Homosexuality Within Lutheranism

[kls]

Is sex outside of marriage a sin?

[totaliter vivens]

Is sex outside of marriage a sin?

Is this a trick question? 

SPS

[kls]

Is this a trick question? 

Not at all.  I say it is.  If I'm not homosexual and I engage in homosexual relations, apparently that's a sin according to the comment above.  So if I'm heterosexual and engage in sex outside of marriage (pre-marital or extra-marital), is that a sin?  Honest question I believe.

[totaliter vivens]

Is this a trick question? 

Not at all.  I say it is.  If I'm not homosexual and I engage in homosexual relations, apparently that's a sin according to the comment above.  So if I'm heterosexual and engage in sex outside of marriage (pre-marital or extra-marital), is that a sin?  Honest question I believe.

My pastoral answer is that sex outside a covenant of love and faithfulness is not the fullness of God's gracious will for our gift of sexuality (gay or straight). Such a covenant is the heart of what a marriage is. If the covenant exists but is not legal I would be slow to call it sin. On the other hand, if the legal status exists without the covenant, then I would lean in the direction of thinking it sinful.

SPS

[lucan]

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

Well said!  Much wisdom here.

[totaliter vivens]

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

Well said!  Much wisdom here.

Placet!

SPS

[James Gustafson]

While my personal opinion is that traditionalists will eventually revise their opinions, I do not require or expect repentance.

It is impossible for traditionalist to eventually revise their opinions, at least until the Lord returns.  The sum and norm of what they taught is completed, the Traditionalists are dead, alive in Christ and alive in their writings, anyone that agrees with them is a traditionalist too.  But anyone who has agreed with them and then ceases to agree with them ceases to be a traditionalist, they become something else, they become revisionists.  It is impossible therefor for traditionalists to be revised until the Lord returns, their influence may become more, it may become less, their adherents may even disappear from the face of the planet and then reappear five hundred years later when their writings are once again accepted as Apostolic and Church Father authoritative.  Traditionalist can not eventually revise their opinions, its a misunderstanding of traditionalism to think it can be revised.  It is the fatal a flaw of revisionism, to believe that we are allowed to revise, Christ and Christ's words are eternal, revision is what the Qur'an teaches...  If we can revise, then nothing is sacred.

[edoughty]

While my personal opinion is that traditionalists will eventually revise their opinions, I do not require or expect repentance.

It is impossible for traditionalist to eventually revise their opinions, at least until the Lord returns.  The sum and norm of what they taught is completed, the Traditionalists are dead, alive in Christ and alive in their writings, anyone that agrees with them is a traditionalist too.  But anyone who has agreed with them and then ceases to agree with them ceases to be a traditionalist, they become something else, they become revisionists.  It is impossible therefor for traditionalists to be revised until the Lord returns, their influence may become more, it may become less, their adherents may even disappear from the face of the planet and then reappear five hundred years later when their writings are once again accepted as Apostolic and Church Father authoritative.  Traditionalist can not eventually revise their opinions, its a misunderstanding of traditionalism to think it can be revised.  It is the fatal a flaw of revisionism, to believe that we are allowed to revise, Christ and Christ's words are eternal, revision is what the Qur'an teaches...  If we can revise, then nothing is sacred.

I am confused by this, James.  What would you call the Reformation if not a revision of the tradition?

[James Gustafson]

While my personal opinion is that traditionalists will eventually revise their opinions, I do not require or expect repentance.

It is impossible for traditionalist to eventually revise their opinions, at least until the Lord returns.  The sum and norm of what they taught is completed, the Traditionalists are dead, alive in Christ and alive in their writings, anyone that agrees with them is a traditionalist too.  But anyone who has agreed with them and then ceases to agree with them ceases to be a traditionalist, they become something else, they become revisionists.  It is impossible therefor for traditionalists to be revised until the Lord returns, their influence may become more, it may become less, their adherents may even disappear from the face of the planet and then reappear five hundred years later when their writings are once again accepted as Apostolic and Church Father authoritative.  Traditionalist can not eventually revise their opinions, its a misunderstanding of traditionalism to think it can be revised.  It is the fatal a flaw of revisionism, to believe that we are allowed to revise, Christ and Christ's words are eternal, revision is what the Qur'an teaches...  If we can revise, then nothing is sacred.

I am confused by this, James.  What would you call the Reformation if not a revision of the tradition?

It was a return to the Traditionalists and traditionalism.  Returning to what had been, departing from the revised.

[totaliter vivens]

While my personal opinion is that traditionalists will eventually revise their opinions, I do not require or expect repentance.

It is impossible for traditionalist to eventually revise their opinions, at least until the Lord returns.  The sum and norm of what they taught is completed, the Traditionalists are dead, alive in Christ and alive in their writings, anyone that agrees with them is a traditionalist too.  But anyone who has agreed with them and then ceases to agree with them ceases to be a traditionalist, they become something else, they become revisionists.  It is impossible therefor for traditionalists to be revised until the Lord returns, their influence may become more, it may become less, their adherents may even disappear from the face of the planet and then reappear five hundred years later when their writings are once again accepted as Apostolic and Church Father authoritative.  Traditionalist can not eventually revise their opinions, its a misunderstanding of traditionalism to think it can be revised.  It is the fatal a flaw of revisionism, to believe that we are allowed to revise, Christ and Christ's words are eternal, revision is what the Qur'an teaches...  If we can revise, then nothing is sacred.

