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?
The CORE newsletter reminds me of the old “Lutheran Commentator” rag that stopped publishing after someone caught them in its lies and distortions. It is clear, even if the ELCA rescinded the actions of the CWA, terminated its Full Communion partnership with all of our ecumenical partners (especially those devil worshiping Episcopalians) they would publish a newsletter attacking the ELCA. I can’t wait to see what they have to say about the proposed Social Statement on Genetics, they will, I suppose simply be “agin it”. However they probably won’t read it, it doesn’t have anything to do with homosexuality.
I have asked the same question.
CORE seems to be presuming that it has taken over WA as the pan-Lutheran traditionalist network. Maybe WA is good with that. I have been off the board for years and haven’t been to the last couple conventions, so I do not know.
NALC is a different animal. Based on the proposal, which is insufficient to be conclusive, but was surely thought out carefully, they have a Roman Catholic understanding of call, and ELCA structure and ordination practice, a weak Anglican bishopric and an LCMS understanding of Scripture. I’m not sure those things can co-exist.
Actually, the question Lilly cited, being asked by an LCMC advocate, is a pretty good one. If you were a member of no church, why would you pick ELCA? Or NALC?
@Ray. Actually, Commentator did not “lie”. Hyperbole, yes. But much of what they said would happen, has. And they called it based on trends they saw years in advance.
My biggest complaint about Commentator was that the articles should have been signed. That is why, if you dig for my comparison sheets on LCMc/ELCA and LCMC/NALC you will find my name and city at the bottom. If you’re gonna publish it, own it.
The CORE newsletter is more a reporting from a perspective than Commentator was. But good news, Ray, Commentator is not dead. If you want the Commentator’s take on things, and I can feel the excitement rising in you :), go to Crossalone.US and check out the Lutheran Hedgehog.
@Tony, Thanks for the info. I would remind youu of the story they did “outing” a pastor in, I think New Jersey, and low and behold it wasn’t true, at least her husband didn’t think so. I must say it was always an interesting read.
@Ray, do not recall that. That would certainly be a low point for any of us.
Sorry to “talk so much” but I have been following the developments of both LCMC and Lutheran CORE since last summer or maybe since I found out that our pastor was WA. Reading what was said in reference to Orthodox Lutherans did frighten me and is probably why I am so wary now. It does seem that Lutheran CORE is ag’in most everything. I have moved around enough and attended enough churches to know that so much of the interpretation lies with the pastor. I purposely got my self into a discussion of Genesis with the pastor just to see where he stood on the 6 days. My husband is a retired science teacher and I have been watching the science channel with him. I am a retired elementary school teacher who was raised ELC by an LCMS mother who made me afraid of God. When I read the beliefs of the Orthodox Lutherans, I cried out “I can’t go back there.” Along the way I found a loving and forgiving God. Jesus died for my sins (many of which I imagined .) I relax in God’s Grace .
What web pages is anyone reading which describes itself as “Orthodox Lutherans”. I would suggest that that term is about as varied as the term “blonde” in the hair color aisle at Walmart. (Does he or doesn’t he?:))
If “orthodox Lutheran” is used to describe either an anti-nomian or a legalistic theological position, then it is a *religion*, not faith, and therefore a false Gospel. If you want more on my position on this, barring technical difficulties, audio of my sermon on Phils 4, which touches on these issues, should be online at gracelutheran.podbean.com by tuesday am.
@Obie: I did not look. Did the CORE newsletter have a Saintly dating? The East Coast Home-to-Rome crowd love to call things by their hagiographic date. The NALC proposal was released on the Commemoration (Death) Day of Martin Luther. Maybe releasing it on the 17th was a shout-out to the Irish in us all.
Tony, there were some things in, I believe, the CORE materials and maybe in WA that talked about Orthodox Lutherans. I was led to believe it meant that the Bible was without error. When you said it was “Your grandmother’s church” I thought back to what I was raised with– mostly liturgy and ritual in the old ELC church at Soldiers Grove and Gays Mills. My mom had been raised in Missouri synod in the Edgar area. She kept telling stories of people who had mocked God and got struck by lightning. I find that the “Being afraid of God” very common in this German community here . The pastor does his best to preach forgiveness but when a person tries to talk to him, all you get is scripture and Luther. around. He does a good job on Sunday morning when most people see his public pastor side.
