Author Topic: Revised LCMS (2013) Resolution 2-07  (Read 2219 times)

Robert_C_Baker

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Revised LCMS (2013) Resolution 2-07
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2013, 09:17:38 AM »
For my part, I am glad that I teach at a nominally-religious university. Lindenwood, at least in its mission statement, affirms its Judeo-Christian heritage as well as objective truth.

While my courses are limited to ethics, bioethics, and philosophy, I particularly enjoy engaging with students from a variety of Christian and non-Christian backgrounds. Permit me, but we don't have the "baggage" of being a "Christian" school, per se, so I believe that there are plenty of opportunities for students to learn from me as I learn from them.

I also teach "both sides" of controversial issues. The danger here, of course, is that students will take the "wrong" side, but I figure that going back and forth on topics is part of the learning experience. On the other hand, I can't tell you how many times students have become pro-life after looking at human embryology for two weeks--this miracle never fails to amaze me.

And, there are opportunities for teaching about Jesus--as a historical person, of course--but even this can serve as an apologetic for further exploration of the Christian faith. Verbally and in written form, students share their own needs, biases and, frequently, guilt. That's a tough nut to crack, because I'm "not paid" to absolve in this setting. However, directing students back to their own faith tradition (primarily or perhaps remotely Christian) seems to help. What also helps is when Christian students voluntarily share their faith, or how their faith influences their moral choices.

As an aside, students, who more readily understand ethics and morality, tend to come from Roman Catholic or Evangelical backgrounds. Those without a strong moral background tend to be pure consequentialists, but, then again, so too are a lot of folks in the LCMS, although the latter probably don't know it.

Mike Gehlhausen

  • Guest
Re: Revised LCMS (2013) Resolution 2-07
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2013, 09:26:29 AM »
Thanks for your inquiry.

The amended resolution better tailors, in my opinion, President Harrison's desire to provide positive ministry to homosexuals with the Michigan District's original overture, which specifically addressed marriage.

"Marriage, chastity, and the family" encompasses clear, biblical and confessional categories, and avoids the abstract psycho-social term, "sexuality".

Thanks for explaining your reasons to amend the resolution.  I find them wise.

May I ask though whether the emphasis on sexuality concerns you enough to vote against the resolution if your amendment fails and it goes through as originally proposed?

Mike

Rev. Christopher Jackson

  • Guest
Re: Revised LCMS (2013) Resolution 2-07
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2013, 01:36:04 PM »
These changes look good to me, for the most part.

Latent in the original language of the resolution is a gross misunderstanding about what "sex" is.  Everyone has sex all the time.  That is, everyone is marked by the separation between male and female, which is the true meaning of sex.  There about a thousand different better ways to render what is commonly called "sex": intercourse, coupling, the marital act, the way of a man and a woman together (to quote Solomon), even "honoring Aphrodite" is a more Christian, poetic, and true way of describing it.

Of course, part of the point in describing intercourse as sex is the movement do "de-sex" sexuality. In other words, it is part of an effort to erase the idea of male and female engaged in an intrinscally and fundamentally procreative activity  as the only true and rightly ordered participation in erotic activity.

I'm hoping that delegates will consider revising Resolution 2-07 to something on the lines of the following:

1         WHEREAS, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He
2   created them” (Gen. 1:27), which is foundational for all teaching about marriage and family (Matt. 19:4–6); and
3
4      WHEREAS, The earthly relationship between husband and wife is to reflect Christ’s relationship to His
5   bride, the Church (Eph. 5:21–33); and
6
7      WHEREAS, God’s gift of sex sexual intercourse is to be used only within the marriage covenant between one man and one
8   woman for the purposes of creating new human life (Gen. 1:27–28), celebrating the unconditional love and
9   commitment between husband and wife (Song of Songs; Matt. 19:4–6), and restraining lust (1 Cor. 7:9); and
10
11      WHEREAS, Scripture is clear that all sexual activity outside of the marriage covenant (e.g., fornication,
12   adultery, sexual co-habitation, polygamy, pornography, pedophilia, prostitution, same-sex intercourse, and all
13    lust) is condemned by God (Lev. 18 & 20; Matt. 19:4–12: Rom. 1:26–32; 1 Cor. 5:1–6:20; 1Thess. 4:1–8 ) ; and
14
15      WHEREAS, The Holy Scriptures clearly lay out God’s plan for the use of His gifts of sex and sexuality our procreative organs,
16   and God requires that the Church give a faithful and loving witness in word and deed; and
17
18      WHEREAS, President Matthew Harrison has appointed a LCMS task force which, as of its first meeting in 
19   February of 2013, decided to call itself “God’s Gift of Sexuality Task Force,” whose purpose is to educate the 
20   church and society about Scripture’s teaching regarding sexuality and marriage as well as to provide biblically 
21   sound resources for the church and society
; therefore be it
22
23      Resolved, That the LCMS in convention rename the task force to the Marriage, Chastity and the Family Task Force,
24   whose purpose is to educate the church and society about Scripture’s teaching regarding sexuality and marriage,
25   chastity, and the family, as well as to provide biblically sound resources for the church and society; therefore be
26   it; and be it further
27
27      Resolved, That the LCMS in convention encourage the task force in its work; and be it further
24
25      Resolved, That the LCMS encourage the production, dissemination, and use of good Bible-based materials
26   dealing with human sexuality marriage, chastity, and the family to empower faithful and God-pleasing lives; and be
27   it further
28
29      Resolved, That LCMS leaders and congregations continue to seek avenues to proclaim God's truth in all matters of
30   sex and sexuality marriage, chastity, and the family; and be it further
31
32      Resolved, That all Christians be encouraged to proclaim forgiveness in Christ Jesus and show mercy and 
33   compassion toward those caught up in any and all sexual sin, and to help those who struggle with these sins and
34   their consequences in their own lives and in the lives of all victimized by these sins; and be it finally
35
36      Resolved, That pastors and congregations be encouraged to seek practical ways to show mercy to those who have
37   been caught up in sexual sin, especially through confession, absolution, and restoration to the body of Christ.

Robert_C_Baker

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
Re: Revised LCMS (2013) Resolution 2-07
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2013, 03:02:09 PM »
Permit me to quote a dear friend, the wife of a respected, retired pastor: "I agree with your blog linked below. I was not aware of the task force. The wording of the resolution needs to be changed or it should be voted down."

The blog post she referred to is this: https://bioethike.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/avoiding-a-missouri-synod-pelosian-moment/.

Thanks for your inquiry.

The amended resolution better tailors, in my opinion, President Harrison's desire to provide positive ministry to homosexuals with the Michigan District's original overture, which specifically addressed marriage.

"Marriage, chastity, and the family" encompasses clear, biblical and confessional categories, and avoids the abstract psycho-social term, "sexuality".

Thanks for explaining your reasons to amend the resolution.  I find them wise.

May I ask though whether the emphasis on sexuality concerns you enough to vote against the resolution if your amendment fails and it goes through as originally proposed?

Mike