1920’s President, silent Calvin Coolidge, was a man of few words. When he returned from church alone one Sunday, his wife asked him what the sermon was about.
“Sin,” silent Cal replied.
His wife pressed him for more. “Well, what did he say about sin?” she asked.
“He was agin it.”
That pretty much summed up the essence of the sermon, and the same can be said of Lutheran CORE. What is CORE all about?
They’re agin it, and the “it” is the perceived sin of their bogeyman, the ELCA.
The Lutheran CORE March newsletter was out on the 17th. Seems they could have waited a few days and called it the April issue. The newsletter contains eleven articles, and four of them are about Lutheran CORE while the point of the other seven is to criticize the ELCA.
What do they say about a group best defined by what it is against?
Oops. S/B “1. Jesus refers to heterosexuality because it was normative. He nowhere changes the OT judgment on homosexuality.”
@Tony Stoutenburg
Interesting. I don’t characterize your statements in any kind of emotional category. Why are claiming mine are “angry?” I may be direct and blunt because I don’t feel the need to sugarcoat what I’m typing out, but that doesn’t mean I’m “angry.” How presumptive.
3) Oh, my “dated, feminist screeds against Paul” are too much! Oh, darn. The man was a misogynist. It’s a fact. There were plenty of cultures around the world circa 36 AD that weren’t misogynist. If that fact is too much for you, then oh well. “Was it a life altering experience that turned them from a life that conformed to their idea of the law toward a life where they would even describe their own righteousness as skubala?” Where they would even describe their own righteousness as s***? (For those unaware, “skubala” is the Greek word for s***.) Really, that’s part of the question you’re asking me? According to you, I’m “angry” and you’re posing rhetorical questions whereupon you ask whether or not someone would describe “their own righteousness as [s***]?”
1) I realize Jesus didn’t challenge the OT laws on it. I’m not disputing that. How many times do I have to state this: Jesus DID NOT CONDEMN homosexuality.
2b) At what point have you used the word “choice?” Technically you haven’t. So I suppose you have your alibi that way. However, no one who genuinely believes that homosexuality is NOT a choice would state, as you have above to Kelly, that “Actually, the science is far from settled.” So, if you DON’T believe homosexuality is a “choice,” then please state so for the record instead of playing the semantic game of “I didn’t use that word.”
2a) Let’s remember the correct order of events regarding my mentioning of Near Eastern/Nestorian/Jacobite/east of Jerusalem churches: I made it in reference to Paul and his apostolic authority. YOU made it about homosexuality. I decided not to engage beyond that point since based on everything I’ve seen you write on Obie’s blog, you seem completely unfamiliar with what they had to say on anything.
But since you made such a point with your statement, “I asked you if you can show evidence and you *deflect* by asking me if *I am* looking of evidence,” I’ve decided to help you out and let you become better acquainted with those who could actually read and speak the same language as Jesus. The quote below is from Solomon (Shlemun) of Basra in the 1220s, a church that was twice as old as the Lutheran church is now when this comment was made and whose history is contiguous with the early church and members of Jesus’s family having lived within its boundaries.
If you make the jump and read the entire passage via the link above the quote, you’ll see for yourself that the quote I just provided was a refutation in regards to something Paul wrote. So, as I said above when I first mentioned the Near Eastern/Nestorian/Jacobite/east of Jerusalem churches, not everyone in the early church adhered to what Paul wrote.
Second, basically, Solomon is saying that those who take the Bible literally are stupid, just in case you missed it, because the Bible is a complex text. The effects of someone’s sin are determined/measured by how it brings down his (or her) life, i.e. one needs to think spiritually how sins shape one’s destiny. So a happy, married, gay couple, who live in a relationship where they love and support one another, would NOT be sinning. For what is it that would bring them down? That they are gay? A gay man who marries a woman he does not really love and is not attracted to and secretly hates himself for living a lie would be the sinner. Because likely, at some point, he would face a reckoning within himself on who he really was as a person.
It’s a completely different mentality when compared to those who preach about any kind of “unrepentant sin.” Because those who preach that certain people are “unrepentant sinners,” even beyond openly gay individuals, are consumed with saying x always equals sin rather than looking at the context and totality of someone’s life and actions.
Tony,
Please explain what you meant by the following statement: “Penultimately, you have betrayed your complete abandonment of Scriptural sexual ethics when you include “BT” in your list of the afflicted who need to be included. We have been assured that this is about loving monogamous lifelong relationships. I will ask you the question I have been asking for 15 years that no one can answer: what is lifelong, monogamous bisexuality?”