@Lilly: I am not one who says that the Bible is inerrant. I prefer to say that it is infallible. The former says that it has no errors in it, and this leads us down paths that are not necessarily helpful. To say it is infallible is to say that it will not fail.
I am no fan of CORE, obviously, but I can speak with some knowledge about what WA holds such orthodoxy to be. It is Law and Gospel, properly distinguished, and publicly proclaimed.
If you are going to your pastor on matters of faith and life, what else would you have him quote?
Some LCMC churches worship is an “American evangelical style”, a couple are pretty high church. Most are probably SBH/LBW liturgical. (We print our own bulletin that has the full worship service in it each week. A lot more relaxed in style, but I think we are recognizably Lutheran in terms of our liturgy and practice.) That is an issue for each individual congregation.
Soldier’s Grove, eh. My son’s god-parents served there as their first call. Which was ELC: Kickapoo North or Kickapoo South? I know Franklin was Hauge.
Any organization that spends the majority of its time trying to build itself up by criticizing others really is standing on thin ice. This is something that drives me nuts about CORE and LCMC. I swear 90% of their energy is devoted to how the ELCA is doing it wrong and they celebrate each time they woo a congregation from the ELCA as though it is a victory or a competition.
Our pastors recently had a listening session (read: an ELCA bash session)and proclaimed how the ELCA was failing at mission, teaching the bible, philosophy and how the LCMC was so much superior. I asked to show me the evidence and why did mission have to be a competition.
He who has the most cake does not necessarily win.
And yes, the Orthodox Lutheran movement scares me. Wondering when they will declare that women need to wear long skirts and can’t speak in church. Sigh.
Hi Tony, if you know that Crawford , Vernon County area there were/are a lot of Lutheran churches. I don’t know if any other than Franklin was Hauge. We attended the one that was right in Soldiers Grove village until Luther Memorial was built in Gays Mills. The one in Gays is having a hard time to keep going due to the economy and the floods that have gone through the area. They have an ecumenical weekday after school Christian Ed instead of Sunday School. There are very few full time farms , although there may be more around N. and S. Kickapoo churches. It seemed that the Norwegians had a way of not agreeing and when that happened a new church was formed —that sounds familiar.
Kelly, if you can find it , look for the websites for St.Peters Lutheran Church Big Falls and St. Pauls Lutheran Church , Dupont. Both are rural Marion, Wi. You can probably get them through the ELCA website by putting in a zip code in the area. Ours is 54929. The pastor’s page shows how she is trying to sell LCMC in a gentle way.
I agree with what you are saying. Much the same happened here with one pastor and one council member really pushing LCMC. Actually the council member started a social concerns website a couple years ago that sounded like the extreme religious right. I think this council member is probably the one that got the council to take the vote so fast.
Tony ,this discussion is getting too involved for me. You are conservative and I am a newly defined liberal. We will never agree on many theological issues. Arguing about theology or politics is not productive. So much in both is opinion and subjective. God Bless your ministry and may the Holy Spirit lead you.
@Kelly: The ELCA has made itself the center of attention by passing something that many find to be contrary to Scripture. In CORE, and in churches that are debating a change in affiliation, it is pretty hard to have a conversation without talking about the reasons why.
Come to an LCMC Convention. I think you will find it hardly ever (possibly never) mentioned.
Is this hyperbole, humor, or just an 8th commandment violation? I am still waiting to see a website citation from you to show what scares you.
@Tony Stoutenburg
The problem with the “contrary to Scripture” rationale is that many of these same people don’t follow “Scripture” to the letter either, i.e. they work on the Sabbath or, for a more explicit example, they don’t stone/kill women who aren’t virgins when they get married. There’s bunches of rules that they don’t follow, but they’ve picked the ones that are important to them and say that they know better than everyone else whose opinion differs from their own.
