"Halleluyah! Fabulous!"
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 ...
Converting is on my short list. ;)
I have good reasons to accept the Douay-Rheims and other Catholic Bible texts translated from the Septuagint. I have not a scholar's detailed training on this, but I do know that the New Testament quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times, and in approximately 300 of those instances (85%), the quotation is taken from the Septuagint. It was the translation used by the Apostles, the NT Church and all the Greek-speaking communities of the Mediterranean, both Jewish and Christian.
There are tiny differences between texts involving articles ("he took an ox" vs "he took the ox") and verb forms ("he fled" vs. "he has fled"); these disagerements are not substantive, exist also in Masoretic texts, and in both cases involve only a tiny percentage of verses. I myself found this and other Bible links on the Internet very instructive on the subject of Septuagint vs Masoretic texts; perhaps you will, too.
Let's look at that (to you, and to me, very clear) text from Romans:
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.
You and I know that this is a condemnation of all man-on-man sex behavior. But the gay exegesis of this passage centers on what is meant by "natural." The burden of their argument is that if a person is naturally a heterosexual, but abandons sexual relations with a woman to pursue same-sex lust, that's clearly condemned by Scripture; but if a person is naturally a homosexual, then God will bless him to follow his nature and seek an honorable homosexual marriage.
They dispute that there is such a thing as "human nature" which applies to us all. They argue that that would be as unfair as saying that everybody has to be right-handed, because sexuality is supposedly a matter of several "normal variations," just like left and right "handedness."
They're wrong. But here's the challenge: Read THEIR Scriptural arguments, and then dispute their conclusions from Scripture alone.
I'd be the first to stand up and cheer, if it can be done.
And--- this is delightful --- here's a website from Lutherans Reform! arguing strongly against homosexuality on the basis of a line of succession going back to the earliest authoritative teachers, the apostles. Specifically, they note that St. Irenaeus said, "My teaching is authoritative because I learned it from Polycarp, who in turn had been taught by the great apostle John himself." Those who could not claim such a lineage, who could not cite the authority of Sacred Tradition, are considered unauthorized to interpret Scripture in a contrary sense.
Interesting.
Show me where the Bible recommends an open "market" approach toward Christian denominations.
Explain to me how only one church (or group of churches if you prefer)can maintain absolute authority over interpretation of the scriptures and not allow any other groups or churches to be formed without the use of force. It cannot be done.
I don't wish to restate the entire argument, but unless you believe God is OK with the use of violence to maintain a "one true church", then you must accept the freedom model that I outlined. (Or perhaps, some other model I couldn't imagine, but freedom must be the underlying principle.)
Socialism leads to to evil no matter what venue it's practiced in. This will always be so as long as we have free will. Until that changes, an open "market" (my words) of denominations is the only way it can work.
I've throughly explained my thinking here, several times. So let me ask you a direct question. Can a church that holds a monopoly on scripture interpretation and doctrinal beliefs, and has the authority to enforce this doctrine, avoid corruption, abuse of power, and violence against those who would would wish to form their own church?
I would argue that it cannot. No group of people with that kind of power possibly can. We have countless examples of this throughout history that I would present as evidence. And the history of the Catholic Church itself is one of those examples.
If I'm wrong, tell me how. How can free will coexist with only one, enforceable church doctrine?
Good day.
The thing about "straw men" is they're very easy to knock down, but I notice your not even trying. That tells me something.
My argument is an exercise in critical thinking which takes your premise and follows it to it's logical conclusion based on known undeniable factors, according to my beliefs anyway. So either point out where you believe I'm mistaken, or just tell me you don't wish to think about it.
I have never advocated restricting the civil liberties of non-Catholic believers.
I never suggested that. I'm asking how you reconcile your belief that one church should have the authority to determine doctrine for all Christians with the reality of God given free will?
I'm not accusing you of anything. Just asking how that works in relation to your beliefs, because I genuinely don't understand how it can.
The good thing is that you and I are totally in agreement as to the disposition and standing of homosexuality. However, your take on Protestants is off and I wonder how this happened. Personally, insofar as I can see, the two biggest denominations that are vocal against homosexuality are the RC church and the Southern Baptists. I am neither. I happen to be a member of the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, and lest you not know, they are extremely conservative. We do not, for instance, believe in the ordination of women. We have stood strong on God's word (again IMHO). The protestants of whom you speak are really screwed up and they do not have a leg to stand on when trying to substantiate their views from koine greek as you like to put it.