This suggests to me that you don’t even know what the terms “transgender” and “bisexual” mean when applied to actual transgender and bisexual human beings, yet you don’t hesitate for a moment to bear false witness against these children of God. I could be wrong though, and I hope I am. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Sorry for the miss step Tony.
@ Ray, Np
________________________
@ Ann The question of definitions is one that I have been asking for YEARS. My comments which you cite were intended to simply point to the B, not the T, because, I have no idea what a T is. (That was unclear, sorry.)
I once asked Pr Jeff Johnson (on an email list) of 1stLC/SF to define T, and he said he could not, because it was used differently by different people.
Wiktionary defines transgendered as what we used to call “gender identity confusion” (dated term, not intended to sound insulting) AND as what we used to call cross-dressing AND as what we used to call pre- and post-operative trans-sexuals. Wiktionary now describes bisexual in strictly attaction terms. (I quote Wiktionary because I suspect it may be the most current in terms of public vernacular,) but the other dictionaries online vary regarding B from discussions of botany to attractional to behavioral. I tend to use the behavioral definition of bisexual (following Aristotle: you are what you do repeatedly) and Scripture, which condemns lust and coveting, but (at least in the OT) punishes only behavior.
++++++++++++
@ Brat.
First, it ‘sounded’ angry when I read it; I am sorry to have presumed.
3. I do not remember if it was Ray Brown or the L-RC Dialog that declared that RC scholars generally regard some the the worst of “Paul’s” statements against women to be later glosses. Also, 1 Cor 7:4 and other places represent a pretty enlightened mutuality.
I preached on Phils 3 this week. Paul says all his own righteousness is skuluba (and no, I described the word, but didn’t actually translate it in church.) And he is bragging about how righteous he was in human and legal terms. I think that is how we are all to view our own righteousness, or else we are liable for the whole of the Law. It is a pretty Lutheran argument, I think.
Based on (what I perceive to be the strength of) your reaction to this, I really wonder if we do not have radically different frames of reference, what Thomas Sowell describes as the Tragic vs Utopian Views of Human Nature. (Summarized here: http://ben.casnocha.com/2009/10/tragic-vs-utopian-view-of-human-nature.html and I reference in particular the quoted paragraphs in the middle; I am not presuming to be able to define all your other views.)
2b. The science on attraction IS far from settled. So is the science on reparative therapy. (I know, Obie, you disagree.) I will grant you this: behaviors are a choice.
2a. You wrote “Let’s remember the correct order of events regarding my mentioning of Near Eastern/Nestorian/Jacobite/east of Jerusalem churches: I made it in reference to Paul and his apostolic authority.” That is true, but you made it in reference to Paul’s apostolic authority not being authoritative in matters of homosexuality. That is why I asked for a reference on that topic. It seems now that your distrust of Paul extends well beyond that. (I think; I do not with to presume.)
Thanks for the info on Solomon of Basra. My knowledge of the Eastern churches pretty much drifted away. I am, BTW, not a literalist or an inerrantist.
Again, I have not used the term “Unrepentant sin” nor have I referred to anything like it. (That is not a semantic argument.) Repentance is something God works in us, not something of our own doing.
Finally, regarding your last phrase, calling for “looking at the context and totality of someone’s life and actions.” This strikes me at first (and second) reading as a sort of works orientation that borders on … well, can you explain it to me in Lutheran sola gracia terms?
I am not sure how much I will be able to respond in the next couple days. My day job, plus a book chapter that is due, plus Holy Week coming up, plus smoothing over a misunderstanding with NALC folks, plus, I have to go wreck a church this week*.
(*That last one is that I am presenting an LCMC informational meeting at the invitation of a church council elsewhere in Wisconsin, an act which some of my classmates regard as destructive.)
Blessings, TS
While I grant you that research into the eitology of sexual attraction is far from settled, the scientific and medical community are very clear when it comes to reparative therapy. It is nothing more than snake oil statistics riddled with a healthy dose of self loathing.
Just because a group like NARTH declares it so, there is no scientific evidence that reparative therapy is effective. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that such “therapy” is harmful. The Spitzer study is beyond flawed, yet groups like NARTH continues to cite it as science.
