"He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety".
Wow, talk about a 7-year itch.
Wow, talk about a 7-year itch.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.Show posts Menu
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 04, 2008, 03:10:41 PMQuote from: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on August 03, 2008, 09:30:38 PMYes, it is just for the hymns. The regular accompaniment edition for the liturgies contains chords for some of the settings. I don't believe that a separate guitar edition for the liturgies is planned.
If memory serves, the guitar edition of the ELW only has chords for the hymns. One must purchase another edition to obtain guitar parts for the liturgy.
Quote from: edoughty on July 31, 2008, 01:16:42 PMQuote from: Dan Fienen on July 31, 2008, 12:45:42 PMQuote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 31, 2008, 12:35:20 PMQuote from: Dan Fienen on July 31, 2008, 12:18:15 PMFor the most part the traditional is tolerated. (I'm sure that exception to toleration can be found.)
Is this how the big tent operates, all are equal but some are more equal than others and the traditional will be tolerated at best?
The question is whether or not the traditionalists will find a way to tolerate homosexuals in committed relationships. Most of those that I know, are very traditional in their theology and liturgical practices.
What does it mean to tolerate homosexuals in committed relationships? It seems to me that what you are asking of traditionalists is that they change their beliefs to match yours on the topic. That may be good thing - I more than suspect you think it would - but recognize that you are asking that. At the least you are asking traditionalists to conclude it doesn't matter and that what was once considered sin be so no longer.
I think there is some wiggle room in that word "tolerate". Perhaps you're right and traditionalists are being asked to change their beliefs. On the other hand, those who "tolerate" something are not necessarily asked to change their beliefs-- only their behavior.
I am not quite convinced that we Christians are called by the scriptures to merely tolerate each other-- I believe Christ set that bar much higher in the command to love one another. However, this side of the eschaton, sometimes toleration is a place to start -- or perhaps a midpoint.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 25, 2008, 06:59:38 PMQuote from: Team Hesse on July 25, 2008, 04:09:47 PMQuote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 25, 2008, 01:11:25 PMWhat law are we denying? I do not believe that scriptures ever talks about same-sex behaviors within a committed, mutual loving, life-long relationship.
Agreed, it's a matter of law. And the purposes of the law are to curb sin and show us our need for forgiveness as found in Christ. So by denying the law here, we are failing to curb sin and denying the need for forgiveness in Christ. Indirectly, it is a denial of the Gospel. If the law doesn't apply, there is no need for the Gospel.
Brian, I think you are rebutting an argument from silence that you created with the addition of a few adjectives. I'm actually considering that this may be a straw-man application of an argument from silence, which is the first one that I remember encountering. In fact, I think I have considerably better scriptural support for taking a pretty girl from work as a second wife.
Never mind, I don't need two gals mad at me. Okay, back to lurking.
Quote from: Pr. Terry Culler on July 11, 2008, 08:41:36 AM.
I personally have no contact with any CLB folks. I've never even met one. I'm told that one of the differences between the AFLC understanding of the congregaion and the CLB understanding is that they hold that the congregation should consist of sanctified saints only whereas we hold that the Church writ large is composed of the people of God who are known only to God, but the local congregation can and probably will have both believers and non believers in the body. It's a little like the disagreements among New England congregationalists in the 17th and early 18th centuries. Now this might be incorrect information since I have no firsthand knowledge, so take it for what it's worth.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 17, 2007, 12:00:34 AMQuote from: TravisW on August 16, 2007, 11:57:05 PMAre heterosexual sexual behaviors sin?
That doesn't touch the concept that homosexual behavior is a sin. Essentially, it's still asking the conservative end of the spectrum to move left.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 16, 2007, 11:49:50 PMQuote from: peter_speckhard on August 16, 2007, 11:29:22 PMOr, one can look at it as creating one teaching on sexual morality -- sexual behaviors are to take place within a mutual, chaste, faithful, life-long committed relationship.
so the only options remaining are for the traditionalists to change their minds or for the church to simply have two mutually-exclusive teachings on sexual morality.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 13, 2007, 12:30:23 AMQuote from: krs1984 on August 12, 2007, 09:36:30 PMWere any of the situations where pay outs were made anywhere similar to a congregation having a homosexual clergy in a committed relationship?
We are exposed. To not discipline opens the door for a good lawyer. That is how it relates to the ELCA action. They are telling Bishops not to discipline.
In the nearly 20 years of the ELCA that bishops have been refraining and demonstrating restraint in disciplining congregations with homosexual clergy in committed relationships and against homosexual clergy in committed relationships, has there been any lawsuit filed against those congregations? bishops? synods?
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on August 12, 2007, 12:16:12 AMQuote from: Irl Gladfelter on August 11, 2007, 10:54:06 PMI note that in the history of the ELCA, only two congregations have been expelled for calling non-rostered clergy, and only three clergy have been through the disciplinary hearing and removed from the roster for being "practicing homosexuals."
Maybe. It also may come across as something like: the bishops are being urged not to enforce present regulations in anticipation that they will be changed at the next CWA. (That does make some administrative sense, actually, if they are likley to change.)
Since there are many more congregations who have called non-rostered clergy and many other practicing homosexuals either on the roster or off who are serving congregations, it would seem that bishops have already refrained from or demonstrated restraint in disciplining these offenses.
Quote from: Rev. Ian Wolfe on August 10, 2007, 01:12:35 PM
Some lady yesterday used this imagery of the rabbit in her discussions favoring the substitution. She said that in some African ( I think it was African) thought they speak of the Holy Spirit not in terms of the dove but of the Rabbit. This imagery suggests (she said) that we need to be attentave to where the rabbit pops up and speeds along...something to that effect. Don't worry about not getting it, I don't get it either.