Posted on 02/17/2007 1:44:13 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
ATLANTA --... Members of St. John's Lutheran Church last weekend filed by their pastor, hugging him and exchanging jokes. Many in the 350-member Atlanta congregation say they don't plan to let the Rev. Bradley E. Schmeling leave the pulpit Aug. 15, as ordered last week by an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) disciplinary committee because he is in a gay relationship.
... "We are not an activist church, even though we can stand for issues of justice," said Charles Fox, who occasionally assists Schmeling at Sunday worship. "He exemplifies the kind of love and empathy I envision Christ to have had."
The committee, which basically served as the jury in a closed-door trial, found Schmeling guilty of breaking the denomination's rules for having a same-sex relationship. However, the committee also called those rules "at least bad policy" and recommended changing them, which the ELCA could consider doing at its biennial meeting.
...
"It hasn't been a problem to explain Brad or his relationship to our children as much as what the church wants to do," said Fox, a married father of a 10-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl.
The ELCA, which has 4.9 million members, allows openly gay clergy... The same debate over how biblical verses on gay relationships should be interpreted is tearing at many mainline Protestant groups.
...Much like a trial, a closed-door disciplinary hearing committee of 12 ELCA members, both lay and clergy, heard evidence for nearly a week in January. Seven of them felt the rule as stated left them no choice but to defrock Schmeling. But the committee also wrote that, if not bound by the church's rules, they "would find almost unanimously that Pastor Schmeling is not engaged in conduct that is incompatible with the ministerial office" and would order no discipline.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"Being gay, as with everything else, is a grace from God." (Former NJ governor Jim McGreevy)
Go ahead and take a look at the website I linked above. What Protestant leader can credibly tell them that they have not the authority to interpret Scripture in this manner?
I would bet that this church uses one of the over two hundred Catholic versions of the bible...And who knows what it might say...
If these folks would have stuck with the Reformation Bible, the King James, and went with Sola Scripture, they wouldn't be having these problems...You don't have to interpret a thing with the KJV...Just believe what it says in sixth grade English...
There's something wrong with people and especially Christians who will accept a homosexual pastor or priest for a spiritual leader of their family and a role model for their young boys...
"My mother did when I was maybe eight. The closest she came to graphic language was, "the place where she goes to the bathroom." I pictured a toilet bowl. Eventually figured out sex on my own. Thanks for nothing, mom."
Give me one reason why parents have to be graphic? How is it that in the old days, when most of us in the slightly older generation and way before that too, people managed to figure out "sex" when they needed to? And in our "in the dark" generations, there was way less venereal disease, broken marriages, pornography, and sexual deviancy. I'm glad I was raised when we were "kept in the dark", and just whispered about sex when we were teenagers, and started getting an inkling that it existed, along with awakening physical interest brought on by hormones. We women lasted a lot longer as "virgins" back in those days, and because there was less sexual playing around, way less, there was less disease, less unwanted pregnancies, and lest predatory sexual behavior.
But somehow, when the time came, we all figured sex out, didn't we, as had all earlier generations in the U.S. And our parents didn't have to give us graphic descriptions of everything you always wanted to know about sex and more. What has that led to in the last 35 years, pray tell? A better society because of our children losing their innocence so young? No, it's a much worse society, and our country is a bad way because of it. Give youth back their ignorance. They'll grow up fast enough without all the sexual indoctrination they are now receiving in the schools, and the constant media presence of sexuality that now permeates their world. I'm glad I was brought up fairly ignorant. Ignorance was bliss, as I had nothing to act upon because I didn't know. I, like most of my generation, "wised up" at about age 18, when most of my generation went off to college, or got a job, or got married and then found out everything one would need to know about sex, by osmosis. It was better that way, wasn't it really?
Was it better growing up naive, the street vibes about sex as being something 'dirty'? No, it crippled the ability to form relationships.. You couldn't recognize feeling anything sexual because, if you really liked the girl, it could only end up treating her like your sister because you didn't know any better. The girl, meanwhile, got bored and left. I don't blame her.
You forgot the BARF alert. Uh oh... gotta go hurl now.
Oh Mrs. Don-o, you are so wrong-o.
There is ample enough evidence in Scripture for anyone to accept the prohibition against homosexuality, so don't try to bash Protestants. There are plenty, plenty of Catholics that have totally unbiblical and un-traditional, unorthodox beliefs. Protestants are no different. People don't study scripture seriously nor do they read the early church fathers for the most part.
Further, as to the faith issue, Protestants also recognize that we "work out" our faith. It is a process of sanctification. It's just that one could come to faith and never work anything out (e.g. thief on cross next to our Lord) and still be accepted into eternity with Christ.
So, please try not to drag this into a denominational issue. There are confused people of all denominations. No one learns this stuff by osmosis.
Fudge is not the best word to use in discussing this matter... And anyway wasnt Jesus gay?
(Thats a Joke)
"Was it better growing up naive, the street vibes about sex as being something 'dirty'? No, it crippled the ability to form relationships.. You couldn't recognize feeling anything sexual because, if you really liked the girl, it could only end up treating her like your sister because you didn't know any better. The girl, meanwhile, got bored and left. I don't blame her."