While Prots certainly do NOT follow the encyclicals and catechisms from the RC church, please recall that there is a whole huge Catholic population that do not follow your beliefs either and if I was going to lean to that tradition, I believe there is far more evidence to conclude that the orthodox catholics (greek orthodox, for instance) than for roman catholic tradition.
Lastly, yes, believe it or not, we do read the church fathers and the early canonical writings. We hold to the beliefs of the early councils that decided what would be held in canon. Indeed, we do.
Bottom line Mrs. Don O, we must reach out to the lost. You and I may quibble about details but the important things of Christ's divinity, the salvation plan, the resurrection, and so on, we are in 100 percent agreement on. We must stay united lest the Devil divide us. The real threat to the world today is Islam, although in the U.S. it seems to be secularism.
I didn't take the time to read the link you gave and I will do so. I appreciate your thoughts. It's nice to engage with an intelligent sister in Christ.
I say this with all humility.
Authority does not mean coercive political power. For instance, my pastor has the authority to give me three penitential psalms to say as my penance for my confessed sins; but whether I actually say those psalms rests on my God-given free will. My pastor can't actually make me do it.
Stuff like this is the reason I quit ELCA, and joined my wife's faith, the Roman Catholic Church.
We need to help reach out to the lost, confused and wandering sheep whom Our Lord is profoundly concerned about. Because of His mighty heart. Do you observe Lent? Let's pray for each other!
"I am a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - the WELS. It is this kind of nonsense in the ELCA that prevents any association between our synod and theirs even though we both have Lutheran in our name. Members of the WELS and ELCA would not be allowed to receive communion at a service of the other synod."
The same goes for my church, LCMS, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
LCMS and WELS can take communion with the other right?
Okay, I see what you're doing. You posted this article to demonstrate what you believe is the logical outcome of Protestantism and its rejection of Roman Catholic tradition and its adherance to sola fide, which I gather you view as a doctrine that 'could' lead to licentious behavier. We 'could' see it that way, yes.
I 'could' post an article about homosexual Roman Catholic priests molesting little boys and then say that we 'could' view that as what happens when one adheres to the tradition and the authority of the Fathers of the Church and the Church Councils. I could then point out that their licentious behavior 'could' be explained by the doctrine of purgatory which teaches that if you know how to go about it (and priests should at least in theory know all the rules) you can indulge your lusts in this life and, if you're willing to do some time in purgatory and you make sure you die in the right condition, still end up in heaven. We 'could' see that as a pretty licentious doctrine and conclude that child molesting priests is the logical outcome or Roman Catholic thought. Would you think that was a fair representation of Roman Catholic thought or tradition?
Would you like to have your system of thought tied to a bunch of perverts and then be told that it 'could' be they're perverts because they think like you do?
fyi
don't forget us LCMS folks. I cringe to call myself Lutheran because most people equate Lutherans with the ELCA. I always have to explain that we are not the mainstream liberal Lutherans.
The ELCA was formed by merging the ALC and LCA
"Halleluyah! Fabulous!"
No, perversion is not a result of Protestant theology, any more than it is a result of Catholic theology. When it's found in any of our communities, it comes from the dull old sources of sin with which we are all familiar.
But the burden of my argument is --- is this the 4th time I've said this, or the 5th? --- that the basis of the GayChurch intellectual argument (such as it is) is solely Scriptural, and somebody is going to have to refute it via Sola Scriptura.
That's not a taunt. It's something I'm hoping and praying and yearning for. For pity's sake! Has anybody actually gone to the link and read their arguments??
A sola Scriptura Christian to explain to these deluded GayChurch people that they cannot legitimately interpret Scripture in a sense contrary to the way its been interpreted over the centuries.
I can't do it, because I'd bring in the Fathers of the Church, Natural Law, and the Catechism as well, and they'll have nothing to do with that. I've tried and failed.
Your turn.
And, the problem with that is? You see, we live our lives hopefully faithful to the Lord; aware of Paul's writing in 1 Co 5: 9-11 "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one."
I, as one Protestant, take that to mean we should be about the affairs of the church not, the affairs of mankind. So, kindly explain to me why I, or any Protestant, should 'take on these Gay Christians' who (I believe we agree on this) are no more Christian, or of Christ's church, than Osama bin Laden.
These people are living their sinful life. The fact that they try to make a mockery of God's church is really irrelevant to those chosen by Him. His church is the one rock that will never fail.
Would I be pleased if these people would suddenly receive the Holy Ghost and desire to commune with us, forsaking their sinful ways? Of course! Do I feel obligated to confront them? No.
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.