Lutheran Ping!
Posted on 02/19/2007 7:11:11 PM PST by lightman
Is 'living together faithfully' objective or subjective?
by Pastor Scott Grorud, WordAlone board member
Last week in this space, Betsy Carlson reported on two recent developments in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that bring into question the decisions on sexuality made by the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in Orlando. Both of them are confusing and disheartening.
In the first place, the New England Synod recently issued "Guidance for Pastors and Congregations of the New England Synod, ELCA Regarding the Blessing of Unions of Same-Sex Couples." The document includes specific instructions on how to conduct such blessings and even "A suggested outline for a public Service of Blessing." Yet, the resolution on homosexual unions, based on Recommendation Two of the ELCA's task force on sexuality, approved in Orlando committed the ELCA to "continue to respect the guidance of the 1993 statement of the Conference of Bishops" that concluded that "there is basis neither in Scripture nor tradition for the establishment of an official ceremony by this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship."
And, secondly, a hearing committee for a discipline case in the Southeastern Synod recently issued a ruling that went well beyond its stated task. It asked synods to memorialize the 2007 Churchwide Assembly to overturn the statement in the ELCA document "Vision and Expectations" that "ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships." Yet, a proposed amendment to the sexuality task force's Recommendation Three in Orlando, that would essentially have achieved the same goal, was defeated, despite a concerted effort by proponents to secure its passage.
How is it that decisions made in Orlando are being contravened or raised again? As Betsy's article noted, these developments in the New England Synod are the fruit of deliberately ambiguous language adopted in Orlando on homosexual relationships, language that the ELCA Church Council refused to clarify, despite three separate requests to do so.
However, the root of the problem actually lies in Recommendation One, which also arose from the sexuality task force. That recommendation urged "the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (to) concentrate on finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements, recognizing the God-given mission and communion that we share as members of the body of Christ."
On the surface, that sounds like a Mom-and-apple-pie resolution. Who could vote against "finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements" and, indeed, the recommendation passed by a margin of 851-127.
But there is a fatal danger underneath that positive-sounding language. The manner in which Recommendation One is being applied in the ELCA ends up defining "faithfully" in subjective, rather than objective terms. That is, if a Christian sincerely believes that his or her convictions are faithful, then they are. Whether such convictions adhere to the Bible or to the received Christian tradition is not the deciding factor, but whether they are sincerely held by persons who claim to be faithful is.
Scripture is quite clear that all sexual behavior is a moral issue, not just a social issue. Sexual relationships outside of marriage are all immoral according to Scripture. Therefore, can believers disagree on morality and "live together faithfully"?
Approaching theological and moral issues subjectively opens the door for any teaching, any practice, any conviction that people deem "faithful" to come into the Christian Church and, according to Recommendation One, our response is not to discern whether they are true or false, not to accept some teachings and reject others on the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, but only to find "ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements." It is a far cry from the admonition in 1 John 4, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" and the apostle's advice in Ephesians 4, "So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another."
Jesus warned that "if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand." (Mark 3:25) The struggles over sexuality are only the latest evidence that the ELCA is such a house divided and to respond merely by "finding ways to live together faithfully (subjectively defined) in the midst of disagreements" will not keep it from falling. Let us all pray fervently for the ELCA, its leaders, pastors and members, that the Holy Spirit will guide us beyond tolerating various "truths" and seek instead, in all that we say and do, the Truth that is Jesus Christ, the truth that has been handed over to us through the Bible and the great tradition of Christianity.
Real churches don't vote on the Sixth Commandment.
As it was said, religion exists to be believed [in], but not to be lived, i.e. behaved; while ideology, OTOH, exist to be lived, i.e. behaved, but not to be believed [in].
What does murder have to do with adultery? (The article.)
Lutherans number the Ten Commandments according to the practice of the 16th Century.
In Luther's Small Catechism the First Commandment is a compilation of "no other gods before me" and "no graven image". The prohibition against coveting was split between coveting the neighbor's house (# 9) and the neighbor's wife and goods (# 10).
