facet is that a lot of RIC churches have noticed that they get other minorities and families with young children following after becoming RIC because those groups also feel more welcome there.
Heal Thyself
anger or criticism?
Reply to Peter re: tolerance
exclusion, really?
"married" vs. "partnered"
Amen.
Lackochristology. . . or celebration of the Self
This is not a problem of "congregationalism" this is not a problem of not being "Lutheran" this is not Christian. We've suffered from a disease that revealed itself years ago as lackochristology and has now resulted in the full on acceptance of and exporting of "Selfism" while Jesus repeats in the ears of those who hear, "I meant it when I said deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me."
destined to divide again and again
I have had enough of listening to folks who should be spending more time DOING the Gospel than demonizing fellow Lutheran Christians as if YOU can descern truth better than the rest of us forgiven sinners-- such pompus asses we all are. I wont read this forum again- the post from Hinlicky was over the top-an embarrassment itself. If THIS is the "new" Lutheran church you want to create-- good luck--you folks wil be at each other's throats in no time flat. Hate is a dangerous ground upon which to build a church.
Some questions to Rev. Palm
2. Did you somehow miss the point that I am not voluntarily going to leave the ELCA?
3. Your own diatribe bears witness to how little real unity there is in the ELCA, once the cover of the corporate brand name is blown off, no?
4. Not only will CORE work to reallign Lutheranism in North America, it will work ecumenically to unify those say it and mean it: Jesus Christ is Lord. Won't you join us?
Yes!
Florida Vote
Baptised membership - 105
Average attendence - 46
The vote was 20 to 0 to leave.
Is the bishop calling their bluff? Or is it more likely church attendence will drop to about 15 and the congergation will disolve? Would the ELCA rather see a church dissolve than have that stat of x number of congergations leaving?
Possible explanation re: Florida church
Don't put this idea beyond possibility for cash-strapped synods. Even before our current situation, I have heard of a bishop who encouraged/abetted the closing of congregations, then used the assets of the defunct congregation to help the synod's expenses.
The Heart of the Corruption
What I want to say, however, is that every synod in the ELCA needs to have a light shined on their finances and the critical question posed: how do dying synods, closing congregations and selling off the property, with no mission that wins new souls to Christ, stay afloat financially? Why won't they respect the "bound conscience" of those who believe they must separate, property and all, from the false teaching the ELCA endorsed last August or those who stay only under the conditions of public protest?
Will the parasites will also turn out to be bullies?
Lutheran suicide
God bless you and those that stand with you. Please save my Lutheran Church. I'm certain Martin is spinning in his grave.
Life after Death
Just one small clarification: there are and have been through the centuries many faithful pastors who have born the cross of same-sex desire and with the help of the Holy Spirit maintained celibacy and served the Church selflessly. We should thank God for such pastors. What we are rejecting is the ELCA's rejection of the historical standard, faithfulness in marriage, celibacy in singleness (full well aware that we who affirm this standard are redeemed sinners who still struggle and even fail).
There is life after death for the suffering Church if we have the courage and the clarity to face the reality of the collapsing denominational structures all around us. Let those rotted buildings fall. Believe the gospel. There is life after death.
Anger and a rational and right response
Agree
Call me angry, call me homophobic, call me simple and backward. I don't care. What I care about is the Truth of Jesus Christ. We have made a god of "feel good" ethics and have replaced the Bible, it seems to me, with the American Psychological Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
So, if you are a layman, do what you can to get your church out of the ELCA. And for those of you who watch, realize that we do it out of love, not anger.
DSM-IV
The ELCA decision was mostly about "touchy-feely" and building "theology" out of feelings; i.e., those who "felt excluded." It was the latest manifestation of the "not wanting to offend" mentality that seems to permeate the ELCA.
Maybe that is "Minnesota Nice?" I've never been to Minnesota. I'm more used to "Detroit-Don't-BS-With-Me."
I am also one who left the ELCA in part out of anger. Anger at what ended up as a fait accompli, as I had thought from the beginning. Anger at spending so much time and money over what really was a foregone conclusion (Peter, you'll not dissuade me from this view). Anger that the Presiding Bishop was a prime mover in favour of this. Anger that Scripture was put up for popular vote.
Anger is not a bad thing. At the risk of sounding like a therapist, it's not the anger, it's what we do with it. It can be constructive or destructive.
For me, to stay in the ELCA, in a congregation with a pastor who finally showed himself to be pro-CWA '09 (and one of the most pro-RIC synods in the country), it would have been destructive for me to stay there and be vocal in opposition (silent opposition is not my strong suit). Eventually the pastor would very likely have excommunicated me. All of that would have been destructive, to the congregation, to my relationship with God, and to the pastor who was in favour of opening the RIC gates wide.
It has been far more constructive for me to go to the LCMS. My anger level has subsided quite a bit and I can concentrate a lot more on my relationship with God, prayer life, and study of Scripture with the reasonable assurance that what I believe isn't being chucked out the door in favour of "tolerance," "full inclusion" or whatever the buzzword du jour is.
The anger remains, but...
But now I can focus on my relationship to God, seek new ways to serve Him, and redirect my energies in a positive way. In an odd way, I should thank the ELCA for making me look at my relationship to God and my devotion to His Word in ways I hadn't done for a long time.
As you said, DSM-IV, to stay would have been counterproductive to my spirtual journey and my wife's spiritual journey, as well as to the health of my former congregation. I could not have remained silent on these critical issues!
Over 60 people joined my new LCMS congregation on the Sunday my wife and I joined; all from local ELCA congregations. It seems we have found those "like-minded indivuals" that Bishop Hanson has a problem with!
While I look forward to the future work of Lutheran Core and their efforts, I have found peace and joy in the LCMS, and I thank God for it!
Respecting Differing Viewpoints
The decision to leave the ELCA fold was not easily made. I grew up in a small church in a small town, and had spent most of my life in that fold. My wife went to this church, too. We left behind family and brothers and sisters in Christ we miss fiercely. While some in that congregation agree with our decision, when we spoke out about it, we were instantly labeled, by some, as "homophobes" for it. In the ELCA's Study on Human Sexuality, and in the seminar and studies I attended, voicing opposition to the now-adopted policy changes would instantly get you labeled as an intolerant, bigoted homophobe. My anger is not at gay people, transexuals, bisexuals, or any person with sexuality issues. My anger is directed at the polity who say, on the one hand, that my views are to be respected, but on the other, that, in Bishop Hanson's words, I should not seek out "like minded individuals" because this will sponser "spiritual disunity". My views, it seems, are to be "respected"... but ignored. It is quite all right if I have a different "bound conscience", so long as I don't speak out against ELCA policies or seek out those who share my views.
Moral relativism? "Your truth, my truth, their truth... we all have our own version of "truth"." The ELCA professes to be bound by the Lutheran Confessions, a collection of documents which are clear declarations of spiritual unity... and now say that spiritual disunity is a sign of health and (bizarre as it is) UNITY! To read their words today, it is almost as if they are in joyous celebration of their "tolerance" for an infinite number of viewpoints. It is hardly surprising, since it is clear that scriptural authority now means nothing to this denomination.
Don't mistake my anger for hate. Don't mistake my outrage as homophobia. Don't mistake my decision to leave the ELCA, out of anger, as a desire to injure the church catholic. I love the people I leave behind, and if there is "hate", it is hate directed at policies which disparage the Lutheran tradition, principles, and the Holy Scriptures themselves. It is anger and "hate" directed at the insidious lie that says we can stand in judgement of the Holy Word, inspired by God Himself, rather than the Word standing in judgement of us. (Ah. I nearly forgot; I am also angered at being labled a "legalist" and for putting Law above Gospel... or better yet, being told that I disobey Jesus when I say I do not respect the opposition's "bound consciences"... I do not love my neighbor as myself).
My anger is tempered by sadness for those who do not understand my stance on the core issues. My anger is tempered by sadness that I felt forced to leave a church I love. The ELCA is no longer "Lutheran", in my opinion, and they have chosen a path I cannot and will not walk down. Am I feeling grief with my anger? Oh. More than I can put into words.
I will continue to pray for those I leave behind, and I will work with them in mission wherever I believe these false doctrines will not impact those who benifit from the mission. And yes! That will be difficult to discern, and make shared mission work a quandry! I also have to say, however, that this was not MY doing, but the leadership of the ELCA. I did not adopt these policies, nor did those who stand against them. I won't allow the ELCA to make me feel "guilty" that the mission-work of the ELCA suffers because they have made what I consider to be blasphemous decisions! They've been pouring that on since these decisions were made... trying to make those who oppose them feel bad about witholding offerings or deciding to leave. "You'll hurt our mission in the world!" No. YOU hurt the missions when you did these awful things. And, again, I will not be "guilted" for my anger.
It is my duty and my responsibilty as a professing Christian and Lutheran to speak out when I see heresy, and this is most certainly heresy. And again, I won't feel guilt or allow them to blame me when I make my stand, and say, as Martin Luther said, that unless I can be convinced through Holy Scripture... I will not recant the things I have said. The TRUE meaning of "bound conscience" is to be bound TO the authority of Scripture and nothing but a love of God and His Word. In the words of Martin Luther: “Wherever there is a Christian congregation in possession of the gospel, it not only has the right and power but also the duty – on pain of losing the salvation of its souls and in accordance with the promise made to Christ in baptism – to avoid, to flee, to depose and to withdraw from the authority that our Bishops, abbots, monasteries, religious foundations, and the like are now exercising. For it is clearly evident that they teach and rule contrary to God and His word.” (LW39, 308)
Betting on outcomes may be hazardous
I just need to say, however, that, as a partially retired ELCA pastor, I listen to two proclaimers of God's Word who are not simmering with anger. These fellows have been long time leaders in Word Alone and CORE, but their proclamation is simply not governed by bitterness and spite for losing, tinged with the desire for revenge.
It seems easy to create that stereotype, but I just do not see it in the leadership. I see rather a deep love of our Lord and of his flock, believing and unbelieving, righteous and unrighteous. I would suggest Pastor Palm and some others may want this picture of destructive anger to be what describes us. This then gives them reason to dismiss us.
It may be true that I am not as comfortable as Dr. Hinlicky in speaking so forcefully, but I do not experience his declarations as anything resembling hatred or vengeance.
Anger and hate and vengeance...
I think it is also wise to be cautious about our motivations, so I agree with you, Pastor Knudson. We must not let hate for people, or a desire for vengeance take hold and be our motivational drive. I know for a fact, for I've encountered it, that there IS an element of this in some who have left the ELCA. One gentleman told me to my face, in cold terms, "I left because I hate..." and I'll leave the ugly slur to your imagination.
Hate has no place in the Christian heart, unless it is to hate un-Godly things. Vengeance against the ELCA? For what purpose? If CORE and Word Alone can succeed in their efforts to reconfigure Lutheranism and create a new dynamic, and this takes members away from the ELCA, it will not be a bad thing, for I do believe that the ELCA's doctrine and teaching have taken a terrible path. I think the Roman Catholic Church's teachings are in error, as well, and I think it is better for one to be Lutheran. But that does not mean I hate my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters! God forbid! Nor do I think it right to hate Bishop Hanson, or hate those who voted for the resolutions in Minnepolis.
Let's remember one thing. The ELCA did this because they were trying to do something loving! As much as those of us who oppose the doctrinal changes that occurred in ORDER for the resolutions to be adopted, we should remember one simple fact; LOVE was the motivation. I hate the MECHANICS of what they did. I hate the changes in doctrine which needed to occur in ORDER to pass these resolutions, and I stand firmly against those resolutions. But I also FIRMLY believe that not ONE single person within the ELCA was acting out of EVIL INTENT. What they did was wrong because it circumvented the Lutheran Confessions, the authority of Holy Scripture, and in doing so, heresy was committed. Even blasphemy, in my opinion. The resolutions to address hate and bigotry faced by people of various sexual orientations was the incorrect response to the VERY real hate and bigotry they have faced. The ELCA should have stood firm on the Confessions and the ultimate authority of the Scriptures. In my opinion, they did not trust God's Word in these matters, and chose a very human path.
In these actions, the ELCA was attempting to reach out to gay people and transexuals and bisexual people in love. That is a MOST worthy goal! I would applaud the EFFORT! I do not applaud what they had to do to meet the demands of gay, lesbian, transexual, and bisexual people and those who supported the resolutions. Because I do NOT believe the resolutions, in the end, are truely a loving response! And the steps they took in reality are the things that I hate, the things that anger me, and the reason I needed to leave.
I still feel anger. I still hate what they did. I needed to leave because of it. But I do not seek vengeance. I do not seek retribution. I seek to continually praise my God and Savior and proclaime the truth of His Holy Word as He has revealed it to me in His boundless Grace. I will speak this truth as long as I draw breath, as Christ has called us all to do. But I love the people in the ELCA no less for what they have done, even though it is a terrible thing indeed.
