CHICAGO: Same-sex salvation

[Richard Johnson]

Richard, that's a very interesting observation about the requirement to believe, or lack thereof. Made me go take a peek at our [LCMS] ordination rite to see if we require personal assent and belief. [I know it is assumed, but...assumptions are assumptions, not certainties].

OK, the wording of the questions put to the ordinand are as follows:

Do you believe and confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God and the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

Do you believe and confess the three Ecumenical Creeds....as faithful testimonies to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and do you reject all the errors which they condemn?

Do you confess (lists the individual documents in the Book of Concord) -- as these are contained in the Book of Concord -- are also in agreement with this one Scriptural faith?

So...I would say that this is a requirement of personal belief, though I suppose somebody intending to deceive would find some way to so understand these questions as to not necessarily asking if the person personally agrees with all this, but that would be a stretch, I think.

I like yours a lot better than ours, which is:

The church in which you are to be ordained confesses that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and are the norm of its faith and life. We accept, teach, and confess the Apostles', the Nicene and the Athanasian Creeds. We also acknowledge the Lutheran Confessions as true witnesses and faithful expositions of the Holy Scriptures. Wil you therefore preach and teach in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and these creeds and confessions?

Richard, why do we only use a small part of what it really says?  Do we not care for the rest ot the passage?  Or is it not used for correction?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Small part of what what really says? Rest of what passage?

[Charles_Austin]

One more time, though it is probably futile:

It is the "people in the pews" who are voting members of ELCA assemblies and serve on its committees and task forces.
Those who profess to know what would make the Blessed Martin barf are presumptuous in the extreme.
To denounce "Chicago" or "the ELCA" as a cabal of evil-doers is a lie and is a violation of the 8th commandment and a libel against our brothers and sisters who work for our church.
To denounce a bishop in good standing as not being a "true man of God" is un-Christian and not helpful to discussion here.
To talk about how one weeps crocodile tears about the terrors of the ELCA when the weeper is not in the ELCA is amusing, but unkind and quite silly, especially if that person has already written off the ELCA as heretical for a whole list of presumed errors.
To suggest that Pastor Stoffregen, one of the softest-speaking people in these precincts, "rants" means that one is either incapable of reading things clearly or willfully distorting a response.
But I doubt my concern for civil dialog will prevail so long as there are people so gleefully eager to pounce, denounce and malign those with whom they disagree.
 
 

[bmj]

One more time, though it is probably futile:

It is the "people in the pews" who are voting members of ELCA assemblies and serve on its committees and task forces.
Those who profess to know what would make the Blessed Martin barf are presumptuous in the extreme.
To denounce "Chicago" or "the ELCA" as a cabal of evil-doers is a lie and is a violation of the 8th commandment and a libel against our brothers and sisters who work for our church.
To denounce a bishop in good standing as not being a "true man of God" is un-Christian and not helpful to discussion here.
To talk about how one weeps crocodile tears about the terrors of the ELCA when the weeper is not in the ELCA is amusing, but unkind and quite silly, especially if that person has already written off the ELCA as heretical for a whole list of presumed errors.
To suggest that Pastor Stoffregen, one of the softest-speaking people in these precincts, "rants" means that one is either incapable of reading things clearly or willfully distorting a response.
But I doubt my concern for civil dialog will prevail so long as there are people so gleefully eager to pounce, denounce and malign those with whom they disagree.

We may not know what would make Martin Luther "barf", but I think we can certain he would he would have an opinion and would have no problem expressing it in the bluntest of terms.  I cannot even post many of the quotes on this page.
 
  http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/did-martin-luther-regard-roman.html

I do not agree with much of what is on this page, but it is one online source of some of Luther's most passionate (vile??) quotes.  So a few questions:

1) When Luther "denounced" Rome and the papists as much worse than "a cabal of evil-doers", was this "a violation of the 8th commandment and a libel against our brothers and sisters who work for our church.".
2) When Luther denounced the church authorities of the time, was it "un-Christian and not helpful to discussion [t]here"?
3) When Luther had "written off the ELCA [RCC] as heretical for a whole list of presumed errors", was it "amusing, but unkind and quite silly" for him, as an outsider, to "talk about the terrors" of the RCC?

