The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has voted at thei national convention to permit ordination of pastors who are in same-sex relationships. More than anything else, this is about an abandonment of the Bible as God's authority for faith and practice. That is the primary error in their decision - setting themselves as the authority bending to social convention. Pastor John Fleischman's comments about this are spot on in substance and tone.
Interesting post by John Piper here, worth reading
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/1965_the_tornado_the_lutherans_and_homosexuality/
Barring a knee-jerk reaction to that sort of statement, I really think thats something to consider. Really. Natural disasters arent exempt from providence. But I do understand it has been most abused in the past.
Posted by: Stefan Kozalla | August 21, 2009 at 03:07 PM
My question is why the ELCA tries to maintain a pretense of faithfulness by focusing on monogamous homosexuality. I posted on this at http://bedlamorparnassus.blogspot.com/2009/08/lutherans-and-pretense-of-faithfulness.html.
Posted by: Magister Christianus | August 21, 2009 at 06:42 PM
Yes, I don't get why they insist on "lifelong, monogamous, committed" relationships for same-sex couples and heterosexuals are supposed to reserve sex for marriage.
Why? On what grounds? If the Bible is "outdated" on homosexuality, than why not chastity and fidelity as well?
I have been following this over at my blog. Click on my link for analysis of some of the news articles.
Posted by: Ken | August 22, 2009 at 09:01 PM
==If the Bible is "outdated" on homosexuality...==
Who says that the Bible is outdated?
(Isa 59:21) As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.
(Heb 13:8) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
I don't get it. It's not like we weren't warned by Christ and the deciples a looooong time ago to look out for wolves. But no, people only want to hear what their itching ears want to hear. Maybe we are in the time when the beast gets release from the pit for a short season?
Posted by: John | August 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Posted by: John | August 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
It's not like we weren't warned by Christ and the deciples a looooong time ago to look out for wolves.
-------------------------
Far too many Christians are off the reservation, lured by seducing spirits.
Posted by: John | August 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
...people only want to hear what their itching ears want to hear.
-------------------------
They know not what they do; and, yet, they have the chance to know, and, thus, they are guilty cuz they don't take that opportunity.
Posted by: John | August 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Maybe we are in the time when the beast gets release [sic] from the pit for a short season?
----------------------------
But that doesn't happen until after a thousand years of Christ's reign:
(Rev 20:3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
(Rev 20:4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
(Rev 20:5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
(Rev 20:6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
(Rev 20:7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
(Rev 20:8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
(Rev 20:9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
(Rev 20:10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 23, 2009 at 01:01 PM
I rejoice at the news of opening the table for all to sit and share in serving. I trust God alone to make decisions regarding salvation and pray for the whole church to adopt a welcoming tone to all people. The Gospels don't record Jesus trying to change homosexuals but they do emphasize his love of the outcasts.
Posted by: Rebecca | August 23, 2009 at 05:04 PM
Rebecca,
Given that the gospel message of salvation is only really welcoming to those who saved, should we disregard that also?
I think we could definitely love outcasts more and have a table for everyone to sit at if we just diluted the Christian religion down to vague moral platitudes. What do you think?
If it was up to me to make Christianity more welcoming, that seems like a good approach. But fortunately, it isn't up to me, and the goal is not to make everyone comfortable to do whatever they want.
The message of salvation should shake up souls and cause us to get on our knees and ask God to forgive us because of the work of Christ on the cross. And making people comfortable in practicing their sin (e.g. dishonesty, sexual sin, homosexuality, lust, envy, pride, etc.) is generally not part of that salvation message, if you get my drift.
Posted by: Todd | August 23, 2009 at 10:17 PM
*** LUTHERAN CHURCH (ELCA) APPROVES OF HOMOSEXUAL CLERGY: This is total insanity. Luther is rolling over in his grave. My guess is that Jesus is spitting this church out of His mouth as He said regarding one of the seven churches in Revelation. This is total apostasy. God rained fire and brimstone on cities for the sin of homosexuality in the Old Testament. What from Hell are these people thinking?!! This is not a "progressive" or a "conservative" issue, but an issue of directly contradicting God and approving of what He forcefully condemned with burning rocks from the sky killing people! Wow. Jesus is coming back SOON, folks! I really feel like I am in the last days now. I am afraid for these deluded people. No fear of God in them! It wouldn't surprise me if God started striking people dead with lightning bolts for this kind of evil. The earth swallowing whole churches into Hell below. Think about it. This is even WORSE than what God rained fire and brimstone on a mere homosexual *city* in the Old Testament for! This is the the SEVENth largest CHRISTIAN CHURCH in America appointing Sodomite Abominations (those are GOD'S words, not mine) as LEADERS! --Curtis Smale. The Associated Press: Lutheran gay clergy vote tests mainline churches
Posted by: CURTIS SMALE | August 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM
I'm a member of an ELCA church. Seeing the decline in members over the years I think this is just a ploy to fill pews. Though, a weak kneed church isn't something I would be shopping for.
