ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Norman Teigen on September 23, 2020, 11:32:29 AM

Title: Nuclear Family
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 23, 2020, 11:32:29 AM
Recently Pastors Engebretsen and Speckhard have made mention of "the nuclear family." I would be interested in reading comments about this topic.  What is meant by the term "the nuclear family"? Is  Is it a Biblical concept? Is the "nuclear family" a moral imperative?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on September 23, 2020, 11:59:52 AM
What is meant by nuclear family?  Mother, Father, children.  Perhaps grandparents, depending on the individual situation, but I think mother, father, and children.

Is it a Biblical imperative?  I think it is.  We have the example from Deuteronomy to talk about these things as you walk, when you sit down for lunch, when you get up in the morning, when you go to bed at night.  That would likely include the close family, but also perhaps the extended family of cousins, aunts, uncles.  And in the Biblical world, servants that lived in the household.  I'd even go back to the Garden- for this reason man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

Is it a moral imperative?  This would probably get a lot more opinion, but an intact family is far better than a family that is not intact.  The way out of poverty is an intact family.  We'd go a long way to putting the brakes on crime and violence if more fathers were attached to their families through marriage.  A child needs the positive influence of their mother.  A child needs the positive influence of their fathers. I would probably say that a nuclear family is a moral imperative.

Jeremy 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 23, 2020, 12:18:51 PM
I'd recommend a couple of resources to open up the conversation, the first being our understanding of Oikos has been shaped more by the last 150 years in western culture then the last 3000 and clearly it has been a failure.

https://www.amazon.com/Family-Mission-Sally-Breen-ebook/dp/B00KFTJUTI (https://www.amazon.com/Family-Mission-Sally-Breen-ebook/dp/B00KFTJUTI)


https://store.faithink.com/products/lets-kill-sunday-school-before-it-kills-the-church-volume-1-by-dr-rich-melheim-and-friends (https://store.faithink.com/products/lets-kill-sunday-school-before-it-kills-the-church-volume-1-by-dr-rich-melheim-and-friends)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 23, 2020, 12:32:45 PM
I didn't use the term "nuclear family," as such (I believe I said "traditional family"), but it works.  According to a basic Oxford Dictionary definition: "a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit."

While single parent families do occur (I gave my own situation as a case in point), I do not believe that biblically speaking they are the norm.  Also, and this will immediately divide our group, I believe that the 'couple' in a nuclear family, biblically speaking, is composed of a man and a woman. 

To define the biblical norm, I would start with Genesis, which our Lord also appealed to as well. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 23, 2020, 12:46:48 PM
  There is also the Oikos Jesus created with the extended family members of his disciples. At a time when one's identity was determined by your family of origin's business (carpenter, fisherman, etc), Jesus called together an Oikos united in the business of the Kingdom. Thus the church is "family" in much more historically accurate ways than how we use that word today.

Until the industrial revolution individuals gathered in multi generational communities as Oikos (as the head of the household/Oikos shall teach ...), but then we devolved into mom, dad, kids and the dog and started calling that entity the nuclear family.   I would suggest it is the church, and only the church, which may reintroduce that older, more holistic understanding of Oikos: multi generational.

 By extension, that's also why Sunday School as a faith formation model has failed Protestants, all manner of such regardless of their core theology, in western culture. Age silos are the worst outcome of "nuclear family."  This has implications for reaching Millennials and Gen Z

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 23, 2020, 12:47:27 PM
What is the Biblical concept?

The Biblical concept is that marriage (if entered into) is a life long relationship till death parts the couple and is the foundation of the nuclear or traditional family.  Intimate conjugal activities are to be within the bonds of marriage only.

Marriage is encouraged ... but not Biblically mandates ... to be a blessing as are children ... however marriage is Biblical prerequisite for conceiving children.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2020, 01:50:38 PM
The 4th and 6th Commandments codify the nuclear family as God's design for procreation. The household is not necessarily coterminous with the nuclear family. Multi-generational households or households that include extended relatives, neighbors, or people in need are a blessing. But the pattern of father/mother/children is what any variations are variations on.

The facts of creation as expressed in biology (often referred to as a the facts of life) distinguish the nuclear family from other living arrangements as well.



Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 23, 2020, 02:32:04 PM

True - biology as well as how people "did life" collected together into households - not as simple, isolated biological parents with their children.  That's what I think we've been missing and may be, complete speculation on my part, why we are in the faith formation mess we are in (and the culture's confusion about human sexuality and relationships).

Extended households have an ability to emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically shape children - born into Oikos, etc.  Parents, many of them single, demonstrates IMHO the failure of nuclear family as western culture has attempted to redefine household life.  One parent is nearly defenseless against the eroding power of our secular culture.



Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Daniel Lee Gard on September 23, 2020, 03:00:20 PM
I have become interested in genealogy. Sometimes you find things in ancestors that reflect the best or the worst of human beings.

One thing is obvious in my family tree and suspect also in all of yours: each generation consisted of a "nuclear family" of a man, a woman and children. Every single one. I cannot guarantee that each man, woman or child fulfilled their vocation as a father, mother or offspring. In fact, some most certainly did not and their children suffered for it.

My point is that the existence of each generation is made possible by God's creative ordering in Genesis 2. All the politically correct posturing about alternative family structures (two mommies, two daddies, etc) contradicts the Creator and can only result in the degradation of humanity.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: DCharlton on September 23, 2020, 03:17:02 PM
The 4th and 6th Commandments codify the nuclear family as God's design for procreation. The household is not necessarily coterminous with the nuclear family. Multi-generational households or households that include extended relatives, neighbors, or people in need are a blessing. But the pattern of father/mother/children is what any variations are variations on.

The facts of creation as expressed in biology (often referred to as a the facts of life) distinguish the nuclear family from other living arrangements as well.

In the 4th and 6th Commandments, God not only codifies but also sanctifies the nuclear family, "for God's Word is holy and it sanctifies everything that it touches."
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2020, 04:04:55 PM
Rarely in my upbringing did our household consist strictly of my nuclear family. We were a family of 7 (I'm 4th of five kids) and lived in a three bedroom ranch with a half basement, but a lot of the time had one of my grandmothers, or an aunt and cousin, or a troubled teenager, or somebody in addition to the seven of us living there. My mom is youngest of eight children, and the parsonage she grew up in often had WWII refugees or military officers or others living in it with the ten in the "nuclear family."

The nucleus is not the entirety of something. But it is the nucleus of something.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Weedon on September 23, 2020, 04:11:31 PM
Yes, Peter, my upbringing was similar. A small three bedroom bungalow in the Maryland suburbs, but frequently a grandparent or a cousin was staying with us; later friends of mine who needed a place, my foster brother Wing Wai Leung and also a lad named Michael from the Eastern Shore. It seemed there was always a “guest” or two who were just part of the family (no special treatment; well except for my Grandma. She was a bit of a bear!). And in the parsonage, we often had Cindi’s mom and dad, or grandma and aunt for extended visits. And the children of the parish who were our kids’ age just treated the place as home. I still remember coming home from church to find one of them unabashedly hunting through the fridge for something to snack on. In our home now, Sunday usually finds my son and his family joining us for brunch, with my father-in-law who lives next door and his friend, Lois (who taught our kids at the school in third grade). The nucleus provides the basis for a haven of sorts that is by nature not at all closed off, but opened up. AND thanks be to God!!! My son-in-law has just accepted a call to a dual parish only 90 minutes away, so we’ll have all the grandchildren within an easy day’s trip. And my youngest and her husband live but two hours away to the south. So looking forward to the possibility of holidays together with the whole “nuclear family” (all 19 of us!).
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2020, 04:35:35 PM
I remember one summer when my mom counted only three days we didn't have someone spending the night. She was nearly always washing bedding for the next guest, and that didn't even necessarily include the semi-permanent household members like my grandmother (whose presence was one of the reasons so many people visited. That and our location in Valpo, where so many of my cousins went to college). I think one reason we decided to do the foster parent thing once some of our own children began to move out was because it naturally seems to me like a waste to have a household at less than full capacity. It isn't always easy to pull off, though. Like I said (and I think Luther said somewhere, too, or if he didn't, he should have) it is a blessing to have the opportunity to provide a household for people in need of one. The household is the Lutheran monastery-- a place of worship, work/vocation serving the neighbor, and life together.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 23, 2020, 05:18:16 PM
I have become interested in genealogy. Sometimes you find things in ancestors that reflect the best or the worst of human beings.

One thing is obvious in my family tree and suspect also in all of yours: each generation consisted of a "nuclear family" of a man, a woman and children. Every single one. I cannot guarantee that each man, woman or child fulfilled their vocation as a father, mother or offspring. In fact, some most certainly did not and their children suffered for it.

My point is that the existence of each generation is made possible by God's creative ordering in Genesis 2. All the politically correct posturing about alternative family structures (two mommies, two daddies, etc) contradicts the Creator and can only result in the degradation of humanity.


However, many of the biblical family trees include multiple wives and children with concubines and slaves. There are no biblical prohibitions against these.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Weedon on September 23, 2020, 05:27:14 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 23, 2020, 05:34:17 PM
In the rural areas, the nuclear family is strengthened by the presence of the
extended family. My first parish was in rural Minnesota and it was common to
see Uncles and Aunts, and Grandpas and Grandmas, connected to a particular
nuclear family.  So on Sunday morning it was always like a mini-family reunion
in the sanctuary.  Many extended families all lived in same township.

That is something I did not see in my suburban parish.  The nuclear family leans
more on the parish for their support system than Aunts & Uncles, Grandmas &
Grandpas who live 500 or 1000 miles away.  In suburbia, the nuclear family might
be there for 5 years before the father gets a job transfer as he climbs the corporate
ladder.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 23, 2020, 05:37:56 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 23, 2020, 05:40:26 PM
In the rural areas, the nuclear family is strengthened by the presence of the
extended family. My first parish was in rural Minnesota and it was common to
see Uncles and Aunts, and Grandpas and Grandmas, connected to a particular
nuclear family.  So on Sunday morning it was always like a mini-family reunion
in the sanctuary.  Many extended families all lived in same township.

That is something I did not see in my suburban parish.  The nuclear family leans
more on the parish for their support system than Aunts & Uncles, Grandmas &
Grandpas who live 500 or 1000 miles away.  In suburbia, the nuclear family might
be there for 5 years before the father gets a job transfer as he climbs the corporate
ladder.


We lived in a state without any relatives in that state. (And, no, it was not the state of confusion.) Thanksgiving dinners were with other church families without relatives in the area. In the midwest I occasionally had five living generations in one congregation. There are different cultures in the U.S.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 23, 2020, 05:46:42 PM
Early in my career I was warned to be careful about talking about anyone because you didn't know who else they might be related to in the congregation. Older congregations in particular usually had extensive and complicated webs of extended family relationships. My first congregation was a church plant in the deep suburbia. A few members were native to the area but most had moved out there for their slice of the country so there was no long established web of relationships. On the other hand, my nearest neighboring congregations was over 100 years old. My wife's grandfather had been a pastor there many years before and had married a daughter of the congregation. I was distantly related to about half the congregation. The pastor there understood that and offered that I could transfer my relatives into my congregation. But it was a package deal, if I wanted some I had to take them all, no picking and choosing - some of my relatives he wouldn't have minded transferring on.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 23, 2020, 06:01:03 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
Isn’t that the definition of Biblical God ordained marriage?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2020, 06:47:39 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
If you take evolution seriously as an origin story, you also begin with incest. Unless you think two sub-human creatures had the first human offspring, who then found that two other, unrelated subhuman creatures had begotten and given birth to a human of the opposite sex at about the same time and place, allowing the human mated pair to be unrelated to each other. I guess some people will believe absolutely anything.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 23, 2020, 07:16:06 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
Isn’t that the definition of Biblical God ordained marriage?


Nope, cause guys had sex with slaves (they were not their wives) and with concubines (they were not their wives) and with prostitutes (they were not their wives).
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: RogerMartim on September 23, 2020, 08:15:46 PM
Well, I guess that Trump is not much in favor of the nuclear family. Lots of kids have been taken away from their parents and placed in cages in many places in the SW.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 23, 2020, 08:26:58 PM
Ah, the cages that Obama had built and used.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 23, 2020, 08:37:30 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.
If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
Isn’t that the definition of Biblical God ordained marriage?
Nope, cause guys had sex with slaves (they were not their wives) and with concubines (they were not their wives) and with prostitutes (they were not their wives).
You either failed to read all the words ... or are dubiously dense.  Read all the words carefully and deliberately chosen with you in mind. 

Few if any other forum members would conflate sex with slaves, concubines and/or prostitutes as ‘Biblical God ordained marriage’. 

Furthermore your perverted thought processes are further manifested by the fact that clarification was needed that a slave, concubine and/or prostitute are “they are not their wives”.  In what civilized culture would someone have to clarify a person called slave, concubine, and/or prostitute is not his wife?

Sinful mankind always has .. and always will pervert blessings and gifts of God. None of what you describe in any shape or form is God pleasing ... therefore is cannot be included in ‘God pleasing marriage.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 23, 2020, 08:44:32 PM
Ah, the cages that Obama had built and used.
Not to mention all those minors who adults (not necessarily their parents or even family members) brought along as they knowingly and deliberately committed the crime of illegal entry into the US.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2020, 09:12:57 PM
Well, I guess that Trump is not much in favor of the nuclear family. Lots of kids have been taken away from their parents and placed in cages in many places in the SW.
One could make the same argument about anyone going to jail. Somebody's father (or mother) is often being taken away to a cage. Or the draft-- people being robbed of a son or father or husband to go fight in a trench. Or compulsory education-- wrenching children away from their families to be processed in giant fact factories.

Being in favor of the nuclear family does not mean doing nothing else except hang out with your immediate relatives.

And in any event, there is no need or call to bring Trump into this discussion. It was relevant long before 2016 and will be relevant long after 2024.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Tom Eckstein on September 23, 2020, 09:22:35 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
Isn’t that the definition of Biblical God ordained marriage?


Nope, cause guys had sex with slaves (they were not their wives) and with concubines (they were not their wives) and with prostitutes (they were not their wives).

Brian,  The only problem with your view of Genesis 2 is that Jesus disagrees with you. When He quotes from Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 He makes it very clear that this is marriage.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: SomeoneWrites on September 23, 2020, 11:01:58 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
If you take evolution seriously as an origin story, you also begin with incest. Unless you think two sub-human creatures had the first human offspring, who then found that two other, unrelated subhuman creatures had begotten and given birth to a human of the opposite sex at about the same time and place, allowing the human mated pair to be unrelated to each other. I guess some people will believe absolutely anything.

This is not how evolution works.  Think more accumulated genetic changes over time, and separating geographically. 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 23, 2020, 11:53:55 PM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
If you take evolution seriously as an origin story, you also begin with incest. Unless you think two sub-human creatures had the first human offspring, who then found that two other, unrelated subhuman creatures had begotten and given birth to a human of the opposite sex at about the same time and place, allowing the human mated pair to be unrelated to each other. I guess some people will believe absolutely anything.

This is not how evolution works.  Think more accumulated genetic changes over time, and separating geographically. 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
That’s because evolution doesn’t work, at least not as an explanation of origins.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 12:27:51 AM
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family. May there be many and may there be many more. But may we also understand that it is not the only kind of family.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 24, 2020, 01:27:35 AM
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family. May there be many and may there be many more. But may we also understand that it is not the only kind of family.
No one ever indicated “that it is not the only kind of family” to use your immortal words ... however Mr Teigen opened the thread with the question ...
Recently Pastors Engebretsen and Speckhard have made mention of "the nuclear family." I would be interested in reading comments about this topic.  What is meant by the term "the nuclear family"? Is  Is it a Biblical concept? Is the "nuclear family" a moral imperative?
Perhaps it’s your propensity to derail discussions ... or a fear to focus on .. and answer the question “Is the nuclear family a Biblical concept?”

Why engage in thread drift ... intentional or not? Nothing is stopping you from opening a thread with your question “What other kind of families are there?”

Now back to the thread topic “Is the nuclear family a Biblical concept?”
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 03:22:49 AM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.
If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
Isn’t that the definition of Biblical God ordained marriage?
Nope, cause guys had sex with slaves (they were not their wives) and with concubines (they were not their wives) and with prostitutes (they were not their wives).
You either failed to read all the words ... or are dubiously dense.  Read all the words carefully and deliberately chosen with you in mind.
 


I read them very carefully. You wrote: "Isn't that the definition of Biblical God ordained marriage?" (boldface added). You also added boldface to my comment: They had sex and became one. It seemed clear to me that the "that" in your question referred to: "They had sex and became one."


I pointed out instances where men had sex with women, which means they became one, but it does not mean that they are married. See 1 Corinthians 6:16 where Paul argues that having sex with a prostitute means that the two become one flesh. It does not mean that they are now married.

Quote
Few if any other forum members would conflate sex with slaves, concubines and/or prostitutes as ‘Biblical God ordained marriage’. 


The Hebrew of the Old Testament does not have a word for "marriage". You might find it in translations, but it is not a literal translation of the Hebrew. While Greek has words for "marriage" and they are used in the New Testament, none of those words are used in the Septuagint. Rather, the Hebrew implies a change of ownership. A father "gives" (נָתַן) his daughter (for a fee) to a man. The father can also "give" slaves to his daughter. The man "takes (possession)" (לַקַח) of the woman.


Oh, in both Hebrew and Greek, there is not a separate word for "wife" or "husband". Rather, translators will infer that the word "woman," like in the phrase, "his woman," (a woman possessed by him,) can be translated, "wife." The same for the word for "man".


An exception to this is the Hebrew word, בַּעַל, which can be translated, "husband," but it literally means, "owner," or "master," or even "god." It even becomes the name of a false god, "Baal."

Quote
Furthermore your perverted thought processes are further manifested by the fact that clarification was needed that a slave, concubine and/or prostitute are “they are not their wives”.  In what civilized culture would someone have to clarify a person called slave, concubine, and/or prostitute is not his wife?


But if Paul is correct, then having sex with slaves and concubines means that the man is now one flesh with them. Sex does not make them married.

Quote
Sinful mankind always has .. and always will pervert blessings and gifts of God. None of what you describe in any shape or form is God pleasing ... therefore is cannot be included in ‘God pleasing marriage.”


Show me where God says it is not pleasing to him. God told David through the prophet Nathan, that he gave him Saul's wives (plural) and would have given him even more (2 Samuel 12: 8) .
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 03:27:39 AM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
Isn’t that the definition of Biblical God ordained marriage?


Nope, cause guys had sex with slaves (they were not their wives) and with concubines (they were not their wives) and with prostitutes (they were not their wives).

Brian,  The only problem with your view of Genesis 2 is that Jesus disagrees with you. When He quotes from Genesis 2 in Matthew 19 He makes it very clear that this is marriage.


The understanding of marriage in biblical times is not the same as in our time. Jesus was not asked about marriage, but about divorce. Divorces were present even back in Old Testament times. It meant that another man could take this woman, and it would not be adultery because she was not "owned" by her husband anymore.


The idea of monogamy and that a woman could divorce her husband came from Roman law. Those were not part of Jewish law.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 03:29:35 AM
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family. May there be many and may there be many more. But may we also understand that it is not the only kind of family.
No one ever indicated “that it is not the only kind of family” to use your immortal words ... however Mr Teigen opened the thread with the question ...
Recently Pastors Engebretsen and Speckhard have made mention of "the nuclear family." I would be interested in reading comments about this topic.  What is meant by the term "the nuclear family"? Is  Is it a Biblical concept? Is the "nuclear family" a moral imperative?
Perhaps it’s your propensity to derail discussions ... or a fear to focus on .. and answer the question “Is the nuclear family a Biblical concept?”

Why engage in thread drift ... intentional or not? Nothing is stopping you from opening a thread with your question “What other kind of families are there?”

Now back to the thread topic “Is the nuclear family a Biblical concept?”


No.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 06:03:02 AM
And as Pastor Stoffregen points out, far as “social construct” goes, the Bible at times elevates things we do not  - tribe, ethnicity, geography, Pious practices, even theology - as critical for God’s “people.”
I said upstream, nothing wrong with what we have come to call the “traditional” or “nuclear” family. But it is not the only “godly” family.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 24, 2020, 09:10:18 AM
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family. May there be many and may there be many more. But may we also understand that it is not the only kind of family.
It is not the only kind of household. It is by God's design the only kind of family. But He's glad you find nothing wrong with it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 24, 2020, 09:24:16 AM
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: SomeoneWrites on September 24, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
If you take evolution seriously as an origin story, you also begin with incest. Unless you think two sub-human creatures had the first human offspring, who then found that two other, unrelated subhuman creatures had begotten and given birth to a human of the opposite sex at about the same time and place, allowing the human mated pair to be unrelated to each other. I guess some people will believe absolutely anything.

This is not how evolution works.  Think more accumulated genetic changes over time, and separating geographically. 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
That’s because evolution doesn’t work, at least not as an explanation of origins.

It definitely works as origins of species.  That much is well documented. 
Evolution is also not meant to explain the origin of life.  That's abiogenesis. 
and there are also Christians that believe God created life and then guided it with Evolution.  The same way God could use other "unguided" processes like the water cycle, wind patterns, etc. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 24, 2020, 09:42:24 AM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
If you take evolution seriously as an origin story, you also begin with incest. Unless you think two sub-human creatures had the first human offspring, who then found that two other, unrelated subhuman creatures had begotten and given birth to a human of the opposite sex at about the same time and place, allowing the human mated pair to be unrelated to each other. I guess some people will believe absolutely anything.

This is not how evolution works.  Think more accumulated genetic changes over time, and separating geographically. 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
That’s because evolution doesn’t work, at least not as an explanation of origins.

It definitely works as origins of species.  That much is well documented. 
Evolution is also not meant to explain the origin of life.  That's abiogenesis. 
and there are also Christians that believe God created life and then guided it with Evolution.  The same way God could use other "unguided" processes like the water cycle, wind patterns, etc.
So you think the first human male and the first human female were unrelated and therefore their mating wasn't "incest," which was the point that kicked off this little digression?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: SomeoneWrites on September 24, 2020, 09:47:21 AM
But from the beginning it was not so...Someone once observed.


If you take Genesis literally, incest was in the beginning. The children of Adam and Eve had no one else but siblings to mate with. (There's nothing in Genesis about marriage. They had sex and became one.)
If you take evolution seriously as an origin story, you also begin with incest. Unless you think two sub-human creatures had the first human offspring, who then found that two other, unrelated subhuman creatures had begotten and given birth to a human of the opposite sex at about the same time and place, allowing the human mated pair to be unrelated to each other. I guess some people will believe absolutely anything.

