You'll find the comment below in its entirety here. It's dated September 26, 1:41 p.m. I wanted to highlight it here and respond.
Anonymous said ...
It seems that inclusivity is the new Baal, the god before whom everyone must bow down. The whole issue with the ELCA is much broader than a gay issue, it sets "cultural revelations" against 2000 years of Christian history. Do you consider yourself a prophet of the new Baal?
I do not consider myself a prophet, much less one of Baal. If you take a look at the 2,026 words attributed to Jesus Christ, you will find no exclusivity in them. Nor will you find any reference to the gay issue.
When in doubt, ask yourself what Jesus would do or say (humbly understanding, of course, that often the answer would be better than anything we come up with!). We know that Jesus commanded us to love one another as He loved us. He did not set parameters; He did not exclude anyone; He did not say it’s ok to love part time, or on Tuesdays only. It’s an all-the-time thing and is VERY inclusive.
I would argue this is the very commandment we are breaking in our walk away from Christ! If we profess to follow the teachings of Martin Luther on our journey to find Jesus Christ, then I would suggest we start looking to Him for direction, and not the authors of man’s testaments to God.
Luther, of course, talked about sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) as well as sola fide (faith alone) and sola gratia (grace alone). When he talked about Scripture alone, he was emphasizing that it's in Scripture that we come to learn of God's love and salvation. He was urging his fellow believers to understand that heaven can't be bought or earned, as the church of his day was saying, but that it's a free gift from God who loves all people enough to undergo death and resurrection for them.
Luther's understanding of God's love led him to oppose the church's teaching that all suicide victims were damned because they died in sin. He was willing to include these people under the shelter of God's love. It's a lesson we all need to learn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Well, you have really distorted Luther's teaching. Luther wrote in one book 'If anyone comes along saying something is "new" by the Holy Spirit, and of a new era and new understanding, test it with scripture". Not sure where it is, but I read it in college.
ReplyDeleteBoth Christ and Luther never leave us "alone in our sin". Gay or straight or whatever, he should change us , not just "accept us for who we are ". He told people to go and sin no more...he loved people, but did not accept their sin. Do you think Christ should leave you unchanged in your sin?
For the church of "scripture alone" to take this simple majority vote in their convention defies logic. Luther would never do anything that went against scripture....thus, your analogy about suicide is a strawman. That was a tradtion in the RC church about all suicides going to hell, not in the bible.
There are seven passages in the bible. Read them. They are clear. Jesus also made it clear marriage is the primary relationship-read the Gospel of Matthew. He DID speak of this issue, because he lifted up man and woman as the only primary relationship and God-ordained.
You sure twist words.
Saying "you twist words" is a great way to poison the well. We don't want to follow everything Luther said. He also said some pretty unsightly things about Jews that if I follow your logic would have been based in scripture. When you say the bible is clear it confusing to me. There are interpretations on both sides of this issue that appear to be clear. Both sides have their own biases if you will. There is no way to say which one is right. Luther used the one of the philosophies of the day to help him articulate his understanding of his Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms. This philosophy helped him understand how God could be in the world but not of the world. We do not have, in the Lutheran church, a corresponding anthropology that helps us interpret human beings as they appear and act in scripture. We just read and say, "that's clear." But so does the other side. This is why Tom's attempt to generate conversation here is so important. Important because we live in a different world than Luther and our anthropology would be different than Luthers.
ReplyDeleteOf course the problem with what I am suggesting is that anthropology is a science and the fundamentalist branch of the Lutheran denomination rejects science as having anything positive to say with regard to faith. There is no evolution etc, etc.
Consequently we end up in circular conversation as we have in this blog. It seems inevitable the the fundamentalists would have to split away from the ELCA and form their own church. Its unfortunate but it seems to be the only answer.
Those "fundamentalists" only had to leave after the ELCA has replaced the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the social Gospel. If you read ELCA.org, it reads like the Democratic party platform.
ReplyDeleteHanson and his ilk are sixties radicals who have been pushing their agenda for years. They now have the church they want, so be it.
Of course never mind that what Tom is trying to discuss here are real theological differences that are important to the life of our church. I'm glad you made it clear that the real issue for you is a political one. I appreciate the honesty.
ReplyDeleteNo, the issue is not a political one...there are real theological differences, as you point out. The problem is that the ELCA leadership has focused on social issues and politics more than evangelism and outreach. The ELCA can't even call the bible the bible it is a "book of faith" to be politically correct.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at every mainstream denomination that has moved away from focusing on scripture, you will find they are dying. That cannot be disputed.
Those that take a traditional stance in the ELCA would love to avoid the politics. The problem is, it was forced on us from above. Did you know the ELCA church council changed a requirement making the 2/3rd vote a simple majority? How dumb is that?
Yes, politics are here. But not from the pews, from the bishops.
The split on how the bible is read has been around for many years. That's not politics. It's only politics because its a change. As Pastor Garman pointed out in his response to Tom, people bring up the control issue when things aren't turning out the way they want them to. He's right, and its no different in this situation. The ELCA council was trying to find a way to include those people in the denomination that did not believe scripture prohibited the ordination of gays or lesbians. The fact is we have had a church for many years that has been split on this issue scripturally. La Casa probably is split on this issue. If you asked the members of la casa if the thought the bible was without errors in it and infallible a good chunk would say it had errors and a good chunk would say it didn't. So the ELCA wants to give some people a change to participate while recognizing that the denomination has diverse view regarding scripture. They aren't forcing a view on anyone. La Casa never has to call a gay or lesbian pastor. But neither should it have the right, because its pastors have a different theological opinion, to keep those who would from doing so.
ReplyDeleteThe lutheran church has been dying since the mid sixties while all the while maintaining its conservative approach to scripture. So I don't see the move away from scripture as you say being the reason the lutheran denomination is shrinking. The Mo synod has a very literal understanding of scripture and they have been shrinking perhaps even faster than the ELCA. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Frankly most of your comments are red herrings. You want to point fingers at, and complain about the ELCA but you do little to address the facts. to that extent you whine a bit more than i think is necessary.
For example, you whine about the use of the term "book of faith." which bothers you because it is "politically correct." When actually the word Bible is a Greek word that means the books. So i guess you are partially correct the ELCA should be saying "the books of faith." What they added was the word "faith," but that appears to be a little to liberal for you. So you are clear for you next discussion of "book of faith." Faith means having confidence in of trusting something. So, "book of faith" would mean that it is the book that the faithful have confidence in and trust. works for me, I'm sorry you have trouble with it.
First off, instead of requiring a 2/3 vote on what was the most important issue of the life of ELCA (a vote which is required to call a pastor, by the way, because overwhelming consensus is important) , the ELCA church council manipulated it to a simple majority. That right there tells you what you need to know. In addition, if you view the tapes of the Assembly, greetings from major churches who URGED AGAINST voting for these were not done until AFTER the vote, a change from the agenda. Meanwhile, ELCA staffers and pastors and others urged pro yes votes from the PODIUM.
ReplyDeleteThat is politics, sir, not a red herring.
The Missouri Synod is not shrinking faster than the ELCA. Read up on your facts. If we can't call the Bible the Bible or the Holy Scriptures than we have a bigger problem present.
If you want facts about the ELCA, see the numbers. Bible churches and non-denominational and community churches. Mainline Protestants die .
Lastly, La Casa is not split on this . The vote was 86 % in favor of leaving.
So deal with facts. I guess next we will debate the meaning of "is", like not being able to call a bible a bible or Holy.