[Charles_Austin]

An anonymous bmj writes:
1) When Luther "denounced" Rome and the papists as much worse than "a cabal of evil-doers", was this "a violation of the 8th commandment and a libel against our brothers and sisters who work for our church.".
2) When Luther denounced the church authorities of the time, was it "un-Christian and not helpful to discussion [t]here"?
3) When Luther had "written off the ELCA [RCC] as heretical for a whole list of presumed errors", was it "amusing, but unkind and quite silly" for him, as an outsider, to "talk about the terrors" of the RCC?

I respond:
Yes.

[bmj]

An anonymous bmj writes:
1) When Luther "denounced" Rome and the papists as much worse than "a cabal of evil-doers", was this "a violation of the 8th commandment and a libel against our brothers and sisters who work for our church.".
2) When Luther denounced the church authorities of the time, was it "un-Christian and not helpful to discussion [t]here"?
3) When Luther had "written off the ELCA [RCC] as heretical for a whole list of presumed errors", was it "amusing, but unkind and quite silly" for him, as an outsider, to "talk about the terrors" of the RCC?

I respond:
Yes.

Great, a point I can agree 100% with you on .  I am sure you would argue that Martin was indeed a useful, so I am glad see you value dissenting, outside, and sometimes critical voices.

[ptmccain]

And that whole Paul rebuking Peter stuff in Galatians was so tragic! Imagine if they could have rather just understood they each had their points of view and respected each other and agreed to get along.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And that whole Paul rebuking Peter stuff in Galatians was so tragic! Imagine if they could have rather just understood they each had their points of view and respected each other and agreed to get along.

And yet, as Acts reports the decisions of the leaders in Jerusalem, with the essentials for converts:
1. that they abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols
2. and from blood
3. and from what is strangled
4. and from fornication (Act 15:29)

I don't recall that Paul ever presented all four of these as requirements in his letters. When he argues against eating food sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. 8, he doesn't refer to this decision by the leaders in Jerusalem. His statement: "Food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do" in 8:8, TNIV, seems to present a much weaker argument than it being an essential to the faith as proclaimed in Acts 15. His argument against eating such foods is related to the offense it may cause weak believers, not that it was rule handed down from Jerusalem. (He does present a stronger argument in 1 Cor 10 in that the foods must be sacrificed to demons if they are not to the one, true God, thus eating the food is compared to communion -- those who eat it become partners with the demons.) Not once does he talk about "what is strangled." We're not even sure what is meant by that. Does it (along with blood) refer to kosher foods (in connection with the eating of foods in the first prohibition)? Do these terms refer to murder (and are possibly connected with the fourth as immoral acts)?

When Paul does talk about the requirements that were given in Jerusalem, he says, "The asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was eager to do" (Gal 2:10). That is not reported in Acts. Do we have in Paul an example of a renegade pastor who does more or less what he wants to do regardless of what the church leaders have decreed?

[Charles_Austin]

An anonymous bmj wrote:

1) When Luther "denounced" Rome and the papists as much worse than "a cabal of evil-doers", was this "a violation of the 8th commandment and a libel against our brothers and sisters who work for our church.".
2) When Luther denounced the church authorities of the time, was it "un-Christian and not helpful to discussion [t]here"?
3) When Luther had "written off the ELCA [RCC] as heretical for a whole list of presumed errors", was it "amusing, but unkind and quite silly" for him, as an outsider, to "talk about the terrors" of the RCC?

I respond:
Yes.

That person responded:
Great, a point I can agree 100% with you on Shocked.  I am sure you would argue that Martin was indeed a useful, so I am glad see you value dissenting, outside, and sometimes critical voices.

