Anonymous said ...
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.
Both 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.
There are volumes upon volumes written by and about Luther and his work. I don't think I've distorted his views, but any effort to discuss them here will have its limitations, on both sides! I would emphasize, however, that Luther was first and foremost about receiving and being thankful for the Gospel and the love of God. He struggled with the burden of guilt and sin, but he learned to tell his tormenter, Satan (the accuser), that Satan would just have to take up any accusations he had against Luther with Luther's savior, Jesus. That is the freedom and assurance of faith!
Luther was not only about Scripture alone but also grace alone and faith alone. Working out the tensions among those principles is a big part of what we're doing with the contentious issue before us today.
The comments in red above are an expression of several arguments frequently put forth in this discussion. The argument expressed is indeed a time tested or time worn one, depending of course on your point of view. However, let me point out something.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly and then face to face.” This verse from 1 Corinthians 13 poses a couple of interpretations right off the bat. The one I have pulled from it for 50 years is that we must continue to grow in our relationship with scripture and Jesus Christ, but we will never see either of these as clearly as we will when we're with him face to face in heaven. We all need humility. I admit I might not see these issues entirely clearly. My contribution to the discussion is to state my understanding, listen humbly to others, then let the Spirit move among us, as he has done in such issues as slavery, race and the role of women in the church.
Our understanding of these and other issues now is completely different than it once was. To take the 7 passages now in the context of when, by whom, and where they were written yields an interpretation, no doubt. But, the question exists as to whether that interpretation is relevant in a changing world.
There are those who said that buggies were never going to be replaced by the automobile, the airplane, the jet airplane, and the rocket ship. There are those who would deny medical advances because of admonitions and interpretations expressed thousands of years ago. New medical advances occur every day as humankind evolves! Would you deny their use, if it were to save your life? I would argue our ability to interpret scripture and offer interpretation is a gift from God, as are our advances. So perhaps following HIS commandment to “Love one another as I have loved you”, should be our guiding principle. And therein, my Christian Brother or Sister, lies the rub and the need for full, frank, open, respectful discussion.
Thank you so much for your views. They are an invaluable part of our discussion. Please remember to be present at the second Congregational vote scheduled for NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in the service of Christ, Tom.
Posts
I think you mistake changes in technology and society and confuse them with God's eternal Word. of course we enjoy advances that people did not have years ago.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't mean scripture changes. The fallacy of the slavery and women in leadership roles strawman argument is just that...non-existent. Yes, there are passages in scripture that favor slavery and keeping women subordinate. However, the difference is that there are OTHER passages that uphold freedom for slaves and women as leaders in church .
And therein is the difference. In the reading I have done of original languages, there is no mistaking that it means same sex relationships of a sexual nature.
You can say culture has changed, and we should change. You could say the issue of homosexuality may be a bit different. But you CANNOT ignore scripture on this issue and brush away seven passages, in addition to Jesus saying marriage is the ONLY place for sexual relationships.
So be honest, and say you are arguing from science or something else, but don't mislead and say that scripture means something else.
You're offering a proof-texting approach to this issue, and Lutherans are NOT proof-texters! We see the Scripture through the lens of Law and Gospel, Old Covenant and New Covenant, and we understand that we live in the new covenant.
ReplyDeleteJesus gave us a new command, that we love one another. He didn't give us a 1,000-page manual to tell us how to do that. He gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us in how to do that.
For now, we have differences among us in how we hear that spirit. I believe it's too early to say either one of us is right. But we certainly should talk about the issue frankly and fully, and have both sides represented fairly, frankly and fully.
Then, let's continue to listen to the guidance of the spirit ... the same spirit that led the world to understand the crippled aren't specially cursed by God and people of color aren't inferior. The same spirit that seems to have led the church not to exclude divorced people from service. The same spirit that seems to be leading the church to a broader understanding of the role of women in ministry (an issue on which La Casa is more liberal than most of modern Christianity, I might add).
Again, your comments raise the issue of how we interpret and use Scripture. You have some pronounced views of that topic. Others, including some of Christianity's top spiritual leaders and our brothers and sisters (not demons, mind you), have equally pronounced views that are different from yours.
I say, let's have a full, open discussion on that topic. I also say that, while the discussion continues, the ELCA is doing nothing to ram one methodology or another down a congregation's throat. So, I see no reason that we have to be in a rush to leave the ELCA.