I believe the people that have come to Lutheran Core seek God's truth, and they do so under the Confessions and the authority of Scripture. They have my prayers and support, and I wish every ELCA member would come to a point where they see WHY Lutheran Core's doctrine and the doctrine of Word Alone is a much firmer foundation than the poor choices that have been made within the ELCA. But hate THEM? Never.
Please, brothers and sisters! Be consumed with righteouse zeal for the Gospel and the saving of souls. Do not let hate and bigotry and desire for vengeance be your motivation, now or EVER. Speak the truth IN LOVE.
Reasons many of us pause
We work hard to maintain the bond of kinship in these times of strong convictions. If the stories were told of the stresses and strains within families, some moving accounts would be shared.
This is not easy, and we who value our families and friendships are not going off half cocked. We grieve over this. We pray that others will in the end witness that our efforts grow out of our love of the Lord and his people.
It was not easy for me to say to the young seminarian from Luther Seminary this evening why I would not be contributing to this place that I have loved and supported generously in the past. I tried to speak in love and gently.
A time of strong convictions
As you say, it is most difficult to explain our firmly held beliefs and the reasons for those beliefs with love; but it is most certainly the path our God would have us follow. I have family members who have decided to remain in the ELCA, and they feel hurt and betrayed by my actions, and struggle to understand why my wife and I had to leave. When confronted with opposing viewpoints, I remember my family! I remind myself that this isn't easy for anyone involved. And I take a deep breath, and remain calm and try to find the loving words Christ would have me speak. I remind myself that He would have me turn the other cheek, and I remind myself that when I am attacked for my beliefs, or slurs are thrown my way, it is only because I have been misunderstood, and a calm, rational, loving response is the correct response. After all! I have not stopped loving the people I disagree with!
the next step
What actions would those unhappy with the CWA decision need to take to be seen as loving by their enemies? What do you intend to do to live loving your enemies?
I think dialogue is a very good start. If we both believe that our justification is through Christ's death and resurrection alone and only, we have a common starting point. Trust that the "other side" also values love, even if as sinners, neither side shows it sometimes, and the resolve to treat each other in love is another important piece of common ground. Even as we agree that this is an extremely important issue, and that we have differing views about it, do we need to fight our organizational structure or claim that shared mission work is impossible because of it? Will continued dialogue be facilitated or impaired by leaving and withholding benevolence?
Boiled Over Anger
spelling correction
Well done, Dr. Hinlicky!
Jim, I apologize!
Bravo Pastor!
God Bless you Pastor.
Curtis
http://lutheranbaptist.blogspot.com/
CORE is neo-Doantism
Yet, these minds who so excelled at spotting WordAlone's foolishness cannot see the same thing in CORE. That is what makes this a sad sad day for Lutheranism. That the bright minds of the ELCA can so easily buy into a thinly veneered Donatism ro rampant in everything that CORE does.
Likewise, all I hear is complaints without any real substance. Those opposed to CWA09 have offered no substantive critique. The only thing I hear is "But the Church has taught the opposite for 2000 years." Those are empty words. The Church has also "taught" that contraception is contrary to the historic teachings on sexuality and marriage. Yet I don't see any massive church-splitting campaign to overturn the ELCA's "laxness" on contraception.
The Church has also been opposed, historically, traditionally, to divorce. And it has done so by appealing to the very texts that those opposed to CWA09 have invoked; ie the Gospel texts where Jesus says that a woman and a man become one flesh. Such texts are directed specifically against divorce. Yet, once again, there is no church-splitting campaign against divorce.
Those opposed to CWA09 offer no real theological proposal; just a churchy culture war.
So stop complaining and do some real theology. Offer a explanation of the nature of the sin that you think homosexuality is. Critique the blatant Donatism of CORE/WordAlone. Offer explanation as to why homosexuality is so bad, but divorce, which those very texts point to, is not. Explain how the ECLA can depart from the historic teachings on contraception and still be "OK" but are not "OK" with homosexuality.
In a culture war its easy to sit back and take cheap shots. Its much more difficult to engage in a real theological conversation. And I don't hear that from CORE, Lutherans Persisting, or Lutheran Forum. All I hear is accusation with no, absolutely no, back up.
Noah, do your homework
CORE, and my participating in CORE, is not Donatist because we are not refusing to recognize the degrees of fellowship that truly still exist within the Church captive under the liberal Protestant denomination, ELCA, rather that on a merely practical and institutional level a reallignment of mission and ministry is required. Those who confuse the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church with the ELCA are the real sectarians, indeed Donatists, who think they have a superior righteousness to the rest of us who take Scripture as, well, Scripture.
I did my homework
It was EXACTLY an "institutional realignment" (ie schism) that Augustine, and Cyprian before him, argued against. Quoting Cyprian, Augustine argues that the Donatists have no right to leave the structures of the Church, rather the fellowship/communion of the Church should be maintained, EVEN in disagreement: "It remains that we severally declare our opinion on the subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of communion if he differ from us" (On Baptism 2.2.3). This is because, while there may be disagreement, we have no right to judge the leadership of the Church. In their case that leadership entailed the Bishops. For us this would be the decisions of the Churchwide Assembly. Yet CORE actively encourages congregations to break away. This is exactly what both Cyprian and Augustine said should not be done because purity of doctrine cannot be maintained via Schism.
And while you toss a lot of hyperbole about, you have yet to offer any real argument - you've only offered more accusation. Saying that you are not Donatists because the ELCA is really Donatist is simply just a Donatist argument revived. They also argued that the catholics were the one's who really left the Church because they accepted people who had betrayed the gospel. I am not saying that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is the ELCA - but I am saying that it remains part of that one Church. However, you are claiming that my claim is unfounded. That the ELCA has too much chaff and not enough wheat to be part of the real Church. And that the ELCA is now holding the true Church captive within it. That is a Donatist argument too! The Church is and always will be mixed until Christ returns. CORE/WA and their fledgling denominations will be no better because the Church will always be mixed. Division, the one thing that CORE advertises that its for, will only make things worse. Cyprian said that it was not the wheat that gets driven away, but the empty chaff. CORE's schismatic behavior is nothing more than affirmation of their error.
It was Bruce Marshall (The Lutheran Forum 32,1 (1998): p40.) who called this a culture war - either in those very words or effectively so - when this same debate broke out around Called to Common Mission. I believe you'll find Yeago saying the same thing in the same edition (p. 42-46). The accusations against ELCA leadership and the casual flinging about of terms like "heresy," "heterodoxy," and other similar things is nothing more than an aping of American politics. It's not theology; it's American-political conservatism in an alb, or maybe cassock and surplice.
So where is the CORE statement on divorce? Where is the CORE statement on contraception? Are they withholding that they try to ramp up the numbers?
Its easy to claim to have spoken on the issue before. Its another issue for CORE to put its money where its mouth is. Will CORE stand by the "plain sense of Scripture" and the "2000 year old teachings of the Church" on these issues? Both of them are intimately tied to the historic teachings on marriage that they claim to be trying to preserve.
We've already seen the CORE statement on the ordination of women, and how its patterned after the language of the very CWA09 decisions that they claim to reject - "We'll accept it even though we know that the Church is divided on the issue." Its interesting that it seems content with the alternative interpretations of Scripture on this matter - even though Rome said that BOTH the ordination of women AND blessings/ordinations of gay and lesbian persons was a problem for moving forward with ecumenical agreements. This is interesting to me because one of CORE's arguments against CWA09 was the ecumenical problems it would cause.
You didn't do it well!
I am a great admirer of Augustine and recommend his theology in all my teaching. But in your enthusiasm to invoke his authority on behalf of the ELCA, do you overlook the tragedy of his resort to the Imperial Police to break the resistance of the Donatists, and the viscious precedent this set for the future? I am afraid so. The little group of dissidents is the object of your scorn and fury, justifying the resort to institutional bullying that will surely come. I think this is morally warped.
v2.0
I have accused CORE, not you, of neo-Donatism. To the degree that your participation in CORE reflects their neo-Donatism is not something that I can determine – other than your accusation that the ELCA as an institution can no longer be understood to be Church (I would argue that, as you stated it in that instance, your argument borrowed a Donatistic ecclesiology). I am not upset that anyone would choose to stay and fight. I welcome that. The Church can only be served by a healthy debate of actively listening to one another on such an issue. The apostolic Church did as much in Acts regarding the welcoming of Gentiles. I have no qualms for rigorous theological debate. So I am not upset that you, or anyone, disagrees with CWA09. I disagreed with the CWA that rejected the Concordat. Disagreement and debate are not the problems. Nor are they the reasons I level the charge of neo-Donatism.
Schism, and CORE's active fomenting of such a schism is the reason I say it's neo-Donatistic. Certainly it is not a mere cookie-cutter version of Donatism. CORE certainly has differences from Donatism. However, they do share the belief that doctrinal purity can be maintained via schism. This schism is seen in that CORE is in the process of forming its own denomination, that it has encouraged congregations to leave the ELCA (verses staying and fighting) and that the aforementioned denomination exists merely to support such a departure from the ELCA (from CORE's 2/18/10 news release: “The NALC is being established in response to those members and friends of Lutheran CORE who have expressed a preference for completely withdrawing from the ELCA or ELCIC. They are looking for a new Lutheran church body which stands in the tradition of the Church..."). In other words, rather than resisting schism and encouraging people to debate they have encouraged schism.
In addition, they have encouraged congregations to oust their pastors if said pastor does not agree with them (originally on CORE's website and now found here as advice from CORE at http://www.faithfulnessgathering.org/Whatcanwedonow/tabid/59915/Default.aspx) and have supported withholding benevolence (as if that is a meaningful form of protest, especially during a general economic downturn). In addition to this are the host of issues that are at best poor form and at the worst attempts to sabotage pastoral ministries, such as the blatant lies told at the CORE convention regarding the ELCA ( as well as the congregation that requested to be removed from CORE's membership, yet CORE refused ( http://minnesotaindependent.com/51533/church-wants-off-lutheran-splinter-groups-list-group-says-no ). I also note here that so far, CORE's witness to the greater public is such that the secular media even describes them as a “splinter group.” So I question whether or not CORE can actually embody the kind of Mission, as a schismatic organization, that it claims to want to embody. Again, if they were merely organizing for a debate within the church, rather than inciting congregations to leave, then this type of thing would not be the case.
Perhaps we are in a state of impaired communion, but that's different than Schism. I noticed in quoting me you have excised the origin of the quote and therefore have taken it entirely out of context (I assume that this is not intentional, but due only to my own failure to be clear on the matter). The words you have quoted from me come in the context of refuting that Schism is an option during disagreement. Both Augustine and Cyprian argued that those who disagreed on the matter regarding the ordinations and reception of those who had lapsed from the faith had no right to cause schism on the matter. What they were saying was that you can disagree with others (bishops in their case, CWA in ours) but that one could not judge them and break communion with them. Cyprian and Augustine were not arguing for muted obedience. Cyprian himself disagreed with the decisions of the Church in his time. And like you and CORE, he did not believe these to be matters of indifference. Yet, in spite of this he still argued that the visible institutional unity of the Church (and therefore its ministry, mission, and witness) trumped the disagreement. Again, not in a way that requires silence on the part of the dissenters (Cyprian was anything but silent); but it does require the unilateral rejection of Schism.
I would argue that this is because while it is a disagreement on an important and vital issue, it is not heresy – despite the fact that the term is casually tossed about. I point to the Lutheran Forum article by Bruce Marshall that I cited before, paraphrasing: What article of the Creed prohibits the ordination of gay and lesbian people?
CWA09 no more refuted the authority of Scripture than when we started ordaining women. This is not a clever quip. It's a question about hermeneutics. By what authority does CORE reject the texts, and the traditional interpretations and applications to ministry of those texts, that require women to be silent in church and to have no authority over a man? I think we are right to understand those passages in their contexts and accept the “res” (meaning) of those texts and not take them only for their symbols (words). This same hermeneutic allows Paul to say that the rock that followed the Israelites in the Exodus was Christ. Because without understanding the “res” (meaning), one cannot understand the symbols (words) [see “On the teacher” 10.33 and “On the Trinity” 10.1.2 by Augustine]. I do not believe CORE has engaged the “res” of Romans 1, but only embraced its symbols – therefore applying them inappropriately to a modern situation vastly different from the context and “res” to which Paul spoke. The Church does, and has done, the same thing in the past in regards to the ordination of women, among other things.
So, again, I applaud decisions to stay and fight – but debate, don't bicker. Engage in respectful theological disagreement, not empty hyperbole. I do not say this directly to you, but to CORE in general.
Finally, I have not overlooked Augustine's mishandling of the Donatists by resorting to Imperial force. He, himself seems to regret the direction that went in, if not the decision itself. This was, of course, in response to the Circumcellions, if I recall correctly. CORE doesn't seem to have any of those; at least none that are physically violent. I am not interested in a repristination of Augustine or his decisions. He made errors. Therefore I don't fully support the idea of kicking people out merely for membership in CORE. I welcome disagreement. I have no problem with “the little group of dissidents.” I do have problems with people causing schism; and schism deserves ecclesial discipline. Unless CORE greatly changes their language and dissolves efforts to build NALC, then that is exactly what they, as an organization, are doing.
