New CORE Letter, Outline for Fishers

[Richard Johnson]

No, Paul never used "bound conscience" to avoid deciding whether a teaching was contrary to God's will or not.

There were those who were convinced that eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols was contrary to God's will. Even though Paul didn't agree, he says that others need to respect their conviction. Paul argues in Galatians that requiring circumcision is contrary to God's will, and yet he has Timothy circumcised. He respected the convictions of those who believed that there were limits to where the uncircumcised could go and what they could do together with Jews.

Let's see . . . assuming that Paul's "policy" here is relevent to the sexuality discussion (which I do not concede), wouldn't this actually mean that those who think they are FREE in Christ to have what appears to others to be inappropriate sexual relationships really should respect the bound conscience of those who believe that way, and thus refrain from those relationships?

I mean, do you see Paul arguing this both ways, suggesting that those who find eating meat sacrificed to idols to be idolatry ought to go ahead and do it for the sake the conscience of those who don't?

[vicarbob]

Can the more learned scholars advise as to where, in the Gospels, there is an example of Jesus and bound conscience? I'm struggling here and with every passing posting, clarity isn't happening for me.
Thanks again,
Bob

[DCharlton]

Peter writes:
How can it possibly be theologically coherent to limit the "bound conscience" idea to one issue?

I respond:
It may not be possible, but for the time being, that is precisely what the Assembly action does. This was noted far upstream, in case anyone noticed. In the assembly resolution, the "bound conscience" wording applied only to the issue of rostering.

Wasn't the reason for adopting the bound conscience idea to begin with that we were assured by Dr. Wengert that it was indeed a Lutheran principle?  The reason it was adopted was because, "That's how Lutherans deal with disagreement."  If that is a Lutheran principle, if it's how we do things, how can this be the only time is has been used?

[DCharlton]

September 4, 2009


+ A free-standing synod, carrying out synodical ministries, apart from
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

I hate to agree with Charles  , but this confuses me as well.  Free standing synod souns like a separate denomination to me.  Since CORE has said they are not leaving the ELCA, I'm sure the have something else in mind, but it is a little confusing. 

David Charlton

[Gregory Davidson]

No, Paul never used "bound conscience" to avoid deciding whether a teaching was contrary to God's will or not.

There were those who were convinced that eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols was contrary to God's will. Even though Paul didn't agree, he says that others need to respect their conviction. Paul argues in Galatians that requiring circumcision is contrary to God's will, and yet he has Timothy circumcised. He respected the convictions of those who believed that there were limits to where the uncircumcised could go and what they could do together with Jews.

Let's see . . . assuming that Paul's "policy" here is relevent to the sexuality discussion (which I do not concede), wouldn't this actually mean that those who think they are FREE in Christ to have what appears to others to be inappropriate sexual relationships really should respect the bound conscience of those who believe that way, and thus refrain from those relationships?

I mean, do you see Paul arguing this both ways, suggesting that those who find eating meat sacrificed to idols to be idolatry ought to go ahead and do it for the sake the conscience of those who don't?

Good point!  Paul argues for those who are more "free" to limit themselves for the sake of those who's faith would be harmed by their actions.

[Gregory Davidson]

Can the more learned scholars advise as to where, in the Gospels, there is an example of Jesus and bound conscience? I'm struggling here and with every passing posting, clarity isn't happening for me.
Thanks again,
Bob

You're one of them troublemakers - talking about Jesus and all.  I'll bet you even read your bible. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

So who are the weak of conscience in the current debate. THe revisers or the traditionalists? Paul never let the matter stand. Even Wengert points out that it is an interim overlooking of what is right so that the weak can be taught. So who now gets to claim that they are strong and who gets to preach the passionate sermons to convert whom?

Something I read indicate that the task force purposely did not use the terms "weak" or "strong".

[Brian Stoffregen]

Let's see . . . assuming that Paul's "policy" here is relevent to the sexuality discussion (which I do not concede), wouldn't this actually mean that those who think they are FREE in Christ to have what appears to others to be inappropriate sexual relationships really should respect the bound conscience of those who believe that way, and thus refrain from those relationships?

I mean, do you see Paul arguing this both ways, suggesting that those who find eating meat sacrificed to idols to be idolatry ought to go ahead and do it for the sake the conscience of those who don't?

The task force intends it to go both ways. For those on both sides, it can mean refrain from judging or even bringing it up in conversations -- none of the "I told you so!" attitude. For those in these relationships, they might refrain from being with their partner in situations where it would be offensive to other believers.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Can the more learned scholars advise as to where, in the Gospels, there is an example of Jesus and bound conscience? I'm struggling here and with every passing posting, clarity isn't happening for me.

Perhaps he talked about it when he said something about same-gender relationships. If he talk about either, they didn't make it into the canonical gospels.

[Gregory Davidson]

How can it possibly be theologically coherent to limit the "bound conscience" idea to one issue?

The same way Paul limited it to very few issues.