@Brat: Without getting into an extended theological argument, you might want to read Galatians. We are free from the Law when we have life in the Spirit. (Gal 5:18-25 is a key passage here, which is the culmination of the argument.)
Here is the example you asked for, Tony. THIS type of Orthodoxy frightens me:
[i]FOR EXAMPLE — we reject and condemn all Abortion, Artificial Fertilization and Human Cloning, Withholding of Nutrition & Hydration to Hasten Death, Euthanasia, Suicide, and all other Murder; Fornication & Adultery, Homosexuality & all other Sodomy, Pornography, Illicit Contraception, Wrongfully Childless Marriage, Illicit Divorce, Intemperance, and all other Crimes of Carnal Wickedness; Feminism & all Humanism, Anti-Christian Culture & all other Anti-Christianism, Anti-Semitism, Racism, Unjustified Violence to Any of God’s Creation & Creatures, False Tolerance, and all False Philosophy; the Antichrist Papacy, Byzantinism, Arminianism & all Synergism, Calvinism & Crypto-Calvinism, Pseudo-Lutheranism, Gospel Reductionism & Antinomianism, Legalism, Puritanism & all False Pietism, all Anabaptist Errors & Pentecostalism, Mormonism, Russellism, Non-Christian Judaism, Mohammedanism, Lodgery & all Gnosticism, Witchcraft & all the Occult, Syncretism, Latitudinarianism & all other False Ecumenism, Unitarianism & Universalism, Agnosticism & Atheism, and all False Religion; Evolutionism & all other False Science; Failure of the Divine Institution of Government to Uphold the Civic Use of God’s Moral Law in All Ten Commandments, Communism & Socialism, Fascism, Confederate Rebellion & Slavery, the Democratic Party (USA) & all other Anti-Christian Political Parties, Abrogation of the Biblical Death Penalty & Just War, Pacifism & all False Peace Movements, Illegal Immigration, the United Nations & World Unionism, as well as all other Tyranny & False Government.
source: http://netministries.org/see/churches/ch20800?frame=N [/i]
My pastors speak of returning to a Lutheran Orthodoxy. But no one other then the a few select few know what that means. And I know that the above example is probably the far end of the bell curve, but this is an example a of proud Lutheran Orthodox congregation that is really seems rooted in intolerance.
As for the GLBTQ issue that seems to be the lightening rod for CORE and even the LCMC, I have absolutely no problem with it and welcome it. Christ sought out those others condemned and did not understand. He ate with those that Judaism deemed unworthy and unclean. He included them in his ministry. To me the ELCA did not move to include same sex unions and roster non-celibate GLBT clergy because it is tune withe time or because it was politically correct. To me, and I do emphasize ME, the 2009 Churchwide Assembly was about following Christ’s example and welcoming all how hear his call.
Kelly, I like your theology. ELCA churches do have a choice about whether they call a gay pastor in a committed relationship. There were only between 38 and 40 some Extraordinary Lutheran Ministers that the vote was about anyway. I hope you can find enough people over there to meet with for worship and to work with for justice for all. I am visiting the UCC right now but it is a very small struggling church. If Tomah has other ELCA churches there or Methodist, Presbyterian, or UCC, I hope you can visit and find your place. I am going to take my time and see what happens in the next few months. If you don’t vote, you don’t have a voice even if it is a minority.
@Kelly You are right. that stuff is pretty far out there. BUT, note that this guy is so fringe that, on the list of links that he links to, http://www.xrysostom.com/godtalk neither LCMC or CORE makes the list!
And I guarantee you I can find “liberal/progressive” stuff that is just as fringe as this. This guy calls himself Father! You think that is in keeping with LCMC?
And have you shown this to Pastor Dave and asked him for his opinion on it? Or are you just assuming that this is what he is looking at because they both use the word “orthodox?”
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?
Finally, you are correct. Christ did reach out to the marginalized. But show me one example of Jesus saying to sinners, “Come on in, you are fine just the way you are!” His call was to come and listen and be saved and then “go and sin no more.”