I'm confused?
You briefly mention your issue with the concept of "bound conscience" and how the ELCA is using that in it's rationale for the decisions made at the 2009 Assembly, yet are also saying these things of Luther's should be held up to the same as the Gospel of Jesus Christ...which is it? I agreed with the decisions (all of the decisions) made at the ELCA Assembly and do not like the concept of "bound conscience" to defend it either, but also realize some things Luther was wrong about and we're not turning our backs on Lutheranism if we disagree with Luther.
This is a difficult issue for all people involved, but we should be concentrating on healing and respect, instead of pettiness and cheap shots.
Luther's Doctrine same as Scripture?
I hope opposition to the ELCA's decisions aren't seen as "cheap shots". It certainly hasn't felt that way for me, personally. It has been many things, for me personally, but "cheap" certainly doesn't describe the experience.
And speaking of my own personal journey, here, away from ELCA doctrine... After reading the Book of Concord (a serious challenge for a layperson!) I can honestly say I came away feeling that I'd read something so different from what is taught within the ELCA that I have no problem declaring that the ELCA has lost it's way and should remove the "L" from their name and do it at once.
I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to when you say Luther's writings are not to be "counted as equal to scripture" (and let me be clear... most Lutherans are aware that some of Luther's writings are hair-raising and wrong-headed and outright frightening), but I will grant you that point. However! The works collected in the Confessions (much of which was written by Luther or contributed to by Luther) should be respected and adhered to... or discarded. We confess these things within the confessions without reservation... or we do not.
Bishop Hanson and ELCA leadership has said, to paraphrase, that the confessions are wonderful historical writings, but don't hold up to "modern interpretation", and likewise, the Scriptures themselves are "unclear" regarding many of the issues we face in modern society. I am not taking a "cheap shot" when I say that I view these kinds of statements, (soon-to-be or already doctrine, thanks to the assembly's decisions) as outright heresies and that they result in apostasy, and that it wounds me so deeply and causes such anger in me that I had to leave the ELCA fold. There's nothing "easy" about saying these things about a denomination I once loved... There was nothing "easy" about leaving a church filled with people I STILL love, feeling forced out by a leadership I have lost trust and faith in.
And I must say... I do NOT respect the new teaching of the ELCA. I understand that it causes pain when I say that. I do not enjoy it. I am not rubbing my hands together in happy glee over it, TRUST me. I don't respect the ELCA's teachings any longer. I know! That's HARSH, isn't it? But I won't apologize for it, and I understand, too, that it makes healing MOST difficult. It does not sound loving. But it is. I love the Scriptures, and our God, and my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I am seeking to find ways to proclaim that love. I don't feel I can do that truthfully or with conviction within the ELCA any longer, because what they teach and believe and confess is no longer what I believe to be truth.
cheap shots
Completely aside from the question, "is this heresy/legalism/etc", where do we yet have common ground? Can we work together to heal the rifts? How do we deal with the anger and frustration? Despite even bigger differences, the ELCA and LCMS do manage to cooperate on some issues. When the earthquake hit Haiti, we had unity. There was no question of heresy or legalism or any of that. We acted with one purpose completely across denominational boundaries to work as the body of Christ there. Can we come together without something as disasterous and devastating as an earthquake that kills 400,000 people and leaves millions homeless?
Thanks for your honesty
Thank you for your honesty in admitting that, as a supporter of the CWA decisions in August, you must distance yourself from Luther's doctrine. Thank you also for saying how little you like the "bound conscience" ruse.
Where I differ from you is thinking we should concentrate on so-called healing and respect. I don't want to fake reconciliation with a view I regard as positively erroneous. I can't cooperate with a theology I don't believe. I want honest disagreement and adult recognition of the consequences, which are the reallignment of American Lutheranism -- and beyond.
Appreciate the honesty...
I ALSO don't want to fake reconciliation. I want honest dis-agreement and recognition of consequences too, even if that becomes forming a new body of Lutheranism; but my question is where does the division stop? If we leave every time we don't agree, or worse we stay and undermine our national body by proposing re-allocation of funds and service, then where does God's grace and love in the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ come from? It's no wonder why non-church attenders see all this fighting and undermining of one another and ask "why would I want to be a part of that"? When people see this it just reminds then of an episode of Jerry Springer with a little God thrown into the mix.
I just want us to find ways to work together to get past our errency issues, heresy issues, traditionalism, liberalism, etc. and to be the body of Christ we were called to be to care for the world.
A simple question?
Let's do some theology. . . . .
Is the above a Lutheran understanding of the Law-Gospel dialectic? Is is heresy? Is it neo-Donatism and part of a culture war to reject the above "Confession of Faith" and to refuse communion with those who do? Is it Antinomianism and culture embracing to accept it?
and where is that in the social statement that got adopted?
Antinomian Law/Gospel inversion in the ELCA: How pervasive is it?
The reason Law is not discussed first in the Human Sexuality document is because it has been implicitly nullified by the "Gospel". In fact, one must wait until line 207 of the document before a theological use of the law (as a mirror) is even mentioned.
The dirty little secret in the ELCA is that it has become a habit to refer to ourselves first as Christians/Lutherans before we even refer to ourselves as sinners. We take it for granted. It's a given. And this error, unwittingly perhaps, occurs time and again.
Now, Mr. Unity, let's deal with reality. Let's separate the horses from the cattle, instead of just calling them all livestock. How do/why should those who adhere to a Law first, Gospel second theology in the ELCA live in unity with those who preach, teach and confess exactly the opposite?
probably about as pervasive as legalism
"Thus, we recognize that this church's deliberations related to human sexuality require our best moral discernment and practical wisdom in the worldly realm, even though these matters are not central to determining our salvation. We also understand that in this realm faithful people can and sometimes will come to different conclusions about what constitutes responsible action."
Law gets the second part of the "distinctly lutheran approach" because the view of the sexuality statement is that this is not a disagreement over salvation, your and my thoughts to the contrary. This is also probably why the rest of the social statement stops worrying about that central question of justification. That's why all this silly bound conscience stuff comes up, too.
I do agree that there is a tendancy in the ELCA to implicitly assume we are sinners, and we fail to take full account of that. Even when the law is preached, though, if it does not crush us sinners, we're not taking full account of it. That's actually tied into and part of our rebellion against God in the first place. It doesn't solve the problem to move to the other end of the spectrum, or really to either extreme to avoid whichever we see as worse--legalism or antinomianism-- it's either all law or no law instead of Law and Gospel.
'Why' we should live in unity with those who disagree with us is the easiest. How easy is it to profess and confess that for our salvation, Christ was crucified and risen when you're not in fellowship with others? Our mandate is to make disciples of all nations and spread God's redeeming Word to all corners of the earth. Schism always hurts the schismatics because they turn their backs on the group they're leaving.
'How' is the million dollar question everyone should be asking themselves. Lashing out and acting rashly in anger does not help. Loving and serving our enemies is a large part of the how. Instead of withdrawing, become even more engaged in the life of the church, not with the ulterior motive that we're there to fix the others, but with the ulterior motive helping the church and trusting that Christ will fix us/others as needed. Try increasing the church or the synod's benevolence to the ELCA. Reach out to those members of your church who are members in name only. Confess that even though you disagree with this social statement and ministry policy changes, that you do trust Christ, and that you will work constructively even in the face of disagreement.
This does not mean 'shut up and get back to work'. We certainly need to remain in dialogue with not just our friends, but with those who preach, teach and confess differently from us. In exploring our differences, we give the Spirit room to work, so that we trust that Spirit instead of ourselves. The catch is that the Spirit won't just transform the other, it will transform us as well, and it's scary to think that our minds will be changed and that we risk heresy. But we have to risk it all, because both Law and Gospel are total claims on our lives.
Clear as mud!
faithfulness isn't our call
The Schismatic is the one who divides
"NRSV: “After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions“
NIV: “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.”
NASB: “After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions“
In its context its even more interesting. The author exhorts the reader to "avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions. . ." Interesting, "quarrels about the law" . . .
Of equal interest is what the author tells the read to cling to (v. 4-7): "But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
I take this text as yet another indictment on those who persist in schism. The passage gives clear instruction of what to insist on - it gives an early regula fidei. If we are then to apply WA/CORE's argument that the ELCA has lapsed into heresy then it must be asked, "How so?" The ELCA may disagree with WA/CORE on interpreting the Law, but the ELCA did not redefine the Gospel. So it is difficult to understand how WA/CORE's definition sticks, as well as their subsequent Schism, in light of Titus 3."
Titus 3
Sides?
I am not sure you have been reading my posts. I am not advocating for muted/silenced unity. I am more than happy with disagreement. What I take exception to is Schism. If you disagree and feel you need to leave, then leave. I find it unfortunate, but I understand. What I don't understand is forming an organization that is going around advocating schism.
By "schism" I mean actively encouraging congregations to leave. I mean the CORE/WA tactic of churning things up in congregations (like the refusal to remove a congregation when it has asked to do so), not to mention the countless other local stories of passing around fliers etc getting small groups of disaffected people in congregations to bring things up at meetings, etc. By "schism" I do not mean that if you personally feel that you cannot continue with this denomination that you should stay. Leave if you feel that you must. But don't tear congregations apart in the process.
Actually, my "no schism, no matter what" is completely driven by my understanding of scripture and the tradition of the Church (how it has historically interpreted the Scriptures). The theological point for me is not, mumbo jumbo. Besides, I am young enough to be rather confident that I don't "need the money." And that whether the traditionalists, so-called, stay or not, I will need to be creative in planning for my fiscal future. On the other hand, however, I am also quite content to consider the lilies.
sides!
And you don't want silent/muted unity. You just don't want anybody (who disagrees with you)to "bring things up at meetings".
And you are all about sticking to historical interpretations of the scriptures. Well, except for all that stuff about homosexuals.
And you are all about the unity of the church, but you support positions that drive a wedge between the ELCA and the vast majority of Christians. The ELCA, the UCC, the Episcopal Church and the Church of Sweden represent about 1% of Christendom, but if a congregation chooses to align with the 99% rather than the 1%, shame on them, that is a schism.
But it is good to know that you are against Goodsoil and other organizations that go around bringing things up in meetings and churning up congregations.
O_o
I realize that you think their are side. And that's part of the reason that you are wrong.
"And you don't want silent/muted unity. You just don't want anybody (who disagrees with you)to 'bring things up at meetings'. "
That is not what I said. If you would like to debate about what i actually said then you can rephrase your point.
"And you are all about sticking to historical interpretations of the scriptures. Well, except for all that stuff about homosexuals."
You left out ordination of women, role of women in general, head coverings for women, slavery, contraception, and divorce. I'm probably have different understandings of gluttony - But given the vast number of over-weight pastors I am probably in good company is assuming that, even if this is a sin, it shouldn't exclude one from ordained ministry, even if they appear rather persistent in such a sin. Because, you know, its genetic, or conditioned. I'm sorry, I'm starting to sound like that "liberal" argument for including gays. Perhaps CORE should add this to their list?
Perhaps you should consider that what I mean by understanding scripture and tradition isn't limited to repetition of what has been said in the past; but something more critical and dynamic - especially since we all seem to be doing that with so many other topics. Even my own understanding of Schism are, admittedly, nuanced in the face of a Church that is already divided. I happen to think that Cyprian and Augustine are right. So, yes, I then have to try to make sense of we Lutherans - given that we are something they would not have been able to address. My guess is that they would have been pleased that we had no intention to split, so long as we were permitted to proclaim the gospel. Has anyone forced you to stop preaching the gospel? I mean, other than the phantom versions of the ELCA that CORE conjures up to scare the children with.
"And you are all about the unity of the church, but you support positions that drive a wedge between the ELCA and the vast majority of Christians. The ELCA, the UCC, the Episcopal Church and the Church of Sweden represent about 1% of Christendom, but if a congregation chooses to align with the 99% rather than the 1%, shame on them, that is a schism."
I don't see myself as any more "unaligned" with the rest if Christianity than with other issues. I disagree with the theoretical majority on this issue. But of course I think we are also in the minority on the ordination of women. But I don't think that needs to divide us. What makes THIS issue the wedge and not, say the ordination of women? Whats your hermeneutic?
Also, the ELCA bishops were well received on their recent ecumenical journeys. So I am inclined to think that this "wedge" is a bad myth - again, to scare the children.
My first hermeneutic
In my world I have to deal with laws, EPA regulations and EPA Guidance documents. Guidance is not enforcable it is just guidance. The regs are the details that implement the will of Congress as revealed in the law. I can see an argument for saying that Paul's instructions to Timothy were like a guidance document, possibly good advice (especially at the time) but not enforcable.