Some of the flaws and conflict of interest include:
In 2009 the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded:
Quite frankly, such therapy often includes reinforcement of internalized homophobia. Not exactly a positive form of therapy for someone who wants to work through their feelings. Here, take a heaping dose of self-loathing and guilt and call me in the morning.
Is this “Christian-based” promotion of a “cure” nothing more than a kinder and gentler repackaging of homophobia? Instead of the de rigueur denouncement and proclamations of moral bankruptsy and social corruption, is this ex-gay movement just another way of creating an artifical stratfication of the just and the wicked. Sure, we’ll take you, you are saved only if you repent and change your (wicked) ways!
In my opinion, it is no surprise that GLBT teens have a higher rate of depression, anxiety and suicide. Being gay/bi/transgendered doesn’t seem to be the cause of this depression, anxiety and suicide attempts. It seems that the institutionalized marginalization continues to foster guilt and self-loathing. How can you feel good about yourself when people in position of authority (and who really wants to contradict their clergy–talk about going outside the comfort zone) condemn them for merely being who God made them. Talk about the having the deck stacked against you.
Not to be glib, but isn’t it time that mainstream Christianity be part of the solution and not the problem and realize that the world isn’t 100% heteronormative and that people who deviate from the classic heterosexual stereotype are normal human beings? Enough with the codifcation of sin.
That is why I embrace the 2009 CWA’s statement on sexuality.
Tony, you surely are having fun stirring the pot. I wonder what we would actually catch you doing if we really knew you.
Back when I was a kid , I went to the Luther League convention at Fargo Moorehead. I was really saturated with all the Lutheranism there. Since that time though, I have been wondering why all the clergy had to/have to dress up and process like European royalty. One of the nicest church services I ever went to was with a group from our church in SE.Wi. We sat on a hilltop and just praised God in the glory of his creation.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Dude, save your self some typing and click the “reply” portion of the Reply | Quote option. It’ll make responding to three people in one comment more clear.
Oh, ha ha ha! You apologize for “presuming” and then state throughout that you’re not “presuming” what I believe and such. Is that your attempt at sarcasm?
My original question to you was this: “But since you accept [Paul] as inspired by the Holy Spirit, would you accept two lesbians married to each other who both felt the call to become pastors also as inspired by the Holy Spirit? Why or why not”
And you responded with this:
I did not ask for you to judge them. I asked if you would accept them as inspired by the Holy Spirit in their calls to become pastors. If your questions such as “Have they seen Jesus to confirm their ministry?” and the “skubala” one are your version of a litmus test as to whether or not you would accept their call by the Holy Spirit, then just say so. I did not ask what you preached about this week in your sermon, and this has nothing to do with a “Tragic vs Utopian Views of Human Nature.” I asked whether or not you would accept their call to become pastors. A pretty straight forward question. If you do not know, then just say so and leave it at that.
Oh, it’s about the science on “attraction” now, eh? And “behaviors are a choice.” I notice that you chose to not answer my question directly (So, if you DON’T believe homosexuality is a “choice,” then please state so for the record…), but instead to play a semantic game again and state that “behaviors are a choice.” Dude, I have a degree in psychology, and I can tell you that defining “behaviors” isn’t as clear cut as your statement demonstrates. Even still, you have slim to no evidence backing you up on your statements. Beyond that, Kelly’s remarks are right on. But I would still recommend you take the time to watch this series by Andrew Sullivan on homosexuality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWds0_jVL4&feature=related
Again, I made that in regards to Paul’s apostolic authority in general. YOU decided it was in regards to homosexuality. Again, why are you even bothering to make these remarks on whether or not I “distrust” Paul? I made a factual statement that not everybody in the ancient Christian world considered Paul to have the greatest apostolic scholarship. Is that a problem for you? Does that strike at who you are as a person so much that you have to keep bringing it up? If so, are you that insecure that you have to make another crack comment about “presuming?” What are you, fifteen?
Someone else used the term “unrepentant sin.” That’s why I used it. But since you made note that you haven’t used the phrase as of yet, do you believe that a married gay couple in the state of Massachusetts is sinning by being two gays married to each other? If so, would you call them unrepentant in their sin since you stated that “behaviors are a choice?”
You’re not a literalist? That’s funny, because I clearly recall you stating earlier that Jesus “nowhere changes the OT judgment on homosexuality.” Because if you weren’t a literalist, you would be able to note that marriage in Jesus’s time was not made on grounds of love. It often was made on producing children and maintaining social order as brothers would have to marry their brother’s wife if she became a widow. Not something practiced in our current society as I’m sure you’ve noticed. Neither is polygamy, except for Mormons, which was practiced in Jesus’s time. So Jesus’s statements regarding marriage have to do with how marriages were conducted in his day, not a condemnation of homosexuality as I keep having to point out.
