Thoughts and reflections on whats going on in the Lutheran Church of Australia with a particular interest in sexuality, homosexuality and gender issues. Thanks for dropping by. Why not leave a comment.
Neil! You are willingly misguiding the souls of homosexual people..
A post by Neil Hart on homosexuality, LGBT, lesbian and gay stuff and the Lutheran Church of Australia.
I post this comment and the reply because it follows on from the last one. Also, Barney has been a commentor in the past and, i trust he will rise to the challenge and put some meat on the accusation. I think that the way we are able to work through controverted issues is critical for our church. It could mean the difference between a split or no split. I find it interesting that the accusation of “vow breaker” is usually accompanied by the accusation of “church splitter”. Which is interesting. Surely the way forward in unity rests on the ability to openly and freely express opposing points of view. No “church splitter” accusation from Barney however. Have a read. I look forward to the reply.
I try to understand the mindset of the LGBT people, but I cannot understand their unnatural practices, nor can I understand how an ordained Lutheran Pastor can support them. I read in your blog:
” … join a growing list of people who want to accuse me of breaking my ordination solemn vows. So far, they have all been pastors. You? i dont know, you are anonymous. But there is the stench of pastor about your comment so, until i hear otherwise, i will assume that of you. When the teachings of the church are challenged, it seeems to me that there have been one of three responses. Some ignore it. Most people are willing to pick up the challenge and argue the case, one way or the other. But then there are a few people, only pastors so far, who, upon hearing the challenge can do nothing but respond with accusation and the threat that goes with it. “Neil, you are an ordination vow breaker”. “Neil, you should leave the church.” If find that response ignorant. You, dear pastor, are the only one so far who has made that threat anonymously. That makes you both ignorant and a coward.”
I am NOT anonymous, I have been open in what I wrote on this blog and on others. I believe that you should reconsider your vows, and if you cannot, OR WILL NOT comply with your solemn vows, resign your ordination, leave the LCA, and join a denomination where the homosexual abominations are overtly or covertly accepted. You have dishonoured your ordination and you are not true to your vows.
I am NOT a Pastor, but a Doctor of Philosophy in Biblical Studies, and an MTh; however, I am a Lay Chaplain and a Lector, and have by experience seen the spiritual ruin that homosexuality brings to one’s life and more importantly one’s soul.
I will pray for the preservation of your soul and especially for the souls you willingly misguided.
Barney
Barney, do you know that the bible describes your wife during her monthly “uncleaness” an abomination? But it would be just plain offensive to call her an abomination. Wouldnt you agree?
Barney, you put your name to your statement and that, to me, means you should have a respectful response.
You will admit that what you say is strong. I believe you to be a reasonable man with a christian heart. As such I’m sure that you would allow me the right to challenge you to back up your accusations with some facts and explanations.
Firstly, I want you to show me how I have broken my ordination vow. And it is no good just saying that I “do not hold to scripture” or something like that. The point in question is homosexuality. The “vow” aspect of that is the DSTO. Can you explain to me the nature of the DSTO in the Lutheran Church of Australia in relation to ordination vows. can you explain to me how pastors or anyone from the LCA can be involved in effecting change in controverted statements? Can you explain to me how over half of the LCA pastors have not broken their ordination vows by the simple fact that they publically stated their disagreement with the DSTO by vote at the national synod in 2006. Should they all resign from the ministry?
Secondly, you have stepped back into the debate at this point to accuse me of bringing spiritual ruin into peoples lives and souls, that i have willingly misguided them and that i have dishonoured my ordination vows. And yet you have not so strongly jumped in at any of the times that I have given the scriptural position for my stand. I challenge you now to do that… and not generally, specifically. I have taken the time to lay out my case, point by point. I ask you now to do me the courtesy of addressing what i have said, point by point. In fairness, barney, you dont get to jump in now, make accusations that you know are designed to hurt, and ignore everything that has gone before.
So…..Please put you Mth to work and explain to me
1. Your position on the slavery texts. Why is it that we do not have slavery when the clear word of God, the Lutheran Confessors, and thousands of years of common societal tradition back it up as a godly practice mirroring the relationship between Jesus in heaven as the master of his slaves on earth. (Please reread the 4 posts on slavery)
3. Can you defend the Lutheran Church’s confusing statement that Homosexual propensity is NOT sin, but homosexual activity IS sin, when this clearly goes against the sermon on the mount and the most basic understanding of sin as being not only those things we do but those things we think and desire.
This is usually the point where the other accusers disappear…i trust that you will stick around to answer. Barney, lets pretend that, right here, right now, you and i represent two different ways of reading scritpure in our church. Let us be the test case. Are we able to go forward in continuing dialogue? or… is a split between you and me inevitable? I really hope for the former…
Neil. You may or may not wish to post the following comment or even edit it, either way, I will not be offended. Warren.
Dear Barney,
I find that your comments were not only a personal attack upon an individual, but an insult to the rational thinking, open-minded people making comment within these blogs.
You state in your comment that you……………..’have by experience seen the spiritual ruin that homosexuality brings to one’s life and more importantly one’s soul.’ Well, i like to think of myself as a rational thinking, open-minded person and would have to agree with you on some aspects of this comment. But, what i feel has been omitted is that this can happen in ALL LEVELS OF SOCIETY and not just homosexuality. Don’t just target one section of society, is shows narrow-mindedness.
Being a Doctor of Philosophy in Biblical Studies really means NOTHING to me due to the definition of Philosophy being …… ‘a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.’ It is a BELIEF and not necessarily FACT based with evidence to back it up.
So, let’s move forward in this debate and not to judge people, but to love and respect people for what they are and respect others opinions……………you don’t necessarily have to agree with them……….just don’t condemn them for having a differing opinion.
Warren.
My reply to Neil was as a personal warning that he – at the time – was outside the bounds of what a Lutheran may [should] profess. I do not know if you are a Lutheran, but if you are refer to Article II of your Constitution.
Yes, I have by experience seen the spiritual ruin that homosexual practices bring to one’s life and more importantly to one’s soul. BTW I am a Chaplain of several decades standing.
About being a PhD. mine was achieved by course work and Dissertation and examination, it is a recognised form of academic study and achievement, here and overseas. BTW mine was NOT a judgement, but a warning.
If opinions are different so be it; however the Word of God will not change, and disobedience to HIS Word has its own consequences.
Neil,
Out of your several blogs I have two [hard copy] in front of me; and I’ll try to answer them where appropriate.
• ‘Barney, do you know that the bible describes your wife during her monthly “uncleaness” an abomination? But it would be just plain offensive to call her an abomination. Wouldnt you agree?’ The women’s natural “uncleaness” is a NATURAL result of being a woman of sexual productive age. There are hygienic reasons for abstaining of having contact with her in an environment where showers etc. were not available, and it is still very uncomfortable for a woman who has her “Women’s Weekly” to have intercourse. The woman is NOT an abomination; however, some may call it an abomination to have sex with her at that time.
• “You will admit that what you say is strong” Yes what I said IS strong, I have been in the past rather mild in my rebuttal of the abomination of M2M and F2F relationships and other un-natural relationships between human beings, including incest etc. Since we see this from different angles, I am not surprised that you react to my stronger stance. As far as your vow is concerned; even though I am NOT ordained I have taken two parts identical to your vow when I first became a Chaplain:
o Do you believe and accept without reservation the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments, as a whole and in all their parts, as the divinely inspired, written, and inerrant word of God, and as the only infallible source and norm for all matters of faith doctrine and life? My answer was “I Do.”
o Do you acknowledge and accept as true expositions of the Word of God and as your own confession of faith all the symbolic writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580? My answer was “I DO.”
• I realise that there is a difference of opinion even between our ordained Pastors and Doctors in the LCA, they have followed their own agendas on a subject beyond our discussion on “that abomination”
• “1. Your position on slavery texts.” The slavery that exists in the world is not part of our subject under discussion; however I do not see a nexus between the ‘ownership of one human being by another’ and homosexuality. I do see a nexus between ‘the slavery of sin’ and homosexuality.
• “2. Can you explain … The law was made for people, not the people for the law.” And “… the-doors-of-the-church-open-wide-to-all-straight-men-and-women-but-they-will-not-open-to me.” Any society or community has rules of behaviour ever since mankind was created. The Decalogue is an example of such a set of rules, Murder and adultery are forbidden, they still do happen, but would you support that? Would you say that we were created for murder and adultery? We in Australia drive on the left-hand side of the road, should one chose to drive on the other side, a collision is bound to occur. We have rules about theft and trespassing written for the good of people.
• “3. Can you defend … homosexual ‘propensity’ is NOT sin, but homosexual activity IS sin, …” I as a layman cannot speak for the LCA, so I can only answer with my personal opinion. I wrote above; ‘The woman is NOT an abomination; however, some may call it an abomination to have sex with her at that time.’ Guiding to the principle that the act is the sin. However that is the easy way out in the case of homosexuality. Our Lord clearly stated that when one looks lustfully at a woman a sin was committed and if you eye leads you to sin pluck it out. Thus, the sin starts in the mind and even thinking about having an affair outside marriage is a sin (adultery). Thus in this light, a homosexual propensity [I dislike that word] needs to be defined further; if one thinks about having M2M or F2F sex that IS sin, if one practices M2M or F2F sex that is even more so sin. However, if one could be homosexual without knowing it, I do not think that is SIN.
I agree that this is usually the point where those who disagree disappear, in our case we can agree to disagree, and let our minds dwell on God’s love, the Truth of HIS Word and also Article II of our Constitution. About splitting, I think that a split is developing in the LCA not only on this subject but on another subject which has attracted greater attention and has driven a wedge between clergy, between theologians, and indeed Parishes/congregations. I do not intend to address the ordination of females in this blog.
So many things that could be talked about. But id like to comtinue on only 3 points as they can be more specifically debated.
1. The reason i mentioned a woman’s menstrual cycle as an abomination is because that is the way the bible describes it. It similarly describes crayfish and even their shells as an abomination. You make the statement
“The woman is NOT an abomination; however, some may call it an abomination to have sex with her at that time.”
If i may say…this is a very gracious and reasonable approach to women in the menstual cycle. As you say, they are NOT an abomination. As you said “some” may call it an abominaion to have sex at that time. i notice that you did not put yourself in that group. Good on you! We are not bound by those offensive OT labels.
Now, Barney, to be biblically and exegetically consistent….surely you would afford the same sensitivity to my Gay friend. Would you say he is NOT and abomination? If not. Why Not?
2. The vow aspect. The 2 parts that you mentioned are included in my vow. The scripture passages in the LCA on homosexuality are a controverted issue. They are presently under debate. The passages therefore dont help in the regard to the accusation of breaking vows. The specific sections are to do with the DSTO. As i stated before, I would be interested in your opinion of the status of the DSTO in regard to ordination vows. And… how is it possible to debate the issue without breaking vows? That was my question.
3. I dont believe that you addressed The radical nature of Jesus statement. “the sabbath is meant for man and not man for the sabbath”. Jesus is most definitely defending his disciples breaking of one of the most critical OT laws. Jesus is clearly willing to ignore the law if it no longer serves the people but does them harm. Would you agree? Does this inform how we view the application of the law on people today?
Re: 1. The reply on women in their “women’s weekly” is based on hygienic understandings, as I think that the Holy Bible may have seen it also at the time when that syncope was written. As far as your gay friend is concerned, what he DOES is IMHO an abomination – indeed the Holy Bible calls that by the same name. The functions of a man’s penis include; providing a drain for the bladder, and less frequently as a conduit for his sperm to impregnate his wife. I do not believe that this organ was ever meant or designed to enter the anus of a man or woman, no matter how much they love each other. The gay man or woman – as a person – is in IMHO in themselves NOT an abomination when celibate; however, I believe when they cease to be celibate their unnatural acts are abominable and against God’s instructions for life, c.f. Rom. 6:12-13, 1 Cor. 5:9-13, 7:1-3.
