Tornado at the Assembly

[Mr_E]

A clear sign from God? I do not know how else you could explain this...

VirtueOnline - News - As Eye See It - The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality - John Piper
Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. A day of close calls: ELCA braves a tornado and a tough vote on LGBT issues

 

[D.W.Washburn]

When I heard about the tornado, and then the results of the vote, I was sure that someone would try to connect the two and proclaim that the wind was God's judgment upon the ELCA.

I can suggest at least two other ways in which we might interpret the tornado in Minneapolis.

1. The tornado took place before the vote. If I've done the math correctly, the Social Statement was adopted with only slightly better than a 2/3 majority. I think it was about 6 votes. Because of the high winds, the convention center security personnel encouraged everyone to enter the hall where the voting took place. Being an inner room without windows, it was the safest place to be. So, God may have been using the tornado to assure that the necessary number of voters were present in the hall to adopt the social statement.

2. "...the Lord was not in the wind...." 1 Kings 19:11

Edited to add: Apparently my math was faulty. The media are reporting that the Social Statement was adopted by a single vote. God could have prevented all this by taking out just a single voter with the wind storm. Instead, the storm assured that every single voter was on the floor of the assembly. Things that make you go, "hmmmmm..."

 

[Forscher]

.........it was stupid of me to think that the Westerners did not believe in such things. We can interpret everything into something we want.

 

[JoeCatch]

Is this the direction the discussion has turned now? Trying to discern the mind of God and determine whether a Midwestern tornado in the middle of summer is a sign of God's disapproval of homosexuality? Seriously? God help us all.

Of course, D.W.'s option #2 is clearly the only sensible explanation. But to respond to a point in his #1, would there really have been delegates who would not have been present for this vote? If so, that's just unconscionable to me. I understand that not every delegate is on the floor for every vote, but on a matter that's been as public and notoriously contentious as this one, it would have been an inexcusable dereliction of duty not to be present for this vote.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

.........it was stupid of me to think that the Westerners did not believe in such things. We can interpret everything into something we want.

Forscher, I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you flesh it out a bit for me?

Edited to add: Never mind. I think I have it now.



Hukt awn Fonix wurkt for mee!

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Of course, D.W.'s option #2 is clearly the only sensible explanation. But to respond to a point in his #1, would there really have been delegates who would not have been present for this vote? If so, that's just unconscionable to me. I understand that not every delegate is on the floor for every vote, but on a matter that's been as public and notoriously contentious as this one, it would have been an inexcusable dereliction of duty not to be present for this vote.

Well, my tongue was in my cheek when I typed that. And no, I seriously doubt that any voting member would have missed that particular vote. But if the hand of God can be seen in the tornado, it might have been shepherding the voters to the bar of the assembly, not trying to scare them into changing their votes.

Someone has pointed out that though the tornado struck before the vote was taken, when the results of the vote were announced, the sun came out.

By the way, did anyone else notice the way that John Piper twisted Luke 13:4-5 to make his point? That Scripture, properly applied to this situation, should have been interpreted more along these lines:

Did you not hear about the Lutheran Churchwide Assembly that was nearly struck by a tornado? And do you think that those Lutherans were worse sinners than anyone else in Minneapolis. No. I tell you, but unless you also repent, you will all...perish.

The point is not that God was punishing those 18 at Siloam. The point is that human life is short and fragile and our only hope is to trust in God who alone is eternal and true. I am quite sure that the 676 Lutherans who, after prayer, deliberation and consideration, voted to approve the Social Statement, did so, putting their faith in God.

Of course, the 338 who voted against the Social Statement were also putting their faith in God, and there's the rub. Can people of good faith, whose consciences and whose understanding of Scripture lead them to different conclusions still live together in a single church body? The task force would like that to be the case.

 

[Mr_E]

So the fact that the meteorologist are baffled by a tornado that came out of nowhere and in the middle of a city that generally does not experience tornadoes, during a time of year when tornadoes are not common, basically comes down on top of the building where the assembly is being held, rips the steeple of the top of the ELCA church down the street (leaving the cross on display upside down) could not have been a sign from God!?!? Do you not think God has His hands involved in our world any more? And All of this happens right before 2/3 (or 66.666666666&#37 of the people at the assembly vote to pass the statement. All I can say is wow! You are unable to believe that this could mean something, yet you claim to believe that we have an all powerful God who loves us so deeply He gave His Son to die on the cross for us. But He would not give us a sign to help encourage us to return to the right path!?!?