Dude, there’s a saying about not being able to see the forest for the trees, have you heard of it? I posted a quote which said:
Then I gave TWO examples of gay people. And you’re left wondering which dogmatic box (Lutheran sola gracia terms) the phrase “looking at the context and totality of someone’s life and actions” fits in? Seriously? Because x does not always equal sin that’s why. You clearly want to codify sin because it would be easier for you to stand up and say that x is always sin instead of looking at the big picture. (I guess that does make your job easier since it would require much less thought.) If you can’t see the difference that a gay man living a lie by pretending to be a straight man and secretly hating himself for it is like the stone falling to earth and that a the happily married gay couple is like the air that rises, then I don’t know what else to say to you. There are plenty of kids who can pick up on the difference between those two examples with that metaphor quite easily.
@Lilly
If you’re curious, you can read his blog right here.
Thanks HOB. I looked. Maybe Tony should be a journalist. He is a good speaker and is quite convincing. I don’t agree with his views but then he is entitled to them and I don’t have to agree with him. Maybe he and his friend here should run for political office. As I tell my husband when he is cussing the football teams, maybe he should be the coach.
I heard Tony speak and shook his hand . My hand didn’t fall off. He will be in NE Wisconsin this week selling LCMC. He has a right to do that . I think some of this LCMC is a backlash towards the liberals and the big push started (here) when Obama got elected. Looking at his blog kind of confirms that.
@Lilly
You’re welcome! I think that we’re currently living in a time where a lot of social changes are taking place, sort of like the 60s. Lots of people are ready for the changes and think it’s taken way too long to get to these points while others are 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
@ Lilly : you wrote “I heard Tony speak and shook his hand. My hand didn’t fall off.” Wow. High praise.
@ Brat : I am apparently not answering your questions, and you are celebrating your refusal to answer mine. Not a lot of point in talking past each other. I thought we had respectful conversation going here, and you prefer insult.
I get it. You guys want to talk in an echo chamber. Have fun. A dios.
@Tony Stoutenburg
And which question of yours did I fail to answer? I just reread the comments thread and couldn’t find any. So please, point it out to me. You’re still more than welcome to respond.
It seems to me that, just as Lilly said, you’d just rather have fun stirring the pot in your responses rather than just answer simple questions, so you’re just giving yourself a rhetorical excuse to exit by stating the above. Because when I didn’t answer a question of yours on the previous comment page, you then stated, “I asked you if you can show evidence and you *deflect* by asking me if *I am* looking of evidence? LOL.” But I still responded to your questions after that and continued to do so.
But you don’t want to answer mine, because you just want to play semantic games whereupon you can almost state things such being gay is a “choice,” but stop just shy of it because you won’t type out the actual words and instead resort to statements like “behaviors are a choice.”
When some one asks you a simple, direct question along the lines of “would you accept two lesbians married to each other who both felt the call to become pastors also as inspired by the Holy Spirit?”, you’d clearly rather not answer directly because you can then meander off onto other topics such as your sermon from last Sunday.
Honest, direct answers are too hard apparently.
You love it here. You know you do. 😛
@Tony Stoutenburg
I think what I am saying is that God didn’t strike me dead for disagreeing with you. The whole issue has been very difficult for me.
Here’s the deal, Tony, I hardly think we want to speak in an echo chamber. We want to have a dialog, and not be spoken at or dismissed out of hand as 1) feminist screed Just because the Lutheran Church has a long and storied history of white male privilege doesn’t mean it’s a valid fallback for when the debate involves gender issues. 2) being dimissed as an angry (read: hysterical) woman whose emotions overide reason. This may be presumptuous of me, but please see above about white male privilege or 3)the ultimate use of the moral superiority card: The Dreaded Eight Commandment Violation. Flinging the Eight Commandment around is not a Get Out of Jail Free for debate. It doesn’t automatically devalue the other viewpoint. Quite frankly I see it tossed around pretty liberally, and when I see it stamped in a debate, I tend to think the person making the accusation is not listening and is just claiming moral/intellectual superiority.
