Brian, you wouldnn't object to this definition, because it suits your understanding of the issue at hand...let everyone think as they please, have no standard or rule, and be of two minds.
By the way, that is heterodoxy.
Michael is correct, Wengert spoke to bound conscience, but redefined it not as bound to God's Word, as it was for Luther, but as our own conscience. After he spoke, things were even more unclear to most delegates, some who sat behind from NE Synod who, while in in favor of the changes ,actually said "what did he just say? "
We never got an answer from the task force chair or members of the task force. Dr. Wengert is a professional theologian, and his stance on the issue was well known. We also never got to hear from the minority dissenters on the task force.
And the definition of "bound conscience" was not a legislative matter before the assembly, so it was indeed out of order.
This is one of the strangest things written here of late.
Well, actually Charles is right. The definition of bound conscience was not before the assembly. It was suggested to the assembly as a way to get around objections on both sides but left as a vague concept. Sort of a magic pill, if you like. The meaning is now being sought as it has occurred to some that the concept is sloppy and could, well, "fall into the wrong hands."
I took Jeff to be referring to a request made within the context of the debate over the sexuality statement itself -- that is, a debate where a document that contained the phrase and used it quite prominently was before the assembly for adoption. Unless the content of the document is viewed as being a separate issue from debating its adoption (an odd idea), understanding what the document is claiming is certainly relevant.
The phrase "bound conscience" occurs once in the statement, and it is in quotes. An explanation of the concept, more often phrased "conscience-bound" is included in an endnote (printed below).
26 The Apostle Paul testifies to conscience as the unconditional moral responsibility of the individual before God (Romans 2:15–16). In the face of different conclusions about what constitutes responsible action, the concept of “the conscience” becomes pivotal.
When the clear word of God’s saving action by grace through faith is at stake, Christian conscience becomes as adamant as Paul, who opposed those who insisted upon circumcision (Galatians 1:
. In the same way Luther announced at his trial for heresy, “Unless I am persuaded by the testimony of Scripture and by clear reason . . . I am conquered by the Scripture passages I have adduced and my conscience is captive to the words of God. I neither can nor desire to recant anything, when to do so against conscience would be neither safe nor wholesome” (WA 7: 838; Luther’s Works 32:112). However, when the question is about morality or church practice, the Pauline and Lutheran witness is less adamant and believes we may be called to respect the bound conscience of the neighbor. That is, if salvation is not at stake in a particular question, Christians are free to give priority to the neighbor’s well-being and will protect the conscience of the neighbor, who may well view the same question in such a way as to affect faith itself. For example, Paul was confident that Christian freedom meant the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not at stake in questions of meat sacrificed to idols or the rituals of holy days (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8:10–14 and 10:23–30). Yet he insisted that, if a brother or sister did not understand this freedom and saw eating this meat as idolatry to a pagan god, the Christian was obligated to “walk in love” by eating just vegetables for the neighbor’s sake (Romans 14:17–20)!
This social statement draws upon this rich understanding of the role of conscience and calls upon this church, when in disagreement concerning matters around which salvation is not at stake, including human sexuality, to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), honor the conscience, and seek the well-being of the neighbor.
What is unclear about this?
If thinking for yourself constitutes heresy, then Jesus, Paul, Luther, and Bonhoeffer were all heretics--God bless 'em, and may their tribe increase!
First, Pastor Ruby used the term
HETERODOXY not
HERESY. There is a distinction, John.
Second, I don't think anyone ever charged Bonhoeffer with either heresy nor heterodoxy. If you read Bonhoeffer you find that he is reliably and solidly Orthodox and Lutheran. So, I'm not sure why he is on your list.
Third, "Thinking for Yourself" is a mis-nomer and a dangerous thing. As social psychologists say, nobody really ever "thinks for
themselves..." but our thinking is conditioned by those around us. Jesus, for example, says that he does not speak "for himself" but in the Father. Paul refers to the Church as a "Body" in which every part relies upon the other part, hence one cannot "think for him/herself." Luther called the Church of his day back into faithfulness with the Apostolic Church, not into independence or self-dependence. Actually, to think completely "for yourself" does lead into heresy, at least frequently, because you determine your own judgments to be superior to those around you.
Some truly "free thinkers" who "thought for themselves": Jim Jones, Arius, and Montanus to name a few.
I prefer to think, whenever possible, "With the mind of the Church."
Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