@Brat, had another thought last night. (Two in one day; a third would have been a record!)
The laws you cited are all OT. Luther said of them, “It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded.”
The full sermon, on How Christians Should Regard Moses is at http://www.covopc.org/Papers/Luther_on_Moses.html
I think all of this talk of Orthodoxy is confusing to most laity. It is pretty much “clergy speak” and we use it to intimidate of folks in the pew, or to impress them, thinking is makes us sound smarter than we really are. It would be helpful to run this definition in next week’s bulletin, it comes from the book {Crazy Talk} A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Rolf Jacobson. Orthodox; Pertaining to those who color inside the lines using only the right hand and approved colors.
Just trying to keep things light.
@Tony Stoutenburg
And if certain people really believed that, then I wouldn’t have to hear or read statements regarding homosexuality where people state that the Bible refers to it as an “abomination.”
Thanks Ray. In my trying to make sense of religion, I came upon a book of Women’s health that gave the history of gynecology. It was interesting to me that the ancients and not so ancients believed that the baby was only the seed of the father and that the mother didn’t contribute to it. There is much in the Old Testament about the seed. It seems to be sacred. If so, it would be an abomination to spill it or use is for anything but procreation. After looking abomination up in the dictionary, a good synonym could be disgusting. I am not really trying to second guess God but I guess I try to figure out “How did He do that?”
@Tony
You just illustrated why I whole-heartedly embrace the concept of Bound Conscience. It is pretty obvious that you and I won’t agree on some things related to scripture or church politics. But I’m totally okay with it. It allows us to recognize the difference and embrace the diversity of thought.
And I don’t think I am betraying anything by including the BT (bisexual and transgender) when it comes to a monogamous, long term relationships. I have a friend that is very devout and practices Conservative Judiasm and another that is a non-practicing catholic. Both have been in committed marriages for decades but if asked would consider themselves bisexual. As for transgendered individuals, it is a case of sexual identity that may not match the physical appearance. All of these examples can and do embrace longterm, committed relationships. Of course not all are, but there are many heterosexual individuals that also not married.
Where I’m coming from in my faith is that no one sin is worse than another, and I have problems with someone starts codifying sins as worse or less. If we are to take everything Paul had written seriously, then women like myself should be silent in church, covering our heads, dressing in gender-specific clothing and unable to take on leadership roles. Yet many denominations have very strong and vibrant women as their pastors. (My own daughter let out a “COOL!” when she realized that a friend we were visiting was a pastor.)
Since we are talking about same sex union/ordination issue, I ask why exclude them. If a couple–regardless of gender or sexual identity–choses to marry in a church it is not because they are trying to offend anyone or push the envelope of what is good and proper. If they wanted nothing to do with God, they are free to celebrate their union in a court house or with a justice of the peace. No, they are chosing the bring God into their marriage and want HIM to be a part of their family. What a humbling and wonderful celebration!
We are all imperfect sinners, but wanting God to be part of a loving, long-term relationship is hardly one of them.
I guess if I had to sum up my views on faith and grace, it would have to be Romans 5 (the whole chapter.) What a wonderful concept. He accepts each of us knowing full well that as much as we try, we’ll never be free of sin. Now that is the God I want my daughters to know.
I have to agree with Ray. Now I try to understand the nuances of Confessional, Orthodox and High Lutheran movements. And yes, as I stated above the Orthodox link I gave was the far end of the bell curve. But it does give me quite a lot of pause. These terms get tossed around, and for the average congregant, do fly over your head.
Just to give a little background, I was raised, confirmed and married in the Missouri Synod (was baptised ALC). In my midtwenties, I became rather disillusioned and stopped going to church for about ten years.
On the flip side, I joined the ELCA because it resonated with me. Its views on diversity and grace, its approach to Power With instead of Power Over when it comes to mission, and its committment to Social Justice, in part, define who I am as well. That is why the vote in my congregation is painful and personal to me and why, after the dust settles, I will remain ELCA regardless of the outcome.
@Kelly, several things.
