How does the Church get around 1 Corinthians 6:9

[mightymouse1119]

Not trying to be Malicious, Been Visiting A ELCA Church for the past few month and love it. Been reading through some of the tried, and came upon some Churches (Not only the ELCA) but other Christian Faiths as well, that have LGBT Friendly Congregation, which I'm fine with who Am I to judge If they want to serve next to me, my pleasure, but I think that a leader in the church should at least adhere to the Gospel, and if you do not as A Pastor or leader, how can you teach/guide me in the faith, so the question is how do you get around 1 Corinthians 6:9 : "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,".

So I do understand that a fellow member might be struggling with one of these, I myself and a great sinner, which I try everyday to avoid temptation, we all do, I get that but how does a person in a leadership position get around this and retains his/her position. How can an Openly Gay Minister, give me advice about problems in my marriage when he himself has gone against the teachings, sort of like the law, for example I'm a Police Officer the public holds me to a higher standard, In my case I could never go to a bar have a drink and get in my car and drive, first I would feel like a hypocrite, second if God forbid and I hit someone I would end up In federal custody loose my job and eventually my family, or Weed in some states where made legal, but Military or law enforcement is still forbidden. I guess what I'm trying to get at, it comes with the office you sworn to uphold, I would think A Minister of Christ would also take to the same. Maybe I'm wrong. Any clarification would be helpful.

 

[disciple1938]

somewhere I heard about a person trying to get a speck out of someone's eye but had a mote in his own eye that needed dealt with. Hmmm, kinda makes me wonder who has the spec and who has the mote,but I don't know...just saying

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

How everyone gets by a verse is not up to me to say. But one issue I will note is how one translates that text you just quoted. The use of "homosexual" is not the best word to translate. For one, concepts of orientation were simply not around then. It also does not necessarily fit well with the surrounding context of 'those who will not enter' too. At the least the implication is active/practicing homosexuals. This is a place where translation is an issue.
NRSV translates it "sodomite", which is probably a more appropriate one, because the previous word which your translation has rendered "effeminate" refers particularly towards essentially being on the receiving end of male on male sex, hence sodomite would more appropriately refer to those on the giving end if you were. The CEB for example simply states "both participants in same-sex intercourse".

My point is not one way or another to defend homosexuality, but to state that translations that utilize that word may not be the most accurate, particularly because the word homosexual is not linguistically equivalent to one who participates in same-sex intercourse. Some debate also because of how these words are used in the greater greek world if this text is referring particularly to sodomy in reference to forced anal sex (a more appropriate understanding of the term at least in English, though I could not say on the greek word right now) and male prostitution (in regards to those who are "receiving"). I'm not particularly convinced by those arguments that this text only narrowly refers there, but it is another issue with this verse and how it is translated that is worth noting. In fact I believe the 2010 NIV translated particularly in reference of that scholasticism.

The ELCA has no real stance on homosexual behavior as right or wrong, in fact its social statement on sexuality was built around not having one. The bigger issue is relation to ethics and ministry, law and gospel. The deep focus on homosexuality itself, by liberals and conservatives has skirted the real issue and in part caused both camps to really treat people connected to it differently that say some of the other issues noted in the text same text. It's a modern battleground that I'm not particularly inclined one way or another to spend my energy in, because I think over focusing is part of the problem and creates inconsistency - explicit or otherwise.

 

[mightymouse1119]

Thank you for your time, that's was a great answer.

 

[Big Gussie]

The law handed down to Moses explicitly deals with all types of sexual sins. All of these we are to abstain from. If we are genuine, we will pray to God through our Lord Jesus Christ to help us to overcome our sins and to be more like a person who is acceptable to God himself.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

The law handed down to Moses explicitly deals with all types of sexual sins. All of these we are to abstain from. If we are genuine, we will pray to God through our Lord Jesus Christ to help us to overcome our sins and to be more like a person who is acceptable to God himself.

I beg to differ on that. I don't see the Law of Moses as applying to anyone but the Jews. The Mosaic Law was specifically issued to the first Jews, not to all of humanity (with the the possible exception of the Ten Commandments, which seem of more universal scope). Some of the Law doesn't even pertain to all the Jews, but just to the Tribe of Levi, the priestly caste. And a lot of the sexual stuff is part of the ceremonial law, governing under what conditions one is fit to take part in temple ceremonies, not the moral law. Being "unclean" (ineligible to participate until properly ritually cleansed) isn't the same thing as being a sinner.

 

[FireDragon76]

The ELCA has no real stance on homosexual behavior as right or wrong, in fact its social statement on sexuality was built around not having one. ...It's a modern battleground that I'm not particularly inclined one way or another to spend my energy in, because I think over focusing is part of the problem and creates inconsistency - explicit or otherwise.