I read and understand from your posts that many of the CLBT persuasion CANNOT – OR WILL NOT – change to a righteous life. I have compassion for those who ‘CANNOT’ and I pray that they may see that it is not God’s will that they practice that lifestyle, and I pray that they be given grace and strength to become and remain celibate. Contrariwise, those WHO WILL NOT change, they must be made aware that their lifestyle is against that expected of a Christian. To answer your question; “Would you say he [your friend?] is not an abomination?” I believe he[himself] is not an abominations but his actions are against the will of God, the sin is first and foremost in the mind and then exposed by the person’s actions.
Re: 2. “The vow aspect” Whether one considers the scripture passages in the LCA on homosexuality to be a controverted issue, is an item for the LCA to decide, under our Constitution Article II we are to use the Holy Scriptures as our only rule and norm for faith, life and doctrine. No matter what a denomination teaches – and that includes the LCA – the Word of God is and remains our guide in faith, life and doctrine. I think it would be difficult to discuss the Ordination Vows with one who does not – or no longer can – adhere to them. If a man makes a vow he is bound to it, unless he is released by the One whom he made the vow to. The Holy Bible gives a way out when a woman makes a vow.
Re: 3. “I don’t believe that … ‘the Sabbath is meant for man and not the man for the Sabbath’ “ I regret that I did not get that through to you, you are indeed correct in saying that Jesus is indeed willing to ignore the law in emergencies and when a specific OT law is no longer applicable in our times. In this day and age we have so far moved from what God wants us to do and how we ought to live that secular rules and customs have taken over the minds and lifestyles of many who go by the name of “Christian”.
What we need today are Pastors and learned Christians who uphold the Word of God, against all the secular practices of this ‘modern’ world, the accuser’s domain.
May God bless you in the search for the right way to serve God and to give Christian counsel to those who are addicted to unnatural practices.
I relation to calling my friend an abomination… you initially said…
“I believe that you should reconsider your vows, and if you cannot, OR WILL NOT comply with your solemn vows, resign your ordination, leave the LCA, and join a denomination where the homosexual abominations are overtly or covertly accepted. You have dishonoured your ordination and you are not true to your vows.”
Now you are saying…
To answer your question; “Would you say he [your friend?] is not an abomination?” I believe he[himself] is not an abominations but his actions are against the will of God.
Small steps are good steps. In humility would you now be willing to apologise to my friend whom you offended with your initial statement?
In regard to the LCA DSTO statement on homosexuality. you seem to agree with my concerns about the statement that homosexual orientation is Not sin but that the Action IS sin. You have said…
“Thus in this light, a homosexual propensity [I dislike that word] needs to be defined further;”
and…
“the sin is first and foremost in the mind and then exposed by the person’s actions.”
Would you agree then that my quest to challenge the church on this issue is a reasonable thing to do? Or, should you and I, as conscience bound confessional and truth seeking Lutherans just keep silent in the face of such obvious error? It seems that you place me in a predicament Barney. Do I need to hold to the DSTO to keep my vow? What if You and I believe that the DSTO is against scripture. Dont i keep my vow by questioning the church’s accepted teachings? Or do I keep my vow by accepting the church’s DSTO and therefore break it because we both know that i would be going against scripture.
“Jesus is indeed willing to ignore the law in emergencies and when a specific OT law is no longer applicable in our times”
I think we do agree on something Barney. I think where we differ is which laws we think are applicable in this day. So, how do we decide which OT laws apply to our times and which ones we don’t?
” About splitting, I think that a split is developing in the LCA not only on this subject but on another subject which has attracted greater attention and has driven a wedge between clergy, between theologians, and indeed Parishes/congregations. I do not intend to address the ordination of females in this blog.”
I also agree a split is coming if open discussion and an environment of acceptance isn’t adopted within our church. The way I see it right now our church is made up of many different people with many different beliefs and opinions on many issues. Two of the “main” issues at the moment are woman’s ordination and homosexuality. Right now we all worship along side each other despite these differences. That’s good isn’t it? There must be unity within our church if we can all worship together despite our differing opinions right? Hmmm. So basically while the “woman’s Libbers” and the “Gay Priders” keep quiet and don’t try to serve in the church or let it be known that they agree with woman’s ordination or that they are gay, all is well. If I don’t know about it, if I don’t hear it then I don’t have to think about it or deal with it. We already have homosexual congregation members, teachers and probably pastors in our churches and schools, but because we don’t “know” about it it doesn’t matter, right? We should provide buckets of sand at every chair in church so we can keep burying our heads firmly in the sand where it is safe and comfortable. Everything can go on as it always has. Secrets, secrets are the answer to a happy united church!! Once again, hmmm.
The fact is there are people hurting in our church over these issues and many who have left over them. Do we want to whittle down our members until we have no woman who want to serve and no homosexuals? We would also have to get rid of anyone who supported them and their opinions. Then what about people who believe in adult full immersion baptism, surely they would have to go. And then there are the ones who don’t believe that the sacraments are literally Jesus body and blood! What about those who come from other denominational backgrounds? They might want to sing Hillsong instead of hymns!!
Ah the good old slippery slope..
I would hate to see our church split into “The Gay LCA” and “The LCA for those who support WO” and “The Conservative LCA” etc etc the list could be never ending. In fact if we only want to worship with others who believe the exact same as us we will be worshipping alone. One person in a room praying for everyone else to see the error of their ways!
Woman’s ordination WILL happen and the acceptance of homosexuality WILL happen, and when they do where will our church stand? Wouldn’t it be better to work this out with love than to have it forced upon us in the end anyway? What will our church look like? Will we be a united people in love or will we be a divided mess of bitterness?
I remember reading a American Lutheran media review on our 2006 synod. they said that our church is wonderfully united…right up to the moment when we actually want to talk abpout anything…then the divisions that have always been there re-emerge and we are divided again. Sad indictment. but thats certainly the way i observed the opne and only national synod that i have been to, Wjhat do we do when we do not agree? If we are family, we deal with it as family, If we are a club with rules and regulations, we deal with it accordingly. I really hope that we prove ourselves to be a family.
Since my last reply a number of questions have arisen. As a consequence I need to clear up a few things.
There seems to be a confusion or consensus about the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality”; if I have contributed to that confusion, I will attempt to be clearer, albeit at the cost of longer replies.
Let us begin with the term “homosexual orientation” or ‘homosexual propensity’ as the DSTO uses it. In the beginning God created man and woman after His own kind, and they became one flesh; i.e. one woman, one man, one flesh. It was not until after the fall that this became garbled and sexual deviations came into being.
In my humble opinion (IMHO), term “homosexual” refers to the man or woman who has SEXUAL feelings for one of the same gender; it does not refer to all who have LOVE for a person of the same gender. I loved my father, I loved my favourite uncle, I love my Pastor [as a friend] and his sons; yet, that does not mean that I am inclined to sleep in the same bed with them.
However, IMHO the term “homosexuality” includes the practices of those who have SEXUAL feelings for one of the same gender. Notice here we have gone from a person with certain feelings to a practice that gives a physical outlet or embodiment of that feeling. It is that practice which is the SIN and the person who practices it the SINNER of an abomination. A person, who has physical love/lust for one of the same gender, is sinning in the same sense as a heterosexual man who looks at a beautiful woman as “a bed candidate”. The sexual act(s) that can follow confirm the sin in its full gravity.
Neil you asked “do I need to hold to the DSTO to keep my vow?” I wrote to you before about the two vows we have in common, in addition to that I refer you to Article II in the Constitutions at all levels of the LCA. You and I, and perhaps many others, know that it is wrong to go against the Word of God, St. Augustine wrote about this at length that it was wrong to obey a Bishop when that Bishop was in error, and so did Dr. Martin Luther! However, when an error has happened, Christians must use their Berean right and let them be heard; which I have done on THAT other subject, to the annoyance of some on the other side of the argument.
To ABon, Article II of our Constitutions at all levels of the LCA, contains the answer for you, since by being a Lutheran you subscribed to it!
To Sarah, Our LCA is already split in pro-WO and anti-WO, in accordance with Article II of our Constitutions at all levels of the LCA, we must let the Word of God be the Word of God! If WO happens it will be IMHO against the Word of God, how can a woman preach without speaking? I will not address WO in this blog any further, it is a different subject. You – like all contributors to this blog – are welcome to contribute to my own blog at http://exethento.wordpress.com on the WO issue and other items that befall us.
Back to Neil
Yes I agree we are wonderfully united … right up to the moment when we actually want to talk about it. Let our discussions be based on what is Scripturally and Doctrinally sound. We are NOT a social club or organisation with rules and regulations, we are a Christian denomination with well researched doctrines and other statements of belief relying totally on the Word of God and being assisted in our doctrine by those who found errors in the beliefs and practices in the 16th century and beyond. What do we do when we do not agree, first and foremost we are to pray for wisdom and the help of the Holy Spirit, secondly we are to re-assess our commitment to (i) being a CHRISTIAN and (ii) being a LUTHERAN.
In HIS love and service
Barney
17 Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me:
18 When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.
19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
Ezekiel 33:7-9
7 So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
thnx for the solemn reminder Barney. After reading this passage i shall renew my efforts to take up the responsibility given to me by right of my ordination and warn the church of its ungodly, unscriptural, unconfessional, unloving stand on homosexuality lest the entire organisation face the wrath of God. Join me in this righteous cause.
But…still no apology? Sigh…humility comes hard sometimes….Man! i know thats the case….:(
Tapio on said:
Barney,
What about a person who is born with a penis and a uterus? Whichever way this person goes he/she is going to face condemnation by you. Can you not see the issue is much more complicated than sexual organs. A gay is interested in the other person for more than just sex, you cheapen them to be like most of us heterosexuals who are interested in nothing other than sex. The person inside, the person is created by God, the desire for love is created by God. You are mixing up pornography and lust and all the selfish stuff with a God given God created desire for a committed loving relationship. You are placing an unbearable burden on a child of God – beware of millstones.
Do you know why I began to question my opinions on Gay Marriage – I’ll tell you, I met a man that called homosexual’s an abomination, when I suggested that he was being very harsh he responded with further hateful words. Rather than argue I said I would do some research and we could discuss it further. He gave me links to another guy on the internet and I found more hate and more fear mongering. This was not the Jesus that I knew. Your tone displays some of this kind of tone, I do believe you have a heart for Jesus but Barney the whole argument against is full of fear, mistrust, hate and doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t feel right to you to have feelings for a man, well you know it doesn’t have to, you were not created that way. Ironically it was the people who argued against that convinced me that my opinion (which was against) was wrong.
I am not a counsellor or chaplain or anything so I might be speaking out of ignorance but when you say that you have witnessed the spiritual ruin that homosexuality brings can I suggest what is more likely the case. Pornography, lust and selfish predatory sex…..the list is long…. all produce ruin. I ask you, where is a Gay person to go, the church doesn’t want them. Where would you go if a community of people believed your preferences were perverted – you would have to leave. The church by their unloving attitudes is causing them to stumble. The gay community does have its problems and promiscuity is among those(no different to hetero groups), but I know that if I was gay I would find acceptance in that community and would undoubtedly follow the people who don’t call me an abomination. The spiritual ruin you are seeing is the ruin that the church is causing. The sooner the church recognizes that God loves, God created, God honours committed gay relationships the sooner we will see healing in those communities. (and ours for that matter)
Hang on, you seem to have just contradicted yourself Barney. You said that “Jesus is indeed willing to ignore the law in emergencies and when a specific OT law is no longer applicable in our times” but then referred me to article II saying we must believe in all OT as the truth. You can’t have it both ways! We must either accept all OT as the complete truth and adhere to it or agree that some of the OT does not fit with our current society. Which one is it?
Consistency was never a conservative strong point. Which is strange. because the conservatives always claim to be the ones holding to the “pure word of God”. I think its a case of either selective memory or inability to follow an argument to the end…the latter i think. Barney dismissed the slavery/ Homosexuality link out of hand. And he has a doctorate in biblical studies??? Sigh. My son in law had to work so hard for his doctorate. But. then again, his was a real one.