For a lot of people are very uncomfortable disagreeing or challenging figureheads of authority–teachers, managers, physicians, clergy, etc. Lilly alludes to it above. And it has taken me nearly 40 years to feel comfortable with the concept. But in the case of faith, I hardly see it as a one-way dialog or a didactic where a pastor claims the high ground and everyone else is wrong, misguided or misinterpreting the bible.
We can split hairs about the Bible as infallible or inerrant. But at the same time if we assume it is the only roadmap for us to find God, isn’t that a very cynical view of faith and Christianity. Isn’t that admitting that God stopped speaking through his people two thousand years ago? Where has he been during that time? He gave us the ability to reason and strive for a moral existence. But I like to think he is more dynamic than that, that he continues to speak through us to this day. It is this premise that keeps me from becoming an absolute Deist.
So, no, I hardly doubt anyone here wants to talk in an echo chamber. This certainly isn’t mutual adoration society. But we want it to be a conversation, not a one-way didactic. By the nature of this blog, it will attract those yearing for progressive approaches to Christianity. Some of us are very disillusioned with what you joke was “destroying a church” because, for some of us, that is exactly how it felt. Not all of us want an orthodox (definition varies) view of Lutheranism or Christianity. But that doen’t make us apostates as CORE wants us to believe. The Lutheran tradition is hip deep in guilt–both inflicted and self-imposed. I suspect some of just want to shed that unneccsary and undeserved guilt and try to get to know God a little better.
Kelly, I agree. I am still a member of the LCMC church because I haven’t figured out where I want to land yet. I looked up the Tomah churches and if I am right about the one you might belong to , it is just a bit larger than this one. That makes a lot of people who are being led. Time will tell how this will play out. Keep healing the sick and listening to people’s heartaches if you are a MD. We each have our own ministry and often it isn’t sermons. Right now I am looking for where I might be headed next with mine.
Lily, our final vote is in three weeks. We will either remain an ELCA congregation with a lot of healing to do, or our church will sever ties, and there will be a lot of families looking for a new spiritual home. It sounds like there will be a mission congregation starting if the motion passes and we leave the ELCA. I’ve never been a part of building a church from the ground up, so it is terrifying and exciting at the same time. Have you considered calling your Bishop’s office? Ours has been such an amazing source of support and pastoral care. They may be able to help you find either a new congregation to call home or put in you contact with people in your area who are in the same boat. It’s comforting to know that there are forums like this out there. Liberal theology is not a dirty concept and it is wonderful know that there are other likeminded Christians out there.
Yes, I am going two ways right now. There is a group that is a SAC, Synod Authorized Church and I am working with them some of the time. My husband grew up in the local UCC church and we have gone there a couple times and he is singing with the choir. I just haven’t decided which way to go and I am also waiting to see if there will be any ELCA churches left within easy driving distance. The church at Gays Mills started as a mission church when I was a kid so I am not really afraid of doing that. If the ELCA has the money, they should be able to help support for at least 2 years. At least that is the what used to happen. If you have a number of younger members with families to serve, there can be a lot of excitement getting it going and seeing it grow. The SAC has 25 or so people showing up on a Sunday and varies somewhat in who attends. The money taken in goes to the synod right now and they pay the pastor. I think our bishop said that they would like to see 40 families within a couple years but I don’t know the exact time line. Getting things like rotational Sunday School can be a challenge at first but if some of you know how to do it, it shouldn’t be a problem. I just retired as our church librarian but am still pretty current on the DVD’s and other materials out there. Augsburg materials aren’t the only answer for the ELCA churches even if they would like to think so. There are lots of interdenomination materials out there that can be used at least with younger kids. If you have some Via da Christo people in your church and they aren’t going LCMC, use them . They know about Bible study and prayer.
Do you get the impression that the whole country is going crazy ? Having people threatened because they voted for the health care bill is one. All this gay bashing is another. What has been added to the drinking water that everyone is so goofy ? Maybe it is the economy and everyone just has to find someone to blame for it. Does anyone know what is really going on with this nation and our churches ? What is the solution ?
@Tony Stoutenburg
If the orthodox Lutherans are “Your grandmother’s church” does that mean that if we stay in one of those churches, we can turn our giving back to that time ? I don’t know what my grandparents gave but my mother would give 50 cents a week. Do you think you could live on that ? She also thought it was great that the pastor of a local Assembly of God church had another job too. She has been gone for a while but my memories live on. I learned that you can’t run a church on 50 cents a week, but it is a nice form of protest, don’t ya think?