I bet that pissed off the Pope.
Oh, well.
God Bless anyway.
Actually not, because that was the numbering used by the Catholic church at that time.
It was the attack on the sale of Indulgences and the burning of the Papal bull (letter of indictment) which provoked a severe reaction.
Okay, so the Pope is cool with it.
What about Moses? He had to carry the things, after all.
In our benighted, ultra-liberal synod, Recommendation One applies to a lot more than the "gay issue". For example, people who believe that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is God's Holy Name, and not a metaphor, are to "learn to live together" with those who believe that it is a metaphor, and that there are other options. The same goes for believing that salvation is through Christ alone, vs. "many paths to salvation", especially including islam.
Of course, "living together faithfully" means living under conditions where the revisionists are in charge, and both "options" for God's name and the "many paths" theory--not to mention the continuing overwhelming obsession with homosexuality--are shoved down our throats!!!!
"Living together faithfully" is not only subjective, it is TOTALLY BOGUS, since it means "living together" under revisionist/feminazi tyranny. We are all "entitled to our opinions", but they are only "opinions", and revisionist liturgies, seminary professors--and therefore pastors--and social actions are what we get, whether we like them or not. None of the orthodox reform groups have a viable solution to this issue--we are to contiune in communion with the heretics while we fight for our cause, in order to change things a generation from now. But the crisis is upon us, right now in 2007.
What happens if and when the revisionists win the vote for noncelebate "gay" pastors and "gay" blessings in the CWA, as early as this summer? What happens if they don't win, but numerous local and synodical rules such as New England's and "gay ordinations" such as in New York and San Francisco make any churchwide rule moot? And what happens as the feminazi hymnal keeps eroding the ELCA in ways that we can't even imagine yet, as well as people and congregations leaving because of it?
Lord have mercy!
The Lutherans also share the numbering of the commandments with the Orthodox as well.
I posted this on a similar thread a week or so ago, but it is quite relevant to this discussion as well:
"But the practical result of this principle is one on which there is no need of speculating; it works in one unvarying way. When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is “ipso facto” non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into position, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and make them skillful in combating it." (pp. 195-196)
From: “THE CONSERVATIVE REFORMATION AND ITS THEOLOGY as represented in the Augsburg Confession and in the history and literature of the Evangelical Lutheran Church” by Charles P. Krauth, D.D. (1871). [Note date]
"On the surface, that sounds like a Mom-and-apple-pie resolution. Who could vote against "finding ways to live together faithfully in the midst of disagreements" and, indeed, the recommendation passed by a margin of 851-127."
I believe that in order for a Church to be strong, they need to stand united. Allowing differences and variations from church building to church building is basically going to devoid the Church of any moral guidance on issues. Each congregation and member can essentially believe and do as they please, regardless of it being right or wrong. In the end, the ELCA will fall apart because there will be no absolutes or teachings to hold them together.
I can't speak with any depth of knowledge about what is going on in ELCA; what I know I have learned from a few Lutherans here on FR. I can say that I see some broad similarities to Orthodoxy, however, in what you fellows write. Given that, I must say that I am surprised that there seems to be such an acceptance of and even a desire to accomodate heresy on some pretty basic issues. The Fathers, for that matter +Paul, are clear on what to do about heresy. Correct, correct and then shun. As one Father said, heresy outside the Church is not that big a problem, but inside, preached by those charged with pastoring, it is deadly. It destroys the soul. Light cannot co-exist in the same church with darkness, the Truth with lies. And sacraments cannot be used to turn sinful practices into virtuous ones.
I understand that there are a significant number of congregations in the Upper Midwest who are ready to form a new synod, separate from the ELCA. I believe that time is now.
Over the next few years, the foundation of the ELCA will continue to erode and the entire structure will collapse.
The merger was a mistake of the worst kind. I miss the ALC, but not the ELCA.
Hey, Tony! Good to hear from you again!
Aye, the article posted comes from Word Alone/Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) which is gearing up for that possibility if not certainty.
You miss the ALC...I miss the Ministerium of Pennsylvania!
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.