Lutheran Church Embraces Homosexuality

[Phinehas2]

BigBadWlf,

“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that he hates all the same people that you do.” ~ Anne Lamott

Whilst we keep referring to the word of God, you keep quoting Anne Lamott, is your faith in Anne Lamott rather than God?

None of us to whom you persistently direct this hate anyone, the only hate is in your heart, for out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Matt 12:34

 

[Phinehas2]

Polycarp1,

If I said, "The Wisconsin Synod is a group of homophobic bigots who have substituted their own hatred for the truth of the Gospel," I am sure you and others would be quick to report me.

In fact I doubt if they would as our views have persistently been called bigoted, homophobic and prejudice by posters here.

The fact that the pro-gay argument, without any supporting scripture, ignores and denies the scriptural condemnations and then takes the opposite view means they are prepared for anything goes when it comes to the homosexual topic and their particular interest. It is an entirely valid view.

That they may not define the same things as sinful that you do does not mean there is no moral sense.

Certainly there is a moral sense, but its not in line with morality according to God’s purposes, and that is of course what Christians believe to be the truth.
1 John says that who ever denies they sin is a liar and the truth is not in them. This is written to believers, it is perfectly reasonable to take the position that your view doesn’t acknowledge the truth so is lying and does not have the truth. The response of your side is then to complain, but the argument is reasonable and substantiated.

Romans 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9, and the rest of those verses condemn very real and very heinous sins -- on that we are agreed, and most of the GLBT Christians here along with us. Where we disagree is on whether they condemn all gay sex acts, or all gay people as unrepentant sinners. Similarly for a lot of other controversial issues -- that we may not draw lines at the same place as you does not mean we draw no lines.

This is nonsense. Men with men INSTEAD of the natural with women is the clearest indication that it includes all same sex instead of male/female. There is nothing in scripture to support the concept of GLBT, it is a concept in Adam, not Christ. So your worldview is a straw man, it judges what man is in Adam against what God is in Christ. This is as big a disbelief as one can get, its saying your worldview knows better than God.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That is the overall attitude of many churches, Poly. It's not a matter of calling out one or two of them. The ELCA has thrown much scripture out the window, and more and more ELCA churches are telling members "if you feel right, if you feel good, then God is okay with you". Or, they're preaching all about the love hippy Jesus which is inaccurate. Many churches forget about the "go and sin no more" part of Jesus' love for these sinners.

The bible is very clear about homosexuality. There's no in-between where some acts are sinful and some are not. God did not make man to lie with man and woman to lie with woman. If you expect me to not say anything to or about the people that perpetrate the lie that anything about homosexuality is okay, you're barking up the wrong tree. To me, it's tantamount with telling someone it's okay to steal or murder. God doesn't take stumbling blocks kindly:

Matthew 18:6
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
​

So when a church that says it's Lutheran starts incorporating practices and policies that are NOT Lutheran, yeah, I'm gonna say something about it. Luther firmly believed that homosexuality was a sin...he went as far as to call it a perversion. So how does the ELCA reconcile that with their own policies? They say "times have changed".

Well, the word of God has not.

Dear PW2004:

If I said, "The Wisconsin Synod is a group of homophobic bigots who have substituted their own hatred for the truth of the Gospel," I am sure you and others would be quick to report me. (I don't believe that, by the way; I am setting it up by way of example.) I do not understand, therefore, why you persist in putting up your own strawman of "Anything Goes" morality in churches more liberal than your own. That they may not define the same things as sinful that you do does not mean there is no moral sense. And while there have been people trolling with that sort of attitude, I thought that you of all people were more thoughtful than that. Perhaps this should be a private message, but I feel that it's appropriate to address a public post with another public post. Romans 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9, and the rest of those verses condemn very real and very heinous sins -- on that we are agreed, and most of the GLBT Christians here along with us. Where we disagree is on whether they condemn all gay sex acts, or all gay people as unrepentant sinners. Similarly for a lot of other controversial issues -- that we may not draw lines at the same place as you does not mean we draw no lines.

I would be very grateful, both personally and as someone concerned for the overall tone of the board, if you would consider dispassionately what I have had to say, and amend your comments as you think proper afterwards. Thanks.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So when a church that says it's Lutheran starts incorporating practices and policies that are NOT Lutheran, yeah, I'm gonna say something about it. Luther firmly believed that homosexuality was a sin...he went as far as to call it a perversion. So how does the ELCA reconcile that with their own policies? They say "times have changed".

Well, the word of God has not.

