Treating disease and homosexuality

[Grumpy Lutheran]

I love this new setup, we can have decent threads. Anyway, I would
like to throw an idea out there.

We treat illness and disease in two ways, we prevent it and we cure
it. Obviously, prevention is better than treating a disease because
not every disease can be fully cured plus the people with diseases are
in some cases subjected to a lot of suffering. So prevention is
better. Do you agree?

So let's then move to the issue of homosexuality. While the scientific
community overwhelmingly does not support the notion that gender
preferences are a disease, our church does. The official teaching is
that it is a disorder that leads the people affected to commit sinful
acts. Some of the posts on the LCA list BC (Before Censureship)
clearly reflected this. One contributor wondered why the blind man had
been healed, but not the homosexual, while numerous posters went into
graphic details why homosexuality was a sin. (We shall not go there).
Some posts have referred to stories where people were "cured" from
this condition, so the church clearly advocates seeking treatment for
this "condition". But why go for second best (i.e. treatment) when we
can go for a better solution? -prevention! Prevention? I hear you say,
how can this be? It is quite simple really, and I cannot take full
credit for it, as what I am about to say is the result of discussions
with my gay/lesbian and transgender friends.

Science indicates that people are born with their gender preferences.
Science also indicates that homosexuality is not genetic, and in fact
statistics show that homosexuals produce homosexual progeny at the
same rate as heterosexual people do. All of my gay friends, and I have
a lot of them, have parents and siblings who are heterosexual. Now in
a country were approx. 97% of the population considers itself to be
heterosexual and less than 3 % are transgender, homosexual or other,
it becomes fairly obvious that the majority of homosexual offspring is
produced by heterosexual couples. It therefore follows that the root
of this "disorder" is heterosexual sex. So, if the church is really
serious about this "disorder", it should strongly raise its voice to
ban and prohibit any form of heterosexual sex! It is the root of all
evil!

Do you agree with this logic? And if yes, who will propose this to the
church hierarchy?


Karin GL of LCA

[janine symons]

absolutely makes sense to me.

obviously neil is the person to propose it.

j

[Karin Strehlow]

Why should Neil be always the bearer of inconvenient truths?

K, GL of LCA

Sent from my iPad

[The Wallyrus]

Some of you   might be interested in this article from JOHN MARK MINISTRIES  which was printed in the Melb AGE  over Easter - front page

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ministries-preying-on-gay-shame-20120407-1wif0.html
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/29714.htm
Thank goodness the church no longer burns  people who challenge the party line. And eventually truth wins out

Geoff the walrus

[Karin Strehlow]

Dear Wallyrus

I am not quite sure that the truth will always prevail. You are talking about people who operate under a different rule and the article clearly shows this. You have church people going against scientific evidence, treating people not with psychologists but with pastors and using methods that lead to depression and self harm, yet they deny it, deny that they have anything to do with those outcomes, they deny the stats. And why can they so freely deny what is obvious for the whole world to see? Because they live by different values and rules than ours. They live by the rule of God!

The rule of God! See Wallyrus, psychologists are of "this world", they form part of the humanist society that follows "logic", yet, as our president stated, we operate under "theologic". Humanist society is of this world, but those following God's word live as "children of God". And the children of God of the LCA would quite happily burn Neil and others at the stake. However they like to do so in the darkness and anonymity, in secret emails and back room conspiracies, that's when they are at their best. They get grumpy when their dealings are exposed to the light. When that happens, they shut down the LCA list, to protect, not the Neil's of this world, but to protect those that follow "theologic" thinking. 

As you can see I am not as optimistic as you are. The truth may come out for the world to see, but not for those who have the right to call themselves the "Children of God" who follow "theologic" world constructs.

[Please note, my references to the children of God and logic/theologic are in reference to comments made in 2012 by the president of the LCA:

"Thanks for your interest in the statement requested by the Government enquiry regarding same sex marriage. You make some intriguing assertions.