I am confused by this, James.  What would you call the Reformation if not a revision of the tradition?

It was a return to the Traditionalists and traditionalism.  Returning to what had been, departing from the revised.

James...

This is why I am a conservative and not a traditionalist. I cannot in good conscience make the claim that anything touched by humans is irreformable. Nor can I say that the Reformation was repristination. I cannot go there.

I believe that the Lutheran understanding of the Gospel is the BEST hermeneutic. But Scripture and the history of the Church will not let me say that it was the original, or the only hermeneutic present in the Church.

SPS

[James Gustafson]

James...

This is why I am a conservative and not a traditionalist. I cannot in good conscience make the claim that anything touched by humans is irreformable. Nor can I say that the Reformation was repristination. I cannot go there.

I believe that the Lutheran understanding of the Gospel is the BEST hermeneutic. But Scripture and the history of the Church will not let me say that it was the original, or the only hermeneutic present in the Church.

SPS

 I know you are not a traditionalist, I was pointing out that your hoped for outcome was an impossibility.  Confusing to those that don't understand the difference.  Like a pile of sugar and a pile of salt next to it, they may look alike but they are not the same.  Or a cup full of cubed and peeled potatoes my look like a cup full of peeled and cubed apples but they don't perform the same when added into the recipe.  In a similar way Lutheranism is not old enough to adhere to itself as the sum and norm of Traditionalists and traditionalism.  The Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers are the standard by which we must compare ourselves to see if we are Traditionalist or not.

[totaliter vivens]

James...

This is why I am a conservative and not a traditionalist. I cannot in good conscience make the claim that anything touched by humans is irreformable. Nor can I say that the Reformation was repristination. I cannot go there.

SPS

 I know you are not a traditionalist, I was pointing out that your hoped for outcome was an impossibility.  Confusing to those that don't understand the difference.  Like a pile of sugar and a pile of salt next to it, they may look alike but they are not the same.  Or a cup full of cubed and peeled potatoes my look like a cup full of peeled and cubed apples but they don't perform the same when added into the recipe.  In a similar way Lutheranism is not old enough to adhere to itself as the sum and norm of Traditionalists and traditionalism.  The Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers are the standard by which we must compare ourselves to see if we are Traditionalist or not.

I understand your position. To be honest, I find your definition of traditionalism to be synonymous with idolatry. There are indeed times when one must just be blunt.

Nothing is impossible with God.

SPS

[James Gustafson]

I understand your position. To be honest, I find your definition of traditionalism to be synonymous with idolatry. There are indeed times when one must just be blunt.

Nothing is impossible with God.

SPS

Asking for God to change what God has established ends with a lot of talk about God making big rocks and testing to see if he can lift them or not.  I think refusing to accept instruction is synonymous with rebellion.  There are indeed times when one must just be blunt.

[totaliter vivens]

I understand your position. To be honest, I find your definition of traditionalism to be synonymous with idolatry. There are indeed times when one must just be blunt.

Nothing is impossible with God.

SPS

Asking for God to change what God has established ends with a lot of talk about God making big rocks and testing to see if he can lift them or not.  I think refusing to accept instruction is synonymous with rebellion.  There are indeed times when one must just be blunt.

Interestingly enough, I would agree that refusing to accept (faithful) instruction is synonymous with rebellion. But I fear, that in this thread you have disqualified yourself as faithful instructor. You also misunderstand the change I pray for. I do not ask God to change (although God does from time to time), I pray that God will change you, my brother.

SPS

[cssml]

Is this a trick question? 

Not at all.  I say it is.  If I'm not homosexual and I engage in homosexual relations, apparently that's a sin according to the comment above.  So if I'm heterosexual and engage in sex outside of marriage (pre-marital or extra-marital), is that a sin?  Honest question I believe.

My pastoral answer is that sex outside a covenant of love and faithfulness is not the fullness of God's gracious will for our gift of sexuality (gay or straight). Such a covenant is the heart of what a marriage is. If the covenant exists but is not legal I would be slow to call it sin. On the other hand, if the legal status exists without the covenant, then I would lean in the direction of thinking it sinful.

SPS

By what authority do you discard former (and for many Christians, current) understanding of what "the heart of marriage" is, and what God's gracious will is for our human sexuality?  As I have said here before, I believe you accurately capture the unitive purpose, that is of expressing love and in uniting the two, but I believe you reject the procreative aspect of the marital act.  It is the rejection of one of the fundamental purposes of sex within marriage where I believe you are in error.

For an explanation far better than I can explain, see the USCCB 2009 document on Marriage:

http://www.nccbuscc.org/loveandlife/MarriageFINAL.pdf

Page 11: The Two Ends or Purposes of Marriage

"Marriage has two fundamental ends or purposes towards which it is oriented, namely, the good of the spouses as well as the procreation of children. Thus, the Church teaches that marriage is both unitive and procreative, and that it is inseparably both."

Any sexual act can be understood in this context.  Is it unitive (selfish or giving), and is it procreative (open to and capable of creating life).

Anything which denies either of these, denies God's full intention.

  masturbation (not unitive or open to life)?
  contraception (not open to life)?
  adultry (not unitive)?
  pornography (not open to life nor unitive)? 
  homosexual acts (not open to life)
  ... add your favorite here..

I believe until fairly modern times (last century) there has been universal understanding of this by all Christians.  So either the Holy Spirit is opening our minds to a new understanding, or some other spirit is once again at work to deceive us from the fullness that God truly intends for us.