Giving Polygamy a Chance

[Brian Stoffregen]

If we were as committed to tolerance, diversity and muti-culturalism as we claim, we would affirm it.  Diversity sounds great when it means relaxing doctrinal standards or overturning centuries of tradition, but when it means accomadating those with more traditional views, it's a problem. Or so it seems.

It seems to me that revisionists have accommodated traditional views for a long time, but now that the traditionalists are asked to accommodate the revisionist's view, many are abandoning the ship.

[DCharlton]

If we were as committed to tolerance, diversity and muti-culturalism as we claim, we would affirm it.  Diversity sounds great when it means relaxing doctrinal standards or overturning centuries of tradition, but when it means accomadating those with more traditional views, it's a problem. Or so it seems.

It seems to me that revisionists have accommodated traditional views for a long time, but now that the traditionalists are asked to accommodate the revisionist's view, many are abandoning the ship.

Sure, but it's not a contradiction for us to do that.  We do not claim diversity and tolerance as the highest value and the only non-negotiable truth.  We believe that there are core Christian truths that should not be abandoned, even in the name of diversity or tolerance. We believe that every community must have some boundaries that define who is and isn't a part of it.  In other words, we are not the ones contradicting our core beliefs.  

We also do not consider "accomodation" the highest virtue.  For some time we have wondered why those who find so much of Christian doctrine offensive don't leave the Church and found a new religion that better suits their tastes.  Why should someone continue to adhere to a faith that he/she no longer believes is true?  

P.S.  What would you say to someone who said, "Those of us Christians[sic] who no longer believe that Jesus is the Christ are willing to accomodate those who do"?  

[Brian Stoffregen]

P.S.  What would you say to someone who said, "Those of us Christians[sic] who no longer believe that Jesus is the Christ are willing to accomodate those who do"?  

I would say: "Regardless of what you think, Jesus Christ died for you. God, in Jesus Christ, loves and accepts you."

It sounds to me like you are basing Christianity on adhering to certain laws -- rules we believe and try to obey, rather than being centered on God's grace revealed in Jesus Christ. I would say the same thing to someone who makes "diversity and tolerance" a new rule we have to believe and obey. The non-negotiable truth is "God so loved the world (which includes every single person) so that he gave his unique Son, so that everyone who trusts him is not destroyed, but might have a never-ending life."

Our guiding principle for our thoughts, words, and actions towards others is that they are people whom God loves and for whom Jesus' died. If that leads to accepting and tolerating those who are different from me, so be it. Beyond that, the next verse indicates that God did not send Jesus to judge/condemn (κρίνω) others, but to save them. If he isn't judging/condemning, why are we? If his way of saving them was to suffer horribly and die for them, what might that indicate about the way we need to relate to "the world"?

[northchurch]

How about cross cultural reading of scripture as it pertains to homosexuality?  Do you really want to go there?

When the Bible is read cross culturally, it often leads to problems for liberal Christians.  My guess is that outside of North America and Europe most Christians have little problem believing in miracles, the demonic, the power of the Spirit, the existence of God, and a discernable difference between good and evil.  Most of that is way too fundamentalist for liberal Christianity.   In some way you might say they have more in common with Luther than we do. (Think for instance of Oberman's Luther: Man Between God and the DDevil.)

There are those in other cultures who expect their Christian minister to exorcize demons. (We had missionaries who'd been in Africa at seminary who had participated in such services.) How do you think that'd go over in our American congregations -- and not just the liberal ones?

Actually it happens in American congregations and it goes over as the Holy Spirit intends, giving glory to God and showing the power of Jesus Christ as alive and well and able to save. These kinds of exorcisms are going on in RC churches in this area, Lutheran churches in this area, and non-denominational churches in this area. These don't happen in a worship service, but they do happen in the life of those congregations.

So as a witness and participant in such things, I can tell you the Lord does wonders for those who have faith.  The expectation of the Christian minister to cast out demons in the name of Jesus is legitimate and a part of the calling for SOME. Not all have that calling, and that is something to think about too.

The point I would make is that the Word of God has the power to save and redeem no matter what culture. His Word is true no matter where it is read. The truths of Scripture are not bound to culture. However the Scripture does seek to bind everyone of every culture to its Truth.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen Lutheran Church

[Brian Stoffregen]

The expectation of the Christian minister to cast out demons in the name of Jesus is legitimate and a part of the calling for SOME. Not all have that calling, and that is something to think about too.

I like that. It easily carries over to say: "The expectation of the Christian minister is to be celibate so as to devote all his(/her) time to the Lord rather than divide it with a spouse, and singleness is the calling for SOME." Not all have that gift. Something else to think about.

[northchurch]

The expectation of the Christian minister to cast out demons in the name of Jesus is legitimate and a part of the calling for SOME. Not all have that calling, and that is something to think about too.

I like that. It easily carries over to say: "The expectation of the Christian minister is to be celibate so as to devote all his(/her) time to the Lord rather than divide it with a spouse, and singleness is the calling for SOME." Not all have that gift. Something else to think about.

It only easily carries over in your mind. Scripture does not give that expectation. Scripture does say that singleness is the calling of SOME. Those who are not called to that may enter into Holy Matrimony defined by our Lord Jesus as one man, one woman, lifelong.