This is not how evolution works.  Think more accumulated genetic changes over time, and separating geographically. 

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
That’s because evolution doesn’t work, at least not as an explanation of origins.

It definitely works as origins of species.  That much is well documented. 
Evolution is also not meant to explain the origin of life.  That's abiogenesis. 
and there are also Christians that believe God created life and then guided it with Evolution.  The same way God could use other "unguided" processes like the water cycle, wind patterns, etc.
So you think the first human male and the first human female were unrelated and therefore their mating wasn't "incest," which was the point that kicked off this little digression?

The earliest humans weren't necessarily siblings.  https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 24, 2020, 10:04:39 AM
But it is not the only “godly” family.

It is extremely telling that a thread discussing a Biblical concept of a nuclear family is being derailed and reduced to a discussion of the non biblical “godly” family.

A “Godly” family is far different than a “godly” family. A “godly” family is completely devoid of the Biblical concepts that God wishes and desires for all families.

The desire to downgrade this thread from a discussion of a “Godly” Biblical family to a ‘godly’ family indicates that Rev Austin’s belief and confession are in line with the concerns expressed in the following ...
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.

Again, please resist thread drift and begin a “godly” family discussion thread. Thank you.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 24, 2020, 10:09:07 AM
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.

Again, please resist thread drift and begin a “godly” family discussion thread. Thank you.

My intent was not to create thread drift.  I was simply acknowledging how difficult it is to find common ground for discussion on what constitutes a  nuclear family, biblically speaking. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 24, 2020, 10:17:48 AM
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.

Again, please resist thread drift and begin a “godly” family discussion thread. Thank you.

My intent was not to create thread drift.  I was simply acknowledging how difficult it is to find common ground for discussion on what constitutes a  nuclear family, biblically speaking. 
Rev Engebretson: My apologies for the misunderstanding ... the reference to thread drift was in reference to Rev Austin’s drift from a discussion on “Godly” Biblical families to his clearly stated desire to discuss a non biblical ‘godly’ family.


The inclusion of your quote was an effort to demonstrate that like Rev Stoffregen, Rev Austin’s espoused beliefs are “quite a ways apart even on what used to be fundamentals”
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 10:24:21 AM
Pastor Engebretson:
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.   

Me:
The approach to scripture by Pastor Stoffregen is  indeed largely but not totally The approach in the ELCA I know, and in the LCA before that. That does not mean that his conclusions or all of his suggestions as to what might be are the final words for our theology and understanding. Like most of us, he asks questions about the texts. And he posits possible answers. People here do not like some of his suggestions and when he does reach some conclusions, they like it even less.
Personally, I don’t know why this bothers people here so much. He’s not forcing his possible answers or his conclusions on anyone. And when it comes to what the ELCA teaches, he often refers to our governing documents and various decisions which we have made officially.
Some people here are way too defensive about their beliefs, which would suggest to me that they are either insecure in them Or that they are spiritually unable to discuss other views Without first denouncing those who hold them.
Puzzling, that is, to me.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Weedon on September 24, 2020, 11:23:50 AM
Don,

How far have things changed? Well, just consider the prayers that closed out the liturgy of marriage in the Service Book and Hymnal:

Almighty and most merciful God, who hast now united this Man and this Woman (sic!) in the holy estate of Matrimony: Grant them grace to live therein according to thy holy Word; strengthen them in constant fidelity and true affection toward each other; sustain and defend them amidst all trials and temptations; and help them so to pass through this world in faith toward thee, in communion with thy holy Church, and in loving service one of the other, that they may enjoy forever thy heavenly benediction; through Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.

O Almighty God, Creator of mankind, who art the well-spring of life: Bestow upon these thy servants, if it be thy will, the gift and heritage of children; and grant that they may see their children brought up in thy faith and fear, to the honor and glory of thy Name; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

O God, who art our dwelling-place in all generations: Look with favor upon the homes of our land; enfold husbands and wives, parents and children, in the bonds of thy pure love; and so bless our homes, that they may be a shelter for the defenseless, a bulwark for the tempted, a resting-place for the weary, and a foretaste of our eternal home in thee; through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

So the predecessor bodies of the ELCA (except for the remnant from Missouri) USED to pray at weddings. Think through all that those prayers assume and imply. What’s ironic? You’ll recognize that the first and last prayers now are in the LCMS rite of holy matrimony. Sadly, the second one was ignored.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 11:30:35 AM
So is it wrong for a married couple, for personal or physical or psychological or other reasons to decide not to have children? Would such a marriage be "Godly" (or godly or God-pleasing or OK with the big guy upstairs)?
Is there something inherently wrong with a marriage that is not to include children?
BTW a woman of my close acquaintance speculates that unless we learn to control population, keep our air and water clean, and preserve the environment God has given into our care; it is quite like that in future decades abortion will not only be legal, it may be required. I tend to think that the first step will be required sterilization or tax breaks for those agreeing not to have children.
This will, of course, be forced in countries able to do so; and probably enacted into law in other places.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 24, 2020, 12:05:53 PM
Pr. Austin, surely you are not suggesting that the solution that Communist China arrived at for their population situation was a justifiable one, are you? The United States population is actually quite stable with a 0.59% increase (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate) from 2019 to 2020, the increase actually more a matter of immigration than births. The current fertility rate (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fertility-rate) is 1.779 births per woman. A fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman (https://www.britannica.com/topic/fertility-rate) is generally considered necessary to maintain a population without immigration. Are you still living back in the 1950s or 60s to be so fearful of the population bomb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb).
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 24, 2020, 01:15:48 PM
What is the Biblical Purpose of Marriage:

1. Companionship......In Genesis 2:18, God said that it was not good for the man
to live alone, so He would make a  suitable companion for him.

2. To have Children....In Genesis 1:28, God gave His blessing upon man & woman
and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

3. To avoid Immorality....In 1 Corinthians 7:2, God's Word tells us that due to the
temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman
her own husband.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 01:24:12 PM
Pastor Fienen writes (always reading t-o-o literally):
Pr. Austin, surely you are not suggesting that the solution that Communist China arrived at for their population situation was a justifiable one, are you? The United States population is actually quite stable with a 0.59% increase from 2019 to 2020, the increase actually more a matter of immigration than births.
I comment:
No, I am not and I am not advocating or suggesting anything. I simply raise the spectre - and everyone should consider this - that if the world's population gets further out of control, if our planet's resources are not protected, governments with absolutely no concern for personal freedom or "choice" may take draconian measures. Even in our beloved and (as yet) free land, the situation in 30 or 40 years might be different and whatever "moralities" or "freedoms" we value today might be in danger.

Pastor Fienen:
The current fertility rate is 1.779 births per woman. A fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman is generally considered necessary to maintain a population without immigration. Are you still living back in the 1950s or 60s to be so fearful of the population bomb.
Me:
No, I'm speculating about living in the 2050s with polluted air, undrinkable water, land ruined by misuse, oceans clogged with plastic, forests destroyed by crud in the air and soil made unfertile by chemicals. I'm thinking about living in the 2050s where civil peace may be disrupted by riots of starving people and despoiled countries taking drastic means to attempt to save themselves.
We need to be working on this globally and not telling the United Nations that we'll do everything our way, because we don't need or want your help with anything and we don't like sitting down to discuss cooperation with you.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 01:28:45 PM
Dave Likeness writes:
1. Companionship......In Genesis 2:18, God said that it was not good for the man
to live alone, so He would make a  suitable companion for him.
I muse:
So does that totally rule out dogs, cats, ferrets, or other animal companions?

Dave Likeness:
2. To have Children....In Genesis 1:28, God gave His blessing upon man & woman
and told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Me:
I'd say: OK, God, we've done that; and maybe we should back off the multiplying for a while.

Dave Likeness:
3. To avoid Immorality....In 1 Corinthians 7:2, God's Word tells us that due to the
temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman
her own husband.
Me:
Sorry, Lord, that just doesn't solve the problem of "temptation to immorality" and - if you ask almost any woman - "each man" doesn't deserve a wife or would not be good for the woman who has him as a husband.  Surely You don't mean that every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Weedon on September 24, 2020, 01:29:13 PM
I missed that Scripture where God rescinded “Be fruitful and multiply” and where He clarified that He didn’t actually mean that the man was blessed who had his “quiver full” of children. Written from my living room where, at the moment, six grandchildren from my eldest are gathered... ranging from 8 to six months.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 24, 2020, 01:31:50 PM
Children, scripture reminds us, are a gift from God, and raising them a sacred privilege. Special honor is accorded parents as God's representatives. In our culture today children are too often seen as a burden.  Or often career and wealth are placed above children in importance.  I also think that compared to other generations we have a very different view of what is required to raise children adequately. So people 'put off' having children until they can afford them. But what is required to 'afford' being a parent?  A child with loving parents that provides the basics necessities of food, clothing and shelter will grow up just as well as those raised in much greater luxury and wealth.

On the subject of the state of our planet and the resources available now and in the future, we tend only to look at the worse case projections of climate, and forget about the ongoing dynamics of corrupt and violent governments (especially in Third World countries) that cause unnatural and unnecessary shortages of food and water simply because of theft and war-induced turmoil. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 24, 2020, 01:38:41 PM
I simply raise the spectre - and everyone should consider this - that if the world's population gets further out of control...
Further out of whose control?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 01:41:13 PM
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.


I ask you to show me examples of "nuclear families" in the Bible. I can think of Adam and Eve and their children; but there was no one else. There is Noah and his family, but they became the patriarchs of all people on earth. The Jewish Patriarchal families included slaves and concubines.


While we have the names of Jesus' parents, he is more often defined as "Jesus of Nazareth." His identity was connected more with Nazareth than with his parents. We don't know Paul's parent's names, but we know he was from Tarsus; and from the tribe of Benjamin. One interpretation (and some variant readings in John) indicate that the betrayer was Judas from Kerioth. (John also tells us that his father was Simon who was also from Kerioth, John 6:71; 13:2, 26.)


A Navajo friend confused me when she talked about her grandchildren. I know her only child who has no children. In their culture, all the nieces and nephews are also called "grandchildren." "Family" is not primarily the nuclear mom, dad, kids, and pet(s); but the extended relations. I believe that the culture in the biblical times was much closer to that of American Natives (and Africans) than our American individualism.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 01:45:48 PM
So you think the first human male and the first human female were unrelated and therefore their mating wasn't "incest," which was the point that kicked off this little digression?


Yup. The environmental and/or genetic changes that produced homo sapiens from the earlier hominids would like happen in more than one location.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 01:50:51 PM
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family. May there be many and may there be many more. But may we also understand that it is not the only kind of family.
It is not the only kind of household. It is by God's design the only kind of family. But He's glad you find nothing wrong with it.


What evidence do you provide that God designed only one kind of family - and that it is the nuclear family? I am certain that the biblical culture like that of Africans and Native Americans and others, saw "family" as being the extended family. The nuclear family had no meaning outside of the tribe and community where they lived. "Jesus of Nazareth" was much more important than Jesus, son of Joseph. We know that Paul came from Tarsus, but we don't know his parent's names.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 01:54:37 PM
But it is not the only “godly” family.

It is extremely telling that a thread discussing a Biblical concept of a nuclear family is being derailed and reduced to a discussion of the non biblical “godly” family.

A “Godly” family is far different than a “godly” family. A “godly” family is completely devoid of the Biblical concepts that God wishes and desires for all families.

The desire to downgrade this thread from a discussion of a “Godly” Biblical family to a ‘godly’ family indicates that Rev Austin’s belief and confession are in line with the concerns expressed in the following ...
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.

Again, please resist thread drift and begin a “godly” family discussion thread. Thank you.


I think that Jesus is quite clear in describing a "godly" family: "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50; Mark 3:35).
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 24, 2020, 01:55:00 PM
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family. May there be many and may there be many more. But may we also understand that it is not the only kind of family.
It is not the only kind of household. It is by God's design the only kind of family. But He's glad you find nothing wrong with it.


What evidence do you provide that God designed only one kind of family - and that it is the nuclear family? I am certain that the biblical culture like that of Africans and Native Americans and others, saw "family" as being the extended family. The nuclear family had no meaning outside of the tribe and community where they lived. "Jesus of Nazareth" was much more important than Jesus, son of Joseph. We know that Paul came from Tarsus, but we don't know his parent's names.
The facts of life and the codification of father, mother, husband and wife in the commandments. People can live together in all kinds of ways, and treat each other in all kinds of ways, but the nucleus of the matter is a man and a woman coming together and producing a baby.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 01:57:31 PM
What is the Biblical Purpose of Marriage:

1. Companionship......In Genesis 2:18, God said that it was not good for the man
to live alone, so He would make a  suitable companion for him.

2. To have Children....In Genesis 1:28, God gave His blessing upon man & woman
and told them to be fruitful and multiply.

3. To avoid Immorality....In 1 Corinthians 7:2, God's Word tells us that due to the
temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman
her own husband.


Another reason that the infamous first draft included was 4. Mutual pleasure, based on the Song of Songs.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 24, 2020, 01:58:51 PM
Dave Likeness writes:
1. Companionship......In Genesis 2:18, God said that it was not good for the man
to live alone, so He would make a  suitable companion for him.
I muse:
So does that totally rule out dogs, cats, ferrets, or other animal companions?

Dave Likeness:
2. To have Children....In Genesis 1:28, God gave His blessing upon man & woman
and told them to be fruitful and multiply.
Me:
I'd say: OK, God, we've done that; and maybe we should back off the multiplying for a while.

Dave Likeness:
3. To avoid Immorality....In 1 Corinthians 7:2, God's Word tells us that due to the
temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman
her own husband.
Me:
Sorry, Lord, that just doesn't solve the problem of "temptation to immorality" and - if you ask almost any woman - "each man" doesn't deserve a wife or would not be good for the woman who has him as a husband.  Surely You don't mean that every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband?

1.  Genesis specifically says that these animals were NOT "suitable" companions for the man.  I love my dog very much, but she is no substitute for my wife!  I am sure you would say the same about your wife.

2. We don't do the multiplying; God does.  He remains the Creator.  Of every blade of grass, every ray of sunshine, and certainly every child that is conceived.

3. No one is saying that. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 24, 2020, 02:38:53 PM
But it is not the only “godly” family.
It is extremely telling that a thread discussing a Biblical concept of a nuclear family is being derailed and reduced to a discussion of the non biblical “godly” family.

A “Godly” family is far different than a “godly” family. A “godly” family is completely devoid of the Biblical concepts that God wishes and desires for all families.

The desire to downgrade this thread from a discussion of a “Godly” Biblical family to a ‘godly’ family indicates that Rev Austin’s belief and confession are in line with the concerns expressed in the following ...
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.

Again, please resist thread drift and begin a “godly” family discussion thread. Thank you.

I think that Jesus is quite clear in describing a "godly" family: "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50; Mark 3:35).
Your “I think“ is the root of your problem! Reading in context, at least the Mark 3 passage is in no way speaking of family… Because if it were your estranged theology would cause you to note that no father was listed… Therefore in your mind no male is needed in the family. You continue to confirm and verify the following:


If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 24, 2020, 02:53:40 PM
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.

I ask you to show me examples of "nuclear families" in the Bible. I can think of Adam and Eve and their children; but there was no one else. There is Noah and his family, but they became the patriarchs of all people on earth. The Jewish Patriarchal families included slaves and concubines. <snipped thread drifting rambling>
You briefly address nuclear family ... but then ramble on in order to pointlessly avoid Rev Engebretson’s point that your faith which you espouse on this forum is “ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 24, 2020, 03:03:57 PM

What evidence do you provide that God designed only one kind of family


Tab A + Slot B = baby.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 24, 2020, 03:50:25 PM
I simply raise the spectre - and everyone should consider this - that if the world's population gets further out of control...
Further out of whose control?
Serious question.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 24, 2020, 04:05:31 PM
So you think the first human male and the first human female were unrelated and therefore their mating wasn't "incest," which was the point that kicked off this little digression?


Yup. The environmental and/or genetic changes that produced homo sapiens from the earlier hominids would like happen in more than one location.

Regardless, there would have had to be the first human male and the first human female.  Their original relatedness between them was per God's ordination...ie. the estate.  IMO
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 24, 2020, 04:13:24 PM
Pastor Fienen writes (always reading t-o-o literally):
Pr. Austin, surely you are not suggesting that the solution that Communist China arrived at for their population situation was a justifiable one, are you? The United States population is actually quite stable with a 0.59% increase from 2019 to 2020, the increase actually more a matter of immigration than births.
I comment:
No, I am not and I am not advocating or suggesting anything. I simply raise the spectre - and everyone should consider this - that if the world's population gets further out of control, if our planet's resources are not protected, governments with absolutely no concern for personal freedom or "choice" may take draconian measures. Even in our beloved and (as yet) free land, the situation in 30 or 40 years might be different and whatever "moralities" or "freedoms" we value today might be in danger.

Pastor Fienen:
The current fertility rate is 1.779 births per woman. A fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman is generally considered necessary to maintain a population without immigration. Are you still living back in the 1950s or 60s to be so fearful of the population bomb.
Me:
No, I'm speculating about living in the 2050s with polluted air, undrinkable water, land ruined by misuse, oceans clogged with plastic, forests destroyed by crud in the air and soil made unfertile by chemicals. I'm thinking about living in the 2050s where civil peace may be disrupted by riots of starving people and despoiled countries taking drastic means to attempt to save themselves.
We need to be working on this globally and not telling the United Nations that we'll do everything our way, because we don't need or want your help with anything and we don't like sitting down to discuss cooperation with you.
Didn't think that you liked China's solution.


According to the Club at Rome, we ran out of petroleum decades ago, food riots are endemic world round, and the population is increasing at an ever increasing rate. Glad I don't live in their world, which apparently is also the world you live in. Resource use, pollution, green house gasses are problems that need solutions, and they are being worked on. Perhaps not a fast as you would like and not everybody is yet convinced that the sky is falling and that such pesky things as individual rights need to be suppressed so that people can be properly regimented to subsist on what their betters figure they should have. Still have plenty of people who are absolutely sure that they know best how everybody should live and that anybody not ready to fall in line are traitors to the human race and need to face the consequences.


So by all means, fire up the abortion machinery to remove the excess population. Since the intelligentsia of the Democratic Left have it all figured out, perhaps they should be entrusted not only with the running of the United States and empowered to keep everyone in line, but also to use the power and might of American diplomacy, economic power, and military might to impose solutions one where the population problem really is, Africa and to a lessor degree, South America.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 04:37:28 PM
Pastor Fienen:
... and not everybody is yet convinced that the sky is falling and that such pesky things as individual rights need to be suppressed so that people can be properly regimented to subsist on what their betters figure they should have. Still have plenty of people who are absolutely sure that they know best how everybody should live and that anybody not ready to fall in line are traitors to the human race and need to face the consequences.
Me:
Can you please stop with these hyperventilated over reactions?! You simply paint everything panic red and then lament about how terrible things are. And about how your worldview is somehow going to be violated. And dare I say this again? There are people who are my “betters” and who knows something about how we should live in order to save the future of our planet. Maybe you know best about how to save the planet, but to tell the truth, I don’t think you do. Maybe somebody here thinks they know better than all my doctors what I had to do about my medical conditions and go on without medicines. Well, I’m not listening to those people. I’m listening to my “betters“, namely the scientists And physicians.
But you are right on one thing, if we do not pay attention to our “betters“ who knows something about what is happening to the planet, we will all face the consequences.

Pastor Fienen:
So by all means, fire up the abortion machinery to remove the excess population. Since the intelligentsia of the Democratic Left have it all figured out, perhaps they should be entrusted not only with the running of the United States and empowered to keep everyone in line, but also to use the power and might of American diplomacy, economic power, and military might to impose solutions one where the population problem really is, Africa and to a lessor degree, South America.
Me:
Just stop. I’m trying to have a serious discussion.
   If I wasn’t, I’d say to people like you: “OK, then go ahead. Breed like rabbits. Cover the earth with your offspring And let them eat until there’s not a piece of lettuce left for them and their cousins to nibble on.”
   Or, “Don’t worry. God told us to multiply. So keep multiplying. And multiplying. Yes, we can’t see how there’s gonna be enough food for all of the offspring with which we have multiplied, but don’t worry. Maybe God will drop manna from heaven again. Let’s just hope he does it before we are engaged in massive starvation wars. And by the way, that common sense and intelligence with which God gifted you? Don’t bring them to bear on the situation. Not at all.”
   Or, “Hey! We’ve decided it’s our right to drive big cars. We’ve decided it’s our right to have gazillions of tons of plastic. And the oceans are big. What does it matter if we throw a few plastic bottles into them? Those reefs  that are dying? Who cares. The tuna and salmon and walleye that I Eat don’t come from them.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 05:10:53 PM
Nothing wrong with the nuclear family. May there be many and may there be many more. But may we also understand that it is not the only kind of family.
It is not the only kind of household. It is by God's design the only kind of family. But He's glad you find nothing wrong with it.


What evidence do you provide that God designed only one kind of family - and that it is the nuclear family? I am certain that the biblical culture like that of Africans and Native Americans and others, saw "family" as being the extended family. The nuclear family had no meaning outside of the tribe and community where they lived. "Jesus of Nazareth" was much more important than Jesus, son of Joseph. We know that Paul came from Tarsus, but we don't know his parent's names.
The facts of life and the codification of father, mother, husband and wife in the commandments. People can live together in all kinds of ways, and treat each other in all kinds of ways, but the nucleus of the matter is a man and a woman coming together and producing a baby.


The codification also includes male and female slaves. They were part of the "family." Luther expanded the 4th Commandment to go far beyond just honoring a mother and father, to everyone in authority. It became about our life within our communities.


The "nucleus" of what matter? As far as we know, Jesus never had a wife nor produced a baby. Outside of Peter having a mother-in-law, we have no record that any of the 12 had wives and produced babies. Paul recommended that believers remain single and not marry. So, I'm curious about what the "matter" is that you're talking about.


Jesus indicated that divorce laws are given because of "hardness of hearts." People still have hard hearts. Divorce laws are still necessary. Marriages are not always what they should be.


Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 05:14:51 PM

What evidence do you provide that God designed only one kind of family


Tab A + Slot B = baby.


Making babies is only one of the purposes of sexual behaviors. It's not the only one. Also, we are created so that there are few other combinations for stimulus and pleasure than Tab A + Slot B that don't make babies.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 24, 2020, 05:15:39 PM
Pr. Austin, a few comments.


You are the one who is painting doomsday predictions that the world is coming to an end and drastic measures must be taken, now. I agree that there are problems that need to be dealt with, and they are being dealt with. I do not deny that climate change, resource depletion, and pollution raise serious challenges. What I deny is that the draconian remedies that are being touted as needing to be implemented immediately are the only answer.