Regarding divorce, I am against it but I think that it is unavoidable in some instances as is described in the New Testament. But I think it would be better if divorced pastors found other lines of work, perhaps within the church. As for remarriage, I've been through that so it cuts deeply when you guys bring it up. I held out for over a year with an unfaithful wife before finally seeking divorce. And then I had to study and think about it for quite some time before I accepted the good news that I could remarry. The Bible actually seems to be pretty clear about that, but the tradition I was reared in, Baptist, frowned on any remarriage until recently. It strikes me that when mainline protestants take the no remarriage no how position, there is usually another agenda.
What's next, slavery? The Bible is mute about African slavery in the antebellum South. Would Jesus have approved of it? Probably not, although we have it to thank for the most spiritually alive Christian community in the U.S.(mysterious ways indeed). The Bible should not have been used to justify slavery, but I think it is very clear that it shouldn't have been used to fan the flames that led to the unbelievable slaughter of the Civil War.
Gluttony is interesting. The level of excercise was so much greater then that some of your fat pastors might have stayed pretty skinny eating just like they do now. But if you are talking about guys who just keep shoveling it in, destroying their bodies and then laughing about it, you might have a point. They really shouldn't be pastoring anybody. So I'm all for requiring some level of fitness especially given the childhood obesity crisis.
On the subject of the day, I read all the arguments and the pro gay ordination/marriage arguments just don't pass what we call the "red face test" in my business. So the only way to accept this is to say the Bible isn't authoritative on this one and I want do that. So that is the reason to leave. The ELCA no longer considers the Bible authoritative. But I will grant you that I had reached that conclusion earlier, and the gay thing finally pushed me out the door. shame on me for not leaving earlier, but my wife wouldn't let me.
hermeneutics
This is the problem with relying on 'the Bible is authoritative'. If the authority of the Bible is revised from Christ's promise of forgiveness to a list of rules and regulations for all aspects of our life, then we confuse that free Gospel promise with the rules and regulations of the Law, and that route is death.
very close to agreement!
Maybe you are right. But when the ELCA says in their literature that we are to look for plain meaning when we open the Bible, that sounds to the man on the street (sans hermeneutic) like my simple-minded approach. You've got to admit it. Your way may be learned, but it ain't plain. So that is misleading if the ELCA really holds your hermeneutic. And they need to explain a little better what they mean by the Bible being authoritative if they mean it in your way. Any way you look at it, the two sides (oops, sorry Noah) are no way compatible unless the preachers just pretty much stop preaching. Its sort of like prayer in school.
What irks many of us and I think that includes the Corites, is that there are many, many Churches that are 90+% dummies like me and they are being expected to hang around and be governed by your hermeneutic and pay to spread your hermeneutic, all because of something St. Augustine and some other guy named Cyprian said. In many of these churches there is a perception that the wool is being pulled over the congregation's eyes. The old codgers have no idea what they are now supporting and nobody is telling them. Does that seem fair? So then you have Corish people, perhaps too forcefully, trying to remove the wool.
But you know, I'm really starting to get a kick out of you and Noah and I really do hope you had a wonderful Easter!
plain sense?
I do wish the ELCA put more effort into preaching Law/Gospel hermeneutics. It is an extremely serious failing for our church to miss what sola fide is all about and to relapse into works-based righteousness from either the purity or social justice side. We have a major leg up with the Confessions and the Lutheran "grammar", but it's all empty symbols if we fail to grasp their concrete meaning.
I do think it's more confusion than an attempt by anyone to pull wool over anyone else's eyes. There are some in the ELCA who claim that this issue isn't about the Gospel-- that's the view of the sexuality statement. A lot of other people claim that it is, this issue HAS served to hold a mirror up to us and show us where we're hanging our hearts. Is it on the cross of Christ, or on our own attempts to either keep the Christians pure/save the world through social justice?
"Plain sense meaning" very rapidly becomes anything but plain. Do you think that Christians should be forbidden to wear polyester and cotton, and pastors refused ordination if they unrepentantly wear mixed fabrics? How is the Augsburg Confession making a plain sense reading of Acts 15:20 in Article XXVIII: "The Apostles commanded Acts 15:20 to abstain from blood. Who does now observe it? And yet they that do it not sin not; for not even the Apostles themselves wanted to burden consciences with such bondage; but they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense. For in this decree we must perpetually consider what the aim of the Gospel is."
Do you keep Saturday holy as the Sabbath, as per the 10 Commandments?
Polygamy is also assumed throughout most of the Bible. Esau spites his father (and God) in Genesis not taking yet another wife, but taking a foreign wife. Even in the NT, 1 Timothy 3:2 suggests that bishops/leaders be the husband of no more than 1 wife. Nothing in there about the laity having multiple wives, so do you support polygamy?
Is it a "plain sense" interpretation of 1 Genesis to believe that the world was literally created in 7 days?
I don't think "plain sense" can ever mean a revelationist view of the Bible in the face of God's Gospel promise that we sinners are forgiven only through Christ's death and resurrection alone and through no works or merit of our own.
Failure to adhere to the 1st century revelationists is what sent Christ to the cross. Paul had the same battle as well against the Judaizing Christians.
The Law/Gospel hermeneutic is precisely what led Luther to make his stand against the revelationist view of the Catholic church. Even in the 70's, this was THE issue at the heart of the Seminex/LCMS struggle.
Genesis 1
I have had several advanced anthropology and geology college courses.
Yet, I believe, through faith, that God created just as it says in Genesis 1, and reaffirmed in Luther's Small Catechism (explanation of the Apostles' Creed).
I wonder, Peter, why you keep revisiting Seminex and, indeed, anything to do with the LCMS when you had nothing to do with the former and little, if anything, to do with the latter?
Does Ed Schroeder still have a chip on his shoulder about Seminex? Unfortunately, I've seen that in some ELCA pastors who went through Seminex/AELC.
convenient example
I bring up Seminex because it is a far more recent example of divergent hermeneutics and how this whole issue of hermeneutics has played out in American Lutheranism.
As to Genesis 1, the Small Catechism says nothing about whether the earth and everything in it was created in 6, 24-hour days. Even the early church fathers taught that it should not be read as 6, 24-hour days. That's still no denial that God did the creating, or that creation is good.
Convenient example indeed
Partly because Darwin is familiar to the public and partly because the modern theory of evolution would sound absolutely nutty to the public. Sounds great in the echo chamber of the university but silly to the public.
I think your hermeneutic has the same problem. It makes sense in a seminary setting, but it is a hard sell anywhere else. So in many, many places guys who embrace your hermeneutic let the folks in the pews believe they embrace mine. Yes we all hear Law/Gospel but nobody seems to really understand that stuff well enough to explain it so we just move on to planning the next dinner. Don't feel bad, the Presbyterians do the same thing with predestination nowadays and the Baptists allow beer! That's just the way it is.
Let me be clear, if Luther meant what you mean about Law/Gospel, then I think Luther was wrong. Brave man, but wrong. Now Peter, I wish you would stop bringing up "Moses 1.0" when you know good and well that I am talking about what you called Moses 2.0. That is a classic "straw man" rhetorical devise. My personal belief is that much of the Mosaic law (no cotton blends, etc) probably made sense at the time but the real plain meaning has been lost in the mists of time. But most of Moses 2.0 is pretty clear. I just don't think we have the same escape hatch. The same Paul who clued Luther into the theology of grace (100 years after the protoBaptists figured it out) also laid out a bunch of dos and don'ts. Jesus did too. And I think you have to take that seriously as a matter of common courtesy if nothing else. If somebody endures Roman style flogging and crucifiction for me, I OWE HIM SOMETHING! I owe it to him to at least try to do what pleases him, don't I? I just don't see how you can say Paul was 100% right about grace but we'll just ignore these other things he said.
Confused
You did something similar in your hermeneutic when you said that the Bible never deals with antebellum slavery in the South; yet you assume that it deals with 20th and 21st century homosexuality as opposed to a very convoluted sexuality of the Roman Empire. I'll give an example of why I think Romans 1 addresses Roman sexuality and not the situation that we have in present day: Romans 1 never addresses female same sex relationships. It only says that women gave up natural for unnatural. It never says that this with "each other" as it does with men. Nowhere in Scripture does it ever mention female to female homo-eroticism. That is a very different take on sexuality than what we have. Perhaps the original meaning is a bit "lost in the mists of time"?
Clarification
In Roman culture it was considered unnatural for a woman to be aggressive in sex (being on top during intercourse, for example). It was unnatural for a woman to be anything other than passive. So when it omits "with one another" for women, its most likely because its railing against women doing thing we consider natural and healthy.
confused
I know the argument with respect to homosexuality is that we know so much more now about sexuality than Paul did. But I guess I just don't buy that. Sorry.
Confused
A similar point can still be maintained with slavery. Yes, cultural contexts of Roman society differ from that of the Antebellum South - yet I think we, as Christians find slavery untenable to the point that we would never attempt to articulate a means by which it would be acceptable. That is, I don't think any group of Christians would seriously attempt to re-institute slavery - Roman or Antebellum South. I think we might be able to understand that cultural/societal reasons Scripture does not expressly forbid slavery for its particular context; but we still think we would agree that slavery, fundamentally, is in opposition to the thrust of the Gospel message. Imperial Rome certainly understood Christian adaptations to the "household codes" to be seditious and morally bankrupt (from the Empire's point of view). The point remains that, while we agree that there may have been cultural/societal reasons for the Early Church to take the type of stand it did, we would not, in our present context, approve of slavery in any form, even if they were well treated.
Where as we permit cotton/polyester blends,shaving, and multiple crops in a field, we won't permit slavery. We do because the cultural context has changed. And we can make said changes and still see that we are holding true to the Gospel. In fact, I think its safe to say that we are better understanding the Gospel by doing so.
So that brings us back to sexuality and Paul. I wouldn't dare suggest that we better understand sexuality than Paul, or that we know more. What I did say was that Paul was working with a very different sexuality than the one that we have, epitomized by the critique of female sexual behavior. Paul was working with what he had in the cultural context of his time. It made sense then. It doesn't now. At least I don't think we find it unnatural for a woman to be on top during sex - do we? The truth is that we find the sexuality enshrined in state sexual laws from 100 years ago, or less, archaic and even nonsensical. Things which we thought unnatural 40 years ago are accepted as normal, healthy sexual behavior now.
re: Lanw & Gospel
You wrote, "Yes we all hear Law/Gospel but nobody seems to really understand that stuff well enough to explain it so we just move on to planning the next dinner." There is an excellent book on this by a Lutheran named Walther (CFW Walther). The complete title is "The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel." He explains the concept in ways that are very easy to understand (some translations have the simple title: "Law and Gospel." I hope this helps. If nothing else, see if your library can get a hold of a copy for you.
biblicism?
I won't argue that Law/Gospel hermeneutics is a "hard sell". We like to remain in our sin to the extent that we sent Christ to the cross, and His warning to us on this is quite dire: Life is only preserved through losing it. The challenge for all Christians is to proclaim Christ's Gospel, knowing full well that we only get to Easter through Good Friday. How many people did Paul have with him when he proclaimed this message? Or Luther? Or Bonhoeffer? Or the Concordia students and faculty of 36 years ago?
Actually, Moses 1.0 vs Moses 2.0 is not a straw man, but the heart of the issue, especially given your reasoning for dismissing Moses 1.0. How can you simultaneously assert that the plain meaning of 'don't work on Saturdays' has been lost to time, and yet that Paul's condemnations of homosexuality are not subject to the same clouding mists of time? The mists of time cloud even the NT understanding of Moses 1.0 in only ~600 years, and yet the 2000 years of time cannot cloud our understanding of Paul's understanding of homosexuality? Or do they only partially cloud our understanding, as we can safely disregard Acts 15:20?
I am not denying either the existance of the Law or that it can apply to our lives. However, we must treat all of those 'do's and don'ts' with the same respect we treat the Laws of Moses. We must ask 'how do they reveal OUR sin, OUR rebellion and separation from God?'. We don't just owe Christ something (assuming we can even owe him for a free gift), we owe God. And we default. Despite any of our efforts, we do not pay up. There's no partial credit. That's why we need Christ and the reconciliation He brings. We certainly live out our new life "in Christ". But that's a total change, a completely new thing. The old Adam has been drowned in the waters of baptism. To a large extent, Paul's 'do's and don'ts' are guidelines-- this is my experience of faith in Christ, and these are some bad fruits that do not follow from that faith.
about to give up
1.0 vs 2.0 -I do think we have a better understanding of the historical setting 2000 years ago in the Roman Empire than we do of the setting 3400 years ago in the middle of nowhere. I don't se how that is so hard to understand. Anyway I think there are hard and fast rules and you think there are only guidelines. You say all law is equivalent and none is still in force. It just deserves some respect but the respect isn't required. So I will ask a couple more questions and then give up. Is Hitler in Heaven and if not why not? You say we have to accept all of the law if we accept any. I bet if anyone can give a good answer to this one, you da man.
the law kills whether we believe it or not
I don't know that we have a better idea of the Roman Empire than they did of the Babylonian captivity. Interestingly, our best ideas of that time, though, suggests that homosexuality as Paul talks about it is not the 20th century concept that we use today.