First, If you think the ELCA emphasizes power WITH, not power OVER, you ought to talk to your pastor about how the bishops are dealing with them and others who do not believe they can walk together now.
I completely agree that no sin is worse than any other. But the issue here is that the CWA has unsinned what God (through Scripture) has called sin. If I am going to pick and choose what is sin and what is not, then I am putting myself in the place of God.
Now this statement tends me make me pretty unpopular on these sorts of forums, but Scripture knows nothing of sexual orientation. It is sexual behavior that Scripture prescribes and proscribes. While one can argue that the covet commandments cover orientation/attraction, I suppose, the only orientation that Scripture knows is Genesis 6:5. It is restated, and its solution given, in 1 John 1 (and elsewhere).
And I agree completely that Romans 5 is wonderful. It is the GREAT NEWS. But do not pick and choose. Go on to read Romans 6. Even the first few verses lay out the dilemma for those of us who know and love fellow sinners – and yet cannot bring ourselves to endorse the sin.
Blessings TS
Kelly, stick to your beliefs. The Holy Spirit is in you and in all baptised people. The above writer is one of the movers and shakers in the LCMC movement. Some of what they are doing is good. The way they are going about it is not. Make your decisions on what your conscience says to you and study to find out if you are discerning the spirit correctly. The Devil, the world, my own flesh and my quest for power can all be competing in me, in you, in Tony, in the ELCA, and in LCMC. I was a 70’s Charismatic but went to a quieter walk when I heard all the things I would have to do or be or I wasn’t a Christian. The same mentality is alive here and now. Follow your heart.
Tony Stoutenburg starts to reveal some really shocking attitudes toward transgender people and transgender Christians in these comments. I have to say, and I am trying to find the kindest possible way to say this, that it is extremely difficult to have a thoughtful, sincere conversation about these issues with someone who is so astoundingly misinformed about the realities of transgender people and their lives.
And this is where I will respect your bound conscience and I expect the same in return.
I do not believe it to be a sin, but how one is born.
You can change your sexual identity as easily as you can change your birthday. Quite frankly I am a little tired of the pseudoscience and anecdotal stories of how an individual can overcome their “same sex attraction” with enough prayer, counseling (and self-loathing.)
My opinion is forged in the evidence of science and medicine (I am a physician, btw. And a really straight and boring one at that complete with husband, 2 kids, a cat, a dog, and a mountain of student debt.) “Same sex attraction” is neither amedical nor a psychiatric diagnosis. Furthermore, there is no evidence based science to prove that it can be “cured.” In fact mainstream professional organizations uniformly dismiss such type of therapy (Including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Society to name a few.)
In fact the American Psychiatric Association stated in 1988:
Yes, I am one of those odd few that embrace faith and science. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
resources: http://www.glaad.org or http://www.hrc.org
@Tony Stoutenburg
Dude, could you try to be a little more consistent in your comments? First it was that the Old Testament laws are no longer valid.
Then it is that those OT regarding sexuality are valid and the ELCA CWA ’09 was wrong to go against them.
And then to top it off, verses relating to the Flood and Noah are the equivalent of statements regarding sexual orientation:
I mean, really, the Flood? That’s your rationale on “orientation?”
Please, be a little consistent. If you REALLY believe that Old Testament laws in the Torah no longer apply because Martin Luther stated that they were only for the Israelites, then don’t keep posting that the CWA ’09 made an egregious error in stating what is or isn’t a sin. Martin Luther stated that those laws in the Torah no longer apply, how is that any different? How is that not picking and choosing “what is sin and what is not?”
@Kelly
I wholeheartedly endorse your comment.
I too am boring and straight, but I choose to fight this fight alongside LGBT folks as a Christian who believes the church has too often been a part of the problem and not the solution. Many folks think their attitude of “love the sinner but hate the sin” is grace-filled when in reality it is a version of “reparative therapy light”, often with the same devastating consequences of reinforcing self-hatred.
FYI, I have blogged about reparative therapy; click here for a search on prior posts about this discredited and destructive practice.