Is the issue  ‘logic’ or ‘theologic’? Human rights or the right to be called a child of God? " ]

Cheers, 

K, GL of LCA

[janine symons]

it was more a tongue in cheek comment about how some might view neil's
credibility on the subject.

j

On Apr 13, 3:38 pm, Karin Strehlow <grumpystreh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why should Neil be always the bearer of inconvenient truths?
>
> K, GL of LCA
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

[Thomas Riddle]

Well all, here is some more kindling for the fire. 

Dr Pollnitz’s Anti-Gay Submission. Part 1. An Unholy Association with Hate Mongers and Hypocrites.

Dr Pollnitz’s Anti-Gay Submission. Part 2. An Unholy Association with Hate Mongers and Hypocrites.

BTW, the whole thing about darkness and light, hiding in shadows versus public statements...when you are already in the light..you have nothing to hide. That is a real source of power. 

I enclose for your reading pleasure the correspondence that I am having with the office of the president regarding the accusations of Cyber Abuse. I hope you find it edifying. BTW the response from the president which begins. "Our aim is to glorify God." was sent to me 1 minute after the email which shut down the list. That email also included the line... how best to glorify God without stifling healthy debate...

I wonder if there is a link. As long as we are all about glorifying God I guess we will end up in the right place :)

From: neil...@live.com.au
To: larissa...@lca.org.au
CC: gregpf...@mac.com; lc...@lutheran.org.nz; mark.l...@nsw.lca.org.au; adminis...@sa.lca.org.au; dist...@qld.lca.org.au; greg.p...@vic.lca.org.au; ad...@wa.lca.org.au
Subject: COP Meeting and Cyber Abuse.
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 05:34:35 +1030

To the Office of President/ Council of Presidents. 

Dear Mike. 

I have been informed by my District President that the Council of Presidents at its most recent meeting discussed Cyber Abuse in the LCA. I was informed that complaints had been received by you about me in this regard. My name was mentioned at the Council of Presidents meeting in regard to Cyber Abuse. 

I am sure you will agree that this is a very important matter that requires serious attention. Would you please therefore respond to me formally, in writing, with regard to this matter. Please advise the context to the discussion, the reason why my name was mentioned and your intent for mentioning my name. If it is to caution me, then please do so. If it out of concern for then please raise those concerns.  It is unacceptable that my name should be mentioned in this manner and for there to be no follow up course of action. Would you please therefore formally respond to this request and answer the questions i have put. 

Regards 

Neil Hart. 

#################

Dear Neil,

 

A brief response to your email.

 

Our aim is to glorify God. There is concern over the LCAi list not just by participants, but observers, as to whether it continues to do that. Those who alerted the College of Presidents through me have not indicated an interest in following up individuals but are concerned for the LCA and its integrity in both the secular and church arena worldwide. There is also concern for individuals implicating themselves in ways which might invite litigation if an individual felt defamed or abused.

 

We will reassess the purpose of this facility from the viewpoint of edifying the Church.

 

In the meantime the College of Presidents has requested your District President to speak pastorally to you as one of your contributions (among others) was used as an example of the problem.

 

In the name of the Risen Lord Jesus,

 

Mike

 

Rev'd Dr Michael P Semmler

President

Lutheran Church of Australia

197 Archer Street

North Adelaide  SA  5006

Ph: 08 8267 7300

Fax: 08 8267 7310

Email: pres...@lca.org.au

 

---

To the Office of President and the Council of Presidents. 

Dear Mike. 

Thankyou for your response. It would appear that we have the same goal, to glorify God. 

I would remind you and the Council of Presidents that for the purposes of glorifying God, there are clear guidelines laid down in the Constitutions of the Church which are to be followed in these matters. The guidelines are there to protect all of the people involved, to ensure that fair and equitable processes are followed and, more importantly, to work toward the real issue which is the restoration of realtionships between disputing parties. I suspect that the desire to deal with these things through an informal chat by my District President was to try to avoid unnecessary conflict. However, the results of the lack of formal process has left me powerless in this situation. 