Posted by: Branden | August 24, 2009 at 12:49 AM
It's definitely not a ploy. Having attended seminary with several ELCA ministers and having some ELCA professors, it's definitely an issue of faithfulness to them. In other words, they understand themselves as being faithful to the Gospel as they understand it. To them, it is also an issue of justice and equality.
To write it off as merely a ploy doesn't do the ELCA or the bigger issue in question much justice.
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Posted by: Rebecca | August 23, 2009 at 05:04 PM
The Gospels don't record Jesus trying to change homosexuals...
-------------------------
So?
Jesus was God on Earth. Whatever God said, Jesus said.
Did Jesus revoke what God said?
Posted by: Rebecca | August 23, 2009 at 05:04 PM
... but they do emphasize his love of the outcasts.
------------------------
Does biblical "love" translate into acceptance of what they do?
Maybe it does. Maybe Jesus didn't say what I thought He said, rather:
"Goeth into all the world and teacheth men to liveth as they wish, urging each to pursue and findeth his own path to God.
"Letteth not any one of you maketh another to feel inferior, nor victiminized, because of their beliefs. Above all, I saith unto you, be tolerant, even of those who choose not to follow Me.
"Verily, verily, I saith unto you that what you believe and how you live do not matter, as long as you are pure of heart in your own judgment and might in your pursuits.
"I am a way to God, a truth and just one possible life, and, if you are a good person, you walk that way, that truth, that life, for that is all it takes, and, if you choose not to come to the Father through Me, rather through some other, simply being a good person will enter you into the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of the way you choose.
"Now, goeth forth into all the world to liveth according to the strength and ways of your own dreams, wishes and vision."
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 24, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Too much sarcasm and King James English to be taken seriously, Mr. Incredible. Make an argument, make it well, and make it respectfully. You'll just inflame the conversation and/or be ignored if you don't.
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Too much sarcasm...
--------------------------
Where?
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
... and [too much] King James English to be taken seriously, Mr. Incredible.
----------------------------
People choose what they wanna do.
I bring the evidence I got, and others bring the evidence they say they think they got.
I don't tell others what eveidence to bring, and they don't tell me what evidence to bring.
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Make an argument...
---------------------------
I have. Show us where I have not.
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
... make it well...
-----------------------------
I have; but tell us "well" according to whom?
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
... and make it respectfully.
---------------------------
I have; but tell us where you choose to think that I have not.
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
You'll just inflame the conversation...
------------------------------
Interesting that you chose the negative, "inflame," rather than the more positive, "confrontational," even "provocative."
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:12 PM
...and/or be ignored if you don't.
-----------------------------
I'll take my chances and let people choose their own way based on their own Right to choose what they wanna do. I don't control what they receive and how they receive it and how they deal with what they choose to receive. I appreciate that people wanna give me that power, but I don't want it.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 24, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Mr. Incredible, it's really difficult to follow your responses to people--the copying of the lines, names and dates is very confusing. Please try to use the formats the other commenters here are using. When quoting someone, use "" or >> or use < b l o c k q u o t e > < / b l o c k q u o t e> to indent or itallicize the quotes with < i >< / i>(except without the spaces--just wanted to show you the formatting). Thanks!
Posted by: Amy (Blog Moderator) | August 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM
To me, that's all sarcasm, from start to finish.
Concerning making a good argument: King James English is borderline unintelligible to contepmorary English speakers. Making a good argument entails making an understandable argument. Best I can tell, your sarcastic King James English is the 'best' argument you've given; I don't think that's a very good one.
I think your argument is that the ELCA is equating the message of Jesus with contemporary pluralism, and that such conflation does damage to Jesus' message.
But, it's hard to tell given the way you've framed it.
Posted by: brgulker | August 24, 2009 at 12:48 PM
==To me, that's all sarcasm, from start to finish.==
So? It gets the point across. Sarcasm, as demonstration, is a great part of speech.
This piece demonstrates the apparent view of modern Christians and even unbelievers, like those who claim to be homosexual and who claim that Christ is on the side of what He has already rejected.
