The fallout

[Edial]

But now you have made a shift Ed. You have gone from the church is about proclamation first (which I was discussing) to the church must remain moral. I certainly agree with you on that. I think your phrase that preaching the gospel and philantropy is a cover-up is grossly innappropriate. I do not think anyone is trying to use it as a "cover up". Do I think the ELCA is misguided in its current decision? Yes.

Also I would disagree on your last statement. Not that the Bible does not care if sin is encouraged, but that it cares little about the preaching of the gospel amidst encouraging sin. Faith comes by hearing, it comes by the Holy Spirit. Wherever the gospel is preached purely, the Holy Spirit has promised to come and grant faith, through faith grace of Christ on the Cross. Do not get me wrong, I am not endorsing encouraging sin, I am saying that the Bible never undermines the power of the gospel.

Pax

I'll add brackets for clarity to what I said.

"The Bible cares very little if gospel is proclaimed (by us) while gross immorality sins are encouraged (among ourselves) especially among the clergy. Clergy!"

RO 2:22 ... You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? ... 24 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

The above is addressed to the Jews.
We could easily apply the principle to us - a same-sex clergy partners preaching the Gospel that Christ died for sins.

Unbelievers are not stupid.

 

[Edial]

Sexual immorality and homosexuality may not be one in the same, or even one inclusive of the other. That's where the debate is. It's not just "well let's promote sexual immorality because the world thinks it's okay" to most people (perhaps to some, in which case their motives are wrong no matter if they even would reach the right conclusion).

What debate?
Debate that the Bible does not mean what it says?

Debate that there is that misguided fellow Paul?

Debate that nowadays the times are different? (As if there was no homosexuality in the times of the New Testament).
This is not a debate like some have whether smoking is sin or not, since tobacco was not invented till 600(?) AD.

Our Synod is a shame to Christendom.

Ed

 

[LutheranMafia]

What debate?
Debate that the Bible does not mean what it says?

In the NT the Greek term translated as homosexual is clearly used in a an altered context by conservatives. As to the OT meaning what it says, should homosexuals be put to death like Levitcus says?

Debate that there is that misguided fellow Paul?

Debate that nowadays the times are different? (As if there was no homosexuality in the times of the New Testament).

Homosexuality in Greece and Rome was completely lost in a sea of bisexuality, which is a completely different animal heavily associated with child abuse.

This is not a debate like some have whether smoking is sin or not, since tobacco was not invented till 600(?) AD.

Our Synod is a shame to Christendom.

Ed

Tobacco wasn't invented by man, it was evolved by God.

 

[ricker]

[=LutheranMafia;52832168]In the NT the Greek term translated as homosexual is clearly used in a an altered context by conservatives.

Would you elaborate on this for me?

As to the OT meaning what it says, should homosexuals be put to death like Levitcus says?

The punishment was under effect for the governing of God's OT nation of Israel, which is now defunct. If Leviticus were the only place in the Bible such behaviour is discouraged, you would maybe have a debatable point to argue with. This is not the case.

 

[AngelusSax]

In the NT the Greek term translated as homosexual is clearly used in a an altered context by conservatives. As to the OT meaning what it says, should homosexuals be put to death like Levitcus says?

That wasn't really the point I was making, but since you brought it up, well... if we don't carry out the part of the law that tells us to stone men lying with men (says absolutely nothing about women), then I suppose we are breaking the law.

The point I was making was that, since the Levitical law prohibiting male-male sex appears immediately after an injunction that is clearly about idolatry (unless sacrificing your child to the god Molech was about sexual debauchery, which is highly doubtful), the case can be made that the homosexual acts talked about were being done by (for the gazillionth time that no one seems to EVER pay attention to this next word) STRAIGHT men engaging in homosexual acts (though they might possibly have been bisexual, I don't know). So this injuction would apply only to men engaging in homosexual sex if they were not truly homosexual oriented, and were simply getting their pagan freak on.

Even in Paul, Paul's injunctions follow after telling of people who did not know God, who followed created things rather than the creator. So people who do worship God, go to church every week, and even try to pray the gay away, but are still gay... well I guess they don't really love God, according to some.

And as for our synod being a shame in Christendom... it depends on what part of Christendom. There's quite a few Christians out there who applaud this and think it's a shame of Christendom to not allow full participation within the church, at all levels, of people who happen to be homosexual and decide they aren't going to shut love out of their life in order to please hard-line conservatives.