Either you are very young, very indoctrinated by the modern sex education philosophy, or you've had some problems relating to women. I was never taught sex was "dirty" and neither were my friends. We were taught it was something you did as an adult, not as a youngster, and within the confines of marriage. It was something to look forward to when one graduated into adulthood. And you are stating women were so bored because of no sex that they left you? That's exactly what I'm saying, things have changed for the worse for sure.
Plus, I don't believe you, at least not if you were from my generation or earlier. Most girls then were not promiscuous, and wouldn't have left a relationship because of no sex as they had no experience themselves. It was much more romance, and less sexual. Now, if you are young, you may indeed be contending with the new promiscuity, the new all too liberated young female, and I feel sorry for you having to contend with it. I feel sorry for young men now. Their proper place in the order of things is now skewed, their manhood threatened, their role as breadwinners emasculated. It's a sad state of affairs (pardon the pun).
"Plus, I don't believe you..."
Damn. Well, have a good night.
Nope, ELCA has always been the more liberal wing. The LC-MS (Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) is conservative, and als the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) is as conservative.
A vast majority of dominations have none of these sorts of issues. You're projecting fallibilities on them because of your displeasure with their freedom to choose their church.
Yes, you read that right.
You seem to object to a persons God given freedoms that are the very reason protestant denominations exist.
The only way to maintain the "authority of the church fathers" as you put it, is by not allowing people to form their own church, separate from yours. The only way to do that is by force and violence.
There is no other way.
People will believe differently no matter what you do. You can't stop them believing differently, you can only stop them from expressing their views, by force.
And indeed, the Catholic church did this for centuries. It was inevitable given the belief that no one other than the "church fathers" could interpret, or even read the scriptures. When you believe there is no questioning your interpretation of God's word, and you have the power to use violence against people, it's a logical conclusion that you can murder people for speaking heresy. After all, you're God's agent aren't you? How can you be wrong?
Therefor if you believe that there should only be one church, then you must accept the violence that it would take to enforce that no one practice Christianity any other way. They are inseparable.
And it must then follow that God approves violent methods to keep his flock under one roof.
I utterly reject that idea. God did not intend for us all to be in the same denomination. It is impossible to do without the use of force, therefor God would have to approve of the use of force to do so. That is plainly not the case, so it must follow that he does not intend for us all the be Catholics.
You cannot have it both ways. Either you believe as Americas founders did that all people are endowed by God with the freedom to choose, among other things, their own manner of worshiping God. Or you reject that idea, and believe we MUST ALL conform to the Catholic church's doctrine, by force if necessary.
Competition is good for all other aspects of human life, it's good for the churches as well. Churches are made up of fallible people. And as with all things, when a monopoly exists, in anything, corruption and abuse of power will follow. It is inevitable and as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
If there were "One Church" it would be a monopoly, with all the evil caused by human sinfulness that accompanies all monopolies. You cannot with any attempt at seriousness deny that.
Just as God intended for us to interact with each other as free people, in a free market system, with all the necessary competition that must occur therein, he also intended for the church to work the same way.
Free people interacting in an open "market" of Christian denominations, competing with each other, and keeping each other in check.
(2) Did you go to that "Gay Christian" website? Did you notice that their argument is not based on any particular translation, but on the interpretation of such Greek NT words as arsenokoitai?
(3)"There's something wrong with people and especially Christians who will accept a homosexual pastor or priest for a spiritual leader of their family and a role model for their young boys..."
I absolutely agree with you there.
No, no, no. I beg your pardon; sometimes I do not write as carefully as I ought. I respect the Protestants in my life, on this forum, and in my own family. Please forgive my inept communication, for no insult was intended.
If you will permit me to restate my point: the Catholic Church at least has the ability to say that these "Gay Christians" have no authority to interpret Scripture in a way that contradicts the interpretation of the Fathers, the Councilsm, and the Magisterium (e.g. the Catechism.)
The upright and God-pleasing Protestant, rejecting the interpretative authority of the Fathers, the Councils, and the Magisterium (you do reject these, don't you?) have no recourse but to argue about the meaning of words like arsenokoitai --- which turns out to be a matter of interpretation, rather than flat-out, cut-and-dried translation.
What I would like is for some knowledgeable and confident Protestant to take on these Gay Christians, referenced above, and argue against their interpretations in a definitive way. But nobody has.
If you could do this, or link me to somebody who has, I would be honestly grateful. I would kiss your words on my monitor.
You wrote: "The only way to maintain the "authority of the church fathers" as you put it, is by not allowing people to form their own church, separate from yours. The only way to do that is by force and violence."
I have no power and no desire to force people into the Catholic Church by violence. If you go back 350 years or so, you'll find Catholics, Puritans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anbaptists and others contending in this manner in the European wars of religion: a matter of shame and pain to us all, I daresay, looking back at it. But such episodes were an insult to Christ and a blot upon the name of Christian. We confess and repent them as such.
