...and unfortunately, bitterly true, Pastor Carlson.

Another bitter truth is that the "bound conscience" and "pluralism" apply largely if you toe the party line.

I found that out. I couldn't, so I left.

The issue of "social justice" is not one in a Biblical sense. It is a secular concept of "social justice" based on changing mores of U.S. society over about the past 30 years.

You are very correct about the "transparency" issue. In fact, it was so transparent that in the eight years leading up to 2009, it was quite clear to see that the rules then on the books regarding homosexual behaviour would not be enforced.

If there is no sin, there is no need for a Saviour.

I have found that, in these debates, this appeal to "2000 years" of settled teaching has been repeated like a talisman by those opposing change.

I would simply point this out: as the late Richard John Neuhaus was fond of quoting (though I am aware that he would be horrified to be quoted in this connection): for all we know, we might be the early church. Who knows how long we must wait until our Lord comes again?

2000 years is less than an eyeblink in the history of the cosmos, and only a few eyeblinks in the history of humanity. From the perspective of the natural sciences or cultural history, to speak of something persisting for "2000 years" would be to imply its relative novelty, not its antiquity.

So, whatever other arguments there might be for resisting revision, let's have a more convincing one than repeated appeal to "2000 years."

"If you continue in my Word, then you are my disciples indeed; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (John 8:31-32)

In your opinion, Rob, does "continue" imply a relative novelty, or antiquity?

Henry,
While our theology teaches us that Christ was intimately involved with the creation of our world from its foundations, we also know that the advent of the Christ-child and the subsequent events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are relatively recent events on the human stage.

So, from the perspective of natural history and also cultural history, yes, Christianity is still a relatively new phenomenon in which we are "continuing." Taken by itself, that word ("continue") implies neither antiquity or novelty. But Christianity itself is, I think, still new enough to warrant entertaining the question: what if we are, indeed, still the early church?

Rob:

How about putting forth an argument FOR change - one that is cogent, does not rely on grey areas, and is not dependent on SECULAR ideas of "social justice," and does not only rely on the flawed premise that "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." I have grown as tired of that one as you probably have of "2,000 years."

But first, before you can make an argument for "change," you should define what "change" is, and then why it is warranted. Again, without relying on secular ideology, sticking with Biblical and Confessional witness, in that order (Peter, if you're reading this, save the keystrokes about "AC4," OK?), lay out sound premises to support a cogent argument, one that does not rely on argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses, meaning invocations of pity or other kind of emotion).

David,

John 16:5-15

The Holy Spirit convicts the world concerning sin defined as lack of faith in Christ. If homosexuals today have faith in Christ and that faith is expressed through their homosexuality, that cannot be sin.

Given the culture of the time, especially with homosexuality = worshipping idols ingrained into it, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." could be directly relevant. And what do we know of the Spirit? That "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you." Or we could look at Paul's description of fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23. Those homosexuals who do glorify God through bearing the Spirit's fruits and preaching the Word through and with their homosexuality cannot be sinning.

"If homosexuals today have faith in Christ and that faith is expressed through their homosexuality, that cannot be sin."

I'd like to apply a bit of propositional logic. Your argument can be reduced to A AND B IMPLIES C, for these values:
A = homosexuals today have faith in Christ
B = that faith [in Christ] is expressed through their homosexuality
C = that [homosexuality] cannot be sin

I'll grant A as patently true, so we have TRUE AND B IMPLIES C. This reduces to B IMPLIES C. Thus, your argument seems to be dependent upon the proposition "There exist homosexual persons whose faith is expressed through their homosexuality." In other words, you seem to be arguing that there are persons for whom their sexual orientation is integral to _expression_ of faith in Christ. Moreover, the argument is not really about orientation, as celebate homosexually oriented pastors have been in the ELCA for a long time. So you seem to argue that there is something in homosexual _sexual practice_ which is elemental for expression of faith in Christ. This is a novel argument, which you assume but do not prove. My challenge to you: prove B. Again, with scripture and confessional grounding.

Adam,

I am arguing that sex within marriage does glorify God. It does so because it is taking sexual care of your spouse, and that is an expression of faith, as it falls under "love of your neighbor". Sex is integral to many of the discussions of marriage given in Scripture, and is part of that love and understanding that is shown between spouses. AC23 also upholds the universality of marriage and upholds 1 Timothy 4:3, calling the forbiddance of marriage the work of the devil. It's no different with homosexuals. They still fulfill all of the above in their sexual care of one another.

I think if you believe that faith in Christ can be expressed in the context of a marriage, proposition B is not that unlikely.

As modeled by scriptural teaching, there is least the potential for procreation. I won't say '2000 years', but Genesis and Jesus' reference to it is the model of marriage as understood by the Church.

Gregory,

A homosexual couple is MORE likely to procreate than a sterile heterosexual couple. In many cases, they want to have kids just as much as that sterile heterosexual couple. Why else do they adopt? If "potential for procreation" is really the deal-breaker, we cannot condone the marriage of couples incapable of having kids.

Maybe you believe that God could always open a barren woman's womb. He can also ensure that a homosexual couple conceives. That seems to me a lack of faith if you are willing to trust that God has the potential to provide for one couple, but can't trust that He can provide for another.

...is an extremely noble act and a far, far, far better choice than abortion.

However, adoption and procreation are NOT the same thing. A heterosexual couple has procreated the child that another couple may adopt.

I don't know if you're serious or flippant about homosexuals conceiving. If you were older, I'd say you'd seen "Rabbit Test" with Billy Crystal a few too many times.

David,

I am perfectly serious. A sterile couple has a 0% chance of successfully procreating. That's what "sterile" means. If you believe that God can give that couple a child together, why don't you believe that God can give a child to two people of the same gender? Both are currently impossible for man.

Colleen,

My point about opening wombs is specifically in the context of those who were previously incapable of having children. God can give children to any couple He desires, no matter what the biology is. Whether sterile or homosexual, I wouldn't demand a child from God, but either way I would be overjoyed if I was blessed with a child. The "open to children" requirement for marriage is fulfilled by homosexuals.

There is no precedent in Scripture of God ever having allowed two men/two women to conceive.

When he has opened (Sarah) or closed (Rachel) wombs, they were of women in heterosexual relationships.

I'm no biologist, but there is nothing I learnt in anatomy and physiology to even suggest such a possibility, except for the seahorse (and that's stretching it).

God can do whatever He wants. However, there is no Scriptural record of him doing what you suggest, nor any biological/scientific record.

It is biologically impossible for a homosexual couple to procreate.

Peter,

"Maybe you believe that God could always open a barren woman's womb. He can also ensure that a homosexual couple conceives."

...huh?

Maybe I need more coffee. In that first sentence, are we thinking God doesn't open wombs or that he does and we should, ala Christian Science just rely on him to fix every problem? And in case of the second sentence, are you advocating no homosexual couple should be allowed to adopt, because God will miraculously grant them conception if He wills it?

It's unclear to me, all of a sudden, whose side you're on here. I'm beginning to feel like I'm finally allowed on the bus, but I cannot have a baby on the bus with all the white folks.

Colleen:

On the bus with "white people"? Could you please clarify?

"...white folks."

Colleen,

I'm just saying that God could do it if it pleased Him, not that no one/homosexuals/sterile couples should adopt. Given the number of orphans in the world, I think adoption is the more usual route for blessing couples who don't have children with children.

...but you cannot give direct citations that AC4, or any other part of the Confessions, green-lights ANY sort of homosexual behaviour. No grey areas, no "this might be," etc. I have asked you to prove that before, and you have not.

Cite passages from the Scripture and Confessions, with clear, unambiguous, unhypothetical, untheoretical support for these premises.

What you are doing is stretching, and I fully agree with Adam's assessment of the fallacies of your argument. You do not have cogent supporting premises, therefore the argument is unsound.

There are a lot of "could be's" in your arguments, and "could be's" are not sound.

Following on from your premise, do you believe the following to be true, and if, so, give clear, unambiguous citations as to why:

If an alcoholic has faith in Christ and that faith is expressed through his/her homosexuality, that cannot be sin (nor, from my behaviourist perspective, an addictive illness). The same would follow for all other substance issues.

If a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) of close consanguinity have faith in Christ, and that faith is expressed through their "love" and sexuality, that cannot be sin.

If a rape victim bonds with his/her attacker (which unfortunately happens more than you may think), and they both have faith in Christ, and express that through their bonding, that cannot be sin.

If a spouse in an unhappy relationship has a clandestine affair which s/he finds to be "loving," and they both have faith in Christ, and express that through their affair, that cannot be sin.

All of the above would be correct using your arguments.

I rarely say this, but there is one part of your post that is completely incorrect:

"...cannot be sinning."

There is NO way we are free of sin in this life. Remember "simul iustis et peccator?" We sin much daily.

"...the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 3, 255)"

Luther seldom mentions homosexual behavior. But when he does, his evaluation is always negative. For example, Luther identifies the sin of Sodom with homosexuality. Commenting on Genesis 19:4-5, he writes “I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy”.

In the same section of the Genesis lecturers, Luther refers to “the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom as extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.”

"Luther’s rejection of homosexual activity is not merely a matter of aesthetic preference but rather a theological judgment rooted in the reality of the way the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness that will not acknowledge God to be the Creator and Lord that He is. For Luther, homosexuality is a form of idolatry, of false worship as we see in his lectures on Romans."

http://apprising.org/2009/07/john-t-pless-martin-luthers-rejection-of-homosexuality/

That note is clear that the homosexual behaviour IS the idolatry, not a consequence of it - DP

http://erol.posterous.com/homosexuality-elca-vs-martin-luther

Of course, chances are good you will disagree with these assertions because they are not from the words of Jesus in the four Gospel accountss.

However, I agree wholeheartedly that AC4 is based entirely upon Scripture, and I say further that a quia subscription to the Confessions is a necessity for Lutheran doctrine.

David,

I don't think you understand my position, based on the examples you cite.

The problem with alcoholism is that it is idolatry. It is replacing Christ with the bottle, and that cannot be faith in Christ. If you ever have to use love in quotes, it is not rooted in faith in Christ. Similarly, rape cannot be carried out in faith in Christ. Similarly an affair is not putting one's trust in Christ either. There is a betrayal of one's spouse and it is a destruction of marriage. These all fail the test of AC4 as these actions lead one away from faith in Christ. What does Christ say about discipleship? "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35).

About the 'cannot be sinning'. I agree that we all sin, and like us married heterosexuals, married homosexuals will commit sins directly due to their failure to trust Christ in their sexual care and concern for each other. However, my point is that homosexuality is not inherently a sin any more than heterosexuality is inherently a sin. Both are God's good gifts to us. I am NOT arguing that homosexuals will be sinless if allowed to marry or even that they will conduct their sexual lives perfectly. What I am arguing is that it is no more 'automatic sin' than it is for heterosexuals and that is why the church should marry homosexuals and allow and encourage such people to actively work in the ministry.

As to Luther, in the part you quoted from his works, note that homosexuality is explained as a consequence of the dissociation of man with God. If Luther is correct in that assessment, when a homosexual has been healed by Christ, that person's orientation should change in their new life in Christ. That it doesn't is evidence that homosexuality is not a consequence of our separation from God. Instead, they are empowered to use their gifts of sexuality to help confess and proclaim Christ through marriage. People can certainly make an idol out of sexuality of any nature, but our current understanding of human sexuality does not suggest one way is inherently more prone to it than another.

I don't mean to invoke my training, qualifications, credentials unnecessarily, but it is inevitable for one studying human behaviour to also study human sexuality, whether it be Freud's obession with sex and s***, or Kinsey's badly distorted "study" used to justify his own perversions.

So I think I can speak with some authority when it comes to matters of sexuality, though I tend to be overly clinical when doing so.

Also, a homosexual saved by God's grace is still a homosexual, just as a sober recovering alcoholic is still an alcoholic. A friend of mine in AA once told me "when you take the booze away from a drunken horse thief, you still have a horse thief." Being saved does not heal us from all temptation, or else we would not pray the Lord's Prayer.

I have been sober for over 10 years, but I know there are situations I should not put myself in that would threaten that.

A homosexual who is saved and desires to live a chaste life in accordance with Scriptural teaching knows that s/he should not put themselves in similar situations - e.g., being alone with another person of the same gender, or going to a gay bar. Similarly, a heterosexual should avoid similar temptation. For that reason, I follow Billy Graham's example of, when I can help it, never being alone with a woman who is not my wife, except in professional circumstances.

What Scriptural support - hard and fast, no grey areas, no "could be" - do you have that homosexuals are "empowered to use their gifts of sexuality to help confess and proclaim Christ through marriage?" Also, what Scriptural support do you have that homosexuality is indeed a "gift?"

Peter,

You wrote, "...homosexuality is not inherently a sin any more than heterosexuality is inherently a sin. Both are God's good gifts to us." Based on what? You don't find this in Scripture. You don't find this in the Lutheran Confessions or in the confessional writings of any Catholic or Protestant denomination (save only the most recent which again have no basis in Scripture). So how do you make such a claim? By science? By experience? By some sort of human logic? Since when do any of these disciplines trump the Word of God when they come in conflict?

OK, I give up. What did Jesus say about homosexuality, and where are the citations?

I'm not sure if you're trying to be flippant, Kurt, but the reductionism argument that the ELCA seemed to use implies that the ONLY authority appealed to are the words of Jesus in the four Gospel accounts.

This would relegate the rest of the Bible to neo-Apocryphal status.

I'm never flippant on such serious matters as these. I merely was responding to the specific statement made.

Kurt,

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because, as you say, Jesus never explicitly taught on the subject of homosexuality, or at least on the subject of homosexuality within the ELCA approved context of lifelong, publicly accountable, monogamous relationships that therefore that is sufficient evidence to prove that Jesus favored it, or at the very least wasn't opposed to it. Is that your position? It seems to be from what I can read of your post to David Pross. So I will assume such until told otherwise.
Given that, then your logic would also be forced to assume the same is true on questions like abortion (since although Jesus upheld the teaching "You shall not kill" by saying further even if you are angry with a brother or sister you have broken the commandment - nonetheless, Jesus never said if a fetus is a person or if a zygote is a person, etc. and so because we can't know for sure if abortion is in fact killing, Jesus must be for it, or at least not opposed to it); Or how about the cloning of human beings? I don't recall Jesus saying anything about that, so by your logic he must be for that, or at the very least not opposed to it; Or how about genetic engineering on humans? Certainly Jesus never said anything about the propriety of tinkering with the human genome in order to create a super race of human beings, or to select the gender and the other traits one would like one's child to have, so by your logic Jesus must be in favor of genetic engineering or at least he wasn't opposed to it; Or how about masochism (the deriving of pleasure from having pain inflicted upon oneself)? Jesus never talked about that! Does he approve of that too, or at least not oppose it?; Or what about the use of steroids to bulk up ones muscles?; Jesus never talked about if water-boarding is torture - so perhaps it isn't and Jesus approves of it?; Jesus never talked about whether human life or human-like life exists on other planets, so by your logic it must be!
Shall I go on? The argument from silence cannot have any force. Otherwise anything and everything can be justified by enough twists and turns of logic. So I join others in once again asking, "Where is the incontrovertible positive Biblical evidence that overturns the notion that homosexual behavior is in fact a sin requiring repentance?"