Which is why eating shellfish, cutting your hair, shaving, wearing wedding rings, allowing people with glasses into churches and many other sins are still sins….because the bible doesn’t change

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Which is why eating shellfish, cutting your hair, shaving, wearing wedding rings, allowing people with glasses into churches and many other sins are still sins….because the bible doesn’t change

You must get awful tired carrying that strawman around all the time.

Learn the difference between ceremonial law and moral law and then come talk to me, okay?

 

[b.hopeful]

moral law? 10 commandments? Thou shalt not be gay?????

 

[Polycarp1]

You must get awful tired carrying that strawman around all the time.

Learn the difference between ceremonial law and moral law and then come talk to me, okay?

Thanks for your thoughtful response; I do appreciate it. Obviously we are going to disagree to some extent on the degree to which cultural context and vocabulary change are going to affect the reading of Scripture. I hope we can do so amicably, and will surely give it my best shot.

I'm curious; is there a guideline somewhere, within or outside Scripture, that defines the limits of (superseded) ceremonial and dietary Law vs. (still-in-effect) moral Law? I realize for most cases there's a pretty clear distinction: "unclean foods" or "how to offer the firstfruits sacrifice" vs. adultery or embezzlement, are pretty obviously in the obvious categories. But there are some Old Testament commandments that are closer to the borderline, where such a question would not be mere sniping but a serious effort to see which side of the line someone feels it falls on. So I am wondering how the determination is made by those who believe in abiding by it.

By the way, my own take on the question, based on Romans, is this: the whole Law, from "thou shalt not kill" to what jewels to put in the High Priest's breastplate, has been fulfilled in and superseded by Christ's Atonement. The moral law does still serve a purpose: that of elucidating the normal, default ways of showing love for God and one's fellow man and keeping the Golden Rule. But it does not apply blindly and absolutely, like a civil statute covering all circumstances, but rather applies insofar as it conduces to the showing of love for God and one's fellow man, i.e., 99.9% of the time. It is those exceptions that provoke moral-question topics, but they most emphatically do not amount to "anything goes."

 

[lux et lex]

Ceremonial law=anything that seems like law in the Bible but is too ridiculous to be so
Moral law=everything else.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Ceremonial law=anything that seems like law in the Bible but is too ridiculous to be so
Moral law=everything else.

Here, let me help you out, since your answer is incorrect.

Ceremonial Law was specific to the people it was delivered to. In the new testament, we see Paul tell us through Colossians that we are free from ceremonial law:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
​

There is no such release from homosexuality or other moral sins, however, In fact, the New Testament pretty well condemns it amongst other things:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders , nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
​

This passage is great, though, because it does address the other sinful natures that people are inhabited with. Basically, the difference between myself and an unbeliever is repentance. I still sin...daily. But having been washed clean by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, my repentance and God's forgiveness takes those sins away. The above passage refers to those living in unrepentant sin. You can call yourself a Christian until you're blue in the face, but if you live a lifestyle (whatever that lifestyle may be) that is contradictory to God's word and you have no remorse (or you tell everyone how "right" and "good" that lifestyle is), then God's answer to you on judgment day just may well be different than what you expect.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Thanks for your thoughtful response; I do appreciate it. Obviously we are going to disagree to some extent on the degree to which cultural context and vocabulary change are going to affect the reading of Scripture. I hope we can do so amicably, and will surely give it my best shot.

The thing is, God's law really doesn't change regardless of who is reading it. Those who are convicted by it will change their ways, those who ignore it, well...

I'm curious; is there a guideline somewhere, within or outside Scripture, that defines the limits of (superseded) ceremonial and dietary Law vs. (still-in-effect) moral Law? I realize for most cases there's a pretty clear distinction: "unclean foods" or "how to offer the firstfruits sacrifice" vs. adultery or embezzlement, are pretty obviously in the obvious categories. But there are some Old Testament commandments that are closer to the borderline, where such a question would not be mere sniping but a serious effort to see which side of the line someone feels it falls on. So I am wondering how the determination is made by those who believe in abiding by it.

I think my above post might be the simplified version of what you're asking for. There may very well be some that fall borderline, but homosexuality wouldn't be one of them.

By the way, my own take on the question, based on Romans, is this: the whole Law, from "thou shalt not kill" to what jewels to put in the High Priest's breastplate, has been fulfilled in and superseded by Christ's Atonement. The moral law does still serve a purpose: that of elucidating the normal, default ways of showing love for God and one's fellow man and keeping the Golden Rule. But it does not apply blindly and absolutely, like a civil statute covering all circumstances, but rather applies insofar as it conduces to the showing of love for God and one's fellow man, i.e., 99.9% of the time. It is those exceptions that provoke moral-question topics, but they most emphatically do not amount to "anything goes."

