The biggest gay advocacy group in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America held a worship service last night, and according to (non-ELCA) Lutheran pastor Gregory Jackson, this was the affirmation of faith used at the service:
I believe in God,
Maker of an unfinished world,
Who calls us to participate in bringing about the fullness of Creation.God, who created abundant resources to provide for all.
God, who has not divided people into rich and poor,
owners and slaves,
Nor pitted us against each other because of race, color, social class or sex.I believe in Jesus Christ who was ridiculed, tortured and executed for the sins of humankind.
He has overthrown the rule of evil and injustice and continues to judge and redeem the hatred and arrogance of human beings.I believe in the Spirit of God whose flame comforts us with divine presence and causes our hearts to burn for righteousness and justice.
I believe in the reconciling power of God in our lives and in the world.
I believe that God, through people, can bring peace and hope, justice and equality, the relief of suffering and pain, and the final triumph of love and grace.
Amen.
August 20, 2009 at 12:12 pm
There are a couple of points that stick out right away:
1) The statements are all “I believe …” instead of “We believe…”
2) There is no trinitarian interrelation expressed between this “God”, “Jesus Christ” and the “Spirit of God.” They are just three things, mutually independent and self sufficient, in which belief is expressed. Poof! No more Holy Trinity, One God. That was simple.
August 20, 2009 at 8:42 pm
That all has a familiar ring like some things I have heard in the PCUSA. But not recently which is good.
August 21, 2009 at 8:27 am
Hmmm… Not trinitarian enough?
Ever read the Apostle’s creed? LOL.
August 21, 2009 at 9:05 am
@ Alan
The first paragraph of the Apostles Creed identifies God the Father. The second paragraph speaks of Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord. The relation between these two parts of the Trinity is quite clear in the Apostles Creed. The third paragraph speaks of the Holy Ghost without connecting it to the first two parts of the holy Trinity.
That is one of the main reasons why the Nicene creed is usually taken as the principal standard of faith in traditional Christian Churches. There the nature of Christ is carefully spelled out and the interrelations of the holy Trinity are defined.
August 21, 2009 at 9:08 am
Its trinitarian problem is that the first person of the Trinity is not named in some fashion. But I’m actually in agreement with Alan; for a short confession, it is reasonably trinitarian if the naming issue was fixed. I don’t think it’s a particularly good confession, as it actually makes things less clear — what is an unfinished world supposed to mean, anyway? — and says some things that are triumphalistic, such as the “final triumph of love and grace” coming “through people.” But that said, we see it as early as Constantine in some form, so while I disagree, it doesn’t mean it’s heretical, either.
August 21, 2009 at 9:08 am
I didn’t mean Constantine, I meant Augustine. Sorry…
August 21, 2009 at 9:49 am
Dr. D. So the trinity is 3 separate and distinct persons? That’s what the Apostle’s creed implies.
But then, the Apostle’s Creed wasn’t written by the biggest gay advocacy group in the ELCA, so there is probably less reason to criticize and nitpick in the first place.
August 21, 2009 at 10:01 am
Why does everything have to be constantly reinvented? I don’t like it when the creeds are messed around with, no matter who does it.
August 21, 2009 at 10:03 am
@ Alan
That’s right, three persons, one God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost. That is the mystery of the holy Trinity.
There was a medieval symbolism to try to illustrate this (not explain, only illustrate) that showed for circles, three at the corners of an equilateral triangle and one at the centroid. The one at the centroid was labeld Deus. The corners were Pater, Son (I have forgotten the Latin), and Espiritus Santus. There were lines connecting all of the circles, and on the lines connecting each of the three corners of the triangles were the words non est (is not) while on the radial lines from the centroid out to the corners was the single word est (is). The point was, of course that each of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is God, but that they are not the are distinct from each other.
August 21, 2009 at 10:09 am
@ Kate
Gee, that’s an easy one Kate. It is so much easier to change the theology when you can change the words. It is tough work to change the meaning of everything when you have to leave the old words in place. Much, much easier to put new words in place, then new meaning is easily attached and presto! new theology!
August 21, 2009 at 10:14 am
Alan, surely the creation of any creed has to come under severe scrutiny. I’d look just as carefully at a creed by an evangelical group or a KJV-only fundamentalist group. I hope we all would. David happened to publish this one on his blog. The errors in it are important to note, especially because they do reflect a specific vantage point rather than one of the whole church or even of one denomination.