As to law, it is still in full force today. As the laws of Moses and the Roman Empire did, the law today still provides for the ordering of society. It also holds up a mirror to reveal our failures to us-- as guidelines. Finally, the famed third use of the Law also holds-- every funeral is God terminating a sinner, and Christians too feel this use of the Law. The law certainly requires respect, but as a total demand on our lives, and one we cannot meet, gay or straight. Instead, Christ's promise of forgiveness gives us total freedom-- especially from the legal system of reward and punishment. That isn't freedom so that we can assidiously try to DO the law, but when we live trusting Christ's promise, what we do fulfills the law. When we discard that in favor of the law, we're back in trouble again, and need Christ, and this is why Luther writes about the need to daily drown the Old Adam in the waters of baptism.
As to whether or not Hitler is in heaven, that knowledge has not been given to me. While I may hope that all turn to Christ, given what is known about Hitler's final acts, it does not seem likely that he trusted Christ prior to his death. If he trusted Christ's promise of forgiveness when he stood before Christ at judgment, I would expect him to be in heaven. Trusting Christ's promise in this world is a far safer bet.
Final Word
I stand by my position that our knowledge of Roman culture is much, much better than our knowledge of the Canaanite textile industry. And of course we have another disagreement in that you think the law was written during the captivity, while I think it goes back to the time of Moses (although the written version we have now may have come from the captivity).
On my trick question, I think you did a very good job of taking it head on and your answer is pretty much what I expected. My own "conservative" pastor, uh, preacher held very nearly the same view and I just about stroked out when I heard it. I find it much more disturbing than the gay thing. But I sort of see how you can get there applying standard Lutheran pretzel logic, and that is why I think the Lutherans are so much better off when they intermarry with Baptists and Presbyterians. In my part of the country they have, so there are still one or two Lutheran Churches where I can abide for now. But eventually I may have to get the wife and kids dunked.
Anyway you vex me greatly, but I like you Peter, and you do not speak with forked tongue.
Peace be with you.
back to justification
What troubles you most about the Lutheran answer to your Hitler question? Is it the possibility of post-mortem repentance, or that it is in God's power to forgive even all of Hitler's sins? If there is no possibility of post-mortem repentance, what about the billions of people who have lived before Christ and/or never heard of Him in their life? Or can their relationship to God be restored through a non-Christ means/Christ by a different name? Or for that matter, you or I, if we die after turning from God (aka sinning) but before re-turning to Him? Do you similarly dislike Bonhoeffer's response to the general question of post-mortem repentance?
I think the fundamental disagreement is over justification. How are we justified? By our own standing before the Law, or by Christ's free gift, open to us regardless of intellect or standing before the Law? Does it go 'we act right because Christ saves us' or 'Christ saves us because we act right'? If it is really through 'Christ saves us', all that is needed is to trust that promise. Luther sums it up well here:
"we do not confuse the Law and grace, or faith and works; but we separate them as far as possible. Let everyone who is concerned for godliness observe this distinction of Law and grace diligently. Then when he hears that good works should be performed or that Christ should be imitated, he will be able to judge correctly and say: “Fine. I shall gladly do this. What else is there?” “Then you will be saved!” “No! I grant that everything good should be done, that evil should be endured, and that one’s blood should be shed, if necessary, for the sake of Christ. But I am not justified or saved through any of this."
The wool is a bad myth
Furthermore, the ELCA isn't asking everyone to accept this as their interpretation of Scripture. What the ELCA asked was an acknowledgment that there are differing understandings of texts from people who are attempting to be faithful; and that the mind of the church is so divided on what the authoritative scriptures mean on this topic that we learn to live together around this issue. The Bound Conscience "clause" was put forward in order to make sure that there was room for those who would disagree with the decision to allow congregations and synods who, based on their readings of Scripture, permitted the calling and ordaining of leaders in same-sex relationships (PALMSS). The Bound Conscience "clause" means calls me to respect that some disagree with this reading. It calls synods not to require that congregations interview, let alone, call people in PALMSS if that congregation disagrees with such a reading of scripture. This is not a slowly boiling frog, or wool being pulled over eyes... Its been public accessible and available to every member of the ELCA. If you haven't heard about it before August 09 then ask your pastor who was mailed and emailed stacks of information about this.
I'm not asking that you follow Augustine or Cyprian blindly. My appeal to Augustine and Cyprian was directed at leadership in CORE who should know about them and know what they had to say about schism (based on Scripture, I might add) and how spiritually harmful it is for those who participate in it - so why are they leading congregations into schism?
Just to push Cyprian and Augustine's point a little more: Consider Tony and Peggy Campolo, a modern evangelical couple, who differ profoundly on their understandings of scripture as it relates to homosexuality. They hope to serve as a model for the Church. While Tony's reading of Scripture is closer to CORE, Peggy would have voted the way that the CWA09 did. Yet, despite this, they are not getting divorced and can probably kiss each other goodnight before hoping into bed. Their unity, which is rooted in Christ, precedes their disagreement on this topic. And so while the two of them have written and spoken with very different viewpoints on this issue, they remain together - and not on sides, they certainly aren't breaking communion with each other. That's what Cyprian and Augustine meant. That's what the passage from Titus means. You can Tony and Peggy's views, as well as additional information about unity while disagreeing on homosexuality on the Bridges Across the Divide website: www.bridges-across.org
I hope your Easter is blessed also... I touch on hermeneutics more when I can respond to your earlier post where you offered yours.
Peace
not a myth
The day after the vote, the pastor reads a letter from the Bishop written in Bishopeese and nothing more is ever said. So only the people who were there on that day in August have any idea what is going on and then only if they can decipher the letter as they hear it read. Four months later as a nod to a handful of concerned members, the Bishop is brought in for a meeting, but the only announcement of this is 2 or 3 lines on the 4th page of the newsletter saying that he is coming to discuss "rostering". Virtually nobody shows up to hear a Bishop talk about batting orders. But the Bishop comes and leads those present to believe he thinks the CWA outcome is terrible and he can't believe it happened when he in fact voted yes to everything (he failed to mention that). They leave the meeting thinking he will "fight for them" if they just stick around. Now if something like this actually happened would you still call the wool pulling a myth? Would it really be wrong for CORE or some other group to step in and try to make it clear to the people just what it is that they are now supporting and what their options are?
And about Augustine and Cyprian, was it right for Christians to stay united with the "Church" while it barbecued John Huss, and countless thousands of other Christians over the centuries? I know we aren't talking about anything like that now, but if those two guys were saying to look the other way even when the Church becomes a monster, then they were just plain wrong.
Myths and Hypotheticals
I can't speak for the hypothetical bishop - but hypothetically speaking then the hypothetical members of the congregation that were hypothetically concerned about his hypothetical vote should speak to him and voice their concerns. There may be individuals who are not straightforward in how they navigate the political environment after CWA09; but that does not mean that the ELCA, as an organization, is a vast conspiracy tricking people or manipulating a vote. Such might be true in a Dan Brown book, but in real life - its just too complicated for that kind of thing to happen.
As for Cyprian and Augustine - I'm not sure where you got something even close to a suggestion that Cyprian and Augustine say that one should turn a blind eye to injustice. Also, you are comparing apples and oranges here. The context of the debate that Cyprian and Augustine were engaged in was one of the moral integrity of the Church in letting sinners administer sacraments and their role as clergy in the Church - a strikingly similar context to our own debate. Cyprian was theologically sympathetic to those who believed that such people should be barred; however, he refused to break communion with those with whom he disagreed. Augustine did not agree with the theological opinion of the Donatists, who quoted Cyprian in defense of their position. Augustine reminded them of what Cyprian had said about schism in such an instance. Cyprian was certainly _not_ silent, looking the other way, on this issue. He was rather vocal in his opinions about readmitting the "lapsed." So, no, neither of them argued for silence. They argued for unity even while in theological disagreement. The Reformation voiced an implied clause in their argument: So long as the central things are maintained. What are the central things? According to Titus, it is the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus and _not_ disputes about the Law. Even as messed up as the Medieval Church appeared to the Lutheran Reformers, they were still willing to maintain unity with Roman bishops, including the Pope, so long as they would permit the preaching of the Gospel. The ELCA did not vote to change the gospel - the rule of faith has been maintained. What the ELCA voted to do was to avoid a quarrel about the law, something Scripture commends in Titus chapter 3 and continue to insist on the things the same passage calls us to insist upon: "But when the goodness and loving-kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is sure. I desire that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone."
wp
I think you are missing the point.
My point about CORE is that its involvement in schism is spiritually dangerous - not to the ELCA, but themselves. If Cyprian is right, then schism only confirms their error. As he said, its not the wheat that departs, but the chaff that is driven away.
controversies and schisms
I think trying to reduce it to money trivializes both the pain and belief on both sides. There's no question the ELCA will remain as an organization, even if the number of people leaving was closer to 50% than the current <1%. Perhaps it's naivite, but I believe those who would leave except for the pension are able to trust God enough to forge on ahead without a pension, and would find retirement difficult/impossible anyways. Is money a factor? Certainly, but only one of many.
post-schism health
No, the way to deal with the problem is to get busy and grow. Get families into the church which is what we are supposed to be doing anyway. By my figures we needed to shoot for attracting 3 or 4 young(ish) givers per year to have some chance of staying even or at least open. I sunk a fair amount of my own money and a ton of time into trying to make that church appealing to families. It looked like we were making some progress and then boom, the CWA hit. My family had to leave because the New Testament clearly forbids us to cooperate with and support false teachers and false teachings. I would be doing that if I sent money to the ELCA. It sone thing to sin, but to subsidize a "church" that encourages others to sin is something I am flat out scared to do.
Now the other active families with kids are leaving (no, I didn't talk them into it). It is still just a trickle percentage-wise, but it includes the Sunday School Superintendent, the VBS director, Sunday School teachers, one of the main WELCA leaders, and all but 2 or 3 of what was a large and very good childrens bell choir (one of the main draws for visitors with children). So all of the work was wasted, and the church is pretty much set back on its downward trajectory. Way to go, Peter.
I think we were like the ELCA in microcosm. On paper you may not be losing huge numbers, but you couldn't afford to lose ANY. You were already in trouble. You needed to grow. And the ones you are losing are mostly the active people who actually read the Bible and stuff like that. When you take them out, the concentration of apathy rises making it harder and harder to function.
But sure, the ELCA may survive in some form. You'll be able to sell off unused property (seminaries, camps, churches) to pay the bills. Way to go.
post-schism health
The pastor's conduct is a glaring example of the conflict of interest that now exists between pastors and church members in the ELCA. I am a member of the largest ELCA church in the United States in Minneapolis and the senior pastor has placed a gag order on the other pastors and staff regarding open discussion of the CWA actions. It has become apparent that the main concern at my church is to keep the money coming in, and, the best way to do that is to not discuss the issues. The pastors do not seem to be concerned with our salvation: They are more concerned with their budget.
My father, who is 85, goes to a different ELCA church. Now I have to monitor events so that he is not the victim of undue influence. Survival techigues take over when a person or institution face troubled times. There may be wide spread undue influence happening throughtout the ELCA. A mass communication may be one way to protect the elderly.
My family and I will be leaving our church in the near future.
influence
The gag idea seems to be pretty widespread. At our church you were supposed to go and talk to the pastor privately about the CWA matter. He was adamantly against any sort of congregational meeting to talk it over because we didn't want to offend anybody (rich). But it wasn't considered offensive to tell some people (not so rich) that they were being emotional and unthinking if they asked for some sort of action from the council.
At least that is the perception of the ones who were told that. The walking on eggshells is done on a one way street.
influence
The gag idea seems to be pretty widespread. At our church you were supposed to go and talk to the pastor privately about the CWA matter. He was adamantly against any sort of congregational meeting to talk it over because we didn't want to offend anybody (rich). But it wasn't considered offensive to tell some people (not so rich) that they were being emotional and unthinking if they asked for some sort of action from the council.
At least that is the perception of the ones who were told that. The walking on eggshells is done on a one way street.
"Growth"
A False Gospel is Not a Crisis Akin to Naziism?
If this is not a situation for a bold public declaration that one is in a state of confession over against the ELCA, then, pray tell, what would be?
Because..
False Gospel
I prefer the Jewish bible version of Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is a disgusting perversion."
It is more precise in describing homosexual acts as perversion and that God thinks they are disgusting.
Dear Dave:
I applaud your flawless example. However, my concern and the concern of many is that humanity by and large is sinful. Do you believe every pastor is as sinless as you? If not, how do you reconcile your statements regarding sin? Additionally, it is important to remember that the ELCA never barred homosexual people from the congregations or from ministry, but only when in a relationship. In light of Jesus' exegesis in Matthew 5, it is vital to understand that intention and action are one. Hence, this policy was inconsistent with the gospel (that is, the preaching of Jesus), and was changed. And though the ELCA may be in error, do you deny this error is in favor of love and acceptance? And if it is, how can you say it is a false gospel when Jesus preached love even of the enemy and persecutor?
