Not practicing SS in Lutheran churches

[Annie39]

I don’t think Scripture is clear on the question of whether monogamous same-sex unions that show the same moral qualities as a good marriage should be regarded as sinful. And even if I did think it was clear apart from Tradition and the authority of the Church, I would respect the fact that other people don’t find it clear.

That is certainly an argument that could be made. But since they clearly distinguish between the Confessions and Scripture, I’m going to respect that, just as I respect the insistence of liberals that they do respect the authority of Scripture even as they challenge traditional interpretations and emphasize Scripture’s human, contextual elements.

Edwin

Hi Edwin

You write: I don’t think Scripture is clear on the question of whether monogamous same-sex unions that show the same moral qualities as a good marriage should be regarded as sinful. And even if I did think it was clear apart from Tradition and the authority of the Church, I would respect the fact that other people don’t find it clear.
Me: How exactly does a same-sex union show the same moral qualities of as a good marriage? Are the Bible quotes below not clear?

Annie

Jude 7
Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rom 1:25-32
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted

 

[Novocastrian]

That was against his own people who were Judaizers.

Really?

Adversus Iudaeos I.

Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: “Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer”. And still another called the Jews “an untamed calf”.

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: “But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them”. You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness-not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: “I did not choose this fast, say the Lord”. Why? “You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists”. But if you fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

…]

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. “You had a harlot’s brow; you became shameless before all”. Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: “Your house has become for me the den of a hyena”. He does not simply say “of wild beast”, but “of a filthy wild beast”, and again: “I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance”. But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who say so? The Son of God say so. For he said: “If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father”. Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.

John Chrysostom was a great and holy saint, a Father of the Church, a defender of orthodoxy, and, on the whole, a good man. But some of his writings are vile.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That was against his own people who were Judaizers.

I don’t know if you’ve read all the sermons, but Chrysostom cuts a wide swath in them—he goes after Judaism, Jewish character, Jewish converts to Christianity who want keep any of the patrimony of their ancient faith, and non-Jewish Christians who are attending synagogue events at times. He doesn’t leave too many stones unthrown.

 

[Annie39]

I don’t know if you’ve read all the sermons, but Chrysostom cuts a wide swath in them—he goes after Judaism, Jewish character, Jewish converts to Christianity who want keep any of the patrimony of their ancient faith, and non-Jewish Christians who are attending synagogue events at times. He doesn’t leave too many stones unthrown.

Back in the stone age I did. However there is no truth to the rumor that I heard them first hand. I was told that those sermons were occassioned by the members of his flock who were Judaizing.

Annie

 

[Novocastrian]

Back in the stone age I did. However there is no truth to the rumor that I heard them first hand. I was told that those sermons were occassioned by the members of his flock who were Judaizing.

Annie

They do, but they also attack the Jews directly in ways that no good Christian would do now.

 

[joe371]

What about St. John Chrysostom?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversus_Judaeos

What about him? If he said or behaved in a manner similar to Martin Luther, or certain bad popes such as Pope Alexander VI a Borgia or Pope Clement VII, a Medici, then I seriously hope that he repented and asked for God’s forgiveness. As I said, mixed bag, regardless of denomination; wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin

You write: I don’t think Scripture is clear on the question of whether monogamous same-sex unions that show the same moral qualities as a good marriage should be regarded as sinful. And even if I did think it was clear apart from Tradition and the authority of the Church, I would respect the fact that other people don’t find it clear.
Me: How exactly does a same-sex union show the same moral qualities of as a good marriage? Are the Bible quotes below not clear?

No, because the men of Sodom were gang rapists. There is no evidence that they had monogamous, faithful unions involving mutual affection and respect.

A same-sex union shows many of the same moral qualities as a good marriage if the partners care for each other, are faithful to each other, bear with each other’s weaknesses, work together for the glory of God and the common good, and so on.

I do not believe that this makes these unions marriage. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church that same-sex attraction is, in itself, gravely disordered. But since the Scriptural passages do not address the specific kinds of same-sex relationships that many Christians justify today, Scripture alone is not enough to address the question. It’s a much more complex and difficult question than you are recognizing.

Edwin

 

[spina1953]

Hi Edwin

You write: I don’t think Scripture is clear on the question of whether monogamous same-sex unions that show the same moral qualities as a good marriage should be regarded as sinful. And even if I did think it was clear apart from Tradition and the authority of the Church, I would respect the fact that other people don’t find it clear.
Me: How exactly does a same-sex union show the same moral qualities of as a good marriage? Are the Bible quotes below not clear?