Wow, Ann. I’m still here. And I did not say a *single* word about transgendered people. But it is always easier to talk *about* people than to talk *to* them, eh?
@Kelly: I’m glad you respect my bound conscience, but how respectful can you be when you then claim “I am one of those odd few that embrace faith and science.” Actually, the science is far from settled. And your resources are far from neutral.
But it seems we are going to get no further here.
And Lilly, if *I* am “one of the movers and shakers in LCMC,” that movement is in real trouble.
Amen, Kelly. and Halleluia for saying it. I wish my ex son-in-law had waited for the kids to be grown to have the surgery but it is over and done with 6 years ago and we are all living with it- even his/her parents that it almost killed. I don’t know Tony’s background with glbt in California but it sounds like he knew someone who had a family and transgendered. It is very hard for the family to deal with– especially all the transy girlfriends who hang around and mooch on the family. One named Crystal took over the house, didn’t do a thing and trashed the house. One named Jamie was a lot of help– a kind of different person, but helped so much when the family moved. Be aware that an 11 year old boy and a 14 year old girl were witnessing all this. It wasn’t just the anguish of the transgendered person, it was a family too.
@Brat
God’s comment at Gen 6:5 (and essentially repeated at 8:21, after the flood) is not a comment on specifically sexual orientation (though I can see how you read my note as claiming that), but on human orientation (the human condition, if you will) in general: in bondage to sin and unable to free ourselves. And God’s statements are not Laws, they are observations which, as far as I can tell, still hold true.
As for homo-erotic behavior, one does not need to go to the OT for a claim that that is destructive and sinful. Even if I give you the argument that 1 Cor 6 does not refer to homosexuality (and I am of two minds on that one) Romans 1 is crystal clear.
Sorry if my earlier posts were confusing. We are free from the Law, but we are not free to do whatever we like. Just as we are 100% sinner and 100% saint.
Blessings
TS
@House of Brat, in your “breakdown” of Tony’s statements, you seem to have forgotten that the OT is not the only testament to call homosexuality sin. The NT is consistent on this matter as well. See 1 Corinthians 7, or Jesus’ description in Matthew 19, et al. So, Luther’s argument makes perfect sense, while still allowing us to remain consistent on our definition of marriage and sexuality.
And..it’s not about picking and choosing sins. Hopefully every one of us realizes that we are indeed sinful in many ways. The problem is unrepentant sin. This is what the CWA sanctioned.
@Tony: I want to know why one cannot embrace faith and science at the same time? It has nothing to do with respecting your point of view and interpretation of faith. We don’t live in the age of Galilleo where science = heresy.
What I don’t embrace is pseudoscience and “studies” that are flawed to produce an outcome that is desired to push an agenda. One of our pastors cited that “80% of people with ‘same sex attractions’ can overcome their ‘problems'” and I caught a lot of grief with four simple words: that is not true.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Actually, Kelly’s sources are fairly established. The APA has done more than 40 years of research on that subject. Nothing else has ever come close to refuting it. It is only those who want to believe that homosexuality is a “choice” who believe there is any valid research backing their arguments up. No modern study has ever proven this or been replicated. Hence, the science is settled.
Even still, referring to statements made regarding before/during/after “The Flood” as relating to the “human condition” is not necessarily wise given that much of the text in Genesis on The Flood is derived from the Babylonian myth “The Epic of Gilgamesh.” The gods in the Gilgamesh Epic also plan to destroy humans because they have gone astray. Same rational given in Sumerian as in Genesis. What else do you agree with in terms of Babylonian religion?
Tony Stoutenburg :
As for homo-erotic behavior, one does not need to go to the OT for a claim that that is destructive and sinful. Even if I give you the argument that 1 Cor 6 does not refer to homosexuality (and I am of two minds on that one) Romans 1 is crystal clear.
And there are verses in the New Testament saying women shouldn’t teach and should keep silent. Should we start adhering to those too? There’s plenty of pro-slavery statements in the New Testament too. Perhaps we should reconsider those too?