 

[ricker]

That wasn't really the point I was making, but since you brought it up, well... if we don't carry out the part of the law that tells us to stone men lying with men (says absolutely nothing about women), then I suppose we are breaking the law.

The point I was making was that, since the Levitical law prohibiting male-male sex appears immediately after an injunction that is clearly about idolatry (unless sacrificing your child to the god Molech was about sexual debauchery, which is highly doubtful), the case can be made that the homosexual acts talked about were being done by (for the gazillionth time that no one seems to EVER pay attention to this next word) STRAIGHT men engaging in homosexual acts (though they might possibly have been bisexual, I don't know). So this injuction would apply only to men engaging in homosexual sex if they were not truly homosexual oriented, and were simply getting their pagan freak on.

Even in Paul, Paul's injunctions follow after telling of people who did not know God, who followed created things rather than the creator. So people who do worship God, go to church every week, and even try to pray the gay away, but are still gay... well I guess they don't really love God, according to some.

And as for our synod being a shame in Christendom... it depends on what part of Christendom. There's quite a few Christians out there who applaud this and think it's a shame of Christendom to not allow full participation within the church, at all levels, of people who happen to be homosexual and decide they aren't going to shut love out of their life in order to please hard-line conservatives.

So you are saying in the Lev. passage it is prohibiting straight men from homosexual acts but real homosexuals no problem, and that God through Paul is saying non-christians shouldn't have homosexual relations, but it's OK for Christians?

 

[AngelusSax]

So you are saying in the Lev. passage it is prohibiting straight men from homosexual acts but real homosexuals no problem, and that God through Paul is saying non-christians shouldn't have homosexual relations, but it's OK for Christians?

Close. I'm saying, as far as Leviticus goes, I can see how it can be read that way, and cannot rule that out myself. As for Paul, the same goes, and it also appears that the people who were "given over" to their "shameful lusts" had heterosexual marriages that they were breaking, as a result of paganism that led them to homosexual acts.

Again, my true view on this is only that I can see how it can be read that way, and cannot rule it out myself. I can also see the conservative side, and cannot rule that out myself. Most of the time I argue for the liberal side, yes, but there is a good reason for that (for me, doesn't have to be good for anyone else):
I was raised highly conservative, and if I can argue the liberal side and it not fall apart absolutely in even my own mind, then I cannot rule out that the conservative side is not either wrong or perhaps incomplete in some way.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

To me the issue of homosexual sex being permitted by the bible (or at least not forbidden) could only be made if one believes that the Bible grants homosexual marriage. So long as you read prohibitions of sex outside of marriage the discussion of homo, hetero, or bi is mute.

Pax

 

[AngelusSax]

Then the discussion turns to whether the illustrations and records of marriage are instructive (must be between a man and a woman) or descriptive (they just were between a man and a woman), and whether homosexual marriage is indeed prohibited or not.

 

[ricker]

Close. I'm saying, as far as Leviticus goes, I can see how it can be read that way, and cannot rule that out myself. As for Paul, the same goes, and it also appears that the people who were "given over" to their "shameful lusts" had heterosexual marriages that they were breaking, as a result of paganism that led them to homosexual acts.

Again, my true view on this is only that I can see how it can be read that way, and cannot rule it out myself. I can also see the conservative side, and cannot rule that out myself. Most of the time I argue for the liberal side, yes, but there is a good reason for that (for me, doesn't have to be good for anyone else):
I was raised highly conservative, and if I can argue the liberal side and it not fall apart absolutely in even my own mind, then I cannot rule out that the conservative side is not either wrong or perhaps incomplete in some way.

Thanks, AngelusSax.
Cheating on one's wife in my understanding is named the sin of adultery. Does the Bible anywhere ever describe or label unfaithfullness in marriage a perversion?

"Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1:27 (Young's Literal Translation)


27and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

 

[AngelusSax]

Ricker,
That verse you quoted states that they "left the natural use..."

This implies the "liberal" side of the argument - that these were straight men who were possibly married (most likely, since they had known the "natural use"), and were given over to the perversion of straight men engaging in homosexual acts. The liberal position, as I understand, is not that these men became homosexual, but that they were straight, but had the shameful lust of committing homosexual acts for idolatrous (read: pagan) purposes. The sexual component, as we understand today of "getting off" was incidental, not primary.

Again, that is as I understand the position. It may not be accurate.

 

[ricker]

Ricker,
That verse you quoted states that they "left the natural use..."