If you are a Lutheran and a member of the LCA, then Article II applies.
Barney
AB on said:
Hi Barney
To confirm, you are talking about Article II of the LCA Constitution I have attached it below.
“ARTICLE II. CONFESSION
The District accepts the Confession of the Lutheran Church of Australia Incorporated, viz.:
(a) It accepts without reservation the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as a whole and in all their
parts, as the divinely inspired, written, and inerrant Word of God, and as the only infallible source and norm for
all matters of faith, doctrine and life.
(b) It acknowledges and accepts as true expositions of the Word of God and as its own confession all the
Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, namely, the three Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles‘ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed; the Unaltered Augsburg Confession; the Apology of the Augsburg Confession; the Smalcald Articles; the Small Catechism of Luther; the Large Catechism of Luther; and the Formula of Concord.” http://www.sa.lca.org.au/District%20Constitution%202010.pdf
If I understand correctly, it says that we should look at the Bible as the sole source of truth for all matters and is without error. I have prepared the AB Confession derived from the source above for you to confess. Hopefully it highlights what I think you are missing from the debate.
I, Christian P. J. Bahnerth phD, do solemnly confess that I shall:
0) Stone to death all homosexuals (Lev 20:13)
1) Put us all to death for trying to turn you away from God (Deut 13:5)
2) Endeavour to kill all people that do not confess to the Christ as Lord (Deut 17:2-7)
3) Refuse entry to the Church to all people with flat noses, who are blind or lame (Lev 21:17-18)
4) Stone to death the next person that yells “Jesus Christ!” when they stub their toe (Lev 20:27)
5) Never visit the barber (Lev 19:27)
6) Never eat seafood unless they have fins or scales (Lev 11)
7) Kill anyone who complains about their parents (Lev 20:9)
8) Not wear clothes made from more than one fabric (Lev 19:19)
I am pointing you right back to Article II, Barney. And while you are at it, could you please tell me what the Bible’s advice is on (faith, doctrine and life!) Aquaponics, starting computer viruses, and Facebook?
Aquaponics: Those shell fish (yabbies) are CURSED!
Computer viruses: Call ur son in law.
Facebook: ITS EVIL I TELLS YA! EVIL!
But… i am interested in Barneys defense of scripture. ad article 2.
M on said:
Barney, im not sure if you are aware of how you come across – fantastically arrogant, myopic, patriarchal and clinging onto the past in the belief that norms that once were current should always be so. You’re ignoring a couple of key things, that , (I’m guessing) as a straight man whose formative years occurred when cultural, social and societal norms were vey different, are understandable, but still not acceptable. Barney, people don’t choose to be gay, or bisexual or lesbian etc. They don’t make a conscious decision which gender to be attracted to. Similarly, you didn’t choose to be heterosexual. It’s how you were made. But here’s the thing: not everyone was made like you. Until you understand this, you will allow your arrogance and ignorance to be the way you are identified.
The church (and not just the Lutheran church) has an awful lot to answer for wrt encouraging the repression of identity. Yet still those who lead most churches continue to wring their hands in puzzled ignorance at why their numbers are dwindling and why they just don’t seem relevant to younger people, blaming the “secular society” for taking them away.
M
PS I read your blog. You’re wrong on the ordination of women too.
M on December 29, 2011 at 11:58 pm said:
“Barney, im not sure if you are aware of how you come across – fantastically arrogant, myopic, patriarchal and clinging onto the past in the belief that norms that once were current should always be so. You’re ignoring a couple of key things, that , (I’m guessing) as a straight man whose formative years occurred when cultural, social and societal norms were vey different, are understandable, but still not acceptable. Barney, people don’t choose to be gay, or bisexual or lesbian etc. They don’t make a conscious decision which gender to be attracted to. Similarly, you didn’t choose to be heterosexual. It’s how you were made. But here’s the thing: not everyone was made like you. Until you understand this, you will allow your arrogance and ignorance to be the way you are identified.”
If it is arrogant, myopic. … to cling to the Word of God, then I’ll be pleased to be so called. Yes I am a straight man of an earlier vintage than most of the commenters to this blog. I believe that when God created humankind (anthropos) He knew what he was doing, and that when He instituted marriage to be between one man and one woman He found that it was good, there is NO biblical record of God blessing M2M or F2F relationships. I do not agree with you that gays, lesbians etc. have no choice or control over their behaviour. I know that not everyone was made like me, my wife was made a woman, so were my daughters, grand-daughters and great-grand-daughter. And yes one of my daughters is a carpenter, having completed a full apprenticeship as a Carpenter and Joiner, I have no problem with male serving as nurses and women as tradies; that belongs to the secular domain. I have been called a ‘complimentarian’ for my adherence to the creation of ‘anthropos’ a helpers to one another; equal in status before God but complementary in function and vocation. The physical and psychological differences have been described by many specialists in their fields, proving that indeed there are differences.
“The church (and not just the Lutheran church) has an awful lot to answer for wrt encouraging the repression of identity. Yet still those who lead most churches continue to wring their hands in puzzled ignorance at why their numbers are dwindling and why they just don’t seem relevant to younger people, blaming the “secular society” for taking them away.”
Church numbers are dwindling partially because they are not providing “entertainment” by song and dance actions, those congregations that are growing, have up to now provided more entertainment than instruction in the Word of God. In the LCA we now have congregations where Dr. Luther’s Catechism is no longer taught being replace by “Alpha” a course of Anglican ‘instruction’ including the social entertainment of a dinner.
Barney
PS I read your blog. You’re wrong on the ordination of women too.
If you think it is ‘crap’ that in the LCA we now have congregations where Dr. Luther’s Catechism is no longer taught being replace by “Alpha” a course of Anglican ‘instruction’ then we have a area of disagreement. Lutherans will always have a different doctrine and hence a different teaching than the denominations which are based on other Reformers’ doctrines and thinking. I will stick my neck out again and say that if you were confirmed after Anglican based training calling you a Lutheran would not be accurate!
Christian P.J. Bahnerth PhD
on December 30, 2011 at 11:14 am said:
If you are a Lutheran and a member of the LCA, then Article II applies.
In response to those who have taken this to turn it into an accusation I reply:
If you are a Lutheran and a member of the LCA, then Article II applies. If you are a Pastor and have a problem with that, see your District President for advice, If you are a layperson see your Pastor on that because he has as part of his ordination made the promise to adhere to it.
Barney
P.S. To those who doubt the standing of my PhD, it is a legal and earned degree, earned by coursework and Dissertation. Unfortunately for those who only recognise Harvard, Cambridge or ANU, it was not at these Universities but under USA laws a legal and recognised academically awarded degree.
They are not doubting your PHD, they are doubting your ability to hear. I would rather you reply to the questions at hand and not defend your degree. AB said in a post above: “I, Christian P. J. Bahnerth phD, do solemnly confess that I shall:
0) Stone to death all homosexuals (Lev 20:13)
1) Put us all to death for trying to turn you away from God (Deut 13:5)
2) Endeavour to kill all people that do not confess to the Christ as Lord (Deut 17:2-7)
3) Refuse entry to the Church to all people with flat noses, who are blind or lame (Lev 21:17-18)
4) Stone to death the next person that yells “Jesus Christ!” when they stub their toe (Lev 20:27)
5) Never visit the barber (Lev 19:27)
6) Never eat seafood unless they have fins or scales (Lev 11)”
7) Kill anyone who complains about their parents (Lev 20:9)
8) Not wear clothes made from more than one fabric (Lev 19:19)
Which do you want? The literal truth or the real truth?
Ask your Pastor about that, he also – by his ordination vows – has to subscribe to Article II of our Constitution.
Barney
AB on said:
Please see comment below. Most Lutheran pastors I know do not agree with OT law. BUT I am not having this discussion with Lutheran pastors, I am having this discussion with YOU, Barney!
Your response sounds like the primary school “I know you are you said you are so what am I”. What do YOU say about this?
AB on said:
Barney,
I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I am (re) trying to say that we (even you Barney!) do not take all the Bible as the whole truth and we do not follow Article II literally (and for good reason!). There are some horrible things which are condoned, even embedded into law, which we do not obey because as you stated they are ” no longer applicable”. There is an unwritten law in our Church where, like old laws in our parliament, they are ignored (did you know the state of Arkansas has a law where it is illegal to pronounce the name of the state). My comment is that you ignore all these other laws, but conveniently still use the Leviticus text to condone your stance on homosexuality. So how do you choose which ones to keep and which ones to throw out? It is impossible for the Bible to tell us everything about everything, the world is constantly changing.
I think the reason people keep questioning your title is because the key aspect of tertiary education, at least according to my university, is critical thinking – questioning your current understanding by continuing to gather information from all sources. The Article II argument is a valid argument, but you need to accept that by choosing that stance you accept all those horrible laws that go along with it. Else, if you do not agree with those laws you need to tell us WHY you don’t. Show us that your studies are valid and back up your argument.
I am enjoying this debate and I look forward to your response.
Re: ” My comment is that you ignore all these other laws, but conveniently still use the Leviticus text to condone your stance on homosexuality.”
I believe that homosexuality – i.e. the practice of M2M or F2F sexual relations – is still NOT favoured in God’s eyes,and that God sees them [the practices as abominations], even in the NT those who practice unnatural sex are excluded from entry into heaven. c.f. 1 Cor. 5:9-13. I do not deny that I do not comply with all of the whole Bible, I am not perfect nor even good – only God is good.
As have our Pastors, and some Chaplains, I also have made the promises:
[1] Do you believe and accept without reservation the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as a whole and in all their parts, as the divinely inspired, written, and inerrant Word of God, and as the only infallible source and norm for all matters of faith, doctrine and life? My answer was:”I do, with the help of God.”
[2] Do you acknowledge and accept as true expositions of the Word of God and as your own confession of faith all the symbolic writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580? My answer was:”I do, with the help of God.”
I made these promises on the acceptance of my first appointment as a Chaplain in the late 90’s. I am aware that, as a human being, I fail often, but I do NOT sin on purpose.
On the Alpha course I believe it is a loss to the Lutheran Church when Pastors use it instead of Dr. Luther’s Small Catechism. If you are keen enough to do so buy, borrow or otherwise acquire a copy and compare that with the Alpha course [whether this has been augmented by your Pastor or not]. Dr. Luther’s Small and Large catechismuses are the recognised tools for training people in the Lutheran approach to the Christian religion. Dr. Luther called the Small Catechism the “poor peoples’ Bible”.
I used to enjoy this blog but due to time constraints it won’t be long before I must leave.
Ive said before, When an ultra conservative position is challenged, the holder of that position will hide in irrelevant statemnts and finally cut and run. Barney, i dont know if you think you answered the questions that both tapio and Adam put to you, but you simply did not. Right now, i dont even know if you understood what they were asking.
If you no longer have time to comtibute, let me say thankyou for your past contribution.
AB on said:
I would be sorry if you left the debate now. You are the only one who has stayed the distance throughout this discussion.
Neil is right, you still haven’t answered my question. Forget about the new testament (for now!) and forget about what all Lutheran’s are bound to by doctrine, from one human being to another, do YOU believe and follow all of the OT laws and if YOU do not, why do YOU not? Start the sentence with I believe the OT laws… and you will be off to a good start. It does not have to be long – one or two sentences will do.
I do apologise for the capitalisation, but you keep pointing me to what all Lutherans should be believing according to what is indoctrinated in our constitution. For me, to be totally honest, I don’t really care which denomination I belong to. We all believe in the one God. I will pray to my God directly and hear God speak to me directly. He does not speak to me through constitutions.
I look forward to your reply.
Tapio on said:
Is the fact that I don’t have letters after my name the reason you fob me of and ask me to ask my Pastor? I may not be edumacated but I am capable of free thought. If you can’t answer the question it is not dishonorable to say I don’t know, in fact most of us here would respect that as an honest and valid answer. I am enjoying the debate of this blog, but at the moment all the important questions get side stepped. Ask your Pastor as a reply is not good enough.