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Mr. E.

In the community where I live, there was an incident late in the 19th century. The Baptist church was holding baptisms at the river. The majority of the church members were standing on a bridge to observe. The bridge collapsed and most of those standing on it were drowned.

Where they worse sinners than anyone else in town? Was this a clear sign from God of anything other than the brevity and fragility of human life? I can assure you that those Baptists, devasted by so many deaths, still continued to worship as they had. They did not take it as a sign.

About twelve years ago (I'd have to look it up to be sure) in a small city not far from here, a summer tornado struck and demolished a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod church building. It was the only building damaged, but it was well-and-truly destroyed. It stood near the Interstate where it could be seen by everyone driving by. I am quite sure that, at that time, the congregation kept in line with LC-MS policy regarding close-Communion, ordination of men only, etc. Was the demolition of their building a sign of God's displeasure with either that congregation or its larger church body?

Or was it just a tornado?

I do, by the way, take the Minneapolis tornado as a clear sign that we are to live lives of faith in the saving grace of God revealed in Christ Jesus...but I'm repeating myself.

 

[Mr_E]

I'm not saying that every natural disaster is punishment for those who are caused suffering. I do believe that sometimes God uses His unlimited powers to send us messages. I think this was a loving message from God to warn us that we need to remain loyal to the scriptures (it is another miracle that nobody was harmed). I honestly do not see how a believer could interpret it any other way, though I am NOT claiming that the fact that you do not believe this is a sign from God proves that you are not a believer.

 

[JoeCatch]

So the fact that the meteorologist are baffled by a tornado that came out of nowhere and in the middle of a city that generally does not experience tornadoes, during a time of year when tornadoes are not common, basically comes down on top of the building where the assembly is being held, rips the steeple of the top of the ELCA church down the street (leaving the cross on display upside down) could not have been a sign from God!?!?

No.

And since when is southern Minnesota an area that hardly experiences tornadoes, or summer a time when they generally don't happen? Minnesota may be on the very edge of tornado alley, and the end of summer may be the tail end of the season in which they're common, but nothing about this is really baffling to any meteorologists. There were thunderstorm systems moving throughout the Midwest yesterday (just as the allegedly "baffled" meteorologists had been forecasting all along). It's not like it was a July blizzard in Arizona that we're talking about here.

Do you not think God has His hands involved in our world any more? And All of this happens right before 2/3 (or 66.666666666%) of the people at the assembly vote to pass the statement. All I can say is wow! You are unable to believe that this could mean something, yet you claim to believe that we have an all powerful God who loves us so deeply He gave His Son to die on the cross for us. But He would not give us a sign to help encourage us to return to the right path!?!?

Don't equate a refusal to give credence to nonsense with a denial that God is active in the world.

Since when have Lutherans understood this to be the manner in which God works in the world, anyway? We confess God's self-revelation in the world in the person of Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the entire world and everybody and everything in it. Given that, trying to guess which natural events are "acts of God" (and what those acts are trying to tell us) is nothing more than an exercise in good, old-fashioned human pride. Has God really told you that the tornado was a warning against the purported evils of homosexuality? How did God do that? And, if God hasn't actually told you anything about this tornado, on what basis are you claiming to have any sort of privileged access to the will of God? Answers: God hasn't, and you don't.

 

[Mr_E]

No.

And since when is southern Minnesota an area that hardly experiences tornadoes, or summer a time when they generally don't happen? Minnesota may be on the very edge of tornado alley, and the end of summer may be the tail end of the season in which they're common, but nothing about this is really baffling to any meteorologists. There were thunderstorm systems moving throughout the Midwest yesterday (just as the allegedly "baffled" meteorologists had been forecasting all along). It's not like it was a July blizzard in Arizona that we're talking about here.



Don't equate a refusal to give credence to nonsense with a denial that God is active in the world.