By the way, are you a minister yourself? I'm impressed that you've read the original languages. It might be helpful to those following this blog if you would identify yourself.
Thank you for your comments. Please attend the November 7 meeting to vote your conscience.
No, I studied philosophy and theology for a time. Don't want to give my name on s blog like this, too many attacks here.
ReplyDeleteI've read the original texts too and can tell you with complete certainty that there are a lot of places in scripture where it says something and we do another. Big deal. the real issue is how are we going to read scripture. Are we at lacasa fundamentalists or do we adopt a luther/lutheran approach to scipture? It's not clear to me.
ReplyDeleteTo poster october 3 9:52PM: Thank you for clearing that up. I understand your second sentence completely, and it is unfortunate, yet shows a side of the issue that not many of us are willing to acknowledge. Passion for an idea or point of reference is fine as far as it goes, but when it becomes personal, our thoughts and arguments are lost in vitrolic thought. Thats why I liked the sermon yesterday. I would all hope we have that "mustard seed" of faith. Thank you sincerely for your thoughts, and please remember to vote on NOVEMBER 7 at the congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
ReplyDeleteTo the poster of October 3, 9:53PM I concur. I read the texts as well, but through the lens of cultural conditioning of the writers. Do the words LOSE their meaning? NO, they do not. Does the meaning CHANGE as we are able to better understand them in terms of their original context? YES. The BIBLE is a fluid ever changing group of texts to me. It lives and breathes just as certainly as I do. "For now we see in a mirror dimly, and then face to face." Humankind is evolving and with it our understanding of what God is saying to each of us is evolving as well. This may well be the reason we are so convoluted in our interpretations of what we read. And yet, there is always the absolute truth on which to rely: Jesus Christ! I don't believe these challenges are clear to anyone in our church family, so you are definitely not alone. This is why I'm working so strenuously to slow this process down and let's all of us take a serious unbiased look at what we are about to do. Regardless, please remember to be present at the NOVEMBER 7 congregational meeting and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom
ReplyDeleteTo the previous anonymous poster:
ReplyDeleteLet us deal with two things right here:
1) It is not "fundamentalist" to say homosexuality is a sin. It happens to be a viewpoint shared by 99.5% of the worlds Christians and many Protestants and Roman Catholics...and yes, fundamentalists as well, but many mainline Protestants. The only people who have declared to be non-sinful are the American Episcopalians and ELCA Lutherans and UCC.
Secondly, I have taken many bible studies at La Casa, taught by pastors and members. I have not run into a lot of fundmentalist thought. Maybe there is some in some classes, but in a church that size that will happen. I can tell you in classes we have covered two stories of creation in Genesis , that the bible was written over thousands of years by many people, and other ways of reading the bible...so please don't state something that is not true.
3. Yes, in many places in the bible it says something and we do another. You say that is no big deal. Then why have a confession ever Sunday? Or communion? It is a big deal. It is called sin.
#1. I wasn't discussing homosexuality i was discussing the need to have a fuller discussion of how we read and interpret scripture.
ReplyDelete#2. We offer "The Truth Project" as a cornerstone of our adult education and clearly the people who wrote and produced this education piece are fundamentalists.
#3. Again, I wasn't discussing sin. I was discussing how we read scripture and more specifically how our understanding of it can be culturally bound. What was viewed or is viewed as being sinful at the time the Bible was written may not be viewed that way now.
Interesting. Last time I looked through the adult education offerings taht were mailed to everyone, there are over 10 weekly classes, in addition to dozens of studies for men, women and all ages. Yet you say the "Truth Project" (which I have not been involved in) is the cornerstone? I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteI do know that one of our pastors taught a rather controversial book last year and that people were upset it was too liberal. I guess for some things are too conservative, and some too liberal. I sure wouldn't want to be trying to please everyone. We should be praying for them, not nitpicking.
Maybe people should be focused on the positive things.
http://www.lacasadecristo.com/ministries/adult-education/truth-project
ReplyDeleteI think it's fair to say that any class that's offered repeatedly, as The Truth Project is, and is featured this prominently on our church website (see the link above) is being positioned as a cornerstone course. That's just a fact.
No anonymity here, folks! How about some others actually beginning to identify themselves?