As you can see, I have many questions about your position. Nevertheless I applaud your biblical witness. Your passion is sorely needed in the catholic church - I would suggest you speak with your pastor about how you can use this energy to pursue a Christian vocation. Blessings upon you!
I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that...
This isn't a new Gospel. Its an interpretation about the Law. Not even a basic understanding of Law - like don't kill - its a highly nuanced understanding of Law. It one that, as you have so clearly demonstrated, comes from a purity code - the Levitical one to be exact. Its the same code that says that we should not eat unclean things. Yet, in Acts 10-15, the Church seems more than willing (at least by the end) to abandon this code in order to receive the Gentiles (who are, by default unclean).
In the end, the Church decided to fully include the Gentiles as Gentiles. Not because they thought the Gentiles were nice. Not because they thought welcoming the Gentiles would give them a bump in numbers. Not because they were getting caught up in the spirit of the age - what with a prevailing Gentile culture and all... No, they welcomed the Gentiles into the Church because they saw the Spirit abundantly active in the lives of the Gentile people. They had the Spirit, so Peter said "Who was I to withhold baptism from them?"
That is why we ordain women. Because they too have received the Spirit. The Church has discerned in them a call to ordained ministry. We recognize in their ministries the same qualities that we believe make good pastors - they are faithful, life-giving ministries. We believe this in spite of long traditions of interpreting Scripture to say something that would oppose this thinking. Just like the apostolic Church let slip Levitical codes about eating things that were "abominations" - like shrimp (Jewish Bible Lev. 11:9-12 "These may ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them may ye eat. And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are a detestable thing unto you, and they shall be a detestable thing unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in detestation. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that is a detestable thing unto you").
I would argue this is why some of us think we should also ordain homosexual persons (in relationships). I see the Spirit active in their lives. I see faithful and abundant ministry going on in congregations in which they serve and attend. Not just gay pastors, but also gay congregants in committed relationships. I see the same life-giving qualities in their lives, in their unions, that we normally attribute to the Spirit. If this is the case, then who are we to withhold baptism or ordination from them?
Since you seem to be taken with the Levitical Code and its teachers, might I suggest that you follow the advice of the Pharisee Gamaliel in Acts 5, "So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!"
Salvation
So I anticipate that you will find a way to discredit the following passage I refer to you: Hebrews, chapter ten. Please examine it.
Gary you use love and acceptance in the same sentence as if they belong with each other. They do not. Acceptance of deliberate sin should not be tolerated. Noah, you write that you have seen a wonderful witness. Witness to what? Deliberate sin? Never. Especially for the best interests of the youth.
Rather, the love for one’s neighbor that we can do is to help each other refrain from sin. You help me and I help you. What better love can we give our neighbor other than what Christ did for us. If we help each other maybe the miracle of transformation will happen.
In our time of weakness we can reach out to one another for support, encouragement and reasoning. And we can pray to God for the strength to help us refrain from that which causes us to sin. Through our faith that God will answer our prayers it may well happen.
Dave
a better kind of love
What Christ did for us was not 'help us refrain from sin'. He forgave it. The fight to refrain from sin is one we do under the law, and if we were justified based on how well we fought that fight, we'd all go straight to hell. Christ did not give us renewed ability to live under the law, He promised us that the last Word on the issue of human sin is not that of the law, but forgiveness of sins on account of His suffering, death and resurrection.
We can aspire to a better kind of love than you name- 'that we help one another refrain from sin'. That better kind of love is bearing others' sins and forgiving them. It is loving them even when they are our enemies-- loving them even to the cost of our own lives and well-being. Our relationship to each other is not father-son dominance, but between brothers. It is proclaiming Christ's kingdom of forgiveness of sins in word, deed and sacrament whereever and whenever we find ourselves.
Warning Label
Changes
Now, since for a Lutheran hermenutic it is God's job to take care of this world and us, God will do it no matter what. God, unlike humanity, is faithful. Therefore the promises God has made (of forgiveness, bestowing the Spirit, of preserving life, of eternal life) are promises God will fulfill. I'm not sure how much more you can want out of good news. Maybe you could tell me? Till then, just try fulfilling commandment 1. Just try, it should keep you busy.
In Christ,
Gary
expectations
Other denominations try to emulate that. Lutherans don't. I used to think that was just an isolated problem that just seemed to exist in the Lutheran Churches I was exposed to-just my bad luck. But you've convinced me that this is a systemic thing. If anyone brings up Paul's laundry list of things to do and not do (repeated in epistle after epistle), you guys started going off about mixed fabrics. So the result is a lazy, passive church with no standards of conduct.
This is harsh to say, but somebody needs to start saying it since the clergy won't. When you come to a Lutheran Church after being elsewhere you notice things right away. Nobody seems to own a Bible-at least they never have one with them. Large churches have microscopic Sunday Schools. Childrens classes are tiny (on the Sundays they actually meet) and the classes for parents are small or nonexistent. There seems to be a perpetual state of financial distress. It is nearly impossible to recruit workers for anything that doesn't involve cooking. People cuss and tell off color jokes at council meetings. And you never hear anything about missionaries, because it turns out, Lutherans no longer believe in missions- only "relief". It goes on and on. You think this is OK, but I'm just telling you, virtually nobody else does. Obviously Baptists would freak out over it but so would Methodists and even PCUSAers.
I don't know of any protestant denomination that says we are saved by "being good." But they do say that if the Bible, especially the New Testament, clearly tells us to do something, we are obliged to try our very best to do it. We are not supposed to take advantage of God even if he will let us get away with it. He doesn't have to you know. He is God.
Law and Gospel
I completely empathize with what you are saying and will try to move point-by-point.
1. Expectations and commandments are not requirements of faith. Faith comes first. Now, I don't know what you mean by "nowadays." In the northeast, where I live, Lutheran churches lean towards legalism and pietism rather than antignomianism. What is important to understand is that Lutheran theology denies control to human beings - it's very unAmerican and runs against many of the philosophies that underlie our culture ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps" for example). You seem to be worried about a symptom of pietism - being so afraid of depending on works that nothing gets done! That is a great example of a congregation that needs to hear a good preacher. I sympathize, but I don't think antignomian tendencies in Lutheranism are to blame - and if so, reversing to legalism is not the answer.
2. What do we do then? This seems to be your question. If we don't "do" the Bible, what do we do? The answer is simple - we do our jobs. Luther said the highest calling is no more holy than changing a diaper. Your life should transform, not by yanking you out of society or giving you a slew of extra activities, but by the transformation of your life as a Christian in society.
3. But I don't see any of this! This is your response. Failing churches, small classes... why isn't the Lutheran church "succeeding"? Well, Dan, success is won in Christ, and the best we can hope for is the preaching of the gospel. What you are seeing is very likely a combination of the American Lutheran problem, which is tied to a heritage of pietism and very slow adaptation, and the generally abysmal lack of Christian education (that is, preaching the gospel) in mainline churches across the board. But the answer isn't law - it's teaching and activity! But a church is called to be the place where we get our bread, and not always to be the activity center of the community. This is a large and complex topic, but in short I think the dynamic of what it is to be a church is changing and perhaps you're seeing that many haven't found a Lutheran way to do it yet.
4. But how can they behave like that? People cussing triggered this thought, and I think there's a level of this in what you're saying. People don't always behave the way you think they should, the way a Christian would. But that's the way of the world - which doesn't mean you can't talk to them about it! "If a person offend you..." go to them with it, or so Jesus said. But you may wish to stop being so afraid of cursing and bad jokes - since Luther did both these things as well. Sin boldly, Dave, and cling to God's promises more boldly! Let God save you, stop trying to convince God that you are worth it. As far as passive congregations, again, this is a problem throughout mainline Protestantism. But I think you may find a paradigm change happen in the next few decades. As far as having no Lutheran missionaries, well, I've met some. I also know Lutherans who have started or who are training to start mission churches in America. So it might be that you have a different idea of "missionary" or that you are simply not hearing about it - which is how Lutherans tend to operate. As far as what others think is OK or not - I don't care. My responsibility through baptism is to the gospel, not to the Baptists or Methodists or PCUSAers.
5. But the Bible says it! This is the final stroke of your argument. Yes, the Bible tells us to do things that we should (we call that the Law). But we suck and cannot - and this is what you are missing. Luther said that if a man took the least of the Ten Commandments and determined to do nothing else but fulfill it, he would still fail. So you see, from a Lutheran perspective, the point of these commandments is to reveal our need for God. The Gospel is then that God loves us, despite all of this, and will never let us go (as we experience in Baptism and Communion). Now, you seem to think that we are not supposed to take advantage of God - what does this mean? You have it wrong - God gives us everything we have! Without God we shrivel and die. Without God there is no Church. This is all regardless of "obligation" to the Bible - God's promises stick whether or not we try to follow the Law! They must, because we will NEVER succeed. And God will keep coming down in Baptism, in Eucharist, into the midst of our lives. And God will raise us every time we fall and die. And that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I hope this has been helpful, but I would be glad to answer any further questions. I admit your last point about "taking advantage of God" still confuses me because it makes us active and God passive, whereas soteriologically it is the other way around. Let me know if there is more. And if what you are seeing in your congregation is true, perhaps it's time she went to take a course on preaching or teaching at the nearest seminary. There are many other resources to draw upon. Also, pray! Rub God's ears with God's promises! Remember the neighbor in the middle of the night.
Blessings in Christ,
Gary
A Few Kind Words for Pietists
I guess we Pietists would answer the question "What are we to do then?", by suggesting that we read the parts of the Bible where other Christians asked the same question. If Jesus himself doesn't answer it, go to one of the early sources- someone who heard his voice or at least heard someone preach who had heard his voice. But there is a consistent theme from your side of the fence (or your ilk if the word "side" offends) that suggests we leapfrog over those guys and go straight to Martin Luther. Unfortunately, I can't argue that this is nonLutheran because I'm afraid Luther would have very much liked the idea. But in my opinion Luther was a great and heroic historic figure, but he in no way comes close to carrying the same weight as the apostles. So why leapfrog to him? Because most of the New Testament writers' own words convict them of being(gasp) pietists or maybe even legalists by todays understanding. So we have to accept the authority of the Bible in a very nuanced nonauthoritative way.
Now by "taking advantage" I mean this. It is certainly unintentional, but there is almost a sense coming from your side that we can stick our tongue out at God and say "hey God, watch me do this sin. Hey that was nothing watch this one. But nanny nanny boo boo you can't damn me because you said you wouldn't." Maybe that is what the other guy meant about testing God.
Well maybe we can get away with it, but it is still wrong. And you need to be clearer about that. (Its just that I think a Gay marriage ceremony in a Church is a nanny nanny boo boo moment and you obviously don't.) Gotta go.
Sin
First, your point about "what do we do now". There is a difference between asking what we are free to do and what we must do. "What do we do, now that we don't have to do anything?" That's the question. I personally think that love of God and neighbor is a great guide for this. It meshes in harmony with Christ's summary of the entire law, and constantly reminds us of how broken we are.
Second, your point about "taking advantage" seems to me to say that you think sin is action. Sin is a state of being in which we humans are trapped, not a series of actions. Therefore, I don't understand your point - unless you were not aware of this definition. If you think that things we "do" are such an offense to God, and base it off of the scriptures, you still wind up doing these "wrong" things all the time. Constantly. So I don't see what makes a gay marriage different. (And, P.S., the sexuality statement is a decision that allows homosexuals in publicly accountable, monogamous, same-gender relationships to be ordained, and a resolution was passed to find a way to bless same-sex unions - there was never an ELCA statement that said being gay or in a homosexual relationship was a problem, just that previously the relationship precluded ordained ministry.)
And yes, we can certainly stick our tongues out at God as we "sin", since we all break the commandments willingly and knowingly. And yet I don't hear you denouncing those in the ordained ministry who have practiced usury. Why is that? It's because your hermenutic is inconsistent - and therefore incoherent. I understand this is not intentional, but I would be remiss if I did not point it out.
As for the use of the epistles (I assume you refer to the NT epistles, attributed to Paul mostly), firstly scripture is the basis of the ELCA much more than Luther is, but Luther was a scholar who did massive exegesis of scripture and we have a large body of his work. So why not use it? As far as using the epistles, here's some things to consider:
Romans 2:1 "Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge someone else. For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things." 2:21-23 "therefore you who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who tell others not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? you who boast in the law dishonor God by transgressing the law!" 3:3-4 "What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar, just as it is written: 'so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.'" 3:20-24 "For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed - namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
Stop trying to convince God to do something that was done at your baptism. Let God be God, Dan. Let God worry about God - you worry about loving your neighbor as much as you can, by the grace given you.
Peace,
Gary
Imaginary friends
Not having a bible with them is different than not owning one- On what grounds are you going to attempt to make any serious argument that bringing a bible with you to church make you a real/better christian? I don't recall any passage about Jesus toting around copies of scrolls with him.
I was in a large congregation - our sunday school was anything but microscopic.