Jesus did speak about heterosexual marriage, heterosexual adultery, and heterosexual divorce. He also mentioned Sodom.

I was merely responding to the specific statement made. Impute and logicize as you will. If Jesus was silent on a subject, then he was silent on a subject. The statement averred that he was not silent on this subject.

Kurt,

You said, "Impute and logicize as you will." No, if my assumptions are wrong, state clearly they are wrong and tell me what it is you actually believe. Then we can have a dialogue. Just how am I wrong in believing that your contention is essentially that if Jesus is silent on a subject, therefore to you that means either he favors it or he isn't opposed to it? And if that is what you believe, then argue with the examples I've offered above. To say, "If Jesus was silent on a subject, then he was silent on a subject," means nothing in the grander argument. It means nothing because you do not take as valid that either the rest of the New Testament is of the Holy Spirit, which is of God, which is of Christ since God is Triune. It means nothing because the positive statements Jesus himself made on marriage only recognized marriage between a man and a woman. There is nothing else. To say that because he didn't explicity rule out homosexual marriage leaves the door open to either a favoring of it or at least a not ruling of it out is to ignore what Jesus did positively say and give more credence to what he didn't say. That's an argument from silence. If Jesus was in favor of homosexual marriage, he surely would have said so - he broke many taboos in his day and he wouldn't have been afraid of anyone to do it yet one more time. However, homosexual marriage is no mere taboo. It is a perversion, just as homosexual sex is a perversion, an abomination, a sin, and therefore instrinsically evil. Plain and simple. So indeed Jesus was not silent on this subject when you take seriously what he did say. He said marriage is when a husband leaves his father and his mother and is joined to his wife and the (denote the as the only possibility not merely one of many possibilities) two become one flesh. I was merely trying to get at the heart of your logic so as to understand it properly and reveal it for the falsehood that it is. Your statment, "OK, I give up. What did Jesus say about homosexuality, and where are the citations?," to me averred that not only Jesus was silent about homosexuality (which I have proven false) but also that his silence means something to the greater debate, namely that if he had said something explicitly and not implicitly prohibitive then you would be agreeing with me and others in this debate, but because you don't believe anyone can show an explicit statement from Jesus about homosexuality, therefore one cannot assume Jesus was against homosexual marriage, even if he didn't explicitly favor it outright. Where are you going with this in the broader scheme of things? If I'm wrong in my assumptions let's hear it and get to the nub of things.

If there is a Triune God (which we still believe, the last time I checked), then it is the same God speaking whether the speaker is God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. Scripture is God's word, and there are passages in Scripture that directly condemn homosexual conduct. Therefore, it does not matter that Jesus never discussed homosexuality, because God the Father has condemned homosexual conduct. The "Jesus never said it" argument does not hold any water unless you deny the Trinity.

Ben,

God's Word is the Gospel-- specifically that on account of Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection, God promises to forgive sinners. It is not synonymous with all of Scripture, and you'll notice Luther never uses God's Word where he means Scripture or vice versa.

Scripture was certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it was written by sinners. Equating Scripture with God is idolatry at best.

You seem to be saying that Scripture must be bifurcated into Gospel and Non-Gospel; that Gospel is the Word of God and therefore authoritative; and that Non-Gospel Scripture is the word of sinners and therefore not authoritative. Is this what you contend?

I have similar questions, Ben.

Based on the ELCA pronouncement of "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality," the fallacy of non sequitur seems to be that since He did not (directly), and "the Gospel" is just about Jesus, then anything else in the Scriptures other than what appears in red letters is to be relegated to quasi-Apocryphal status.

Yes, I do propose bifurcating Scripture into Gospel/Non-Gospel, though Non-Gospel is more aptly described as Law. Being Christian means that we trust God's promise of mercy to sinners-- the Gospel. If that Gospel is not trusted, we're lost. If that Gospel is trusted, we're saved. That's all the more there is to it. So far as Luther was concerned, spreading the Gospel is entrusted to the Right-Hand kingdom.

So what about that 'non-Gospel' stuff, the Law? If salvation is through the Gospel alone, the Law cannot be authoritative, because that would negate the 'alone'. However, the Law is still very useful. First use is ordering society. Note, though, that we don't try to order society based solely upon Scripture. We don't try to bring back the Hebrew theocracy, we don't insist that we be ruled by a Caesar because Christ commanded us to "render unto Caesar". We don't do these things because these are historic examples of how the Law has applied to ancient peoples. This is not automatically how the Law must apply today. In fact, this is not how the Law applies today, since we are not ruled by Caesar nor do we mandate the purity laws of the Hebrew theocracy. Societies can have different configurations, and these are not automatically more or less Lawful because of how close they come to mimicking conditions described in Scripture. In Luther's words, this is the Left-hand kingdom and entrusted to the secular authorities to carry out. The 2nd and 3rd uses of the Law must be understood similarly. Does it matter if these explanations of the Law were made by sinners, and they might have gotten it wrong? No, because we're not saved by the Law. If the Gospel is wrong, though, we're lost.

Part of the problem is that when we speak of God's Law, we tend to use analogies of human criminal law, and that brings with it the assumption that we can somehow evade the Law. We can't-- the Law is that there are penalties (death) for certain actions (sin). No one escapes that and it doesn't matter what the church claims is the Law-- the penalties of disobedience are obvious-- divorce, adultery, murder, anger, theft.

David, the whole point of Scripture is about Jesus. That's why we're called Christians and we literally worship Him. We take the witnesses we have to His life, and the first generation of Apostles' witness more seriously because in them we have a clearer picture of God's final Word for us. The rest of Scripture still tells of man's relationship and judgement before God (and the coming Promise) though, and that's all very important.

From the Small Catechism, "The Close Of the Commandments":

"God threatens to punish all who break these commandments. Therefore, we should fear His wrath and not do anything against them. But he promises grace and every blessing to all who keep these commandments. Therefore, we should also love and trust in Him and gladly do what He commands."

Where then, do you make the arbitrary definition of what is "Gospel" and what is "non-Gospel?" As I'm sure you know, the Old Testament contains Gospel as well as Law and the New Testament contains Law as well as Gospel. Where do you divide? Who decides? As Lutherans, we accept Luther's taching on the matter. If we cease to accept Luther's teaching, we cannot properly be called Lutherans.

Jesus never repudiated the Law. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Mt. 5:17-19, English Standard Version

If, as you say, "the rest of Scripture" is "all very important," important in what way, and what is defined as "the rest of Scripture," and by whom?

David,

The kerygma of the church is the "arbitrary" definition of what is and is not Gospel. Every Christian should be able to recite what the Gospel is: God's promise to us sinners that we will be forgiven on account of Christ's suffering, death and resurrection. The "rest of Scripture" is the interplay between the Law and Gospel in the life of God's people.

Also, Jesus does speak a lot about Law and it's never good news for any of us. His fulfillment of it, though, is in His death under the Law on our behalf.

Peter,

I find myself to be in disbelief that your arguments go in such wildly offbeat directions. I can't for the life of me beieve that you have studied these matters as in depth as you would have us believe, because nearly everything you say ignores the larger Biblical and confessional context from which it is drawn.
For example you write, "The kerygma of the church is the 'arbitrary' definition of what is and is not Gospel." Huh? So you are now accusing the church (small c would indicate the ELCA - or if you meant big C that would indicate the fullness of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church Jesus founded) of arbitrarily defining what is and isn't Gospel? Did not Jesus found his Church? Did he not grant it the authority to decide, defend, and teach doctrine? Did he not give it his Holy Spirit to lead it into all the truth? Your accusation of arbitrariness suggests that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church completely and furthermore that Jesus never established nor delegated authority to his Church in the first place. Get a grip man!
Then you write, "Every Christian should be able to recite what the Gospel is: God's promise to us sinners that we will be forgiven on account of Christ's suffering, death and resurrection." Amen, brother! However, there is no forgiveness without repentence (see AC 12 and Jesus' kerygma in Matthew 4:17), and no repentence without having a clearly defined moral law that when held up like a mirror shows us our sinfulness such that we know what it is we are to repent of. Furthermore, to trust in the work of Christ for salvation is clearly to also forsake sin and make amendment of life (again see AC 12). So, your kerygma is a bit (I am being generous here) truncated. Until you get this right, none of your arbitrary theology will match what Jesus himself taught or what the Spirit has continued to teach down through the centuries.
Then you write, "The 'rest of Scripture' is the interplay between the Law and Gospel in the life of God's people." That may be oversimplifying things a little, but I won't dispute you here. But isn't it imperative that we be able to clearly define both Law and Gospel so that we know what the first convicts us of, what the second forgives us of and what the second calls us to do as a result of the forgiveness (remember Jesus' words, "...go and sin no more."), which the first guides us in doing. I can't for the life of me see how you cannot see this.
Finally you write, "Also, Jesus does speak a lot about Law and it's never good news for any of us. His fulfillment of it, though, is in His death under the Law on our behalf." Oh to the contrary, Jesus' words of law are surely not the words of forgiveness commonly associated with the "good news" but without his words of law, the knife that cuts into the diseased body to remove the flesh contaminated by sinful deeds, then there would be no opportunity for the salve of the Gospel, the bandages of forgiveness, the healing of Christ's righteousness to have a chance to help us. Furthermore his fulfillment of the law doesn't stop with his death and resurrection. His fulfillment upholds the law such that by his grace he gets involved incarnationally in your life and mine now - working to make us holy here and now (both through forgiveness and through the living out of the righteousness of Christ in our own lives), not just in the life to come. This has a two-fold purpose, to make us fit for heaven, but also so that the kerygma you refer to carries weight with the world. The power of the Gospel looks empty to the world if it does not also visibly change lives here, showing that the power of God's love and mercy redeems lives for his good purposes now such that his power is revealed to be made perfect in weakness, overcoming both sin and evil in this world wherever the Kingdom of God reigns in the hearts of his people.
Peter, you will be an unshakable rock once you get this straight, but until then, I'm afraid you just continue to sink and drown in this false gospel that Satan has found a way to hand to you and get you to accept. I wish I could put it more diplomatically, but as you imply, the law has a cutting edge to it. Its not a comfort. But once you repent of this false gospel, the comfort will be unceasing from our Lord.

Pr Carlson,

I replied to both of your most recent posts way at the bottom to reduce the miles of scrolling that must be done to read everything.

Peter,
Your view does not seem to me to be consistent with Lutheran Teaching. For example, see this excerpt from the Epitome of the Formula of Concord:
"Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm According to which all dogmas should be judged, and the erroneous teachings [controversies] that have occurred should be decided and explained in a Christian way.
"1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
"2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
"...
"6] To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.
"7] In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.
"8] But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned [by what arguments the dogmas conflicting with the Holy Scripture were rejected and condemned]."

"as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living"

That's what the AC is all about. The way in which it is to be understood is with the Law/Promise hermeneutic.

Peter,

It's more like you are taking out your scissors and cutting away anything to do with the law of God and rendering it unscriptural because in your view it has no authority. Excuse me, but there does need to be a premise as to why we need to trust the Gospel, doesn't there? Why do I need a savior if there is nothing to be saved from? And what about where Paul says in Rom. 1:5, "...we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith..."? What is faith, what is trust in Jesus Christ if it has no path to follow him on for life? You make it sound as though the Gospel contains no grace to empower the disciple of Jesus Christ to live a new life. Why then does Paul bother to say in Rom. 6:1-4, "What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."? Paul who is cited by and among Lutherans as the chief source of Sola Fide (faith alone) - even he recognizes the necessity of a grace empowered life that abides by God's law either by keeping it or by repenting (which not only apologizes, but also seeks to make amends where possible and to fight the temptation to sin in the same way in the future) and seeking mercy when failing to keep it. Again Paul writes in Rom. 6:15-18, "What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness." This has salvific consequences as well as consequences for sanctification and for mission. Hear Paul expound on this from Rom. 6:20-22 where he writes, "When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. So what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed? The end of those things is death. (Not death in a physical sense, but spiritual death, eternal separation from God). But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life." Now when Paul goes on to talk in the next verse about the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ, given what has come before, you cannot credibly argue that this same free gift does not have affects of grace incarnationally in this temporal realm nor can you argue that living a holy life by such grace is inconsequential to one's salvation. Therefore you cannot merely trust the promises and live like an antinomian who is unconcerned with their behavior; nor can you merely trust the promises and assume God has no claim on how you live your life and assume that ignoring such a claim does not jeopardize your salvation. To trust Jesus is to follow him. To follow him is not merely to share in the proclamation of the promises, but to seek by the power of God's grace to actually love both God and the neighbor (which one does not only by trusting and sharing the promises God has given, but also by seeking not to offend or injure either God (Commandments 1-3) or the neighbor (Commandments 4-10). One cannot trust God or his promises if he does not also love God and all people. If we do not love any brother or sister, we do not love God (I John 4:20), and if we do not have love for God and neighbor, even if we have faith to remove mountains, we are nothing (I Cor. 13:2) and thus our pretensions to salvaion are nothing as well. Love (like faith) is a gift of grace from God no less than anything else he gives us, but nonetheless, it is a gift we neither can afford to turn down, nor is it a gift we can afford to excercise poor stewardship over.

I shall not use the 2,000 years argument again. In its place I shall refer to settled Apostolic teaching. We do profess to believe, among other things in the creeds, in the Apostolic Church. I assume this to mean that the teaching of the Apostles, like Christ himself, is meant to be the same yesterday, today, and forever. Surely the Apostles (Paul chief among them) were clear on this subject. So how can we simply overturn what has been handed down from one Christian generation to the next as Apostolic teaching? For the Spirit to be doing something new in this case would be tantamount to the Spirit's older doings being wrong. How can this be?

Please understand, my goal was simply to point out one strategy (appeal to 2000 years as a number sufficiently large to imply genuine antiquity) that seems to be favored by traditionalists is, in my view, unconvincing. That does not mean that other arguments offered by traditionalists are equally faulty - they are not, in my view. Many are, taken on their own premises, quite convincing. I simply wanted to critique one that is, in my view, not compelling.

Elsewhere in this Forum, I've offered similar critiques of arguments offered by revisionists which I find suspect. My goal is simply to help both sides, as much as my modest efforts can, clarify their positions so that those trying to make up their minds on this issue have the best arguments available to them.

...thus I said what I said. Perhaps it came off as cynical, but in truth the age of an argument has no greater merit than the youth of an argument. But that it came from the Apostles, now there is something. I stand corrected. Thank you.

At times I wonder if we were only facing the question of sexuality and homosexual practise and were together on all other matters, would we traditionalists be ready to choose another avenue for our collective witness. It seems we keep focusing on this issue as primary. To me it is not what is leading us out of the ELCA.

I believe that in the end what is most disturbing is the drift into liberal protestanism with a lack of focus on the message we celebrate today, Reformation Sunday. What do you think Luther would focus on if he were addressing us? Would indulgences have some kinship to homosexuality but not be the heart of the problem that is threatening us as a church body?

Today one of the co-pastors of our congregation spoke of the one mission only the Church of Jesus Christ has that no other institution will do if we fail to do it. It has to do with what we call first order evangelism, with naming the name. I look at the continuing education offerings of the seminary I graduated from some forty years ago, and it disturbs me how focused almost all offerings are on peripheral matters of human leadership, not on helping pastors and others major in majors.

