Homosexuality Within Lutheranism

[kls]

At my own request on another thread, I decided to start one on homosexuality within Lutheranism since this blog was pointed out to me today.  This is what I'll start the thread with.

http://www.exposingtheelca.com/1/post/2010/09/elca-invents-new-sin-believing-and-following-scripture-is-sinful.html

What say you?

[Richard Johnson]

I say that reading the "Exposing the ELCA" blog is sort of like reading Christian News.

And I say that virtually everything mentioned in that particular blog entry has already been discussed at great length somewhere on this forum.

[kls]

I say that reading the "Exposing the ELCA" blog is sort of like reading Christian News.

And I say that virtually everything mentioned in that particular blog entry has already been discussed at great length somewhere on this forum.

Then people can choose to ignore it, I suppose, or by all means, you may remove the thread if it is irrelevant.  No offense will be taken.  Ptmccain's time-out has taught me well. 

[Charles_Austin]

I have earlier expressed my view that every word in that particular blog is untrustworthy, including "and" and "the."

[Maryland Brian]

I have earlier expressed my view that every word in that particular blog is untrustworthy, including "and" and "the."

Including the parts of the reconciliation services he quotes?  It may be possible to disagree with his interpretations, but I think it a stretch to suggest he's making up what happened at those two services.

There is a strange dynamic going on in those two confessions.  Are the confessions to God over concern with past practices of not allowing homosexual behavior among leaders in the church OR (as it reads to me), a new level of pharisaism that claims, "Thank you Lord that we're not like those bigots still huddling over in that corner that we've been able to outvote and leave behind.". IMHO they are not confessions so much as informing the larger church how superior they are now.

[pbnorth3]

The blog is truthful. It is also a blog that is written by an ELCA member who is acting on his "bound conscience" to disagree very strongly with the decisions of the ELCA CWA of 2009. I would also say that the material he points to has been verified for its truthfulness. Finally, I would say that those who do not care for the blog tend to be those who either agree with the CWA 2009, or else they don't like the fact that these defects and continual decline in the ELCA are brought up and given the light of day because it somehow convicts them, however that may be.

There may in fact be some who disagree only with the "tone" of the blog. Then again, one can still appreciate it for being truthful and informative.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler

[Charles_Austin]

I shall modify my criticism. The words he quotes from others might be accurate.
And I muse: If this person believes the ELCA is he says it is on his blog, then he would most certainly, absolutely, without a doubt not be a member. Otherwise he is a hypocrite. For he tells people to get themselves to a "Bible-believing church," and if he does not do so himself....
But let the games continue. He can be the new "Lutheran/Christian" News if he wishes. Otten has to retire sometime.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The blog is truthful. It is also a blog that is written by an ELCA member who is acting on his "bound conscience" to disagree very strongly with the decisions of the ELCA CWA of 2009. I would also say that the material he points to has been verified for its truthfulness. Finally, I would say that those who do not care for the blog tend to be those who either agree with the CWA 2009, or else they don't like the fact that these defects and continual decline in the ELCA are brought up and given the light of day because it somehow convicts them, however that may be.

There may in fact be some who disagree only with the "tone" of the blog. Then again, one can still appreciate it for being truthful and informative.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler

I think the comparison here with Christian News is valid.  Whenever I read Christian News or "Reclaim News" or the BJS site or Jesus First, I always have a shaker of salt handy because I need much more than just one grain of salt to take these with.

But I do read them (and more secular muckraking sites such as the Drudge Report).   I struggle with whether this is listening to or engaging in gossip -- then again, sometimes, I wonder the same with Fox News or The New York Times and their "Highly placed sources say ...".

But while the tone of such muckraking sites is usually abominable, they do often open up areas for concern which should be inspected.  I'm certain that no one liked Upton Sinclair in the early twentieth century even though his tone was admittedly better.  We have safer meat today though for his efforts.

The information about the reconciliation services and the attempts to disrespect the "bound consciences" of those within the ELCA who believe that homsexuality is intrinsically sinful by painting them as homophobes are all valid.  The tone and some of the characterization of people and events attendant to it are not.

The authors and editors of these sources are persistent in breaking the 8th commandment and failing to repent of this sin. How should the church treat such unrepentant, persistent sinners?

[lucan]

The authors and editors of these sources are persistent in breaking the 8th commandment and failing to repent of this sin. How should the church treat such unrepentant, persistent sinners?
[/quote]


I find this a curious and baseless assertion which exposes you to the same charge as you levy against the blog.  I (surprisingly) can vouch for the truthfulness of much of what is written, knowing or having contact with some of the people or events involved, at least on a limited scale.

Please remember that this is after all a "blog", not a news service and not journalism, per se, though the shoddy journalism of late has begun to parody the tone of blogs.  I actually consider this blog a valuable service to the rest of us who are trying to watch what is going on in the ELCA, and who know that official sources will never discuss most of these things which concern a lot of us. 

Personally, I do not agree with the blog's position on some things (it is rather Zionist, for one).  But, if you are unable to weed through tones of interpretation and get to the substance, and events, of what is being said, then you ought not read this.  Neither should you ever read or listen to anything like blogs or "news" for that matter.

To get back to the point of this particular blog post, I do believe that the blog actually has a very valid point: how can we "walk together" in ministry with people who consider us in open and blatant sin, while we consider them the same?  Clearly we have two different Gospels at work.  There is simply no way that a shoddy, third rate concept like "bound conscience", which no one understands anyway, will survive in any meaningful way.