Part of loving God IS keeping his commandments. When it says "don't commit adultery", it means don't corrupt God's institution of marriage. There's no gray area there. When it says do not murder (and many theologians will agree that the old texts refer to murder, not killing), it means don't murder. When we ignore one command, we're basically ignoring them all. Saying "you shall not commit adultery" doesn't apply today means you're breaking the first commandment because you've just put the ideals of man ahead of the ideals of God.

I feel I've explained the idea behind "anything goes" well enough. We can agree to disagree if you'd like, on that concept at least.

 

[Phinehas2]

Bigbadwlf,

Which is why eating shellfish, cutting your hair, shaving, wearing wedding rings, allowing people with glasses into churches and many other sins are still sins….because the bible doesn’t change

Well the word of God doesn’t change, Jesus never abolished the OT law, He fulfilled it, in the new covenant which is heart based it doesn’t matter what we eat or wear (Matt7, Romans 12 etc)
You seem to be looking to follow the Jewish OT law, except of course where it does not suit you such as a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman.

 

[Phinehas2]

b.hopeful,

moral law? 10 commandments? Thou shalt not be gay?????

‘Gay’ is your concept, God created male and female, thus so a man shall be united with his wife; but yes of course.

If you have a Christian icon then first show us where ‘gay’ comes from. The only references to same sex relationships are condemnations and exclusions.

In trying to justify ‘gay’ and same sex relationships the pro-gay side haven’t accepted it is sin.

 

[Phinehas2]

Polycarp1,

I'm curious; is there a guideline somewhere, within or outside Scripture, that defines the limits of (superseded) ceremonial and dietary Law vs. (still-in-effect) moral Law?

You are also focused on the law as Bigbadwlf is. Why?
Romans 7:5 “For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.”
Romans 8:2 “because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.”

The moral law does still serve a purpose: that of elucidating the normal, default ways of showing love for God and one's fellow man and keeping the Golden Rule.

Sorry but there is no golden rule you talk about, that’s humanism rather than Christianity. What you are claiming as the golden rule is to love God with all ones being and to love ones neighbour as oneself. Christ taught His disciples to seek to obey all He taught (John 14-15, Matthew 28 etc) and a new command to love one another as He loved. This love doesn’t therefore include doing what Christ taught was error and sin such as theft, greed, slander and sexual immorality such as adultery and homosexuality.

but rather applies insofar as it conduces to the showing of love for God and one's fellow man, i.e., 99.9% of the time.

No it isnt that’s humanism. Our righteousness is found in Christ, not in a performance based measure. What did you se as the 0.1%, homosexual relations?

It is those exceptions that provoke moral-question topics, but they most emphatically do not amount to "anything goes."

It emphatically is. To claim as acceptable what is clearly only excluded and condemned throughout scripture is the very definition of anything goes, as if one can claim such a thing, one could claim anything… anything goes. Indeed as we debate this issue we see the sciptures for liberals are meaningless unless they conform to the liberal idea of what is the 'golden rule' and 'loving' as liberals see it.

 

[Polycarp1]

Jesus Christ our Lord said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Phinehas says, "Sorry but there is no golden rule you talk about, that’s humanism rather than Christianity."

Who to believe?

 

[Phinehas2]

Polycarp1,
I dont have any problem with what you posted, but your worldview is still humanism. It is based on part of the fulfilment of the law and prophets, the same part that humanists like about Jesus.
However, the full picture concerning the law is
Luke 10:27 “He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' "
Do this and you will live

Our Lord also promised the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us. That’s why I posted
Romans 7:5 “For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.” 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

That’s why I live by the Spirit as opposed to your worldview which is looking to part fulfillment of the OT law and struggling with sin not yet dead to.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The world's idea of the golden rule and scripture's idea of the golden rule are two very separate concepts that actually run perpendicular to each other.

 

[Tsar]

i heard that the united methodist church also supports homosexuality

 

[Skipton]

i heard that the united methodist church also supports homosexuality

So does Satan.

 

[keyofdavid]

Scripture is pretty clear that it's a sin.. so do we just cross thoses verses out of our bible. Another case of world vs. church. 1pt for world. 1 Cor 6:9-11

 

[BigBadWlf]

You must get awful tired carrying that strawman around all the time.

Learn the difference between ceremonial law and moral law and then come talk to me, okay?

Well I have my bible right here book marked to Leviticus… can you please cite the chapter and verse of this book that details which laws are “ceremonial” and which laws are “moral”?