I don’t buy verses in Romans 1 as a decent rationale. Homosexuality isn’t mentioned in the Gospels. If it wasn’t important enough for Jesus to rail against it before he was crucified, or for his original 12 disciples to write about it in the Gospels, then it’s not important. Period. It’s ironic that you deem Paul’s writings in Romans to be reason enough to believe that homosexuals are different from everybody else because many scholars consider Paul to be the one who initiated the anti-Semitism that has so plagued the Western Church. Basically, you believe the man (Paul), who initiated a terrible belief that has had disastrous consequences for centuries, should be believed over Jesus. Because Jesus never said anything about it (homosexuality). Ever.
@Tony, please define “Unrepentant sin” I know that you may think it is pretty self-explanatory however it isn’t. I am divorced, and remarried to a divorced woman. Neither one of us are repentant of our sin of divorce. We were both locked into an abusive, toxic marriage, divorce, while a sin, freed us from that bondage. Why should I be repentant for something I am not sorry for? When I confess my sin I confess my sin “seen and unseen, known and unknown” I feel God’s Grace will be sufficient to cover my non-repentant divorce. Yes, I know the Bible says divorce is sin so I am forgiven, but I refuse to repent, and in fact I celebrate my divorce and rejoice I am a pastor in a church (ELCA) that allows a divorced person to be ordained. What about the person who is incapable of repenting? Are they dammed for the inability to repent? So I am serious, not being flippant, please explain “unrepentant sin” so I can prepare myself for the here after being what you say is an unrepentant sinner. Deep deep down don’t we all have sins we are not repented for? Be honest!
@Brat. Back in the day, the Liberal Protestants used to complain about the fundamentalists and call them “Red Letter Christians” because they emphasized the words of Jesus in Red (in some editions of the Bible) to the exclusion of Paul’s words about our freedom from the Law. Interesting to see that trend is now reversed, and the Liberal Protestants are now the Red Letter Christians, excluding Paul.
And I don’t care whether Gen 1-11 is history or parable. It is inspired Scripture and therefore bears truth to us. It is good enough, I note, for Jesus to quote.
I accept Paul as inspired by the Holy Spirit. You do not. And your only support for that position is that you do not like what he has to say. Guess that is the end of that discussion.
But Jesus does talk about human sexuality when he quotes Genesis 2 in Mark 5. It is a denial of reality to say that he does not.
@Tony:
How can embracing both faith and science be an afront to your Bound Conscience? We don’t live in Galileo’s time where science = heresy.
I caught a lot of grief with four simple words: “this is not true” when one of my pastors declared that “80% of those afflicted with same sex attraction can overcome their problems.” I do have problems with false science being declared as truth.
But that doesn’t impact who I am as a Christian. Being a Christian doesn’t diminish my ability to embrace science. And embracing science doesn’t decrease my faith.
Oops. Make that Mark 10, not 5.
I used to have a memory, then I got a computer. 🙂
@Kelly: No, we do not live in Gallileo’s time. But you claimed to be one of the few who can hold to both. Perhaps I inferred something that was not there, but it seemed to me that you were saying. ‘I can; you don’t.’
You did infer something that was not there. I was merely explaining my belief system and how I personally reconcile the GLBT issue.
@Ray: You wrote:
@Tony, please define “Unrepentant sin”
I’m not sure why you want me to define it. I didn’t use it.
As to your last question, the answer is obviously yes. As to the rest of your self description, I’m out of time, so I will simply say, Wow.
@Zach Thompson
1) I haven’t forgotten that the OT is the only section of the Bible that talks about sin. Don’t be ridiculous. I mentioned the OT because that is where many of the statements regarding homosexuality quote from.
2) Matthew 19 doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. Matthew 19:1-12, which I assume is what the portion you’re referring to, is about marriage and divorce. Nothing about homosexuality.
3) 1 Corinthians 7: Again, see my comments about Paul above.