[Brian Stoffregen]

To get back to the point of this particular blog post, I do believe that the blog actually has a very valid point: how can we "walk together" in ministry with people who consider us in open and blatant sin, while we consider them the same?  Clearly we have two different Gospels at work.  There is simply no way that a shoddy, third rate concept like "bound conscience", which no one understands anyway, will survive in any meaningful way.

I call to mind Luther's meaning of the eighth commandment: We are to fear and love God, so that we do not tell lies about our neighbors, betray or slander them, or destroy their reputations. Instead we are to come to their defense, speak well of them, and interpret evething they do in the best possible light.

While the blogs may not tell any lies about their neighbors; I'd find it difficult to characterize their postings as "coming to their neighbor's (even fellow Christian's) defense, speaking well of them, and interpreting everything they do in the best possible light. Rather, like many tabloids, they interpret everything in the worst possible light. Thus, a persistent sin against this commandment.

[lucan]

While the blogs may not tell any lies about their neighbors; I'd find it difficult to characterize their postings as "coming to their neighbor's (even fellow Christian's) defense, speaking well of them, and interpreting everything they do in the best possible light. Rather, like many tabloids, they interpret everything in the worst possible light. Thus, a persistent sin against this commandment.
[/quote]


Selective use of Luther.  He taught that charity in personal and public life should be the rule in our speech.  Yet the same Luther harshly lambasted those whom he believed misrepresented God and His Word, and used the Church for the promotion of an agenda foreign to the Christ of Scriptures.  You need to understand that this is precisely what many of us believe is happening in the ELCA.  In that case, one could say that the blog doesn't go far enough.  Anyone care to draw one of our beloved bishops with an ass for a face, like Luther did?  I myself would find it inappropriate for now, though.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Do you believe that disrespecting the "bound consciences" of those within the ELCA who believe that homsexuality is intrinsically sinful by painting them as homophobes reflects best construction?

No more nor less than the "traditionalists" who characterize homosexuals and their supports as unChristian, unLutheran, and condemned to hell.

Best construction is in the eye of the beholder at times.  For the Christian trying to admonish his brother of sin that is denied, then the admonished brother will take such an attempt as poor construction of his sinful acts.

As I read Jesus' words, before making an admonishment public, one needs to go and speak directly to the person who has sinned. If that is unsuccessful, then another private meeting is held with others to attest to the sin(s). Only after these admonitions have failed is the offense to be brought before the public.

[Pilgrim]

No more nor less than the "traditionalists" who characterize homosexuals and their supports as unChristian, unLutheran, and condemned to hell.

[/quote]

Brian, I must confress, I've never, ever heard a single "traditionalist" Lutheran say anything like that. A few crazy radicals in the paper, (not unlike extremists on any issue) but not one, nary a solo "traditionalist" LUTHERAN speak in the aforementioned manner, particularly this "condemend to hell" nonsense. And I dare question whether you have actually, with your own ears, heard a traditional LUTHERAN, say anything close to what you've written. But of course, then your inate ability and desire to argue wouldn't be served any longer would it?

[Lutheranistic]

Selective use of Luther.  He taught that charity in personal and public life should be the rule in our speech.  Yet the same Luther harshly lambasted those whom he believed misrepresented God and His Word, and used the Church for the promotion of an agenda foreign to the Christ of Scriptures.  You need to understand that this is precisely what many of us believe is happening in the ELCA.  In that case, one could say that the blog doesn't go far enough.  Anyone care to draw one of our beloved bishops with an ass for a face, like Luther did?  I myself would find it inappropriate for now, though.

1. Public rebuke should not be a first response to a first offense. A rapid rush to judgment should be avoided. "Public sin" suggests a pattern of behavior or a lack of recognition of sin and repentance when correction takes place.

2. Public rebuke should be pursued first by those who have the office of correction in the church in their assigned areas of responsibility. In the case of public sin, those affected should consult with each other and with those having responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision.

3. If those charged with ecclesiastical supervision fail to carry out their duties, public rebuke may be pursued by any Christian.

4. Matthew 18 does not speak specifically to cases of public sin, as Luther declares in his explanation of the Eighth Commandment. The steps outlined in Matthew 18, therefore, are not absolute requirements mandated by Scripture or the Confessions in cases of public sin. However, these steps may be part of synodical processes that lead to specific consequences for public sin. Public rebuke is not the same as filing formal charges.

5. One who decides on public rebuke should be certain that he himself properly understands the nature of the sin so that the rebuke offered may have the appropriate effect.

6. Public rebuke should not be undertaken lightly, but only after much prayer, deliberation and consultation with others who know of the sin.

7. In cases where the sin is not apparent to all (and perhaps for that reason, not truly public), a call for discussion rather than a rebuke might best serve the needs of the church.  Debate (in forums that may be provided for this purpose), rather than rebuke, may be a more appropriate initial response in some cases.

8. Public rebuke, if it is to be effective, should be rare and used primarily in cases of notorious or scandalous teaching or conduct in which the Gospel is at stake.

9. The purposes of public rebuke are both to warn and instruct the church and to offer spiritual care to the offender.  Public rebuke is intended to enlist the aid of fellow Christians in correcting offenders and, upon repentance, to assure them of God's absolving and restorative grace in Word and Sacrament.

From http://www.lcms.org/pages/print.asp?print=1&NavID=9998&path=%2Fpages%2Frpage.asp

[Steven Tibbetts]

No more nor less than the "traditionalists" who characterize homosexuals and their supports as unChristian, unLutheran, and condemned to hell.

Which "traditionalists" are you referring to, Brian?