As usual, you paint a black and white picture. Either we agree whole heartedly with the experts that you agree with both as to the severity of problems and the only possible solutions, or we deny that there is anything wrong and just stick our heads in the sand.


Case in point, your comment:
Just stop. I’m trying to have a serious discussion.
   If I wasn’t, I’d say to people like you: “OK, then go ahead. Breed like rabbits. Cover the earth with your offspring And let them eat until there’s not a piece of lettuce left for them and their cousins to nibble on.”
   Or, “Don’t worry. God told us to multiply. So keep multiplying. And multiplying. Yes, we can’t see how there’s gonna be enough food for all of the offspring with which we have multiplied, but don’t worry. Maybe God will drop manna from heaven again. Let’s just hope he does it before we are engaged in massive starvation wars. And by the way, that common sense and intelligence with which God gifted you? Don’t bring them to bear on the situation. Not at all.”
   Or, “Hey! We’ve decided it’s our right to drive big cars. We’ve decided it’s our right to have gazillions of tons of plastic. And the oceans are big. What does it matter if we throw a few plastic bottles into them? Those reefs  that are dying? Who cares. The tuna and salmon and walleye that I Eat don’t come from them.”


I also am trying to have a serious discussion. I am not suggesting that we ignore the ecological problems, but neither should we blow it up by the gazillions out of proportion. And by the way, as a matter of fact, people are not simply breeding like rabbits all over the place. North America, Europe, and half or more of Asia are breeding at a rate right now that will reduce their populations over time. Much of Africa, South America, and part of Asia have fertility rates that are above replacement. Average world fertility rate is a bit over 2.4 births per woman over her lifetime.


Now is the time for serious efforts to to remedy environmental problems and serious efforts are being made. Panic as your slightly hysterical screeds portray is not that helpful. Neither is your embrace of mass abortion as the solution.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 05:16:31 PM
So you think the first human male and the first human female were unrelated and therefore their mating wasn't "incest," which was the point that kicked off this little digression?


Yup. The environmental and/or genetic changes that produced homo sapiens from the earlier hominids would like happen in more than one location.

Regardless, there would have had to be the first human male and the first human female.  Their original relatedness between them was per God's ordination...ie. the estate.  IMO


What we seem to read in the Old Testament, and also see in some other cultures (and certainly among many other mammals) is that males frequently mate with many females.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 24, 2020, 05:19:10 PM
Ultimately, the Christian family is all about passing the  Christian faith from one
generation to the next.

The Psalmist reminds us: "O God, from my youth you have taught me, and I
still proclaim your might to another generation.  So even in old age and gray hairs,
O God do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation,
your power to all those who come."  Psalm 71:17,18

As the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith
that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and now  I am
sure dwells in you as well."  2 Timothy 1:5

Children are not only a blessing from God who creates them, they are also precious
souls entrusted to their parents who have the responsibility to share the Good News
of Jesus Christ with them.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 24, 2020, 05:32:37 PM


Making babies is only one of the purposes of sexual behaviors. It's not the only one. Also, we are created so that there are few other combinations for stimulus and pleasure than Tab A + Slot B that don't make babies.

Yes, pastors in your church have convinced themselves of alternate understandings.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 05:39:32 PM


Making babies is only one of the purposes of sexual behaviors. It's not the only one. Also, we are created so that there are few other combinations for stimulus and pleasure than Tab A + Slot B that don't make babies.

Yes, pastors in your church have convinced themselves of alternate understandings.


Alternate understandings, e.g., sex for pleasure, have been around since the oldest profession began practicing their trade. It is also argued that companionship (not good for the man to be alone, and a fitting helper were created) and the unity of people is as old of a purpose as "be fruitful and multiply."


Perhaps your new church body is in denial about these other God-given understandings.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 05:44:58 PM
Ultimately, the Christian family is all about passing the  Christian faith from one
generation to the next.

The Psalmist reminds us: "O God, from my youth you have taught me, and I
still proclaim your might to another generation.  So even in old age and gray hairs,
O God do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation,
your power to all those who come."  Psalm 71:17,18

As the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith
that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and now  I am
sure dwells in you as well."  2 Timothy 1:5

Children are not only a blessing from God who creates them, they are also precious
souls entrusted to their parents who have the responsibility to share the Good News
of Jesus Christ with them.


The issue, I believe, is whether "the Christian family" is meant to be the nuclear family (mom, dad, children) or something larger. Even your quotes bring in grandparents as part of the family - and a whole generation.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 24, 2020, 06:03:10 PM
If Pastor Stoffregen is representative of the approach to biblical interpretation and theology of the ELCA, I understand why we struggle here so often to really discuss points as simple as marriage. We are quite a ways apart even on what used to be the fundamentals.


I ask you to show me examples of "nuclear families" in the Bible. I can think of Adam and Eve and their children; but there was no one else. There is Noah and his family, but they became the patriarchs of all people on earth. The Jewish Patriarchal families included slaves and concubines.


While we have the names of Jesus' parents, he is more often defined as "Jesus of Nazareth." His identity was connected more with Nazareth than with his parents. We don't know Paul's parent's names, but we know he was from Tarsus; and from the tribe of Benjamin. One interpretation (and some variant readings in John) indicate that the betrayer was Judas from Kerioth. (John also tells us that his father was Simon who was also from Kerioth, John 6:71; 13:2, 26.)


A Navajo friend confused me when she talked about her grandchildren. I know her only child who has no children. In their culture, all the nieces and nephews are also called "grandchildren." "Family" is not primarily the nuclear mom, dad, kids, and pet(s); but the extended relations. I believe that the culture in the biblical times was much closer to that of American Natives (and Africans) than our American individualism.

James addressed your initial question somewhere upstream.  But the point of my comment didn't concern itself so much with trying to define "nuclear family" in answer to your challenges, but to note, after reading a number of your responses, that we are actually rather far apart on how we approach scripture.  For many generations the church has understood what the family is and that Adam and Eve represented its origin as the first married couple.  But you then challenge this by noting the absence of the word "marriage" along with many other exceptions.  Even when it was noted that Jesus referenced the Genesis account in the context of marriage you note that it was only used to address divorce.  I gathered early on that you don't accept the premise of a traditional, nuclear family as the norm of scripture, which reflects many of the societal changes over the last several decades and the stated teaching of your church body.  But the gap between us is wide on this and I simply can't see where a fruitful discussion takes place when the very premise is denied and argued against. We would do well to simply accept that some of us see the traditional family structure (one man, one woman, children) as the biblical norm, and others see no single 'norm' or 'pattern' but a great variety intended and blessed by God (two men and children, two women and children, etc.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 06:09:08 PM
James addressed your initial question somewhere upstream.  But the point of my comment didn't concern itself so much with trying to define "nuclear family" in answer to your challenges, but to note, after reading a number of your responses, that we are actually rather far apart on how we approach scripture.  For many generations the church has understood what the family is and that Adam and Eve represented its origin as the first married couple.  But you then challenge this by noting the absence of the word "marriage" along with many other exceptions.  Even when it was noted that Jesus referenced the Genesis account in the context of marriage you note that it was only used to address divorce.  I gathered early on that you don't accept the premise of a traditional, nuclear family as the norm of scripture, which reflects many of the societal changes over the last several decades and the stated teaching of your church body.  But the gap between us is wide on this and I simply can't see where a fruitful discussion takes place when the very premise is denied and argued against. We would do well to simply accept that some of us see the traditional family structure (one man, one woman, children) as the biblical norm, and others see no single 'norm' or 'pattern' but a great variety intended and blessed by God (two men and children, two women and children, etc.)


My problem is that folks about "the traditional family structure (one man, one woman, children) as the biblical norm" without any biblical support for that structure.


Without going through and actually counting, I suspect that there are more biblical examples of one man, many women (wives, slaves, concubines), children than there are of the one man, one woman, children model.


I'm not arguing that the nuclear family is a bad model. It's what I grew up with and have had for nearly 50 years. I'm just not convinced that it is as strongly supported by the Bible as someone would like to think.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 06:28:33 PM
I’m thinking of three families I know quite well. One is two women and two children. The other is two men and three children. The third is a man and a woman.
In the family led by two women, one child is the biological child of one of the women, conceived through a sperm donor after the two women were together. The other is the child adopted by the two after they were married.
In the family led by two men, all three children Are adopted, the youngest of them adopted with a handicap.
Both families are active church members (Episcopalians, they are) And are definitely rearing their children in the church.
In the third family, the man and the woman, now married for about 20 years, never had any children. After the woman’s second miscarriage early in the marriage, they decided the pregnancy was too risky for the woman. So the man had a vasectomy. They are active Lutherans, also active in numerous community social and service groups. The woman once ran for political office.
Somebody will have to Work very hard if they want to convince me that these three families are not God-pleasing or that any of these people have failed in fulfilling their Christian vocations.


Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 24, 2020, 07:28:57 PM
So you think the first human male and the first human female were unrelated and therefore their mating wasn't "incest," which was the point that kicked off this little digression?


Yup. The environmental and/or genetic changes that produced homo sapiens from the earlier hominids would like happen in more than one location.

Regardless, there would have had to be the first human male and the first human female.  Their original relatedness between them was per God's ordination...ie. the estate.  IMO


What we seem to read in the Old Testament, and also see in some other cultures (and certainly among many other mammals) is that males frequently mate with many females.

My issue is of origin not mating patterns.  In other words there had to have been one human male and one human female for procreation to begin, ie. be fruitful and multiply.  Not one set in one geographic space and another set in another geographic space all at the same time.  There would have to have been one couple before the others to begin the process.  Thus one human male and one human female.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 24, 2020, 07:38:11 PM


Making babies is only one of the purposes of sexual behaviors. It's not the only one. Also, we are created so that there are few other combinations for stimulus and pleasure than Tab A + Slot B that don't make babies.

Yes, pastors in your church have convinced themselves of alternate understandings.


Alternate understandings, e.g., sex for pleasure, have been around since the oldest profession began practicing their trade. It is also argued that companionship (not good for the man to be alone, and a fitting helper were created) and the unity of people is as old of a purpose as "be fruitful and multiply."


Perhaps your new church body is in denial about these other God-given understandings.

But the Christian church as well as the New Testament seem to think that one man and one woman marriage is the best way to go in order to practice not just eros-love but agape-love.  Polygamy cannot nurture agape-type love.  In addition to this the matter of the estate is preserved in one man and one woman marriage.  The matter of the estate does not "exist" as natural order in either polygamy or same-sex "marriage".  The estate of holy matrimony, ie. the estate, only exists in one man-one woman partnering.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 24, 2020, 08:22:25 PM
I’m thinking of three families I know quite well. One is two women and two children. The other is two men and three children. The third is a man and a woman.
In the family led by two women, one child is the biological child of one of the women, conceived through a sperm donor after the two women were together. The other is the child adopted by the two after they were married.
In the family led by two men, all three children Are adopted, the youngest of them adopted with a handicap.
Both families are active church members (Episcopalians, they are) And are definitely rearing their children in the church.
In the third family, the man and the woman, now married for about 20 years, never had any children. After the woman’s second miscarriage early in the marriage, they decided the pregnancy was too risky for the woman. So the man had a vasectomy. They are active Lutherans, also active in numerous community social and service groups. The woman once ran for political office.
Somebody will have to Work very hard if they want to convince me that these three families are not God-pleasing or that any of these people have failed in fulfilling their Christian vocations.

Again you engage in semantical fraud ... Nowhere in the initial post to this thread were your latest talking points of ‘God pleasing’ and ‘Christian vocation’ mentioned... Below is the initial post .... please return to the original topic of nuclear family as a moral imperative.

Recently Pastors Engebretsen and Speckhard have made mention of "the nuclear family." I would be interested in reading comments about this topic.  What is meant by the term "the nuclear family"? Is  Is it a Biblical concept? Is the "nuclear family" a moral imperative?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 24, 2020, 09:02:02 PM
In the post above we are told that a homosexual marriage between 2 women
is God-pleasing.

We are also told that a homosexual marriage between 2 men is God-pleasing.

A person would have to be morally bankrupt and reject God's institution of
marriage as one between one man and one woman to give us that analysis.
The New Testament definitely condemns people who are practicing homosexuals.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 24, 2020, 09:26:28 PM
Thank you, Dave Likeness.
I think I’ll put that in my profile tag line. “Morally bankrupt, rejecting God’s institution etc. etc,”
Mr. Teigen asked at the beginning of this topic “Is the nuclear family a moral imperative?” Then we  have discussed what a nuclear family might be. I have made Favorable comments about the “traditional” family and I suggest that there are other forms of family which can be nuclear.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 24, 2020, 09:51:01 PM
Thank you, Dave Likeness.
I think I’ll put that in my profile tag line. “Morally bankrupt, rejecting God’s institution etc. etc,”
Mr. Teigen asked at the beginning of this topic “Is the nuclear family a moral imperative?” Then we  have discussed what a nuclear family might be. I have made Favorable comments about the “traditional” family and I suggest that there are other forms of family which can be nuclear.
Wow ... finally concerned about keeping the thread on topic. Progress is being made ... however few of those other suggestions are in accordance God’s good and gracious will.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: SomeoneWrites on September 24, 2020, 10:43:53 PM
Quote from: Dave Likeness link=topic=7602.msg488810#msg488810


A person would have to be morally bankrupt and reject God's institution of
marriage as one between one man and one woman to give us that analysis.

The morally bankrupt part.  That would have bothered me just as much in my LCMS days to hear that level of declaration.  It is an inaccurate and unjustifiable statement.  That is the nicest thing I can say about it. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 24, 2020, 11:14:16 PM


Making babies is only one of the purposes of sexual behaviors. It's not the only one. Also, we are created so that there are few other combinations for stimulus and pleasure than Tab A + Slot B that don't make babies.

Yes, pastors in your church have convinced themselves of alternate understandings.


Alternate understandings, e.g., sex for pleasure, have been around since the oldest profession began practicing their trade. It is also argued that companionship (not good for the man to be alone, and a fitting helper were created) and the unity of people is as old of a purpose as "be fruitful and multiply."


Perhaps your new church body is in denial about these other God-given understandings.

But the Christian church as well as the New Testament seem to think that one man and one woman marriage is the best way to go in order to practice not just eros-love but agape-love.  Polygamy cannot nurture agape-type love.  In addition to this the matter of the estate is preserved in one man and one woman marriage.  The matter of the estate does not "exist" as natural order in either polygamy or same-sex "marriage".  The estate of holy matrimony, ie. the estate, only exists in one man-one woman partnering.


Agape-love is found all over the LXX. Certainly in the great commandments to love God and to love our neighbors. It is frequently used between two people.
Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22:2)
Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 24:67)
Isaac and Esau (Genesis 25:28)
Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 29:18; 29:30, 32)
Shechem and Dinah (Genesis 34:3)
Israel and Joseph (Genesis 37:3)
Israel and Benjamin (Genesis 44:20)
Samson and Delilah (Judges 16:4, 15)
Saul and David (1 Samuel 16:21)
Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1, 3; 20:17; 2 Samuel 1:26)
Michal and David (1 Samuel 18:20, 28)
Ammon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13:4, 15 ["lust,"])
David and Ammon (2 Samuel 13:21)
Hiram and David (1 Kings 5:1)
Solomon and many foreign women (1 Kings 11:1-2)
Rehoboam and Maacah (2 Chronicles 11:21)


Two comments:
There is a high number of men having agape-love for other men in the Old Testament highlighed in blue.
The boldface text speaks against your statement.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 12:41:28 AM
Quote from: Dave Likeness link=topic=7602.msg488810#msg488810


A person would have to be morally bankrupt and reject God's institution of
marriage as one between one man and one woman to give us that analysis.
The morally bankrupt part.  That would have bothered me just as much in my LCMS days to hear that level of declaration.  It is an inaccurate and unjustifiable statement.  That is the nicest thing I can say about it. 
How else does one express just and proper dismay when another rejects the ‘faith once delivered by the saints?’(Jude 3)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 01:31:08 AM
Quote from: Dave Likeness link=topic=7602.msg488810#msg488810


A person would have to be morally bankrupt and reject God's institution of
marriage as one between one man and one woman to give us that analysis.
The morally bankrupt part.  That would have bothered me just as much in my LCMS days to hear that level of declaration.  It is an inaccurate and unjustifiable statement.  That is the nicest thing I can say about it. 
How else does one express just and proper dismay when another rejects the ‘faith once delivered by the saints?’(Jude 3)


Well, as I read Jude, each of us is to fight to keep the faith that was delivered to the saints. It is not our job to punish those who fall away. God will do that. God destroyed those who didn't maintain the faith during the Exodus (v. 5). God punished the angels who didn't keep their position of authority (v. 6). God punished Sodom and Gomorrah and neighboring towns (v. 7). It is the Lord who comes to execute judgment (vv. 14-15). That's above our pay grade.


In fact, Jesus gave a warning in a parable about those who wanted to destroy the weeds among the wheat that they would also destroy the good wheat as they attempted to root out the evil plants (Matthew 13:24-30).
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 02:02:16 AM
Nor is it our Christian duty to ignore our Lord’s just law. You hide behind some wild thought that to lovingly pass on our God’s righteous and holy will is somehow a punishment ... on the contrary the failure to loving apply God’s holy and just law, deprives the sinner of receiving the sweet forgiveness of the Gospel.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 25, 2020, 02:48:36 AM
Pastor Stoffregen writes:
Well, as I read Jude, each of us is to fight to keep the faith that was delivered to the saints. It is not our job to punish those who fall away. God will do that. God destroyed those who didn't maintain the faith during the Exodus (v. 5). God punished the angels who didn't keep their position of authority (v. 6). God punished Sodom and Gomorrah and neighboring towns (v. 7). It is the Lord who comes to execute judgment (vv. 14-15). That's above our pay grade.
I add:
And we pay close attention to what really constitutes, that is, the salvific content of the "faith delivered to the saints." This humble correspondent tends to emphasize that the content of the faith is best declared in the creeds, is best found in Scripture, is best nourished in the Church, and is best witnessed in the lives of believers.
   Stick with me; in this posting I will comment on the "nuclear family."
The creeds:
   God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that essential doctrine expressed in a variety of ways and the mystery of the Holy Trinity not fully understood.
   God as Father, the Creator and Source of all.
   God as the Son, Jesus, fully and eloquently described in the Second Article.
   God as Holy Spirit, understood through the creedal expressions and my personal favorite part of Luther's Catechism.
Scripture
   Not just the "words" of the Bible, but what the Bible tells us about our relationship with God and each other, scripture not as a book of history or cosmology, or even a book on morality, but as essential stories, told from God's own authority, of the God-human relationship. And BTW, we don't understand everything in it.
The Church
   The place, the fellowship, the arena of human life where through Sacrament, prayer, study and service we receive, learn, experience and are nourished by the essentials of the faith and from which we go out to share it with others.
The lives of believers
   The saints past and present who have lived, witnessed, suffered, and - despite errors and failings - have brought the faith to us.
Ours is a changeless faith, but the ways of living in it change more rapidly than we like. We must focus on the essentials.
   Did Luther, Calvin and the other reformers remove any essentials? I don't think so.
   Did the evolution of the Church of England fatally tarnish the faith? No.
   Do the essentials of the faith include an all-male clergy, Genesis as history alone, the Lutheran prescription for the presence of Christ in the Sacrament? No.
   Is it essential for the faith that we have bishops, apostolic succession, or a Roman-like hierarchy? Absolutely not.
   Is it essential for the faith that we condemn the kind of love between same sex couples that leads them to marry and form families? Millions and millions and millions of us do not think so.
I fight to defend the essentials of the "faith delivered to the saints" and remain clear as to what those essential really are.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: SomeoneWrites on September 25, 2020, 02:52:21 AM
Quote from: Dave Likeness link=topic=7602.msg488810#msg488810


A person would have to be morally bankrupt and reject God's institution of
marriage as one between one man and one woman to give us that analysis.
The morally bankrupt part.  That would have bothered me just as much in my LCMS days to hear that level of declaration.  It is an inaccurate and unjustifiable statement.  That is the nicest thing I can say about it. 
How else does one express just and proper dismay when another rejects the ‘faith once delivered by the saints?’(Jude 3)

Good question.

I would suggest one could, like I said, avoid an inaccurate and unjustifiable response.

That expression of dismay was neither just no proper. 

Other suggestions...

Galatians 6:1
Brothers, if someone is caught in a trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him with a spirit of gentleness. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.

1 Timothy 5:1
Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers,

Or if I'm working with Luther - The Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

What does this mean?--Answer.

We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.




I can quickly and easily understand the gravity of dealing with an unrepentant sin, particularly one that was significant.  That makes sense to me.  I get it.  I have no issue with the LCMS calling people to repentance and speaking against it - per se. 
I disagree with their understanding and teaching on marriage, even with Biblical worldview glasses on, so to speak - but I understand the position and the impetus to speak on that topic.
... So declaring that someone is rejecting God's institution of marriage makes sense in that context.  But Morally bankrupt?  It's demonstrably untrue.  At best it is ignorant to the meaning of bankrupt.  At worst it's Libel, which I would say is not consistent with LCMS teaching.   

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Norman Teigen on September 25, 2020, 05:37:15 AM
When I started this discussion I was thinking of my own family history.  I am a member of the fourth generation. Through the first three  generations the father-mother and children model was solidly in place. The extended family was observed and honored.  Things started to change from then,  the forms of family structure changed.   Today, as writer David Brooks has said, "Today, only a minority of American households are traditional two-parent nuclear families and only one-third of American individuals live in this kind of family." The changes in my family over the generations were varied:  large families were needed to provide workers for the farm,   women were relegated to staying at home to raise the children and support the spouse in his  vocation..  Everyone seemed to go to church.  Then people started to go to college,  women began to work outside the home to make enough money to keep the family lifestyle going and to find personal identity.   Social mobility became common. And now, things are different. In my old age I am in contact with my siblings and my son but the family is distant.  Some in the family have children without thought of marriage.  Some are single parents.  It just ain't the same as it used to be.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 07:58:12 AM
And now, things are different. In my old age I am in contact with my siblings and my son but the family is distant.  Some in the family have children without thought of marriage.  Some are single parents.  It just ain't the same as it used to be.