This implies the "liberal" side of the argument - that these were straight men who were possibly married (most likely, since they had known the "natural use"), and were given over to the perversion of straight men engaging in homosexual acts. The liberal position, as I understand, is not that these men became homosexual, but that they were straight, but had the shameful lust of committing homosexual acts for idolatrous (read: pagan) purposes. The sexual component, as we understand today of "getting off" was incidental, not primary.

Again, that is as I understand the position. It may not be accurate.

Thanks. I do like what you wrote to me a while back saying if we are to err, let it be on the side of grace. It just seems to me the liberal side is stretching and possibly contorting more than I am comfortable with to try to make their case. God bless!

 

[Phoebe]

Right now, my congregation is in flux because we have an interim coming on board.

Besides what the Bible reads about the unnatural relations, the ELCA doesn't seem to mind that people are breaking state laws. Many states have laws against homosexual acts. Yet Iowa, in its infinite wisdom, allows same sex unions. Now I can see a few marriages occuring where love making no longer comes into play, but all? (speaking mainly of same- sex unions) I hope everyone can undersand this train of thought.

I'll be going back to my congregation for a visit. I don't think I can stay.

Oh, be careful little ears what you hear...

 

[JoeCatch]

Right now, my congregation is in flux because we have an interim coming on board.

Besides what the Bible reads about the unnatural relations, the ELCA doesn't seem to mind that people are breaking state laws. Many states have laws against homosexual acts. Yet Iowa, in its infinite wisdom, allows same sex unions. Now I can see a few marriages occuring where love making no longer comes into play, but all? (speaking mainly of same- sex unions) I hope everyone can undersand this train of thought.

I'll be going back to my congregation for a visit. I don't think I can stay.

Oh, be careful little ears what you hear...

Point of clarification: All state laws prohibiting "sodomy" were struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in their 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling. Most such laws had not been enforced for decades prior anyway. Whatever else might be said about the ELCA's decision, it certainly does not encourage anyone to break state laws.

 

[Phoebe]

Good to know. I was wondering how our "Supreme" Court got by that one.
Thanks.

 

[AngelusSax]

Thanks. I do like what you wrote to me a while back saying if we are to err, let it be on the side of grace. It just seems to me the liberal side is stretching and possibly contorting more than I am comfortable with to try to make their case. God bless!

The only "challenge" I have to that (and it is also a challenge to myself) is that sometimes, a stretch must go farther than we are comfortable with in order to go far enough (though that is not necessarily the case here, but I can't rule it out yet either).

God bless you too, btw!

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Right now, my congregation is in flux because we have an interim coming on board.

Besides what the Bible reads about the unnatural relations, the ELCA doesn't seem to mind that people are breaking state laws. Many states have laws against homosexual acts. Yet Iowa, in its infinite wisdom, allows same sex unions. Now I can see a few marriages occuring where love making no longer comes into play, but all? (speaking mainly of same- sex unions) I hope everyone can undersand this train of thought.

I'll be going back to my congregation for a visit. I don't think I can stay.

Oh, be careful little ears what you hear...

Phoebe it seems that we are both sort of a like. Politically I'm ridiculously moderate and theologically well, I'm LCMS; and same-sex marriage being legalized in the eyes of the state once bothered me. How I sort of quelled my emotions when our great state legalized same-sex marriage was to think no matter what happens the church would come out victorious being seen as the upholder of orthodoxy and God's ways. I pray for all of the conservative ELCA Lutherans in Iowa, seeing as how gay marriage is legal in both their state and now church. May the Spirit comfort those marginalized during these troubling times within the church.

 

[JacksLadder]

I would like to voice support for the ELCA. They have beat the demons of pharisaical tradition and of hate while showing the love of God to all it's members the ones born straight and the ones born gay. I will try to attend the local ELCA church in town once and a while to show my support.

 

[AngelusSax]

My congregation is deciding how to handle this. I think we're moving in the direction of definitely not allowing or calling homosexual pastors, and I think we're going to be earmarking our benevolence donations to go to any ministry that does not support same-gendered relationship ministries (that's the local option for ya).

 

[Willy]

My congregation is deciding how to handle this. I think we're moving in the direction of definitely not allowing or calling homosexual pastors, and I think we're going to be earmarking our benevolence donations to go to any ministry that does not support same-gendered relationship ministries (that's the local option for ya).

That's too bad. I wish people didn't vote with their money.