And I wonder:
Was I clear? I think our Martin was wrong in many of the ways he handled his dissent. Very wrong.

[bmj]

I had anonymously responded:
Great, a point I can agree 100% with you on  .  I am sure you would argue that Martin was indeed useful, so I am glad see you value dissenting, outside, and sometimes critical voices.

Pr Austin wonders:
Was I clear? I think our Martin was wrong in many of the ways he handled his dissent. Very wrong.

I respond:
Again, I agree.  How should dissent properly be handled in a body which is imperfect and human, yet led by the Holy Spirit (be it the ELCA today, or the RCC in the 16th century?)?  How would you advise those highly skeptical and critical of the ELCA leadership to handle their dissent today?  How would you have advised Martin Luther to have handled his dissent better?

[Charles_Austin]

an anonymous bmj writes:
How would you advise those highly skeptical and critical of the ELCA leadership to handle their dissent today?

I respond:
Those "highly skeptical and critical of ELCA leadership" have the same responsibility as all ELCA members: to pray for our leaders, financially support the work of our church, and work within the structures of our church for the sake of our common mission and ministry. They may petition, memorialize, write, demonstrate or otherwise express their concerns; but it should be done understanding that we are all fellow members of the Body of Christ, joined in a common mission to spread the Gospel, even if we disagree on some of the ways in which that Gospel is spread and the Christian life is lived.
We - pastors especially - have promised to work within the ELCA and with its ecumenical partners, to honor our agreements and support one another.
Withholding our financial support from our synod or the ELCA is inappropriate. Denouncing our bishops as sub-Christian or heretical, unless a bishop has been convicted of wrong-doing, is inappropriate. Not knowing how we came to our positions on matters or how we adjudicate them is irresponsible church membership. Declaring "Chicago" to be some type of "666 beast" is inexcusable if one wants to be a faithful member of the ELCA. (Members of the LC-MS can issue such denunciations, and do so frequently.)
I am not happy with our agreement involving the United Church of Christ. But it is not a "gospel deal-breaker" for me so I can live with it.
We have gay clergy in the ELCA. We have had them for some time. We are likely to continue to have them and may even have more of them in the future, though that is as yet unclear. If that is a "gospel deal-breaker" for some, then they may end up leaving the ELCA. Otherwise, let's work together in the larger mission despite our disagreements over one matter. And let's ease up on the denunciations and vilifications of fellow members of the Body of Christ.

I notice that a large number of comments in this forum come from members of the LC-MS or from people who - it seems - have already "given up" on the ELCA or declare it apostate or heretical. I do not know how or why they continue to be ELCA members or why they would want to continue. I say frequently that I hope the "conservatives" do not leave the ELCA because I believe we need their voices. But we need them in conversation, not in condemnation.

[ptmccain]

The conservatives in the ELCA are, in the mind of ELCA liberals, free to speak, but not free to speak anything that "condemns" the liberal position.

That's not a Biblical or Confessional view.

The Lutheran Confessions make it clear that confession is a two-sided coin: we believe, teach and confess, and we reject and condemn.

You can't do one without the other.

Liberals want to condemn any condemnations.

[bmj]

an anonymous bmj questioned:
How would you advise those highly skeptical and critical of the ELCA leadership to handle their dissent today?

Pr Austin responds:
Those "highly skeptical and critical of ELCA leadership" have the same responsibility as all ELCA members: to pray for our leaders, financially support the work of our church, and work within the structures of our church for the sake of our common mission and ministry. They may petition, memorialize, write, demonstrate or otherwise express their concerns; but it should be done understanding that we are all fellow members of the Body of Christ, joined in a common mission to spread the Gospel, even if we disagree on some of the ways in which that Gospel is spread and the Christian life is lived.
We - pastors especially - have promised to work within the ELCA and with its ecumenical partners, to honor our agreements and support one another.

