Draft ELCA Social Statement on Women & Justice Released

[Brian Stoffregen]

I misrepresented what you said in exactly the same way that I find what I've said to be misrepresented.

Did you do so intentionally?  I have never intentionally misrepresented what you said.

Not intentionally, but sometimes from misunderstanding what you wrote (often because of reading it too quickly and/or after midnight.

Have I any where indicated that our righteousness before God is anything other than the righteousness that God has given us?

I'm quite aware you said that.  I replied that it is only a given in a very narrow sense.  Specifically, I said it is a given only where the Holy Spirit gives the gift of faith through Word and Sacrament.  So I did not misrepresent your argument, but took it seriously.

I would not limit the Holy Spirit to the means of grace. The Spirit blows where it wills. We have the assurance that the Spirit works in Word and Sacrament, but we shouldn't limit the Spirit only to those means.

This seems to violate SA-III VIII 3-13 and FC Ep II 13.

Nope. While the Spirit can and does work wherever the Spirit wills, our understanding of the Spirit's work in our lives and in the lives of others only comes because we have heard and believe the Word. Without the enlightenment of the Word, we are likely to think that what happened was just good luck, a happy circumstance, a guilty conscience, etc.


To return to my decision-made, born-again guy: he talked about starting to read the Bible which led to his decision to become a Christian. I suggested that it was the Holy Spirit that led him to read the Bible - that getting into the Holy Scriptures was a change in his life that God caused. He hadn't thought about it that way. In his mind, it had been his own decision. He needed the Word to "change his thinking" about himself and God's work in his life.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Preaching of God's law is more than setting forth descriptive or normative behaviors (civil righteousness as evident in ELCA social statements).  Preaching of the Law should be such that it kills the sinner and allows no wriggle room for self-justification.  To be set before God's righteousness is to acknowledge that one who is baptized into Christ is baptized into Christ's death, first.  It is to face one's lack of foresight into one's own tragic nature as a sinner who does not have a standing before God's face.  Descriptive or normative statements like pure science only set the sinner away from facing the truth of oneself under God's righteousness.  Descriptive statements like ELCA social justice documents presuppose the knowledge of God and proceed to tell the rest of us how to live (normative statements).  By describing and policing behavior, they only push folks into a dream-state in which one believes one is safely away from facing one's personal accountability before God in all things.  If folks realized their need for personal repentance constantly there wouldn't be time for making ELCA social statements.  As 1 Thess. 5 says: 

"Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters,[a] you do not need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, ‘There is peace and security’, then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labour pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape!"


ELCA needs to quit placing us in a fantasy where we live in a neutral situation before God, quit following the rest of culture by self-medicating us, and do the real work of the church by doing the thankless job of exposing our situation as sinners so the real comfort of the Gospel can be heard!

We are in the midst of hearing three parables that seem quite clear that there are expectations of God's servants during the time we are waiting for Christ to return. Some of those expectations are about the ways we are to treat other people. There is no mention of "faith" in Matthew 25:31-46. The "sheep" inherit eternal life because of the help they have given to the needy. The question is whether or not the "sheep" are meant to represent believers (who help the needy) or if they represent pagans who act lovingly towards needy believers (Christ's brothers).

Pr. Stoffregen, you might like this sermon on the "sheep".  I believe your understanding of this parable is different than what Pr. Winterstein understands the message to be - from my perspective, he sees the forest and not just the trees.  Context, context, context (three cheers for Dr. James Volez and his book, What Does This Mean? [from Amazon: In its second revised edition, this book is a basic hermeneutics textbook for traditional Christians, especially those of the Lutheran tradition. It discusses textual criticism, semantics, pragmatics, and application of biblical texts to postmodern contexts. It considers areas related to language, thought and reality, and more.]   You might also enjoy Dr. Voelz's book given your enthusiasm for languages.  Enjoy!

https://bishopandchristian.wordpress.com/2017/11/26/the-basis-for-separation-2/

I see him replacing the good works towards the needy with the good work of properly listening to Jesus and his Word. The separation is still based on something we do. There is nothing in the parable about faith. Being Jesus' brothers is "doing the will of God" - it goes back to something we are doing. In contrast, Paul, in Romans, uses the image of adoption. Something God does to us. The Gospel of John talks about being born from above. An infant has no decision about its birth, it comes from powers outside of itself.

[DCharlton]

Nope. We don't control the Spirit any more than than we control the wind. The Gentiles in Cornelius's household received the Holy Spirit before being born from above through baptismal waters. I've even enlightened a "decision-made, born-again" believer that the Holy Spirit was active in his life before that time of decision - and could point to some things that happened before that time that could be attributed to the Spirit blowing in this not yet reborn person.

Don't forget that Article V speaks of Word and Sacraments, not the Sacraments alone.  The Holy Spirit was not given apart form the Word, as you can see from the account in Acts 10:44

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. (NRSV)

[Brian Stoffregen]

Nope. We don't control the Spirit any more than than we control the wind. The Gentiles in Cornelius's household received the Holy Spirit before being born from above through baptismal waters. I've even enlightened a "decision-made, born-again" believer that the Holy Spirit was active in his life before that time of decision - and could point to some things that happened before that time that could be attributed to the Spirit blowing in this not yet reborn person.