Sorry, I don't understand all the choices with a Google or wordpress or whatever but my name is Robert Smith and I joined La Casa after all the problems with ELCA in my parish in Fountain Hills. I have been a member a little over a year. The congregation I used to be a part of is now split ,with people who believe the ELCA stance in one place and others another.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I am reluctant to identify myself is that so often those folks who are more traditional are attacked as fundamentalists. I finally decided that it was time to step forward and state the following:
1) I do not agree La Casa is a fundamentalist church in worship or class offerings. It is the most traditional Lutheran church I have ever been a part of . I have taken several classes and men's studies and been very impressed. At least in what I have been a part of , free and open discussion is encouraged and people do disagree. I was part of a class last year that was controversial and some viewed the book studied as too liberal. As I said above, it seems our leaders are getting it from both sides, for some too liberal, for some too conservative.
2) As for the argument above about the Truth Project, Peter, I can't say as I have not attended. I guess if you feel so strongly La Casa is wrong in what they teach, then why do you stay ? There are plenty of revisionist ELCA congregations that teach the bible is myth and only symbolic out there to choose from .
3) In my home congregation I saw some folks on the liberal end of the spectrum do hideous things in the name of being "progressive" and against the ones they saw as "fundamentalist". Both extremes really bother me. Yes there are closed minded and nasty fundamentalists but the same is true of so called "enlightened" progressives or liberals or whatever they want to be called.
People can be closed minded on all ends of the spectrum.
Hi, Robert. Thanks for identifying yourself. I look forward to meeting you sometime.
ReplyDeleteI'm attending The Truth Project right now to learn firsthand what it's about. It's true that I'm not comfortable with its approach to Scripture. Believe me, the pastors know where I stand in regard to this series. On the other hand, I am finding as I watch that I'm not opposed to everything that's said. I don't like the many negative comments about science and biblical scholarship, for example, but I agree wholeheartedly that humans are fallen, sinful and in need of redemption.
I admire and applaud most things about La Casa, so there's one reason I don't leave. Also, I have close friends here.
I also don't think you should leave as organization as important as your congregation - or your national church body - just because everything isn't going your way. I think God sees the many divisions within Christianity as a scandal, and I don't want to be quick to extend that scandal even further.
That's why I support the idea that we as a congregation don't have to leave right now. We haven't fully discussed why we're leaving, and we haven't given members of the other side, who are our brothers and sisters in Christ, a full opportunity to explain how and why they reached the decisions they did.
That's why I'm staying, and that's why I don't want to see us leave at the moment.
Robert, I admire you for letting everyone know who you are, what you think and where you stand. Thanks for being part of the conversation!
I would disagree. The Bishop came and spoke for over an hour presenting the ELCA side.
ReplyDeleteThe pastors of La Casa were kind enough not to rebut that information, even though there were several incorrect comments (the chief one being they didn't approve anything at the meeting last year in Minnesota, they did, you can go on ELCA website and see they approved same sex marriage and same sex pastors living together in relationships that are committed, whatever that means) . The other incorrect comment was he acknowledged many passages in scripture speak of this, but then brushed it aside and read from Acts about a completely different passage.
Last, I am glad you are staying. But those who leave should not be criticized. If the founding citizens of our nation never stood up for what they believed in and left the British Empire, there would be no America. Sometimes you do have to leave an organization that has become corrupt or divisive or wrong.
Robert
Good evening, Robert. I was at the meeting with Bishop Talmage. I was the fellow who said some words in support of him.
ReplyDeleteMost of his presentation was about what ELCA has to offer in terms of united ministry. He spent some time on the specific issues of homosexuality, I admit. But I'd say he had time only to do the Cliff Notes version.
I'd like to see us as a congregation have a chance to hear fully about how those who voted in favor of the ELCA resolutions approach Scripture and why they voted as they did. I'd still emphasize that they're our brothers and sisters in Christ, and I think we owe them that much. Hear them out, fully and face to face, and then decide.
I'm glad the founding fathers of our nation left, too, but it doesn't square entirely with Paul's words from Romans 13:
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
"Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
"For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
"Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
"For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
"Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
I really believe we shouldn't leave until we've fully honored our fellow believers by fully understanding how and why they've come to their stances. I think we owe that much to the body of God. I also think we'd be better off as a country if we stopped fragmenting and aligning into divided tribes, but that's a story for another day.
I'd really enjoy meeting you, Robert. Thank you for being one of that increasingly rare breed, a gentleman.