Tapio, Happy New Year.
The short answer to your first sentence is NO! I has nothing to do with education or otherwise, it has to do with me being increasingly busy and not having the time to discuss further subjects in detail. Your Pastor as a trained Lutheran can do this better for in the first place he knows you personally and in the second place might find time for you to discuss this face2face.
I used to enjoy this blog but due to time constraints it won’t be long before I must leave.
Thanks for your contribution, I have been baiting Pastors on this blog since its inception. Maybe people feel that LGBT’s aren’t worth it, or their jobs are more important. I don’t know, all I know is no one is saying anything. :(
I hope you can still think and pray about the topic because we are talking about peoples lives and how best to Pastor for them. Unfortunately teachers are generally very rigid with what’s right and what’s wrong – Jesus was not a moral teacher and the church hated him for it. I hope some one else fills your shoes on this blog cause we need to clear the cob webs.
Re: “the world is constantly changing.” Yes it is but God’s word is NOT!
Re: “take all the Bible as the whole truth and we do not follow Article II literally (and for good reason!).” I have to refer you here to The Book of Concord, FC, Ep. 1; “We believe, teach, and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and the New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged, …. ” (Tappert pg 464). All LUTHERANS are bound by Lutheran doctrine, that we fail from time to time to live them out, is a human trait, if we willingly do not comply is worse that failing through our human nature. If we know that something IS sin and do it we bring condemnation upon our heads.
It now seems to me that certain people cannot resist communicating on statements by one who openly [overtly] declared his position and training, whilst they, themselves hide behind a one or two letter synonym. I may be in the latter part of a human life, but when I was much younger, that behaviour was not befitting a gentleman. From now on I will not take any comments serious from people who hide their identity that way. Neil Hart and I are capable of keeping our communication line open because I know who he is and he knows who I am.
The Book of Concord is still Lutheran Doctrine and is well worth reading by those who think that the modern world asks for modern standards.
Sorry Barney. I should have revealed myself earlier. I started on this blog using my initials not sure of where this would lead and was yet to provide everyone the courtesy of revealing who I am.
My name is Adam Brooks. My parents did not baptise me into a faith so that I could decide for myself what I believed. I went to a Catholic high school which served as my introduction to God, but also turned me away as some priests seemed to go against the message of love, through their harsh words about topical subjects including homosexuality. I started coming to the Lutheran church with my yet to be wife and was baptised at the LYWA Jan Camp in 2008. I went to an Alpha Course of Mike Fulwood’s and it was fantastic!(you will be happy to know that for each session he pointed out which parts differed in the Lutheran context!).
As for training, I have a BSc in Games Technology and a BA in Asian Studies. I have worked as a Software Engineer, Product Manager and a Systems Specialist. I also have completed a week long course to operate an excavator and taught at university.
Now that you know who I am, I hope you will do me the same courtesy and answer my question.
“The Article II argument is a valid argument, but you need to accept that by choosing that stance you accept all those horrible laws that go along with it. Else, if you do not agree with those laws you need to tell us WHY you don’t. Show us that your studies are valid and back up your argument.” Where do you stand?
“The Article II argument is a valid argument, but you need to accept that by choosing that stance you accept all those horrible laws that go along with it. Else, if you do not agree with those laws you need to tell us WHY you don’t. Show us that your studies are valid and back up your argument.” Where do you stand?
Where do you expect a Lutheran to stand? Either one subscribes to Lutheran doctrine and hence can be truly called a Lutheran; one tries to follow Lutheran doctrine and is hence a Lutheran; or one disregards all or major parts of Lutheran doctrine and in the process there of loses his/her Lutheran identity! Where do I stand? I think that I fall somewhere between the first and second choice. I have addressed the validity of my studies in this blog before, and that should be enough.
So are you saying a ‘perfect’ Lutheran would follow the OT laws to the word? And you fall short of that because you don’t stone to death all people that perform homosexual acts?
No Adam I am not saying that if you read my comments. Those who perform homosexual acts; whether in a “loving” long time relationship or in a “one night stand” have by their own actions forfeited a place in heaven; check St. Paul on this. I fall short because, like many Christians, I am sinful and commit sins against my will.
Barney
AB on said:
So you are saying that some OT laws you do disregard?
marginalised member of the LCA on said:
So… people who “commit sin by taking part in homosexual actions” do not get into heaven. But you who ‘commit other types of sin’ do get in to heaven???
This is perhaps the MOST UNLUTHERAN position of everything that has been written so far!
You seem more worried about being Lutheran than being in relationship with God. Does the fact that the Luthern documents and constitutions and oaths NOT actually form part of the Bible suggest anything??? When and by whom were those human made (I’m guessing MAN made) statements and documents created? The Lutheran church, as fantastic an organisation it is based on what I believe to be the core tenets, is a HUMAN created institution. NOT a God created one. If your dedication is more to the HUMAN created insitution than to God’s message than I am worried. That to me is fanatical and scary.
Some of us do not reveal our identities because we are AFRAID! Afraid that we too may lose our jobs. (See post about Baptist minister) We too may lose our friends. We too may lose our community. DO NOT stand on your soap box and refuse to respond to us purely because you are safe to speak out openly. WE ARE NOT afforded that luxury. THAT IS A FACT! Actually, what am I saying. I’d rather NOT hear what you have to say. Others may be polite and “enjoy the debate” but I’d rather not. Feel free to NOT respond to me.
I do NOT worship the Lutheran insitution. I worship GOD! The God who created me. The God who loves me so much that he offers me a place in heaven! (God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him will have eternal life, EXCEPT FOR THOSE FAGS WHO PERFORM HOMOSEXUAL ACTS!) (was that in the fine print??? or a different version of the Bible that I didn’t get a copy of???)
Do NOT go condeming people to hell! That is not YOUR place.
Jesus loves me, this I know! (so the BIBLE tells me so!) (it also tells me that I should be putting the children to death who complain to me about their parents. Lev 20:9, I think I’d better run that one by my principal before I start enforcing that new rule at school! He (even she in some schools), the spiritual leader of our school, may have a different interpretation of that part of the Bible. Maybe he should be removed from his role as he is clearly NOT following Article II. He’s NOT as Lutheran as Barney).
AB on said:
Just to make it clear what I am asking, do you think the stoning of homosexuals is a just punishment as stated in Leviticus?
AB on said:
Sorry, Marginalised Member! I realise my statement about enjoying this debate came across as in thoughtful and cruel. You are living this unfair life that we discuss on this blog. I felt like the discussion with Barney was finally moving and my comment was based on this. I hope that we can make progress towards a Lutheran Church, and World, that is accepting of all sexualities! Once again, please accept my sincerest apology.
In light of your post above, I thought some of you might especially appreciate this first new post for 2012 titled: “Genesis 19: What the Bible REALLY Says Were the Sins of Sodom” (link below).
Hey, Barny! THIS is called biblical analysis. THIS is a reasoned defence of a position. I’m not disputing the validity of your qualifications. I am questioning the responses that you give to the questions asked of you. Put you training to work. Answer the question. One simple question as far as i can see. What is you BASIS (reason? assumption? belief structure?) that enables you to follow one set of OT rules and yet dismiss another? Come Barney….let us reason together…
Btw…Alex, my last post talks about Gagnon’s book (read, anti-gay propogande document) “The Bible and homosexual practice”. Gognon finds that the “detestable thing” mentioned in Ezekiel is Homosexuality. Of course He does. What else could it possibly be…sigh….and people like him actually make money from selling their books. I guess people like to have their prejudices supported and feel happier when their hate seems to be biblically sanctioned :(
You wrote: “Just to make it clear what I am asking, do you think the stoning of homosexuals is a just punishment as stated in Leviticus?”
In the days that the 3rd Book of Moses was written it was considered justified to stone people for certain ‘offences’. In our day and age we have change the penalty rates for certain offences and criminal acts, I think that is in many ways an improvement and in concert with the Command “Thou shalt not murder.” (Decalogue).
I am more concerned with the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) than with hygienic rules that say when a husband can sleep with his wife, and rules that say what to do with a disobedient son. Many of the rules in the OT were for the proper running of the community at the time and must be compared with what the NT teaches us about our conduct in post NT times. I think that to put a homosexual person to death for his homosexual act is in this day and age, not required. He [or she] has already put himself outside of those who can inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6:9-10. They by their own actions are dead already, and I do not have to add to that. On confession of their sin, true repentance and a subsequent change of lifestyle, they are no longer on the list in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, and can have hope to enter the Kingdom of God.
The LUTHERAN church permits THIS GUY to represent them to sick, ailing and perhaps even dying people?!?! (if I understand that you are a hospital chaplain). How comforting it must be for them to have such a compassionate and caring LUTHERAN representative judge them and condemn them to hell. (no all, I’m sure some of them only commit sins against their own will like Barney, not wilful sins).
Lutheran teachers are under SOOOOOOOOO much scrutiny about what they are permitted to teach and say to students, parents and community. I guess we’re either really short on hospital chaplains or the LCA stance is CONDEMN THEM (gays) ALL TO HELL!
I weep openly at reading what you have to say and at the thought of what you say to those in vulnerable positions.
Jesus loves me, this I know! If only Barney too did so!
Thanks for answering the question. So you agree that some of the OT laws are no longer applicable in our time, but may have been ‘suitable’ for the age in which they were written. Slavery is unjust and inhumane, menstruation is not as unhygienic and the stoning of homosexuals is just plain wrong, no matter how we feel about the subject! And I hope you can also agree then that NO Lutheran does, and would want to, LITERALLY live up to Article II. Instead, we look to the whole Bible and what it is trying to tell us. I still think this aligns with what Article II is saying, but in a more holistic sense. So Neil’s argument slavery texts, both OT and NT, is relevant to this discussion, because slavery is no longer acceptable in our time, similarly to menstruation and stoning of homosexuals. So my next question, is how do YOU choose to ignore the slavery texts even though they are scattered through the OT and NT?
Hope we haven’t lost you, Barney. I’m looking forward to your response on how you choose to look at the slavery texts.
AB on said:
Going back and reading through my comments I would like to take back part of the previous comment. Menstruation is still acceptable in our times and will always be! :P
Hope people understood what I meant from my previous comments! :)
Yours humbly in Christ,
Adam
Tapio on said:
And you merrily continue stroking your own “pet sin”. I think you might be best of following the lead of all those other guys that were about to throw stones.
My pleasure! Many of us were taught things that simply don’t hold up to scrutiny when they are examined more closely and in context. So I believe it’s important to get this stuff out there. There are links to lots of other good stuff on the “Archives” page as well, and a “Contact” page for those who want to let me know how wrong I am or just to comment on something without necessarily posting to the site.
Thnx Alex…BTW…ur wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Got no facts to back it up. Not even sure what ur wrong about but it feels good to say it… hope you dont mind……
It would appear that increasingly more people are discovering that you are the one who is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! If the facts (and the exegegsis) don’t supoort your treasured doctrines then you need to let them GO GO GO GO.
The original concept of this blog was:
“A post by Neil Hart on homosexuality, LGBT, lesbian and gay stuff.
I [Neil] have a particular interest in the church’s view on ethical issues, esp. sexuality, homosexuality and gender issues.”
I have stated my opinion on those issues, and stick by them.
Furthermore, I believe that those who claim to be Lutheran and either do not know Lutheran Doctrine as embodied in the Book of Concord – may not have studied it or even know its existence – or knowingly disregard the teachings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, can not in all honesty claim to be Lutherans.
Furthermore, I believe that those Pastors who teach Alpha – whether ‘explained’ or not – are not teaching Lutheran teachings as embodied in Dr. Luther’s Small Catechism, they are perhaps more suitable to teach Anglican theology, perhaps in an Anglican environment.