Don't forget that Article V speaks of Word and Sacraments, not the Sacraments alone.  The Holy Spirit was not given apart form the Word, as you can see from the account in Acts 10:44

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. (NRSV)

What caused Cornelius to have the vision of an angel that caused him to send for Peter? This was certainly before Peter said anything about Jesus to them.

[Donald_Kirchner]

There is no mention of "faith" in Matthew 25:31-46. The "sheep" inherit eternal life because of the help they have given to the needy...

The separation is still based on something we do. There is nothing in the parable about faith. Being Jesus' brothers is "doing the will of God" - it goes back to something we are doing.

Of course it's about faith. The entire chapter (Matt 25) is about faith!

E.g.: "The sheep receive their blessing and inheritance from the Father before a single word about their good works is spoken."

[Michael Slusser]

I was unaware there even was a distinctive thing as Lutheran ethics until I joined this congregation 12+ years ago.  Reading your comments, it sounds like you agree with me.

I almost always agree with you, Sterling.  And on this subject, certainly.

Tom Pearson

If I remember rightly, there was no department of theological ethics at Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg when I taught there as a visiting professor in the early 80s; I believe that ethical topics were dealt with in systematic courses.

There is one noted Lutheran whom I have come across, Helmut Thielicke, who wrote a three-volume treatise on Theological Ethics. I've never read it. But I find that Thielicke's approach is described in Helmut Thielicke on the Christian Life by the Rev. James M. Childs, Jr. https://www.elca.org/JLE/Articles/360.

A taste: For Thielicke the Christian ethic is an expression of the gospel at work in the lives of the faithful. It is the other side of the coin of justification. It is a function of living out the given life under grace. Thus, Thielicke distinguishes his approach not only from various legalistic forms of Christian ethics but also from secular philosophical ethics. For the latter the beginning point is the task (Aufgabe) that the moral agent must accomplish by determining the right thing to do and then doing it. For the Christian ethic the tasks are the same and the patterns of reasoning on the way to decision are often similar but the starting point is different. Christian ethics begins with the gift (Gabe) of justification by grace through faith. Motive and energy come from the grace of God rather than the autonomous individual will. The ethical strivings of the Christian reflect back, then, on that divine grace at work among the faithful rather than the moral achievement of the individual will.

Peace,
Michael

[DCharlton]

Nope. We don't control the Spirit any more than than we control the wind. The Gentiles in Cornelius's household received the Holy Spirit before being born from above through baptismal waters. I've even enlightened a "decision-made, born-again" believer that the Holy Spirit was active in his life before that time of decision - and could point to some things that happened before that time that could be attributed to the Spirit blowing in this not yet reborn person.

Don't forget that Article V speaks of Word and Sacraments, not the Sacraments alone.  The Holy Spirit was not given apart form the Word, as you can see from the account in Acts 10:44

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. (NRSV)

What caused Cornelius to have the vision of an angel that caused him to send for Peter? This was certainly before Peter said anything about Jesus to them.

I believe you are confusing two different questions. 

1.  Does the Holy Spirit ever work apart from the Word and the Sacraments?  Yes.  In a variety of ways.  Cornelius and Peter both had visions that brought them together. 

2.  Is the Holy Spirit and the gift of justifying faith given apart from the Word and the Sacraments?  No.  The Holy Spirit "fell upon" Cornelius and his household while Peter was preaching.

[Richard Johnson]

We surely have strayed from the topic of the thread . . . .

[Brian Stoffregen]

There is no mention of "faith" in Matthew 25:31-46. The "sheep" inherit eternal life because of the help they have given to the needy...

The separation is still based on something we do. There is nothing in the parable about faith. Being Jesus' brothers is "doing the will of God" - it goes back to something we are doing.

Of course it's about faith. The entire chapter (Matt 25) is about faith!

First of all, you need to give some evidence for your statement. Where is faith mentioned or expressed in the parable? Note: I referenced the one parable, not the whole chapter.


Secondly, πιστεύω the verb for "to believe" or "to have faith" doesn't occur in Matthew 25. πίστις the noun for "faith" or "trust" doesn't occur in Matthew 25. πιστός the adjective for "faithful" or "trustworthy" is used of the servant in 24:45; and the servants in 25:21, 23.

E.g.: "The sheep receive their blessing and inheritance from the Father before a single word about their good works is spoken."

How is that an example of the sheep's faith? What are you claiming that they believed? Jesus indicates that the kingdom was prepared for them long before they were even born - even before creation. While no words were spoken about their good deeds when their blessed status is announced, when the words are spoken, they refer to past actions - things that they had done before this time of judgment.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Nope. We don't control the Spirit any more than than we control the wind. The Gentiles in Cornelius's household received the Holy Spirit before being born from above through baptismal waters. I've even enlightened a "decision-made, born-again" believer that the Holy Spirit was active in his life before that time of decision - and could point to some things that happened before that time that could be attributed to the Spirit blowing in this not yet reborn person.