That's how I feel about it too, though I have a bit more at stake in the issue. I take the Bible very seriously and I have that tone to my religious life more than I am some kind of fan of liberal Protestantism. I'm just not sure the hermeneutic that most conservative evangelical Protestants use is the right way to approach the Bible. I've known some gay people that have been there in my life when I was hurting and alone, and its hard to think of their relationships as necessarily any differently than heterosexuals in terms of their motivations (they don't seem any more driven by lust or evil than anyone else), or that God doesn't love them and hasn't used them in my life to steer me back to faith in him at a very dark time in my life. So I feel conflicted, because I go to a conservative Episcopalian church (which in many ways is very similar to your average conservative ELCA church). They don't preach on the subject of homosexuality, but their approach to the Bible is more conservative and there are no openly gay people that I see there. I'd love to see a parish with more diversity on this issue and how they would approach Scriptures, I think I'd feel more comfortable there perhaps.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am also wondering about Lutheran theology-

Let's suppose homosexual sex is a sin in the Bible, and that's actually how God views the matter. Can a person be justified before God and yet be a "practicing homosexual" and be justified in the Lutheran understanding? How clean must our life be for God to accept us? How does this work, especially given Luther said we are both simultaneously a saint and a sinner?

 

[Luther073082]

I am also wondering about Lutheran theology-

Let's suppose homosexual sex is a sin in the Bible, and that's actually how God views the matter. Can a person be justified before God and yet be a "practicing homosexual" and be justified in the Lutheran understanding? How clean must our life be for God to accept us? How does this work, especially given Luther said we are both simultaneously a saint and a sinner?

I'm a confessional Lutheran but I'll take a stab at this one. We are justified by Christ alone through faith alone.

Now a faith would push us to stop defying God's will for our lives and would push us to fight sin. However it does not mean that it totally rids of us sin.

So in a sense your question is "How much faith must we have to be saved." It is not something you can quantify as a human.

Now I would also advise you that if you are asking the question in the context of "How much sin can I get away with?" then you lack the appropriate faith which pushes one to avoid sin in the first place, not to try and find out the minimum entrance requirements and do just barely enough to get into heaven.

A person looking to do just barely enough to get in, quite frankly does not have true faith. Because a true faith would tell them to change their lives out of love for Christ and what he has done, not because of a selfish desire to save oneself.

 

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

A person looking to do just barely enough to get in, quite frankly does not have true faith. Because a true faith would tell them to change their lives out of love for Christ and what he has done, not because of a selfish desire to save oneself.




KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

so true, it's like all these people who give money because they want back 10 fold...
You give for the EXACT reason as the quote above... Out of love and love for the truth

 

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

The Holy Spirit which indwells a believer ONLY wants to do Godly things and follow scripture....

 

[pjd1957]

I do not actively participate in forum conversations (I’m more of a ‘lurker’) but feel compelled to reply to this topic. All my life I had not been faced with the need to come to terms with an opinion about homosexuality; that is until 2.5 years ago when our then 23 year old daughter informed us that she had come to accept the fact that she is lesbian. Because this verse is often quoted with regards to homosexuality, I think that it is important to consider it in a fuller context. To do this you need to start by quoting the entire sentence, in this case the sentence continues through verse 10:

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (NRSV)

All of the sins listed in this complete sentence could be categorized as being self-centered, self-indulgent, self-gratifying activities that would be performed (or maybe a better word: perpetrated) with total disregard to anyone beyond ‘self’. The above condemnation does not apply to a truly loving, mutually respectful relationship, whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual relationship.

 

[pjd1957]

Wow - since this last post 12 days have passed, there have been over 100 views and zero replies/comments; did my post take this topic into the land of the 'Great Taboo'? Or, perhaps because it is Lent, we are all in the mode of self reflection and considering the Genesis warning of partaking of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (i.e. judgment of others).
Forgive me if it appears that I am giving myself too much credit - it's just that this forum has been very quiet.

 

[AngelusSax]

I do not actively participate in forum conversations (I’m more of a ‘lurker’) but feel compelled to reply to this topic. All my life I had not been faced with the need to come to terms with an opinion about homosexuality; that is until 2.5 years ago when our then 23 year old daughter informed us that she had come to accept the fact that she is lesbian. Because this verse is often quoted with regards to homosexuality, I think that it is important to consider it in a fuller context. To do this you need to start by quoting the entire sentence, in this case the sentence continues through verse 10:

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (NRSV)

All of the sins listed in this complete sentence could be categorized as being self-centered, self-indulgent, self-gratifying activities that would be performed (or maybe a better word: perpetrated) with total disregard to anyone beyond ‘self’. The above condemnation does not apply to a truly loving, mutually respectful relationship, whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual relationship.

I used to be a hard-core conservative on this issue, then I was a middle-of-the-road person (which is where you get run over by people going both directions), and now I have pretty much come to this same conclusion. While I completely understand the conservative interpretation, having used to have it (from well before my time on CF), and going through my transition as I've read and studied and prayed (and honestly, can truly only hope and think that I have allowed God to change me, though on this or any issue we may never truly "know" until the Last Day), which includes a LOOONG hiatus from the forums to avoid pointless bickering (and also being busy), I can no longer hold the conservative intepretation on this particular issue.