Annie

Jude 7
Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rom 1:25-32
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law,
9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted

Hi Annie39: I would like to add Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to what you have provided in your post. I think it spells out what Scripture says and is quite clear on the matter, so those churches that say that Scripture is the highest authority, yet say Scripture is not clear on the matter concerning same sex unions should go back and reread Lev.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think Scripture is clear on the question of whether monogamous same-sex unions that show the same moral qualities as a good marriage should be regarded as sinful. And even if I did think it was clear apart from Tradition and the authority of the Church, I would respect the fact that other people don’t find it clear.

Well, Scripture denounces homosexuality and/or unnatural relations (using biblical terms), thus there is no way that the Bible would endorse same-sex unions/marriage.

That is certainly an argument that could be made. But since they clearly distinguish between the Confessions and Scripture, I’m going to respect that, just as I respect the insistence of liberals that they do respect the authority of Scripture even as they challenge traditional interpretations and emphasize Scripture’s human, contextual elements.

I know that they theoretically distinguish between Confessions and Scripture, but in practice it seems like they are putting it (confessions) on par with Scripture, just like we consider Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Back in the stone age I did. However there is no truth to the rumor that I heard them first hand.

Annie

Ha, it took me a couple reads to get that.

They do, but they also attack the Jews directly in ways that no good Christian would do now.

Right.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

I’m not sure what you think the distinction even is, given what you say below. I’m still not sure what you think the Confessions are talking about if they aren’t talking about an office.

I explained my position in post number 182. Basically, when the confessions speak of the pope as ‘him’, and ‘he’ and ‘themselves’ they make the accusation of antichrist personal. In addition, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope also speaks of the “pope and his adherents” as bearing the marks (all the vices) of Antichrist.

Countless times I have asked who the ‘adherents’ are, and the number of answers I have gotten are also ‘countless’, meaning in this case – NONE. What could an ‘adherent’ be other than a faithful Catholic – like me?

So is a lot of stuff in the Catholic tradition. When Protestants get upset about Unam Sanctam or the anathemas of Trent, Catholics explain these things and expect Protestants of good will to take the explanations seriously. When Protestants insist that they know what these documents “really” mean and the Catholics are just engaging in spin, Catholics rightly cry foul.
So why doesn’t it work the other way round?

There is the issue of historical precedent. For more than a thousands years prior to the Reformation, the Church had had to battle heretics and heresy. For the most part Protestants agree that the Church was right to battle all of those historic heretics and the organized heresies who often bore the names of their founders. However, with the arrival of Protestantism, and according to Protestantism, the Church no longer had the authority to counter heretics.

As Luther said: “They are not the Church, now I am the church”.

Of course, most of the historic heresies agreed that the Church actually did have the authority to battle heresies, but not theirs, because by definition, nobody’s personal beliefs are really a heresy. That’s for ‘other people’.

Then what on earth do you think they are talking about? If the Smalcaldic Articles are talking about Paul III personally, then that’s not really such a big deal, right? It obviously wouldn’t apply to Pope Francis.
I’m baffled both by why you think they aren’t talking about the office of the Papacy and why you think, if they aren’t, that it’s still relevant to Lutheran attitudes to Catholicism today. In fact, I really don’t know what you think they are saying.
“Pope” is the name of an office, isn’t it? Why would they have to say “the office of the Papacy”?

They don’t adhere to your interpretation, and they have no obligation to do so, any more than you have any obligation to adhere to some anti-Catholic’s interpretation of Unam Sanctam or the documents of Trent.

All I am doing is taking their Confessions literally. In my experience, some apologists will interpret things literally when it suits their purposes and not when they don’t. Of course you could accuse me of the same but then as I have mentioned a number of times, the claim that it is ONLY the papacy that is the antichrist is more than offensive enough to be a huge problem. In fact, it really isn’t at all ‘necessary’ that it refer to the pope as a person, but since that was the intent at the time they were written, then that definition still stands.

Furthermore, you seem to automatically accept the ‘interpretations’ of whoever happens to be posting as long as it is the teachings of their communion which is being discussed. This goes directly to the comments made by Lutheran Dr. Kittelson. As a matter of fact, even LCMS Lutherans don’t seem to know what their own doctrinal position is on the issue of the pope as the antichrist. In 1932, the LCMS (then only about half as ‘mature’ as they are today), issued the following statement:

 

[Topper17]

A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, Adopted 1932 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.)