Furthermore, I believe that Pastors who teach according Baptist theology – whether ‘explained’ or not – as in ’40 day of purpose’, are also outside of the teaching of the Lutheran Church, maybe that Pastor should consider the tenets of the Baptist interpretation of the Christian faith, perhaps in a Baptist environment. There are some good examples found on the internet for Lenten programs that follow Lutheran Theology that foreign [other denominational] doctrine need not be used to teach our souls.
Finally I have come to the understanding that in the LCA there are two distinctive streams; (1) those who believe in Lutheran doctrine, liturgy and adherence to Apostolic Instructions, and,
(2) those who believe what is right in their own eyes.
Christian P.J. Bahnerth
GradDipMaintEng, GradCertMgmt., MACS
GradDipTH., MTh., PHD.
Thanks for your input into the discussion. I was hoping you would stay around for the debate.
I hope you can see how all these topics are connected. I also understand your dilemma in entering into the slavery debate, because however you answer the slavery question, you must also take the same approach to the homosexuality debate. I know you are not for slavery, and this is contradictory to how you feel about homosexuality.
Thanks once again for the open and honest discussion despite our opposing views and I hope we haven’t lost you for future discussions.
Just pondering on the division of groups that Barney has suggested above. Perhaps, that is the issue. The conservative part of the Church has got so entangled around what they believe is part of the doctrine that it fails to see what is right in front of their eyes. Food for thought!
Wow Barney :( Lutheran doctrine, liturgy and adherence to Apostolic Instructions won’t save your soul, give you healing, or pay your debt. There is nothing wrong with those things, but to place them on such a high pedestal is imo missing the whole point of being Lutheran. Aren’t we about Grace? There are so many laws/rules/conditions in your final comment, where is the room for Grace?
My prayer for you is that you experience that Grace in all it’s fullness.
Your sister in Christ , Sarah
Neil. You may or may not wish to post the following comment or even edit it, either way, I will not be offended. Warren.
Dear Barney,
I find that your comments were not only a personal attack upon an individual, but an insult to the rational thinking, open-minded people making comment within these blogs.
You state in your comment that you……………..’have by experience seen the spiritual ruin that homosexuality brings to one’s life and more importantly one’s soul.’ Well, i like to think of myself as a rational thinking, open-minded person and would have to agree with you on some aspects of this comment. But, what i feel has been omitted is that this can happen in ALL LEVELS OF SOCIETY and not just homosexuality. Don’t just target one section of society, is shows narrow-mindedness.
Being a Doctor of Philosophy in Biblical Studies really means NOTHING to me due to the definition of Philosophy being …… ‘a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school.’ It is a BELIEF and not necessarily FACT based with evidence to back it up.
So, let’s move forward in this debate and not to judge people, but to love and respect people for what they are and respect others opinions……………you don’t necessarily have to agree with them……….just don’t condemn them for having a differing opinion.
Warren.
Dear Warren,
My reply to Neil was as a personal warning that he – at the time – was outside the bounds of what a Lutheran may [should] profess. I do not know if you are a Lutheran, but if you are refer to Article II of your Constitution.
Yes, I have by experience seen the spiritual ruin that homosexual practices bring to one’s life and more importantly to one’s soul. BTW I am a Chaplain of several decades standing.
About being a PhD. mine was achieved by course work and Dissertation and examination, it is a recognised form of academic study and achievement, here and overseas. BTW mine was NOT a judgement, but a warning.
If opinions are different so be it; however the Word of God will not change, and disobedience to HIS Word has its own consequences.
Barney
Neil,
Out of your several blogs I have two [hard copy] in front of me; and I’ll try to answer them where appropriate.
• ‘Barney, do you know that the bible describes your wife during her monthly “uncleaness” an abomination? But it would be just plain offensive to call her an abomination. Wouldnt you agree?’ The women’s natural “uncleaness” is a NATURAL result of being a woman of sexual productive age. There are hygienic reasons for abstaining of having contact with her in an environment where showers etc. were not available, and it is still very uncomfortable for a woman who has her “Women’s Weekly” to have intercourse. The woman is NOT an abomination; however, some may call it an abomination to have sex with her at that time.
• “You will admit that what you say is strong” Yes what I said IS strong, I have been in the past rather mild in my rebuttal of the abomination of M2M and F2F relationships and other un-natural relationships between human beings, including incest etc. Since we see this from different angles, I am not surprised that you react to my stronger stance. As far as your vow is concerned; even though I am NOT ordained I have taken two parts identical to your vow when I first became a Chaplain:
o Do you believe and accept without reservation the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments, as a whole and in all their parts, as the divinely inspired, written, and inerrant word of God, and as the only infallible source and norm for all matters of faith doctrine and life? My answer was “I Do.”
o Do you acknowledge and accept as true expositions of the Word of God and as your own confession of faith all the symbolic writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580? My answer was “I DO.”
• I realise that there is a difference of opinion even between our ordained Pastors and Doctors in the LCA, they have followed their own agendas on a subject beyond our discussion on “that abomination”
• “1. Your position on slavery texts.” The slavery that exists in the world is not part of our subject under discussion; however I do not see a nexus between the ‘ownership of one human being by another’ and homosexuality. I do see a nexus between ‘the slavery of sin’ and homosexuality.
• “2. Can you explain … The law was made for people, not the people for the law.” And “… the-doors-of-the-church-open-wide-to-all-straight-men-and-women-but-they-will-not-open-to me.” Any society or community has rules of behaviour ever since mankind was created. The Decalogue is an example of such a set of rules, Murder and adultery are forbidden, they still do happen, but would you support that? Would you say that we were created for murder and adultery? We in Australia drive on the left-hand side of the road, should one chose to drive on the other side, a collision is bound to occur. We have rules about theft and trespassing written for the good of people.
• “3. Can you defend … homosexual ‘propensity’ is NOT sin, but homosexual activity IS sin, …” I as a layman cannot speak for the LCA, so I can only answer with my personal opinion. I wrote above; ‘The woman is NOT an abomination; however, some may call it an abomination to have sex with her at that time.’ Guiding to the principle that the act is the sin. However that is the easy way out in the case of homosexuality. Our Lord clearly stated that when one looks lustfully at a woman a sin was committed and if you eye leads you to sin pluck it out. Thus, the sin starts in the mind and even thinking about having an affair outside marriage is a sin (adultery). Thus in this light, a homosexual propensity [I dislike that word] needs to be defined further; if one thinks about having M2M or F2F sex that IS sin, if one practices M2M or F2F sex that is even more so sin. However, if one could be homosexual without knowing it, I do not think that is SIN.
I agree that this is usually the point where those who disagree disappear, in our case we can agree to disagree, and let our minds dwell on God’s love, the Truth of HIS Word and also Article II of our Constitution. About splitting, I think that a split is developing in the LCA not only on this subject but on another subject which has attracted greater attention and has driven a wedge between clergy, between theologians, and indeed Parishes/congregations. I do not intend to address the ordination of females in this blog.
Thnx for the response Barny.
So many things that could be talked about. But id like to comtinue on only 3 points as they can be more specifically debated.
1. The reason i mentioned a woman’s menstrual cycle as an abomination is because that is the way the bible describes it. It similarly describes crayfish and even their shells as an abomination. You make the statement
“The woman is NOT an abomination; however, some may call it an abomination to have sex with her at that time.”
If i may say…this is a very gracious and reasonable approach to women in the menstual cycle. As you say, they are NOT an abomination. As you said “some” may call it an abominaion to have sex at that time. i notice that you did not put yourself in that group. Good on you! We are not bound by those offensive OT labels.
Now, Barney, to be biblically and exegetically consistent….surely you would afford the same sensitivity to my Gay friend. Would you say he is NOT and abomination? If not. Why Not?
2. The vow aspect. The 2 parts that you mentioned are included in my vow. The scripture passages in the LCA on homosexuality are a controverted issue. They are presently under debate. The passages therefore dont help in the regard to the accusation of breaking vows. The specific sections are to do with the DSTO. As i stated before, I would be interested in your opinion of the status of the DSTO in regard to ordination vows. And… how is it possible to debate the issue without breaking vows? That was my question.
3. I dont believe that you addressed The radical nature of Jesus statement. “the sabbath is meant for man and not man for the sabbath”. Jesus is most definitely defending his disciples breaking of one of the most critical OT laws. Jesus is clearly willing to ignore the law if it no longer serves the people but does them harm. Would you agree? Does this inform how we view the application of the law on people today?
I look forward to your response.
Neil.
Re: 1. The reply on women in their “women’s weekly” is based on hygienic understandings, as I think that the Holy Bible may have seen it also at the time when that syncope was written. As far as your gay friend is concerned, what he DOES is IMHO an abomination – indeed the Holy Bible calls that by the same name. The functions of a man’s penis include; providing a drain for the bladder, and less frequently as a conduit for his sperm to impregnate his wife. I do not believe that this organ was ever meant or designed to enter the anus of a man or woman, no matter how much they love each other. The gay man or woman – as a person – is in IMHO in themselves NOT an abomination when celibate; however, I believe when they cease to be celibate their unnatural acts are abominable and against God’s instructions for life, c.f. Rom. 6:12-13, 1 Cor. 5:9-13, 7:1-3.
I read and understand from your posts that many of the CLBT persuasion CANNOT – OR WILL NOT – change to a righteous life. I have compassion for those who ‘CANNOT’ and I pray that they may see that it is not God’s will that they practice that lifestyle, and I pray that they be given grace and strength to become and remain celibate. Contrariwise, those WHO WILL NOT change, they must be made aware that their lifestyle is against that expected of a Christian. To answer your question; “Would you say he [your friend?] is not an abomination?” I believe he[himself] is not an abominations but his actions are against the will of God, the sin is first and foremost in the mind and then exposed by the person’s actions.
Re: 2. “The vow aspect” Whether one considers the scripture passages in the LCA on homosexuality to be a controverted issue, is an item for the LCA to decide, under our Constitution Article II we are to use the Holy Scriptures as our only rule and norm for faith, life and doctrine. No matter what a denomination teaches – and that includes the LCA – the Word of God is and remains our guide in faith, life and doctrine. I think it would be difficult to discuss the Ordination Vows with one who does not – or no longer can – adhere to them. If a man makes a vow he is bound to it, unless he is released by the One whom he made the vow to. The Holy Bible gives a way out when a woman makes a vow.
Re: 3. “I don’t believe that … ‘the Sabbath is meant for man and not the man for the Sabbath’ “ I regret that I did not get that through to you, you are indeed correct in saying that Jesus is indeed willing to ignore the law in emergencies and when a specific OT law is no longer applicable in our times. In this day and age we have so far moved from what God wants us to do and how we ought to live that secular rules and customs have taken over the minds and lifestyles of many who go by the name of “Christian”.
What we need today are Pastors and learned Christians who uphold the Word of God, against all the secular practices of this ‘modern’ world, the accuser’s domain.
May God bless you in the search for the right way to serve God and to give Christian counsel to those who are addicted to unnatural practices.
in HIS love and service
Barney
Ok Barney, thanx for staying with the debate.
I relation to calling my friend an abomination… you initially said…
“I believe that you should reconsider your vows, and if you cannot, OR WILL NOT comply with your solemn vows, resign your ordination, leave the LCA, and join a denomination where the homosexual abominations are overtly or covertly accepted. You have dishonoured your ordination and you are not true to your vows.”
Now you are saying…
To answer your question; “Would you say he [your friend?] is not an abomination?” I believe he[himself] is not an abominations but his actions are against the will of God.
Small steps are good steps. In humility would you now be willing to apologise to my friend whom you offended with your initial statement?
In regard to the LCA DSTO statement on homosexuality. you seem to agree with my concerns about the statement that homosexual orientation is Not sin but that the Action IS sin. You have said…
“Thus in this light, a homosexual propensity [I dislike that word] needs to be defined further;”
and…
“the sin is first and foremost in the mind and then exposed by the person’s actions.”