You advise me that there are people (more than one) who have contacted you with concerns about what I have written on the LCAi List. You advise that their concerns are that my contributions have effected the integrity of the Church, and that they have the potential to be used in litigation against me for defamation or abuse.  One of my contributions to the list has been presented as a part of these accusations. 

I am left completely uninformed of the people who have made these accusations against me, the substance of these accusations and the piece that has been used an a supposed example of my abusive (?)/ Defamatory (?) contributions.  I completely reject that any of my contributions on the List have been defamatory or abusive. I also reject that any of my comments or contributions have in any way effected the integrity of the church. 

I have listed some of the relevant sections from the LCA and Model District Constitutions that would seem to be applicable in cases such as these. I don't wish to take a "letter of the law" approach here but I list them to show that they highlight what the Church considers to be the most important aspects in matters of complaints, accusations and disputes (The relevant section of the constitution i have included at the end of this email)  

1. They are to be handled according to scriptural principles.

2. There must be some process of natural justice

3. The relationships of the people involved is of primary concern. 

4. The reputations of the people involved are to be protected. 

I'm sure that you dont need to be reminded that Matthew 18 is the key passage here which outlines a clear process. The person with a complaint should first go to the one they have a complaint about. If they are not heard then they should take witnesses, if still no resolution then it becomes a more public matter for the whole Church. The other passage is from the Sermon on the Mount. Here the reference is in regard to anger because of disputes. It says that if you are about to worship and you realise that someone has a complaint against you that you should "leave your gift at the altar" (delay your worship or sacrifice) and go and make things right with the one who has a complaint against you. I, presently, dont even have the opportunity to do this. 

Both of these passages point to a process that is fair for all parties and is mainly and very properly concerned for the restoration of relationships of those involved in the dispute. I would like you to understand the importance of this and share a recent example of why these processes need to be followed. 

The Sermon on the Mount principle is that broken relationships effect ones worship.  I worshipped recently in a congregation and i was aware of at least two prominent people in the congregation who have a strong anti-gay stand. I am aware that letters of complaint have been written against me to my District President. I have only found out about these letters by accident but, as with my situation with you, i am given no information as to who has complained  and the nature of the complaints.  I assume that the complaints about me are to do with my views on homosexuality and was left wondering if either of these people had made a complaint. My natural inclination is to address things up front , to speak directly to the people who have a problem with me and sought things out on the spot. But this chance at effective resolution and restoration is denied me and i am left wondering and alienated with nowhere to go, no ability to face my accusers and no way to put things right.  

Can you see how difficult and dangerous this can be? I imagine that people who are faced with this type of thing simply leave the church out of frustration. I, however, wish to have a continuing ministry within the LCA. If that is the case then I feel that i MUST have the opportunity to put things right with people who have complaints against me. I would find it very difficult to preach to any group of people where i am left wondering if any of the people in front of me have unresolved personal issues with me. 

I refer you again to the constitution and the reasons listed for correct process.

1. You have not handled this dispute situation according to scriptural principles.

2. You have afforded me no opportunity for natural justice. 

3. My relationship with members of the LCA (brother pastors? future parishioners?) has been compromised and I am afforded no opportunity to restore those relationships. 

4. There is no question that  my reputation has been severely damaged. My name has been mentioned in connection with Cyber Abuse, defamation and negatively effecting the integrity of the church. That mention has been at the highest level of the Church, in the presence of District Presidents who play an important role in the movement and placement of pastors. 

I would ask that you begin a process that is true to the constitution and the scriptures, that affords natural justice, restores my reputation and restores the broken relationships i have with the people who are my accusers. 

I look forward to your prompt response as this matter continues to be of great concern to me.  

Respectfully Yours. 

Neil Hart. 

SECTION X. DISCIPLINE, ADJUDICATION AND APPEALS SECTION X. A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Ecclesiastical discipline exercised in pursuance of Article X. 1. of the Constitution shall be carried out in an evangelical manner in accordance with Scriptural principles and upholding the rules of natural justice. At all stages of the procedure the purpose of all ecclesiastical discipline, to gain a member, is to be observed.