Paul,

You are correct that the greater issue is the drift towards Liberal Protestantism. My response to Bishop Pederson was largely to reveal the logic that is used to support this latest episode of the drift. In fact, in my Reformation sermon this morning I talked about this drift, and so now some in the pews have intimated that "...well, we don't want the gays to think they are the only sinners, so we need to embrace them too...", which reveals that the drift has been going on so long that since we have failed to stand up to so many other things, now it has become impossible to stand up to the current controversy. My point this morning was that the culture has largely been pushing the agenda for the ELCA and much of Protestantism, that and what I called the culture's Satanic child, "personal desire", which time after time has trumped Apostolic teaching by taking this notion that we are free to interpret Scripture to our liking and throw out anything we have inherited from the Apostles when it becomes "outdated". There is no question but that the current controversy is merely a symptom of something far worse, and many on numerous threads here and elsewhere have indeed pointed this out. I for one couldn't agree more.

Amen and Amen! Carefully check out the study notes in the Lutheran Study Bible for further evidence that our greater challenge is the liberalization of Lutheranism. As the world goes, so goes the ELCA. God have mercy.

With the assembly decisions there are clear actions for all the world to see. What in my last post I pointed to is not nearly as easy to show. It has taken me a number of years and much reading to come to the conclusion that we have a major problem in the preparing of our pastors at our seminaries. For years I refused to admit Luther Seminary, where I attended, could reflect the problems before us. It is becoming clearer to me that indeed it is losing its focus, even as it denies it.

I for one have been profoundly shaped by the teaching of Gerhard Forde and Jim Nestingen. Others are influenced by teachers such as Carl Braaten and others who are Evangelical Catholics and orthodox in matters central to the faith. We hear from them in person or in their writings of the significant theological problems in the ELCA. We know the numbers of professors that support us are low. It is difficult, however, to give the clear picture it would be helpful to be able to paint of the drift that we are convinced is there.

While it is difficult to make the case it is necessary to make, I believe we will have less resistance to our over all concerns if our position is confirmed on these wider fronts. I have friends who are not what some of us call major revisionists in the Jesus Seminar type camp. Many of them do not read extensively, do not focus on theology in depth, and cannot believe we are in any danger on the broader theological front. They also do not see the distancing of our Church from an explicit and central focus on the Great Commission, on the centrality of the exclusive claims of Christ. Pluralism slips in almost under the radar, as it were.

I believe we need to place a whole lot more energy than we are presently exercising on these theological problems. Some of us are saying maybe that can only be done with some separation for a time. Without finding ways to clarify the necessary distinctiveness we will continue to be overwhelmed by the culture that is shaping our sense of who we are and what our mission is.

I am admittedly smiling at the "liberalization" comment only because I am sure the under-current projected by "From the Pew" is related to the fact we are all dealing in some fashion with the "Authority of Scripture" or the "Authority of God." My church organization, the ELCA, has voted its way into heresy, most Lutherans have not. (Simply read the Bible and believe that it is the Word of God, inspired by God and given to man.) The ELCA currently has two tents within it's walls, one is social Liberal Lutheranism and the other is Orthodox Lutheranism. I would suggest that a house divided against itself can not stand. Reform in the ELCA is not possible any time soon, if ever, but a renewal of orthodox Lutheranism most certainly is! To "Parson" Steve Carlson, I thank you for your leadership in the mist of ever present danger.

Pr Carlson,

What do you understand AC28:65-66 to mean, then?

"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."

How is this anything other than throwing out what has been inherited from the Apostles because it is outdated? What do they mean when they state that we must perpetually consider the aim of the Gospel? For that matter, what do you see as the "aim of the Gospel"? Is it to make everyone conform to Scripture?

Blood...
Matthew 15:11
"it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person."

Sexual Immorality...
1 Corinthians 6:18
"Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body."

And as to Blood and food to idols in Acts, there is the Epistles written by Paul that tell us that each of these four "essentials", things to avoid were not four things, but one. They were meant to be read as "never again worship idols by eating with the idolaters in the sacrificial meals, drinking the cup of blood at the idol sacrifice ceremonies, do not ceremoniously eat the flesh of animals strangled during the worship of idols, and abstain from ritual acts of fornication with temple prostitutes". Christians are not to worship idols and otherwise eating the meat is nothing, eating the blood is nothing, changing the AC to acknowledge this does not change scripture. We are still against worshiping idols, including the idol of self, that the sin of sexual immorality and homosexual sexual acts is.

James,

Homosexuals who are married to one another are no more idolators than heterosexuals who are married to one another. Look at the fruits of the relationship (Galatians 5:22-23): love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control

Where do homosexual relationships, distinct from heterosexual relationships, fall short of those?

Peter,

I am impressed that you are so well versed in the Lutheran Confessions that you are aware of this passage in the Augsburg Confession to bring up at this point in the debate. You bring up a good question, however it also brings to light another problem with the current polity (method of church governance) of the ELCA.
To begin, the citation from the Augsburg Confession, Article 28 paragraphs 65 and 66 refer to the question at hand in Acts 15:23-29. Here the governing Apostles and elders of the day did make a decree that was sent to the Gentile Christians of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, to clarify a state of confused teaching that was occuring because some without such authority were teaching things contrary both to central teaching regarding what was sinful but also that which was contrary to the piety of the day. Though we do hear in Deuteronomy 12:23 a Godly prohibition on eating meat with the blood, there is no mention of such being "sinful" or "an abomination" - rather it is in the context of being obedient to God's wishes at the time. This becomes part of the ceremonial and ritual purity laws that Jesus (who is God the Son) overturns (also including eating what is strangled and meat sacrificed to idols). Paul recognizes this in his comments in I Corinthians 10:23-33 (which deals in indirect fashion with eating meat with its blood and eating what is strangled, and directly with eating meat sacrificed to idols). Paul says there,"'All things are lawful,' (quoting what is said to likely be a slogan of the Corinthians in justifying their loose behavior) but not all things are beneficial. 'All things are lawful,' but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other...If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice, ' then do not eat it, out of consideration fot he one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience -- I mean the other's conscience, not your own...So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved." The ceremonial laws and ritual purity laws have been overturned and so believers are free to do what was formerly forbidden by these laws, however, out of concern for the delicate piety of some (that if offended will put at risk their trust in Jesus and their saving relationship with God), primarily among Jewish believers, these specific tenets of the old ceremonial law and ritual purity law are enjoined not because what they prohibit is intrinsically sinful or evil, but so that the faith of the neighbor is not injured. However, the case of fornication is different. Implied under the prohibition against idolatry in the 10 Commandments, fornication is clearly thought to be sin and intrinsically evil. Apostolic teaching corroborates this out of Jesus' own mouth in Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:21 and in numerous other places within the New Testament. Thus the instructions by the Apostles and the elders in Acts 15:23-29 deals both with being careful not to injure the conscience of the neighbor, but also with what is intrinsically evil. The reference in the Augsburg Confession Article 28, paragraphs 65 and 66 confirms this understanding of the enjoined portions of the ceremonial and ritual purity laws dealt with in Acts 15 by saying, "...the apostles...forbade such eating for a time to avoid offense. Furthermore, from the translation of the Latin version, it is stated in paragraph 66, "In connection with the decree one must consider what the perpetual aim of the Gospel is."
What is the aim of the Gospel? Its like we learned in seminary - to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. In other words, to bring sin to light (for who can detect their errors - Psalm 19:12) and then for the pricked conscience, to offer to it the balm of the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation to the repentant sinner.
The implication by your citation of this passage from AC 28 par. 65 + 66 is that just because the Apostles prohibited homosexual sex, that the church is now free to overturn this prohibition, or that the Holy Spirit is free to change it. If the prohibition against homosexual sex were merely a matter of ceremonial or ritual purity law that Jesus overturned, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But clearly it is not. The Scripture, not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well identifies homosexual sex as an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), a "degrading of their bodies" (Rom. 1:24), equating it with idolatry (Rom. 1:25), calling it "shameless" (Rom. 1:27), and citing it as an affront to the natural created order (Rom. 1:26-27). This identification of homosexual sex as sin and therefore intrinsically evil (because all sin separates us from God and condemns us forever to eternal separation from God should it go unrepented of and unforgiven) is in no way compromised because of the most ancient penalty that has since been done away with (namely putting the offenders to death - see Leviticus 20:13). Old Testament temporal penalties for sin do not carry the same weight as the identification of what is and isn't sinful. The former can be changed. The latter cannot be changed, even by Apostles or their successors the Bishops whom Jesus Christ delegated authority to for the proper order and governance of the Church and the defense of right doctrine - all of which is not adiaphora (unimportant and unnecessary) given that the salvation of souls hangs in the balance.
And herein lies the problem with the polity of the ELCA. The democratic vote of the Churchwide Assembly (which was neither representative of God's will as clearly defined in Scripture, nor representative of 2/3rds of the membership of the ELCA, nor representative of the fulness of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church Jesus Christ established which includes all of the Trinitarian denominations within Christendom) cannot be demonstrated to succeed from the authority delegated to the Apostles and their successors the Bishops by Jesus Christ. In addition, except that the Bishops of the ELCA have a pitifully low percentage of the votes at a Churchwide Assembly, there is no authority among ELCA Bishops to decide these matters as Jesus intended (recall it being the kingdom of God and not the republic of God or the people's democracy under God - and further recall the authority Jesus delegated in Matthew 28 and the Council of Jerusalem and the successive ecumenical councils of the first eight centuries of the history of Christianity) and furthermore, as the ELCA Consitituion is constructed, there is absolutely no desire for ELCA Bishops to have such authority. This is no light matter. Doctor David Gustafson of blessed memory wrote a paper that he first delivered at the Luther Academy Lecture Series No. 4 on April 4th, 1997 in Chicago, Illinois, entitled, "The Augsburg Confession and Polity: Where We've All Screwed Up". In this paper he quite convincingly argues that Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession assumes episcopal polity for the Church and not anything other (and certainly not a congregational, democratic, bottom up form of Church polity) because the article says quite explicitly in paragraphs 21 to 26 (from the German translation), "According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest. All this is to be done not by human power but by God's Word alone. On this account parish ministers and churches are bound to be obedient to the bishops according to the saying of Christ in Luke 10:16, 'He who hears you hears me.' On the other hand, if they teach, introduce, or institute anything contrary to the Gospel, we have God's command not to be obedient in such cases, for Christ says in Matt. 7:15, 'Beware of false prophets.' St. Paul also writes in Gal. 1:8, 'Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed,' and in II Cor. 13:8, 'We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.'" Furthermore Gustafson shows that in the Roman Confutation, this particular point in Augsburg Confession Article 28 is not challenged and therefore Rome and the Reformers were in agreement on this point.
So to sum up, the objection you raise Peter does not and cannot invalidate the teaching on what is and isn't sin from either the Old Testament or the New Testament. Items in this category God has never changed and never wills to change. Furthermore, the polity of the ELCA has been at the root of the problem when it comes to the drift towards Liberal Protestantism and it is only a matter of time for other flavors of Lutheran denominations and other Protestant denominations who also lack an episcopal polity (that truly has its authority succeeding from the Apostles and that is exercised in concert with the whole of the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church) who do not as yet have as their policy (whether through local option or as the blanket policy of the denomination) the blessing of same gender unions and the ordaining of persons participating in such unions, to have their doctrine and their policies also move in this direction of Liberal Protestantism.

I wrote, "Implied under the prohibition against idolatry in the 10 Commandments, fornication is clearly thought to be sin and intrinsically evil." I meant under the prohibition against adultery, though truthfully, idolatry would also apply here.

From what I've gleaned from his past comments, Peter believes that the coming of Jesus neutralised ALL of the Law, both ceremonial and moral. That, of course, is in direct contrast to what Luther says in the SC.

He is big on "Gospel," but if there is no Law, what need is there for the Gospel?

To throw out Law and Gospel is to throw out Lutheran theology, period.

I have looked at this www.crossings.org site that he seems to draw much inspiration from and quite honestly it is very strange to me. It seems a lot more like the Unity School of Christianity (remember their TV spots back in the '70s?).

www.unity.org

However, I will stop short of comparing "Crossings" to Unitarian Universalism.

And I have certainly never noted an interpretation of AC4 or Dietrich Bonhoeffer even remotely akin to what he seems to believe, nor the belief that the ELCA is somehow the best around for "the Gospel."

Peter, this isn't a knock, believe me. It's just that it seems to me like this "Crossings" lot are claiming some sort of advanced insight, and, frankly, I don't believe they have it. If I'm misquoting you, it's not intentional.

David and Pr Carlson,

I'm not denying that the Law exists or that it is still applied to us today. We all literally must die because of our sins. The Law is very important for revealing to us where we sin, and we can see the Law's action in just about every segment of our society. Christ's coming does not negate that Law or its action. However, it does mean that fulfilling the Law is not how we please God-- it's trusting God's promise. It is the proclamation of that promise to which we as Christians are called. Execution of the Law lies in the realm of the left-hand kingdom, not the right.

Without the Law, there is no need for Christ's coming. There are many times where we lose sight of the Law and then abandon the Gospel. As everyone here probably agrees, US culture teaches that we do not need salvation because we can buy it. We do need to be voices crying out against this false gospel. However, note that in the case of homosexuals, they are not claiming that they have no need for the Gospel, nor that standard policy should be libertinism.

To more closely address Pr Carlson's points, I totally agree on the importance of stopping false gospels. However, the problem is that the policy against homosexuality is itself a false gospel. The need to correct that false teaching is sufficient grounds for the ELCA to act as it has even if lots of other Christian groups are not in agreement. (and look back to the Trinitarian wars... most of Christendom had completely different views about the nature of the Trinity, and yet they enforced one vision without a 2/3rds majority)

Another problem is that the line between ceremonial and moral law is blurry to non-existant at best. The best definition I can think of is that ceremonial law is that specific to the culture of the time and moral law is that which applies across cultures. Given that homosexuality was understood to be an outgrowth of idolatry back then (and the concept of Jewish homosexual was an oxymoron at best), and our understanding of the origins of homosexuality is different now, that seems to fit cultural law. It may not be just ancient Hebrew theocracy ceremonial law, but Apostolic ceremonial law as well. However, that makes it no less ceremonial law.

In order to understand Gospel Reductionist logic, one needs to think differently.

Here's what I have learned about Gospel Reductionism:

Law, even ceremonial Law, is serious stuff! Left hand stuff, but still serious stuff! In the case of the homosexual, biblical imperatives no longer apply cause they are culturally irrelevant today. If you take these serious imperatives seriously, that's biblicism, and that's a false gospel. So, we need to proclaim God's promise, the Gospel! This Gospel does not nullify the Law, cause the Law is important, cause it reveals to us where we sin. But if we take these serious imperatives seriously, that's biblicism, and that's a false gospel. Therefore we need to proclaim the God's promise, the Gospel! This Gospel does not nullify the Law, cause the Law is important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Got That?!

You can't take the Law seriously enough. There is no fulfillment of the Law by any of us, homosexual or otherwise. The fulfillment of the Law comes through only through Christ's death alone and that has set us free to live as God's children.

The sad truth, Peter, is that your Law/Promise hermeneutic, which drives a wedge between the "Gospel" and the rest of Scripture, makes a tragic error. For it is the ego (sin) that abuses the Law and leads to the legalism that Gospel Reductionism so fears. . . .the same ego that insists that the Law be relativised. Gospel Reductionism's deprication of "non-Gospel" simply robs the hearer of the Holy Spirit. And without this "non-Gospel", the Law can no longer perform its salutary work of driving one to despair, where faith in the true Gospel begins. Gospel Reductionism simply starves the conscience and replaces it with a false gospel . . . leaving antinomian psychopathy in its wake.