==Concerning making a good argument: King James English is borderline unintelligible to contepmorary English speakers.==
It is the Word of God preserved in English. It is difficult to study. Perhaps, that is what draws one deeper into the Word. After all, we are to seek if we are to find.
Remember:
Joh 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
== Making a good argument entails making an understandable argument.==
I have. The problem may not be with the sender, rather with the receiver. Many hinder themselves. They march around perception mountains that block their access to the Truth.
== Best I can tell, your sarcastic King James English is the 'best' argument you've given...==
Translation: "I don't accept your arguments."
I can't make everybody happy. Of course, I'm not trying to do so.
==...; I don't think that's a very good one.==
To each his own. Not everybody can like my stuff. I'm happy if just one does.
==I think your argument is that the ELCA is equating the message of Jesus with contemporary pluralism, and that such conflation does damage to Jesus' message.==
Well, Jesus was God on Earth, and God detests what we now call "homosexuality." You do the math.
It doesn't "damage" His Message. His Message is His Message. It is what it is. If people warp His Message, it becomes THEIR message, not His. It's up to us to compare what THEY say with what God/Jesus says, and to know the diff.
==But, it's hard to tell given the way you've framed it.==
I'm trying to be clear. Instead of critcising, you might try asking more questions.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 24, 2009 at 03:34 PM
I appreciate that you have spent so much time and energy on responding to my post Mr. Incredible. I enjoy sarcasm :)
I think that what our opinions boil down to is that you argue a literal interpretation of the entire Bible. As I have a different view of the Sacred Text, we will never agree on the issue.
That said, you have given me greater insight into the way that Biblical literalists think and to me conversation in an intelligent and thoughtful way can help us to have more compassion for each other.
I pray that by listening we might both have more of God's grace revealed to us.
Continue the conversation!
Posted by: Rebecca | August 25, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I didn't know Jesus spoke Old English? What a break through!! The KJV isn't a translation after all... it's the original manuscript.
Posted by: David Blain | August 25, 2009 at 02:30 PM
You have no idea how easy it is.
Good.
"Literal," as in, when God created the Heavens and the Earth, He actually created the Heavens and the Earth?
"Literal," as in, when God spoke Light into being, Light actually was?
"Literal," as in, when God came to Earth as a man -- the Word -- He actually came?
"Literal," as in, where the Word says that God loves us, He actually does; and that the Son ACTUALLY brings Salvation?
Yes, those and many other things really happened. Therefore, I guess I believe they are literally true.
Oh, well.
To you, "literal" refers to what? If it refers to the Resurrection, yes, the Resurrection literally happened. It REALLY happened.
God tells us the Truth. Far too many don't receive Him. I do. If that means that what He says, does and did is literally true, then I guess that I'm a literalist.
Define biblical "compassion."
"Listening" to whom?
(Luk 10:38) Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
(Luk 10:39) And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
(Luk 10:40) But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
(Luk 10:41) And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
(Luk 10:42) But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
Thanks, I will!
However -- not that it matters -- there are those who wish that I would go away, just as there were those who wished Jesus would go away:
(Mat 8:29) And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
(Mar 1:24) Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
(Luk 4:34) Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
(Mat 8:33) And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.
(Mat 8:34) And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 25, 2009 at 03:40 PM
King James, however, is as close as we get, based on the fact that KJV agrees with Textus Receptus in the upper 90 percentiles, and Textus Receptus agrees, in the upper 90 percentiles, with 5600+ ancient manuscripts.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 25, 2009 at 03:44 PM
"Different" from/than WHOSE view?
The question is, whether the Text, which is in the physical, agrees with the Word Who is in the supernatural. Given that there are so many texts, so many versions, so many variations, so many translations, so many versions, how can one tell, except the agreement King James has with so many of the ancient manuscripts.
Did God actually say, "[S]in lieth at the door"? Probably not. In whatever language He spoke, did He say that? Yes. It is literally true that He said that.
Therefore, it is critical that we get as close to the original language as possible. KJV does that.
Now, do I insist that you use KJV? Not at all. You may choose to do whatever you want. All I can do is tell you, not make you. We will all find out on Judgment Day, I guess, if we wanna wait 'til then.
Thanks for being upfront about about not receiving it.