“43. As to the Antichrist we teach that the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist, 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 John 2:18, have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion. All the features of the Antichrist as drawn in these prophecies, including the most abominable and horrible ones, for example, that the Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God,” 2 Thess. 2:4; that he anathematizes the very heart of the Gospel of Christ, that is, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, through faith alone, without any merit or worthiness in man (Rom. 3:20-28; Gal. 2:16); that he recognizes only those as members of the Christian Church who bow to his authority; and that, like a deluge, he had inundated the whole Church with his antichristian doctrines till God revealed him through the Reformation — these very features are the outstanding characteristics of the Papacy. (Cf. Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 515, Paragraphs 39-41; p. 401, Paragraph 45; M. pp. 336, 258.) Hence we subscribe to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is “the very Antichrist.” (Smalcald Articles, Triglot, p. 475, Paragraph 10; M., p. 308.)” (emphasis mine)

That seems to be pretty ‘personal’ to me, especially given that I have never seen Scripture describe the antichrist as anything other than an individual being.

Now of course, I will be accused of mistaken interpretation, but then I am not exactly alone. Members of the LCMS who of course cannot be accused of bias AGAINST Lutheranism are ‘confused’ about who the LCMS thinks is the antichrist.

In an article in the LCMS online magazine “Reporter Online” titled, “Pacific Southwest re-elects Stoterau president” we find evidence of that ‘confusion’:

“Another resolution adopted by Pacific Southwest delegates calls for the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations to review and clarify Article 43 (on the Antichrist) of “A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod,” which was adopted in 1932.

That resolution states that some readers of the article on the Synod’s Web site about the “Brief Statement” have been confused over what it says about the pope being the Antichrist. The action states that a CTCR study is needed to better explain the “historical and theological context” of Article 43.”

It seems to me that there are three possibilities here. The accusation of ‘antichrist’ means absolutely nothing today, and not even the most ‘ecumenical’ of Lutherans make that claim. The other two possibilities is that section 43 refers to either the ‘office’ or to the pope personally. It seems that some Lutherans believe in the one definition and some believe in the other. That being the case, I cannot be accused of taking a position that at least some Lutherans take.

The fact is that the Lutherans who are most vocal about achieving unity would very much like us to just forget about all of those ‘pesky old fashioned poorly worded outdated language charges’.

“Just move alone – nothing to see here!”

As you saw in the Kittelson quote, he comments on the “all too tempting impetus to ascribe to Luther everything in contemporary Christianity of which the author (or poster) approves……This tendency is most obvious in the pictures of Luther that derive from German Protestants and Lutherans in particular……At present, there is also a subset of the first tendency mentioned above – that is, an urge to find praise or at least support in Luther for whatever the reader currently regards as most praiseworthy or desirable in his or her own time. …….among them….(those) who seek reunification……and carry the label “Lutheran” are particularly prone to seek in him elements that might be used in service to their agenda of contemporary institutional ecumenicism.” Kittelson, “Luther and Modern Church history”,

Apparently, Kittelson, a Lutheran is questioning the forthrightness of these Lutherans who wish to portray Luther (and possibly their Confessions) in such a manner which is less than ‘complete’.

“In each case, the historical record blocks their path of seeking support from Luther for their fondest undertaking, unless hey falsify, distort, or minimize it.” Kittelson.

Kittelson is speaking of the history of Martin Luther being ‘falsified, distorted, or minimized’, by Lutherans. Over the years I have seen this on a regular basis. Kittelson could just as easily be speaking of the ‘interpretations’ of their Confessions by those Lutherans who are the most interested in some sort of reunification with Rome. In other words, it all must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Topper17]

I think it’s possible. The PCA did it with the WCF. I think the LCMS hasn’t done it for a couple of reasons:

1. They are more committed to confessionalism than the PCA is (this may be a general Lutheran vs. Reformed thing, or it may not).
2. They have a clearer understanding of why the language is there: because of what, in their view, “Rome” teaches about the Gospel. While the Reformed tradition has the same basic understanding, they also have a much stronger legacy of political opposition to Catholicism and a broader range of complaints, and the PCA in particular is relatively closer to American evangelicalism as a whole with its cultural/eschatological anti-Catholicism. So I can see why the PCA would get rid of the language while the LCMS would keep it. Mainline Lutherans and Reformed don’t bother to get rid of it because they take the confessions more weakly in the first place, I think.

It seems to me that the more liberal Lutherans wouldn’t really have a problem changing their Confessions but the more (supposedly) conservative would never. To do so would be a step down the slippery slope which could quickly lead to a (legitimate) questioning of whether the Confessions are AT ALL ‘authoritative’.

This issue is a good example of why I find your methods so misguided. You persistently focus on relatively peripheral issues with “shock value.” You seem to think that Protestants are only Protestants because they haven’t figured out some of the less pleasant aspects of their heritage, and if you just hold their noses to it long enough they will see the light. I think that belief makes no sense at all. It is, as you once applauded me for saying about Luther, “seriously delusional”.