Henry,

The Law is not something that can be abused, or really even ignored. It stands regardless of what we think of it, and the consequences of our actions do not change by our perception. The Law does not punish God's good works of creation, but our abuse of them or when we reject them as 'not what we want or think God intends'. Consider how Job in his affliction does not curse God for sending the affliction to him or how Jonah is reprimanded for thinking that God should not save the people of Ninevah.

I find it more than a bit ironic, Peter, that you, as a Gospel reductionist, have strayed off of "AC4" and wish to engage in dialog over books that your camp considers to be of a mere mythic and poetic nature in order to defend your notion that homosexuality is part of God's immutable will.

Be that as it may, let's consider Job. Job is like many who find themselves afflicted with a malady they consider to be caused through no fault of their own. I am quite empathetic of the situation many homosexuals find themselves in. I'm told that many, like Job, have at one time or another cried out to God, "Why me?!" True, Job does not curse God. But after hearing God's accusatory word of Law against him, in questioning God's sovereignty, Job finally repents of his declarations of innocence before God. Is that the theology the CWA offers the homosexual today who cries, "Why me?"

And how about Jonah? Jonah was not P.O.'d at a gracious God who saved the Ninevites. He says that he knew this would happen before he left Tarshish. Jonah was upset at God's methods, which demanded that the Law be preached to them first. Are Gospel reductionists not unlike Jonah, Peter, upset at a God who would insist that his Word of Law be preached to homosexuals prior to bringing them the gift of salvation?

Henry,

My reply is near the bottom of the page so that more of the text will fit on the screen at once.

Peter,

You wrote, "...the policy against homosexuality is itself a false gospel." That's quite an assertion without anything to back it up. Even my synodical bishop who supports your position admits only the spade work has been done theologically on this question, thus further admitting that the "false gospel" you fight hasn't been persuasively shown to be such a false gospel. You claim that the line between ceremonial/ritual purity law and moral law is a blurry one. Again based on what? Need I remind you of what I wrote earlier, "The Scripture, not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well identifies homosexual sex as an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), a "degrading of their bodies" (Rom. 1:24), equating it with idolatry (Rom. 1:25), calling it "shameless" (Rom. 1:27), and citing it as an affront to the natural created order (Rom. 1:26-27). Where is the blurryness here? This is a moral question as sure as Jesus Christ rose from the dead! This seeking for confusion where there is none is a great part of the problem with the argumentation by those who wish us to agree that blessing same gender unions and ordaining persons practicing such is morally defensible, ought not be church dividing, and has no bearing on any person's relationship with God (particularly vis-a-vis their salvation). Assertions of false gospels and of confusion over moral law need something much better than this to substantiate the claims. Furthermore, as I have asserted in another place, Jesus' supposed silence on homosexuality is no basis for argument either. This pays more attention to what he didn't say than to what he did say (the rest of Scripture also being his Word by virtue of him being one person in the Trinity, and the Word of God being found in the entirety of the Bible - all of this notwithstanding). When Jesus talks about marriage he is specific. He identifies humans being created male and female, he says a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and "the two" shall become one flesh. The definite article in front of the number two prohibits any other possibility for marriage and limits it to the heterosexual union. Period, end of sentence. As I and others have said repeatedly, if Jesus wanted to overturn or amend this, he surely could have and was not afraid to do so. He did in numerous other situations. The fact that he didn't ought to be evidence enough for anyone. Until you or anyone else can credibly explain away the above, there is nothing that can be said that can be in any way persuasive to the contrary.
Then, your argument swerves to the "Trinitarian wars", and suggests that because there wasn't 2/3rds agreement back in the day on this dogma of the faith, that if the 2/3rds threshhold isn't reached, that doesn't mean that what was decided by a lesser majority is incorrect. Well, let me start with your premise about the Trinitarian wars. Looking up a neutral source, Wikpedia the online encyclopedia, says of the First Council of Nicea that definitively settled the question of the Trinity as to its truth, "The Council was historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom ...(of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius). So contrary to your assertion, though for a time there was confusion because of many who contradicted what had been passed on by the Apostles - this fully ecumenical council was nearly unanimous in affirming what had already been taught by the Apostles, synthesizing it into a shorthand that we now call the Trinity. This was in concert with the authority Christ Jesus gave to the Apostles to govern the Church and decide questions of doctrine among other things. Again I refer you to my statement above that borrows from the work of the late Dr. David Gustafson, "...Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession assumes episcopal polity for the Church and not anything other (and certainly not a congregational, democratic, bottom up form of Church polity) because the article says quite explicitly in paragraphs 21 to 26 (from the German translation), "According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest. All this is to be done not by human power but by God's Word alone. On this account parish ministers and churches are bound to be obedient to the bishops according to the saying of Christ in Luke 10:16, 'He who hears you hears me.' On the other hand, if they teach, introduce, or institute anything contrary to the Gospel, we have God's command not to be obedient in such cases, for Christ says in Matt. 7:15, 'Beware of false prophets.' St. Paul also writes in Gal. 1:8, 'Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed,' and in II Cor. 13:8, 'We cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth.'" Furthermore Gustafson shows that in the Roman Confutation, this particular point in Augsburg Confession Article 28 is not challenged and therefore Rome and the Reformers were in agreement on this point."
The source of authority to deal with doctrine in the Church matters as does broad consensus. Why? This is the manner through which the Holy Spirit works to guarantee that the errors of men (much less the gates of hell) shall not prevail over the Church of Jesus Christ.
All assertions on the broader question must be grounded in Christ, the authority he properly delegated to deal with these questions, the Scripture he left us that communicates God's will to us, and the Tradition of the Apostles that was passed on down through their successors.
So to sum up, the argumentation isn't there to overturn the Apostolic teaching on marriage or to ordain persons who are in intimate relationships other than one man and one woman marriages - and neither does the ELCA alone (never mind its unrepresentative democratic processes that have little to do with the polity that Jesus established for the Church) have the authority to overturn either doctrine or practice in this matter.
Now, if you or others wish to be persuasive to the contrary on this subject, you must, you absolutely must give me something concrete that can make any dent in the above. Short of that, its time to admit that the traditional teaching is the correct one.

Pr Carlson,

I think you have a view of the Trinitarian wars colored by heavily by the winners. Nicaea was in agreement largely because Constantine ordered there to be consensus and because some of the dissenting bishops feared to attend. Also, if it was really that unanimous, there wouldn't have been much need for the series of anathemas proclaimed against any and all who didn't agree to instantly toe the line. Even then, things weren't really settled there. The council at Chalcedon had to tackle Trinitarianism again. The list of heresies related to the Trinity and nature of God: Arianism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, the constant exile and return of Athanasius... this all indicates that this was not a clear-cut and unified victory.

As to what Christ said about affirming that it must be "one man/one woman", He was talking about one specific situation-- the divorce case before Him. (and making arguments based on the definite article the translator picked seems extremely weak to me-- show how the Greek supports that) Do you believe we should practice Levirate marriage today because when the issue was put before Christ, He accepted it? (Mark 12:18-27). He says nothing about Levirate marriage being wrong, even though that would have silenced the Sadducees instantly. By your logic, if Jesus wanted to overturn this, He should have done so.

The blur between moral and ceremonial law becomes immediately apparent if you recognize both as coming from God. Ceremonial Law was laid down as 'ways to please God', which is essentially what moral law is. Both types of Law carry the same retribution for not living up to it-- separation from God and death. Breaking either law makes one a sinner, and that is a judgement against the entire person. Once you are condemned as a sinner, it doesn't matter what you do; you're still a sinner. It is only through Christ's death and resurrection that we sinners are forgiven and judged favorably in God's sight. That's what makes it such Good News.

Finally, my assertion that denying homosexuals ordination is contrary to the Gospel is grounded in AC4. The two requirements for all things claiming to be Christian is that they must: rely on faith in Christ's death and resurrection alone and only for salvation and that the benefits of Christ death and resurrection must be proclaimed such that devout consciences are comforted. Barring people from ministry on account of being homosexual and married sets the requirement of a specific work that must be practiced in addition to Christ's death and resurrection. It also prevents them from serving the church's mission of spreading the Gospel promise of forgiveness. In contrast, recognizing marriage, which as part of God's Left-hand creation is malleable (who practices Levirate marriage today?) between homosexuals, preaches the Law to them, gives them the protection of marriage and publicly witnesses to their new life together as part of the community. That marriage is born of faith is evident both from the fruits of the Spirit that are witnessed within it and that in such marriages, both partners help each other trust in Christ and proclaim the Gospel.

...is the easy way out for you, Peter.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide concrete examples, with no grey areas, no "might be's," no "could be's," where Scripture speaks favourably of homosexuality. You do not. Instead you fall back on "AC4." Do you think none of us have never read the Confessions, or we don't read them through the lens of your "Crossings" lot? Have you stopped to consider that "Crossings" may be wrong?

... and the devout consciences of the vast majority of Christendom find no comfort in the actions taken at the CWA.

Peter wrote: "Barring people from ministry on account of being homosexual and married sets the requirement of a specific work that must be practiced in addition to Christ's death and resurrection." The New Testament already speaks to that which must be practiced in addition to Christ's death and resurrection: he must be the husband of one wife, self controled, not given to strong drink, etc. The pastoral ministry is not for all people, and it is a privilege, not a right. Those serving in this unique ministerial position should be above reproach, and not living in open, unrepentant sin. But we dare not forget the words in I John: "But if we confess our sins He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins, and cleanse us of all unrighteousness." God can and does change lives.
You wrote: "Once you are condemned as a sinner, it doesn't matter what you do; you're still a sinner. It is only through Christ's death and resurrection that we sinners are forgiven and judged favorably in God's sight." True, but we dare not deny our sin--we are to confess our sin, to repent. "Shall we sin all the more that grace might abound? May God make us a new creation: "the old is gone, the new is come." And may we remember that those sent to train in Lutheran seminaries to "Proclaim the Word" (2 Tim. 4:2) are to be those who, out of thankfulness to God for His great gift, seek to conform their lives and teaching to that which has it's source in God's Word. To continue in defiance to God's revealed doctrines is to be unfit to serve in this capacity. May the lives of those who bear His word point to Him in thought, word and deed, and where we fail, may we beg God's forgiveness--not self-justification in the name of a spirit "doing a new thing."

Rik,

I'm not arguing that pastoral ministry is a right, but that we are denying qualified people the ability to serve in the ministry. Also, it is impossible for anyone to live "beyond reproach" whether a pastor or otherwise, nor is that a requirement for doing God's work. If anything, Scripture makes that perfectly clear between Noah, Moses, David, Sampson, Peter, John, James and all the rest of the sinners described therein. Also note that the description in 1 Timothy ("husband to one wife") also either presupposes that women aren't to be ordained or that the only women who can serve in the ministry must be married to another woman. It also more clearly rules out single people. None of those requirements we hold today, and we do not err when we do so because those statements are not prescriptive for us.

Much as that new creation that God creates in us has 2 arms and 2 legs, in some people it is also homosexual, and that is a gift given to them, just as heterosexuality is given to others, or black and white skins are given as gifts to people.