I know I did not set out one day and choose to fall in love with my wife. It just happened. Yes, I choose to remain loving and to care for her and treat her with the respect she should have, and I choose to get as close to AGAPE love as I can for her, but the initial falling in love was involuntary. I say that to say this:
I can no more tell someone else that they chose to fall in love with the wrong person than they can tell me that.

So to respond to the OP, I don't think the ELCA is simply trying to get around a verse. I think the ELCA is taking the Bible as a whole, and recognizing that there are people within the denomination who feel strongly in different directions, and has tried to create a stance which is a non-stance, in an effort to basically say "this does not need to divide us, we can live and let live", though that in and of itself has ticked off a number of people...

 

[pjd1957]

All I know is that there was not a point in my life that I made the conscious decision to ‘be’ heterosexual, as if it is a “life stile choice” (like deciding on a career path), I just am heterosexual – that’s the way God made me. The western world has committed a great disservice to our homosexual brothers and sisters by judging and condemning them because of being the way God made them (as Genesis tells us: “God looked at everything he had made, and found it very good”).

 

[FireDragon76]

How common is acceptance of gays in the ELCA?

I ask because I am basically Episcopalian by conviction, but the local Episcopalians in Central Florida seem to be more inclined to being in the TEC but not actually of the same spirit with the rest of the church. I've met a few Episcopalian clergy locally that are incapable of thinking of gays as anything but really bad sinners, and have no problems at distinguishing between themselves and the rest of the TEC, that they mostly see as godless and they "pray for them", of course. There are even Episcopal clergy here pushing reparative therapy.

The irony is Orlando has the largest population of gays in the country, it would be fertile missionary territory but the Episcopal Church here has mostly decided to side with their wealthy, elderly congregations.
Angelus, at one time in my life I was in the same boat... but now I look at those passages, and even assuming they refer to same-sex sex acts (which I believe they probably do), I can't in good conscience apply them to gays in committed relationships anymore than I would take verses against usury and apply them to bankers. There is also a significant Christocentric hermeneutic in the liberal camp that is conveniently ignored by conservative Biblicists in these debates.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

How common is acceptance of gays in the ELCA?

There just is not a good answer to this. In 2009 when the decision to allow practicing homosexuals to serve as pastors was voted on that vote narrowly passed, like literally within 3 votes. But that hardly itself indicates the situation in churches for several reasons:

1) many people who are opposed to homosexuality have since left the ELCA with the formation of NALC and the growth of LCMC. So the amount of opposition, especially vocal opposition has dramatically decreased as a result of that exodus.

2) The voting system for our church-wide body is not automatically in and of itself representative of the ELCA congregations for several reasons: the voters vote according to their conscience, not as representatives of their churches bringing the majority view of their church. Also there is a quota system that ensures minority groups in our church have a greater place in the voting process so their voices are not being ignored. What this means is any decision made at church-wide is not necessarily indicative of what is going on in congregations. Actually some of the earliest practicing homosexual pastors coming out of seminary learned this the hard way when they found that being able to be ordained was not the same as congregations being willing to call them. Some have had to wait quite some time and transfer synods around the country to find a church that will even interview them.

3) There is also a difference in reception of a practicing homosexual pastor and overall attitude towards homosexuality itself. Some people are rather indifferent in regards to members/visitors but staunchly against their leaders being homosexual. Some places say "all are welcome" without truly considering the implications of that message until they are challenged on it. Some places are by and large receptive of homosexuals, but a few in the church believe it is wrong, and are willing to express that. And it only takes one person to do something negative for someone to consider a church not welcoming to them. Likewise, some churches are ok with homosexual members, but not with homosexual weddings taking place in their church. Some synods are by and large more ok with it than others. The pastor and the congregation might not be on the same page on the issue. Some think it is a sin, but are still welcoming because of how they view the church's relation to sinners while others are welcoming because they are convinced that scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we have it today.

I guess my point is homosexuality is still an unresolved (for lack of a better word) issue. And the issue of homosexuality itself and how people respond to it can hardly be considered settled or understood simply through the vote in 2009 to ordain practicing homosexuals. Hope that helps. Or at least makes it appropriately more confusing

Pax

 

[lutherangerman]

First off, the mosaic Law does not apply to anyone anymore. We are supposed to read it through and select some good things from it to learn from and maybe keep it ourselves like having holidays, being legal people who dont steal or do violence, loving our neighbor with good deeds and generally keeping the peace. But we are not bound by it wholly anymore.

Secondly, sex is only a sin if it is not in mutual consent. With mutual consent, sex is love and kindness and that is not forbidden. This includes homosexual sex. Paul viewed it from the perspective of his greek society where there was rampant prostitution and sex slavery (of boys) and rape, and I agree that this is all evil and satanic and must be assaulted and cannot live in the kingdom of God. But normal sex between adults like the laws of the land say, is not forbidden, it is like Adam and Eve in paradise and Solomon's Love Song.

 

[FireDragon76]

Doulos, thanks for the reply. That really makes sense and seems to fit with my experience so far. In practice the ELCA seems significantly more conservative at the parish level than the synod.