And yet ... people will get up early on the weekends to drive their kids for traveling teams, band camp, dance, etc. IMHO it's as much about the social interactions of the parents hanging around as it is supporting their kid's activities.  People are creating their own experience of "family."
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 25, 2020, 09:55:46 AM
Pastor Stoffregen writes:
Well, as I read Jude, each of us is to fight to keep the faith that was delivered to the saints. It is not our job to punish those who fall away. God will do that. God destroyed those who didn't maintain the faith during the Exodus (v. 5). God punished the angels who didn't keep their position of authority (v. 6). God punished Sodom and Gomorrah and neighboring towns (v. 7). It is the Lord who comes to execute judgment (vv. 14-15). That's above our pay grade.
I add:
And we pay close attention to what really constitutes, that is, the salvific content of the "faith delivered to the saints." This humble correspondent tends to emphasize that the content of the faith is best declared in the creeds, is best found in Scripture, is best nourished in the Church, and is best witnessed in the lives of believers.
   Stick with me; in this posting I will comment on the "nuclear family."
The creeds:
   God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that essential doctrine expressed in a variety of ways and the mystery of the Holy Trinity not fully understood.
   God as Father, the Creator and Source of all.
   God as the Son, Jesus, fully and eloquently described in the Second Article.
   God as Holy Spirit, understood through the creedal expressions and my personal favorite part of Luther's Catechism.
Scripture
   Not just the "words" of the Bible, but what the Bible tells us about our relationship with God and each other, scripture not as a book of history or cosmology, or even a book on morality, but as essential stories, told from God's own authority, of the God-human relationship. And BTW, we don't understand everything in it.
The Church
   The place, the fellowship, the arena of human life where through Sacrament, prayer, study and service we receive, learn, experience and are nourished by the essentials of the faith and from which we go out to share it with others.
The lives of believers
   The saints past and present who have lived, witnessed, suffered, and - despite errors and failings - have brought the faith to us.
Ours is a changeless faith, but the ways of living in it change more rapidly than we like. We must focus on the essentials.
   Did Luther, Calvin and the other reformers remove any essentials? I don't think so.
   Did the evolution of the Church of England fatally tarnish the faith? No.
   Do the essentials of the faith include an all-male clergy, Genesis as history alone, the Lutheran prescription for the presence of Christ in the Sacrament? No.
   Is it essential for the faith that we have bishops, apostolic succession, or a Roman-like hierarchy? Absolutely not.
   Is it essential for the faith that we condemn the kind of love between same sex couples that leads them to marry and form families? Millions and millions and millions of us do not think so.
I fight to defend the essentials of the "faith delivered to the saints" and remain clear as to what those essential really are.
Actually you fight for non-essentials quite a bit, even by your own definition of non-essential. For example, you say a male-only clergy is non-essential. Okay. So you do not fight to defend women's ordination, right? Because obviously whether or not the clergy are all male is non-essential and not worth arguing over. Wrong. Same with gay marriage or a host of other things. If they were non-essential to you, you wouldn't bother separating over them. You would just go along with the weaker brother to whom they were essential. But the fact is, it is essential to you that same-sex behavior not be condemned as contrary to God's law. It is essential to you that ordination be open to women.  That's because for both sides the practice is merely the particular application of an essential of the faith, whether that be fidelity to Scripture, openness to the Spirit, love for the neighbor, zeal for righteousness, or whatever.

By declaring some part of the faith non-essential, you make that declaration an essential. Declaring male/female a non-essential in marriage is declaring acceptance of male/male marriage an essential. Declaring an all-male clergy a non-essential is declaring openness to female clergy an essential.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 25, 2020, 11:15:30 AM
I simply raise the spectre - and everyone should consider this - that if the world's population gets further out of control...
Further out of whose control?
Serious question.
Still a serious question, one that Rev. Austin can't wrap his mind around and so will dismiss as an unserious question. But anyone scared about population growth should feel free to chime in.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 25, 2020, 11:37:31 AM
Peter writes:
Actually you fight for non-essentials quite a bit, even by your own definition of non-essential. For example, you say a male-only clergy is non-essential. Okay. So you do not fight to defend women's ordination, right? Because obviously whether or not the clergy are all male is non-essential and not worth arguing over.
I comment:
You miss the point yet again. Because we in the ELCA ordain women, you in the LCMS have cast us out of the "true" Lutheran family, and - in truth - most of you have cast us out of the Christian faith because we ordain women and partnered gay people. Therefore you have taken this step of breaking fellowship, destroying the possibility for joint witness to Jesus, because of a non-essential.

Peter goes on.
Wrong. Same with gay marriage or a host of other things. If they were non-essential to you, you wouldn't bother separating over them. You would just go along with the weaker brother to whom they were essential.
I comment:
No, that would mean we would consider those things essential. And you are the ones making the separation. We have never said "we are out of fellowship with the LCMS."

Peter continues:
But the fact is, it is essential to you that same-sex behavior not be condemned as contrary to God's law. It is essential to you that ordination be open to women.  That's because for both sides the practice is merely the particular application of an essential of the faith, whether that be fidelity to Scripture, openness to the Spirit, love for the neighbor, zeal for righteousness, or whatever.
I comment:
And here comes your usual twist, as you consider the matter an issue of "fidelity to scripture."

Peter writes:
By declaring some part of the faith non-essential, you make that declaration an essential. Declaring male/female a non-essential in marriage is declaring acceptance of male/male marriage an essential. Declaring an all-male clergy a non-essential is declaring openness to female clergy an essential.
I comment:
I continue to be amazed at your all-or-nothing rigid, legalistic approach to life. I'll be you don't like jazz. I'll bet you favor eight-bar, four-beat music, repeated twice, followed by eight more bars in 4/4 time, repeated twice.
Is it essential for the faith, that is, for salvation through God's grace in Jesus Christ, that we have an all-male clergy? Is it essential for the faith, that is, for salvation through God's grace in Jesus Christ that we forbid same-gender marriages?
If you do not permit same gender weddings, I believe you are wrong to ban them, but I do not believe you have denied saving faith.
You, Peter, sometimes use vague-ish words, but the truth is you are among those who say - frequently and loudly - that if you permit same-gender weddings, you are not Christian. It is said often in this modest forum. 
That means that for those who speak thusly the issue an essential of the faith.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 25, 2020, 12:00:33 PM
Look at Paul regarding circumcision. He said circumcision was nothing and uncircumcision was nothing. But that declaration itself is not nothing, it is essential. Anyone who tried to contradict it denied the faith.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 25, 2020, 12:03:21 PM
Peter writes:
Actually you fight for non-essentials quite a bit, even by your own definition of non-essential. For example, you say a male-only clergy is non-essential. Okay. So you do not fight to defend women's ordination, right? Because obviously whether or not the clergy are all male is non-essential and not worth arguing over.
I comment:
You miss the point yet again. Because we in the ELCA ordain women, you in the LCMS have cast us out of the "true" Lutheran family, and - in truth - most of you have cast us out of the Christian faith because we ordain women and partnered gay people. Therefore you have taken this step of breaking fellowship, destroying the possibility for joint witness to Jesus, because of a non-essential.
Once again you play the victim card. Poor you, you have been cast out of the true Lutheran family and even the Christian faith by "most" of us.


I wish that you would reference your evidence that most of the members of the LCMS have cast you out of the Christian faith. Personally, I doubt that is true.  Most of us likely consider that you are wrong, incorrect, in ordaining women and partnered homosexuals, but that does not automatically mean, as you apparently assume without evidence, that we consider you non-Christian. No doubt a few do, but do your extremists and hot heads speak for the whole of the ELCA? Neither do our extremists speak for the whole of the LCMS.


Part of the problem here, seems to me, is that we understand what makes for fellowship and what breaks that fellowship differently. We understand that there should be a high threshold of agreement for fellowship, you tend to ask a much lower threshold. So for us to reject fellowship on your terms could be considered to almost be saying that you are not Christian. But we do not reject fellowship with the ELCA on your terms, but on ours. You fall short of the threshold of agreement that we look for in declaring fellowship, a threshold that is higher than the threshold necessary to be considered Christian.


Realistically, fellowship where we cannot agree with each other as to who should be acceptable as ordained clergy would be very different. Would we not, if we were in fellowship with the ELCA, be bound to recognize your ordained clergy as acceptable as clergy for us also? What kind of fellowship would it be if we were to declare fellowship but with the stipulation and that a certain segment of your clergy would not be recognized as clergy by our people or function as clergy with us?


Many of your own people have rejected fellowship with the ELCA and left your denomination. Have they necessarily considered the ELCA and those they left in the ELCA as non-Christian?


Personally, I consider it arrogant for you to declare fellowship with the LCMS whether we agree or not and fault us for not operating on your terms and by your standards. As we do not get to set your standards and procedures, you do not get to set ours. We disagree on a number of points. You and the ELCA are not shy at pointing out where you think we are wrong and why you think you have a better grasp of what God is telling us in His Word and what His will is for His Church. Should we be more shy about doing so in return?


Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 25, 2020, 12:08:59 PM
Sigh. The long, rutted road again.
Pastor Fienen, My comments concerning essentials are not primarily about fellowship.
But hey! How about those new kinds of nuclear families?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 25, 2020, 12:42:07 PM
Sigh. The long, rutted road again.
Pastor Fienen, My comments concerning essentials are not primarily about fellowship.
But hey! How about those new kinds of nuclear families?
There are no new kinds of nuclear family. There are deliberate variations on the only one there, of varying quality and fidelity.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 12:46:31 PM
Many have long maintained that fellowship was broken when the Bible changed from being the word of God from cover to cover to the Bible contains the word of God.

Further problems exist because the concept of fellowship is understood in vastly different ways. Few in the LCMS  run around whining that we are not in fellowship… Respecting the fact that others understand fellowship differently than we do… But not altering our belief and definition to fit That of others.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 25, 2020, 12:47:37 PM
Sigh. The long, rutted road again.
Pastor Fienen, My comments concerning essentials are not primarily about fellowship.
But hey! How about those new kinds of nuclear families?
I will state, with much confidence, that the term nuclear family is found no where in the Bible. It is, at most, a convenient short hand term dating back only as far as the 1920s. It usually refers to a basic conjugal group of two parents, a man and a woman, and their children. As to the Biblical basis for that grouping, that has been cussed and discussed on this forum and in the church at large and society at large exhaustively (and exhaustingly) for some time. I will not rehearse that debate.


As the term has come to be used, there are no new kinds of nuclear families. There are various arrangements of people within family units that differ from that heterosexual couple and children model, but that is hardly new. More recent has been the development of same sex couples with children, partly because those families most often formed using new reproductive technologies that did not exist prior to the last half of the 20th century.


What about single parent vs. two parent families? I think that statistically speaking by most metrics two parent families are more successful in parenting and certainly have an easier time of it in parenting than do single parent families. That does not at all mean that single parent families are not families, or are bad families, or cannot be successful in parenting, or that single parents are bad parents. Its just that statistically speaking, they have a higher failure rate, and it is generally harder for single parents to succeed, and it is also generally harder for them to be satisfied with their lives. Also, being part of a two parent family is no guarantee of success or satisfaction either. Two parent families also have a failure rate. It just is generally not as high.


What this says is that when possible it is wise to have a two parent rather than a single parent family. Note: this is just one factor in making life choices in these areas, circumstances may prevent entering into a two parent family or may result in a two parent family becoming a single parent family. But all else being equal (and it rarely is) two parent is preferred.


Now, I haven't done any research, and I don't know that there has been much statistical work done to compare heterosexual two parent families and same sex two parent families, so I have not commented on that difference. I will say, however, that the traditional Christian position (and since I am a traditional Christian this would be my position) is that same sex couplings are not sanctioned by God and contrary to His will. But that is a slightly different consideration than whether in purely practical terms their relative success.


The so called Nuclear Family is very rarely isolated. Whether or not that unit is imbedded in a larger multi-generational household or other extended family household, or living in a separate domicile, it is almost always imbedded in a larger community with possibly related household nearby but also friends, neighbors, acquittances, church family, ethnic community, etc. It may be a nuclear family, but like atoms, rarely exists separate from and unaffected by other atoms.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 25, 2020, 01:10:45 PM
Peter writes:
Actually you fight for non-essentials quite a bit, even by your own definition of non-essential. For example, you say a male-only clergy is non-essential. Okay. So you do not fight to defend women's ordination, right? Because obviously whether or not the clergy are all male is non-essential and not worth arguing over.
I comment:
You miss the point yet again. Because we in the ELCA ordain women, you in the LCMS have cast us out of the "true" Lutheran family, and - in truth - most of you have cast us out of the Christian faith because we ordain women and partnered gay people. Therefore you have taken this step of breaking fellowship, destroying the possibility for joint witness to Jesus, because of a non-essential.
Whenever Charles starts bleating about how ungracious the LCMS has been to reject the ELCA's most gracious offers of fellowship and declarations that even though we reject it they still will graciously consider us in fellowship with them I am reminded of the Don McClean song "Everybody Loves Me Baby" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG6SCDUiFZs).
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 01:42:30 PM

You miss the point yet again. Because we in the ELCA ordain women, you in the LCMS have cast us out of the "true" Lutheran family, and - in truth - most of you have cast us out of the Christian faith because we ordain women and partnered gay people. Therefore you have taken this step of breaking fellowship, destroying the possibility for joint witness to Jesus, because of a non-essential.


Thank you for not using the word "marriage."  Two years ago your church allowed main stage national youth gathering access to  a divorced pastor openly iving with her unbelieving boyfriend. Since she extolled the wonders of her sex life,  they weren't just sharing an apartment as friends. It's clear your church has moved beyond the constraints of marriage, gay or straight, even among your clergy. Your church has no credibility when discussing marriage and family life

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 25, 2020, 01:56:55 PM
I do use the word “marriage.“ But not all the time.
You are still a member of the ELCA, on its clergy roster. Why don’t you have the integrity to simply leave and resign as one of us if we are so despicable? Until you have the guts to do that, we’re still your church. And you are the kind of fraudulent member that has ruined so many of our congregations.
I suppose you consider yourself above such things as the niceties of membership or the obligations that pertain to those of us on the clergy roster.
I wonder if the NALC cares that somebody who claims to be with them still has affiliation with the ELCA and speaks such vicious language about it.
Done here.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 25, 2020, 02:02:27 PM
I do use the word “marriage.“ But not all the time.
You are still a member of the ELCA, on its clergy roster. Why don’t you have the integrity to simply leave and resign as one of us if we are so despicable? Until you have the guts to do that, we’re still your church. And you are the kind of fraudulent member that has ruined so many of our congregations.
I suppose you consider yourself above such things as the niceties of membership or the obligations that pertain to those of us on the clergy roster.
I wonder if the NALC cares that somebody who claims to be with them still has affiliation with the ELCA and speaks such vicious language about it.
Done here.
Wait. Because his public statements are critical of the official positions of the ELCA, you can call him a fraudulent member? You can distinguish between the "real" ELCA members and some other class of them? Hmmmmm. There are some vocally pro-choice Catholics who might take you to task for such hubris.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 25, 2020, 02:10:11 PM
I said done here. I want that to be the case. So I’m not taking the bait.
I’m surprised it comes from somebody who is supposed to be a moderator Who ought to want to keep what little civility and decency in this forum. In the past two days, I have been called “morally bankrupt”, had to read the smarmy condescension from another poster, and subjected to bizarre personal messages from an anonymous poster.
Nuts to it all.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 02:18:34 PM
r if the NALC cares that somebody who claims to be with them still has affiliation with the ELCA and speaks such vicious language about it.
Done here.

Just so we're clear, you do not deny that two years ago your church put Nadia on your youth gathering main stage when it was public knowledge she was living with her boyfriend. Your church has no credibility when it comes to conversations on marriage, gay or straight, because even your clergy do not value it. The evidence is prima facie - your people invited her to speak, meaning a larger planning team of leaders was OK with her status. Your church has moved way past defining marriage: it is no longer important as a construct.

I'm a rostered NALC pastor. Perhaps you should report me to the office in Chicago, but do it quick. There are massive layoffs coming in November.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 25, 2020, 02:30:10 PM
When I started this discussion I was thinking of my own family history.  I am a member of the fourth generation. Through the first three  generations the father-mother and children model was solidly in place. The extended family was observed and honored.  Things started to change from then,  the forms of family structure changed.   Today, as writer David Brooks has said, "Today, only a minority of American households are traditional two-parent nuclear families and only one-third of American individuals live in this kind of family." The changes in my family over the generations were varied:  large families were needed to provide workers for the farm,   women were relegated to staying at home to raise the children and support the spouse in his  vocation..  Everyone seemed to go to church.  Then people started to go to college,  women began to work outside the home to make enough money to keep the family lifestyle going and to find personal identity.   Social mobility became common. And now, things are different. In my old age I am in contact with my siblings and my son but the family is distant.  Some in the family have children without thought of marriage.  Some are single parents.  It just ain't the same as it used to be.

I consider nuclear family to be the basic unit of father, mother and the kids.  Beyond that we are talking about traditional family and what is customary of a particular time and place.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 02:35:51 PM
George,

I noticed your tagline and wonder if a Black Swan event would be a counterpoint.

  A Black Swan event is an event in human history that was unprecedented and unexpected at the point in time it occurred. However, after evaluating the surrounding context, domain experts (and in some cases even laymen) can usually conclude: “it was bound to happen”. Even though some parameters may differ (such as the event’s time, location, or specific type), it is likely that similar incidences have had similar effects in the past.   

http://blackswanevents.org/?page_id=26 (http://blackswanevents.org/?page_id=26)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 25, 2020, 02:50:14 PM
George,

I noticed your tagline and wonder if a Black Swan event would be a counterpoint.

  A Black Swan event is an event in human history that was unprecedented and unexpected at the point in time it occurred. However, after evaluating the surrounding context, domain experts (and in some cases even laymen) can usually conclude: “it was bound to happen”. Even though some parameters may differ (such as the event’s time, location, or specific type), it is likely that similar incidences have had similar effects in the past.   

http://blackswanevents.org/?page_id=26 (http://blackswanevents.org/?page_id=26)

Lessing’s quote (at least to me) speaks about the issue that any historical occurrence is “from the ground”.  The occurrence has no anticipation from either reason or prior history.  The first naïveté is that reasonable assumptions constructed by logic and will have no connection to the historical event that takes place.  The second naïveté has to do with the mind’s inability to construct or reconstruct what (going forward) history creates.  Thus to me history is firmly placed in God’s creative power because we are mere subjects together with what God creates.  Luther’s meaning of the first article is correct:  I believe that God has created me TOGETHER with all that exists. 

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 25, 2020, 02:53:18 PM
Many have long maintained that fellowship was broken when the Bible changed from being the word of God from cover to cover to the Bible contains the word of God.

Further problems exist because the concept of fellowship is understood in vastly different ways. Few in the LCMS  run around whining that we are not in fellowship… Respecting the fact that others understand fellowship differently than we do… But not altering our belief and definition to fit That of others.

Be careful here:  read Formula of Concord Summary, Rule and Norm epitome and/or Solid Declaration
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 04:03:43 PM
No, that would mean we would consider those things essential. And you are the ones making the separation. We have never said "we are out of fellowship with the LCMS."


In fact, the ELCA Constitution declares:


2.05. This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.


So, we have declared ourselves to be "one … in faith and doctrine" with the LCMS and all others who "accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession."


Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 04:12:00 PM
No, that would mean we would consider those things essential. And you are the ones making the separation. We have never said "we are out of fellowship with the LCMS."


In fact, the ELCA Constitution declares:


2.05. This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.


So, we have declared ourselves to be "one … in faith and doctrine" with the LCMS and all others who "accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession."

Except for your unmarried pastors moving in with their boyfriends ...
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 04:18:55 PM
I said done here. I want that to be the case. So I’m not taking the bait.
I’m surprised it comes from somebody who is supposed to be a moderator Who ought to want to keep what little civility and decency in this forum. In the past two days, I have been called “morally bankrupt”, had to read the smarmy condescension from another poster, and subjected to bizarre personal messages from an anonymous poster.
Nuts to it all.

Yeah, poor you.  Called nasty things like "morally bankrupt".  You, of all people!  You, who just called someone:

1. lacking in integrity,
2. gutless,
3. a "fraudulent member", and
4. one who causes ruin in congregations.

All in one single short post.  You sure ARE an innocent little lamb, aren't you?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 04:19:51 PM
Nor is it our Christian duty to ignore our Lord’s just law. You hide behind some wild thought that to lovingly pass on our God’s righteous and holy will is somehow a punishment ... on the contrary the failure to loving apply God’s holy and just law, deprives the sinner of receiving the sweet forgiveness of the Gospel.


Who is ignoring our Lord's just Law? God uses it to convict us of our own sins so that we will seek the forgiveness and righteousness that comes from Jesus. God didn't give us the Law so that we could use it as a tool to club other people.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 04:22:24 PM
No, that would mean we would consider those things essential. And you are the ones making the separation. We have never said "we are out of fellowship with the LCMS."

In fact, the ELCA Constitution declares:

2.05. This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

So, we have declared ourselves to be "one … in faith and doctrine" with the LCMS and all others who "accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession."
In the same way that no one in their right minds would ignore the law of gravity because the ELCA said so, so no one in their right mind considers the ELCA and LCMS ‘one ... in faith and doctrine.”

ELCA forum participants are not even ‘one.. in faith and doctrine” with each other..
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: David Garner on September 25, 2020, 04:23:46 PM
I simply raise the spectre - and everyone should consider this - that if the world's population gets further out of control...
Further out of whose control?

By far the best question of the thread, and it has gone wholly unanswered.

What a pity.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 04:34:12 PM
Nor is it our Christian duty to ignore our Lord’s just law. You hide behind some wild thought that to lovingly pass on our God’s righteous and holy will is somehow a punishment ... on the contrary the failure to loving apply God’s holy and just law, deprives the sinner of receiving the sweet forgiveness of the Gospel.
Who is ignoring our Lord's just Law? God uses it to convict us of our own sins so that we will seek the forgiveness and righteousness that comes from Jesus. God didn't give us the Law so that we could use it as a tool to club other people.
Correct ... your problem is you fail to grasp that out of Christian care and love, it is our Christian duty to share BOTH God’s holy and just condemnation of sin as well as his holy and just gospel of forgiveness to those who repent and trust Christ’s free gift of forgiveness.

Going a step further, can be no pronouncement of Christ’s full and free forgiveness without His clear and complete condemnation of sin.

Who is ignoring our Lord's just Law? God uses it to convict us of our own sins so that we will seek the forgiveness and righteousness that comes from Jesus. God didn't give us the Law so that we could use it as a tool to club other people.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 04:34:50 PM
When I started this discussion I was thinking of my own family history.  I am a member of the fourth generation. Through the first three  generations the father-mother and children model was solidly in place. The extended family was observed and honored.  Things started to change from then,  the forms of family structure changed.   Today, as writer David Brooks has said, "Today, only a minority of American households are traditional two-parent nuclear families and only one-third of American individuals live in this kind of family." The changes in my family over the generations were varied:  large families were needed to provide workers for the farm,   women were relegated to staying at home to raise the children and support the spouse in his  vocation..  Everyone seemed to go to church.  Then people started to go to college,  women began to work outside the home to make enough money to keep the family lifestyle going and to find personal identity.   Social mobility became common. And now, things are different. In my old age I am in contact with my siblings and my son but the family is distant.  Some in the family have children without thought of marriage.  Some are single parents.  It just ain't the same as it used to be.