2. All proceedings in a matter of discipline or adjudication or appeal arising from Article X. of the Constitution shall be initiated and completed where possible in the first instance within the congregation or District within which it arose, to the intent that the matter shall be confined to as small an area as possible. Every endeavour shall be made not to have recourse to successive stages of the procedure laid down in Section X. of these By-laws.

3. All matters of discipline or adjudication referred to in Article X. of the Constitution shall be submitted to and determined by the judicial system of the Church in accordance with these By-laws.

SECTION X. B. ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE BY A CONGREGATION

1. Before a matter is dealt with by a congregation in pursuance of Article X. 1. (a) of the Constitution, the person or persons alleging a fault against a member (a) shall first, in personal admonition, endeavour to convince the member of such fault;

and (b) shall, if unsuccessful, make the same endeavour in the presence of witnesses.

VD 15 lca bylaws. 

The Pastorate and Mediation

15.

Any course of action under this section shall be followed as an act of compassion and expediency based on principles of Christian love. The intention of this course of action is to preserve, as far as possible, the integrity of the parish or other field of ministry and the reputation of the pastor.

The procedure is as follows: (a) A relevant President shall arrange a fraternal discussion of the situation between

the pastor, the governing committee, himself and any other person he considers

appropriate in an endeavour to achieve a peaceable resolution of it. (b) Each of the persons referred to in the preceding Section V. D. 15. (3) (a) is

obligated to take part in the discussion in a genuine endeavour to achieve a

peaceable resolution of the situation.

[Thomas Riddle]

you haven't thought this all the way through. i think that your limited capacity to analyse is linked to your problem with the church's pastorate. (I threw that in to make you feel at home :)  )

You will remember that the Reverend David, whose initial response actually started the list's descent into anarchy, stated that anal sex is bad as is mutual masturbation. He didn't have a chance to clarify, but..i assume that he was getting to the fact that there are actually godly and ungodly forms of heterosexual vaginal sex. I'm guessing that missionary=hetero babies, doggy= homosexual babies and reverse cowgirl=intertsex babies. 

Just an idea... 

can i get slightly serious for a minute? Its in line with the disease thing....kinda.  I'm still musing about the original sin/ image of God stuff. 

Im in a discussion with another pastor on FB. I asked him to go public but he wont...annoying because it is time consuming to argue a point with just one person... but he seems genuinely interested and said he is up for a challenge. Ive learnt that the only way to work through this stuff with people is to stop at each separate point...argue it all the way through...don't be tempted to go down the 100 paths that arise from that point...stick with it till you have agreement or, at least agreement on why you disagree. We have started on Original Sin. In response to my question....did god make homosexuals? Did he "knit them together in the womb" with foreknowledge of them and their sexual orientation? He said...

1. Are people "knit together in the womb" by God as homosexual?
People are knit together in the womb by God. – Are they homosexual from birth? – How about rephrasing this question, are they sinful from birth? Yes. 
since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost. (ac confessions)
I also agree with the confessions whole heartedly when they go on to say:
They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason. 
Does God demand abstinence of sin and repentance from sinners when they fall? 
Yes, absolutely.
Repentance is a heart change given only by God that we get to act on, since we can by ourselves in no way turn to God. 
That’s why we are saved by grace, and not of ourselves. 
I know that leads to many more questions. I.e. how do you treat homosexuality practically if it’s a sin? – I have no idea. I am clueless. 

So...there it is...the Augsburg confession says that all people are born sinful...so, whether God made them gay or not is irrelevant. They are born gay...they are born sinful gay...no big deal because all of us are born sinful with a need for repentance and a desire to live a new and godly life. 

But i think that the Augsburg Confession and Luther on original sin are actually very insightful and helpful to the cause of the LGBT community. i think that the above logic does not fit with Lutheran teaching at all. 

Bear with me..this might take some time. 