My impression is that Protestants do not, in principle, bow to the authority of the Fathers and Councils, Encyclicals and Catechisms and such. That leaves you with the interpretation of Koine Greek. And I entertain doubts that you can debate with these "Gay Christians" in definitive way on the basis of Koine Greek.
But I hope I'm wrong. Show me.
Once again, this would lead to a monopoly of authority in one church. That cannot be accepted for the reasons I outlined in the previous post.
the Catholic Church at least has the ability to say that these "Gay Christians" have no authority to interpret Scripture in a way that contradicts the interpretation of the Fathers, the Councilsm, and the Magisterium
You seem to be arguing, in effect, that because of the "Fathers, the Councilsm, and the Magisterium", the catholic Church alone has the authority to reject this blasphemy for the gay "Christians", and that protestants, because the lack the same, have no authority to repudiate them. Correct?
I would answer that I have all the authority I need in scripture. It's there for anyone to read. The phrase "it's is an abomination" it pretty unambiguous, is it not?
But regardless of that, what does it matter? These people will reject the authority of your "Fathers, the Councilsm, and the Magisterium", just as flippantly as they will reject what is written plainly in scripture. They are free to do so.
What I would like is for some knowledgeable and confident Protestant to take on these Gay Christians, referenced above, and argue against their interpretations in a definitive way. But nobody has.
Really? You haven't been paying attention then.
Or what you really mean by a "definitive way" is a way that you accept as convincing. When the point is it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else feel is "definitive". They will dismiss it out of hand regardless.
They will accept no argument that doesn't absolve them of their sin. Only God can convince them they are wrong. All the definitive arguments in the universe will make no difference.
They are free to recognize, or reject any authority they choose in religious matters.
That is the price of freedom.
There are two choices. Freedom, or authoritarian monopolistic oppression. There is no middle ground.
I will accept the dregs, nut cases and outright heretics that come with freedom. It is far superior to the other choice.
There are two lines of bible manuscripts...
One, called the Majority Texts (because the vast majority of manuscripts extant are in this goup) originated in Antioch, Syria...The spot where followers of Jesus were fisrt called Christians...
The King James Bible is the only bible out there that comes from this group of manuscripts...
The other group of manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Africa (Egypt)...These are the Catholic manuscripts...
These manuscripts disagree with the 'majority' in numerous places and disagree with themselves in thousands of places...
And these MINORITY manuscripts are what the Catholics claim are the bible they wrote...When your church says 'it wrote the bible', that's what it's referring to...
All English bibles (except the KJV) come from this group of African manuscripts...I suppose that's why your church has an official Catholic bible that is not the Douay Rheims bible...Same stuff anyway...
(2) Did you go to that "Gay Christian" website? Did you notice that their argument is not based on any particular translation, but on the interpretation of such Greek NT words as arsenokoitai?
And who's Greek translation do they get their stuff from??? That Greek has been translated into English in over 200 bibles by as many authors and they're still tryign to get it right...
Look at this verse...Is there any question in your mind, without trying to translate the verse, as to what is says and means???
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
This comes from the Greek of the Majority Texts...You can either believe it, or translate it...Surely there is no problem in understanding it the way it was written...
Correct --- but I'd omit the word alone because the Orthodox (and maybe some others?) also accept the Fathers, at least the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and some form of Magisterium.
"I would answer that I have all the authority I need in scripture. It's there for anyone to read. The phrase 'it's is an abomination' it pretty unambiguous, is it not?"
I'd agree "abomination" is unambiguous... but the Gay Christians are not disputing the word "abomination," but rather WHAT is being called an abomination.
Gay Christians say the "abomination" passage in Leviticus also banned eating pork and shellfish, eating meat and milk together, wearing clothing which mixes different types of fiber, etc. --- all of these rules were abolished, of course, in the New Testament. The Gay Christians also argue that the other suppsedly anti-gay Scriptures refer specifically to male temple prostitution, the abduction of boys, forcible rape, and opportunistic gay sex on the part of otherwise-heterosexual men (i.e. "the men also abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another").
And therefore, they say that if Christians have been freed from the observance of Levitical laws, and if a gay person is not involved with prostitution, pedophilia, kidnap, rape, or giving up sex with woman (heterosexuality) in order to have lustful relations with men, then a gay Christian man's sexual relationship with another man "faithful, loving, gay Christian marriage" (their term) is not an "abomination."
They draw these conclusions of the basis of Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura.
I'm certainly not saying that you won't find Catholics who are swayed by that interpretation. But the "sola" part of "sola Scriptura" is a Protestant doctrine rejected by the Catholic Church. And Catholics disavow any supposed "right" to interpret Scripture independently of 2,000 continuous years of Church authority; and this is the authority rejected by non-Catholic Christians and Gay Christians.
I'd love to see a Protestant argue against the Gay Christian interpretations based on unambiguous Scripture scholarship alone. But nobody has.
You say, "Really? You haven't been paying attention then."
Really? I'm thrilled. Links. Sources. Show me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.