August 21, 2009 at 10:29 am
Dr.D. Yes, 3 distinct persons. But no where in the Apostle’s creed say they’re also three-in-one. There is no complete doctrine of the trinity contained in the Apostle’s Creed. So, if there are errors in this one, they’re the same as the errors in the Apostle’s Creed. And I, for one, have no problem reciting the Apostle’s Creed. Maybe others do, which would at least be consistent.
“surely the creation of any creed has to come under severe scrutiny.”
Why? Are you in the ELCA? Is David? Were either of you asked to recite it? Is anyone here planning on using it in worship on Sunday? Frankly I can’t imagine why anyone who wasn’t there cares, except that it’s from the biggest gay advocacy group in the ELCA.
“I’d look just as carefully at a creed by an evangelical group”
Well, I’m sure we won’t see those critiqued here, so I’ll have to take your word on that one.
August 21, 2009 at 11:38 am
Alan,
You’ve put your finger on this one, at least from a Trinitarian point of view. If this simple affirmation of faith can be criticized for the Trinitarian language it leaves out, then surely the Apostle’s Creed can and should as well. Also Dr. D seems to think there is something wrong with the “I believe” language. Is he not aware that this exact language is used in both the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds?
This is much ado about nothing.
Sounds like the usual screed from the usual cast of “busybodies, scolds and fusspots”.
I think you may be right, it’s because it came from the biggest gay advocacy group in the ELCA.
August 21, 2009 at 11:41 am
Because creeds are statements of faith, that’s why.
You dig pretty hard for homophobia here, Alan. Why not just give folk the benefit of the doubt and stop assuming that every time David posts something about a gay advocacy group, it is motivated by homophobia?
I’ve found this blog to be pretty even handedly critical of things that are counter to “the faith once delivered to the saints”.
August 21, 2009 at 11:58 am
“Why not just give folk the benefit of the doubt and stop assuming that every time David posts something about a gay advocacy group, it is motivated by homophobia?”
Long experience.
I didn’t say it was “homophobia” either, BTW. One doesn’t have to be a homophobe to nitpick at anything any gay organization says or does while, for example, simultaneously ignoring the crazy statement from John Piper who stated that the tornado in Minneapolis during the ELCA conference was a warning from God. That’s not necessarily homophobia. But it isn’t very consistent either.
“Because creeds are statements of faith, that’s why.”
So? If they’re not yours, who cares? This one wasn’t made an official statement by the ELCA, it was used in a worship service as liturgy. I’m not saying it’s perfect, I just can’t figure out why anyone who wasn’t at the service, isn’t in the ELCA, likely doesn’t know a person who was there, and is obviously going to disagree with anything a gay advocacy group in the ELCA has to say anyway, actually cares.
BTW, how about you be consistent and criticize Dr.D for not giving this group the benefit of the doubt as well, when he says, “it is so much easier to change the theology when you can change the words. It is tough work to change the meaning of everything when you have to leave the old words in place. Much, much easier to put new words in place, then new meaning is easily attached and presto! new theology!” Obviously it’s impossible that they were, however imperfectly, trying to proclaim their faith, right?
August 21, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Thanks, Kate.
The reference to what Good Soil is was simply for identification. Tonstant Weaders will remember that I also posted an affirmation of faith from an Anglican women’s organization a few weeks ago. And yes, Alan, if you can find an affirmation of faith from an evangelical group that is genuinely heterodox or deficient in some important way (I found this one so particularly for its lack of any reference to the resurrection, as well as the “unfinished world” line, which smacks of process theology), I will be glad to highlight it. Affirmations such as this are especially problematic in a worship (and particularly Eucharistic) context. As a statement of what an organization believes, it’s still lacking, but not nearly so much of a concern. Those of you who followed the Kevin Thew Forrester saga will recall that he became the first Episcopal bishop-nominee in over 70 years to be refused consent, and the most important reason was because of his mucking around with crucial elements of the liturgy.
August 21, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Alan, to your point about being asked to say the creed or whether or not we are in the ELCA…you said, “If they’re not yours, who cares?” That’s the whole problem, isn’t it? We care because the church is bigger than any one denomination. We should care about every last group, conservative or progressive, that claims to represent the Christian faith. We may not have the time to do so, but when a large group clearly advocates against a position that the church has held firm since its inception (and well back into Judaism), we jolly well should be paying attention, whether we agree with it or not. Moreover, what the ELCA does affects the PC(USA), the UCC, the SBC, and every other group out there standing for faith.
August 21, 2009 at 12:59 pm
If you want to influence the ELCA, become a Lutheran. If you’re not participating in any other way but to criticize something, then I think the “church universal” excuse just doesn’t cut it. If you’re not involved, if you’re not helping to nurture and strengthen the ELCA or participating in any real, meaningful way, then I think it’s a cop-out to call mere criticism doing your duty. I think that’s just an excuse and a rationalization to complain.