(Mat 11:15) He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Mat 13:9) Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Mar 4:9) And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Mar 4:23) If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
(Mar 7:16) If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
(Luk 8:8) And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Rev 2:17) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
((Rev 13:9) If any man have an ear, let him hear.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 25, 2009 at 04:07 PM
Dear Mr. Incredible,
To answer your question regarding my usage of the word compassion, I chose the word to mean that we might both might use kindness in our words and actions (although through the internet) towards each other and fellow humans who might think differently then ourselves. Although we have very different opinions I simply meant to state that we can respectfully debate.
I hold to my statement that the way in which we (you vs. I) read the Bible has everything to do with our understanding of homosexuality.
I have genuine curiosity as to how you understand what passages read literally and which that do not. For example, is God commanding us to follow the rules of Leviticus exactly?
Thanks for sharing your mind and heart with the message board! I appreciate your honesty and candor.
Posted by: Rebecca | August 25, 2009 at 11:25 PM
"King James, however, is as close as we get, based on the fact that KJV agrees with Textus Receptus in the upper 90 percentiles, and Textus Receptus agrees, in the upper 90 percentiles, with 5600+ ancient manuscripts."
So the KJV is 90% innerent?
Posted by: Brandon | August 26, 2009 at 01:01 PM
It's the world's idea of "compassion," though. Biblical "compassion" is quite a bit different, however:
(Mat 9:36) But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
In other words, biblical "compassion" is unselfish concern for those who will die without Christ. It is comparable to biblical "love" -- that is, unselfish concern for the Salvation of others, as much concern about others' Salvation as you have for your own.
We should never assign to Christ worldly meanings to what He did and said.
The Word of God is of no private interpretation. All Scripture is the Inspiration of God. That Inspiration is not limited to ancient authorship.
The Holy Spirit cannot be telling you one thing, and me another, however.
And, as I asked earlier, what do YOU mean by, "literal," or, "literally"?
One verse does not doctrine make.
Romans reiterates Leviticus. Not only that, but God demonstrates that His Way is heterosexuality; in every case, the Godly, marital relationship is the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Where Jesus talks about divorce, He references that union.
I can be no other way. But thanks.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 26, 2009 at 07:30 PM
It is inerrant in the upper 90 percentiles when compared to Textus Receptus -- that is, the Received Text -- which is, itself, inerrant in the upper 90 percentiles when compared to over 5600 ancient manuscripts. This is not to ignore the KJV Old Testament which is extremely accurate when compared to the Hebrew.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 26, 2009 at 07:44 PM
The Word of God, however, is inerrant.
The question: Which version, translation, variation matches Him?
If the Devil can quote Scripture [he cannot cuz he lies; and, if you say what God says, it is not a lie], then what he says matches the Word. Of course, in reality, it doesn't. And, yet, we have so many versions, translations and variations, and everybody is confident that HIS book IS THE best match. Eve thought Satan's version matched, too.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 27, 2009 at 12:41 PM
No, Eve did not think so. The Devil was questioning God's motives and words, he did not claim to be speaking God's words. He made Eve doubt the word of God. She didn't think she was getting closer to God's word.
Posted by: Amy | August 27, 2009 at 05:57 PM
She surrendered to the Devil's version of the Word of God. She listened to the suggestion, considered temptation and acted on that temptation, thinking that the Devil's version is just a clearer version of the Word of God. The Devil thinks that you will happily accept his version as just an easier read. Very tempting.
No, he wasn't. He knows what God said, and he wants to defeat the Word.
He revised the Word of God to make it seem as though it IS the Word of God. That's the only way he can get you to think that his version is the Word of God, too, a mere, harmless enhancement, as it were.
"Hath God said..."
"God hath said..."
"God doth know..."
The Devil knows what God has said, and he wants very much for you not to dwell on what God said, rather on what he says God said.
All Eve had to do is go back to the Word of God and compare. Instead, she compared, to her own "reason," not God's, what the Devil said.
The Devil has no authority, on his own and of himself, to make anybody do anything. He acts on the authority of those who receive him. That's why, when you submit to God and, then, resist the Devil, as Jesus taught in Matthew 4, he flees.
Eve doubted the Word of God cuz she entertained the Devil's suggestion, then acted on it. She doubted that God meant that she could not eat from all the trees in the Garden. She bought the Devil's "clarification."
Genesis 3:6 says different. She thought she was obeying God by enhancing the Word of God to mean that she could eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The meaning she embraced there came from the suggestion of the Devil.
The chat between Eve and the Devil is what the Word of God calls a "filthy conversation." The Devil, later, try to engage and ensnare Jesus in the same kind of conversation. In Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus, who was not about to converse with the Devil, tells us how to avoid such traps.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | August 27, 2009 at 09:09 PM