Posted on 06/07/2009 2:56:42 PM PDT by lewisglad
News of Dr. George Tiller's death was only hours old last week when bloggers began asking the question: What kind of church accepts a doctor who performs abortions into its membership?
"I wonder what kind, if any, preaching against sin this church did since Tiller felt welcomed there," opined Blue Collar Todd, who declares on his blog that "liberalism, or sometimes called progressivism, is a false religion that stands in total antithesis to biblical Christianity."
Todd has already made up his mind, and so have others who called or e-mailed me this week to criticize a column I wrote describing the desperate circumstances that brought people to Wichita to obtain late-term abortions.
But I'll take a swing at the pitch anyway.
What kind of church would embrace George Tiller? A church that believes the creator endowed human beings with both conscience and intelligence, to enable us to wrestle with the complicated questions. A church that recognizes that one's relationship with that creator can't be dictated by a central authority, or proscribed by a narrow list of rules.
Tiller's church, Reformation Lutheran in Wichita, Kan., is one that trusts its members with the freedom to decide on matters of conscience. It holds that a choice made for good reasons and in good faith does not separate a human being from God.
Some call this "relativism," and blame it for a decline in morals and corruption of society.
I call it freedom. And, as with the right of a woman to decide on what terms to bring a child into the world, we should be vigilant against anyone or anything that would take it away.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.kansascity.com ...
How's that sport?
Tiller kills 65000 babies many of which were later term and viable and a Reformed Lutheran Church makes him a deacon.
Some guy kills a very guilty of baby killing Tiller and you're handwringing about that shooter's church if he even had one.
Your logic is whacked.
what the heck are you doing on this forum anyhow?
Would you have said the same thing about John Brown or Nat Turner's church?
LOL...I sure doubt it.
I don’t know what your church demands, but in my Lutheran denomination, the pastor is to privately warn the sinners not to take Communion.
They may or they may not. For that matter, you may or may not know you screwed up. Think about it.
Do you know that there are some people today that teach their children that there is absolutely nothing wrong with pre-marital sex? Do you know that there are some people today that teach their children that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality? Do you know that there are some so-called churches that teach the same exact thing? Do you know that the majority of public schools teach that same thing and penalize students who advocate a different position? As a consequence, you might have such a person who has never been taught that it is wrong. In these days, that is likely not all that uncommon any more (think about all of those people who are "spiritual," but not "religious")
You have got to teach those people, not condemn them. Faith comes by hearing. Hearing is really difficult if you're locked out.
One of you all cited 1 Cor 5:11 earlier, but you neglected to make reference to the context of that verse. 1 Cor 5:1-2a says, It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Note that it talks about immorality among you (i.e., there are people who are in the Church who are living in this kind of condition...and the church is bragging about it and lifting them up as examples)
Context makes all the difference, as the context of the verse talks about immoral conduct going on within the Church and among believers, not whether or not somebody as an individual is a sinner. Likewise, you'll find that the remaining verses that talk about excluding people talk about excluding disruptive people who try to lead people astray. None of them, particularly when you look at their context, talk about excluding people for their sinfulness in of itself.
The equivalent today is not simply allowing a prostitute, a democratic politician, or an abortionist to go to Mass. The problem is if the Church allows the prostitute to ply her wares at the Church picnic or allows the abortionist to advertise in the church bulletin (or hand out business cards after Mass), or allows the democrat to campaign.
The problem with the Church in Corinth was not that they admitted sinners, but that the Church endorsed the behavior and was bragging about it. ("See how open minded we are?") St. Paul is rebuking them on this because he doesn't want these folks to lead others astray (i.e., scandal).
One of the biggest issues in my church is high profile pro-abortion politicians receiving communion. Note: this is not to say that there is any outrage at these people being allowed to attend a Mass, but that they receive communion: there is a difference. I will explain in a minute.
My church, as you well know, does not have open communion (unlike many of them out there). In order to receive communion in my church, you have to be a member of my church or one that is in communion with my church and you have to be in a state of grace (i.e., you have to have confessed and been absolved from any serious sins). The reason for this is not in order to exclude anybody, but for the good of the person receiving communion (1 Cor 11:27 -29: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.)
So it's pretty much between the individual communicant and God: the communicant needs to examine his own conscience to determine if he is in a state of grace.