The RC's believed that the image of god was distorted at the fall, not completely lost. This makes sense because it is impossible to look at any human being and not see "image of God". they have intelligence, they breathe, their body works, they can procreate, they have intelligence they have feelings of passion and love and excitement and compassion and 1000 other things that are the active creative power of God in them...the "Image of God". Or, as Paul says in 1 Cor 12:6 (?) the energmata of god...the energising creative power of god at work who works "all (things) in all (people)". So, the Image of god cannot have been lost. At the fall, it is only distorted as sin enters in. 

The Luther says, NO! that cant be because, if our image of God is not lost, if it is only distorted, then we are not "lost" and "dead" in our sin as the Bible and St Augustine would suggest. If the Image of God is also understood as our ability to fear, love and trust god or come to a saving knowledge of God, and that ability is only distorted and not entirely lost, then we must retain some capacity to work together with God in achieving our salvation. And that, for Luther, was works righteousness and semi-pelagianism. 

So, Luther maintained that, when it comes to our salvation, we are indeed lost and dead in sin, That the effects of the fall are a complete loss of the image of God as it relates to our ability to fear, love and trust god, or come to know god in a saving way. there can be no participation with God. there must be decisive intervention through the word and the Spirit. 

But what of the self evident goodness of God ...Image of God..in the created order? In the human capacity to all manner of good and godly things? Well, as I understand it, Luther separated the understanding of the image of God/ original sin argument into two parts. 

1. the redemption/ salvation/ soteriology aspect where the image is completely lost and humanity us actually hostile to God's saving intent. As the Augdsburg Confession says...

since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost...condemned are the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason. 

This is evidenced by the fact that humanity, if it tries by its own free will, and from within its fallen nature, to try to worship God, will always set up an Idol. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 1: 18-23. In this case the intervention of God through the word and the Spirit is necessary to make the "dead" person aliver...to make the "lost" person found. In this instance, as the confessions state, human co-operation with god, human participation in salvation is not possible. 

2. the creation aspect. Where each individual by the sake of their humanity is born with, endowed with, the energmata of god, the "image of god", the ability to do wonderful things and act in beautiful ways toward themselves, each other and the world. This part of the image of god is effected by sin and therefore distorted but is certainly not lost. 

I think that this distinction is the key to understanding the LGBTI under the themes of creation/fall/ original sin. 

The above statement from the Augsburg Confession, can only be applied to our ability (inability) to fear, love and trust God. It cannot and was never meant to be applied to anything else in the realm of the created order. 

Every aspect of our being, apart from an ability to love and trust God, is created by God and remains essentially good. They are all distorted by sin but none are inherently evil. So each person's personalities, abilities, body types, intelligence, sexuality, even bodily functions, capacity to give and receive love, ability have and enjoy life ... are essentially good.  These things, of themselves, do not "condemn me and bring eternal death". Rather, these things are the very qualities, reflections (?) of God that Paul talked about in Romans 1:20 

¹⁸ The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
 ²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Verse 20 points to the essential goodness of the created order and verse 23 points to the human incapacity to fear and love God despite the essential goodness that remains in creation. 

The things in the created order, the things that remain essentially "good" are now distorted by sin but we have to be clear to acknowledge that the sin is not the thing that it distorts. 

So, lets say I have as a part of the created order great physical strength. That gift of creation was given for me to use and enjoy. Like all gifts of creation, it can be enjoyed just for what it is but i believe It finds its fulfilment, its healthiest expression when that strength is given as a gift to others...used for the good of neighbour and community. 

I think that, in order to distinguish between the sin that distorts, and the thing it distorts... In order not to fall into the trap of confusing the 2 and calling God's good creation evil, tradition has used the concept of the seven deadly sins. 

So, because of my sins of wrath, or pride, or vainglory...I am tempted to use my strength to exercise power and control over others. Or, because of my sin of sloth I am tempted to do nothing with my gift and do not use my power for the good of others. God's good gifts are distorted.  

