New CORE Letter, Outline for Fishers

[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.

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.

You know Brian, this isn't helpful yet it is very telling brother. You draw from Holy Scripture, like Paul and your understanding of 'bound conscious" and then you argue when the WORD is silent, as if that means ascent. Big problem bro, big problem!
Yeph, count me as one of those troublemakers, trying to understand and helping the people I have been called to "shepherd" understand.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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

I see the task force applying Paul's principles to our situation. They certainly know more than Paul about our contemporary issue.

[Brian Stoffregen]

You know Brian, this isn't helpful yet it is very telling brother. You draw from Holy Scripture, like Paul and your understanding of 'bound conscious" and then you argue when the WORD is silent, as if that means ascent. Big problem bro, big problem!
Yeph, count me as one of those troublemakers, trying to understand and helping the people I have been called to "shepherd" understand.

I did not say that silence means ascent. It means that Jesus is silent about it. Looking to the gospels for a clear statement against or for homosexual relationships leads nowhere. Where the Bible is silent about an issue, we are left to use our best judgment.

[Dave Maxfield]

You know Brian, this isn't helpful yet it is very telling brother. You draw from Holy Scripture, like Paul and your understanding of 'bound conscious" and then you argue when the WORD is silent, as if that means ascent. Big problem bro, big problem!
Yeph, count me as one of those troublemakers, trying to understand and helping the people I have been called to "shepherd" understand.

I did not say that silence means ascent. It means that Jesus is silent about it. Looking to the gospels for a clear statement against or for homosexual relationships leads nowhere. Where the Bible is silent about an issue, we are left to use our best judgment.

I am new to this forum and have been doing a lot of reading upstream,yet I have two questions. Brian- you assert that Paul's "bound conscience" principle is applicable to our current situation (okay the ELCA asserts that too), but I am reading and re-reading Paul and I only find that the apostle sees that as applicable to food laws (food dedicated to idols) and not to issues of sexual behavior. It certainly seems like Paul is affirming the same distiction between food laws and sex laws as Leviticus, a distinctionwhich was  upheld by Jesus who in the gospel Lesson two weeks ago declared "all foods clean" ( Mark's comment- chapter 7, verse 19)  Am I misreading something?
As to the silence of Jesus. That silence can be read two ways. You claim the silence grants permission, but please show me a specific gospel passage in which Jesus contradicts the Biblical teaching on sexual behavior. Yes in John he turns the demands of the Law into the need for forgiveness, but I find no justification for using the so-called silence of Jesus as permission. Other than the adulterous woman, I find no example of Jesus teaching contrary to the Law.  Am I missing something?

Shalom
Dave Maxfield

[Richard Johnson]

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

I see the task force applying Paul's principles to our situation. They certainly know more than Paul about our contemporary issue.

NON-ANSWER.

[The Rev. Jeffrey Shealy]

Not to be persnickety, but since this thread began as discussion on the CORE event, could we perhaps get this thread back on topic? As one who will not be attending, I am very curious about how the CORE gathering is going to unfold. My hope is that maybe the Forum might be a place to hear what the gathering is supposed to accomplish, particularly in light of the goals outlined in the letter posted by Jeff Ruby.

Forgive me if my request to stay on topic is a bit abrupt and harsh. Just very concerned about what is happening at the CORE Convocation and would love to hear of others' input and thought on what the goals of the Convocation (outlined by letter) are.

[hillwilliam]

Not to be persnickety, but since this thread began as discussion on the CORE event, could we perhaps get this thread back on topic? As one who will not be attending, I am very curious about how the CORE gathering is going to unfold. My hope is that maybe the Forum might be a place to hear what the gathering is supposed to accomplish, particularly in light of the goals outlined in the letter posted by Jeff Ruby.

Forgive me if my request to stay on topic is a bit abrupt and harsh. Just very concerned about what is happening at the CORE Convocation and would love to hear of others' input and thought on what the goals of the Convocation (outlined by letter) are.

I've been thinking about what's next for ELCA traditionalists especially here on the left coast. Obviously, we need more networking on a personal level. I have grown to know many people who I see as kindred spirits online but to go to the next step I believe that face to face discussions have to take place. A regional CORE group that sponsors retreats and conferences with CORE leaders and theological advisers would go a long way toward building solidarity among those of us in the occupied territories. I would be willing to get the ball rolling by compiling a list of those western CORE supporters who were interested enough to email me asking to be put on the list. We could have the outlines of such a group by the time we all meet in Fishers.