If people want to claim that they care about every last group, conservative or progressive that claims to represent then Christian faith, then I wonder what they’re doing other than just complaining and nitpicking. Are you doing anything that even remotely resembles *real* communion? Or is it easier just to take pot-shots from afar?
August 21, 2009 at 1:09 pm
David,
You mentioned “the “unfinished world” line, which smacks of process theology”.
Why do you say that? Is that the only interpretation one could give that statement? I don’t believe it has anything to do with process theology. It appears to me your own personal bias against the stated position of this advocacy group leads you to see bogies.
Now, since you seem to like to criticize other church bodies for what they say or leave out of their services, maybe it should be fair game to criticize you too.
I notice from the bulletin of your congregation’s August 16th service that you didn’t ask your congregation to make any affirmation of faith at all. What’s up with that? Are we to conclude that you and your congregation are faithless, possibly apostate?
August 21, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Art, you misread me entirely. I thought the “I believe” was a somewhat amazing return to a traditional point of view from a group from which I would have never expected such to happen.
Alan, I think the ELCA would object if we joined just because we wanted to influence them but did not really believe as they say they do. This would be doubly true when we said that we wanted to retain our previous denominational allegiances, but were only joining them so we could vote in their meetings. Actually, I think they would have a point there. But, the concern for the unity of the Body of Christ is still valid.
August 21, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Dr.D,
Fair enough, but you really should make your points a little clearer. I interpreted both consistently to be negative criticism.
August 21, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxiam culpa.
August 21, 2009 at 2:21 pm
You missed my point Dr.D. If the concern for the Body of Christ were real, I would imagine it would go beyond writing critical blog comments that the targets are never going to read.
Put another way, where exactly in Matthew 18 does it say that the way to deal with a brother or sister who you think has strayed is to write a blog comment that they’ll never read? If you actually think they’ve strayed into heterodoxy with this statement, then it seems to me that writing a blog comment they’ll never read is a pretty pathetic half-hearted action at best.
So either the “church universal” is only an excuse to criticize, or it is a valid and important reason to do so, but the resulting action is so lame and useless that it looks suspiciously like people just complaining and nitpicking.
August 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Alan, a very long time ago, the Church was all one. But over the centuries, because of sin in people, it has been fracturing. People have been talking with each other for hundreds of years, saying in one form or another, “we think you are mistaken, do it my way.” It has been spectacularly unsuccessful.
Since you think that blog comments are inappropriate, what do you recommend?
August 21, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Alan, since you spoke to my issue, I want you to answer me: how many pastors and congregations am I in contact with on a regular basis? What work have I done to start a ministerial association in an area where virtually none of the local pastors know each other? What denominations do I have connections to through seminary, through attendance at various functions, and friends and leaders who work in those denominations? Surely you know!
Some of us are very involved in crossing denominational lines and helping the church universal. Your assumption that we’re not is insulting and (at least for some of us) baseless. When I say that what affects one affects the whole, I mean it because as much as possible, I am involved in that way. I didn’t attend a nondenominational Wesleyan-Arminian seminary as a Presbyterian just to stay in the Reformed bubble, I can tell you that.
August 21, 2009 at 8:41 pm
David,
I too sniff process theology, with a mixture of panentheism.
If this statement comes to us with no context, we can certainly be more generous, but in a “progressive” denomination that continues to distance itself from Orthodoxy, the statements make a stronger stench.
Having said that, I find the statement rather unoffensive and rather weak in making any kind of statement at all.
August 22, 2009 at 10:02 am
Dr.D, I don’t think blog comments are inappropriate. I’m not sure you read my comments very carefully.
David mentions heterodoxy. In what some folks think of as the good old days (at least according to a recent letter to the Layman) people got burned at the stake for heterodoxy. I’m not suggesting we go back to that, but that shows you how important it was. Today we snipe and nitpick behind people’s backs on blogs to make ourselves feel better about how perfect we are by trying to tear others down.
It reminds me of the nuts who constantly accuse the PCUSA of being full of heretics and apostate and then dutifully send commissioners to GA every year. That is, their puny actions don’t match their rhetoric.
So, If this is actually the big deal you all are pretending it is, then I would think you would actually do something that was useful and pastoral.
Or, it really isn’t a big deal at all, and is so unimportant, it’s only worth having people write blog comments that the folks actually involved will never read.