Would you agree then that my quest to challenge the church on this issue is a reasonable thing to do? Or, should you and I, as conscience bound confessional and truth seeking Lutherans just keep silent in the face of such obvious error? It seems that you place me in a predicament Barney. Do I need to hold to the DSTO to keep my vow? What if You and I believe that the DSTO is against scripture. Dont i keep my vow by questioning the church’s accepted teachings? Or do I keep my vow by accepting the church’s DSTO and therefore break it because we both know that i would be going against scripture.
Help me out of my predicament barney…
“Jesus is indeed willing to ignore the law in emergencies and when a specific OT law is no longer applicable in our times”
I think we do agree on something Barney. I think where we differ is which laws we think are applicable in this day. So, how do we decide which OT laws apply to our times and which ones we don’t?
” About splitting, I think that a split is developing in the LCA not only on this subject but on another subject which has attracted greater attention and has driven a wedge between clergy, between theologians, and indeed Parishes/congregations. I do not intend to address the ordination of females in this blog.”
I also agree a split is coming if open discussion and an environment of acceptance isn’t adopted within our church. The way I see it right now our church is made up of many different people with many different beliefs and opinions on many issues. Two of the “main” issues at the moment are woman’s ordination and homosexuality. Right now we all worship along side each other despite these differences. That’s good isn’t it? There must be unity within our church if we can all worship together despite our differing opinions right? Hmmm. So basically while the “woman’s Libbers” and the “Gay Priders” keep quiet and don’t try to serve in the church or let it be known that they agree with woman’s ordination or that they are gay, all is well. If I don’t know about it, if I don’t hear it then I don’t have to think about it or deal with it. We already have homosexual congregation members, teachers and probably pastors in our churches and schools, but because we don’t “know” about it it doesn’t matter, right? We should provide buckets of sand at every chair in church so we can keep burying our heads firmly in the sand where it is safe and comfortable. Everything can go on as it always has. Secrets, secrets are the answer to a happy united church!! Once again, hmmm.
The fact is there are people hurting in our church over these issues and many who have left over them. Do we want to whittle down our members until we have no woman who want to serve and no homosexuals? We would also have to get rid of anyone who supported them and their opinions. Then what about people who believe in adult full immersion baptism, surely they would have to go. And then there are the ones who don’t believe that the sacraments are literally Jesus body and blood! What about those who come from other denominational backgrounds? They might want to sing Hillsong instead of hymns!!
Ah the good old slippery slope..
I would hate to see our church split into “The Gay LCA” and “The LCA for those who support WO” and “The Conservative LCA” etc etc the list could be never ending. In fact if we only want to worship with others who believe the exact same as us we will be worshipping alone. One person in a room praying for everyone else to see the error of their ways!
Woman’s ordination WILL happen and the acceptance of homosexuality WILL happen, and when they do where will our church stand? Wouldn’t it be better to work this out with love than to have it forced upon us in the end anyway? What will our church look like? Will we be a united people in love or will we be a divided mess of bitterness?
I remember reading a American Lutheran media review on our 2006 synod. they said that our church is wonderfully united…right up to the moment when we actually want to talk abpout anything…then the divisions that have always been there re-emerge and we are divided again. Sad indictment. but thats certainly the way i observed the opne and only national synod that i have been to, Wjhat do we do when we do not agree? If we are family, we deal with it as family, If we are a club with rules and regulations, we deal with it accordingly. I really hope that we prove ourselves to be a family.
Thanks Sarah. Well said. We’re indeed in sinful union with ourselves!
Since my last reply a number of questions have arisen. As a consequence I need to clear up a few things.
There seems to be a confusion or consensus about the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality”; if I have contributed to that confusion, I will attempt to be clearer, albeit at the cost of longer replies.
Let us begin with the term “homosexual orientation” or ‘homosexual propensity’ as the DSTO uses it. In the beginning God created man and woman after His own kind, and they became one flesh; i.e. one woman, one man, one flesh. It was not until after the fall that this became garbled and sexual deviations came into being.
In my humble opinion (IMHO), term “homosexual” refers to the man or woman who has SEXUAL feelings for one of the same gender; it does not refer to all who have LOVE for a person of the same gender. I loved my father, I loved my favourite uncle, I love my Pastor [as a friend] and his sons; yet, that does not mean that I am inclined to sleep in the same bed with them.
However, IMHO the term “homosexuality” includes the practices of those who have SEXUAL feelings for one of the same gender. Notice here we have gone from a person with certain feelings to a practice that gives a physical outlet or embodiment of that feeling. It is that practice which is the SIN and the person who practices it the SINNER of an abomination. A person, who has physical love/lust for one of the same gender, is sinning in the same sense as a heterosexual man who looks at a beautiful woman as “a bed candidate”. The sexual act(s) that can follow confirm the sin in its full gravity.
Neil you asked “do I need to hold to the DSTO to keep my vow?” I wrote to you before about the two vows we have in common, in addition to that I refer you to Article II in the Constitutions at all levels of the LCA. You and I, and perhaps many others, know that it is wrong to go against the Word of God, St. Augustine wrote about this at length that it was wrong to obey a Bishop when that Bishop was in error, and so did Dr. Martin Luther! However, when an error has happened, Christians must use their Berean right and let them be heard; which I have done on THAT other subject, to the annoyance of some on the other side of the argument.
To ABon, Article II of our Constitutions at all levels of the LCA, contains the answer for you, since by being a Lutheran you subscribed to it!
To Sarah, Our LCA is already split in pro-WO and anti-WO, in accordance with Article II of our Constitutions at all levels of the LCA, we must let the Word of God be the Word of God! If WO happens it will be IMHO against the Word of God, how can a woman preach without speaking? I will not address WO in this blog any further, it is a different subject. You – like all contributors to this blog – are welcome to contribute to my own blog at http://exethento.wordpress.com on the WO issue and other items that befall us.
Back to Neil
Yes I agree we are wonderfully united … right up to the moment when we actually want to talk about it. Let our discussions be based on what is Scripturally and Doctrinally sound. We are NOT a social club or organisation with rules and regulations, we are a Christian denomination with well researched doctrines and other statements of belief relying totally on the Word of God and being assisted in our doctrine by those who found errors in the beliefs and practices in the 16th century and beyond. What do we do when we do not agree, first and foremost we are to pray for wisdom and the help of the Holy Spirit, secondly we are to re-assess our commitment to (i) being a CHRISTIAN and (ii) being a LUTHERAN.
In HIS love and service
Barney
As far as the apology goes….I’ll take that as a no then.
Ezekiel 3:17-19
17 Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me:
18 When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.
19 Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
Ezekiel 33:7-9
7 So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. 8 When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. 9 Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
thnx for the solemn reminder Barney. After reading this passage i shall renew my efforts to take up the responsibility given to me by right of my ordination and warn the church of its ungodly, unscriptural, unconfessional, unloving stand on homosexuality lest the entire organisation face the wrath of God. Join me in this righteous cause.
But…still no apology? Sigh…humility comes hard sometimes….Man! i know thats the case….:(
Barney,
What about a person who is born with a penis and a uterus? Whichever way this person goes he/she is going to face condemnation by you. Can you not see the issue is much more complicated than sexual organs. A gay is interested in the other person for more than just sex, you cheapen them to be like most of us heterosexuals who are interested in nothing other than sex. The person inside, the person is created by God, the desire for love is created by God. You are mixing up pornography and lust and all the selfish stuff with a God given God created desire for a committed loving relationship. You are placing an unbearable burden on a child of God – beware of millstones.
Do you know why I began to question my opinions on Gay Marriage – I’ll tell you, I met a man that called homosexual’s an abomination, when I suggested that he was being very harsh he responded with further hateful words. Rather than argue I said I would do some research and we could discuss it further. He gave me links to another guy on the internet and I found more hate and more fear mongering. This was not the Jesus that I knew. Your tone displays some of this kind of tone, I do believe you have a heart for Jesus but Barney the whole argument against is full of fear, mistrust, hate and doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t feel right to you to have feelings for a man, well you know it doesn’t have to, you were not created that way. Ironically it was the people who argued against that convinced me that my opinion (which was against) was wrong.
I am not a counsellor or chaplain or anything so I might be speaking out of ignorance but when you say that you have witnessed the spiritual ruin that homosexuality brings can I suggest what is more likely the case. Pornography, lust and selfish predatory sex…..the list is long…. all produce ruin. I ask you, where is a Gay person to go, the church doesn’t want them. Where would you go if a community of people believed your preferences were perverted – you would have to leave. The church by their unloving attitudes is causing them to stumble. The gay community does have its problems and promiscuity is among those(no different to hetero groups), but I know that if I was gay I would find acceptance in that community and would undoubtedly follow the people who don’t call me an abomination. The spiritual ruin you are seeing is the ruin that the church is causing. The sooner the church recognizes that God loves, God created, God honours committed gay relationships the sooner we will see healing in those communities. (and ours for that matter)
Hang on, you seem to have just contradicted yourself Barney. You said that “Jesus is indeed willing to ignore the law in emergencies and when a specific OT law is no longer applicable in our times” but then referred me to article II saying we must believe in all OT as the truth. You can’t have it both ways! We must either accept all OT as the complete truth and adhere to it or agree that some of the OT does not fit with our current society. Which one is it?
Consistency was never a conservative strong point. Which is strange. because the conservatives always claim to be the ones holding to the “pure word of God”. I think its a case of either selective memory or inability to follow an argument to the end…the latter i think. Barney dismissed the slavery/ Homosexuality link out of hand. And he has a doctorate in biblical studies??? Sigh. My son in law had to work so hard for his doctorate. But. then again, his was a real one.
If you are a Lutheran and a member of the LCA, then Article II applies.
Barney
Hi Barney
To confirm, you are talking about Article II of the LCA Constitution I have attached it below.
“ARTICLE II. CONFESSION
The District accepts the Confession of the Lutheran Church of Australia Incorporated, viz.:
(a) It accepts without reservation the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as a whole and in all their
parts, as the divinely inspired, written, and inerrant Word of God, and as the only infallible source and norm for
all matters of faith, doctrine and life.
(b) It acknowledges and accepts as true expositions of the Word of God and as its own confession all the
Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580, namely, the three Ecumenical Creeds: the Apostles‘ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed; the Unaltered Augsburg Confession; the Apology of the Augsburg Confession; the Smalcald Articles; the Small Catechism of Luther; the Large Catechism of Luther; and the Formula of Concord.” http://www.sa.lca.org.au/District%20Constitution%202010.pdf
If I understand correctly, it says that we should look at the Bible as the sole source of truth for all matters and is without error. I have prepared the AB Confession derived from the source above for you to confess. Hopefully it highlights what I think you are missing from the debate.
I, Christian P. J. Bahnerth phD, do solemnly confess that I shall:
0) Stone to death all homosexuals (Lev 20:13)
1) Put us all to death for trying to turn you away from God (Deut 13:5)
2) Endeavour to kill all people that do not confess to the Christ as Lord (Deut 17:2-7)
3) Refuse entry to the Church to all people with flat noses, who are blind or lame (Lev 21:17-18)
4) Stone to death the next person that yells “Jesus Christ!” when they stub their toe (Lev 20:27)
5) Never visit the barber (Lev 19:27)
6) Never eat seafood unless they have fins or scales (Lev 11)
7) Kill anyone who complains about their parents (Lev 20:9)
8) Not wear clothes made from more than one fabric (Lev 19:19)
I am pointing you right back to Article II, Barney. And while you are at it, could you please tell me what the Bible’s advice is on (faith, doctrine and life!) Aquaponics, starting computer viruses, and Facebook?
Aquaponics: Those shell fish (yabbies) are CURSED!
Computer viruses: Call ur son in law.
Facebook: ITS EVIL I TELLS YA! EVIL!
But… i am interested in Barneys defense of scripture. ad article 2.