I am also re-posting something I put on the "On to Fishers" thread. (see below)

One of the things I've been mulling over is what our identity should be in response to the decisions of the CWA. Should we be the suffering servant and stay as an example of obedience to God's will? Are we even capable of being that example? Is that really what God is calling us to do or is that just my self delusional pride showing? Will continuing this sham dialog really accomplish anything or would our time be better spent doing what Jesus emphasized during His earthly ministry?

Or should we be like the family of Lot who believed God's warning to not look back when they left Sodom? Would we obey or would we look back as Lot's wife did? Can we make a clean break and be the evangelical, service centered, confessional Christians we want to be or would we take all the baggage left over from the years of struggle with us? Can we be the new being in Christ in the congregations of the old Adam? Is Minnesota nice really more important to us than God's word or is it that we just haven't learned how to speak the truth in love.

On a more practical vein, what can we do as a reform group to help our theologically sound brothers and sisters in Africa and Asia. When mission support is in short supply due to many traditional Lutherans not trusting the ELCA with their tithes, how do we get that help to them so that they can continue their impressive evangelical efforts? When we are a clearly identified group, will we be able to be in fellowship with the LCMS, LCMC, WELS, AFLC, etc. to deliver mission support and aid to third world nations. Can we work cooperatively with other Lutherans (as defined by the Book of Concord) in our local areas and throughout the nation? Will being status confessionis further limit our witness or will it open new mission fields to us?

[Richard Johnson]

Not to be persnickety, but since this thread began as discussion on the CORE event, could we perhaps get this thread back on topic? As one who will not be attending, I am very curious about how the CORE gathering is going to unfold. My hope is that maybe the Forum might be a place to hear what the gathering is supposed to accomplish, particularly in light of the goals outlined in the letter posted by Jeff Ruby.

Forgive me if my request to stay on topic is a bit abrupt and harsh. Just very concerned about what is happening at the CORE Convocation and would love to hear of others' input and thought on what the goals of the Convocation (outlined by letter) are.

It's called "thread-drift." We do it a lot around here.

I think all of us are curious about what's going to happen. But at this point, of course, we don't know. Maybe it would be salutary for some more talking about what we HOPE might happen.

[Scotty8284]

One of the things I've been mulling over is what our identity should be in response to the decisions of the CWA. Should we be the suffering servant and stay as an example of obedience to God's will? Are we even capable of being that example? Is that really what God is calling us to do or is that just my self delusional pride showing? Will continuing this sham dialog really accomplish anything or would our time be better spent doing what Jesus emphasized during His earthly ministry?

This particular “theme”, or rational, has been the most frustrating for me, especially as expressed by Pastor’s.  The true Suffering Servant was effective because when all thought He was destroyed, He was raised to New Life.  He was able to put down the forces of darkness, and usher in the Kingdom.  Unfortunately, when the new “suffering servants” are defeated (whether through retirement, moving on to a new call, marginalization), who replaces them will be determined by a Synod intent on spreading its own agenda, silencing any lay voices remaining, and ultimately establishing it’s own Kingdom of Death and Decay.   

This particular struggle is truly greater than any one of us; we are Strangers in a Strange Land.  Maybe it is Lot, or Abraham, which should be our guide.  Any pastor choosing to remain in the ELCA is ultimately sentencing their congregation to death, whether by false doctrine or by attrition in a shrinking church, or by alzheimers as we slowly forget who we are and what we stood for.

And while this may sound bleak, I am also given to new hope.  I believe there will be pastors out there willing to say, once again, “Here I stand!”  maybe instead of sending missionaries to Africa and Asia, we will have to pray that churches there send them to us, instead!

“See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.”  Isaiah 43:19

Jim

[Mike Bennett]

One of the things I've been mulling over is what our identity should be in response to the decisions of the CWA. Should we be the suffering servant and stay as an example of obedience to God's will? Are we even capable of being that example? Is that really what God is calling us to do or is that just my self delusional pride showing? Will continuing this sham dialog really accomplish anything or would our time be better spent doing what Jesus emphasized during His earthly ministry?