Peter,

Your basic argument now in favor of ordaining persons who live in same gender relationships is contained in the quote where you write, "...my assertion that denying homosexuals ordination is contrary to the Gospel is grounded in AC4. The two requirements for all things claiming to be Christian is that they must: rely on faith in Christ's death and resurrection alone and only for salvation and that the benefits of Christ death and resurrection must be proclaimed such that devout consciences are comforted. Barring people from ministry on account of being homosexual and married sets the requirement of a specific work that must be practiced in addition to Christ's death and resurrection. It also prevents them from serving the church's mission of spreading the Gospel promise of forgiveness.
Let's break this down into pieces. A) For starters, Article Four of the Augsburg Confession is not about what is required for something or someone to be Christian. Its specifically about the doctrine of Justification (and more specifically in relation to the obtaining of the forgiveness of sin and righteousness as the language of the article specifies). Thus the article says nothing about justifying the ordination of specific persons, nor does it relate specifically the moral question of homosexual behavior. It is limited in its scope to declaring that the obtaining of the forgiveness of sins and of righteousness by the individual is not a personal work, but a gift of God's grace (for the sake of Christ Jesus who suffered, died, and rose again to gain us access to this grace) received through faith, the trusting of God, his promises, and the work of Christ. Having said that, Article Four does not exist in a vaccuum. You might notice there are articles before and after. Article Twelve might be of interest to you. Here it says, "It is taught among us that those who sin after Baptism receive forgiveness of sin whenever they come to repentance...Properly speaking, true repentance is nothing else than to have contrition and sorrow, or terror, on acccount of sin, and yet at the same time to believe the Gospel and absolution...Amendment of life and the forsaking of sin should (notice "should"?) then follow, for these must (notice "must"?) be the fruits of repentance..." Holding these two articles in tandem, you see that saving faith repents, is contrite over sin, seeks to forsake sin and amend ones life in addition to believing the Gospel and absolution! Is this works righteousness? On the contrary, it is all a gift of grace. Yet, there is no arguing that some reject that grace. So we hear the Apostle Paul say in I Corinthians 10:12, "So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall." Peter, you wish to trust in the mercy of a Gospel that has no accompanying law, or at the very least a watered down version of the law such that this particular sin (and perhaps others) are no longer in need of mercy and thus no longer in need of the Gospel. Why bother arguing about trusting in the Gospel if the core of your argument is to persuade me that homosexual behavior isn't even sinful? And if, as I and the overwhelming majority of the Church asserts, that homosexual behavior is a sin, then trusting in the Gospel is a vain exercise if those guilty will not repent. B) Since your flawed premise is that Article Four of the Augsburg confession tells us, "The two requirements for all things claiming to be Christian is that they must: rely on faith in Christ's death and resurrection alone and only for salvation and that the benefits of Christ death and resurrection must be proclaimed such that devout consciences are comforted.", your logic here taken to its fullest extent is the following: If you rely on faith in Christ's death and resurrection only for salvation, and if the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection are proclaimed such that devout consciences are comforted (though what troubles them at this point is anyone's guess) that we can pretty much justify any behavior we want, never mind homosexual behavior or the ordaining of persons engaged in such behavior. Are you serious? That is your understanding of the Gospel? Luther is turning over in his grave. If he knew that this is what his Reformation had come to, seriously, I think he'd renounce it all and go back to being an Augustinian monk. Your interpretation here is absolutely antinomian from any angle you look at it. So, in essence, you borrow one heresy to justify another. Brilliant! C) Then you go on further and say, "Barring people from ministry on account of being homosexual and married sets the requirement of a specific work that must be practiced in addition to Christ's death and resurrection." So here you deny the necessity of repentance as stated in Article Twelve of the Augsburg Confession. Your logic here taken to its fullest conclusion is that there is no such thing as sin, so homosexual behavior among other things needs no repentance much less forgiveness. Trust Christ and do whatever you want, whatever feels good. Jesus won't mind. There's nothing to forgive anyway. What on earth did Jesus die for then? Besides saving us from death, is his saving work not also about making us holy? About makiing us useful instruments for the transformation of the world unto the salvation of others? How can we be holy or be useful to God if we are wallowing in sins that we refuse to give up and cannot even identify them for what they are? D) You further assert, "Barring people from ministry on account of being homosexual and married...also prevents them from serving the church's mission of spreading the Gospel promise of forgiveness." Given the previous logic, such people are prevented from serving the church's mission of spreading the Gospel promise of forgiveness, because they already don't see their homosexual behavior as an impediment to holiness, because they don't see their need for repentance, and because generally they are antinomian in the first place. What's the point of seeking ordination in such a scenario? The Gospel promise of forgiveness is pretty hollow by this point since who would want it if there is nothing needing forgiveness? D) Given that your argument here has more holes than Swiss cheese, and further that you have offered not one iota of evidence where Scripture or Apostolic Tradition has affirmed anything in relation to homosexual behavior and the ordaining of persons who practice such whether in a "married state" or not, I am dumbfounded that you continue to insist that "there is already a lot of theology supporting homosexual marriage", when you didn't even offer any in your last post, much less poor theology. E) At the end of your post you do come back around to your argument and add some other pieces when you say, "In contrast, recognizing marriage, which as part of God's Left-hand creation is malleable (who practices Levirate marriage today?) between homosexuals, preaches the Law to them, gives them the protection of marriage and publicly witnesses to their new life together as part of the community. That marriage is born of faith is evident both from the fruits of the Spirit that are witnessed within it and that in such marriages, both partners help each other trust in Christ and proclaim the Gospel." Here you make an assertion you didn't make at first. Here you assert that because Levirate marriage is no longer in use, therefore marriage as a concept in general is malleable. Huh? Just because you cannot tell the difference between ceremonial/ritual purity law and moral law doesn't erase the fact that both the Old and New Testaments describe homosexual behavior as sinful (and putting it within the context of marriage ain't going to change that one whit). And just how does this preach the law to persons in same gender relationships? By requiring them to be in monogamous, life long, publicly accountable same gender relationships or else they are sinful? By your own earlier antinomian logic, I ask you, how dare you say such a thing? If persons not in such monogamous, life long, publicly accountable same gender relationships simply rely on faith in Christ's death and resurrection alone and only for salvation and that the benefits of Christ death and resurrection are proclaimed such that their devout consciences are comforted, then they are not sinning either, according to your logic. Peter, this is sheer hypocrisy. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. And then you say, "That (same gendered) marriage is born of faith is evident both from the fruits of the Spirit that are witnessed within it and that in such marriages, both partners help each other trust in Christ and proclaim the Gospel." Do you not notice the equivalent to the fruits of the Spirit in non-believers? Wasn't Ghandi patient, kind, etc.? And as far as trusting in Christ goes, which Christ? The one who upholds marriage between a man and a woman - who came not to abolish the moral law but to fulfill it, or the antinomian Christ you offer to us? Likewise the Gospel you claim persons in "homosexual marriages" proclaim is no Gospel because the antinomian Christ sees no sin and thus requires no repentence and need offer no forgiveness.
The rest of the argumentation in your last post avoids the main points of my argumentation in my last post and gets bogged down in minutia that has little to do with anything. Again let us break that down too: I) You write, "I think you have a view of the Trinitarian wars colored by heavily by the winners. Nicaea was in agreement largely because Constantine ordered there to be consensus and because some of the dissenting bishops feared to attend. Also, if it was really that unanimous, there wouldn't have been much need for the series of anathemas proclaimed against any and all who didn't agree to instantly toe the line. Even then, things weren't really settled there. The council at Chalcedon had to tackle Trinitarianism again. The list of heresies related to the Trinity and nature of God: Arianism, Apollonarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, the constant exile and return of Athanasius... this all indicates that this was not a clear-cut and unified victory." So what actually is your point here. Are you telling me that the doctrine of the Trinity is up for grabs here? Are you saying that because there were a lot of heresies over many centuries that were leveled in attack of Trinitarianism that the same is true now, that there are many heresies going against the allowing of homosexual marriage and the ordaining of persons in such "marriages"? In the latter case, the truth of the Trinity was always present in Scripture, just not succinctly boiled down and given a nomenclature for it. That cannot be said for the question of so-called "homosexual marriage" or the ordaining of persons practicing this. Your comparison here is again flawed. If neither of these is what you are trying to argue, then what's the point? II) Then you write, "As to what Christ said about affirming that it must be "one man/one woman", He was talking about one specific situation-- the divorce case before Him. (and making arguments based on the definite article the translator picked seems extremely weak to me-- show how the Greek supports that)." Oy! Sure Jesus was questioned about divorce between a man and a woman. But he quotes from Genesis (that is not limited to this context) to establish what marriage is - lifelong until the death of one, and between one man and one woman). So he supports the teaching of the Penteteuch here. Furthermore, do you know of any cases of homosexual marriage in the days of Moses or before? Do you know of any in Jesus' day? No, I thought not. So what are we arguing about here? That because something didn't exist in Jesus' day, that he couldn't be against it. Again, this is an argument from silence. Has it occurred to you that "homosexual marriage" didn't exist then because God was against it from the beginning? And you want me to show you the definite article from the Greek, eh? Ok. Mark 10:8 "Kai esovtai oi duo eis sarka uiav." Direct translation: And will be "the" two in flesh one. "The two" shall become one in the flesh. Pretty clear to me! The exact same Greek phrase and translation is found in Matthew 19:5. How's that? III) Next you write, "Do you believe we should practice Levirate marriage today because when the issue was put before Christ, He accepted it? (Mark 12:18-27). He says nothing about Levirate marriage being wrong, even though that would have silenced the Sadducees instantly. By your logic, if Jesus wanted to overturn this, He should have done so." Jesus says nothing about Levirate marriage because there is nothing intrinsically sinful or evil about it. It was a custom that still fell within the bounds of one man and one woman until death do they part. Levirate marriage falls on the ceremonial - ritual purity law side of the ledger. This has nothing to do with the argumentation I've asserted where clearly Scripture identifies homosexual behavior as sinful. Again, I point out what I've said on two previous occasions to you, namely that the Scripture, not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well identifies homosexual sex as an "abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), a "degrading of their bodies" (Rom. 1:24), equating it with idolatry (Rom. 1:25), calling it "shameless" (Rom. 1:27), and citing it as an affront to the natural created order (Rom. 1:26-27). I notice you haven't taken issue with these citations, so does that indicate you cannot deny that Scripture identifies homosexual behavior as sin? This is your last chance to tackle this issue. Ignore it again and three strikes and you're out! By the way, the fact that Levirate marriage didn't continue among the Christians from the time of the Apostles tells me that Jesus did overturn Levirate marriage either before or after his ascension back to heaven. It just isn't recorded in Scripture, that's all. You see, one must also be familiar with Apostolic Tradition to get a complete understanding of all that the Apostles handed down to us. Apart from that, one's arguments begin to sound like Jehovah's Witnesses who say that there is no such thing as the Trinity because the word "Trinity" isn't in the Bible. IV) You write, "The blur between moral and ceremonial law becomes immediately apparent if you recognize both as coming from God. Ceremonial Law was laid down as 'ways to please God', which is essentially what moral law is. Both types of Law carry the same retribution for not living up to it-- separation from God and death. Breaking either law makes one a sinner, and that is a judgement against the entire person. Once you are condemned as a sinner, it doesn't matter what you do; you're still a sinner. It is only through Christ's death and resurrection that we sinners are forgiven and judged favorably in God's sight. That's what makes it such Good News." So now, God is to blame for confusing us with ceremonial/ritual purity law at the same time he offers us moral law? You are obviously not a student of these things or you wouln't waste your time making such a silly assertion. Neither New Testament Scripture, nor Apostolic Tradition carry on the ceremonial/ritual purity laws, therefore, it stands to reason that those laws which do not survive from the Old Testament through these are the ceremonial/ritual purity laws that were overturned. There is absolutely no confusion here whatsoever. You are looking to find confusion where none exists. Furthermore you have no familiarity with history here either. The ceremonial and ritual purity laws were meant to set apart the people of God, the Israelites from the rest of the people around them, to maintain a good relationship with God yes, but also to protect the Israelites from the idolatries and perversions of the pagans around them simply by keeping them a separate people. Nowhere in the Old Testament is it stated or implied in any specific case that what is covered under ceremonial or ritual purity law is intrinsically sinful or evil. You do not hear words or phrases or their equivalents like "abomination", "degrading of their bodies", "idolatry", "shameless", "an affront to the natural created order" in reference to the behaviors prohibited by the ceremonial/ritual purity laws. So your point makes absolutely no sense here. Your need to find confusion to justify your argumentation is what is transparent - but there is none. The frosting on the cake comes when you said, "It is only through Christ's death and resurrection that we sinners are forgiven and judged favorably in God's sight. That's what makes it such Good News." I agree with the statement in isolation. However, your earlier points are so antinomian that I fail to see what it is you see that convicts anyone of sin and thus reveals a need for forgiveness, favorable judgment, and thus for the Good News. That's like saying I've got nearly all the money in the world, but good news, I just won the lottery.
Now, I challenge you to deal with the rest of my points as thoroughly as I have dealt with yours. See if you can refute what I have written with evidence to back up your assertions and not mere empty assertions or assertions that have no logical coherence.

David,

The passages referring to marriage also speak to homosexual relationships. In fixating on where someone says 'when a man joins a woman' (which is probably how I'd speak if I was speaking generally, too) as the important part, you're missing the entire purpose of marriage. What purposes does the estate of marriage serve? How do homosexuals seeking to live and love together in communally recognized relationships fail to fulfill those purposes? The Scriptural precedent lies there.

Also, you have to consider the other aspects of our culture that also are non-Scriptural. Can you point to concrete examples, with no grey areas, no "might be's," no "could be's," where Scripture speaks favourably of our representative democracy? Or of halting the practice of Levirate marriage? I think Scripture has some pretty clear things to say about usury, so why do we permit organizations like Thrivent to flourish, or deposit of monies into accounts that bear interest?

Peter:

You have yet to make a convincing argument against the Order of Creation. Legalism is not the point, but you seem to want to argue Law while proclaiming that Law is somehow 'trumped' by Gospel. Christ came to perfect the Law, not overturn it. Nowhere in the Gospels does Christ say, "You're cool -- I love you -- just keep doing whatever you are doing."

God gave us a model for family and sexuality which is heterosexual.

Peter, you are obviously intelligent and well-read. I don't want you to think that I'm attacking you personally, because that is not my intent. What I am doing is attempting a Socratic line of questioning.

And I sure don't claim to know everything. I'm not Stanley Milgram, Emile Durkheim, Martin Luther or CFW Walther.

You do raise some good points about usury (which Luther railed against, and rightly so) and Levirate marriage.

As to usury, I refer to Luther, also with the disclosure that my wife works in the financial sector. I am not the world's greatest fan of Thrivent, actually, since about 10 years ago I tried to get an individual health policy through them and they wouldn't cover me, which is symptomatic of the patchwork that passes for health care in this country. I don't believe that Jesus approves of that, since health care is a necessity.

As to Levirate marriage, though it is no longer mandated in Christianity or Judaism, I can think of instances where similar situations have happened. Navy Captain Scott Speicher, MIA from Gulf War 1991, whose remains were recently found and returned to the U.S. His widow married another guy in his squadron. OK, that's a pretty loose example, and I can't think of a situation, where, if I would have been killed in combat, another airman would have stepped forward to marry the widow of Sergeant Pross.

But Levirate marriage, I believe, as mandated for ancient Israel, had much to do with maintaining the Israelite people's survival and to prevent intermarriage among the people they were surrounded by, who were pagans.

Yes, other Old Testament laws were changed in the New Testament, such as keeping kosher: revoked in Acts 10:9-17 and Mark 7:19b.

However, the proscriptions against incest, bestiality and, yes, homosexual behaviour are not changed by Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, Jude or John of Patmos.

Those are issues of the right-hand kingdom.

Forms of earthly government are issues of the left-hand kingdom, and God did not approve of the Israelites wanting an earthly king.

However, Lutherans have been too often guilty of supporting established governments which are tyrannical based on Luther's interpretation of Romans 13:1-6. Lutherans were complicit in the Nazi regime, but Lutherans also resisted the Nazis (Bonhoeffer) and were instrumental in bringing the East German Communist government down.

Civil unions between homosexuals are issues of the left-hand kingdom. I do not have issues between homosexuals registering as "domestic partners" or being recognised under common-law. However, I am opposed to the Church granting God's blessing on such unions or ordination of non-celibate homosexuals to the ministry of Word and Sacrament, both of which are issues of the right-hand kingdom.

Mixing the two kingdoms is dangerous, and something Lutherans have always wrestled with. I am thoroughly against the fallacy that the U.S. somehow has most-favoured nation status with God, or the myth of the U.S. as an explicitly "Christian" nation (Falwell, Kennedy), which is currently causing some conflict between members of my Sunday School class.

Homosexuals being granted domestic partnerships by the state is not explicitly a Church issue. Marriage/ordination most certainly is.

Gregory and David,

My reply is near the bottom so the text looks better.

How about you simply read, study, pray and comtemplate what the Bible has to say? How about reading what Luther and others have to say about the Authority of Scripture? You may find the Authority you are looking for there.

Steve,

As a former member of the Western Synod of Wisconsin under predessor bishop Robert Berg, one who openly listened to his pastor's concerns, I was dishearted to observe the willingness of bishop Duane Peterson to echo the party line without grasping the deep alienation the CWA voting has created.

Your responses are poignant rebukes of bishop Peterson's interpretation of the assembly actions. I list a several which helped me. This process has not been transparent; real wisdom tells us not to change when the real conversation on human sexuality it just begun; the statements of empathy are difficult to believe from our leaders; captitulation to cultural forces goes unnoticed even as it is talked about; the offense of particularity is an accurate rejoinder to trivializing of church teachings as only policy shifts.

My present bishop in the Western Iowa Synod, Michael Last, is presently meeting with conferences individually to discuss the CWA actions. Our conference meeting of lay and clergy was largely attended by those who are disgruntled. One third of the time was spent listening to a new assistant speak on stewardship. You can imagine how well that went over. The bishop then presented his thoughts followed by only 20 minutes of actual dialogue in the 1 and 1/2 hour meeting. One observation he made was the controversy is only over two pages of the approved human sexuality social statement. He also made the historically dubious and evasive statement that Luther didn't leave the church; the church left him. This was in response to a lay person who lifted up Luther as an example of standing on the true teaching of scripture to leave the ELCA.

I openly wondered at the end of the meeting if he chose to do this conference circuit simply to absorb the heat of the disgruntled, hoping they will calm down in time, accepting the new policies. From my experience it is fair to assume those in favor of the changes will not attend such gatherings. It is also a growing conviction on my part that our bishops are largely incapable of any thinking which is not in sync with the decisions of the CWA, the leadership of presiding bishop Hanson or the processes our synod uses to change historic teachings.

Exactly 10% of the sexuality task force dissented in a minority report (3 of 30). Only one bishop, Jerry Knocke, who just retired, dissented publicly by signing the Confessing Theologians statement. This is 1 out of 65 bishops or 1.5% of the group. The forces of cohesion it seems are much stronger in the conference of bishops than in a task force. Bishops, like pastors, are called to foster unity in the church. So one can understand their reluctance to openly challenge each other, except in closed session, to lend credibility to their calling.