No, Paul never used "bound conscience" to avoid deciding whether a teaching was contrary to God's will or not.  Paul never used any kind of "bound conscience" to circumvent a debate as to whether an action was sinful or not.  Paul used the notion of "respect for the weak consciences" of our neighbor as a reason to act pastorally towards those who did not yet have the full knowledge of our freedom in the Gospel - while continuing to proclaim that full freedom and bring those whose consciences are weak to a full understanding.  Paul's use of an argument based on conscience is far removed from the convoluted "bound conscience" notion undergirding the actions of the Churchwide Assembly.

Marshall Hahn

So who are the weak of conscience in the current debate. THe revisers or the traditionalists? Paul never let the matter stand. Even Wengert points out that it is an interim overlooking of what is right so that the weak can be taught. So who now gets to claim that they are strong and who gets to preach the passionate sermons to convert whom?

You have to ask who'll be preaching to whom?

[Gregory Davidson]

Can the more learned scholars advise as to where, in the Gospels, there is an example of Jesus and bound conscience? I'm struggling here and with every passing posting, clarity isn't happening for me.

Perhaps he talked about it when he said something about same-gender relationships. If he talk about either, they didn't make it into the canonical gospels.

I guess my eisegetical imagination must be weak!  I cannot imagine Jesus affirming behavior the Jewish bible so clearly and repeatedly condemns.  If anything we have multiple examples of Jesus tightening the limits and raising the bar where folks had worked to find and repeatedly enlarge the loopholes.

[Brian Stoffregen]

How can it possibly be theologically coherent to limit the "bound conscience" idea to one issue?

The same way Paul limited it to very few issues.

No, Paul never used "bound conscience" to avoid deciding whether a teaching was contrary to God's will or not.  Paul never used any kind of "bound conscience" to circumvent a debate as to whether an action was sinful or not.  Paul used the notion of "respect for the weak consciences" of our neighbor as a reason to act pastorally towards those who did not yet have the full knowledge of our freedom in the Gospel - while continuing to proclaim that full freedom and bring those whose consciences are weak to a full understanding.  Paul's use of an argument based on conscience is far removed from the convoluted "bound conscience" notion undergirding the actions of the Churchwide Assembly.

Marshall Hahn

So who are the weak of conscience in the current debate. THe revisers or the traditionalists? Paul never let the matter stand. Even Wengert points out that it is an interim overlooking of what is right so that the weak can be taught. So who now gets to claim that they are strong and who gets to preach the passionate sermons to convert whom?

You have to ask who'll be preaching to whom?

Paul's example was about purposely acting in ways that would bring offense or stumbling to other believers. There are many clergy who refrain from going to bars in their small towns. Even though they believe there is nothing wrong with going into a bar, there can be members who would be offended by such behaviors. What does such a minister preach from the pulpit? I doubt any sermon would center on going into a bar; although there could be sermons against alcoholism.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I guess my eisegetical imagination must be weak!  I cannot imagine Jesus affirming behavior the Jewish bible so clearly and repeatedly condemns.

Exegetes come to different conclusion about what the Jewish Bible condemns. Of course, whatever they conclude it is saying, they will assume that Jesus must be supporting that interpretation.

[Richard Johnson]

Let's see . . . assuming that Paul's "policy" here is relevent to the sexuality discussion (which I do not concede), wouldn't this actually mean that those who think they are FREE in Christ to have what appears to others to be inappropriate sexual relationships really should respect the bound conscience of those who believe that way, and thus refrain from those relationships?

I mean, do you see Paul arguing this both ways, suggesting that those who find eating meat sacrificed to idols to be idolatry ought to go ahead and do it for the sake the conscience of those who don't?

The task force intends it to go both ways. For those on both sides, it can mean refrain from judging or even bringing it up in conversations -- none of the "I told you so!" attitude. For those in these relationships, they might refrain from being with their partner in situations where it would be offensive to other believers.

But does Paul intend it to go both ways? And if not, does the task force know more than Paul?

[George Erdner]

September 4, 2009


+ A free-standing synod, carrying out synodical ministries, apart from
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

I hate to agree with Charles  , but this confuses me as well.  Free standing synod souns like a separate denomination to me.  Since CORE has said they are not leaving the ELCA, I'm sure the have something else in mind, but it is a little confusing. 

David Charlton

CORE has said that their plan is not to leave the ELCA, but they haven't ruled that out as a possibility. Their goal is to achieve some sort of working relationship that enables them to remain faithful to Scripture and the traditions of the church, and yet still retain some vestige of a relationship with Higgins Road. But from what I have read, that is only a goal. If they are unable to acheive that goal, then they will (I believe) settle for something else. Given that CORE is a large collection of people with diverse opinions, especially on details, no one should be surprised to discover that there are some within CORE who draw the line at one point, and others who draw it at a different point.

How anyone can defend the "big tent" that is the ELCA and yet not understand that even a little tent like CORE is still going to have some diversity of opinion within it.