This particular “theme”, or rational, has been the most frustrating for me, especially as expressed by Pastor’s.  The true Suffering Servant was effective because when all thought He was destroyed, He was raised to New Life.  He was able to put down the forces of darkness, and usher in the Kingdom.  Unfortunately, when the new “suffering servants” are defeated (whether through retirement, moving on to a new call, marginalization), who replaces them will be determined by a Synod intent on spreading its own agenda, silencing any lay voices remaining, and ultimately establishing it’s own Kingdom of Death and Decay.   

This particular struggle is truly greater than any one of us; we are Strangers in a Strange Land.  Maybe it is Lot, or Abraham, which should be our guide.  Any pastor choosing to remain in the ELCA is ultimately sentencing their congregation to death, whether by false doctrine or by attrition in a shrinking church, or by alzheimers as we slowly forget who we are and what we stood for.

And while this may sound bleak, I am also given to new hope.  I believe there will be pastors out there willing to say, once again, “Here I stand!”  maybe instead of sending missionaries to Africa and Asia, we will have to pray that churches there send them to us, instead!

“See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.”  Isaiah 43:19

Jim

Those who stay can be doing something other than living out the balance of their allotted three score and ten.  One purpose of staying would be call ELCA to repentence.  Before you damage yourself laughing, consider how unlikely it would have seemed that Saul of Tarsus would repent. Or Chuck Colson.  Or Zacchaeus.  The list is endless.

[Scotty8284]

Those who stay can be doing something other than living out the balance of their allotted three score and ten.  One purpose of staying would be call ELCA to repentence.  Before you damage yourself laughing, consider how unlikely it would have seemed that Saul of Tarsus would repent. Or Chuck Colson.  Or Zacchaeus.  The list is endless.

Thank you, Mike.  I appreciate this insight very much, and not only is the list endless, but so is our hope.  It's just that I've personally witnessed how a Synod, through strategic vacancies and placements, can rip a congregations' identity from itself.  Fifteen years ago our congregation had a strong evangelical catholic identity, known for the theological sophistication of its lay members.  Now its a just an echo, and unlike most in this forum, not even being served by a Lutheran pastor.  I praise the author of salvation that individuals can be radically transformed by his grace, my experience says that's not usually the case with institutions.

Jim

[George Erdner]

Those who stay can be doing something other than living out the balance of their allotted three score and ten.  One purpose of staying would be call ELCA to repentence.  Before you damage yourself laughing, consider how unlikely it would have seemed that Saul of Tarsus would repent. Or Chuck Colson.  Or Zacchaeus.  The list is endless.

None of those three examples support the principle of "stay on the inside of the organization to call it to repentance". Saul of Tarsus repented when God called him directly. One can issue calls to the people in the ELCA to repent from inside the ELCA or from a new church outside the ELCA.

Also, examples of individual people repenting do not support the argument that an institution can come to repentance. Looking back through the Bible and subsequent history, almost every story of repentance and conversion is a story of individual people repenting. Sure, sometimes large numbers of people who share some commonality, such as residence in a given city, might repent simultaneously. But stories of institutions that slip into apostasy repenting, as institutions, are very, very rare. I can't think of a single one.

There are supposedly 4,800,000 people in the ELCA. Even if 4,000,000 of them repented, the 800,000 would remain the core of the ELCA, and the 4,000,000 would probably demonstrate their repentance by changing their membership affiliation.

[Mike Bennett]

Those who stay can be doing something other than living out the balance of their allotted three score and ten.  One purpose of staying would be call ELCA to repentence.  Before you damage yourself laughing, consider how unlikely it would have seemed that Saul of Tarsus would repent. Or Chuck Colson.  Or Zacchaeus.  The list is endless.

None of those three examples support the principle of "stay on the inside of the organization to call it to repentance". Saul of Tarsus repented when God called him directly. One can issue calls to the people in the ELCA to repent from inside the ELCA or from a new church outside the ELCA.

Also, examples of individual people repenting do not support the argument that an institution can come to repentance. Looking back through the Bible and subsequent history, almost every story of repentance and conversion is a story of individual people repenting. Sure, sometimes large numbers of people who share some commonality, such as residence in a given city, might repent simultaneously. But stories of institutions that slip into apostasy repenting, as institutions, are very, very rare. I can't think of a single one.