Note the critical factor. The created thing MUST be acknowledged as good and claimed and reclaimed and used as a good gift from God. And the distorting and corrupting nature of sin must be recognised acknowledge, repented of. turned from in order that the goodness of the gift be redeemed.

So, with my sexuality, i must acknowledge that it is essentially a good gift from God. I claim it as such and employ it as such, enjoying it for the sake of what it is and letting it find its fulfilment as it is expressed with neighbour and community and, in a particularly intimate way with the one I have committed lifelong love and faithfulness to. I watch for where the sins of lust and envy and gluttony...might enter in and distort the gift, repent, turn from those tendencies. But my main emphasis is to continually praise "God's invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature" (Romans 1) that are whispered into this gift of sexuality. 

The same MUST be true for both gay and straight people. Otherwise we are confusing the confessional stance that is only meant to apply to the question of salvation, applying it to the realm of the created order, and then calling god's good creation evil. That is not good confessional theology and it is not good biblical theology. If we say that someone is born gay, then we must say that that person was created that way by God and creation / Image of God theology must apply. 

I see only two possible options. 

1. We say that homosexuality is nothing to do with how someone is born, how God made someone. In which case the "homosexual tendencies" and "homosexual acts" and "homosexual lifestyle" are all the effects of some weird and distinct perverse sin that has entered into a gay person's God given heterosexuality and completely distorted it. I which case they must certainly repent of this sinful perversion of the good gift and turn back to their natural God created heterosexuality. I certainly hear lots of this kind of talk coming from many pastors of our church and those organisations that would want to try to make people change their sexual orientation. 

If , however, as all the evidence and the experiences and testimonies of LGBT people themselves would seem to indicate, people ARE actually born with homosexuality, if this is indeed the way God made them, then the principles of the created order kick in in a different way, or rather, in the same way that it applies to all of us. They should be encouraged to  acknowledge and claim and reclaim the essential goodness of their sexuality as a gift from God. They should be encouraged to celebrate and enjoy it for what it is and express their sexuality for the good of neighbour and community. And...unless (as Paul says in 1 Cor) they have the charismatic gift of celibacy, they are free to exercise the gift of sexuality in its most intimate way with the person they have a lifelong loving and committed relationship with and they honour God as they do this.  

I would posit that the above is a fair expression of good Lutheran Understanding of the themes of Creation/ Original Sin/ Redemption as they apply to certain aspects of the question of human sexuality and homosexuality in particular. 

What say you? 

[Karin Strehlow]

A number of things come to mind

a) I don't want to go into the mechanics of people's sex life because it seems to set sex apart from other biological functions, e.g.eating, defecating, breathing, etc. It is all biology in the end. Thus if your counter theory is right and the different sexual positions result in different gender preferences then you would have the proof that God made them so. 

b) I am stunned at the mental gymnastics that theological discussions can produce. All those big words thrown in with confidence to show the un-initiated that what is being said is truly what God is all about. Yet you forget that we are humans and that we will never understand God, believing anything else is but a delusion (Job 36:26, job 37:5, Isaiah 40:28, Phillipians, 4:7; and no, 1 John 5:20 does not counter the others because from Colossians 2:2 it is clear that God is a mystery). Do you pastor Tom feel abused yet? AHH this does feel like home....

c) The more I mull over the sin issue, the more I tend to agree with James Allison, who argues that sin only makes sense when seen through Easter eyes. This Easter was an "aha" moment for me with regards to this.

Introductory Theology 101 teaches that the meaning of the word "sin", is missing the mark (not where you place your penis. Sorry could not resist this one). "Sin" is all that which causes separation from God. Scripture documents the story of our sinfulness, the story of separation , first from God (Gen 3: 1 - 13), separation of genders (male/female; Gen 3:16), separation from creation  (Gen 17-19), separation of brothers (Gen 4:25 ) and then nations (Gen 11). 