But if it really is the big deal you are all pretending, and all you do about it is write complaining, nitpicking blog comments that the people involved will never read then I’d say you’re not upholding the responsibility you claim is so important.
Jason, and when you decide to meet pastorally with the folks we’re talking about rather than nitpicking in a blog post, essentially criticizing them behind their back, then I’ll be impressed.
Matthew 18. Read it again.
August 22, 2009 at 11:01 am
Alan, again I say to you, how many people have I counseled and where? Surely you know!
And so, since you want pastoral criticism, I will give it to you. If anything, we have been sinful in our inability or unwillingness to challenge your sin that you have flaunted in public. You have posted on this blog for several months or more, and you have been respected, even though you have in forums as widely circulated at the Presbyterian Layman proclaimed your own unrepentance about continued actions in your own life that historic Christianity and the vast majority of Christians throughout the world consider sin based on solid biblical interpretation. We have consistently forgiven personal attacks and your own obvious desire to have the last word on every topic on which you post. Matthew 18, which you pointed me to read, says that sin should be pointed out to a brother in Christ, but if he does not listen, the sin should be established on authority — which we obviously have more than two or three witnesses to here. Your own written statements condemn you. I do not say these things lightly; I honestly fear for your soul, Alan. And so, pastorally, Alan, I say, repent and turn from your sin and believe the true good news preached throughout the history of the church. Feel free to make fun of us some more or blast us for not being able to minister to all people in all places in all times personally. But I’m tired of people pussyfooting around the issue that you are a blatant agitator who has rejected the teachings of the New Testament and encourages other people to do the same.
We are all sinners in need of redemption, and if others here on this blog have made claims to unrepentant sin, we should encourage them to do the same. Personally, I would be nothing without repentance. But let’s get real here. Otherwise, we’re just playing at the gospel…much like I think many of us feel the persons who created the above creed are doing.
August 22, 2009 at 11:11 am
Eloquently put, Jason.
August 22, 2009 at 11:25 am
Alan, please disabuse yourself of any notions that your rants here over these past many months have been “reaching out” to people who see things differently and that in so doing, you have persuaded anyone at all. I seriously doubt that you have changed any minds whatsoever.
As to why others of us may not be “reaching out” in the way that you think we ought to, most of us enjoy discussion rather than argument. We want to hear various aspects of an issue, rather than be attacked for presenting an idea. Few of us, if any, enjoy your endless attacks.
As Jason has pointed out in his previous response, you have repeatedly paraded your sin before us, and it is time that we speak to you bluntly about that. What the Bible says is sin remains sin, no matter how many men may say differently or how modern we may think we have become. God has not changed, and neither has the nature of sin. You must repent now; otherwise, there is no salvation for you. God does not hear the unrepentant sinner.
I am neither a Presbyterian nor a Lutheran, but I have tried to talk to members of each body about what they are doing. I have found the particular ones that I talked to fairly proud of having “moved on past the Bible” in a sense and that we had very little common ground on which to talk. At that point, I cannot do much beyond pray for them. I do not see that precludes my participation in discussions about what they are doing.
We are all sinners, we must all start over anew every day. We must ask forgiveness for the past and resolve to live according to the Law of God, even as we know that we will fail in some way or other. We know that we are supported by the grace of Christ. But we can do none of this while we continue to hold fast to the old, besetting sin. Only wholehearted repentance leads to salvation.
Think about what has been said to you, Alan. Look humbly to God and change your life. It will be for the better.
August 22, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Alan, please disabuse yourself of any notions that your rants here over these past many months have been “reaching out” to people who see things differently and that in so doing, you have persuaded anyone at all. ”
Please disabuse yourself of any notion that I have been attempting to persuade anyone of anything. I simply post to give my opinion, sometimes in agreement, sometimes in disagreement.
I post here and elsewhere simply to present my opinion. If you actually want to hear various aspects of an issue, as you claim, then I’d think you’d welcome the opportunity to hear various opinions. But perhaps what you mean is that you want to hear various opinions as long as none of them dare disagree with you.
Now you two decide, perhaps since you can’t respond to my comments, to make personal attacks. Frankly, if I believed that you had any real concern for being pastoral, then I suspect you would make your attacks in private, emailing me. My email address is readily available in many places, including my blog. But no, you decided to abandon both any pretense at being “pastoral” and any good manners at the same time and attack me personally.
However, that’s is hardly surprising, nor much of a concern. As I have said many times before, you can be sure that I give the baseless opinions of complete & random strangers on the internet all the consideration they deserve.
