Today, someone posted this comment and question:
Please, could someone provide the scriptural sources in the Bible about homosexuality? I unfortunately do not know the Chapters and Verses which others refer to and would like to read them before making this decision.
I only attended one meeting and am unclear what the affiliation of La Casa de Cristo will be if it leaves the ELCA. It was indicated the church will still be Lutheran, but will it be a stand alone congregation? Can a church call itself Lutheran if it isn't in a Synod?
Let's tackle this head-on!
I'll address your easier question first: Can a congregation call itself Lutheran if it is independent and isn’t in a Synod? I believe it can. Lutheranism is a way of thinking about Christianity, just like Calvinism, so if a congregation affirms the basic concepts of Lutheranism, I think it can call itself Lutheran. Lutheranism, I believe, has a better understanding of grace and mercy, and that’s why I am a Lutheran.
Now, let me answer your other question, but let me also encourage you to read the following article:
http://www.crossings.org/archive/ed/ReformationResources.pdf
It’s a lengthy article, but if you want to dig into the issue, it’s well worth your time! It makes the point that we can’t just look at passages in Scripture, read them once, and think we know all there is to know. How do we read these passages from the point of view of a Gospel-informed relationship with God? That’s the question I think we haven’t fully discussed at La Casa, and I think we should have a full, open, extended discussion about it. Only then can we make an informed decision.
Here are the Old and New Testament passages I know of that people cite as addressing homosexuality in the Bible:
Genesis 19:4-8 (Concerns Lot and his daughters. Unusual what Lot has to say about his daughters!): Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
Leviticus 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
Leviticus 20:18 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Deuteronomy 23:17 There must never be a sacred prostitute among the young women of Israel nor a sacred male prostitute among the young men of Israel.
Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:10 … sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching
I would point out that these passages are attributed to two authors. Old Testament citations are attributed to Moses, while New Testament citations are attributed to Paul. This would mean that our entire reference to this issue was authored by two men of different eras. Nowhere in the 2,026 words attributed to our Lord and Savior is there any mention of homosexuality.
Again, I would encourage you to read the article I pointed to above as you think about these passages.
Please, be present at the second ballot about whether we will leave the ELCA and vote your conscience after studying the issue thoroughly. Yours in service to Christ, Tom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The article you posted is obviously very slanted in one direction, the one you agree with. There are plenty who do not. In fact, except the Episcopal church, no other Christians have condoned this.
ReplyDeleteYou say Jesus did not speak of this. I don't know the text, but he did say that marriage is between a man and a woman, and for that reason a man leaves his father and mother. So saying Jesus never spoke to this is wrong.
If you want to dismiss Paul and Moses, what else should we dismiss in the bible? How about we allow our youth pastor and associate pastor who are single to live with other people as long as they are "committeed" Yeah that would be great statement to the youth of our church. Why not just say anything goes?
I have heard it said that the gay lobby pushed this for years and 2 million was given by a group called ARCUS to groups to push this through. Doesn't that trouble you all?
I think you want to pick and choose what you believe. The bible is clear, and so is Jesus. That doesn't mean we should point fingers and judge others, but it also means we cannot "dumb down" our beliefs.
The Bible is not clear on homosexuality. So you have "heard" that a group called ARCUS gave money to push this through. "Doesn't that trouble you." What troubles me is this statement in itself is part of the problem. You heard someone did this. well great, but don't you think the people of lacasa or any church can make up their own mind given all the facts. Its a rather cynical comment.
ReplyDeleteas for the blog writer choosing an article that was slanted in his direction. I don't believe so. It appears to me that, I think his name is Tom,presented another position that in fact exposed not only the weaknesses in the position you seek to defend but which represents the thinking of Luther. This is the whole point; we should openly discuss these issues. I would argue that you sir are afraid of the light of day and are afraid to discuss these issues openly and that in effect you ask the rest of us to "dumb down" our beliefs by preferring that we accept something without understanding it.
Ignorance would suggest that someone in this blog is asking that we dismiss paul and moses. that is a political statement. the blog writer is asking that we discuss the issues. the whole point here is that there are different interpretations. Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they are ignoring paul and moses. If i follow that logid than you too are dismissing paul and moses and possibly Luther. Then there is no discussion and you sir have accomplished your goal of controlling the conversation. I believe the blog writer is asking that we have an open discussion of these issues. So what's wrong with that.
Speaking of lacasa's website in an other comment. why don't the pastors put this blog up on the church's website. Why not have open discussions, and use its posting as a precursor to a broader conversation.
I’d like to thank the last two posters for their comments. Since the two of you have a discussion in progress, I don’t want to “clutter things up”, as it were. Let me simply address both of you with a thought.
ReplyDeleteI am here in defense of transparency. I am not here to push an agenda. I have researched this question and both sides of the issue substantially. I have come to my conclusion based on research. I find that many of my fellow family members do not have the understanding or interpretation of scripture that some of us, on both sides of the issue have. What I am arguing is that we are moving too fast, without complete and total discussion and information. I would further argue that this entire process has not been transparent and that an awful lot of our family has been excluded from the decision making process. That is the position I present here in the blog. This post and responses to it will be forwarded this day to Pastor Garman, along with the recommendation that it be put up on the church web page. I will post his response when it becomes available to me.
Thank you for the scriptural links and article on-line. I have since found many more articles. There appears to be a real schism on the interpretation of these 7 verses of scripture, with many strong arguments on both sides.
ReplyDeleteI did not participate in the first vote, as I am conflicted on this issue. Many people at church appear to be comfortable with their decisions. I decided to let the majority speak and determine whether or not to stay in the church, depending on any ensuing changes. I was dismayed when only a minority of members voted.
During the church meeting I attended, our pastors effectively communicated their positions. I respect them all, but I couldn't really articulate my concerns at that time. It was easier for me to let someone else make the decision, and then react to it later. Now I find myself confronting my concerns once again, but certainly don't want to "sow any seeds of discontent."
One thing that concerns me--are gay people genetically predisposed or is their lifestyle merely a choice? I've read articles indicating that the brain scans of gay men resemble scans of women's brains. There seem to be questions as to whether the hormonal balances in utero of gay people are different from those of the "straight" population. (Those of us who raised teenagers know the havoc hormones can create.) I don't know, however, if anyone in the scientific community has taken a stance one way or the other on this subject? Is this lifestyle merely one of choice? I'm not gay so I don't have experience in this regard. However, I can't imagine why anyone would choose a lifestyle that subjects them to so much ridicule, discrimination, and at times open hatred, without there being some predisposition.
Another concern - If our congregation makes this decision, will gay people feel they are welcome in the congregation? The current stance of the church, I believe, is that they should live a celibate life to avoid sin. If that works, great. However, this stance has certainly backfired in the Catholic church community as some men (who apparently had gay tendencies) entered the priesthood to live a life of service to God in a celibate lifestyle. I guess what I am asking-is this a realistic expectation? If a gay person tried to live a celibate life and then couldn't, would they feel like they could remain in the congregation? Jesus reached out to the unacceptable members of society in His time--would He want us to push these people away?
Another concern - It is my understanding that ELCA is allowing member churches to decide not to adopt this new particular viewpoint and not to call pastors who do. So why leave the ELCA? Staying allows a dialogue on this issue to continue; leaving ends the dialogue. I am concerned that continued divisions within the Christian faith causes more people to question their faith rather than living it.
That was really well said. thank you.
ReplyDelete