The issue with pro-abortion politicians receiving communion is one of scandal: there is a concern that their receipt of communion might be seen as an endorsement of their actions by the Church, thus allowing some to be led astray. If it wasn't for that, it would be up to the individual politician to examine his or her own conscience before approaching communion. (This will be hopefully coming to a head in a couple of weeks at the next bishops' conference meeting btw)
I could picture the same thing with a Tiller-like person. If such a person was to start bragging that he was a good Catholic who attended Mass every week at Saint Gianna Beretta Molla Catholic Church (a good Catholic will appreciate the irony there) and made sure to have lots of photo-ops of him receiving communion on his web site, I would hope that he would be instructed not to receive communion any more until he gave up the abortion business. Likewise, if anybody was to attempt to use the Church to advocate immorality, I know that this person would be reproved and instructed to stop it (and if they refused to do so, other steps would be taken to ensure that there was no ambiguity). But I can't picture any circumstance where a person would be excluded from attending Mass in of itself, provided that they behave themselves during the Mass.
That is different than the scandal that this Lutheran Church brought on themselves by allowing him to usher (as opposed to just attending their worship service) and, apparently, they have not only tacitly endorsed his behavior, they have actually endorsed it (via their prayer vigils after his death). Totally different situation.
But excluding a person from attendance at a worship service, in of itself, seems somewhat pharisitical on the surface. But that's not my business: your church can operate however it wants. As I said in my original post, my response is that I'm glad that I am not a member, as I doubt that I'd be welcome.
Thanks for posting something from the Holy Bible, but why in such ancient English spelling? If you were trying to get back to something authentically original, why not the Greek in which it was written?
What you did just makes it hard to read the (very conventional as it turns out) English.
“but why in such ancient English spelling?”
I apologize. I posted that by mistake. I copy-and-pasted the post I was addressing and my copy-and-paste picked up a previous job I was working on, William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible.
How’s this ,sport(s) ?
Jesus Christ (who would probably be regarded today as a CINO-Christian In Name Only) welcomed all sorts of unsavory people to his flock : a publican, a tax collector (They were a pretty vicious breed in that day),a notorious hooker, a Roman soldier - and probably some folks who were even worse.
He also had a strong dislike of hypocrites, who could recite scripture by rote,and who thought shouting “Holy-holy !” was enough.
And what more do you want them to do? I have been involved in this fight first hand. Unless the legislative body where I worked is different from most others, I can tell you there are people there who want nothing more than to put a stop to this moral evil.
Democrats fight against even something as logical as legislation to inform the woman of her options. They fight against parental notification--yet alone parental consent.
These Democrats are not pro-choice--they are pro-abortion and they intend to see that every abortion possible takes place.
That's just plain ridiculous, sport.
Dr. George Tiller was not only an outstanding physician and a notable Christian, but he was a persuasive teacher as well. He apparently inspired Scott Roeder with the key element of his working philosophy: if you want to get somebody out of the way permanently, a severe head trauma will generally do the job.
Very good. Tyndale’s thinking is fine for me, but he was working pre-KJV and so...well, everybody spelt the way they heard it back then.
Are you writing satirically or in all seriousness?
You said that Dr. Tiller was “an outstanding physician.” An outstanding physician saves lives, but Tiller ended lives.
Ouch, that will snap meangenes suspenders..
****Likewise, you’ll find that the remaining verses that talk about excluding people talk about excluding disruptive people who try to lead people astray****
Yes, which is part of what I was saying.
****But excluding a person from attendance at a worship service, in of itself, seems somewhat pharisitical on the surface. But that’s not my business: your church can operate however it wants. As I said in my original post, my response is that I’m glad that I am not a member, as I doubt that I’d be welcome.****
If the person, as you said, is bragging about his sin and trying to lead others astray that would obviously not be pharisitical to exclude them. However there are other circumstances where a person can and should be excluded from the church. At a church I once attended, a girl from the church seduced the Pastor and committed adultery with him. She was excluded until the Pastor was replaced and the Pastor and his family no longer attended service there.
Since some of the family of the Pastor chose to attend for awhile because of close friendships, the exclusion lasted for quite awhile, if fact until the family finally moved away. The family members were never asked to lift the exclusion, but they understood that they could do so at any time.
The LCMS had excommunicated him. It was the proper thing to do.
Excellent post. It’s about time someone talked about the reason for a close communion. To not have a close communion means the “communion” sacrament means nothing.
For certain Christ welcomed all but at the same time he admonished them to “go and sin no more”. That is the difference.
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.