But this lock step conformity among the bishops is as disturbing to me as the decisions themselves. Is there really shalom among them when their responses are predictable party line efforts to keep this insitutionsl shipwreck afloat regardless of the precious cargo thrown overboard? Carl Braaten's observation that Liberal Protestantism takes traditional church language while filling it with new content clarifies the bishops' comments. We are using the same words but speaking another language than they are. We are operating with two understandings of law and gospel and two approaches to scriptural interpretation. How long can we stay together?

This is a very discouraging time for the ELCAs orthodox leaders. It is a time of mourning our losses, wondering if there is a future in this broken church body. Are we being called out of communion or into greater fellowship as a remnant community?

Pastor Lauren R. Ley
Hope Lutheran, Everly, Iowa

Lauren,

Thank you for sharing what is going on in your part of Iowa. I add one other discouragement to that which we've both noted. And that is that after submitting my response to Bishop Pederson's communication to him prior to it being published in my parish newsletter, and after informing him of its being posted here prior to that happening, I have yet to get any response whatsoever. The silence is deafening! One gets the distinct impression that truly there is nothing that can credibly be said in response to the objections I've raised, so rather than make an attempt to show me where I am in error, I am simply going to be ignored. It would appear that perhaps it is better to ignore the fly in the ointment than dignify it with a response and make it seem important when the preference may be for it to go away. I wish I could know for sure. All I know for sure is that it would be nice to have my bound conscience be treated as worthy of an apt response to the objections I've raised. I have been more than fair in my response to Bishop Pederson. I have not gotten personal. But to have almost a month go by in complete silence is very telling. Where now is the Holy Spirit? Where now is the truth?

Henry,

AC4 is the hermeneutic through which all Scripture is read. It does not mean 'throw out the OT and those parts of the NT that we don't like.' It says we must make the God who was incarnate in Christ alone and only, the object of our faith, and we must read the whole of Scripture in light of God's final Word on the matter of human sin.

But to Job. His sin lies in challenging God-- he demands an accounting of God. Note well that Satan never says 'I want to punish Job because he has sinned'. And God demonstrates that this is clearly sin, and one related directly related to salvation in Job 40:8: "Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?" and again in 40:14: "Then I will also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can give you victory." That's what's happening here in this homosexuality discussion. Just as God created all sorts of wild and wonderous things (40:15 and on), He created homosexuality. It's not our place to challenge God and least of all to try to apply God's Law against Him, as Job does.

Also note that Job's repentance directly flows from his encounter with God. It takes the Almighty Himself to change Job. If God had the right to destroy Job-- as the Law demands-- why didn't He? Instead God gives Job new life, just as we are given new life in Christ. With that new life, Job then prays for his friends (and note that it is done without Job knowing of God's intention to restore his fortunes-- he does it because he trusts entirely in God).

I also think your understanding of Jonah is a little back-to-front. It's not the methods that Jonah objects to; it's that he WANTS the Ninevites to be damned. In Jonah's eyes, they are not worthy of salvation because they are sinners. The reason Jonah gives is in Jonah 4:2: "I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing." How do you get 'I wish you could have saved them without me/the Law' from that? Jonah's whole problem with the Ninevites is that they are Gentiles who are not worthy of God's intercession. He wants them to be punished for their sins. Note that when Jonah preached the Law, it wasn't "you did x and y and z" it was "40 days and Ninevah will be overthrown". And again, the first thing that happens is that they believe in God (3:5). All of the rest comes from that belief in God. We have to trust Christ's promise and let that lead us, instead of trying to restrict that into a legal obligation that we can fulfill.

Gregory and David,

I don't think you are (or anyone else here is) personally attacking me. I'm not trying to personally attack anyone here, either. One of the many wonders of Christianity is that we don't have to be Martin Luther or anyone else to proclaim the Gospel. I know I'm not, even if that doesn't always come through in my typing. As you've realized, what I do know, I have learned from the Crossings Community.

Funny that "Orders of creation" come up with the request that homosexuality be fit into it. That's not quite what Luther said. For David, note that Luther's term is "Schoepfer-ordnungen": the Creator's ordainings, not "Schoepfungs-ordnungen": "the orders of creation. The difference is that these aren't orders into which everything and everyone must be placed (ala the Pharasaic 'everything has a place and everything in its place'), but the biographical specs of our lives-- creatio continuit, God's continuing creative power. Scripture itself shows that 'one man/one woman' was not the blueprint for God's chosen people for all time-- note Jacob's polygamy, and even in 1 Timothy the restriction of 'husband of no more than one wife' is for bishops, not believers. Marriage is the place in which we use our sexual desire to enrich, strengthen and uplift the life of another and to provide a structure in which children may be properly raised.

On what grounds do you make 'bestiality, incest and homosexuality' a matter of the right-hand kingdom? It seems to me that the hermeneutic you're using is 'if it's in the NT, it still needs to be obeyed, but if it's only in the OT, it's dispensable'. How do you relate that to the Gospel where things like not wearing mixed garments (Deut 22:11) precede things like no incest (Deut 22:30). Neither have specifically attached death penalities like the intervening virginity/adultery rules. If the guide is 'NT/OT', it seems to me to entirely miss the point of why it's still in the NT.

I do agree with you about mixing the two kingdoms is dangerous (and your rejection of FROGBA--does anyone else see 'In God we trust' printed on our money as idolatrous?), though I think it is precisely the fact that the church has mixed the two kingdoms that is the source of the current problems. Marriage is not of the right-hand kingdom-- it does not get us any closer to salvation or really matter for the Gospel at all. If anything, Paul's opinion on the matter of marriage is that it's best to be single, and only marry as a last resort. The Reformers recognized this when they removed marriage from the list of sacraments. Technically, ordination isn't of the right-hand kingdom either (is it a sacrament?), as it is man's rules on how the church is going to operate (and incidentally, where in the NT do you see ordination like we have?-- the examples I see of authorization to proclaim the Gospel is trust in Christ's promise and healing-- note the syrophoenician woman, the Samaritan woman, Bartimaus the begger, the lepers, other blind people-- it is the lowest rung of society that Christ reached out to, not the learned Pharisees and scribes). Look to Africa, where Word and Sacrament is being administered to many and they are winning large numbers of new people to the faith. How many of those people actually got ordained?

That said, I think it is important for the church, as part of one's community, to make public recognition of life-events of its members and rejoice with the newly wed couple. More importantly, it is an opporunity for the couple to be given support and advice about how they can lead they can live their new lives together trusting in Christ. Also, deciding who can and can't preach the Word is clearly a matter of the right-hand, and in our society, that is closely tied to ordination. Neither of those need to presuppose sexual orientation, though, and marriage is not a requirement for heterosexuals in the ministry, either. As to ordination, I think Matthew 9:37 sums it up, especially in the US today. How can anyone, as a fellow sinner, tell another sinner that they are not good enough to proclaim the Gospel? Especially with the list of witnesses we have to the Gospel: Bartimaus, the syrophoenician woman, tax collectors, paralytics, lepers, the blind, etc. How well would the Gospel spread if, instead of telling people that they had to fit narrow and rigid requirements on how to live, what to do, how to believe, that we invited every single baptised person in this nation to confess Christ and join us in mission? What would the church look like if we all took Luther seminary's mission statement of "promissio, confessio, missio" to heart?

So, then, does the church rejoice if a "life-event" such as a brother and sister deciding to "marry" occurs, as long as it is "publicly-accountable, lifelong," or whatever the ELCA's favourite term du jour is, or if they "honour Christ with their bodies?"

I thoroughly dispute your point that ordination to the Office of the Holy Ministry is not a matter of the right-hand kingdom.

http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ/july-1996/offices-of-the-ministry?page=0,0

No, this isn't an ELCA or Crossings document, so I don't expect you to give it a great deal of consideration.

The only way I can see the Office of Holy Ministry being a not right-hand kingdom issue is that ministers are licenced by the state to perform marriages.

However, administering the Sacraments, preaching the Word, and pronouncing forgiveness are most assuredly matters of the right-hand kingdom.

Peter, the more research I do on Crossings, the more it seems to me to be in line with what is often called "New Thought Christianity," such as the Unity School of Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought

What I have read seems to be more akin to Wayne Dyer or Charles and Myrtle Fillmore than Luther, Walther or any of the other Reformers (Calvin, Wesley).

It is not Lutheran, not as I see it.

David,

I don't think most of those sites fulfill the requirements laid out by AC4-- specifically it sounds like they don't necessitate Christ.

As to ordination being part of the right-hand kingdom, you may be right. However, where's the Scriptural basis specifically for ordination? About all the WELS document does is say "The terminology and the arrangement of the ministry in our congregations has undergone numerous changes since the time of the apostles." With that admission, we have to ask: are those changes important, which means, how do they measure up to AC4? If there's no change in that regards, it's not an important change. If ordination is one such kind of change, it isn't directly relevant to the right-hand kingdom.

Interestingly, I could make almost the exact same statement as Dr Brug, except favoring homosexual marriage: "Though some of the externals have changed, the substance of marriage established by Christ remains the same." Same gender is an external that does not change or alter the substance.

You keep coming back to incest. What fruits does incest bear? Is it possible for a brother and sister to marry and "honour Christ with their bodies"?

Yes, I do keep coming back to incest, and I do it for several reasons.

First, both incest and acting on homosexual feelings are both proscribed by Scripture.

Second, in a behavioural sense, neither is natural to the human system. A man cannot copulate with another man, nor a woman with another woman. I could tell stories about not just mental, but physical, damage done to male bodies by homosexual actions, but it would likely be in violation of the code of conduct on this site (not to mention delicate stomachs).

Nor, I doubt, would the surgeons who have performed reconstructive, reparative surgery to the best of their abilities call it "loving."

Females, at least, are (usually) more gentle, though there are things done between them that I won't go into here.

I would hardly call either "honouring Christ."

Peter, your needle is stuck on an interpretation of AC4 I have never heard before or since, and for the life of me I cannot fathom why. I have read AC4 several times and where you get your interpretation is, quite frankly, a mystery to me and will remain so.

Scriptural basis for ordination? Start with the Apostles that Jesus chose to be His disciples. Then there is St Paul...and of course your namesake (though of course I don't know if you were named for him, any more than I after the ancient slayer of Goliath and King of Israel). "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church," meaning the rock (petros) of Peter's confession (though our Roman Catholic friends of course believe that Christ was referring to Peter himself).

Scripture does not say that any of them were in a "committed, long-term relationship" with someone of the same gender. John Shelby Spong has cooked up a hypothesis in his book "Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism" stating his belief that Paul was a homosexual. Such a hypotheses, to be charitable to the Bishop, is at best, deeply flawed and would not stand up under any line of questioning logic (Platonic, Socratic, Aristotelian).

As for incest, well, old son, you tell me. You have stated in the past that you believe that "some" incestuous relationships were "not sinful."

So, tell me: what relationships were those, why were they not sinful, and how did they "honour Christ," if they were indeed not sinful?

David,

Homosexual relationships are not free from sin. In fact, they're exactly as wrapped up in sin as our heterosexual relationships. There are things done between heterosexuals that is not honoring Christ with ones'd bodies. That doesn't mean that all homosexual sex is going to be violent or abusive any more than all heterosexual sex is violent or abusive. Like with heterosexuals, proper education and love are both needed to help sexual partners honor each others' bodies. I think moving past the 'all homosexuality is evil' to the issue of 'are there specific ways in which homosexuals are more/less prone to dishonoring Christ in their relationships' is an important step to take. I don't think that end has been as well worked out as it has for heterosexuals, largely due to stigmatizing all homosexual relationships.

As to incestuous relationships that may have not been sinful, I leave that open mostly in theory. I have not observed any, and I do think that the vast majority likely were inherently sinful. Back in the middle ages and such times when marriage was done almost entirely for politics and not out of love, I'm not as convinced incest was any worse than any other marriage. In cases where two relatives, brother and sister, for example, are separated early on, later met and married without ever realizing their consanguinity, I think it's possible that the relationship isn't inherently sinful.

The Scriptural basis for ordination as you lay it out is not for ordination so much as for discipleship. Christ's call to the disciples is 'follow me', and that's what we're all called to do. Similarly, if ordination is based on Peter's* confession of the Gospel, everyone confessing the Gospel is ordained. I think that's an interesting idea, but very contrary to the current way the ELCA is run.

Scripture doesn't talk much at all about the disciples' family. Would their witness have been any different if they were homosexuals, bisexuals or transgendered? I'm not aware of any evidence that Paul was gay, but how would it have changed his message if he were? Would he have proclaimed Christ crucified any less ardently? Would he be any more of a sinner?

*I was named for Narnia's High King, and would have been Lucy had I been born female.

I am well aware of abusive heterosexual relationships. In this field, you see a lot, and you learn to develop a detachment that can border on aloofness just to not get drawn into it yourself.

However, a great deal of the bodily damage I am talking about is not due to intentional abuse. It is due to trying to make the human body do things it was not designed to do. I won't go into it further because I don't want to sick anyone out.

If what I have laid out regarding ordination is more orientated toward discipleship, would that not fall under Luther's "priesthood of all believers?" And, indeed, to take your model of ordination being a "left-hand kingdom" issue, where it's more like just another professional calling requiring a high degree of training (such as my own) where sexuality is not really an issue (unless the patient is uncomfortable with a clinician's sexuality, and that MUST be respected, meaning said clinician will almost inevitably recuse him/herself), then why not do as some denominations have and have NO clergy (Christian Science) or have completely untrained clergy (some fundamental Baptists and Pentecostalists)?

As you say, that is not the way the ELCA is run, and in that I heartily agree with you, but for different reasons.

With the disciples, you are again operating in grey areas of conjecture and hypothesis, in the realm of "would have." All we can know for certain about the disciples is what is recorded in Scripture, and there is no record of any of them being homosexual, despite Spong's assertations.

When dealing with Scripture, we must deal, as Luther did, with the "plain sense," not hypothesis; i.e., "what IS," not "if" or "would have."

David,

Heterosexuals can injure each other because they are not aware of the limits of the human body either or because one person is willing to do that, and another willing to take it. Sex is painful for a lot of women. Look at all of the sexual myths that people believe about their bodies. We also push our bodies beyond "what they were designed to do" in a whole host of professions, and going beyond "design specs" can be done in the service of Christ. Take the example of a person, who with a burst of adrenaline, lifts a car off a passerby. That feat has extreme consequences for the lifter. Or when someone tries to muffle the explosion of a grenade with their own body, or drops on the barbed wire to let his comrades cross. It's not just the physical injury, but all of the other injuries combined. There are sinful homosexual relationships just like there are sinful heterosexual ones.

I think what you laid out does fall under the "priesthood of all believers", though I think the consequences of 'we're all priests' is something the ELCA ought to consider and nurture more fully. Trained clergy do serve a useful role, but I think we tend to get lazy and leave all the priestly stuff to them.

I think the sexuality of the readers is part of the 'plain sense' of the Scripture. Asking 'how would things be different if this detail is included/excluded' clarifies the importance of that detail in those situations. What would the ramifications be for our faith if Christ had stoned the woman caught in adultery? What are the consequences of removing the letter of James, or Galatians from the NT? Or throwing out the OT? Or counting the Gospel of Thomas as canon? These questions aren't important for 'I wish we used the Gospel of Thomas' so much as they get at why James is part of the NT and Thomas not. We don't know about most of the disciples' sexuality. I don't think any of the disciples were 'out' homosexuals because I have seen no evidence for that. Does it matter, though? How would the Gospel promise be different if Paul was gay, or Luke gay or Theophilus gay? I don't think it changes anything.