I consider nuclear family to be the basic unit of father, mother and the kids.  Beyond that we are talking about traditional family and what is customary of a particular time and place.


But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 04:37:38 PM
No, that would mean we would consider those things essential. And you are the ones making the separation. We have never said "we are out of fellowship with the LCMS."

In fact, the ELCA Constitution declares:

2.05. This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

So, we have declared ourselves to be "one … in faith and doctrine" with the LCMS and all others who "accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession."
In the same way that no one in their right minds would ignore the law of gravity because the ELCA said so, so no one in their right mind considers the ELCA and LCMS ‘one ... in faith and doctrine.”

ELCA forum participants are not even ‘one.. in faith and doctrine” with each other..


Some of us believe that we are. We are all sinners. We are all saved by the grace of God given through Jesus Christ. Whether or not we agree about who should be ordained or what's a "family" are not matters of salvation. I certainly believe that you are saved, just as I am, through the grace of God in Jesus Christ - even when we disagree about thousands of other things.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 04:39:04 PM
I simply raise the spectre - and everyone should consider this - that if the world's population gets further out of control...
Further out of whose control?

By far the best question of the thread, and it has gone wholly unanswered.

What a pity.
Mr Garner ... you are correct ... tragically some fear it has gone unanswered because it is considered by the one as “ the smarmy condescension from another poster.”
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 04:45:19 PM
Nor is it our Christian duty to ignore our Lord’s just law. You hide behind some wild thought that to lovingly pass on our God’s righteous and holy will is somehow a punishment ... on the contrary the failure to loving apply God’s holy and just law, deprives the sinner of receiving the sweet forgiveness of the Gospel.


Who is ignoring our Lord's just Law? God uses it to convict us of our own sins so that we will seek the forgiveness and righteousness that comes from Jesus. God didn't give us the Law so that we could use it as a tool to club other people.

As a club?  No.  To call to repentance?  Yes.  Is it optional to issue such calls for repentance?  Ezekiel 3 kind of explains it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 04:49:48 PM
No, that would mean we would consider those things essential. And you are the ones making the separation. We have never said "we are out of fellowship with the LCMS."

In fact, the ELCA Constitution declares:

2.05. This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

So, we have declared ourselves to be "one … in faith and doctrine" with the LCMS and all others who "accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession."
In the same way that no one in their right minds would ignore the law of gravity because the ELCA said so, so no one in their right mind considers the ELCA and LCMS ‘one ... in faith and doctrine.”

ELCA forum participants are not even ‘one.. in faith and doctrine” with each other..


Some of us believe that we are. We are all sinners. We are all saved by the grace of God given through Jesus Christ. Whether or not we agree about who should be ordained or what's a "family" are not matters of salvation. I certainly believe that you are saved, just as I am, through the grace of God in Jesus Christ - even when we disagree about thousands of other things.

1. And some believe we are not one in faith and doctrine.  So, why is your view to have any authority over the opposite?

2. If we WERE "one in faith and doctrine" then there would be no disagreements in our teaching (which is what doctrine is).  But plainly, obviously, clearly there are MANY such differences.  Just saying we are one does not make it so.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 05:55:05 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 06:09:49 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenantal commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


The church has been preaching that for centuries. The youth of today just don't buy it. Nearly everyone of my eight nieces and nephews - all raised in the church - lived together before marriage. That's the norm. In fact, one couple, both Lutheran-raised, met at a Lutheran university, said, "How can we know if we want to be married until we have lived together?"


For many years, it has been a rare occasion when a couple wanting to get married has not been living together.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 25, 2020, 06:16:20 PM
I believe It has been probably 15-20 years since I have had a couple come to me to plan a marriage who were not already living together. Thinking of the recent marriages of the children of friends, I think all were living together before the wedding.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 25, 2020, 06:28:19 PM
Our catechism specifically addresses this issue under the 6th Commandment. The zeitgeist doesn’t form our teaching.

If they need to live together to find out if they want to be married, they are by definition not in a lifelong committed relationship.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 25, 2020, 06:33:32 PM
Pastor Bohler writes (re the ELCA):
If we WERE "one in faith and doctrine" then there would be no disagreements in our teaching (which is what doctrine is).  But plainly, obviously, clearly there are MANY such differences.  Just saying we are one does not make it so.

I ask:
So just what is our faith, that is those of us in the ELCA? Is it Christian? Is it Lutheran?
We believe you in the LCMS are Christian and Lutheran. What are we?
Can we be certain, because of our faith, of salvation through the grace of God - eternity?
Now, expecting the usual dodge, let me add a qualifier.
I ask not about those in the ELCA who might be in agreement with you on the things which you say keep us apart.
I ask the above question about those of us (which would include this humble correspondent and, I think, other ELCA participants in this modest forum) who are all-in, whole hog, way-to-go enthusiastic supporters of the ELCA things that you say keep us apart. Women clergy. Married gay folk. Biological evolution, not a literal Genesis account of creation. Fellowship with Presbyterians. Noah and Jonah as sacred myth.
Supposing I were a "seeker," living with my girlfriend and considering marriage. I tell you that I believe the above things, then ask "Am I, Pastor Bohler, a Christian? Can I, Pastor Bohler, be a Lutheran?"
What is your answer?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 06:43:06 PM
I believe It has been probably 15-20 years since I have had a couple come to me to plan a marriage who were not already living together. Thinking of the recent marriages of the children of friends, I think all were living together before the wedding.

So you are suggesting ordained clergy should join the trend and live together without marriage. And it's only been 11 years.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 06:45:59 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


So, like the covenantal commitment of love between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1; 20:8, 16-17; 23:18)?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 06:48:08 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


So, like the covenantal commitment of love between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1; 20:8, 16-17; 23:18)?

In the ELCA, sure ...
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 25, 2020, 06:49:26 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


So, like the covenantal commitment of love between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1; 20:8, 16-17; 23:18)?

Don't be ridiculous Brian.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Robert Johnson on September 25, 2020, 06:51:09 PM
Or compulsory education-- wrenching children away from their families to be processed in giant fact factories.

It would be a great improvement over the current state of public education if they were actually fact factories. More often, they are propaganda factories of the left.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 06:51:31 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenantal commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


The church has been preaching that for centuries. The youth of today just don't buy it. Nearly everyone of my eight nieces and nephews - all raised in the church - lived together before marriage. That's the norm. In fact, one couple, both Lutheran-raised, met at a Lutheran university, said, "How can we know if we want to be married until we have lived together?"


For many years, it has been a rare occasion when a couple wanting to get married has not been living together.

And it was a rare thing for the people of Israel to be faithful to God in the Old Testament.  That's why the prophets told them it was OK to sacrifice to Yahweh and to Baal.  Because everyone was doing it.  Oh, wait....
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 25, 2020, 06:55:20 PM
When I started this discussion I was thinking of my own family history.  I am a member of the fourth generation. Through the first three  generations the father-mother and children model was solidly in place. The extended family was observed and honored.  Things started to change from then,  the forms of family structure changed.   Today, as writer David Brooks has said, "Today, only a minority of American households are traditional two-parent nuclear families and only one-third of American individuals live in this kind of family." The changes in my family over the generations were varied:  large families were needed to provide workers for the farm,   women were relegated to staying at home to raise the children and support the spouse in his  vocation..  Everyone seemed to go to church.  Then people started to go to college,  women began to work outside the home to make enough money to keep the family lifestyle going and to find personal identity.   Social mobility became common. And now, things are different. In my old age I am in contact with my siblings and my son but the family is distant.  Some in the family have children without thought of marriage.  Some are single parents.  It just ain't the same as it used to be.

I consider nuclear family to be the basic unit of father, mother and the kids.  Beyond that we are talking about traditional family and what is customary of a particular time and place.


But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?
You mean like baby-momma and baby- daddy?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 06:56:34 PM
Our catechism specifically addresses this issue under the 6th Commandment. The zeitgeist doesn’t form our teaching.

If they need to live together to find out if they want to be married, they are by definition not in a lifelong committed relationship.


And about half the people who marry, are not in a lifelong committed relationship, either. They just have some legal benefits given to married couples that other couples do not have.


Also, looking at the Large Catechism, there is this paragraph:

In the second place, you should also remember that it is not just an honorable walk of life but also a necessary one; it is solemnly commanded by God that in general both men and women of all walks of life, who have been created for it, shall be found in this walk of life. To be sure, there are some (albeit rare) exceptions whom God has especially exempted, in that some are unsuited for married life, or others God has released by a high, supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage. Where nature functions as God implanted it, however, it is not possible to remain chaste outside of marriage; for flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and natural inclinations and stimulations proceed unrestrained and unimpeded, as everyone observes and experiences. Therefore, to make it easier for people to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage, so that all may have their allotted portion and be satisfied with it – although here, too, God’s grace is still required to keep the heart pure.

Luther recognized that some people are not created for marriage. It has been the experience of some people I know who tried the traditional marriage, but they were not created for it. Their "natural inclinations and stimulations" were towards a same-sex partner. When that happens, I believe that Luther was right: for them "to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage." Same-sex marriages, like heterosexual marriages, help people "avoid unchastity in some measure."
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Weedon on September 25, 2020, 06:59:54 PM
Luther would have no problem condemning the notion you just presented and doing so solidly on the basis of the divine Word. He’d say: Repent!
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 07:01:23 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenantal commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


The church has been preaching that for centuries. The youth of today just don't buy it. Nearly everyone of my eight nieces and nephews - all raised in the church - lived together before marriage. That's the norm. In fact, one couple, both Lutheran-raised, met at a Lutheran university, said, "How can we know if we want to be married until we have lived together?"


For many years, it has been a rare occasion when a couple wanting to get married has not been living together.

And it was a rare thing for the people of Israel to be faithful to God in the Old Testament.  That's why the prophets told them it was OK to sacrifice to Yahweh and to Baal.  Because everyone was doing it.  Oh, wait....


In all of the cases of couples living together, they were faithful to one another. It was literally, "pre-marital" sex. They had sex before they got married, but they still got married. (In most cases, children came after the marriage, but not in all cases.)


That is different from having a series of one-night stands. I've argued that I believe that the closest English equivalent to πορνεία, and related terms, is "promiscuity."
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 07:02:22 PM
I believe It has been probably 15-20 years since I have had a couple come to me to plan a marriage who were not already living together. Thinking of the recent marriages of the children of friends, I think all were living together before the wedding.
So you are suggesting ordained clergy should join the trend and live together without marriage. And it's only been 11 years.
Why not ... Rev Stoffregen suggests that a monogamous marriage is Biblically optional.  He seems to believe that his belief makes it so ... however despite his belief that monogamy in marriage is biblically optional, he remains in a monogamous marriage ... apparently where his spouse is involved, his beliefs are optional .😷
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 25, 2020, 07:03:52 PM
Our catechism specifically addresses this issue under the 6th Commandment. The zeitgeist doesn’t form our teaching.

If they need to live together to find out if they want to be married, they are by definition not in a lifelong committed relationship.


And about half the people who marry, are not in a lifelong committed relationship, either. They just have some legal benefits given to married couples that other couples do not have.


Also, looking at the Large Catechism, there is this paragraph:

In the second place, you should also remember that it is not just an honorable walk of life but also a necessary one; it is solemnly commanded by God that in general both men and women of all walks of life, who have been created for it, shall be found in this walk of life. To be sure, there are some (albeit rare) exceptions whom God has especially exempted, in that some are unsuited for married life, or others God has released by a high, supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage. Where nature functions as God implanted it, however, it is not possible to remain chaste outside of marriage; for flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and natural inclinations and stimulations proceed unrestrained and unimpeded, as everyone observes and experiences. Therefore, to make it easier for people to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage, so that all may have their allotted portion and be satisfied with it – although here, too, God’s grace is still required to keep the heart pure.

Luther recognized that some people are not created for marriage. It has been the experience of some people I know who tried the traditional marriage, but they were not created for it. Their "natural inclinations and stimulations" were towards a same-sex partner. When that happens, I believe that Luther was right: for them "to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage." Same-sex marriages, like heterosexual marriages, help people "avoid unchastity in some measure."

But there is no such thing as a marital estate between same-sex partners.  There just isn’t.  Those who create such and convince a majority that even the highest court in the land agree with the nomenclature does not means that such estate exists in nature. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 07:11:30 PM
Luther would have no problem condemning the notion you just presented and doing so solidly on the basis of the divine Word. He’d say: Repent!


Yet, Luther advised Philip of Hesse towards bigamy. He could marry the woman he loved while still married to the arranged and politically correct woman. He did it on the basis of the divine Word.


So, I'm not sure that he would be so quick with, "Repent!" He recognized that there are exceptions to what was "normal."


Secondly, what would it mean for a homosexual to repent? I'm pretty sure that few or none of them have found that sincere repentance changed their inward lusts any more than repentant heterosexuals suddenly stop having lustful thoughts.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 07:13:21 PM
Our catechism specifically addresses this issue under the 6th Commandment. The zeitgeist doesn’t form our teaching.

If they need to live together to find out if they want to be married, they are by definition not in a lifelong committed relationship.


And about half the people who marry, are not in a lifelong committed relationship, either. They just have some legal benefits given to married couples that other couples do not have.


Also, looking at the Large Catechism, there is this paragraph:

In the second place, you should also remember that it is not just an honorable walk of life but also a necessary one; it is solemnly commanded by God that in general both men and women of all walks of life, who have been created for it, shall be found in this walk of life. To be sure, there are some (albeit rare) exceptions whom God has especially exempted, in that some are unsuited for married life, or others God has released by a high, supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage. Where nature functions as God implanted it, however, it is not possible to remain chaste outside of marriage; for flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and natural inclinations and stimulations proceed unrestrained and unimpeded, as everyone observes and experiences. Therefore, to make it easier for people to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage, so that all may have their allotted portion and be satisfied with it – although here, too, God’s grace is still required to keep the heart pure.

Luther recognized that some people are not created for marriage. It has been the experience of some people I know who tried the traditional marriage, but they were not created for it. Their "natural inclinations and stimulations" were towards a same-sex partner. When that happens, I believe that Luther was right: for them "to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage." Same-sex marriages, like heterosexual marriages, help people "avoid unchastity in some measure."

But there is no such thing as a marital estate between same-sex partners.  There just isn’t.  Those who create such and convince a majority that even the highest court in the land agree with the nomenclature does not means that such estate exists in nature.


There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 07:16:37 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenantal commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


The church has been preaching that for centuries. The youth of today just don't buy it. Nearly everyone of my eight nieces and nephews - all raised in the church - lived together before marriage. That's the norm. In fact, one couple, both Lutheran-raised, met at a Lutheran university, said, "How can we know if we want to be married until we have lived together?"


For many years, it has been a rare occasion when a couple wanting to get married has not been living together.

And it was a rare thing for the people of Israel to be faithful to God in the Old Testament.  That's why the prophets told them it was OK to sacrifice to Yahweh and to Baal.  Because everyone was doing it.  Oh, wait....


In all of the cases of couples living together, they were faithful to one another. It was literally, "pre-marital" sex. They had sex before they got married, but they still got married. (In most cases, children came after the marriage, but not in all cases.)


That is different from having a series of one-night stands. I've argued that I believe that the closest English equivalent to πορνεία, and related terms, is "promiscuity."

And how do you know that they were all faithful to their live-in partner?  My wife had a friend who had an affair with a married man, who then divorced his wife and married his mistress.  And when he eventually cheated on her, the woman was confused.  My wife's comment: "Once a cheater, always a cheater."  If a person does not see sex as properly confined to marriage, then one ought not be surprised to find that person also holds other sexual mores (such as faithfulness) in low esteem as well.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 07:18:48 PM
Luther would have no problem condemning the notion you just presented and doing so solidly on the basis of the divine Word. He’d say: Repent!


Yet, Luther advised Philip of Hesse towards bigamy. He could marry the woman he loved while still married to the arranged and politically correct woman. He did it on the basis of the divine Word.


So, I'm not sure that he would be so quick with, "Repent!" He recognized that there are exceptions to what was "normal."


Secondly, what would it mean for a homosexual to repent? I'm pretty sure that few or none of them have found that sincere repentance changed their inward lusts any more than repentant heterosexuals suddenly stop having lustful thoughts.

Repentance does not mean one never sins again; it means one does not wish to sin, and fights against it.  Sometimes, though, we all fall.  That's why the Christian life is one of ongoing repentance.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 07:19:52 PM
I believe It has been probably 15-20 years since I have had a couple come to me to plan a marriage who were not already living together. Thinking of the recent marriages of the children of friends, I think all were living together before the wedding.

So you are suggesting ordained clergy should join the trend and live together without marriage. And it's only been 11 years.


Depends: is it intended to be a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous relationship; or one of many short-term flings?


We have come to the point of allowing clergy who have been married more than once to remain clergy, contrary to biblical teachings. If the adultery involved in a second marriage (after a divorce) can be forgiven and not a detriment to being clergy, it seems that the adultery (if you want to call it that) involved in sex before marriage can be forgiven and not a detriment to being clergy, too.


Of course, you could believe that all clergy who have married a second time should be removed from the roster, then you would be somewhat consistent.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 07:21:18 PM
Our catechism specifically addresses this issue under the 6th Commandment. The zeitgeist doesn’t form our teaching.

If they need to live together to find out if they want to be married, they are by definition not in a lifelong committed relationship.


And about half the people who marry, are not in a lifelong committed relationship, either. They just have some legal benefits given to married couples that other couples do not have.


Also, looking at the Large Catechism, there is this paragraph:

In the second place, you should also remember that it is not just an honorable walk of life but also a necessary one; it is solemnly commanded by God that in general both men and women of all walks of life, who have been created for it, shall be found in this walk of life. To be sure, there are some (albeit rare) exceptions whom God has especially exempted, in that some are unsuited for married life, or others God has released by a high, supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage. Where nature functions as God implanted it, however, it is not possible to remain chaste outside of marriage; for flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and natural inclinations and stimulations proceed unrestrained and unimpeded, as everyone observes and experiences. Therefore, to make it easier for people to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage, so that all may have their allotted portion and be satisfied with it – although here, too, God’s grace is still required to keep the heart pure.

Luther recognized that some people are not created for marriage. It has been the experience of some people I know who tried the traditional marriage, but they were not created for it. Their "natural inclinations and stimulations" were towards a same-sex partner. When that happens, I believe that Luther was right: for them "to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage." Same-sex marriages, like heterosexual marriages, help people "avoid unchastity in some measure."

But there is no such thing as a marital estate between same-sex partners.  There just isn’t.  Those who create such and convince a majority that even the highest court in the land agree with the nomenclature does not means that such estate exists in nature.


There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 07:22:33 PM
I believe It has been probably 15-20 years since I have had a couple come to me to plan a marriage who were not already living together. Thinking of the recent marriages of the children of friends, I think all were living together before the wedding.

So you are suggesting ordained clergy should join the trend and live together without marriage. And it's only been 11 years.


Depends: is it intended to be a publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous relationship; or one of many short-term flings?


We have come to the point of allowing clergy who have been married more than once to remain clergy, contrary to biblical teachings. If the adultery involved in a second marriage (after a divorce) can be forgiven and not a detriment to being clergy, it seems that the adultery (if you want to call it that) involved in sex before marriage can be forgiven and not a detriment to being clergy, too.


Of course, you could believe that all clergy who have married a second time should be removed from the roster, then you would be somewhat consistent.

What if their "natural inclination" is towards many short-term flings?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 07:25:13 PM
And how do you know that they were all faithful to their live-in partner?  My wife had a friend who had an affair with a married man, who then divorced his wife and married his mistress.  And when he eventually cheated on her, the woman was confused.  My wife's comment: "Once a cheater, always a cheater."  If a person does not see sex as properly confined to marriage, then one ought not be surprised to find that person also holds other sexual mores (such as faithfulness) in low esteem as well.


First of all, adultery in the Old Testament always involved a married man. Sex between two people who were not married (or engaged) was not considered adultery. Thus, I don't consider having an affair with a married person to be in the same category as living in a faithful relationship with someone before marriage.


Secondly, I strongly suspect that few people "see sex as properly confined to marriage" when "marriage" is defined as having the legal documentation. They see it as part of their commitment to (perhaps even covenant with) one another. Many are faithful to each other without the license.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 25, 2020, 07:39:49 PM
Our catechism specifically addresses this issue under the 6th Commandment. The zeitgeist doesn’t form our teaching.

If they need to live together to find out if they want to be married, they are by definition not in a lifelong committed relationship.


And about half the people who marry, are not in a lifelong committed relationship, either. They just have some legal benefits given to married couples that other couples do not have.


Also, looking at the Large Catechism, there is this paragraph:

In the second place, you should also remember that it is not just an honorable walk of life but also a necessary one; it is solemnly commanded by God that in general both men and women of all walks of life, who have been created for it, shall be found in this walk of life. To be sure, there are some (albeit rare) exceptions whom God has especially exempted, in that some are unsuited for married life, or others God has released by a high, supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage. Where nature functions as God implanted it, however, it is not possible to remain chaste outside of marriage; for flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and natural inclinations and stimulations proceed unrestrained and unimpeded, as everyone observes and experiences. Therefore, to make it easier for people to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage, so that all may have their allotted portion and be satisfied with it – although here, too, God’s grace is still required to keep the heart pure.

Luther recognized that some people are not created for marriage. It has been the experience of some people I know who tried the traditional marriage, but they were not created for it. Their "natural inclinations and stimulations" were towards a same-sex partner. When that happens, I believe that Luther was right: for them "to avoid unchastity in some measure, God has established marriage." Same-sex marriages, like heterosexual marriages, help people "avoid unchastity in some measure."

But there is no such thing as a marital estate between same-sex partners.  There just isn’t.  Those who create such and convince a majority that even the highest court in the land agree with the nomenclature does not means that such estate exists in nature.


There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

Old or New Testament?  The estate of marriage is configuration in nature as opposed to contractual marriage.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 07:49:42 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 07:52:52 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?
It’s rather doubtful… He was condemned for his relationship with Bathsheba ...  had his relationship with Jonathan been illicit he would’ve been condemned for that as well
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 08:01:56 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


So, like the covenantal commitment of love between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1; 20:8, 16-17; 23:18)?