Barney, im not sure if you are aware of how you come across – fantastically arrogant, myopic, patriarchal and clinging onto the past in the belief that norms that once were current should always be so. You’re ignoring a couple of key things, that , (I’m guessing) as a straight man whose formative years occurred when cultural, social and societal norms were vey different, are understandable, but still not acceptable. Barney, people don’t choose to be gay, or bisexual or lesbian etc. They don’t make a conscious decision which gender to be attracted to. Similarly, you didn’t choose to be heterosexual. It’s how you were made. But here’s the thing: not everyone was made like you. Until you understand this, you will allow your arrogance and ignorance to be the way you are identified.
The church (and not just the Lutheran church) has an awful lot to answer for wrt encouraging the repression of identity. Yet still those who lead most churches continue to wring their hands in puzzled ignorance at why their numbers are dwindling and why they just don’t seem relevant to younger people, blaming the “secular society” for taking them away.
M
PS I read your blog. You’re wrong on the ordination of women too.
Cant argue with you M. The NCLS survey tells the sad tale.
http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=6814
Note: The LCA is second worse of a really bad bunch of figures. Just ahead of the catholics. Hooray! (wry smile)
M on December 29, 2011 at 11:58 pm said:
“Barney, im not sure if you are aware of how you come across – fantastically arrogant, myopic, patriarchal and clinging onto the past in the belief that norms that once were current should always be so. You’re ignoring a couple of key things, that , (I’m guessing) as a straight man whose formative years occurred when cultural, social and societal norms were vey different, are understandable, but still not acceptable. Barney, people don’t choose to be gay, or bisexual or lesbian etc. They don’t make a conscious decision which gender to be attracted to. Similarly, you didn’t choose to be heterosexual. It’s how you were made. But here’s the thing: not everyone was made like you. Until you understand this, you will allow your arrogance and ignorance to be the way you are identified.”
If it is arrogant, myopic. … to cling to the Word of God, then I’ll be pleased to be so called. Yes I am a straight man of an earlier vintage than most of the commenters to this blog. I believe that when God created humankind (anthropos) He knew what he was doing, and that when He instituted marriage to be between one man and one woman He found that it was good, there is NO biblical record of God blessing M2M or F2F relationships. I do not agree with you that gays, lesbians etc. have no choice or control over their behaviour. I know that not everyone was made like me, my wife was made a woman, so were my daughters, grand-daughters and great-grand-daughter. And yes one of my daughters is a carpenter, having completed a full apprenticeship as a Carpenter and Joiner, I have no problem with male serving as nurses and women as tradies; that belongs to the secular domain. I have been called a ‘complimentarian’ for my adherence to the creation of ‘anthropos’ a helpers to one another; equal in status before God but complementary in function and vocation. The physical and psychological differences have been described by many specialists in their fields, proving that indeed there are differences.
“The church (and not just the Lutheran church) has an awful lot to answer for wrt encouraging the repression of identity. Yet still those who lead most churches continue to wring their hands in puzzled ignorance at why their numbers are dwindling and why they just don’t seem relevant to younger people, blaming the “secular society” for taking them away.”
Church numbers are dwindling partially because they are not providing “entertainment” by song and dance actions, those congregations that are growing, have up to now provided more entertainment than instruction in the Word of God. In the LCA we now have congregations where Dr. Luther’s Catechism is no longer taught being replace by “Alpha” a course of Anglican ‘instruction’ including the social entertainment of a dinner.
Barney
PS I read your blog. You’re wrong on the ordination of women too.
You know Barney, I think what you’re saying is crap, but your conviction is admirable. Good luck with that.
M
If you think it is ‘crap’ that in the LCA we now have congregations where Dr. Luther’s Catechism is no longer taught being replace by “Alpha” a course of Anglican ‘instruction’ then we have a area of disagreement. Lutherans will always have a different doctrine and hence a different teaching than the denominations which are based on other Reformers’ doctrines and thinking. I will stick my neck out again and say that if you were confirmed after Anglican based training calling you a Lutheran would not be accurate!
Barney
Christian P.J. Bahnerth PhD
on December 30, 2011 at 11:14 am said:
If you are a Lutheran and a member of the LCA, then Article II applies.
In response to those who have taken this to turn it into an accusation I reply:
If you are a Lutheran and a member of the LCA, then Article II applies. If you are a Pastor and have a problem with that, see your District President for advice, If you are a layperson see your Pastor on that because he has as part of his ordination made the promise to adhere to it.
Barney
P.S. To those who doubt the standing of my PhD, it is a legal and earned degree, earned by coursework and Dissertation. Unfortunately for those who only recognise Harvard, Cambridge or ANU, it was not at these Universities but under USA laws a legal and recognised academically awarded degree.
B.
They are not doubting your PHD, they are doubting your ability to hear. I would rather you reply to the questions at hand and not defend your degree. AB said in a post above: “I, Christian P. J. Bahnerth phD, do solemnly confess that I shall:
0) Stone to death all homosexuals (Lev 20:13)
1) Put us all to death for trying to turn you away from God (Deut 13:5)
2) Endeavour to kill all people that do not confess to the Christ as Lord (Deut 17:2-7)
3) Refuse entry to the Church to all people with flat noses, who are blind or lame (Lev 21:17-18)
4) Stone to death the next person that yells “Jesus Christ!” when they stub their toe (Lev 20:27)
5) Never visit the barber (Lev 19:27)
6) Never eat seafood unless they have fins or scales (Lev 11)”
7) Kill anyone who complains about their parents (Lev 20:9)
8) Not wear clothes made from more than one fabric (Lev 19:19)
Which do you want? The literal truth or the real truth?
Ask your Pastor about that, he also – by his ordination vows – has to subscribe to Article II of our Constitution.
Barney
Please see comment below. Most Lutheran pastors I know do not agree with OT law. BUT I am not having this discussion with Lutheran pastors, I am having this discussion with YOU, Barney!
Your response sounds like the primary school “I know you are you said you are so what am I”. What do YOU say about this?
Barney,
I am not trying to accuse you of anything. I am (re) trying to say that we (even you Barney!) do not take all the Bible as the whole truth and we do not follow Article II literally (and for good reason!). There are some horrible things which are condoned, even embedded into law, which we do not obey because as you stated they are ” no longer applicable”. There is an unwritten law in our Church where, like old laws in our parliament, they are ignored (did you know the state of Arkansas has a law where it is illegal to pronounce the name of the state). My comment is that you ignore all these other laws, but conveniently still use the Leviticus text to condone your stance on homosexuality. So how do you choose which ones to keep and which ones to throw out? It is impossible for the Bible to tell us everything about everything, the world is constantly changing.
I think the reason people keep questioning your title is because the key aspect of tertiary education, at least according to my university, is critical thinking – questioning your current understanding by continuing to gather information from all sources. The Article II argument is a valid argument, but you need to accept that by choosing that stance you accept all those horrible laws that go along with it. Else, if you do not agree with those laws you need to tell us WHY you don’t. Show us that your studies are valid and back up your argument.
I am enjoying this debate and I look forward to your response.
Happy New Year Adam
Re: ” My comment is that you ignore all these other laws, but conveniently still use the Leviticus text to condone your stance on homosexuality.”
I believe that homosexuality – i.e. the practice of M2M or F2F sexual relations – is still NOT favoured in God’s eyes,and that God sees them [the practices as abominations], even in the NT those who practice unnatural sex are excluded from entry into heaven. c.f. 1 Cor. 5:9-13. I do not deny that I do not comply with all of the whole Bible, I am not perfect nor even good – only God is good.
As have our Pastors, and some Chaplains, I also have made the promises:
[1] Do you believe and accept without reservation the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as a whole and in all their parts, as the divinely inspired, written, and inerrant Word of God, and as the only infallible source and norm for all matters of faith, doctrine and life? My answer was:”I do, with the help of God.”
[2] Do you acknowledge and accept as true expositions of the Word of God and as your own confession of faith all the symbolic writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church contained in the Book of Concord of 1580? My answer was:”I do, with the help of God.”
I made these promises on the acceptance of my first appointment as a Chaplain in the late 90’s. I am aware that, as a human being, I fail often, but I do NOT sin on purpose.
On the Alpha course I believe it is a loss to the Lutheran Church when Pastors use it instead of Dr. Luther’s Small Catechism. If you are keen enough to do so buy, borrow or otherwise acquire a copy and compare that with the Alpha course [whether this has been augmented by your Pastor or not]. Dr. Luther’s Small and Large catechismuses are the recognised tools for training people in the Lutheran approach to the Christian religion. Dr. Luther called the Small Catechism the “poor peoples’ Bible”.
I used to enjoy this blog but due to time constraints it won’t be long before I must leave.
Ive said before, When an ultra conservative position is challenged, the holder of that position will hide in irrelevant statemnts and finally cut and run. Barney, i dont know if you think you answered the questions that both tapio and Adam put to you, but you simply did not. Right now, i dont even know if you understood what they were asking.
If you no longer have time to comtibute, let me say thankyou for your past contribution.
I would be sorry if you left the debate now. You are the only one who has stayed the distance throughout this discussion.
Neil is right, you still haven’t answered my question. Forget about the new testament (for now!) and forget about what all Lutheran’s are bound to by doctrine, from one human being to another, do YOU believe and follow all of the OT laws and if YOU do not, why do YOU not? Start the sentence with I believe the OT laws… and you will be off to a good start. It does not have to be long – one or two sentences will do.
I do apologise for the capitalisation, but you keep pointing me to what all Lutherans should be believing according to what is indoctrinated in our constitution. For me, to be totally honest, I don’t really care which denomination I belong to. We all believe in the one God. I will pray to my God directly and hear God speak to me directly. He does not speak to me through constitutions.
I look forward to your reply.
Is the fact that I don’t have letters after my name the reason you fob me of and ask me to ask my Pastor? I may not be edumacated but I am capable of free thought. If you can’t answer the question it is not dishonorable to say I don’t know, in fact most of us here would respect that as an honest and valid answer. I am enjoying the debate of this blog, but at the moment all the important questions get side stepped. Ask your Pastor as a reply is not good enough.
Tapio, Happy New Year.
The short answer to your first sentence is NO! I has nothing to do with education or otherwise, it has to do with me being increasingly busy and not having the time to discuss further subjects in detail. Your Pastor as a trained Lutheran can do this better for in the first place he knows you personally and in the second place might find time for you to discuss this face2face.
I used to enjoy this blog but due to time constraints it won’t be long before I must leave.
Barney
Thanks for your contribution, I have been baiting Pastors on this blog since its inception. Maybe people feel that LGBT’s aren’t worth it, or their jobs are more important. I don’t know, all I know is no one is saying anything. :(
I hope you can still think and pray about the topic because we are talking about peoples lives and how best to Pastor for them. Unfortunately teachers are generally very rigid with what’s right and what’s wrong – Jesus was not a moral teacher and the church hated him for it. I hope some one else fills your shoes on this blog cause we need to clear the cob webs.
Re: “the world is constantly changing.” Yes it is but God’s word is NOT!
Re: “take all the Bible as the whole truth and we do not follow Article II literally (and for good reason!).” I have to refer you here to The Book of Concord, FC, Ep. 1; “We believe, teach, and confess that the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and the New Testaments are the only rule and norm according to which all doctrines and teachers alike must be appraised and judged, …. ” (Tappert pg 464). All LUTHERANS are bound by Lutheran doctrine, that we fail from time to time to live them out, is a human trait, if we willingly do not comply is worse that failing through our human nature. If we know that something IS sin and do it we bring condemnation upon our heads.
It now seems to me that certain people cannot resist communicating on statements by one who openly [overtly] declared his position and training, whilst they, themselves hide behind a one or two letter synonym. I may be in the latter part of a human life, but when I was much younger, that behaviour was not befitting a gentleman. From now on I will not take any comments serious from people who hide their identity that way. Neil Hart and I are capable of keeping our communication line open because I know who he is and he knows who I am.
The Book of Concord is still Lutheran Doctrine and is well worth reading by those who think that the modern world asks for modern standards.
Barney
Sorry Barney. I should have revealed myself earlier. I started on this blog using my initials not sure of where this would lead and was yet to provide everyone the courtesy of revealing who I am.