Pr Carlson,

AC4 is exactly the heart of Christianity because it pertains to justification. As you lay out Justification: "more specifically in relation to the obtaining of the forgiveness of sin and righteousness as the language of the article specifies" this is the heart of Christ's salvific mission. The Gospel promise is one of forgiveness to sinners on account of Christ's death and resurrection. The other articles of the AC reflect on how that Promise relates to various other aspects of life and society. Speaking of AC12, note the order in which it is laid out: "yet at the same time to believe the Gospel and absolution...Amendment of life and the forsaking of sin should then follow, for these must be the fruits of repentance". Trust in Christ comes first, and that trust in Christ cannot help but lead to an amendment of life and the forsaking of sin. The point AC12 is making here is that it isn't enough to say 'I'm baptized, I can do what I want' or 'I'm repentant, so my sins are forgiven', but rather that you must put your trust again entirely in Christ and not in your ability to repent.

As to the absence of the Law, I think we need to be mindful that in Genesis, the fruit man is commanded not to eat is 'knowledge of good and evil'. God's Law prevails regardless of whether or not we acknowledge it. Certainly, those who do not see God's Law see no need for repentance. However, this is not the case with homosexuals. They see and feel the Law as much as everyone else. They do need to repent of their homosexuality just as much as we need to repent of our heterosexuality-- that is where we all fall short of using God's gifts in trust and love. But homosexuals CAN use God's gift of homosexuality in trust and love as much as heterosexuals can use God's gift of heterosexuality in trust and love.

When I say 'faith in Christ', it does not mean 'I said some magic words and now I can do whatever I want'. Faith in Christ is trusting His promise, and living our lives in that trust. Can you really murder someone while you trust God's promise through Christ? Look at what Matthew says about faith in Christ in 7:17-18: "every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." That's not should not. That's cannot.

Antinomianism is specifically denying God's threefold use of the Law. I do not deny any of the three uses, though I will say that the third use must be addressed to the old adam within us, not the new creation in Christ.

Sin is laid out pretty clearly in John's Gospel in 16:9 where sin is not trusting God or His promises. It is opposition to God, and when we trust in Christ we will repent of our opposition to God. But note that repentance always follows from Christ, not as a prerequisite to Christ. Christ died because we cannot overcome our sin or turn from it. It is only through His death and resurrection that we are freed from the curse of the law. Christ does fulfill all of the Law (not just the moral law) when He dies to that very Law, though He is guiltless before it. I do agree that Christ makes us holy specifically because He dies on our behalf. However, it is solely Christ that does so, and not our practices. Hence all of the Temple purity laws are rendered meaningless with Christ's coming. Our purity does not derive from what we do, but in Whom we trust. I think Scripture has a number of answers to your question: "How can we be holy or be useful to God if we are wallowing in sins that we refuse to give up and cannot even identify them for what they are?" Noah, Abram, David, Moses, Sampson, Peter, Paul, John, James, etc, etc.

You also keep trying to make a distinction between ceremonial and moral law, as if one does not condemn and one does. That ceremonial law holds the full weight of God's condemnation as surely as any 'moral' law. The purpose of all of the laws is to give us a means through which we can be a holy people of God, upright and blameless before Him. That doesn't work for any of us. We are not a holy people of God, but rather sinners. We don't get partial credit for keeping some of the Law, but we need to keep it in its entirety (and 'love one another as I have loved you' not only sums that up, but ensures that we all fall short of God's glory).

If you could show that homosexuals (or anyone) living outside of a "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous relationship" was doing so in faith in Christ, we would have no grounds on which to deny them ordination. However, I doubt that such a relationship is lived in trust of Christ.

I think you misunderstood my comment about the 'arbitrary' kerygma. My point with the quotes is precisely that we don't have an 'arbitrary' kerygma. However, you're getting repentance and faith back-to-front again. Setting repentance as the requirement means that if we don't know what we are to repent of, we're damned. That sets knowing our sin as something we MUST do in order to be saved. That's no longer faith in Christ alone and only, but rather original sin-- knowing good and evil. The Law does diagnose our sin, but the healing comes from Christ. We CANNOT repent of all our sins on our own-- if we could "forsake sin and make amendment of life", we wouldn't need Christ. Is the syrophoneician woman aware of all her sins when she comes to Christ on behalf of her daughter? Or does the paralytic come with a complete list of sins? Their faith is that they trust Christ will make it all better. And Christ does. The same is true of us sinners. We need to reach out to Christ in supplication, and in His mercy, we receive healing. With that healing, we are sent out into the Kingdom. Note, though, that homosexuality is one of those gifts that God has given some people and that it can and is used to encourage and help another trust in Christ and love their neighbor as much as heterosexuality is.

It's interesting that the woman caught in adultery comes up. Is 'Go and sin no more' an invitation or a command? Do you think she never sinned again following that encounter with Christ? One focus of that story that is underappreciated is the sequence of events. Where is repentance in that story? The woman is caught in the act, and when Christ speaks to her, does she say she's sorry? And yet Christ forgives her. It is that forgiveness that transforms her life so that she can go, trusting in Christ.

When you say "His fulfillment upholds the law such that by his grace he gets involved incarnationally in your life and mine now - working to make us holy here and now (both through forgiveness and through the living out of the righteousness of Christ in our own lives), not just in the life to come.", I do agree with you completely. However, I think preceding statement of "his words of law, the knife that cuts into the diseased body to remove the flesh contaminated by sinful deeds, then there would be no opportunity for the salve of the Gospel, the bandages of forgiveness, the healing of Christ's righteousness to have a chance to help us." does not do justice to the full weight of the Law. The only way the knife can cut the diseased body to remove the contaminated flesh is by cutting the throat. There is nothing holy in us and we are judged in our entirety as guilty before God. We aren't 'almost justified' before God, but sinners who deserve to be entirely cast into Hell. Christ is the reconciliation that turns that completely around such that through Him we are justified before God and declared innocent.

Peter,

You do not and apparently will not address the main point, that Scripture clearly defines homosexual behavior as sinful. You call it a gift from God. Based on what? Given your arguments, I am willing to concede you are not antinomian, but your definition of grace is much like the "cheap grace" Bonhoeffer described. The promise of forgiveness does indeed come first, but by grace, not to respond in repentence is to reject God in Christ Jesus out of hand. God has made it plain what is and isn't sin. That law is written on our hearts according to Scripture. We cannot plead ignorance, even if we wanted to. That's why I say you seek confusion where there is none. Show me solid evidence in Scripture, show me solid evidence in the Tradition of the Church that has authority what it is and where that homosexual behavior is unmistakably declared by God to be a "gift" from him. If you can do that, without arguments from silence, without arguments of speculation, then you will have converted me to your side of this argument. Short of that, this discussion is over.

One of the marks of an antinomian is the attempt to sidestep, nullify, or pre-empt God's Law with a false grace, thereby putting God to a foolish test. Peter's Law/Promise hermeneutic emerged when Elert, et al, resurrected Walther in order to develop a purer Gospel. The appeal of Gospel reductionism is that it seems to offer a solution for those who would use the Law to earn their salvation. Unfortunately, G.R.'s are very poor students of Walther, Luther, the Confessions and Christ.

For example, Peter contends that repentance is a "requirement", a work that we "must do", and therefore, should never be placed before Christ (grace). He fears "knowing good and evil" calling it "original sin." Something to avoided or shunned.

But our knowledge of good and evil, though tainted by sin, is actually the Law written upon the heart. If I am correct, then that Law within the heart must also, according to him, be suspended without any guidance from Scripture so that "gospel" can get there first. In essence, Gospel reductionism is simply a reversal of the Law/Gospel order which ends up nullifying our God-given and spirit driven conscience.

The ELCA is in a state of mass confusion over this fundamental Law/Gospel order. Here is Walther's THESIS VII, which Gospel reductionists originally championed, but inevitably violate:

The Word of God is not properly divided when the Gospel is preached before the
Law; when sanctification is preached before justification; when faith is preached before
repentance; when good works are preached before grace.

So when G.R.'s such as Peter say, "repentance follows faith", they are telling us that they are not only antinomian, they're anti-conscience!

Henry,

Knowing good and evil is rebellion against God because it tries to set ourselves in His place. In fact, this is the very point with which Bonhoeffer opens his Ethics-- that knowing good and evil is not the goal of Christian ethics and furthermore that such knowledge is an attempt to be God's equal.

Conscience is a useful tool, but it doesn't tell us the whole story about ourselves-- if it did, we wouldn't need Christ's death and resurrection. I'm also not clear on how you think the Gospel promise can "beat" the Law to anyone; we all live in a broken world judged guilty by God. To a great extent those who believe that they can save themselves don't see a need for the Gospel, which makes sense, except that they can't save themselves. In these cases, proclamation of the Law can serve to drive sinners to Christ. But to the broken and the suffering, they already know the Law... look at the syrophoenician woman or the woman caught in adultery. Does repentance occur before or after Christ's healing?

The other problem with your 'repentance must come first' is that it denies the power of grace. Christ isn't just here to help those who help themselves. He reached out to the lost, the poor, the broken-- those who could not help themselves. Does a doctor ask the patient for the diagnosis? Also note that Christ never says 'your repentance has made you well'; He always says 'your faith has made you well'. Faith must be the core-- this is Luther's breakthrough. He tried repentance first and it didn't work for him because he didn't trust God's Promise.

Why do the Confessions, Luther, and Walther all condemn as antinomian the inversion of the Law/Gospel paradigm, which you champion, Peter? It is because this approach does nothing but change sinners into victims. But Christ came to redeem sinners. True repentance has never been an end, but the beginning of faith. Remove the conscience, Peter, as you do when you place absolution before confession, and we're no longer guilty of anything. Pride gets off Scott Free! We're simply victims in a bad situation in desperate need of some cheap grace to our individual, self-centered predicament. G.R.'s disdain for that which they imagine to be some sub-gospel "requirement" is misguided. It's an attempt to protect that which they deem to be the poor, the broken, the lost, who now need no Savior from sin, cause they've all been absolved preemptively! Who now is attempting to be God's equal? Unwittingly this approach aids and abets the Evil One. For the life of the Christian is daily repentance, born of a Law that crushes the pride of both the legalist and antinomian, whose hearts can then be truly free to cling to the true Lamb of God.

From my old favourite Concordia Self-Study Bible:

"Any serious study of Scripture must recognise Law and Gospel and must distinguish between them. To omit either one or to confuse the two invites a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Preaching the atoning ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ without first proclaiming the sinfulness of the human race is an exercise in folly. The Gospel MUST (emphasis mine) be preceded by a proclamation of the Law, which shows the hearers their need for a Saviour, who has released them from the guilt and punishment of their sinfulness. Preaching the Gospel apart from law results in a diluted, shallow, emotional message. Likewise, to proclaim the Law without the comforting truth of the Gospel can offer no assurance to a troubled conscience."

Peter,

You write, "Knowing good and evil is rebellion against God..." Then why does God give us his law? So we can rebel against him? C'mon, Peter! It's so we can repent. But your statement says we ought not concern ourselves with knowing what it is we should repent from. Now you are back in the antinomian soup.

I'm still waiting for the concrete, non-argumentation from silence, non-speculative argumentation supporting that God affirms homosexual relationships in "committed" contexts, and therefore the ordaining of persons in the same. You can't do it can you? So you dance around this better than Muhammed Ali did in dodging his opponents punches. The problem is, that your dancing is outside the ring my friend, and there you get disqualified.

I'm not trying to put Gospel first. What I'm saying is that in some cases, the weight of the Law is already felt and known. Did Christ first preach the word of Law to the woman caught in adultery? In many other cases, people need to hear the word of the Law to drive them to Christ.

God uses His Law to preserve creation, diagnose our sin and execute the sinner. We are charged with upholding that Law insofar as we are agents in His left-hand kingdom. The right-hand kingdom concerns itself with the Gospel-- the redemption of those sinners. There's no denial that we're in the business of redeeming sinners, that is, Law-breakers. However, when we trust in Christ, we fulfill the Law in its totality by virtue of faith in Christ. There is no more need for knowledge of good and evil because we have our trust fully in God and it is only when we do not act in faith that we sin (Romans 14:23). As we still live in the penultimate, we continually fall from faith in Christ and return to living under the law and sin. Hence the need for daily repentance in the life of the Christian-- we must daily put our trust anew in Christ and let Him transform our lives.

Back to Scripture and practices today and then. Jesus affirmed Caesar's rule ("Render unto Caesar", not "render unto the IRS"), yet we don't agitate for one today. Lending money at interest is specifically forbidden to Christians, yet I'd wager most congregations and individuals keep their money in interest-bearing accounts. Abstinence from blood is another requirement that the Apostles themselves ordained, and yet was lifted by Luther's time. Early Christians could be polygamists, or the admonition in 1 Timothy that bishops should have "no more than one wife" is meaningless. Levirate marriage is also something that is now a thing of the past, despite Christ's approval of that. Paul specifically upholds slavery and the Roman Imperium. Women are considered second-class citizens. Or even to get back to that piece David posted, even WELS acknowledges that the face of ministry has changed tremendously in the last 2000 years. Marriage is no different. The important question is that of substance. What is the substance of marriage and how does affirming homosexual marriage change that substance? Romans 1 places homosexuality as a direct result of idolatry. Can you show how a homosexual couple is committing idolatry when a heterosexual couple in a similar situation is not? 800 years ago, marriage in the early teens was normal. If you were 18 and unmarried, you were in serious trouble. Polygamy was normal for God's chosen people for quite some time. Where in Scripture is there any commandment specifically against that?

The problem is that it seems you want to read the Bible as a rule-book, a list of things to do and ways to act through which you will be made holy. That makes Christ just one more rule to follow instead of THE rule to follow. Instead the Bible shows us Christ and how His coming changed the world.

Peter,

No evidence yet.
When you write, "...when we trust in Christ, we fulfill the Law in its totality by virtue of faith in Christ. There is no more need for knowledge of good and evil because we have our trust fully in God and it is only when we do not act in faith that we sin..." - what I would like to know is, what do you define "trust" or "faith" as? How does one trust Christ if one disobeys him willingly and on purpose? How does one follow Christ if you cannot discern where Christ is leading? And since the words from Jesus' own mouth are the only ones so many in this debate will trust, what do you do with, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.", (Matt 7:21) - a statement that comes near the end of the Sermon on the Mount, which is a long series of dos and don'ts?
Finally, you charge me and others with reading the Bible like a rule book. Let me ask you a few things. Do you presume that the changes that you note that have come since the time Scripture was put to paper were decided by individuals, congregations, communities or by the Church as a whole? Do you recognize the Church, and the Church alone to have the authority to make these changes? Why or why not? Can the desire for anything, if it becomes more important than our relationship with God, become a false idol? If God through the authority delegated to his Church prohibits homosexual behavior as sinful, does this mean that the Church therefore is saying (and presumably God is also saying) that in order to trust God one must forsake such sinful behavior? If all one needs is trust in God to validate one's choice of actions, then do you find the solution in the article in the recent "Forum Letter" that fecitiously advocates temple prostitution as a solution to getting more young men in worship to be an acceptable solution? How does one draw the line when discerning what is faithful and what isn't? Is it based on personal preference or opinion? If so, isn't that antinomian?