Since when have Lutherans understood this to be the manner in which God works in the world, anyway? We confess God's self-revelation in the world in the person of Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the entire world and everybody and everything in it. Given that, trying to guess which natural events are "acts of God" (and what those acts are trying to tell us) is nothing more than an exercise in good, old-fashioned human pride. Has God really told you that the tornado was a warning against the purported evils of homosexuality? How did God do that? And, if God hasn't actually told you anything about this tornado, on what basis are you claiming to have any sort of privileged access to the will of God? Answers: God hasn't, and you don't.

Here is a quote from the first link in my original post:

"On a day when no severe weather was predicted or expected...a tornado forms, baffling the weather experts-most saying they've never seen anything like it. It happens right in the city. The city: Minneapolis."

A couple of you have made statements about how we are not supposed to try to figure out what is on God's mind or what was meant by the storm. Wasn't it the ELCA that just decided to change their belief on what the Bible says about homosexuality, because they believe God has changed His mind on homosexuality? Clearly He was against it in Leviticus, so if He is not against in now, He changed His mind. That's not written in the Bible anywhere, so it was the ELCA decided God changed His mind. Hmmm......

 

[JoeCatch]

It's just clearly false that there's never been anything like the tornado that hit Minneapolis. Thunderstorms pop up rather frequently without much warning, particularly around this time of year in the Midwest. As I pointed out, southern Minnesota/mid-August is not an unprecedented scenario for a tornado to strike. tornadoes rarely hit cities because (as I understand it) the buildings tend to disrupt the airflow that creates them. Still, even as infrequent as that is, it's absolutely not unprecedented. It's worth noting that, for all of the hay that you're making of the fact that this was supposedly a meteorologist-baffling event, it wasn't actually any meteorologist who described it that way. It was an anti-homosexual conservative Christian blogger who couched the tornado in those terms.

And you're misunderstanding the ELCA's position entirely if you're under the impression that we believe that God's mind has changed on the issue of homosexuality. Those who support the full inclusion of homosexuals in all aspects of the life of the church are not arguing that God was saying one thing in Leviticus and a different thing now. Granted, not everybody who advocates for that sort of full inclusion is arguing for it on the exact same theological basis, but in general we deny that the passages that opponents of homosexual inclusion often cite really should properly be understood as blanket prohibitions from God against all forms of homosexual relationships. In short, our view is that what Leviticus says simply isn't as clear an indication that God is unequivocally against homosexuality as those who frequently cite that passage want to make it out to be.

 

[Mr_E]

Then explain how this could mean anything but what it sounds like...

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

...Seems pretty clear to me where our unchanging God stands on the issue.

 

[Mr_E]

Then explain how this could mean anything but what it sounds like...

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

...Seems pretty clear to me where our unchanging God stands on the issue.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Then explain how this could mean anything but what it sounds like...

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

...Seems pretty clear to me where our unchanging God stands on the issue.

And yet, we freely ignore other parts of the Levitical purity code.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I'm not saying that every natural disaster is punishment for those who are caused suffering. I do believe that sometimes God uses His unlimited powers to send us messages. I think this was a loving message from God to warn us that we need to remain loyal to the scriptures (it is another miracle that nobody was harmed).

So, coincidences that confirm our presuppositions are clear signs from God, but others are just coincidences? Tornado at Assembly = God's displeasure but Sunshine at vote = sheer coincidence.

I honestly do not see how a believer could interpret it any other way, though. I am NOT claiming that the fact that you do not believe this is a sign from God proves that you are not a believer.

Thank you for that consideration. I will, of course, extend you the same courtesy.

 

[Mr_E]

And yet, we freely ignore other parts of the Levitical purity code.

I thought we were in agreement that God is unchanging though. God said homosexual acts are detestable in Leviticus. There is still relevancy to the book of Leviticus today you know.

How about what Jesus had to say...

Mark 10: 6-9 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Or Paul...

Romans 1:26-28 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The same unchanging God shows the same unchanging attitude in the New Testament as well. Even Augustine, who was part of the early church, expresses a clear stanace against homosexual acts in his book "Confessions." So by voting for the changes, you are either saying that God changed, or that we have misunderstood our God's stance on this topic for all of time. I dare you to find my any scripture in support of homosexual acts being acceptible. You will not find it without twisting God's Good Word.