Exactly how does a perpetual state of financial distress say ANYTHING about how faithful a community is - The Bible tells stories of Paul begging the Corinthians to send money to Jerusalem. Are you suggesting that Jerusalem was a hetrodox Church?
People cuss... so did Paul, our English translations just make him a little more palatable for puritanical sensibilities. Philippians 3:8 "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ." He doesn't say rubbish there. What he uses there is a slang term for feces. Our closest English equivalent is a term that similar to shirt, without the r.
Whats the most problematic with what you have done here is that you have taken Paul's list about murder, infidelity, theft, coveting, etc and turned it into "not volunteering for anything but cooking." Really? Off color jokes may be the closest thing you listed to Paul's list - since they often are nothing more than thinly veiled racism or sexism. But not even all off color jokes are defacto such.
Dan, I am all about understanding sanctification. I'm actually a big fan of it. I personally think Luther talks about it a lot. But I have to disagree with what appear to continue to be your assertion that such "growth in grace" (as it were) is a guarantee of our salvation. Instead I have to go with that being Jesus. Alone! Because if it is at all up to us, then its game over. Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing."
Expectations
As to the Bible thing, at first I thought the no Bibles thing was odd but I didn't think much of it. But then you start to look for little kids Sunday School teachers and you find out that hardly anybody seems familiar with even basic Bible stories. And then you notice that a large percentage of those who do know one testament from another are former Baptists and Methodists. And then at some point you put the observations together and say hey there's a problem here. Not carrying a Bible isn't the problem-its a symptom of a lack of emphasis on Bible study. Even the leadership of the ELCA is no longer in denial about that.
As to not cussing in Church, I guess you are for it and I'm against it. I've worked at construction sites most of my career, so I know people cuss. I cuss, but I TRY not to.
Usually (but not always) a congregation can solve its money problems by giving more. Where their treasure is, that's where their heart is. So if the Church is always broke, but there are new Volvos and BMW's in the parking lot, where is their heart? Maybe you're saying its ok to be broke, but that hinders the ability to spread the Gospel.
You make light of my concern with volunteers. You think it is silly to expect people to teach Sunday School and VBS. You are saying that there was no expectation in Paul's time for people to help instruct new believers and children. I don't know how to answer that.
Finally, I think I was very clear that I don't know of many denominations that say that good works "guarantee salvation". They all believe in grace. But they believe that
when the New Testament writers (men who shook the hand or shook the hand that shook the hand of Christ) tell us to live a certain way, we need to take that seriously and TRY!
That's all TRY. And preachers who don't tell people that they need to try are preaching something other than what was expected in the 1st century.
Trying
Trying doesn't work. If trying got results, don't you think the monks and the priests and the ascetics and the puritians would have gotten somewhere? But they don't, they're here with us. Relief is important because it's part of love. Conduct for the sake of love is vital, it's a Christian way of living. But a congregation isn't, and shouldn't be, a place where behavior is enforced in the way you seem to expect. The idea is that people are who they are, and we love them and pray that God will move them to a new place. That doesn't mean not helping, but it does mean not having an overactive case of scruples about ourselves or others. Life, bluntly, is not as deadly serious as you seem to think. We're here to love, and loving is fun and messy and involves mistakes.
Many of the concerns you cite, ironically, are problems with the culture more than with the theology. It's important to distinguish the two. What you seem to want is to preach Law - everyone in the ELCA sucks at various things - but you want to leave out Gospel: God loves and saves us anyway! If your congregation has a dearth of volunteers, that's probably a result of the individualist American dream, or an American sense that church happens on Sunday, or an idea that religions is "private". As far as duties, well, everyone has them. Not everyone is called to know the Bible. Now, I think that education is important, and it's possible that your pastor is not educating the congregation. But it's also possible that the congregation has no concept of why these things should be known. Regardless, this is a question of modern order and parish practice, and has NOTHING to do with Biblical mandate. It might be good for the soul to memorize the Small Catechism, but it won't save you.
I really understand your concerns, but there's a difference between wanting to be part of a congregation with a different dynamic, wanting to address places where your congregation is weak, and saying that the problems you see are the result of Lutheran theology. I think you'd find, if you looked, most of these things are more tied to American ideals that filtered into many traditions.
Why other denominations don't have the same problem? They do - they mitigate it with fear tactics. It's expected, it's enforced, and if you don't do it you hear yourself denounced from the pulpit. It's a system like any other peer-pressure system: you will conform to the group. And that's just abusive.
Is there anything I didn't address?
Let me know how trying to fulfill even one of the ten commandments goes for you...
Peace,
Gary
Sigh
In camp B I see Gary, Peter the Poster, Noah, Martin Luther some of the time and I'm sure a few dozen seminary professors. I'm sorry but camp A wins. But I do applaud you for being consistent. And in being so, you make it much clearer how wide the chasm is between the majority ELCA version of Christianity and nearly everyone else's. Which is why a nice tidy schism is just what the doctor ordered. Otherwise we'll argue till kingdom come (then we'll find out who's right).
One last thing. I grew up a small town Southern Baptist in the 60's and 70's. I NEVER saw "enforcement" of any sort of moral code and I never heard anyone denounced from the pulpit. That may happen in isolated cases, but somehow I hear more about it from mainline folks than I do from anyone who would actually be in a position to know about it. They don't go running around with scarlet letters and stuff.
whose authority?
I quite agree with you that we have to rely on authority, and the question of whose authority is right on the nail. The problem is that you are setting up Biblical authority first, and deriving Gospel authority from that. The authority we set up is the Gospel first, with Biblical authority following from that. I believe this is the order Jesus and the apostles, especially Paul, used. You can see it in Christ's ministry when He continually is challenged on legal grounds-- He wasn't doing what the Torah required. Paul likewise argues that the Gentiles do not need the Law-- specifically circumcision-- in order to be Christian. The need for the Law is exactly the issue he takes up in both Galatians and Romans. The final answer is: while we commend good works, they don't get you saved. We can talk about, consider and disagree about what a good work is, the best way to go about doing good works, on which good works we should focus, but we dare not set up any kind of system where good works are required for salvation.
Huh?
As to good works, how many times do I have to say it? I know of no denomination apart from maybe the Church of God and the Mormons that says we are saved by works. The early Baptists, hiding in their caves held this belief before Luther. Here is the problem. You say "While we commend good works..." But you don't. I don't think you mean to, but you actually seem to discourage them. If anyone mentions the idea you condemn them and pretty much tell them they are stupid. You can't help that because you are probably a Yankee, but I think that is something you need to work on.
what gives the Quran authority?
As to commending good works, we do. But the witness you are faced with are fellow Christ-trusters who say that certain works, namely marriage to a spouse regardless of gender, protect love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Interpretation
The Bible, in Lutheran hermenutics, contains Law and Gospel. The brief form of the gospel, that is to say the overarching message of the Bible, is Christ crucified (foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews). The Lutheran hermenutic generally assumes the interpretation of scripture grounded in the letter to the Romans. As for Law and Gospel, there are two functions of the Law as the Bible unfolds it. First, is to restrain evil in the world - i.e. through earthly and temporal authority. Second, it is to terrify the conscience by showing human beings the truth - that we are sinners condemned to death in a world of terror and danger. This second function leaves us in need of Gospel, which is that God loves you and will not let you go. It is this that I believe Peter is referring to.
You seem to be appealing to "scripture alone", i.e. sola scriptura. There is a problem there: first, you need to study scripture for quite a while; second, it's not true. Luther said: sola Christus (Christ alone); sola gracia (grace alone); sola fides (faith alone). Luther loved holy scripture, but he had seen too much abuse of it against the gospel of Jesus - that God loves us, that God comes down to save us despite our inability, that through the grace recieved in the gift of faith (itself recieved through the Spirit and the Word) God saves those who call on the name of Joshua of Nazareth. That's the Lutheran method of interpreting scripture.
If you want to use a different method, go ahead. Just be ready to explain what it is and how it is consistent. Oh, and a theology that doesn't "say" that good works save can still mean just that. I detect such works theology in my experiences with: Baptists, Menonites, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Daoists, Hindus, Lutherans, Mormons, "Post-Christian non-theists", "emerging church" groups, Pentecostals, "social gospel" preachers, televangelists, and the American civil religion. Just off of the top of my head. This idea, at its root, is the idea of human control over human destiny. I think God cares about us more than that. I don't think God allows us ultimate control. Because no good God could.
This does not discourage good works - it discourages their worship. There is a massive difference. While I absolutely think Lutherans could mobilize more, the primary thing is proclaiming the gospel. And what's this about being a "Yankee"? Please, do not bring categories over a hundred years irrelevant into this.
Again, keep praying.
-Gary
Faith
I'll say it this way. Your complaint COULD be rooted in the fact that you are seeing people without faith in the church. But the whole point of the proclaimation of the gospel is the work of the Spirit to give faith! So those who are without faith should be found in the church. Paul's idea of works is that we do things in love as we are called - there is no systematic way to be "Christian." In fact, Luther would say a Christian looks very much like anyone else, but is baptised and so the faith of a Christian occasionally breaks into love in the light of the gospel. It's not something to control or strive for.
Dan, I won't tell you what your experiences were, but I grew up in a northeastern Lutheran congregation and I did see enforcement of moral codes - passive-aggressively through social reaction, but nevertheless it was there. So I know this happens, in mainline churches too. And the letters may not be visible, but that doesn't mean they are not there.
And the reason I keep pushing this conversation is that I really don't think that Paul and Luther would disagree with what I'm saying. I don't think it's about being right, but about simply emphasizing that we are saved by faith - and that works are not a method of earning salvation and getting up to God. As for Peter, Jude, James - I assume you mean those letters. That weren't written by the people they are named for. And are also horribly misinterpreted besides, since they do not operate on the mere face of the text. So I think your list shrinks considerably - and Calvin was more in Luther's line than you think. Wesley was hit-or-miss and definitely coming out of a tradition that is non-Lutheran andd I would say non-Pauline even. I don't know who Peter Marshall is, and I don't have any desire to read Billy Graham or put him alongside Paul. So of the three people who would disagree, I frankly don't know or don't trust their proclamation. I happen to trust the Gospels and the Pauline epistles. I think that's a good way to identify the difference of opinion here.
Hoping you're well. Keep thinking and praying!
In Christ,
Gary
Paul's on my side
Two Kingdoms are not Law/Gospel
There is a huge difference between Paul legislating the relationship to temporal authority and keeping good order in the church so that the Word is not obstructed, and Paul teaching that works save. What Paul is saying is that the offenses you name endanger the society; he's speaking as a temporal authority, and to take him here as speaking of spiritual matters is to confuse the two kingdoms. This is understandable, because the church is in both.
As for "sexual immorality", Paul is talking about abuse. In his society sexual immorality was tied to power dynamics. It was a system of asserting power. So that doesn't help your argument about homosexuality. And if, for you, having a homosexual pastor is a problem - don't have one, as it would obstruct ministry! Hence, bound conscience.
And Paul MAKES dirty jokes - read the Greek, he uses very strong language. Now, the "attempt to be righteous" that you mention - what exactly do you mean by that? There are things that are good works to be done - Paul never says don't do good things - and those fruits of faith are of necessity and by their nature pleasing. But these things are not "righteousness". Dan, to be "righteous" soteriologically means to be deserving of something before God, and no human qualifies. Now go read the book of Job. Seriously. I'll wait. Because Job's argument should underline why trying to be perfect is a useless gesture.
Meanwhile, consider: if seeking rightousness in vain makes you happy, then how is that even seeking righteousness? Isn't that closer to living by faith in the God who makes you righteous? And if that is so, isn't your "trying" more a response to faith in God than a way of showing your salvation and earning it?
Let me know what you find.
Peace in Christ,
Gary
Greater Expectations: Eatting with Tax-Collectors and Prostitutes
The supposed distance these churches are claimed to be taking is, as usual with WordAlone/CORE, inflated posturing about the reality of the situation. Many of the African churches are daughter churches to the Church of Sweden, which has been permitting bishops to ordain openly gay and lesbian persons for about a decade - as the Bishop of Sweden mentioned in an article in the Lutheran during the CCM debates. Furthermore, when the ELCA bishops traveled abroad, they were welcomed by the various bishops. Certainly they disagree with our decision. And frankly, we aren't going to stop ordaining women either - which will also be problematic in many Islamic states. But you know what, Christians are going to have problems in Islamic countries whether or not we ordain gay people or women in the USA. Why? Because we believe that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate - the Second Person of the most holy and divine Trinity in human flesh. I doubt you would suggest that we lighten up on that so we can make missions easier in Islamic countries.
Yes, we struggle with biblical illiteracy. But so do Baptists and Methodists - it just might take different forms. I used to be baptist - independent, fundamentalist, kjv-only, pre-trib, pre-mill to be exact. Half of my family is now Methodist after our congregation went belly up because we didn't have people with new volvos and BMW's (those modern day sellers of purple) who have the resources to bail out the congregation - as Corinth did for Jerusalem. My grandfather is constantly surprised at their lack of biblical knowledge. So sorry, I don't buy that its a mainline denominational problem. It appears universal; and its based on a rather subjective opinion of what one thinks is a "basic Bible story." I'm not going to bust people's chops for not meeting Paul's supposed standards because they don't know that the Bible also says that Noah took seven of every clean animal onto the ark with him. Likewise, I won't bust people's chops for not knowing that Christ may have healed the Centurian's "boyfriend" (the greek word used for the slave, pais, can mean something like the term "boyfriend"). So yes, biblical Illiteracy is rampant - clearly.
