Recent Posts
Add to the category of "You can't make this ---- up.Thanks! That's kind of what I thought the problems were. This opinion piece sets them out rather clearly.
https://thegrio.com/2022/08/19/the-whitelash-behind-minneapolis-plan-to-fire-white-teachers-explained/
We are saying that these different convictions about same-sex relationships are not matters around which salvation is at stake.Are the only doctrinal matters that matter are those in which salvation is at stake? In what doctrinal matters is salvation at stake. You have opined that we are saved by Jesus irregardless of what we believe. So are there any matters in which salvation is at stake? But I digress.
That is one way of distinguishing between adiaphora and stuff that really matters: "Is it a matter of salvation?" If not, then Christians can have differing opinions.
What matters to salvation is determined by God. Adiaphora are things neither commanded nor forbidden by God. The word isn’t defined in terms of what is unimportant to salvation.We are saying that these different convictions about same-sex relationships are not matters around which salvation is at stake.Are the only doctrinal matters that matter are those in which salvation is at stake? In what doctrinal matters is salvation at stake. You have opined that we are saved by Jesus irregardless of what we believe. So are there any matters in which salvation is at stake? But I digress.
That is one way of distinguishing between adiaphora and stuff that really matters: "Is it a matter of salvation?" If not, then Christians can have differing opinions.QuoteThere is much more in the Statement about human sexuality. About this particular issue, as well as a resolution at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, was about unity.So, does this reconsideration about this part of the Social Statement mean that the ELCA is no longer concerned about unity despite difference in bound conscience about these matters? Is there to be no longer room in the big tent for those whose conscience bound by their understanding of the Word of God considers same-sex sexual relationships to be sinful?
My hunch is that the reconsidering of this Statement has to do more with same-sex marriages being legalized in 2015. This means "marriage" could be used rather than "publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous" relationships (aka PALM).
Consciences bound by what?
The Word of God. I quote from the Statement (boldface added; footnotes included):
In response, this church draws on the foundational Lutheran understanding that the baptized are called to discern God’s love in service to the neighbor. In our Christian freedom, we therefore seek responsible actions that serve others and do so with humility and deep respect for the conscience-bound beliefs of others. We understand that, in this discernment about ethics and church practice, faithful people can and will come to different conclusions about the meaning of Scripture1 and about what constitutes responsible action. We further believe that this church, on the basis of “the bound conscience,”2 will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world.
1 “The difference between interpreters should not be understood as a conflict between those who seek to be ‘true to Scripture’ and those who seek to ‘twist the Bible’ to their own liking. The disagreements are genuine.” This is the conclusion of Dr. Arland J. Hultgren and Dr. Walter F. Taylor Jr. Both are members of the ELCA and both are highly regarded scholars and teachers. The citation is from Arland Hultgren and Walter Taylor, Background Essay on Biblical Texts for Journey Together Faithfully, Part Two: The Church and Homosexuality. (Chicago: ELCA, September 2003), 18. This essay was written at the request of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality. It can be accessed at www. elca.org/faithfuljourney/historical (Feb.1, 2009).
2 The Apostle Paul testifieses to conscience as the unconditional moral responsibility of the individual before God (Romans 2:15–16). In the face of different conclusions about what constitutes responsible action, the concept of “the conscience” becomes pivotal. When the clear word of God’s saving action by grace through faith is at stake, Christian conscience becomes as adamant as Paul, who opposed those who insisted upon circumcision (Galatians 1:. In the same way Luther announced at his trial for heresy, “Unless I am persuaded by the testimony of Scripture and by clear reason . . . I am conquered by the Scripture passages I have adduced and my conscience is captive to the words of God. I neither can nor desire to recant anything, when to do so against conscience would be neither safe nor wholesome” (WA 7: 838; Luther’s Works 32:112). However, when the question is about morality or church practice, the Pauline and Lutheran witness is less adamant and believes we may be called to respect the bound conscience of the neighbor. That is, if salvation is not at stake in a particular question, Christians are free to give priority to the neighbor’s well-being and will protect the conscience of the neighbor, who may well view the same question in such a way as to affect faith itself. For example, Paul was confident that Christian freedom meant the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not at stake in questions of meat sacrificed to idols or the rituals of holy days (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8:10–14 and 10:23–30). Yet he insisted that, if a brother or sister did not understand this freedom and saw eating this meat as idolatry to a pagan god, the Christian was obligated to “walk in love” by eating just vegetables for the neighbor’s sake (Romans 14:17–20)!
This social statement draws upon this rich understanding of the role of conscience and calls upon this church, when in disagreement concerning matters around which salvation is not at stake, including human sexuality, to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), honor the conscience, and seek the well-being of the neighbor.QuoteIf the point was not to teach about sexuality but make an appeal for unity, then really you're saying the ELCA teaches nothing at all on the topic of sexuality but simply notes the many things people in the ELCA might believe. That would be even more pointless than an embrace of mutually-exclusive positions.
We are saying that these different convictions about same-sex relationships are not matters around which salvation is at stake. There is much more in the Statement about human sexuality. About this particular issue, as well as a resolution at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, was about unity.
Pro-choice people in the LC-MS, lay or clergy. How do they fare?
Those in the LCMS favoring female pastors. Can they speak up? Propose memorials?
LCMS Advocates of communion fellowship with ELCA or admitting non-Lutherans to communion. Are they accepted?
LCMS people rejecting the “pope as anti-Christ” language in the confessions. OK or not?
“Liberal” Bible scholars in the LCMS, lay or clergy. How are they doing on issues of creation or historicity of scripture stories?
LCMS folk who accept same-sex marriage or similar partnerships. Welcome? Or not?
Those - lay or clergy - who don’t accept CTCR declarations as the final authority for policy or practice. Are they OK?
Interesting article. Many believed that "bound conscience" was a joke and would never last.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/elca-opens-door-to-nixing-protections-for-gay-marriage-opponents.html
What one personally believes doesn't have to change. They can and should express their opinion in congregational meetings. The ELCA does not insist that all its members or even all its clergy have to agree with our Social Statements.
Pr. Stoffregen, you know as well as I that all this matters very little. "What one personally believes doesn't have to change," because in the ELCA, "what one personally believes" is relegated to the sphere of private opinion, while what informs and controls the life of the community is the public policy of the institution. As long as dissent is kept private, the ELCA can easily tolerate it. Toleration under those conditions is no problem. But if dissent tries to interfere with institutional policy, as that policy is articulated by those with institutional power, toleration swiftly evaporates.
It seems that, these days, the motto of the ELCA is something akin to "You can think whatever you want, but we'll do things my way." I wonder where the ELCA might have learned that?
We are saying that these different convictions about same-sex relationships are not matters around which salvation is at stake.Are the only doctrinal matters that matter are those in which salvation is at stake? In what doctrinal matters is salvation at stake. You have opined that we are saved by Jesus irregardless of what we believe. So are there any matters in which salvation is at stake? But I digress.
There is much more in the Statement about human sexuality. About this particular issue, as well as a resolution at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, was about unity.So, does this reconsideration about this part of the Social Statement mean that the ELCA is no longer concerned about unity despite difference in bound conscience about these matters? Is there to be no longer room in the big tent for those whose conscience bound by their understanding of the Word of God considers same-sex sexual relationships to be sinful?