Don't forget that Article V speaks of Word and Sacraments, not the Sacraments alone.  The Holy Spirit was not given apart form the Word, as you can see from the account in Acts 10:44

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. (NRSV)

What caused Cornelius to have the vision of an angel that caused him to send for Peter? This was certainly before Peter said anything about Jesus to them.

I believe you are confusing two different questions. 

1.  Does the Holy Spirit ever work apart from the Word and the Sacraments?  Yes.  In a variety of ways.  Cornelius and Peter both had visions that brought them together. 

2.  Is the Holy Spirit and the gift of justifying faith given apart from the Word and the Sacraments?  No.  The Holy Spirit "fell upon" Cornelius and his household while Peter was preaching.

I would rephrase the second one to talk about our knowledge of the justifying faith doesn't come without the Word and the Sacraments. Do infants have to hear and understand the Word of God before God can save them? Or do you tell people, as a Lutheran did, many years ago to a woman I met on internship, "You infant who died in childbirth is in hell because he wasn't baptized."


What say you about infants who die before the Word and Sacrament happens to them?

[Brian Stoffregen]

We surely have strayed from the topic of the thread . . . .

Staying on topic probably means that we would all have to actually read the long draft.

[DCharlton]

Nope. We don't control the Spirit any more than than we control the wind. The Gentiles in Cornelius's household received the Holy Spirit before being born from above through baptismal waters. I've even enlightened a "decision-made, born-again" believer that the Holy Spirit was active in his life before that time of decision - and could point to some things that happened before that time that could be attributed to the Spirit blowing in this not yet reborn person.

Don't forget that Article V speaks of Word and Sacraments, not the Sacraments alone.  The Holy Spirit was not given apart form the Word, as you can see from the account in Acts 10:44

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. (NRSV)

What caused Cornelius to have the vision of an angel that caused him to send for Peter? This was certainly before Peter said anything about Jesus to them.

I believe you are confusing two different questions. 

1.  Does the Holy Spirit ever work apart from the Word and the Sacraments?  Yes.  In a variety of ways.  Cornelius and Peter both had visions that brought them together. 

2.  Is the Holy Spirit and the gift of justifying faith given apart from the Word and the Sacraments?  No.  The Holy Spirit "fell upon" Cornelius and his household while Peter was preaching.

I would rephrase the second one to talk about our knowledge of the justifying faith doesn't come without the Word and the Sacraments. Do infants have to hear and understand the Word of God before God can save them? Or do you tell people, as a Lutheran did, many years ago to a woman I met on internship, "You infant who died in childbirth is in hell because he wasn't baptized."

What say you about infants who die before the Word and Sacrament happens to them?

We'll save this for another day.

[Team Hesse]

There is no mention of "faith" in Matthew 25:31-46. The "sheep" inherit eternal life because of the help they have given to the needy...

The separation is still based on something we do. There is nothing in the parable about faith. Being Jesus' brothers is "doing the will of God" - it goes back to something we are doing.

Of course it's about faith. The entire chapter (Matt 25) is about faith!

First of all, you need to give some evidence for your statement. Where is faith mentioned or expressed in the parable? Note: I referenced the one parable, not the whole chapter.


Secondly, πιστεύω the verb for "to believe" or "to have faith" doesn't occur in Matthew 25. πίστις the noun for "faith" or "trust" doesn't occur in Matthew 25. πιστός the adjective for "faithful" or "trustworthy" is used of the servant in 24:45; and the servants in 25:21, 23.

E.g.: "The sheep receive their blessing and inheritance from the Father before a single word about their good works is spoken."

How is that an example of the sheep's faith? What are you claiming that they believed? Jesus indicates that the kingdom was prepared for them long before they were even born - even before creation. While no words were spoken about their good deeds when their blessed status is announced, when the words are spoken, they refer to past actions - things that they had done before this time of judgment.

It's a slow day ....waiting for parts for the combine....so why not...


The text in question says in verse 34: "come, you who are blessed of my father, take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since before the creation of the cosmos"


And lo and behold these sheep who were so chosen have actually managed to do some things that are pleasing to the Father without even being aware of it.....sorta like those things were appointed for them to do by somebody (hint, hint think Ephesians chapter 2) Imagine that!


One other important tidbit from someone who has dealt with real sheep---sheep do not realize that goats are different. The "Judas goat" was a real life thing at the Portland Stockyards when I was young. A goat was used to lead bands of sheep right into the slaughterhouse-- sheep never knew they were being betrayed by an animal of another specie. Sheep do not sense the difference between sheep and goats--thus only a shepherd can separate them. Moral: leave the separating to the shepherd.


Lou

[Matt Hummel]

Lou-

I have a question of a technical/logistical nature that you with your experience in these matters may be able to answer.

ABout how much money did the ELCA shell out to get this document?

[mj4]

We surely have strayed from the topic of the thread . . . .

Staying on topic probably means that we would all have to actually read the long draft.

From what I've already read it seems that the draft has a hard time staying on topic too.