Cussing, Volvos and not volunteering are still not signs of deficent faithfulness, which IS the conext that you lifted these things up in earler. All of these came after you said that Paul had lists, and we don't seem to bother with them. I never said it was silly. I said it was unreasonable to equate this with Paul's sin lists. It doesn't take into account that peopel are overworked, families are trying to hold down multiple jobs, and that people are telling them they don't know the bible well enough to teach it anyway. My point is this: the problem is larger, more complex, and in greater need of a more pastoral response than a heavy-handed pharisaical pounding about not measuring up to some sort of standards that actually don't reflect what Paul really said in the first place.
Try eating with the tax-collectors and the prostitues for a while instead of with the religious elite.
I'm Sorry
Perhaps several e-mails back I was heavy handed, but I've become so tired of rah rah everything is beautiful ELCA happy talk when things are really not going well at all. I think I know why they aren't going well, but obviously you disagree.
As to who I eat with, well, I can't say that I currently know any prostitutes, but if I did I would eat with them. Their sins may well pale in comparison to my own. I am a horrible person, and I know it.
In my old tradition nothing made folks happier than seeing a prostitute or drunkard or drug addict come to Church and walk down that aisle after the sermon, tears streaming down their face. We knew they might slip right back to their old ways the next day, but they had felt that "tap on the shoulder" ( Peter Marshall term) and it is usually hard to ignore for long. That would probably kind of blow some minds at my Lutheran Church but I think it would be cool.
But I have to draw the line at tax collectors.
Changes...
I'm a southern Lutheran also - evangelism via marriage is not the only think keeping Lutheranism alive.
Lutheranism does expect "changes" in the believer - Lutheranism does, over all, affirm sanctification (though that can be a dirty word among some Lutherans). There is an expectation that the gift of Faith makes one an active busy creature.
What Lutheranism does not affirm is that such a change is the cause of guarantee of our salvation. We are saved only by Christ's effort, and his obedience unto death.
Love
I read Hebrews 10. I don't understand your point: the passage seems to me to say that it is not for us to judge or redeem from sin, but rather that it is ours to thank God and remain in right relationship with our neighbor as we are able out of love. Verse 29: "How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" Dave, this is about the danger of rejecting the grace of God that comes by Christ and not because of anything we do! Otherwise you risk imprisoning yourself in legalism, in constantly trying to be "good enough." But you will never be "good enough" except through Christ, who ate with sinners! Who broke the Sabbath! Who touched lepers! Who died a shameful and unclean death on the cross! Who became sin for our sake!
Dave, I did not try to "discredit" the Hebrew Scriptures. I have the same respect for all of scripture, and Job is my favorite book of the Bible. What you seem to be speaking from is confusion - the Bible says it, so we should do it. If this is your argument, it cannot work, as I clearly demonstrated in my first post (do you really keep the entire Levitical code?). As Noah demonstrated above, the codes of behavior are not stagnant in the Church but change according to the movements of the Spirit, which is that of grace and beholden to no law. And even more importantly, even were homosexuality a sin (and there are very good arguments against the idea that the biblical texts that are cited even deal with what we call "homosexuality"), it would be no different than any of a hundred sins we commit daily. Luther would say that is the point of the many laws in the Hebrew Scriptures, though they are not necessary because all one must do is look upon the ten commandments. "They fail to see, these miserable, blind fools, that no one is able to keep even one of the Ten Commandments as it ought to be kept." (Book of Concord (2000), LC page 428, p. 316)
It is really very simple, Dave - those who are homosexual are not worse sinners than you. Neither are murderers. You and I and all the world are utterly enslaved to sin and cannot free ourselves. Period. It is the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, freely given through the Spirit, that saves us in Baptism, in the proclaimed Word, in the Eucharist, all in the holy assembly of the Church. Since this is so, I fail to see how "deliberate" sinning matters - you are making moral demands of people who are under God's grace. This is not only futile, it is an evasion of the proclaimed gospel of the forgiveness of sins: Jesus loves sinners and will never let US go!
I do not know what "movement" you think I am in... other than the Jesus Movement. I have assumed that, this being "Lutheran Forum", all here are Lutheran in some way, though that is a label I am not particularly attached to. I decided to consult someone generally more grounded than I am, however: Luther. I encourage you to read his commentary in LW 29. However, I still could not locate anything that would support your fundamental argument: that the ELCA is preaching a false gospel that has nothing to say about repentance. Indeed, in his commentary Luther says that what is commanded is love of the least, those who seem to be less than yourself, and indeed quotes Matthew 5 and commands love of enemy and persecutor. Now, the love of the enemy is not something we "do" - rather it is something we fail to do. But in the Spirit we can, by God's grace, be freed from our anger and hatred and remember that God loves his children who commit what we see as atrocities. We cannot become sinless, Dave - not under any work humans do, but only through a completed baptism, the drowning of our old self, which is only completed in our physical death.
You also seem confused about Christ's actions. Christ came for the salvation of the world, Dave - not to help us "refrain from sin" but to wash us clean, wipe away every tear, and shelter us before the throne of God forever. What is more, it is not your job to be Jesus - Jesus was the Son of God, and you are a human who is in need of rescue. You are not Jesus' "helper", but one of those he came to save - and has. As are all those people who are damaged by your insistence that their lifestyles are intentional sin that precludes them from congregations and ministry.
What is most confusing is your comment about the epistles. Do you understand that Lutheran theology is mostly predicated upon Paul's writings? To say that is simply odd. And to say that love and acceptance do not belong together - well, what do you propose? "I love you, son, so I will deny your call from God?" Does that sound like something Jesus would say? Moreover, I beg you to once again remember that those called by Christ were universally sinners and some blatantly so - such as Matthew the tax collector.
In brief, Dave - it is clear to me that you are not utilizing a hermenutic with which I am familiar. I am not sure how you are reaching your conclusions. I am even less sure how, by barring homosexuals from a church because of sin, you would not end up barring all those who sin and thus have an empty building. There is no "accidental" sin, only deliberate sin, so that idea falls apart. And how does pushing someone out of a church by denying their identity, their partnership, their sexuality, their life the blessing of God cause them to refrain from sin? I again encourage you to speak to a pastor immediately, to consult the Small Catechism by Luther, and to read Romans and Galatians. If you have done all of these things, perhaps do them again and speak to others. It is clear you want to be faithful - just as it is clear that you think this is something you can do yourself. In your struggle with that lie, I will uphold you in prayer.
In Christ,
Gary
Salvation
I will address the rest of your response in another entry.
Then...
Don't let me step on your toes, I want to give you time to respond. I'm only going to address your point above.
It's true you said nothing about banning someone from church. But if someone is not able to be called as a pastor because of some infraction as opposed to simply not being called or equipped, doesn't that make them a second-class congregant? And since in the church there is no such thing, that makes the person an exile from the church. And that is not acceptable - because every baptized person is a full member of the church.
Witness of the Spirit
I think I was more than clear, the witness is to the active presence of the Spirit, you know - the third person of the most holy and divine Trinity, in the lives and relationships of same sex couples. I did so following the pattern of discernment as established in Acts 10-15 in regards to the inclusion of Gentiles into the full life of the Church. Peter did things that were considered sinful to the Levitical code - he ate unclean things with the unclean. He ate with Gentiles. Peter's consistent in Acts is the presence of the Spirit in the lives of the Gentiles qua Gentiles - that is the Spirit is present in their lives in the same discernible way as what was commonly attributed to the Jews. That active presence of the Spirit is what convinced Peter to argue for their inclusion as they were, without the conversion to Judaism and adherence to the Levitical code.
What I said was that this same presence of the Spirit is the reason we have started ordaining women, despite the biblical injunctions to not do so - because we followed the same pattern of discernment of the activity of the Spirit in the lives of women. This was done in the same manner as the Apostolic Church in Acts when it included the Gentiles and ate with them, even though there was ample biblical injunction to not do so.
It all comes back to the activity of the Spirit in the lives, relationships, and ministries of people in same-sex relationships. Eating the things that Gentiles ate and eating with Gentiles was considered unclean, sinful. Yet because of the Spirit, Peter was convinced that this must not be true - or at least not true now. Likewise I believe that because the presence of the Spirit can be witnessed and discerned in the lives of LGBT people and their ministries, then the Church is being led by the Spirit into accepting them - despite traditions of interpretation that have led us to do the opposite. Just as the Apostolic Church in Acts realized that the Spirit was leading them to accept the Gentiles, even their food - despite an even longer tradition of Scriptural interpretation that said to not permit them into worship, to not eat what they eat, and to not eat with them.
Finally, you seem insistent on accusing me of ignoring sin. The thing is, my argument is that what we see in the lives of LGBT people is not the sin which is condemned in the New Testament. It is an anachronism to read modern LGBT people back into Leviticus and Romans, let alone any other sections where the condemnations of homosexuality are assumed to exist (1 Cor. 6:9, for example - the history of the translation of that text alone suggests that we don't know what it is talking about; Luther said it was about child abuse, which is not what we are talking about). That neither Romans nor Leviticus have the same thing in mind is seen in that neither text speaks of female same sex sexual activity. Paul, specifically, was addressing the particular context of Roman sexuality and how it could be abusive. I happen to agree with that aspect - when sexuality is used abusively then it is idolatrous and therefore sinful. Homosexuality, as we understand it, is in no way automatically abusive. It quite the opposite. People in healthy same-sex relationships bear the same characteristics which we celebrate in heterosexual couples - characteristics we attribute, ultimately, to the activity of the Spirit in their lives.
Contrary to your assertion that I am simply ignoring sections of Scripture, I am merely trying to understand it as a whole, through the lens of the One who said that he had come to fulfill the Law and not let one bit of it pass away - and then went out and worked on the sabbath. The Spirit, not the letter of the Law. The Res (meaning) of Scripture and not its Symbols (words).
Schism
clarification
Pr. Faro:
If by the above you mean to imply that a majority (or anything close to a majority) of ELCA members would have voted in favor of the CWA '09 decisions, then you are either woefully uninformed or a liar. We pastors should almost certainly be informed about such a basic truth of the current situation. We pastors should not lie.
There's enough confusion in this debate already without anyone (intentionally or not) spreading misinformation.
Homosexuality in the Church
And, if and when I leave, it will be because of that! It will be because the ELCA no longer believes and teaches people to believe such basic Christian doctrines as The Trinity. It will not happen because we have decided to ordain homosexuals. I'm also very concerned about all these heterosexuals who think that homosexuals should all live celibate lives. Guess what? It ain't gonna happen! The sexual drive is going to win every time! Would we consider it reasonable to require heterosexuals to live ceibate lives? I recently read, (and I find it disturbing) that it is assumed in the Roman Catholic Church that only about 15% of the clergy actually live in celibacy. It seems the Reformation says, "no"to such hypocracy. What makes us think homosexuals can more easily and quietly accept celibacy? If we are going to welcome homosexuals in our Churches, we are also going to have to accept that many, most will not live celibate lives. Long-term, committed relationships are very rare in the gay-community. Don't kid yourselves, ELCA leadership; you are admitting all homosexual clergy to the roster, not just those in long-term, committed relationships. It didn't work to try to weed out all adulterous clergy. It won't work with the gays either. We need to revisit our doctrine of sin. We need to start teaching the doctrine of Original Sin to our pastors again. It would help us considerably in this horrible, devisive atmosphere we are no in. And after CORE sets up house and all the gays are locked out, what will come next? Shall we get rid of all the Republicans, smokers, whatever? I will remember CORE in my prayers, because I would like to see a Confessional Lutheran Church which has not adopted the Fundamentalist errors, and, maybe, we will meet in The North American Lutheran Church. But, for now, I will stay with the ELCA. Yours, Milbert
In statu
I think that's Latin for - you take yourself way too seriously
A Call to the Cross
A devotional resource I use this Lent said that to bless someone is to die for them: to give, in some way or another, a part of or all of our life. If we are to bless this errant ELCA, we are called to a "marturion": a witness to the faith of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. I do not find marching out claiming the moral high ground the way of the cross. Rather, the way of the cross is to stay and suffer this ELCA for the sake of a faithful witness to the truth of Christ as it comes to us in canon, creed, and confession. And maybe God will use our sacrifice to bring blessing to our Church.
What our future will be in this errant ELCA is not clear. We are caught in currents beyond our control. So find the solid rock on which to stand amid sinking sand. Lesslie Newbigin (d. 1998), the great Scottish missionary to India, was asked what he thought of the future of the Church. He replied, "I am neither a pessimist nor an optimist. Jesus Christ is risen from the dead."