And as far as the sun shining, I really do not see your point. Storms that come out of nowhere generally do not last very long. Of course the sun was shining a short time later. For it to be a sign, would you have required the sun to never shine again? I think that only goes to show that this storm was meant for a very specific point in time. There is no point to send out a warning after the fact (after the voting had taken place).

I only pray that God will reveal His Truth to all who truly seek to know the Truth. It will happen.

 

[Mr_E]

It's just clearly false that there's never been anything like the tornado that hit Minneapolis. Thunderstorms pop up rather frequently without much warning, particularly around this time of year in the Midwest. As I pointed out, southern Minnesota/mid-August is not an unprecedented scenario for a tornado to strike. tornadoes rarely hit cities because (as I understand it) the buildings tend to disrupt the airflow that creates them. Still, even as infrequent as that is, it's absolutely not unprecedented. It's worth noting that, for all of the hay that you're making of the fact that this was supposedly a meteorologist-baffling event, it wasn't actually any meteorologist who described it that way. It was an anti-homosexual conservative Christian blogger who couched the tornado in those terms.

And you're misunderstanding the ELCA's position entirely if you're under the impression that we believe that God's mind has changed on the issue of homosexuality. Those who support the full inclusion of homosexuals in all aspects of the life of the church are not arguing that God was saying one thing in Leviticus and a different thing now. Granted, not everybody who advocates for that sort of full inclusion is arguing for it on the exact same theological basis, but in general we deny that the passages that opponents of homosexual inclusion often cite really should properly be understood as blanket prohibitions from God against all forms of homosexual relationships. In short, our view is that what Leviticus says simply isn't as clear an indication that God is unequivocally against homosexuality as those who frequently cite that passage want to make it out to be.

Nobody said there has never been a twister in Minnesota, I was only saying that they are rare, from what I read, in Minneapolis. In fact, I just found a story that says there had not been one in downtown Minneapolis in over 100 years, until today. I would be willing to bet that nobody reading this was even born that long ago. Here is a link...

MinnPost - What's bigger than Brett Favre? A downtown twister, but just barely

 

[JoeCatch]

Then explain how this could mean anything but what it sounds like...

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

...Seems pretty clear to me where our unchanging God stands on the issue.

First things: Taking a single passage, apart from any context whatsoever, and declaring that it simply must mean exactly what it sounds look is no way to do good theology. It's certainly no way to do Lutheran theology. There are a couple of contexts of which we must remain aware if we are to understand this (or any other) passage of the bible properly. The first, and probably the most obvious, is a cultural context. Who wrote this text, against what backdrop, and why? When and where was it written? Does it incorporate any older texts?

Now, one popular answer to this line of questioning is simply to say that God wrote it with no particular cultural backdrop in mind, for the purpose of directly communicating a timeless law. This, however, is not how theology is done in the ELCA; rather, it's a straightforwardly biblicist way of attempting to make sense of the passage. And it's an attempt to make sense of the passage that won't speak at all to the concerns of anyone who denies verbal inspiration.

But, aside from the attempt to set the passage in context (and here we're talking about what's commonly known as historical criticism), there's another sort of context that the biblicist reading ignores: the distinctively Lutheran hermeneutic that views the entire bible through the lens of Christ and his gospel. If we take that hermeneutic seriously, then we certainly cannot simply look at this verse on its own and declare that it just makes it absolutely clear where God stands on the issue.

There are all sorts of theories about what's going on in this verse. Some theorize that it was a purity code, meant to set the Israelites apart from their Canaanite neighbors. Others argue that it was written from the perspective of a heteronormative culture that had no concept of the sorts of homosexual relationships that are under debate in the discussions currently going on in the ELCA. But, setting aside the various views espoused from a historical critical perspective, how should we understand passages like this in light of the gospel? I'll have to get into this more later, but you can take that as a starting point for how Leviticus 18:22 could very easily mean something quite different from what it sounds like to you.

 

[Mr_E]

^You could use the same erroneous line of thinking against any verse in all of scripture to twist and turn it and throw it out. At that point, you are just picking and choosing which verses you want to follow.

I also like the way you only picked on one of the verses. Go ahead and try to figure out how to throw the others out that I posted as well. There are a lot more that I could post. God expresses the same attitude about homosexual acts throughout the Bible, spanning centuries and many various cultures. How is that for looking at something with historical criticisim?