Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Your Turn / Re: Once again, in loco parentis
« Last post by Michael Slusser on Yesterday at 09:15:46 PM »
Add to the category of "You can't make this ---- up.

https://thegrio.com/2022/08/19/the-whitelash-behind-minneapolis-plan-to-fire-white-teachers-explained/
Thanks! That's kind of what I thought the problems were. This opinion piece sets them out rather clearly.

Peace,
Michael
2
Your Turn / Re: Once again, in loco parentis
« Last post by Donald_Kirchner on Yesterday at 08:33:32 PM »
3
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.


As Peter pointed out your use of the term adiaphora, that something that is not "a matter of salvation" it is adiaphora, is not in accord with the standard definition.


From the Christian Cyclopedia, https://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=A&t2=d


Adiaphora  (“middle matters”; from Gk. for “indifferent things”; Ger. Mitteldinge). FCEp X 1 speaks of adiaphora as “ceremonies or church usages which are neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God but have been introduced into the church in the interest of good order and the general welfare.”

By your definition, that if it is not "a matter of salvation" it is adiaphora, can you specify a Biblical teaching is not adiaphora?
4
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.

Quote
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?

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).
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.
5
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: 8) . 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.


Quote
If 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.

In view of the bolded words from your post above, the fact is that certain beliefs or behaviors ARE a matter of salvation!  When Paul commanded that the incestuous man in Corinth be excommunicated it was precisely because his eternal salvation was at stake.  When people willingly rebel against God's word and affirm sin that He condemns (see Romans 1:32 and 1st Corinthians 6:9-10) their SALVATION IS AT STAKE whether they believe it or not.
6
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?

Charles, in such cases people in the LCMS are sometimes (often?) disciplined - after we have patiently and lovingly attempted to correct them, of course.  But here's the thing.  The LCMS has NEVER suggested anything like a "bound conscience" agreement as the ELCA did back in 2009 in areas of doctrine where the teaching of Scripture is clear and has been embraced by Christians since the time of the apostles (e.g., abortion being evil; heterosexual behavior outside of marriage and all forms of same-sex behavior being evil; the ordination of women into the pastoral office being forbidden; the evil of denying Scripture's teaching on creation, the miracles of Jesus, the vicarious atonement and Christ's bodily resurrection, etc.) - and so we are NOT being inconsistent at all when we discipline those in our midst who reject our doctrine after loving and patient correction. 

In contrast, the ELCA, with it's "bound conscience" agreement supposedly promised that those who believe that same-sex behavior and marriage are sinful would still be welcomed and respected in the ELCA.  But that is obviously not the case anymore.  There are those in ELCA who believe there should not be a place for haters and bigots who believe that Scripture teaches that same-sex behavior and marriage are sinful.  So, some in the ELCA are NOT being consistent with what was promised by "bound conscience" back in 2009.
7
Your Turn / Re: What is a "fallen thigh"?
« Last post by Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on Yesterday at 05:21:59 PM »
I think we'll find there were lexical or exegetical publications that paved the way before the NIV team. Translation teams usually support their decisions from academic work. The fact that it is in a footnote likely means it was regarded as second best by the team who reviewed the work.

As I look at the history, I'm guessing this discussion was happening in Europe before 1978. I can't find any hint of the miscarriage/abortion interpretation in the nineteenth century resources available to me. Dan is likely right that it appeared with twentieth century debates about abortion.
8
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

The first thing to jump out at me from the article was Michael Schulte‘s repeated strawman reference to being told one is damned to hell. None of the four positions described in the 2009 Statement says anything about being damned to hell.
9

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?

The chair of the call committee of the congregation I retired from said that they were asked if the congregation would be open to a lgbt pastor. They didn't think so. There were no repercussions over that answer. I would think that bishops and staff would rather have congregations be honest up front rather than have to deal with major problems later.

I wonder what you mean by "what informs and controls the life of the community is the public policy of the institution." I have not found that the public policies of the ELCA informed and controlled the life of the congregation. Usually the opposite was the case. The congregation was the institution in control. I, as the pastor, (and representing the synod and churchwide,) often had little say about what controlled the life of the congregation. I could nudge the congregational leadership in a direction, but control them? Not at all.

I attended nearly every synod assembly and bishop's convos in the synods where I was serving. (There have been four of them.) I've attended four churchwide assemblies - two as a volunteer, one as a visitor, and one as a voting member. I tried to keep myself informed of what was going on in the "institution(s)" of our churchwide and synod structure. For the most part, decisions made at those levels had very little effect on what happened in the congregation. Even back in 1987 when there was the vote for the new church, which caused major institutional changes, I opined that for most of the people in pews, about the only difference they would notice would be a new magazine.

Your situation might be different than what experienced over 43 years of ministry in congregations.
10
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.

Quote
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?

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).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10