Don't be ridiculous Brian.


So, you've never heard the interpretation that Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers? That's what so offended Jonathan's father, Saul, so that he wants David killed in battle; or at least married to one of his daughters?


We also have David singing after Jonathan's death: I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan! You were so dear to me! Your love was more amazing to me than the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26 CEB).



One interpretation understands the love that is more amazing than the love of a woman was a homosexual relationship between homosexuals.


Another interpretation understands it to be a deep friendship without any sexual behaviors.


We have a report of the two kissing each other (1 Samuel 20:41). Again, that could be between lovers or between friends.


The direction of one's interpretation comes more from the interpreter than from the text. The text is ambiguous.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 25, 2020, 08:04:10 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?
It’s rather doubtful… He was condemned for his relationship with Bathsheba ...  had his relationship with Jonathan been illicit he would’ve been condemned for that as well


He was condemned for his relationship with Bathsheba because he had committed adultery with her. She was married to Uriah. Then David was condemned because he arranged for the murder of Uriah.


We also see that his relationship with Bathsheba was blessed by God when Solomon was born, whom God would raise up as the third king of the United Kingdom of Israel. God also gave him the gift of wisdom.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 25, 2020, 08:13:42 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


So, like the covenantal commitment of love between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1; 20:8, 16-17; 23:18)?

Don't be ridiculous Brian.


So, you've never heard the interpretation that Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers? That's what so offended Jonathan's father, Saul, so that he wants David killed in battle; or at least married to one of his daughters?


We also have David singing after Jonathan's death: I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan! You were so dear to me! Your love was more amazing to me than the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26 CEB).



One interpretation understands the love that is more amazing than the love of a woman was a homosexual relationship between homosexuals.


Another interpretation understands it to be a deep friendship without any sexual behaviors.


We have a report of the two kissing each other (1 Samuel 20:41). Again, that could be between lovers or between friends.


The direction of one's interpretation comes more from the interpreter than from the text. The text is ambiguous.
Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 25, 2020, 08:28:50 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


So, like the covenantal commitment of love between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1; 20:8, 16-17; 23:18)?

Don't be ridiculous Brian.


So, you've never heard the interpretation that Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers? That's what so offended Jonathan's father, Saul, so that he wants David killed in battle; or at least married to one of his daughters?


We also have David singing after Jonathan's death: I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan! You were so dear to me! Your love was more amazing to me than the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26 CEB).



One interpretation understands the love that is more amazing than the love of a woman was a homosexual relationship between homosexuals.


Another interpretation understands it to be a deep friendship without any sexual behaviors.


We have a report of the two kissing each other (1 Samuel 20:41). Again, that could be between lovers or between friends.


The direction of one's interpretation comes more from the interpreter than from the text. The text is ambiguous.

Seeing Jonathan and David as homosexual lovers is a clear case of reading into the text (eisegesis).  It also betrays a modern stereotype.  When we talk of two men expressing love for one another we quickly assume that it is a same-sex intimate relationship.  While we don't typically speak this way today (men expressing love for each other), there is no reason to jump to the assumption that their relationship was homosexual in nature if they did express themselves in this way in this ancient setting. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Tom Eckstein on September 25, 2020, 08:35:11 PM

But … do the father and mother have to be married (having filled out and filed a state license) for it to be a nuclear family?

As a public witness to their covenental commitment, of course. To an ELCA rostered minister Word and Sacrament, obviously not when it comes to the youth of their church.


So, like the covenantal commitment of love between Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 18:1; 20:8, 16-17; 23:18)?

Don't be ridiculous Brian.


So, you've never heard the interpretation that Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers? That's what so offended Jonathan's father, Saul, so that he wants David killed in battle; or at least married to one of his daughters?


We also have David singing after Jonathan's death: I grieve for you, my brother Jonathan! You were so dear to me! Your love was more amazing to me than the love of women. (2 Samuel 1:26 CEB).



One interpretation understands the love that is more amazing than the love of a woman was a homosexual relationship between homosexuals.


Another interpretation understands it to be a deep friendship without any sexual behaviors.


We have a report of the two kissing each other (1 Samuel 20:41). Again, that could be between lovers or between friends.


The direction of one's interpretation comes more from the interpreter than from the text. The text is ambiguous.

Brian, the fact is that the most highly respected PRO-gay bible scholars disagree with your nonsense view that David and Johnathan were homosexual lovers.  The texts re:  David and Jonathan are NOT ambiguous - especially when considered in the light of the wider context of Scripture where God ALWAYS condemns and NEVER condones same-sex relationships.  See the results of my research on this below: 

     The suggestion that King David and Jonathan (son of King Saul) might have been homosexual lovers is so strained beyond credibility that it would not be worth a response if it were not for the many people who have been misled by this erroneous notion. 
     
     One of the more popular proponents of a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is Tom Horner.  Referring to Old Testament characters, Horner says that the relationship between David and Jonathan is “the only example of an unabashed homosexual love of one well-known character for another.”   
     
     Many who share Horner’s opinion about David and Jonathan will usually, in support of their argument, quote these words of King David at the death of Jonathan:  “I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me.  Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” (2nd Samuel 1:26)  So, does this text of Scripture prove that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship?
     
     Many have written fine refutations of the idea that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers.   In fact, even pro-gay scholar Martti Nissinen says the following:  “Nothing indicates that David and Jonathan slept together ‘as one sleeps with a woman.’ Neither of the men are described as having problems in their heterosexual sex life … The story of David and Jonathan was being told at the time when the Holiness Code with its commands and prohibitions of sexual contact between males regulated the Israelites’ sexual morality.”   With that understood, I offer the following additional responses to the idea that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers.
     
     First, even if we grant the unlikely possibility that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, this would in no way change the fact that Scripture clearly condemns even consensual homosexual behavior.  When reading Holy Scripture, one must distinguish between PRESCRIPTIVE texts (commands intended for ALL people of ALL times and places) and DESCRIPTIVE texts (portions of Scripture that relate events in history).   
     
     Simply put, just because Holy Scripture describes an event in history does not mean that God thereby condones or affirms that event.  For example, Scripture describes how the men of Sodom threatened homosexual gang rape against Lot’s guests.  But Scripture in no way condones this behavior!  In the same way, even if David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers (and all the evidence shows that they were NOT!) this does not mean that God affirmed their behavior.  In fact, as we learned from our study of the creation account in Genesis as well as the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, God would have condemned such homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan.
     
     Second, as noted in the above quote from Martti Nissinen, “The story of David and Jonathan was being told at the time when the Holiness Code with its commands and prohibitions of sexual contact between males regulated the Israelites’ sexual morality.”  In other words, David himself would have acknowledged that homosexual behavior was sinful!  When King David was guilty of adultery (by having sex with the WIFE of another man), he confessed his sin after being rebuked by the prophet Nathan.   However, in no place do we find that the prophet Nathan ever rebukes David for his homosexual behavior.  If David had been guilty of homosexual behavior, then surely the prophet Nathan, who rebuked David for his heterosexual adultery (based on Leviticus 18:20), would also have rebuked David for his homosexual behavior with Jonathan (based on Leviticus 18:22).
     
     Third, when 2nd Samuel 1:26 tells us that Jonathan’s love for David was “more wonderful than that of women” this in no way implies a homosexual relationship.  In fact, the wider context of 1st and 2nd Samuel proves the opposite!  David had several wives,  and yet his relationship with some of them was less than ideal.  In contrast, the brotherly love between David and Jonathan was sacrificial and unconditional.  Jonathan sacrificed so much to be loyal to David, whom he knew was God’s chosen one to be king over Israel in place of his evil father, King Saul.  Jonathan was willing to be loyal to David even though this resulted in a tense relationship between him and his father, Saul.  The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).
     
     Finally, one other place that some try to find a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is 1st Samuel 20:41b, which reads:  “Then they kissed each other and wept together – but David wept the most.”  How do we respond to this text?  First, the wider context of 1st Samuel 20:41b has nothing to do with a sexual situaiton!  In addition, the fact that David and Jonathan “kissed each other” has nothing to do with homosexual behavior when one considers that in the culture of that time it was perfectly natural for heterosexual men to express affection for each other via non-sexual kissing.  Even pro-gay scholar Martti Nissinen acknowledges this when he writes:  “Modern readers probably see homoeroticism in the story of David and Jonathan more easily than did the ancients.  In the contemporary Western world, men’s mutual expressions of feelings are more restricted than they were in the biblical world.  Men’s homosociability apparently was not part of the sexual taboo in the biblical world any more than it is in today’s Christian and Islamic cultures around the Mediterranean … The relationship of David and Jonathan can be taken as an example of ancient oriental homosociability, which permits even intimate feelings to be expressed.”
     
     Simply put, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers.  Those who want to suggest such a relationship are forcing their views on the text of Holy Scripture.  The love that David and Jonathan had for each other was a non-sexual, sacrificial friendship between two men.  In view of this, Robert Gagnon writes:  “Some companions destroy each other ‘but there is a lover/friend … who sticks closer than a brother’ (Prov. 18:24).  David and Jonathan had the latter type of relationship and it was one which was completely asexual.”

 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 25, 2020, 09:31:57 PM

Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.

Brian is old school ELCA. His church is no longer interested in this debate as they've moved on to non celibate unmarried clergy and celebrating multiple partnered households. Having only needed 11 years to reach these conclusions the next decade should be fascinating.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 09:36:27 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.
No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.

How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)

Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?
It’s rather doubtful… He was condemned for his relationship with Bathsheba ...  had his relationship with Jonathan been illicit he would’ve been condemned for that as well

He was condemned for his relationship with Bathsheba because he had committed adultery with her. She was married to Uriah. Then David was condemned because he arranged for the murder of Uriah.

We also see that his relationship with Bathsheba was blessed by God when Solomon was born, whom God would raise up as the third king of the United Kingdom of Israel. God also gave him the gift of wisdom.
Oh yes ... he really blessed the relationship with Bathsheba ... the result of that illicit relationship ... a child that died at a rather early age.

Furthermore ... you continue to move the goalposts ... in the above exchange ... instigated by you ... same sex homosexual activity was the topic ... up until you mysteriously failed to address my comment on Jonathan and David in a feigned effort to praise the David/Bathsheba affair.

Perhaps in retirement, this forum can teach you to FOCUS  rather than continuously moving the goal posts.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 25, 2020, 10:12:15 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?

As an ELCA pastor, I apologize for Brian's delusions.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 25, 2020, 10:32:37 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?

As an ELCA pastor, I apologize for Brian's delusions.

Thank you.  I mean that most sincerely.  And I again express my sorrow for those who heard their pastor teach such wicked rubbish.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 25, 2020, 11:18:10 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?

As an ELCA pastor, I apologize for Brian's delusions.

Thank you.  I mean that most sincerely.  And I again express my sorrow for those who heard their pastor teach such wicked rubbish.
Thank you as well ... perhaps the most valuable information this forum can impart is that the confession of of the Stoffregen/Austin coalition is considerably further left and much more progressive than most other ELCA forum members.  My apologies if I fail to acknowledge this fact when posts reference the ELCA.

It’s encouraging that despite other differences, most ELCA forum members still acknowledge the God instituted life long man/woman marriage in the garden, that baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that abortion is the murder of innocent unborn, and that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life ... and that no one comes to the Father except through Christ ... to name a few doctrines sadly not confessed by all.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 12:35:24 AM
No answers to my questions, Pastor Bohler?  You who are so persistent in seeking answers from others ought to be eager to provide answers posed to your distinguished self.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 07:05:37 AM
Supposing I were a "seeker," living with my girlfriend and considering marriage. I tell you that I believe the above things, then ask "Am I, Pastor Bohler, a Christian? Can I, Pastor Bohler, be a Lutheran?"
What is your answer?

Like Brian S you are referring to "cutting edge" debates of old. Your church has moved on to other areas of social evolution. If you approached an ELCA pastor with two girl friends and asked if your relationship could be blessed as a marriage then we'd be current. Your DC Synod Bishop is in favor of Polyamory so I'm sure she would be open to her pastors doing so. Is she a Lutheran? If you approached a recent graduate of LSTC with your girlfriend and questioned whether you should bother getting married because you are "naked and unashamed",  would the pastor have any positive Lutheran reasons as answers?

Your church really should abandon questions about marriage as you have no credibility as Lutherans to give a response.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 07:15:30 AM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?
Could be, if we're just speculating. A great range of things are possible, especially if we are just making up stories. Could it be that Saul pushed his daughters towards David (and wanted him dead) because he saw David as a potential rival for the crown and either wanted to marry him into the family and so assure his loyalty or dead and no longer a threat to his crown?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2020, 08:45:15 AM
No answers to my questions, Pastor Bohler?  You who are so persistent in seeking answers from others ought to be eager to provide answers posed to your distinguished self.
Out of whose control? (Speaking of population growth, which you said could get further out of control). I've asked several times. Serious question. Maybe the sub-topic you introduced of persistent question avoidance will help us angle back toward that more relevant question.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 26, 2020, 09:22:09 AM

The church has been preaching that for centuries. The youth of today just don't buy it. Nearly everyone of my eight nieces and nephews - all raised in the church - lived together before marriage. That's the norm. In fact, one couple, both Lutheran-raised, met at a Lutheran university, said, "How can we know if we want to be married until we have lived together?"

For many years, it has been a rare occasion when a couple wanting to get married has not been living together.
I believe It has been probably 15-20 years since I have had a couple come to me to plan a marriage who were not already living together. Thinking of the recent marriages of the children of friends, I think all were living together before the wedding.
It’s interesting that both of you feign dismay at a church conventions that determine doctrinal matters by popular vote.

However what both of you have espoused above is absolutely no different! You give for more credence to the sinful will of man than the good and gracious will of a holy God.

The double standard and posturing engaged in here in order to receive the approval of sinful man is downright horrifying.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 26, 2020, 09:50:02 AM
Pastor Bohler writes (re the ELCA):
If we WERE "one in faith and doctrine" then there would be no disagreements in our teaching (which is what doctrine is).  But plainly, obviously, clearly there are MANY such differences.  Just saying we are one does not make it so.

I ask:
So just what is our faith, that is those of us in the ELCA? Is it Christian? Is it Lutheran?
We believe you in the LCMS are Christian and Lutheran. What are we?
Can we be certain, because of our faith, of salvation through the grace of God - eternity?
Now, expecting the usual dodge, let me add a qualifier.
I ask not about those in the ELCA who might be in agreement with you on the things which you say keep us apart.
I ask the above question about those of us (which would include this humble correspondent and, I think, other ELCA participants in this modest forum) who are all-in, whole hog, way-to-go enthusiastic supporters of the ELCA things that you say keep us apart. Women clergy. Married gay folk. Biological evolution, not a literal Genesis account of creation. Fellowship with Presbyterians. Noah and Jonah as sacred myth.
Supposing I were a "seeker," living with my girlfriend and considering marriage. I tell you that I believe the above things, then ask "Am I, Pastor Bohler, a Christian? Can I, Pastor Bohler, be a Lutheran?"
What is your answer?

I am sorry; I missed this post (I sometimes ignore your posts, Rev. Austin, much as that might hurt your outsized ego to hear) but I saw your second request for answers so here they are, using the official and/or accepted teaching/practice/confession of the ELCA:

1.  Christian?  Yes, but heterodox.  Lutheran?  No, insofar as the ELCA teaches/practices/confesses contrary to the Lutheran Confessions, which are the measuring stick for "Lutheran".

2. As with all heterodox confessions, salvation is not necessarily lost but it is imperiled as long as one continues in that heterodox confession.  That is, the errors if taken to their logical conclusion can be faith-destroying.  However, God is merciful and keeps many from walking all the way down that dangerous road. Pieper's "felicitous inconsistently" if one is familiar with his "Christian Dogmatics".

3. As to your personal salvation, I will not speak as that is neither my place nor in my knowledge.  I will only repeat what I have written above: heterodoxy MAY be faith-destroying.  How much and when?  I do not know.  But just as I would warn someone from eating a poisonous dish (even if I do not know if eating it would actually kill the person or only make them very sick), so I warn you against the current heterodox confession of the ELCA.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 10:06:17 AM
Peter, do we have a responsibility to care for the earth?
Is preventing overpopulation a part of that responsibility?
And I would say that a rough definition of Overpopulation is so many people that the land, the social structures, and other aspects of our life on this planet cannot properly supply what they need.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 10:30:39 AM
Pastor Bohler writes (re the ELCA):
If we WERE "one in faith and doctrine" then there would be no disagreements in our teaching (which is what doctrine is).  But plainly, obviously, clearly there are MANY such differences.  Just saying we are one does not make it so.

I ask:
Now, expecting the usual dodge, let me add a qualifier.
I ask not about those in the ELCA who might be in agreement with you on the things which you say keep us apart.
I ask the above question about those of us (which would include this humble correspondent and, I think, other ELCA participants in this modest forum) who are all-in, whole hog, way-to-go enthusiastic supporters of the ELCA things that you say keep us apart. Women clergy. Married gay folk. Biological evolution, not a literal Genesis account of creation. Fellowship with Presbyterians. Noah and Jonah as sacred myth.
Supposing I were a "seeker," living with my girlfriend and considering marriage. I tell you that I believe the above things, then ask "Am I, Pastor Bohler, a Christian? Can I, Pastor Bohler, be a Lutheran?"
What is your answer?

No answers to my questions, Pastor Bohler?  You who are so persistent in seeking answers from others ought to be eager to provide answers posed to your distinguished self.

I find it telling that when you ask questions you expect and demand answers. When you are asked questions, you answer only if you feel like it and heap scorn on those who presume to expect you to answer. But you are the great and enlightened Humble Correspondent what can we expect.

Obviously Pr. Bohler can decide for himself whether or not he wants to play your Gotcha games. But I have a couple of observations and, yes, questions.

You have repeatedly reminded us that the ELCA has declared that you are in fellowship with any church body that professes the Augsburg Confession. You evidence much resentment that the LCMS has not reciprocated since, again as you repeatedly remind us, you consider that we in the LCMS are a Christian and Lutheran denomination.

By your questions to Pr. Bohler, as for example:
Quote
So just what is our faith, that is those of us in the ELCA? Is it Christian? Is it Lutheran?
We believe you in the LCMS are Christian and Lutheran. What are we?
Can we be certain, because of our faith, of salvation through the grace of God - eternity?

you seem to imply that we do not consider you to be Lutheran, or even Christian. Possibly not saved. Now, lest you employ one of your usual dodges, I will stipulate that a few of those who post here have expressed doubt over your and Pr. Stoffregen's faith, Lutheranism, and salvation. I am not doing that, nor do I think that it is typical of the LCMS posters to this forum. nor am I willing to assume responsibility for the comments of the very few who do express doubt of your Christianity, Lutheranism, or salvation.

What I will say, is that some of the positions that you and Pr. Stoffregen, and the ELCA have taken are quite different from what has been traditionally considered orthodox Lutheranism or Christianity. By the standards of our beliefs, some of your positions are heterodox. (I could add that you have also expressed doubts as to whether some of the positions that we in the LCMS have taken are actually Biblical or are traditions that have grown up and attributed [incorrectly] to the Bible. Thus you consider some of our beliefs and practices heterodox or at the least evidencing an unwillingness to be open to or listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. A serious charge.)

The name Lutheran, and Christian for that matter, are not trademarked and there is no authority who governs their use. Anyone can call themselves Lutheran if they like, so the ELCA certainly can if they so choose. We can, and have, pointed out where you have departed from the Lutheran tradition that we follow. We can also say that because of those departures we do not find it acceptable to be in church fellowship with you, although we have and continue to engage in some joint work, when we find that we can.

Are you so insecure your Lutheran and Christian identity that you need our affirmation of that, affirmation by establishing a fellowship relationship, to assuage your insecurity? Are you so fearful that you could be wrong that you need us to assure you that you are indeed correct in your positions?

I will also observe that we follow different standards and principles for establishing fellowship than you do. Can you give me a good reason why we should consider it obligatory for us to follow your standards rather than our own?

That we have refused fellowship does not imply that we consider you not in any way Lutheran (I've specified that there are differences in what we consider as Lutheran positions) or Christian. You have in your Constitution specified that you consider yourself to be in fellowship with any church that professes the Augsburg Confession. Thus you consider yourself in fellowship with the LCMS. You are, I believe, also in fellowship with certain churches who do not profess the Augsburg Confession, are you not? Do you consider yourselves to be in fellowship with the Southern Baptist Conference? If not, is it because you consider them not to be Christian? Or is it that the differences in beliefs and practices are so great that while you would still consider them to be within the broad category of Christian they are different enough not to make fellowship practical?

Another observation. You have repeatedly emphasized that you consider the LCMS to be Lutheran and Christian, and that you have offered us fellowship, even consider yourselves to be in fellowship with us and resent that we have not reciprocated. If you consider yourselves in fellowship with us, how ungracious that we do not respond with fellowship with you? To me, that resembles stalkerish behavior. Because you want to be in a relationship with us, do we owe you to be in that relationship?

Perhaps I am incorrect about yours and Brian's position on this, but it seems to me that at times you imply that that standards of doctrine and practice are not important to maintain unless the loosening of those standards would directly result in the loss of salvation. And with Brian's insistence that salvation is completely independent of anything that we believe or do, that would make all doctrine and practice negotiable.

Again, we don't see it that way. Salvation is robust, and I believe that God saves even those who get quite a bit about what it means to be Christian wrong. But we still maintain that orthodoxy and orthopraxis are important and worth striving for. Several reasons.

God has given us His word in Scripture and we are stewards of what He has given us. We have that obligation and privilege. If nothing else out of love and devotion to God we will want to follow what He says.

Neuhaus's Law (https://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/the-unhappy-fate-of-optional-orthodoxy#:~:text=%20The%20Unhappy%20Fate%20of%20Optional%20Orthodoxy%20,At%20Auschwitz%20he%20was%20known%20as...%20More%20) "Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed," suggests that there is danger in allowing orthodoxy and orthopraxis to become blurred. Faith can be lost, and we believe the consequences for losing the faith are dire.

Especially when it comes to orthopraxy we trust that God is smarter and wiser than we are and what He prescribes and proscribes is wise and good.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 26, 2020, 10:44:07 AM
Peter, do we have a responsibility to care for the earth?
Is preventing overpopulation a part of that responsibility?
And I would say that a rough definition of Overpopulation is so many people that the land, the social structures, and other aspects of our life on this planet cannot properly supply what they need.
Yes. But preservation is a different matter. Development is not the same thing as despoiling. Also, there are only two tables of the law: Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Caring for the earth must fall under those two rubrics, not become a third table of the law on its own, which is what many Christian environmentalists do with it.