Let me sidestep for a moment. I have always wondered how he, who did not sin, took on the sins of the world. I read the Gospels and nowhere does Jesus steal, lie, be greedy and/or engage in sexual depravity, nor is there any reference as to what he does with his genitalia. So, where in Scripture did he engage in the sinful behaviour that we keep on referring to? The answer is Mark 15:34, for if we truly believe that sin is being separate/isolated from God and the other, then this is what Jesus did for us in Mark 15:34. He fully accepted and lived through the pain, devastation and agony that comes from being separate from the father. "Father, father, why have you forsaken me?" In that instance Jesus took on all of our sins, our pain, our suffering...And why did he do it? 2 Cor 5:21 holds the answer; so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. He did it so that we may be one with God, just as he was one with God, Christ in us, and God in Christ, that we may all completely become one (John 17:22-23). It is about becoming one with God, separate no more.

The Rule of St Benedict (RB 72:12) says "...... and may Christ bring us ALL TOGETHER to everlasting life."

I spent Easter (Holy) Saturday watching icons of Jesus descent into hell. They were amazing images, showing how Jesus stepped over the devil and released everyone from Hades. In one of the icons , the poor devil was squashed under a door (you could only see his hands stretched out) with Jesus standing on top of the door, liberating everyone from hell. And it really struck me hard.  There I was during Holy Saturday, reflecting on how Jesus was liberating ALL from Hades/hell, while the pastors of my own church were busily trying to populate hell.

The irony was not lost on me, for populating hell is nothing but a rejection of the central message of Christianity, it is a rejection of what happens during Holy Saturday. it is a rejection of Christ's last prayer for us, a prayer of reconciliation, a prayer that we all be ONE.

Yes, BUT, I can hear the conservatives say, and they will bring out their scripture quotes. The fact is that while there may be warnings in scripture about what may lead me to sin (ie become separate/isolated from God), there is no reference of who actually populates hell.

And the truth is that, if sin is isolation, the only person whom I can situate into hell is myself. Hell is what I might become personally, not something that we may objectify as we have been doing. I think Von Balthasar said something along those lines.

Personally, this whole discussion of the sinfulness of homosexuals is un Christian when examined through Easter eyes. I do not need the Augsburg Confessions, nor do I need Luther's teachings and rumblings to understand what Easter stands for. If I want to call myself a Christian, I cannot be part of a discussion which seeks to further separation from the other, nor can I take a position which denies the central tenets of what I proclaim to be my faith.

Phew, that was long. 

K, GL of LCA

[Thomas Riddle]

yup...long, but worthy. Thanx for this. 

Ahhhhh...now i understand the problem with anal sex. ...If sin is "missing the mark"...and sin is also about where one puts one penis...of copurse anal sex is the epitomy of sin. so obvious...why didnt  see that. 

But seriously...

the seperation/ belonging theme. abandoned/ brought home. isolated/ welcomed. alone/ in community...

The hiding/ blame/ accusation of the garden becomes a restoration with God and each other. This is absolutely the way that i would approach the question of sin. As you say...through the lens of easter. 

My ruminations on the Augsburg Confession are not about how i would choose to describe the themes of sin/ salvation. They are about trying to think through the issue withon a Lutheran framework. so that i can defend my stand from that perspective.   

 

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Tapio <t_sal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hey Tom, having difficulty driving this new group, posted a reply yesterday and it got lost in cyberspace - picked up by the bullies no doubt. Anyways good stuff.

[Karin Strehlow]

I can see that you want to be able to defend your arguments the "Lutheran" way, yet I wonder whether by insisting on being Lutheran we also miss the mark. Aren't we all Christians first and Lutherans second? 

I know one person who used to be Roman Catholic and then became Lutheran. The reason that this person gives for the switch is that the RC church is not "confessional" and "true to scripture" because it relies on the writings of other people, the catechism, etc. And then this person proceeds to recite from the Confessions and Luther's Catechism and talks about the Lutheran tradition. Then this person get angry when I point out that we are really not that much different to the RC church! BTW, they both agree in their position re LGBT's and that should tell you something.

K-GL of LCA

Sent from my iPad

[janine symons]

but why does it all need to be so complicated?

God made us all equal.