I said the expectation that the Christian minister will cast out demons in the name of Jesus is legitimate. That is found in Scripture as indeed our Lord gives that as part of the mission to go out and proclaim the Gospel. I also said not all have that calling. I probably need to rephrase that. All Christian ministers have that authority through Christ. Not all should use it, especially those who don't really believe the power of the keys and don't really believe the absolute authority of Scripture. Remember the sons of Sceva.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen Lutheran Church

[DCharlton]

It sounds to me like you are basing Christianity on adhering to certain laws -- rules we believe and try to obey, rather than being centered on God's grace revealed in Jesus Christ.

It seems from what you write (I'm not sure what you sound like) that you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.  I was not asking what you would say in a pastoral conversation, I was asking you whether you would also find that statement absurd.

Furthermore, the only kind of rule I was talking about is the same kind of rule you refer to when you say, "centered on God's grace revealed in Jesus Christ."  The Rule of Faith if you will, the Canon,  the Ecumenical Creeds and the Trinitarian and Christological Dogmas.  You have to admit they limit diversity and make it impossible to accomodate all opinions.  The rule you gave above, simple as it is, also limits diversity.  It does not allow room for those who would like to center the faith in obedience to rules, or in God's grace revealed in the goddess, or is submission to the will of Allah.  Does that make you legalistic or intolerant?

I would say the same thing to someone who makes "diversity and tolerance" a new rule we have to believe and obey.

Really?  Do you mean that?  From what I heard   that is the value you were lifting up as the most important.

[G.Edward]

More often, I reference Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism...

Every time you give that title, I have to consciously think, "Don't worry, he's not referring to Masons...."

Shuddering nonetheless, spt+

Lady Masons, none the less!    Is there something you'd like to share with us, Brian?

Hmmm, I wonder why my thoughts go towards a biblical story and yours go towards "lady Masons".

Probably because one of us is trying to curtail in a light-hearted way yet another divergence from the thread.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Really?  Do you mean that?  From what I heard   that is the value you were lifting up as the most important.

The value I have lifted up over and over and over again is: Salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I have been very consistent in that.

[Brian Stoffregen]

It seems from what you write (I'm not sure what you sound like) that you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.  I was not asking what you would say in a pastoral conversation, I was asking you whether you would also find that statement absurd.

This is what you wrote, with emphasis added: P.S.  What would you say to someone who said, "Those of us Christians[sic] who no longer believe that Jesus is the Christ are willing to accomodate those who do"?

I responded with what I would say "to someone". Perhaps you need a course in remedial writing.

[DCharlton]

Really?  Do you mean that?  From what I heard   that is the value you were lifting up as the most important.

The value I have lifted up over and over and over again is: Salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I have been very consistent in that.

No.  When you criticized traditionalist for not being as accomodating as revisionists had been, you were criticizing us for not being a tolerant and open to diversity as you.  So, at least in that case, which by the way was the one I was responding to, you were lifting up something other than the doctrine of Justification.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Really?  Do you mean that?  From what I heard   that is the value you were lifting up as the most important.

The value I have lifted up over and over and over again is: Salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. I have been very consistent in that.

No.  When you criticized traditionalist for not being as accomodating as revisionists had been, you were criticizing us for not being a tolerant and open to diversity as you.  So, at least in that case, which by the way was the one I was responding to, you were lifting up something other than the doctrine of Justification.

Nope, if you are going to use the tolerant and open argument, I showed how it can be turned around and bite you. I didn't say that it was my argument.

[G.Edward]

So, what will keep polygamy from be acknowledged as a legitimate relationship mode under the HSG&T rubric?

The HS:G&T rubric "monogamy."

Pax, Steven+

Why would the ELCA begin to follow the plain meaning of the text now?  The statements of the FLDS folks in the National Geographic article suggest that they have mutually loving, trusting, publicly accountable relationship in their community.  It's just a matter of time before the ELCA thinks so, too.  Monogamy literally means "one reproductive unit" by it's etymology and I would suggest by common understanding among most people, so HSG&T's use of monogamy is fundamentally flawed since it is being applied to those who cannot reproduce.  HSG&T enshrines pleasure as the primary principle of relationships, using careful wording, of course, but wholly inconsistent with the plain reading of Genesis 1 & 2.

[DCharlton]

It seems from what you write (I'm not sure what you sound like) that you need to take a remedial course in reading comprehension.  I was not asking what you would say in a pastoral conversation, I was asking you whether you would also find that statement absurd.

This is what you wrote, with emphasis added: P.S.  What would you say to someone who said, "Those of us Christians[sic] who no longer believe that Jesus is the Christ are willing to accomodate those who do"?

I responded with what I would say "to someone". Perhaps you need a course in remedial writing.

Context is part of reading comprehension.  Of course you know that, but choose to obfuscate.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Monogamy literally means "one reproductive unit" by it's etymology

Nope, etymologically it means "married once". mono = one + gamos = marriage. Literally, anyone has been married more than once is no longer "monogamous". (We've mostly redefined the literally meaning to mean, "married to one person at a time.")