Edwin, of course you think my methods are misguided. Lutherans think the exact same thing. They begin with the presumption that Luther was right to challenge the Church on ALL of those doctrines. They also presume that they are a valid continuation of the Church that Christ established at Pentecost. They seem to expect to be treated as such and seem to be surprised when people object to the pope (or the papacy) being described as the antichrist. This might be an example of what you call the ‘smugness’ of the LCMS.

Given that you have described yourself as a ‘friend’ of Martin Luther, I would not expect that you would be a ‘fan’ of my ‘methods’. Rather than viewing Luther as a friend, I see him as a relatively poor Theologian who had an intense hatred for whole groups of people. I also see him as having had a huge impact on the doctrinal disunity and confusion from which Protestantism suffers. As such, it appears to me that you are misguided in your choice of ‘friends’.

In this case, the “Antichrist” language is dependent on the basic Lutheran conviction that they understand the Gospel rightly and Rome gets it wrong. That’s the issue that has to be dealt with. What would it accomplish if they took the language out of the Confessions while retaining the belief that Rome is in serious error on the nature of the Gospel? (Of course, mainline Lutherans who adhere to the Joint Declaration no longer believe this.)

It is my understanding that the LCMS has not signed off on the joint declaration, which is bandied about here as if it came down from the mountain with Moses.

In my experience, Lutherans are not especially prone to considering that their doctrinal beliefs might be wrong. That proposition simply does ‘not compute’. If you want to make an argument to that effect, you should NOT start with criticizing their beliefs on Salvation. Because of the ‘importance’ of the matter to Luther, which he ‘built in’ to Lutheranism, he also built in a rather arrogant attitude towards questioning that version of Salvation.

I’m sure that you could make the case that Luther was wrong on Salvation, and in fact I think you are eminently qualified to do so, if you wanted to do so. If you believe that the issue is important, maybe you should.

Please don’t feel that you need to respond to everything here. Just pick out the things you think are really important.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Annie39]

Hi Annie39: I would like to add Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to what you have provided in your post. I think it spells out what Scripture says and is quite clear on the matter, so those churches that say that Scripture is the highest authority, yet say Scripture is not clear on the matter concerning same sex unions should go back and reread Lev.

Oh gracious Spina. How sad I am right now. Do you see any gang rape in “Rom 1:25-32
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

Some people will not see if they do not want to see. Will not understand what they don’t want to understand. I’m glad that this is way off topic except to show how far afield a person can go when using the bible and one’s own preconceived notions. So we can stop discussing this on this thread at least. Some people give away TMI regarding themselves.

Annie

 

[steido01]

Some people will not see if they do not want to see. Will not understand what they don’t want to understand.

Two truer sentences have rarely been written about a thread.

 

[spina1953]

Oh gracious Spina. How sad I am right now. Do you see any gang rape in “Rom 1:25-32
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.

Some people will not see if they do not want to see. Will not understand what they don’t want to understand. I’m glad that this is way off topic except to show how far afield a person can go when using the bible and one’s own preconceived notions. So we can stop discussing this on this thread at least. Some people give away TMI regarding themselves.

Annie

Hi Annie39: I think Paul in Roman’s was referring to Lev. in his letter. I agree what people will what they want to see and believe what they will whether it is true or not. Also, I do not have any more on this subject other to say that I was only replying to what had already been posted and now I more on to thread subject at hand. thanks.

 

[benjohnson]

No, because the men of Sodom were gang rapists.

Agreed. In Lutheran theology, the sin of the two towns has more to do with un-appolgetic sin, with (non-homexual and homosexual) rape being just the final straw.

However, you also have other sections of the bible (OT and NT) what would condemn even the prototypical ‘loving gay men’ outside of marriage between man and women, so you’re not quite off the hook just by removing the town of Sodom from the equation.

 

[Annie39]

Hi Annie39: I think Paul in Roman’s was referring to Lev. in his letter. I agree what people will what they want to see and believe what they will whether it is true or not. Also, I do not have any more on this subject other to say that I was only replying to what had already been posted and now I more on to thread subject at hand. thanks.

When I said that I was glad that the post was off topic it wasn’t a stab at you. I was just sad about what I read and am glad to move on. And you are right. I didn’t look up Lev. Until this morning and I didn’t see any reference to gang rape there either.

Annie

 

[benjohnson]

It is my understanding that the LCMS has not signed off on the joint declaration, which is bandied about here as if it came down from the mountain with Moses.

There’s much to like about the Joint Declaration - but, as written, it comes at a price of watering down both Catholic and Lutheran doctrine.

 

[Annie39]

There’s much to like about the Joint Declaration - but, as written, it comes at a price of watering down both Catholic and Lutheran doctrine.

And it is not the official word of the Church either.