By turning the debate into one in which you need to know oodles of
theology and history you alienate those
who don't have that education, for those inclined that then becomes a
tool to bludgeon those without
the education (eg pastors v. sheep), and muddy what i see as being
quite simple.

j

> >> of God". Or, as Paul says in 1 Cor 12:6 (?) the *energmata *of god...the

> >> energising creative power of god at work who works "all (things) in all
> >> (people)". So, the Image of god cannot have been lost. At the fall, it is
> >> only distorted as sin enters in.
>
> >> The Luther says, NO! that cant be because, if our image of God is not
> >> lost, if it is only distorted, then we are not "lost" and "dead" in our sin
> >> as the Bible and St Augustine would suggest. If the Image of God is also
> >> understood as our ability to fear, love and trust god or come to a saving
> >> knowledge of God, and that ability is only distorted and not entirely lost,
> >> then we must retain some capacity to work together with God in achieving
> >> our salvation. And that, for Luther, was works righteousness and
> >> semi-pelagianism.
>

> >> So, Luther maintained that, *when it comes to our salvation,* we are

> >> indeed lost and dead in sin, That the effects of the fall are a complete
> >> loss of the image of God as it relates to our ability to fear, love and
> >> trust god, or come to know god in a saving way. there can be no
> >> participation with God. there must be decisive intervention through the
> >> word and the Spirit.
>
> >> But what of the self evident goodness of God ...Image of God..in the
> >> created order? In the human capacity to all manner of good and godly
> >> things? Well, as I understand it, Luther separated the understanding of the
> >> image of God/ original sin argument into two parts.
>

> >> 1.* the redemption/ salvation/ soteriology aspect* where the image is

> >> completely lost and humanity us actually hostile to God's saving intent. As
> >> the Augdsburg Confession says...
>
> >> since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with
> >>> sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2]
> >>> concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even
> >>> now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through
> >>> Baptism and the Holy Ghost...condemned are the Pelagians and others who
> >>> deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of
> >>> Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by
> >>> his own strength and reason.
>
> >> This is evidenced by the fact that humanity, if it tries by its own free
> >> will, and from within its fallen nature, to try to worship God, will always
> >> set up an Idol. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 1: 18-23. In this
> >> case the intervention of God through the word and the Spirit is necessary
> >> to make the "dead" person aliver...to make the "lost" person found. In this
> >> instance, as the confessions state, human co-operation with god, human
> >> participation in salvation is not possible.
>

> >> *2. the creation aspect*. Where each individual by the sake of their
> >> humanity is born with, endowed with, the *energmata *of god, the "image

> >> of god", the ability to do wonderful things and act in beautiful ways
> >> toward themselves, each other and the world. This part of the image of god
> >> is effected by sin and therefore distorted but is certainly not lost.
>
> >> I think that this distinction is the key to understanding the LGBTI under
> >> the themes of creation/fall/ original sin.
>
> >> The above statement from the Augsburg Confession, can only be applied to
> >> our ability (inability) to fear, love and trust God. It cannot and was
> >> never meant to be applied to anything else in the realm of the created
> >> order.
>
> >> Every aspect of our being, apart from an ability to love and trust God,

> >> is created by God and remains essentially good. They are *all* distorted
> >> by sin but none are *inherently* evil. So each person's personalities,

> >> abilities, body types, intelligence, sexuality, even bodily functions,
> >> capacity to give and receive love, ability have and enjoy life ... are
> >> essentially good.  These things, of themselves, do not "condemn me and
> >> bring eternal death". Rather, these things are the very qualities,
> >> reflections (?) of God that Paul talked about in Romans 1:20
>
> >> 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the
> >>> godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their
> >>> wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them,

> >>> because God has made it plain to them. 20 *For since the creation of

> >>> the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine
> >>> nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so
> >>> that people are without excuse.

> >>> * 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor

> >>> gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish

> >>> hearts were darkened. 22 *Although they claimed to be wise, they became

> >>> fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for
>

> ...
>
> read more »