My name is Adam Brooks. My parents did not baptise me into a faith so that I could decide for myself what I believed. I went to a Catholic high school which served as my introduction to God, but also turned me away as some priests seemed to go against the message of love, through their harsh words about topical subjects including homosexuality. I started coming to the Lutheran church with my yet to be wife and was baptised at the LYWA Jan Camp in 2008. I went to an Alpha Course of Mike Fulwood’s and it was fantastic!(you will be happy to know that for each session he pointed out which parts differed in the Lutheran context!).
As for training, I have a BSc in Games Technology and a BA in Asian Studies. I have worked as a Software Engineer, Product Manager and a Systems Specialist. I also have completed a week long course to operate an excavator and taught at university.
Now that you know who I am, I hope you will do me the same courtesy and answer my question.
“The Article II argument is a valid argument, but you need to accept that by choosing that stance you accept all those horrible laws that go along with it. Else, if you do not agree with those laws you need to tell us WHY you don’t. Show us that your studies are valid and back up your argument.” Where do you stand?
“The Article II argument is a valid argument, but you need to accept that by choosing that stance you accept all those horrible laws that go along with it. Else, if you do not agree with those laws you need to tell us WHY you don’t. Show us that your studies are valid and back up your argument.” Where do you stand?
Where do you expect a Lutheran to stand? Either one subscribes to Lutheran doctrine and hence can be truly called a Lutheran; one tries to follow Lutheran doctrine and is hence a Lutheran; or one disregards all or major parts of Lutheran doctrine and in the process there of loses his/her Lutheran identity! Where do I stand? I think that I fall somewhere between the first and second choice. I have addressed the validity of my studies in this blog before, and that should be enough.
Barney
So are you saying a ‘perfect’ Lutheran would follow the OT laws to the word? And you fall short of that because you don’t stone to death all people that perform homosexual acts?
No Adam I am not saying that if you read my comments. Those who perform homosexual acts; whether in a “loving” long time relationship or in a “one night stand” have by their own actions forfeited a place in heaven; check St. Paul on this. I fall short because, like many Christians, I am sinful and commit sins against my will.
Barney
So you are saying that some OT laws you do disregard?
So… people who “commit sin by taking part in homosexual actions” do not get into heaven. But you who ‘commit other types of sin’ do get in to heaven???
This is perhaps the MOST UNLUTHERAN position of everything that has been written so far!
You seem more worried about being Lutheran than being in relationship with God. Does the fact that the Luthern documents and constitutions and oaths NOT actually form part of the Bible suggest anything??? When and by whom were those human made (I’m guessing MAN made) statements and documents created? The Lutheran church, as fantastic an organisation it is based on what I believe to be the core tenets, is a HUMAN created institution. NOT a God created one. If your dedication is more to the HUMAN created insitution than to God’s message than I am worried. That to me is fanatical and scary.
Some of us do not reveal our identities because we are AFRAID! Afraid that we too may lose our jobs. (See post about Baptist minister) We too may lose our friends. We too may lose our community. DO NOT stand on your soap box and refuse to respond to us purely because you are safe to speak out openly. WE ARE NOT afforded that luxury. THAT IS A FACT! Actually, what am I saying. I’d rather NOT hear what you have to say. Others may be polite and “enjoy the debate” but I’d rather not. Feel free to NOT respond to me.
I do NOT worship the Lutheran insitution. I worship GOD! The God who created me. The God who loves me so much that he offers me a place in heaven! (God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him will have eternal life, EXCEPT FOR THOSE FAGS WHO PERFORM HOMOSEXUAL ACTS!) (was that in the fine print??? or a different version of the Bible that I didn’t get a copy of???)
Do NOT go condeming people to hell! That is not YOUR place.
Jesus loves me, this I know! (so the BIBLE tells me so!) (it also tells me that I should be putting the children to death who complain to me about their parents. Lev 20:9, I think I’d better run that one by my principal before I start enforcing that new rule at school! He (even she in some schools), the spiritual leader of our school, may have a different interpretation of that part of the Bible. Maybe he should be removed from his role as he is clearly NOT following Article II. He’s NOT as Lutheran as Barney).
Just to make it clear what I am asking, do you think the stoning of homosexuals is a just punishment as stated in Leviticus?
Sorry, Marginalised Member! I realise my statement about enjoying this debate came across as in thoughtful and cruel. You are living this unfair life that we discuss on this blog. I felt like the discussion with Barney was finally moving and my comment was based on this. I hope that we can make progress towards a Lutheran Church, and World, that is accepting of all sexualities! Once again, please accept my sincerest apology.
In light of your post above, I thought some of you might especially appreciate this first new post for 2012 titled: “Genesis 19: What the Bible REALLY Says Were the Sins of Sodom” (link below).
Blessings on your New Year!
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
hey everyone. This is worth the read. Thanx Alex.
Hey, Barny! THIS is called biblical analysis. THIS is a reasoned defence of a position. I’m not disputing the validity of your qualifications. I am questioning the responses that you give to the questions asked of you. Put you training to work. Answer the question. One simple question as far as i can see. What is you BASIS (reason? assumption? belief structure?) that enables you to follow one set of OT rules and yet dismiss another? Come Barney….let us reason together…
Btw…Alex, my last post talks about Gagnon’s book (read, anti-gay propogande document) “The Bible and homosexual practice”. Gognon finds that the “detestable thing” mentioned in Ezekiel is Homosexuality. Of course He does. What else could it possibly be…sigh….and people like him actually make money from selling their books. I guess people like to have their prejudices supported and feel happier when their hate seems to be biblically sanctioned :(
Thanks Alex – was definitely worth a read.
Glad you enjoyed it, Tapio. There are many others like it that you also may enjoy. Feel free to check out my “Aechives” page.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Dear Adam.
You wrote: “Just to make it clear what I am asking, do you think the stoning of homosexuals is a just punishment as stated in Leviticus?”
In the days that the 3rd Book of Moses was written it was considered justified to stone people for certain ‘offences’. In our day and age we have change the penalty rates for certain offences and criminal acts, I think that is in many ways an improvement and in concert with the Command “Thou shalt not murder.” (Decalogue).
I am more concerned with the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) than with hygienic rules that say when a husband can sleep with his wife, and rules that say what to do with a disobedient son. Many of the rules in the OT were for the proper running of the community at the time and must be compared with what the NT teaches us about our conduct in post NT times. I think that to put a homosexual person to death for his homosexual act is in this day and age, not required. He [or she] has already put himself outside of those who can inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6:9-10. They by their own actions are dead already, and I do not have to add to that. On confession of their sin, true repentance and a subsequent change of lifestyle, they are no longer on the list in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, and can have hope to enter the Kingdom of God.
Barney
The LUTHERAN church permits THIS GUY to represent them to sick, ailing and perhaps even dying people?!?! (if I understand that you are a hospital chaplain). How comforting it must be for them to have such a compassionate and caring LUTHERAN representative judge them and condemn them to hell. (no all, I’m sure some of them only commit sins against their own will like Barney, not wilful sins).
Lutheran teachers are under SOOOOOOOOO much scrutiny about what they are permitted to teach and say to students, parents and community. I guess we’re either really short on hospital chaplains or the LCA stance is CONDEMN THEM (gays) ALL TO HELL!
I weep openly at reading what you have to say and at the thought of what you say to those in vulnerable positions.
Jesus loves me, this I know! If only Barney too did so!
Hi Barney
Thanks for answering the question. So you agree that some of the OT laws are no longer applicable in our time, but may have been ‘suitable’ for the age in which they were written. Slavery is unjust and inhumane, menstruation is not as unhygienic and the stoning of homosexuals is just plain wrong, no matter how we feel about the subject! And I hope you can also agree then that NO Lutheran does, and would want to, LITERALLY live up to Article II. Instead, we look to the whole Bible and what it is trying to tell us. I still think this aligns with what Article II is saying, but in a more holistic sense. So Neil’s argument slavery texts, both OT and NT, is relevant to this discussion, because slavery is no longer acceptable in our time, similarly to menstruation and stoning of homosexuals. So my next question, is how do YOU choose to ignore the slavery texts even though they are scattered through the OT and NT?
Hope we haven’t lost you, Barney. I’m looking forward to your response on how you choose to look at the slavery texts.
Going back and reading through my comments I would like to take back part of the previous comment. Menstruation is still acceptable in our times and will always be! :P
Hope people understood what I meant from my previous comments! :)
Yours humbly in Christ,
Adam
And you merrily continue stroking your own “pet sin”. I think you might be best of following the lead of all those other guys that were about to throw stones.
My pleasure! Many of us were taught things that simply don’t hold up to scrutiny when they are examined more closely and in context. So I believe it’s important to get this stuff out there. There are links to lots of other good stuff on the “Archives” page as well, and a “Contact” page for those who want to let me know how wrong I am or just to comment on something without necessarily posting to the site.
Enjoy!
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
Thnx Alex…BTW…ur wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! Got no facts to back it up. Not even sure what ur wrong about but it feels good to say it… hope you dont mind……
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG……
It would appear that increasingly more people are discovering that you are the one who is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! If the facts (and the exegegsis) don’t supoort your treasured doctrines then you need to let them GO GO GO GO.
-Alex Haiken
http://JewishChristianGay.wordpress.com
FINAL COMMENT
The original concept of this blog was:
“A post by Neil Hart on homosexuality, LGBT, lesbian and gay stuff.
I [Neil] have a particular interest in the church’s view on ethical issues, esp. sexuality, homosexuality and gender issues.”
I have stated my opinion on those issues, and stick by them.
Furthermore, I believe that those who claim to be Lutheran and either do not know Lutheran Doctrine as embodied in the Book of Concord – may not have studied it or even know its existence – or knowingly disregard the teachings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, can not in all honesty claim to be Lutherans.
Furthermore, I believe that those Pastors who teach Alpha – whether ‘explained’ or not – are not teaching Lutheran teachings as embodied in Dr. Luther’s Small Catechism, they are perhaps more suitable to teach Anglican theology, perhaps in an Anglican environment.
Furthermore, I believe that Pastors who teach according Baptist theology – whether ‘explained’ or not – as in ’40 day of purpose’, are also outside of the teaching of the Lutheran Church, maybe that Pastor should consider the tenets of the Baptist interpretation of the Christian faith, perhaps in a Baptist environment. There are some good examples found on the internet for Lenten programs that follow Lutheran Theology that foreign [other denominational] doctrine need not be used to teach our souls.
Finally I have come to the understanding that in the LCA there are two distinctive streams; (1) those who believe in Lutheran doctrine, liturgy and adherence to Apostolic Instructions, and,
(2) those who believe what is right in their own eyes.
Christian P.J. Bahnerth
GradDipMaintEng, GradCertMgmt., MACS
GradDipTH., MTh., PHD.
No further correspondence will be entered into.
Barney
Thanks for your input into the discussion. I was hoping you would stay around for the debate.
I hope you can see how all these topics are connected. I also understand your dilemma in entering into the slavery debate, because however you answer the slavery question, you must also take the same approach to the homosexuality debate. I know you are not for slavery, and this is contradictory to how you feel about homosexuality.
Thanks once again for the open and honest discussion despite our opposing views and I hope we haven’t lost you for future discussions.
Adam
Just pondering on the division of groups that Barney has suggested above. Perhaps, that is the issue. The conservative part of the Church has got so entangled around what they believe is part of the doctrine that it fails to see what is right in front of their eyes. Food for thought!
Anyway, I am happy to be a part of group 2!
Wow Barney :( Lutheran doctrine, liturgy and adherence to Apostolic Instructions won’t save your soul, give you healing, or pay your debt. There is nothing wrong with those things, but to place them on such a high pedestal is imo missing the whole point of being Lutheran. Aren’t we about Grace? There are so many laws/rules/conditions in your final comment, where is the room for Grace?
My prayer for you is that you experience that Grace in all it’s fullness.
Your sister in Christ , Sarah