Peter,

Does anyone, including the Church have the right to decide that what was once considered sinful is no longer sinful (I'm not talking about changes in customs that were not previously considered sinful)? If so, then how can people in previous times be held to account for committing sins that are no longer thought to be sins?

Pr Carlson,

I think Luther has a pretty good explanation of faith in his intro to Romans as translated here: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt

Disobeying Christ is not the same as doing something proscribed in Scripture (say, simultaneously wearing wool and linen, or homosexuality). Matthew 7:21 in particular should fill everyone with terror since we all, including and sometimes especially us Christians, fail to do the will of God.

To your questions. I think many of those changes were mostly the work of culture, though where individuals started certain religious traditions, they deserve credit. The early church fathers, for example, and the Reformers for another directly shaped Christian thought, but they did it from the culture in which they lived and their ideas gained acceptance because people who lived in culture identified with them. But, if we do believe that the Church alone has the authority to make these changes, the stance on homosexuality has been changed. If you really trust the authority of the Church, homosexuality should be a non-issue now. There are 2 problems with thinking it also takes the agreement of Rome or some other denomination to properly count as "the Church": women's ordination and the Episcopalians/UCC, not to mention MCC or the various other smaller denoms.

I would agree that the desire for just about anything can become an idol when it becomes more important than our relationship with God, though I think you're getting into very dangerous territory when you equate what the Church says with what God says. That's the primary sin of the Roman Catholic church. Our witness is that God's final Word on the problem of human sinfulness is Christ's death and resurrection.

Temple prostitution does not further trust in Christ nor would the people attending service be worshipping Christ. The examples of faith we have are present throughout Scripture, most clearly in the life, suffering and death of Christ.

To your addendum of whether the Church can claim anything that was previously considered sinful is no longer sinful, our witness from Scripture is a resounding yes. Most of Galatians and a lot of Paul's other writings against Judaizing Christians is arguing this very point. Christ argues this very point with the Pharisees and Sadducees as well. If the law is that a woman caught in adultery is to be stoned to death, why is Christ's response "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? Given that Christ IS "he who is without sin", why didn't He cast any stones, when that is precisely what the law (and Christ's explanation of the law right there) called for? Why was the judgement God executed on that sinner 'neither do I condemn you'? Isn't that antinomian?

Peter,

Jesus didn't say adultery wasn't sin, recall he said to the woman "go and sin no more". The choice of Jesus not to condemn was being merciful, not antinomian. Antinomian would be to say that adultery is what faithful people do, or that its ok for faithful people to do it. The ceremonial/ritual purity laws that were overturned, were done so by Jesus (God the Son) himself. He has that authority. But he didn't overturn moral law. Nothing of moral law had changed until the middle of the 20th Century when Protestant denominations began fudging on things like abortion, living together before marriage, etc. Again the churches representing the vast majority of Christians have not gone in that direction. And yes, I do propose that Christendom as a whole needs to work out these decisions - Jesus established his Church and his Church is not equated with the ELCA alone. Supposedly the Reformation was intended to bring the Church back to its foundations, not revolutionize it or begin a sect that taught things contrary to what Christ and the Apostles taught. The arguments in favor of homosexual behavior in "committed relationships" and the ordaining of persons in such relationships is new, it is contradictory to what has always been taught since Apostolic times. Luther himself would not go along with your arguments.
Now - to the point - I'm still waiting for the concrete, non-argumentation from silence, non-speculative argumentation supporting that God affirms homosexual relationships in "committed" contexts, and therefore the ordaining of persons in the same. Where is it, Peter?

Peter has made statements in past postings that would point to a belief that the ELCA is, indeed, THE Church.

He has made statements that other church bodies "do not have the Gospel," or similar words to that effect; i.e., the LCMS, Roman Catholicism, etc. I believe he bases this largely on their policies on homosexuality.

He has also made statements that those who leave the ELCA for other church bodies will somehow "leaven" those denominations with - again! - "the Gospel." This is patently untrue. My wife and I will be rejoining the LCMS before the end of the year. We have made our final break with the ELCA. We will not be trying to bring any sort of "ELCA leaven" to the LCMS. Actually, we are glad and relieved to be in a church where both Law and Gospel are preached and the Scriptures are not parsed and "re-thought" to support a secular point of view.

I earlier used the analogy of when I joined the Air Force. I certainly didn't join the Air Force believing that I was going to influence its practices in any way, shape, or form. If I had been foolish enough to believe that, I would have learnt very quickly on my first day of basic training with a sergeant the size of Darth Vader with a personality to match screaming "PROSS, YOU ARE REALLY STARTING TO **** ME OFF!!!" two inches from my ear.

OK, the LCMS isn't the Armed Forces, but I think the point is illustrated. We will not be trying to "leaven" the LCMS. We will be becoming part of the LCMS, and of course the wider Church Catholic, where the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments are properly administered.

Peter, I'm not sure if I read you right on your views on "the church," but it seems to me that you have been perhaps too much influenced by Crossings.

Do you believe that rulers have the choice to not apply the law when they feel like it? If that is the case, law becomes whim which can change in an instant. It's hard to say that God's Law is eternal, when it wasn't applied in that particular instance. Mercy is not an option left under the law with its retributions and rewards.

As to "ceremonial/purity" laws that were overturned, circumcision was done by Paul, not Christ. You also want to divide the law into 'ceremonial' and 'moral' when they are one and the same. When Paul says that we are free from the Law in Galatians, or when Ephesians affirms that, they do not qualify the types of law. Our life in grace is governed by an entirely new ethos which comes from faith in Christ. It is no longer 'ethos under law', but rather 'ethos under grace'.

As to exactly what 'Christendom' entails, I will recant earlier statements that it is only the ELCA or a fraction thereof. The presence of hypocrites or those who lack faith in Christ does not destroy the collective Church, and when speaking of the church catholic, it is wherever the Word is preached and sacraments rightly administered. I do think it is a testament to Christ's power that those in the LCMS among other denominations may come to faith in Him.* If you really want all of Christendom to decide on the homosexuality issue, though, perhaps we should take a step back and reconsider women's ordination or marriage of priests. Would there even be as much debate over staying/leaving if the LCMS ordained women? As a church that affirms the Lutheran Confessions, we acknowledge that true unity can only come in Christ, and cannot support things that try to lure us away from Him. The Augsburg Confession and Apology especially lay out how the RCs of the time were luring man away from faith in Christ. Today, some would set homosexuality as a stumbling block in the path of faith in Christ.

Look over on the "An Analogy between Heterosexual Remarriage and Homosexual Marriage?" page at the link I posted at the bottom. That is another way of looking at how acceptance of homosexuality is required by Scripture.

*homosexuality is actually a minor aspect of the larger issues with those churches, David. They don't generally have the proper Law/Gospel distinction, and in the case of the Catholics, they tend to make an idol out of the church. Out of curiousity, where do you now stand on women's ordination?

I have never particularly advocated for women's ordination, even though my wife and I were married by a female minister (not Lutheran). We have told this to LCMS clergy (about the minister who married us), and they don't have a problem with it. As with most churches, people come into the LCMS from a lot of walks of life, so we're certainly not the only ones.

However, I can tell you that there are those in the LCMS and smaller synods who do equate homosexual ordination with women's ordination. Go visit www.lutherquest.org.

>>I do think it is a testament to Christ's power that those in the LCMS among other denominations may come to faith in Him.<<

What is that supposed to mean?

If you see ordination as a right-hand matter, then yes/no on women's ordination means the LCMS has a different gospel than the ELCA, even leaving all other issues aside. How do you reconcile that change? Have you been in error on women's ordination all these years?

If ordination is a left-hand matter, then allowing openly gay homosexuals to be ordained does not change the important business of the church, namely proclaiming the Gospel. Without that, all of the rest of the CWA2009 sexuality resolutions are more descriptive than anything else. I think it's stumbling in the right direction, but it doesn't really go anywhere that previous CWAs haven't already.

What I meant by my other statement is that even in churches that proclaim a false gospel, the true Gospel can shine through to some individuals in that church. For example, even though Roman Catholicism proclaims a false gospel, not all Catholics buy into that proclamation. What the church says does not guarantee what the members will believe.

Remember, I spent the years 2001-2007 in the LCMS (after four years in the ELCA). During that time, I found that beliefs in the LCMS are not as monolithic or uniform as I had been led to believe (or that many in the LCMS would like them to be). At least two LCMS pastors I spoke with at length (one of which became my pastor) confirmed this.

That is largely why there are no other Lutherans in the U.S. except for the American Association of Lutheran Churches, who do not have altar and pulpit fellowship with the LCMS. In Canada, only the Lutheran Church-Canada does, and that is because they were originally part of the LCMS.

With the Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Synod, etc., further on the right and the ELCA having veered sharply to the left, ironically the LCMS is probably the most centrist of U.S. Lutheran bodies, along with the AALC. Some think that good, and others do not.

There are differing factions in the LCMS.

www.day-star.net

www.voicesvision.org

www.reclaimingwalther.org

www.lutherquest.org

If you are as well-informed as I believe you to be, you will be aware of the names Herman Otten and Jack Cascione.

My former pastor described the LCMS as "an aeroplane with two right wings."

As to my own stance...I came from an unchurched background and had to find my own way.

There are those in the LCMS who believe that the issue of women's ordination to be adiaphora, those who believe it to be an abomination on the level with the decisions the ELCA has made on homosexuality, and those who believe somewhere in the middle and/or it's not a blip on the radar.

Although I have known several fine women who held pastoral office (including the one who performed my marriage, and who was not Lutheran), I have not been entirely comfortable with the concept theologically.

There are more than you may think in the ELCA who are not comfortable with it, any more than they are with homosexuality. There are congregations who will not call a female pastor, but will probably not say so due to synodical and denominational sanction.

If you base your (Crossings?) views on "the gospel" chiefly as a matter of homosexual issues, then you will find any other church but the ELCA to have a "different gospel," except for the United Church of Christ (with whom I look for a possible merger with the ELCA), the Metropolitan Community Church (with whom I look for the ELCA to open full communion talks) and some dioceses of the Episcopal Church. Even the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCA sister church) has not gone as far on homosexuality as the ELCA (with some exceptions, Canadians tend to retain a British sense of cautiousness).

Such a view I find, at best, illogical.

David,

I've had fairly limited contact with the LCMS. One day I want to go to one of their churches and see what happens, but that's still something for the future. It doesn't surprise me that there are factions, but I'm not familiar with them. Reading some of Jack Cascione's writings were surprisingly similar to some of what's been said about the ELCA following CWA, especially fears of immanent collapse of the church body because it has done something that means it now holds false doctrine. But then, it sounds like Cascione also thinks Seminex was one of the worst things that happened to the LCMS.

I still do think the ELCA is actually the most centrist of the Lutheran bodies. As you say, there are churches that would never call a woman pastor, and probably a fair number that share essentially identical beliefs with either WELS or the LCMS. On the other side, there are clearly universalists within the ELCA as well as proponents of cheap grace. This view that the ELCA is "veering left" comes largely from where you're standing. If you're already right of center, any move towards the center or beyond is "veering left". Of course, I think Lutheranism is more properly neither left nor right nor center. It should be pointed up to Christ instead of down to Satan and his traps of biblicism and universalism.

My view of the Gospel is not based on homosexuality, though it has become apparent that homosexuality is a decent acid test for conservative biblicism. I believe it to be rooted in the Reformation, and be the Gospel proclaimed by Luther, Melanchthon and others. The issue during their time was one of hermeneutics-- how to read the Bible. Their Catholic opponents could quote Scripture as easily as they could and tried to use Scripture to justify their position. Looking through the Bible, it's clear that the church's opponents have always been able to ground their position in the holy writings. I think Paul's case is the most clear. One faction said that in order to be Christian, you had to keep the entire Law, which includes circumcision and kosher requirements. Paul disagreed and said that Christ's coming was something entirely new-- it was not just another gimmick to help someone be justified under the Law. Paul uses the hermeneutic laid out in AC4-- that we are only justified through faith in Christ's death and resurrection alone to show to his opponents that his view is rooted in Scripture. Christ Himself also used that hermeneutic-- how many challenges do the scribes and Pharisees bring to him? They always know the Law, yet Christ still confounds them because they don't recognize the Gospel.

Speaking of gospels, the ELCA tends to hold a false one as well, though I think it makes more room for the freely-coursing Word than others. It does tend to veer towards biblicism on the left or the right except when it's universalist. It's not entirely surprising, since as a human institution, the church is also twisted by sin. Because of that, we are called by Christ to be the light for the world, which involves correcting our church bodies when they stray from the Gospel as well as reaching out to the lost, poor and broken. For all that I hold Catholicism up as a great example of a false gospel, there are plenty of Catholics who recognize this and do try to fix their church. Which brand/flavor of church you have isn't as important as you being rooted in the Gospel. And once so-rooted, it leads to trying to help ensure that your whole brand/flavor is rooted in the Gospel.

Peter, I have to admit that I don't understand where you are coming from sometimes (and don't fall back on "AC4").

You are a cheerleader for the ELCA much of the time, yet you also say that the ELCA holds a "false gospel." What is it you WANT? What do you call "true Gospel?"

If you're so locked into the Crossings view that it becomes your only view of "the Gospel," I am truly concerned for you, both as a Christian and as a behaviourist. Such traits are symptomatic of cultism, and I don't throw that around lightly.

On another note, if you keep insisting that the ELCA or whatever body adopt your (Crossings?) view of "the Gospel," you are likely to be quite disappointed.

David,

The ELCA is a heterodox body. Universalism and biblicism are the two main -isms that have taken root, and we need to stay away from them, and stay with the proper Law/Gospel distinction. That sexuality social statement is a good example. In the first part of it, they do manage to explain Law/Gospel theology, but in the second part they don't make any use of it. It is based on other premises as well, and in those criticisms of the social statement, I do not disagree with others here. However, I think it gestures vaguely in the right direction, which is better than gesturing vigorously in the wrong direction. While it is my hope that the ELCA (and the entire world for that matter) does "get it", I don't expect it to happen, on account of my sin and others'. The big problem is that we're sinners and in bondage to sin. Unfortunately we will squander the gifts Christ has given us, so we need His mercy all the more. As I've said before, the big strength in the ELCA is that it leaves room for the Gospel.

Organization-wise, left-hand details can change all they want and we can organize our church how we want so long as it does not impair that right-hand task the church has been given. Some configurations of organization, though, are not compatible with the Gospel, such as those that enforce organization by power of the sword. I think the Law/Promise language of Lutheranism most clearly reveals God's Promise, and there are certain inherent problems with the "language", if you will, of other denominations, like Calvinism or Catholicism.

The Gospel is that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, and though He knew no sin, took on our sins, died on account of them, and was raised from the dead. Out of mercy for Christ, God promises to forgive us sinners. That promise alone is our only hope. Anything more is what I've been calling "gospel plus", where additional requirements are added on for salvation. Anything less is putting our trust in a false god.

Peter, if you mean by "getting it," that Christendom adopts your Crossings theology, then I find that quite disturbing.

Thank you for your letter Pastor Carlson. I wish ELCA members would know what their church leadership is doing. Everyone should check out http://www.exposingtheelca.com. And pass it all to everyone in your email contact list.