No, preventing overpopulation is not part of that responsibility. That idea makes the tail wag the dog. People are the given. Resources and the distribution of them are the variable. How much people have (vs. what they "need"), how it gets distributed, how we develop land, can all come up for discussion as the population grows (or shrinks due to plagues, wars, famines, etc.) Importantly, someone who dies of starvation is not someone who never should have been born. People who live in overcrowded settings are not better off not existing. Only a mindset of fixed scarcity thinks that way-- everything anyone has is something someone else doesn't have. That's why there is such strong correlation between socialism/communism and desire for population control. There is a simple formula in play-- x amount of stuff over y number of people. That isn't how reality functions. As the poet says, "Life hungers to abound."

The planet is in no way anywhere close to being in danger of overpopulation. It is under developed in some areas. But people are producers as well as consumers, and most resources are renewable and expandable. Consider; the U.S. is, I believe the third most populous nation. If you tripled the population by importing a billion people, it would still be the third most populous nation. We have vast areas of good land with practically nobody living on it. Many of our cities currently house half the number of people who used to live in them. Those people lived lives worth living even if they weren't up to our living standards. What China and India lack is the development and prosperity that free markets and private property bring.

We talked about this elsewhere in the forum in regard to an article I wrote in FL several years ago about Think Globally, Act Locally vs. my preferred slogan, which is Think Faithfully, Act Lovingly.


 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 11:03:08 AM
Peter, do we have a responsibility to care for the earth?
Is preventing overpopulation a part of that responsibility?
And I would say that a rough definition of Overpopulation is so many people that the land, the social structures, and other aspects of our life on this planet cannot properly supply what they need.


https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7602.msg488785#msg488785 (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7602.msg488785#msg488785)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 26, 2020, 02:18:22 PM
Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.


Nope. I'm not pushing it. I'm presenting it as a possibility. I'm not asking anyone to prefer it, just recognize that it is something that others have presented as a possibility.


The possibility exists with the centurion and his "boy" in the Gospels. The language could indicate a homosexual relationship.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 26, 2020, 02:25:18 PM
Oh yes ... he really blessed the relationship with Bathsheba ... the result of that illicit relationship ... a child that died at a rather early age.


Yes, the child becomes a type of Christ. He dies for the sins of others. The prescribed punishment for committing adultery was the death of both parties. God was gracious to David and Bathsheba by allowing another to die in their place. (This certainly doesn't mean that the parents didn't grieve the loss of their son.)

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 26, 2020, 02:28:49 PM
Thank you as well ... perhaps the most valuable information this forum can impart is that the confession of of the Stoffregen/Austin coalition is considerably further left and much more progressive than most other ELCA forum members.  My apologies if I fail to acknowledge this fact when posts reference the ELCA.


Yes, to the left of most other ELCA forum members; but considered middle-of-the road within the whole ELCA. We are not the radical progressives that some others are.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 02:29:53 PM
Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.


Nope. I'm not pushing it. I'm presenting it as a possibility. I'm not asking anyone to prefer it, just recognize that it is something that others have presented as a possibility.


The possibility exists with the centurion and his "boy" in the Gospels. The language could indicate a homosexual relationship.
So what, what does it add to the discussion, other than giving you the warm feeling of thinking that you could be correct but really have no assurance that you are. Lot's of things could be. I could have won the Lottery and actually be extremely wealthy (by my standards). Try taking that to the bank! You have created a Biblical world to your liking and that apparently comforts you. I will not be requesting a transit visa.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 26, 2020, 02:30:48 PM
There certainly can be a "covenantal relationship" between same-sex partners. The Bible even talks about it.

No, it most certainly does not.  At least not in the sense of homosexual relations.  Of course, if you want to simply speak of covenants between members of the same sex regarding non-sexual relations (like business or politics or such), then of course it does. But that is clearly NOT what has been under discussion here, as you well know.


How are you so certain that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship? There is a lot of love expressed between the two (1 Samuel 18:1). Soon afterwards, Saul tries to get David to marry his oldest daughter, Merab. David refuses. When Saul learns that his younger daughter, Michal, loves David. He tries to get David to marry her. At first he refuses that, too. (Saul really wants David to die in battle, but he keeps defeating the Philistines.)


Could it be the Saul pushes his daughters towards David (and wants him dead) because he doesn't like the love relationship between David and his son, Jonathan?
Could be, if we're just speculating. A great range of things are possible, especially if we are just making up stories. Could it be that Saul pushed his daughters towards David (and wanted him dead) because he saw David as a potential rival for the crown and either wanted to marry him into the family and so assure his loyalty or dead and no longer a threat to his crown?


That's certainly a good possibility too. We also read that Saul was going crazy. Maybe his mental illness caused him to view David as a threat.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 26, 2020, 02:38:04 PM
Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.


Nope. I'm not pushing it. I'm presenting it as a possibility. I'm not asking anyone to prefer it, just recognize that it is something that others have presented as a possibility.


The possibility exists with the centurion and his "boy" in the Gospels. The language could indicate a homosexual relationship.
So what, what does it add to the discussion, other than giving you the warm feeling of thinking that you could be correct but really have no assurance that you are. Lot's of things could be. I could have won the Lottery and actually be extremely wealthy (by my standards). Try taking that to the bank! You have created a Biblical world to your liking and that apparently comforts you. I will not be requesting a transit visa.


What it adds to the discussion is to muddy things up a bit. Truth of interpretations comes from one's perspective. I've shared the following picture before.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 03:29:33 PM
Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.


Nope. I'm not pushing it. I'm presenting it as a possibility. I'm not asking anyone to prefer it, just recognize that it is something that others have presented as a possibility.


The possibility exists with the centurion and his "boy" in the Gospels. The language could indicate a homosexual relationship.
So what, what does it add to the discussion, other than giving you the warm feeling of thinking that you could be correct but really have no assurance that you are. Lot's of things could be. I could have won the Lottery and actually be extremely wealthy (by my standards). Try taking that to the bank! You have created a Biblical world to your liking and that apparently comforts you. I will not be requesting a transit visa.


What it adds to the discussion is to muddy things up a bit. Truth of interpretations comes from one's perspective. I've shared the following picture before.
OK, whatever floats your boat, just don't expect me to take your flights of fancy seriously or as a serious theological argument.


And as for such pictures, I prefer the one from the cover of Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.


(https://cmans.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/godelescherbach-egb.jpg)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 26, 2020, 04:17:23 PM
Thank you as well ... perhaps the most valuable information this forum can impart is that the confession of of the Stoffregen/Austin coalition is considerably further left and much more progressive than most other ELCA forum members.  My apologies if I fail to acknowledge this fact when posts reference the ELCA.


Yes, to the left of most other ELCA forum members; but considered middle-of-the road within the whole ELCA. We are not the radical progressives that some others are.

If true, then I pity my ELCA relatives all the more.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 04:40:12 PM

If true, then I pity my ELCA relatives all the more.

A church without boundaries is like a cell without a membrane; it will lysis and the osmotic pressure of the surrounding secular culture will lead to dissolution. It cannot be stopped and is now inevitable with Brian's church. Some fragments may remain as free floating subsets of the whole, but the organic unity will be gone within a generation. I think they know this.



Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 04:56:34 PM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 26, 2020, 05:08:41 PM
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 05:10:53 PM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.

I think Christ followers are not much interested in saving your church as that boat sailed in 2009. As Paul makes clear, "God gave them up ..."

The grief is wondering how many more young lives will be led away from Christ by your church. Even the faithful went into exile, such is the damage wrought by unfaithful leaders.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family..
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 05:28:15 PM
“....led away from Christ.” “...unfaithful leaders.”
Judge much, do you? And how do you think this judgment helps?
Why don’t you concentrate your energies on the plan that will save whatever church body you belong to now?
I’m sure they are eager for your help.
And just leave us alone.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family..
Post by: B Hughes on September 26, 2020, 05:29:58 PM
“....led away from Christ.” “...unfaithful leaders.”
Judge much, do you? And how do you think this judgment helps?
Why don’t you concentrate your energies on the plan that will save whatever church body you belong to now?
I’m sure they are eager for your help.
And just leave us alone.

Naaa Charles. You're my special project.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 26, 2020, 05:34:46 PM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 26, 2020, 05:39:48 PM
I actually thought, way back, Pastor Fienen, that we could help save each other. I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn and a couple of others on just what the different parts of Lutheranism in this country could give to each other.
But things happened.
Now, though our witness in both church bodies seems strong and energetic, our numbers are declining at about the same rate.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 26, 2020, 06:38:24 PM
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.

So what?  I am not a Jew.  This history has no bearing on me.  If we really want to talk about love we should be looking to the New Testament not the Old, in this case.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Tom Eckstein on September 26, 2020, 07:32:13 PM
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.

But my research that I shared with you makes it clear that אהב surely does NOT mean that David and Jonathan were same-sex lovers.  The only way you can get there is to totally ignore the immediate and wider context of the David and Jonathan event as well as engage in strained eisegesis.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Tom Eckstein on September 26, 2020, 07:58:56 PM
Yet you keep pushing it as a homosexual relationship. I guess that indicates your bias in the matter. But gives me no reason to prefer you interpretation. Just because you prefer it and that would support your positions in no way obliges me or anyone else to agree or to take that as evidence of God's approval of homosexual relationships.


Nope. I'm not pushing it. I'm presenting it as a possibility. I'm not asking anyone to prefer it, just recognize that it is something that others have presented as a possibility.


The possibility exists with the centurion and his "boy" in the Gospels. The language could indicate a homosexual relationship.

Brian, in light of your comment about the Roman centurion and his "pais" having a same-sex relationship that Jesus either tolerated or affirmed is yet another bit of nonsense eisegesis from you.  Below is my response to this erroneous notion:


Some have attempted to find evidence of Jesus affirming a male homosexual relationship by suggesting that the Roman centurion and his servant were homosexual lovers.   Why would they make this assumption?  The reason is that there is historical evidence showing that some (but not all!) Roman men who were slave owners would sometimes have sex with their slaves – both male and female.   They then conclude that the Roman centurion mentioned in Matthew and Luke must have had a homosexual relationship with his servant – whom Luke says his master “valued highly” (Luke 7:2).  Since Jesus does not condemn this supposed homosexual relationship (in fact, He doesn’t even mention it!), they argue, Jesus was thereby affirming their homosexual behavior.  Is this a reasonable interpretation of this event as recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10?  Hardly!  Many have exposed the ridiculous nature of this strained interpretation.     I will now give the following brief responses to this revisionist argument.
     
     First, even though there is evidence that some Roman slave owners had sex with their male and female slaves, not ALL of them did.  Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that the Roman centurion mentioned in Matthew and Luke had sex with his servant when there is no clear evidence that such a sexual relationship existed.  In their book The Children Are Free, Miner and Connoley make a lot of the fact that the Roman centurion refers to his servant as his pais   – a Greek word that could, in some contexts, refer to a male slave who was a homosexual partner with his master. 
     
     But even Miner and Connoley admit that this is not the only meaning of the word pais , which can also mean “son” or just plain “servant” (without any sexual connotations).  In fact, within the New Testament the Greek word pais is best understood as being synonymous with another Greek word doulos – which also means “slave” or “servant” (without any sexual connotations whatsoever).  Finally, as we will see in the following paragraphs, the context in Matthew chapter 8 and Luke chapter 7 makes it very clear that the word pais could NOT have any homosexual meaning whatsoever in that situation.
     
     Second, the cultural context in which we find this Roman centurion actually makes it quite impossible that he had a homosexual relationship with his servant.  For example, in Luke chapter 7 we read:  “The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant.  When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, ‘This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.’” (Luke 7:4-5)  Here we see that the Jews adore and respect this Gentile centurion.  They even say that he deserves to have Jesus heal his servant.  Why would the Jews say this about a Roman centurion when they usually despised most Gentiles – especially the Romans who were often oppressing them and whose various sinful behaviors (such as idolatry and homosexuality) were an abomination to them?  The answer is that this Roman centurion was very likely a “God-fearer” (the Greek word for “God-fearer” being  phoboumenos ).
     
     In Acts chapter 10 we read about another Roman centurion whom Luke explicitly refers to as a God-fearer ( phoboumenos – see Acts 10:2).  When we consider how the Jews in Luke chapter 7 adored the Roman centurion in their community, and when we note that the Roman centurion loved the Jewish nation and built the synagogue in Capernaum, the obvious conclusion is that this Roman centurion was a God-fearer.
     
     Now, what did it mean for a Gentile man to be a God-fearer? In his commentary on the book of Acts, F. F. Bruce writes the following about the Roman centurion in Acts chapter 10:  “It is further important to observe that Cornelius was one of those Gentiles who are commonly classed as ‘God-fearers’ … Many Gentiles in those days, while not prepared to enter this Jewish community as full proselytes, were attracted by the simple monotheism of Jewish synagogue worship and by the ethical standard of the Jewish way of life.  Some of them attended synagogue and were tolerably conversant with the prayers and Scripture lessons, which they heard read in the Greek version; some observed with more or less scrupulosity such distinctive Jewish practices as Sabbath observance and abstinence from certain kinds of food.”   
     
     What we know of these Gentile God-fearers is that they at the very least worshipped only the God of Israel and submitted to all their moral laws – including their sexual laws!   As F. F. Bruce noted, not only did the God-fearers submit to the ethical standards of the Jews, but some of these God-fearers would even observe many of the Jewish ceremonial laws.  Therefore, if the Roman centurion in Luke chapter 7 were a God-fearer (and the evidence suggests that he was!), then he would NOT have been involved in homosexual behavior because this was clearly condemned in the Old Testament Scriptures.    In fact, if the Jews had known that this Roman centurion was involved in homosexual behavior with his slave, they would have been greatly offended.  But Luke tells us that they thought highly of this centurion and believed he deserved Jesus’ help. 
     
     In their book The Children Are Free, Miner and Connoley suggest that the Jewish crowd knew about the centurion’s homosexual behavior and despised the fact that Jesus was willing to help such a man.   But this view is in direct conflict with what Scripture teaches us about the event!  The Jews respected this Roman centurion because he loved their nation (and therefore, also loved their moral laws – including their prohibition of homosexuality!) and they pleaded with Jesus to help him!  Miner and Connoley did not read the Scriptures very carefully.

     Even pro-gay author Daniel Helminiak, who would love to find evidence for Jesus affirming homosexual behavior, admits that there is not much proof for the idea that the Roman centurion in Matthew chapter 8 and Luke chapter 7 had a homosexual relationship with his servant.  On pages 128-129 of his book What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality he writes:  “…what was the relationship between the centurion and the servant?  There is no way of knowing for certain.  The historical evidence is scanty.”  To say the least!
     
     The third reason we should not accept the idea that Jesus affirmed a homosexual relationship between the Roman centurion and his servant is that Jesus would have been opposed to even consensual homosexual behavior based on the witness of the Old Testament as well as His own teaching in Matthew 19:1ff.   Therefore, if this Roman centurion had been involved in homosexual behavior, Jesus would have called him to repentance just as He did with the tax collectors, prostitutes and other sinners.  The fact that Jesus said nothing about this centurion’s homosexual behavior with his slave is strong evidence that such homosexual behavior did NOT exist! 
     
     In their book The Children Are Free, Miner and Connoley write:  “We must let the word of God speak for itself, even if it leads us to an uncomfortable destination.”   I find this sentence to be ironic. If Miner and Connoley were actually willing to let the Word of God “speak for itself” on the issue of homosexuality they would quickly realize that God clearly condemns even consensual homosexual behavior as being sinful.   This might be an “uncomfortable destination” for those who wish to impose their affirmation of homosexual behavior on the pages of Holy Scripture, but the Holy Spirit moves us to face the Truth of God’s Word even when it exposes our cherished sins.  But even more, the Truth of God’s Word points us to Christ through whom we have complete forgiveness and new life with God!

     

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 26, 2020, 08:12:50 PM
Oh yes ... he really blessed the relationship with Bathsheba ... the result of that illicit relationship ... a child that died at a rather early age.

Yes, the child becomes a type of Christ. He dies for the sins of others. The prescribed punishment for committing adultery was the death of both parties. God was gracious to David and Bathsheba by allowing another to die in their place. (This certainly doesn't mean that the parents didn't grieve the loss of their son.)
And this foolishness is supported by which Bible passages .. supported by which church fathers ... or is this wild speculation from the as yet unsupported, undocumented, unwritten, unpublished Stoffregen-esque faux commentary?


Apparently this forum is used to float new unfounded radical ‘doctrines’ in vain hopes of promoting his faux commentary.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: John_Hannah on September 26, 2020, 09:28:07 PM
I actually thought, way back, Pastor Fienen, that we could help save each other. I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn and a couple of others on just what the different parts of Lutheranism in this country could give to each other.
But things happened.
Now, though our witness in both church bodies seems strong and energetic, our numbers are declining at about the same rate.

"I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn"

That would have been intriguing. My instinct, having known him, is that he would deplore the divided Lutheran family we witness today.

Missourians condemn all others, failing to recognize that our support of a conservative confessional position would have contributed decisively to a strong united American Lutheranism. We Missourians who insisted on retreating to our past glory are partially at fault for the weakened Lutheran bodies we see today. Of course those in the former ALC and LCA (and AELC) who all along coveted the glories of the mainline are just as guilty. Now in our hard fought for division we are all delighted but greatly diminished, close to the point of collapse.

Missouri "self claiming confessionalists" would do well to study Piepkorn and try to contort their positions with his well known highly conservative stance on the Lutheran Confessions. Neuhaus spoke of the, "Perverted Piepkorn Party" with appropriate derision.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 03:53:11 AM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.


Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 04:03:50 AM
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.

So what?  I am not a Jew.  This history has no bearing on me.  If we really want to talk about love we should be looking to the New Testament not the Old, in this case.


OK. the Gospel of John uses ἀγαπάω and φιλέω interchangeably. Both are used of the disciples whom Jesus loves. Both are used in Jesus' questions to Peter.


Lowe & Nida in their Lexicon make this comment about the words:

There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaning differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are never commanded to love one another with φιλέω or φιλία, but only with ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη. Though the meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say, φιλέω and φιλία are likely to focus upon love or affection based upon interpersonal association, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη focus upon love and affection based on deep appreciation and high regard. On the basis of this type of distinction, one can understand some of the reasons for the use of ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη in commands to Christians to love one another. It would, however, be quite wrong to assume that φιλέω and φιλία refer only to human love, while ἀγαπάω and ἀγάπη refer to divine love. Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus Christ.

I will also add that the commands "to love" are more about acts that help the neighbor than they are about having warm, fuzzy, inner feelings towards others. We are to love our enemies. That doesn't mean that we have to become best friends, but it means we do what we can to help our enemies and their needs.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 04:47:06 AM
Oh yes ... he really blessed the relationship with Bathsheba ... the result of that illicit relationship ... a child that died at a rather early age.

Yes, the child becomes a type of Christ. He dies for the sins of others. The prescribed punishment for committing adultery was the death of both parties. God was gracious to David and Bathsheba by allowing another to die in their place. (This certainly doesn't mean that the parents didn't grieve the loss of their son.)
And this foolishness is supported by which Bible passages .. supported by which church fathers ... or is this wild speculation from the as yet unsupported, undocumented, unwritten, unpublished Stoffregen-esque faux commentary?


Apparently this forum is used to float new unfounded radical ‘doctrines’ in vain hopes of promoting his faux commentary.


Not new with me.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement#:~:text=Substitutionary%20atonement%2C%20also%20called%20vicarious,%2C%20'instead%20of'%20them.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 27, 2020, 07:58:49 AM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.


Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.

And some believe that Mrs. Clinton won the last presidential election.  But it ain't so.  In either case.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 08:01:00 AM

Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.

Do you support the "naked and unashamed" movement in the ELCA which seeks to remove the cultural trapping of marriage for sexually active clergy?  Why or why not?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 27, 2020, 08:07:22 AM
I actually thought, way back, Pastor Fienen, that we could help save each other. I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn and a couple of others on just what the different parts of Lutheranism in this country could give to each other.
But things happened.
Now, though our witness in both church bodies seems strong and energetic, our numbers are declining at about the same rate.

"I remember a long dinner conversation with Arthur Carl Piepkorn"

That would have been intriguing. My instinct, having known him, is that he would deplore the divided Lutheran family we witness today.

Missourians condemn all others, failing to recognize that our support of a conservative confessional position would have contributed decisively to a strong united American Lutheranism. We Missourians who insisted on retreating to our past glory are partially at fault for the weakened Lutheran bodies we see today. Of course those in the former ALC and LCA (and AELC) who all along coveted the glories of the mainline are just as guilty. Now in our hard fought for division we are all delighted but greatly diminished, close to the point of collapse.

Missouri "self claiming confessionalists" would do well to study Piepkorn and try to contort their positions with his well known highly conservative stance on the Lutheran Confessions. Neuhaus spoke of the, "Perverted Piepkorn Party" with appropriate derision.

Peace, JOHN

1. Who DOESN'T deplore the divided Lutheran family we witness today?  The problem is how to unite it.  You have your preferred solutions, I have mine.

2. No, Missouri does NOT "condemn all others".  First of all, she is in fellowship with quite a few church bodies.  Secondly, she condemns the false teaching of other church bodies.

3. Retreating to past glory?  Yes, I agree that some here DO that in their elevation of the Seminex days (and those that led to that mess). 

4. I would prefer to study the Confessions and Luther -- even Pieper -- than Piepkorn.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 27, 2020, 08:18:37 AM
Oh yes ... he really blessed the relationship with Bathsheba ... the result of that illicit relationship ... a child that died at a rather early age.

Yes, the child becomes a type of Christ. He dies for the sins of others. The prescribed punishment for committing adultery was the death of both parties. God was gracious to David and Bathsheba by allowing another to die in their place. (This certainly doesn't mean that the parents didn't grieve the loss of their son.)
And this foolishness is supported by which Bible passages .. supported by which church fathers ... or is this wild speculation from the as yet unsupported, undocumented, unwritten, unpublished Stoffregen-esque faux commentary?


Apparently this forum is used to float new unfounded radical ‘doctrines’ in vain hopes of promoting his faux commentary.
Not new with me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement#:~:text=Substitutionary%20atonement%2C%20also%20called%20vicarious,%2C%20'instead%20of'%20them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement#:~:text=Substitutionary%20atonement%2C%20also%20called%20vicarious,%2C%20'instead%20of'%20them).
So Wikipedia and its unvetted sources has been given commentary status ... back to the topic at hand ... Christ died once for all ... the fact that all you can cite to backup your “this child becomes a type of Christ” crap is Wikipedia pretty much says it all.😫
 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 27, 2020, 08:34:50 AM
The effort to remove the liturgy from its cultural trappings will itself be seen as a quaint, early 21st Century cultural trapping in short order.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 27, 2020, 09:54:47 AM
Pastor Bohler:
I would prefer to study the Confessions and Luther -- even Pieper -- than Piepkorn.   
Me:
Does that mean you would simply not read Piepkorn or that you would rather not read him?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 27, 2020, 09:57:27 AM
Pastor Bohler:
I would prefer to study the Confessions and Luther -- even Pieper -- than Piepkorn.   
Me:
Does that mean you would simply not read Piepkorn or that you would rather not read him?