There are supposedly 4,800,000 people in the ELCA. Even if 4,000,000 of them repented, the 800,000 would remain the core of the ELCA, and the 4,000,000 would probably demonstrate their repentance by changing their membership affiliation.

I'm not thinking 4,000,000.  4,000,000 members didn't pass those resolutions.  If 4,000,000 had voted (or 10,000 congregations or 65 synods) we wouldn't be in this pickle.  Somewhere between a few dozen and a few hundred led ELCA into this, and some comparable number repenting could lead it out. Whether it will happen or not is an open question.  Some repent; some don't.  I'm not smart enough to know whether it will happen or not; I just don't take it as given that apostasy is irreversible.

Mike Bennett

[George Erdner]

I'm not thinking 4,000,000.  4,000,000 members didn't pass those resolutions.  If 4,000,000 had voted (or 10,000 congregations or 65 synods) we wouldn't be in this pickle.  Somewhere between a few dozen and a few hundred led ELCA into this, and some comparable number repenting could lead it out. Whether it will happen or not is an open question.  Some repent; some don't.  I'm not smart enough to know whether it will happen or not; I just don't take it as given that apostasy is irreversible.

Mike Bennett

I won't dispute that getting the ELCA to pass new resolutions at subsequent CWA's to rescind the ones passed last month is possible. It is possible. The faithful optimist in me clings to hopes like that, no matter how long the odds against them are. The practical steward in me looks at what course of action has the greatest chance of success, attempting a radical change from within or leading the traditionalists out of the ELCA into a new body that isn't in a state of apostasy, and evaluates the options.

Jesus once fed a multitude of well over 5,000 people with only a few tilapia and some dinner rolls. But that was a miracle. I've fed homeless guys tasty and nutritious meals form well under $1 each by careful shopping and imagination in menu planning. That was not a miracle, that was good stewardship of resources and well-planned action. I don't object to anyone praying for a miracle. I do that myself. In addition to prayer, I also use the brain God gave me to think of what I can do achieve a positive outcome.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I am new to this forum and have been doing a lot of reading upstream,yet I have two questions. Brian- you assert that Paul's "bound conscience" principle is applicable to our current situation (okay the ELCA asserts that too), but I am reading and re-reading Paul and I only find that the apostle sees that as applicable to food laws (food dedicated to idols) and not to issues of sexual behavior. It certainly seems like Paul is affirming the same distiction between food laws and sex laws as Leviticus, a distinctionwhich was  upheld by Jesus who in the gospel Lesson two weeks ago declared "all foods clean" ( Mark's comment- chapter 7, verse 19)  Am I misreading something?

I don't know the task force did nor not, but I've also presented Paul's actions concerning circumcision. He certainly argues against requiring it in Galatians, but in Acts we read that he had Timothy circumcised so as not to offend the Jews with whom the half-Jewish Timothy might be ministering.

Acts 10 Peter has a vision about clean foods, but it is clear that it is used as a metaphor for treating all people as "clean".

Another debatable issue is over what sexual behaviors are forbidden in Leviticus. One interpretation held by "traditionalist" sees them being against all same-gender behaviors; another interpretation, held by "revisionists," is that the context indicates that they are against forcing one's self onto another person who doesn't want the sex and/or related to temple prostitution and those isn't speaking to sexual behaviors between couples within a committed relationship.

As to the silence of Jesus. That silence can be read two ways. You claim the silence grants permission, but please show me a specific gospel passage in which Jesus contradicts the Biblical teaching on sexual behavior. Yes in John he turns the demands of the Law into the need for forgiveness, but I find no justification for using the so-called silence of Jesus as permission. Other than the adulterous woman, I find no example of Jesus teaching contrary to the Law.  Am I missing something?

I do not claim that silence grants permission. Silence means silence. Jesus says nothing for same=gender relationships nor against them. His words cannot be used as an argument for either side. As I stated above, there are different interpretation about what is meant by the law. I do not see that Leviticus says anything about committed same-gender relationships. (It speaks about sexual behaviors that I see being more like rape than acts of love between couples committed to each other.