4) “unrepentant sin”: Well, see this is always a ridiculous argument. Because it holds one group of people to one standard and another to entirely different standard. But for the sake of your argument, let’s say that “homosexual acts” are sin and that no gay person should ever engage in them for all eternity. This means that gays could never have sex with someone they love for all their lives, yet straight people could lie to one person, repent, and lie to another, repent, etc. And I know you’re thinking, “well, no one should do the lie and repent cycle over and over.” Well, duh. But that’s the class system you’ve just created by branding gays as “unrepentant sinners.” Because I know a pastor that was a rude jerk to members of his congregation on his first call, and that’s the nice way of phrasing it. (For example, when a member of the congregation did interim work while he was on sabbatical, this pastor was rude to this member upon his return and did every possible thing he could to get the member to leave.) Did other ridiculous things for years. (Over a hundred people left while he was driving century-old congregation into the ground.) The people he treated so shabbily never received apologies from him. I suppose he repented every Sunday. Maybe. I have no idea. It’s between him and his maker at this point. But he gets to be a pastor still to this day. Why? Because he’s not gay. And ironically, this pastor has a problem with CWA ’09 because of the “unrepentant sinners” mentality.
It’s not really about “unrepentant sin.” It’s about homophobia and believing that LGBT are bigger sinners than other people. Because there are plenty of pastors who sin every day: they lie, cheat, think of themselves first, can’t follow the golden rule, etc. But the gay ones are allegedly so much worse in some people’s eyes.
@Tony Stoutenburg
1) I said “homosexuality” not “human sexuality.” Jesus does not talk about HOMOSEXUALITY in either Mark 5 or 10. He does not say it is an abomination for a man to sleep with another man.
2) And plenty of ancient Semitic Christian churches didn’t pay much attention to what Paul said anyway. That’s why there was always a difference between the Roman & Byzantine churches and the Christian churches directly east of Jerusalem. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “Liberal Protestants”, “fundamentalists” or “Red Letter Christians.”
And unless we are talking cattle here, homosexuality is a subset of human sexuality. Or are you saying that homosexuals are other than human? I didn’t think so. So I contend that Jesus is affirming male-female marriage as the appropriate place for sexual activity. There is also that whole “not one jot or tittle” business in Matthew 5:18.
(I have some questions about this assertion, but) can you show me evidence from the Byzantine or other near Eastern churches that affirm homosexual practice?
As I said, “I accept Paul as inspired by the Holy Spirit. You do not. … Guess that is the end of that discussion.”
But your last two posts seem so angry. I am sorry for that.
@Tony Stoutenburg
1) Again, my point is that Jesus DID NOT CONDEMM HOMOSEXUALITY. He simply didn’t. He made statements regarding marriage. Not the same thing by a long shot.
2) Oh, are we debating Near Eastern churches now? Or are you still looking for evidence that all those who follow “Scripture” adhere to your beliefs that homosexuality is always a choice, a sin and always wrong? (For the record, I was grouping the Roman and Byzantine churches together in my earlier statement. The Byzantine and Roman churches had more in common with each other than they did with either Nestorian or Jacobite churches.) I specifically mentioned what I did regarding other churches and Paul because not every Christian regards him or his writings as having the greatest apostolic scholarship. If you’re so unfamiliar with ancient Semitic churches, then I suggest you do research in your own free time.
3) You accept Paul as inspired by the Holy Spirit. A man who was a lifelong misogynist and helped foment hatred against Jews, the consequences of which have been so far reaching that I don’t think I need to restate them here. That’s totally up to you. But since you accept him 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?
@ Brat. Such anger. Wow. I thought this was a forum for calm discussion. Maybe not.
1. Jesus refers to heterosexuality because it was normative. He nowhere changes the OT judgment on it.
2. It was YOU who brought up the Roman, Byzantine and “Churches east of Jerusalem” (My paraphrase: near Eastern). I asked you if you can show evidence and you *deflect* by asking me if *I am* looking of evidence? LOL.
2b. At what point have I used the word “choice”? You do not discuss / argue very carefully.
3. Your tired recitation of dated feminist screeds against Paul do not merit comment. Oops. I did anyway. As for your two lesbians: I am not in the position of judging them, but they would have some questions to answer for themselves. Have they seen Jesus to confirm their ministry? 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?
Blessings
TS