Again I ask the part of the question which you did not answer:
How would have you had you had Martin Luther handle his dissent?  Did he not make similar promises when ordained as a Priest in 1507?  In some ways I agree with you 100%.  How did he go from many years of living the monastic life, studying and being inspired by the Fathers, being ordained as a priest, to his vile "denunciations and vilifications" of the institution he had vowed to serve.  At the same time many of his contemporaries remained inspired to the point of suffering death instead of renouncing it.

Pr Austin writes:
We have gay clergy in the ELCA. We have had them for some time. We are likely to continue to have them and may even have more of them in the future, though that is as yet unclear. If that is a "gospel deal-breaker" for some, then they may end up leaving the ELCA. Otherwise, let's work together in the larger mission despite our disagreements over one matter. And let's ease up on the denunciations and vilifications of fellow members of the Body of Christ.

I respond:
Yes, sinners of all variety and capacity are ordained, into the ELCA, the LCMS, and the RCC which I and my family are now in full communion.  This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Pr Austin writes:
I notice that a large number of comments in this forum come from members of the LC-MS or from people who - it seems - have already "given up" on the ELCA or declare it apostate or heretical. I do not know how or why they continue to be ELCA members or why they would want to continue. I say frequently that I hope the "conservatives" do not leave the ELCA because I believe we need their voices. But we need them in conversation, not in condemnation.

I respond:
As I have said above and before, my immediate family and I are no longer in the ELCA, but we do have family there, and we  owe 40+ years of our lives and faith formation to the ALC and ELCA.  It prepared us perfectly well for reunion with the RCC, which I have always had great admiration for, even as a Lutheran.  I did not "leave the ELCA" because it had become heretical or apostate.  However, fears of it moving that direction certainly initiated my process of discernment and looking more deeply at the issues.  My family and I probably represent some of the "missing body parts" that are NOT being used in political discussions/campaigns, although I in no way consider us missing from the "Body of Christ".

[Charles_Austin]

bmj, if you have found a valid way to live out your faith and life in the Roman Catholic Church, that is wonderful, and I would certainly still consider you a part of the Body of Christ.

[Bergs]

"Some of the churches with the most growth in this synod are led by gay pastors in committed relationships," said Bishop Paul Landahl, 69, who has led the Metropolitan Chicago Synod since 2001.

Does this strike anyone else as being a remarkable comment?  Just how many congregations in this synod are served by gay pastors in committed relationships with the knowledge of the bishop?

Yes, remarkable, in several ways. Also a great ruse often used to hide reality. "This church's worship attendance increased 20% last year." True enough. It increased from 20 to 24.

Which congregation are you speaking of?  Do you suppose he is talking about St.Lukes's of Logan Square?  Their attendance went from 15 - 30 comparing 2006 to 2005.  Which other Metro Chicago Synod congregations is he talking about?  If it is St. Luke's of Logan Square, his statement is not worthy of a bishop. 

Grace & Peace
Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

I notice that a large number of comments in this forum come from members of the LC-MS or from people who - it seems - have already "given up" on the ELCA or declare it apostate or heretical. I do not know how or why they continue to be ELCA members or why they would want to continue. I say frequently that I hope the "conservatives" do not leave the ELCA because I believe we need their voices. But we need them in conversation, not in condemnation.

Funny I see much condemnation toward the LCMS and toward the LCMC coming from you.     Your fellow ELCA pastors and congregations are also treated to snipes like "suspect", "Pastor with hostility", "hijacked", "ill-advised or intentionally ignored procedures ", "to alienate the church from the ELCA".   Man that's just from one post!!     Is it any wonder conservative pastors don't stay?

Then you roll out the "fellow Lutherans" and "fellow members of the body of Christ" cart in hopes to say you are ecumenical and ecclesial?

Should we even address the "anonymous poster" consideration?

Rob Moskowitz