Neither.  Read what I wrote again.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 27, 2020, 10:07:18 AM
Word games. OK. You “prefer” those others.
I can infer what you think of those you do not “prefer.”
Or I could ask a simpler question: do you ever read Piepkorn?
😸
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 10:08:09 AM
Word games. OK. You “prefer” those others.
I can infer what you think of those you do not “prefer.”
Or I could ask a simpler question: do you ever read Piepkorn?
😸

 Well ... do you?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 27, 2020, 10:15:23 AM
I did when I was in the parish or checking something in the “evangelical Catholic“ line of thought.
You?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 10:55:44 AM
I did when I was in the parish or checking something in the “evangelical Catholic“ line of thought.
You?

Just checking as you scolded him for his grammar, but didn't give an answer. I thought maybe it was to sidestep a theological conversation.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 27, 2020, 12:01:30 PM
Word games. OK. You “prefer” those others.
I can infer what you think of those you do not “prefer.”
Or I could ask a simpler question: do you ever read Piepkorn?
😸

The only word games are coming from you, Rev. Austin, in your attempt to make me say something I did not say.  And yes, I have read (and sometimes still do read) Piepkorn.  For instance, his "Conduct on the Service" is within easy reach of my desk as a standard reference work.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 27, 2020, 01:40:30 PM
I did when I was in the parish or checking something in the “evangelical Catholic“ line of thought.
You?

Just checking as you scolded him for his grammar, but didn't give an answer. I thought maybe it was to sidestep a theological conversation.

I suggest that you consider whether this kind of comment is necessary. You might review the discussion on the deterioration of discussion here.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 01:51:48 PM
I did when I was in the parish or checking something in the “evangelical Catholic“ line of thought.
You?

Just checking as you scolded him for his grammar, but didn't give an answer. I thought maybe it was to sidestep a theological conversation.

I suggest that you consider whether this kind of comment is necessary. You might review the discussion on the deterioration of discussion here.

Why is it that Charles came back from a life time ban without apologizing for the behavior that brought it about? I'm wondering why that question wasn't answered.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 27, 2020, 01:58:28 PM
I did when I was in the parish or checking something in the “evangelical Catholic“ line of thought.
You?

Just checking as you scolded him for his grammar, but didn't give an answer. I thought maybe it was to sidestep a theological conversation.

I suggest that you consider whether this kind of comment is necessary. You might review the discussion on the deterioration of discussion here.

Why is it that Charles came back from a life time ban without apologizing for the behavior that brought it about? I'm wondering why that question wasn't answered.
Who cares? It has nothing to do with the nuclear family or any other thread. I didn't answer it because it was a long time ago, I don't remember all that went into the decision, and it is none of anyone else's business.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 02:12:09 PM
Who cares? It has nothing to do with the nuclear family or any other thread. I didn't answer it because it was a long time ago, I don't remember all that went into the decision, and it is none of anyone else's business.

It was the business of all those who had been verbally abused that led to his ban, many of whom are no longer online here. Telling abuse victims their abuser has been forgiven without their input or consent is insulting Peter and not something any of us would accept as parish pastors. Is this really how Lutherans are to act? Why do you think I've been kicking this system in the shins of late?  Ban me if need be, but I still question why no attempt at reconciliation was offered or assumed needed.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 27, 2020, 02:47:44 PM
I don’t think he was removed for abuse. If I recall, he was removed for making the forum worse for everyone and for ignoring repeated pleas to quit. Some time later we allowed him to rejoin. It isn’t a sin and forgiveness situation.

A lifetime ban actually just means an indefinite ban. The forum lets you ban people from posting a a day, a week, or whatever. Or it lets you just revoke posting privileges altogether, which is what we did. I don’t keep the minutes of these kinds of decisions, but either way, this isn’t a congregation, I’m not anyone’s pastor here, and posting privileges are not granted based on whether people are properly repentant for their sins. It is strictly a matter of what makes for a good forum. Even atheists post here without a test of faith or true contrition so long as they post relevant, interesting things.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 02:51:03 PM
I don’t think he was removed for abuse. If I recall, he was removed for making the forum worse for everyone and for ignoring repeated pleas to quit. Some time later we allowed him to rejoin. It isn’t a sin and forgiveness situation.

A lifetime ban actually just means an indefinite ban. The forum lets you ban people from posting a a day, a week, or whatever. Or it lets you just revoke posting privileges altogether, which is what we did. I don’t keep the minutes of these kinds of decisions, but either way, this isn’t a congregation, I’m not anyone’s pastor here, and posting privileges are not granted based on whether people are properly repentant for their sins. It is strictly a matter of what makes for a good forum. Even atheists post here without a test of faith or true contrition so long as they post relevant, interesting things.

Disappointing, but not unexpected. Abusers need their enablers. Thought better of you Peter.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 27, 2020, 02:57:42 PM
I don’t think he was removed for abuse. If I recall, he was removed for making the forum worse for everyone and for ignoring repeated pleas to quit. Some time later we allowed him to rejoin. It isn’t a sin and forgiveness situation.

A lifetime ban actually just means an indefinite ban. The forum lets you ban people from posting a a day, a week, or whatever. Or it lets you just revoke posting privileges altogether, which is what we did. I don’t keep the minutes of these kinds of decisions, but either way, this isn’t a congregation, I’m not anyone’s pastor here, and posting privileges are not granted based on whether people are properly repentant for their sins. It is strictly a matter of what makes for a good forum. Even atheists post here without a test of faith or true contrition so long as they post relevant, interesting things.

Disappointing, but not unexpected. Abusers need their enablers. Thought better of you Peter.

During the pandemic, we have often heard about "self quarantine." If you have such a poor opinion of both moderators, maybe that's something you should consider.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: B Hughes on September 27, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don’t think he was removed for abuse. If I recall, he was removed for making the forum worse for everyone and for ignoring repeated pleas to quit. Some time later we allowed him to rejoin. It isn’t a sin and forgiveness situation.

A lifetime ban actually just means an indefinite ban. The forum lets you ban people from posting a a day, a week, or whatever. Or it lets you just revoke posting privileges altogether, which is what we did. I don’t keep the minutes of these kinds of decisions, but either way, this isn’t a congregation, I’m not anyone’s pastor here, and posting privileges are not granted based on whether people are properly repentant for their sins. It is strictly a matter of what makes for a good forum. Even atheists post here without a test of faith or true contrition so long as they post relevant, interesting things.

Disappointing, but not unexpected. Abusers need their enablers. Thought better of you Peter.

During the pandemic, we have often heard about "self quarantine." If you have such a poor opinion of both moderators, maybe that's something you should consider.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be the first, joining a long list of former participants. You and Peter win Richard. 

 I can't seem to remember my password. Please remove me as a user.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on September 27, 2020, 03:57:48 PM
All one big happy family...

A new California law will have transgender inmates housed in the prison population with which they sexually identify unless there are security concerns.
The law also requires officers to address transgender inmates based on the pronouns of their choice. And it requires officers to search inmates based on the search policy of their gender identity. This from ABC7 News.

Peter (People are leaving for Idaho. Idaho. No surf in Idaho.) Garrison

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on September 27, 2020, 04:10:03 PM
Love you guys.
Pastor Hughes, don’t go.
Pastor Austin, don’t.

Peter (Emotional sponge by profession) Garrison
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:40:39 PM

Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.

Do you support the "naked and unashamed" movement in the ELCA which seeks to remove the cultural trapping of marriage for sexually active clergy?  Why or why not?


No, I don't support it. I think I understand it having read some of their materials and NBW's latest book; but as my wife and I are talking about how to celebrate our 50th anniversary next year (without knowing what the COVID situation will be); life-long marriages are something I support. However, I'm pretty certain that trying to convince people of this "because the Bible says so," or "because that's the right way," isn't going to work any more.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:43:15 PM
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.

So what?  I am not a Jew.  This history has no bearing on me.  If we really want to talk about love we should be looking to the New Testament not the Old, in this case.


According to Paul, you have been grafted onto the Jewish tree. The Jewish Scriptures are also our Christian Scriptures. It should matter to you.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 27, 2020, 05:46:08 PM
I don’t think he was removed for abuse. If I recall, he was removed for making the forum worse for everyone and for ignoring repeated pleas to quit. Some time later we allowed him to rejoin. It isn’t a sin and forgiveness situation.

A lifetime ban actually just means an indefinite ban. The forum lets you ban people from posting a a day, a week, or whatever. Or it lets you just revoke posting privileges altogether, which is what we did. I don’t keep the minutes of these kinds of decisions, but either way, this isn’t a congregation, I’m not anyone’s pastor here, and posting privileges are not granted based on whether people are properly repentant for their sins. It is strictly a matter of what makes for a good forum. Even atheists post here without a test of faith or true contrition so long as they post relevant, interesting things.

Disappointing, but not unexpected. Abusers need their enablers. Thought better of you Peter.

During the pandemic, we have often heard about "self quarantine." If you have such a poor opinion of both moderators, maybe that's something you should consider.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be the first, joining a long list of former participants. You and Peter win Richard. 

 I can't seem to remember my password. Please remove me as a user.
Boy they were eager to respond 😩 Please return!
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:47:14 PM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.


Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.

And some believe that Mrs. Clinton won the last presidential election.  But it ain't so.  In either case.


Mrs. Clinton did receive the highest number of votes. In most other elections, she would have been declared the winner (or at least been in a runoff if a majority of votes was necessary for the win). That isn't how we elect the president. The electoral college elects the president, not the people. She won the president election. She did not win the popular vote. Should we be surprised that we have a president who is not popular with a large segment of the population?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:49:11 PM
4. I would prefer to study the Confessions and Luther -- even Pieper -- than Piepkorn.


I prefer to study Scriptures.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 27, 2020, 05:54:02 PM
I don’t think he was removed for abuse. If I recall, he was removed for making the forum worse for everyone and for ignoring repeated pleas to quit. Some time later we allowed him to rejoin. It isn’t a sin and forgiveness situation.

A lifetime ban actually just means an indefinite ban. The forum lets you ban people from posting a a day, a week, or whatever. Or it lets you just revoke posting privileges altogether, which is what we did. I don’t keep the minutes of these kinds of decisions, but either way, this isn’t a congregation, I’m not anyone’s pastor here, and posting privileges are not granted based on whether people are properly repentant for their sins. It is strictly a matter of what makes for a good forum. Even atheists post here without a test of faith or true contrition so long as they post relevant, interesting things.


In private messages with an LCMS poster, we noted that during Charles absence, when they didn't have him to kick around, there was more infighting among the LCMSers.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 27, 2020, 06:47:30 PM
I don’t think he was removed for abuse. If I recall, he was removed for making the forum worse for everyone and for ignoring repeated pleas to quit. Some time later we allowed him to rejoin. It isn’t a sin and forgiveness situation.

A lifetime ban actually just means an indefinite ban. The forum lets you ban people from posting a a day, a week, or whatever. Or it lets you just revoke posting privileges altogether, which is what we did. I don’t keep the minutes of these kinds of decisions, but either way, this isn’t a congregation, I’m not anyone’s pastor here, and posting privileges are not granted based on whether people are properly repentant for their sins. It is strictly a matter of what makes for a good forum. Even atheists post here without a test of faith or true contrition so long as they post relevant, interesting things.


In private messages with an LCMS poster, we noted that during Charles absence, when they didn't have him to kick around, there was more infighting among the LCMSers.
Are you referring to the recent voluntary absences or the involuntary absences a few years ago?
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 27, 2020, 07:46:48 PM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.


Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.

And some believe that Mrs. Clinton won the last presidential election.  But it ain't so.  In either case.


Mrs. Clinton did receive the highest number of votes. In most other elections, she would have been declared the winner (or at least been in a runoff if a majority of votes was necessary for the win). That isn't how we elect the president. The electoral college elects the president, not the people. She won the president election. She did not win the popular vote. Should we be surprised that we have a president who is not popular with a large segment of the population?

You continue to be wrong: she did NOT win the presidential election. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on September 27, 2020, 07:52:11 PM
Well, maybe our lysis is the lessening of the “dis-ease” inflicted by the presence of people who would hold us back and the osmotic pressure is doing for us what it does for water - filtering out some of the crap.
The church will change even more in the decades ahead and the ELCA and LCMS will survive, but in different forms. We will be glad, B Hughes and hyper-Missouri preservationists, that we said “no, thanks” (several times) to your efforts to “save” how you thought we should be.
Same to you fella. We parted company about half a century ago and been tracking in different trajectories. Many of us are glad that we said, "No thanks" to your efforts to save us from the horrors of traditional Lutheran theology.


Some of us believe that we have recaptured the essence of traditional Lutheran theology by removing it from much of its cultural trappings.

And some believe that Mrs. Clinton won the last presidential election.  But it ain't so.  In either case.


Mrs. Clinton did receive the highest number of votes. In most other elections, she would have been declared the winner (or at least been in a runoff if a majority of votes was necessary for the win). That isn't how we elect the president. The electoral college elects the president, not the people. She won the president election. She did not win the popular vote. Should we be surprised that we have a president who is not popular with a large segment of the population?

You continue to be wrong: she did NOT win the presidential election. 
Rev Bohler... there is a communication gap ... in a presidential election, there is an difference between winning the popular vote and the election.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 27, 2020, 07:53:42 PM
You continue to be wrong in not noting that we refer to the popular vote. She won that. Because of our oddball electoral college system, where votes from a couple dozen people and a handful of cows in North Dakota count more than votes of individual people in California or Pennsylvania she did not win the presidential election.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on September 27, 2020, 07:59:54 PM
You continue to be wrong in not noting that we refer to the popular vote. She won that. Because of our oddball electoral college system, where votes from a couple dozen people and a handful of cows in North Dakota count more than votes of individual people in California or Pennsylvania she did not win the presidential election.
 
I believe Trump got more votes from individual people in Pennsylvania than Clinton did.  I'm pretty sure Pennsylvania didn't count votes from cows or a few dozen people in North Dakota.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 27, 2020, 08:10:20 PM
In fairness the Electoral College is not an 'oddball... system".  For some it guarantees that each state has somewhat of an equal representation.  If we went with a pure popular vote count, as in the case of Clinton in 2016, the midwest would largely be disenfranchised and the election could be determined mainly by a few very large, metro areas like LA and NY. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on September 27, 2020, 08:54:07 PM
So the once sacred “One person, one vote“should not apply? The electoral college was contrived to keep the slave states in the original 13.
But here, now, this is an unsolvable situation.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 27, 2020, 09:01:02 PM
So the once sacred “One person, one vote“should not apply? The electoral college was contrived to keep the slave states in the original 13.
But here, now, this is an unsolvable situation.
Could you point out where in our founding documents, the Constitution, or even the Declaration of Independence the sacred "One person, One vote" is established as a principle of the Republic?


The election was conducted and decided upon in accordance with the rules and procedures established by our agreed upon constituting documents. That the results were not to your liking is irrelevant. Your continued whining and griping is as relevant as you considered the whining and griping of those in the ELCA who complained about the decision to ordain partnered homosexuals. If you do not the way the election was decided, change the rules, there is a procedure to do just that. If your complaint is that efforts to do that are likely futile, I'll remind you of the similarities between that complaint by you and the complaints of those displeased by the decisions of CWA 2009 and the sympathy that you gave those who complained.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 27, 2020, 09:03:29 PM
The creation of an electoral college as a system for electing the president was not based on the issue of slavery.  How the actual electoral votes were to be assessed was influenced by slavery - the so-called "three fifths compromise."

Perhaps the solution is not to abolish the electoral college but rather to reassess how the electoral votes are assigned.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention (https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention)
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 27, 2020, 09:09:36 PM
You continue to be wrong in not noting that we refer to the popular vote. She won that. Because of our oddball electoral college system, where votes from a couple dozen people and a handful of cows in North Dakota count more than votes of individual people in California or Pennsylvania she did not win the presidential election.

But the popular vote is NOT the election.  You know that.  Even Mrs. Clinton knows that, now.  So Rev. Stoffregen (and you) should stop with the untruths.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on September 27, 2020, 09:15:56 PM
So the once sacred “One person, one vote“should not apply? The electoral college was contrived to keep the slave states in the original 13.
But here, now, this is an unsolvable situation.
I believe that is a French notion.  A much smaller geographic territory.  The U.S. is a sprawling continental nation.  The founders recognized that--even with just the 13 original states.  As B. Franklin noted at the end of the Constitutional Convention, we have a democratic republic with a federal system of states.  Each person's vote counts in their state.   I think it has served us well.  And I think (and hope) there are enough like me in at least 14 states to defeat any attempt to make it otherwise.   The United States is more than just its coasts and dense urban areas.  The founders were suspicious enough of majoritarian tyranny to include the Bill of Rights as well.  Majorities under the passion of the moment lend themselves to tyranny. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James_Gale on September 27, 2020, 09:28:01 PM
So the once sacred “One person, one vote“should not apply? The electoral college was contrived to keep the slave states in the original 13.
But here, now, this is an unsolvable situation.


How in the world did you concoct this fiction?  The electoral college was a compromise among delegates who proposed everything from having Congress select the president to holding a national election. Slavery was always a lurking issue. But to say that it was the reason for the electoral college is not correct.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: readselerttoo on September 27, 2020, 10:34:07 PM
The Hebrew word ahad is used to describe the “love” that David and Jonathan had for each other.  The same Hebrew word is used to describe the love that all Israel had for David (see 1st Samuel 18:16).  The Hebrew word ahad in these and similar contexts has the meaning of the Greek word  philía which describes a dedicated brotherly or family love (unlike the Greek word érōs which describes romantic or sexual love).


I note that in the LXX ἀγαπάω, φιλέω, ἐράω and related words are all used for אהב. It can be used for friendship, for self-giving love, and for romantic or sexual love.

So what?  I am not a Jew.  This history has no bearing on me.  If we really want to talk about love we should be looking to the New Testament not the Old, in this case.


According to Paul, you have been grafted onto the Jewish tree. The Jewish Scriptures are also our Christian Scriptures. It should matter to you.

I don’t think it is a Jewish tree I (or Gentiles, in general) am grafted into.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 07, 2020, 10:38:38 AM
I deleted about a page and half of pointless posts from this thread, but found that even with all the whining between James and Charles deleted it is still a thread largely devoted to the election. If anyone wants to post about the nature, origin, or purpose of the nuclear family, this is the thread for it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Randy Bosch on October 07, 2020, 10:50:22 AM
Several decades ago, a prominent American led the charge of "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child".  Naysayers pointed out the Soviet system of taking children from their parents in rural and semi-rural areas to educate and raise them in communal utopias.  Others pointed out the then well-underway destruction of the two-parent family in poorer, dense American urban areas thought to be accelerated by misdirected governmental paternalism.
Where are we now? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 07, 2020, 01:04:05 PM
Several decades ago, a prominent American led the charge of "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child".  Naysayers pointed out the Soviet system of taking children from their parents in rural and semi-rural areas to educate and raise them in communal utopias.  Others pointed out the then well-underway destruction of the two-parent family in poorer, dense American urban areas thought to be accelerated by misdirected governmental paternalism.
Where are we now?


I understood: "It takes a village to raise a child," to harken back to olden days where all the adults in the neighborhood, who knew each other, looked after and cared for all the children. It recognizes that raising a child includes the school system, churches, scout leaders, coaches, etc. The number of people who influence our children goes far beyond just the parents, grandparents, and other family members.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Charles Austin on October 07, 2020, 01:42:30 PM
When I was young, the “playground“ included the four or five blocks in front of my house running to the west, my house being on the east end of the play area. Eight or nine of us kids ranged through that street and our various yards, front and back, from the time school got out in May until September. A Couple of yards, where no children lived, were off-limits. But as we played through the summer days and into the summer nights, it was clear that the nearest mother, no matter whose mother she was, could discipline any child Who got out of hand, was fighting, or used bad language or engaged in other acts of juvenile disorder. Sometimes, when a father came home from work, he would take four or five of us in his car to the Dairy Queen. Another father was a baseball coach. And sometimes older brothers or sisters would sit in on the monopoly games we played that went on for days and days. I think of those four or five blocks and the people who live there as my village.
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 07, 2020, 02:50:45 PM
Society has shifted from the good old days like Charles described. There are many reasons for this. As neighborhoods have become more diverse, standards and styles of child discipline have shifted and diversified so that we are no longer as comfortable with neighbors being stand in parents and administering discipline. Perhaps neighborhoods have become less safe, or perceived as such.


One perhaps overlooked factor that has had a major impact on neighborhoods was the advent of practical and affordable air conditioning. With the indoors becoming more comfortable than the outdoors during the heat of summer, people and even kids spend less time on porches and yards.

Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: John_Hannah on October 07, 2020, 04:26:20 PM
My block (2100 Watson Avenue) in the Bronx is like that today. The kids roll their scooters, trikes, bikes up and down the block or they play "war" with their plastic weapons. Interestingly, there is a real mixture of ethnicity--African American, different Latino, Guianense, Bengali, Asian. It's a wonderful village.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Nuclear Family
Post by: James J Eivan on October 07, 2020, 05:09:04 PM
Society has shifted from the good old days like Charles described. There are many reasons for this. As neighborhoods have become more diverse, standards and styles of child discipline have shifted and diversified so that we are no longer as comfortable with neighbors being stand in parents and administering discipline. Perhaps neighborhoods have become less safe, or perceived as such.

One perhaps overlooked factor that has had a major impact on neighborhoods was the advent of practical and affordable air conditioning. With the indoors becoming more comfortable than the outdoors during the heat of summer, people and even kids spend less time on porches and yards.
Lost in the discussion is the increasing lack of respect of authority ... be it law enforcement, teachers and in the work place.  Society is more interested in protecting the ‘rights’ of fleeing perpetrators than protecting the physical safety of law enforcement officers.

It’s pleasantly surprising that the youth in Rev Hannah’s neighborhood are allowed to brandish non lethal ‘plastic weaponry’ in public. 

Students are being expelled from virtual school sessions for simply having plastic weapons (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cXiWC5g3MwU) (@ 4 minute mark) visibly in their virtual classroom in their own home.  The entire video provides a distressing view into abuses in the public education system.