Unlike you two, for me this isn’t remotely personal. I’m not angry at your comments, nor even annoyed. It isn’t that I don’t care about the opinions of complete strangers because we disagree. Nor is it because I do not like you. Because indeed, I do not know you well enough to dislike you, or like you. That never enters into it. Instead, I couldn’t care less about your opinions precisely because I do not know you. You are simply random anonymous strangers on the internet typing away at your computers and attempting to call that “pastoral.” OK. Whatever.
Meh.
Put another way, please disabuse yourself of any notions that your rants here have been “reaching out” to me and that in so doing you have persuaded me at all.
As long as there is an open forum here, I will continue to post as I feel it is appropriate; agreeing when I agree with those with whom I agree often (Hi Kate!), and disagreeing when I do not agree. As always, if the person who actually runs this blog does not care for disagreement being expressed and would like me to stop posting, I’ll certainly do so. Otherwise, I’ll assume that you’re actually being honest when you say you “want to hear various aspects of an issue.”
But thank you for making my point. For all the sin that you think I embody, for a concern supposedly so severe that you suggest that I’m going to hell, your response is to post a few random anonymous attacks on an internet blog, rather than actually do what you claim, which is to be “pastoral.”
You make my point far more clearly than I did.
QED.
August 22, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Alan, it has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, or limiting opinion. The commenters here have been uniformly polite towards you. You, on the other hand are often rude, and you often make personal attacks. You still don’t see it, do you? You’ve had, over the past few months, me, Jason, Dr. D, and others, tell you that what you consider to be opinion they consider to be attacks. Does that not give you even a little pause for thought? I would have thought that it would, in someone who values personal responsibility as much as you do.
For what it is worth, I am the Kate who blogs at Anglican Essentials Canada. I go to a Common cause church, and am dead set against same sex marriage. I am also a political leftist, who believes in a strong central government in the way that Pierre Trudeau defined it.
August 22, 2009 at 1:57 pm
That last paragraph was just to point out where I am coming from. Please forgive any lack of clarity you find in my posts today, I am battling a really nasty headcold.
August 22, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Hummm. You asked for pastoral criticism in public, seems to me to be odd to complain that Jason gave it to you in public.
August 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“You asked for pastoral criticism in public”
No I didn’t. Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. In fact, I wrote about “meeting pastorally with the folks we’re talking about.” I suggested that if someone has a problem with someone else, they approach them personally and pastorally, in the spirit of Matthew 18, rather than complaining publicly in a forum that no one actually involved will ever read. (Where does Matthew 18 talk about blog comments from strangers?)
“The commenters here have been uniformly polite towards you.”
Your opinion, not mine.
“You, on the other hand are often rude, and you often make personal attacks.”
Again, your opinion, not mine. I have stated that this particular statement of faith is no more (or less) trinitarian than the Apostle’s Creed. I’m not sure how that’s a personal attack. I do not understand why anyone who wasn’t in the ELCA, who wasn’t at this worship service cares. That’s just a question, not an attack. I don’t understand why someone who is concerned about this isn’t concerned enough to be more involved with this group other than just writing blog comments about them. I also suggested that if this were really important, that people treat it that way and do something important and pastoral, that the actions do not correspond with the rhetoric. I don’t see how any of that is a personal attack either.
And for all of the hell-fire and brimstone rhetoric, the actions taken here to save my eternal soul is to make the extraordinary effort to write more blog comments. Meh.
You suggested that I thought this was about homophobia. I clearly deny that is what I think.
And even Adel, with whom I agree on almost nothing (and I think he’d agree with that assessment), believes this statement is as inoffensive as I do. But rather than argue with someone who holds the same opinion that I do, people respond with personal attacks against me.
But even if all of that didn’t happen, and if it were true that I am rude, and they are blameless, I assume you are not suggesting that their resorting now to off-topic personal attacks is somehow justified?
The best evidence that a thread has leapt the rails is when people forget the topic and start in with the personal attacks, particularly when a few people decide it’s time to gang up on someone. But again, to emphasize since people seem to misunderstand me frequently, I feel no animosity nor even mild annoyance toward anyone who posts here. As always, I enjoy reading their opinions even when I disagree with them, which is why I blog and why I read and comment on a number of blogs, from points all along the spectrum of opinion. I think vigorous debate is a refiner’s fire for opinion, it clarifies our own, and helps us to understand others even when we disagree.
I hope that clears up my position for you.
And, I hope you’re feeling better soon! Summer colds are a real drag.
August 22, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“You, on the other hand are often rude, and you often make personal attacks.”
I wasn’t speaking just about this blog post, I was speaking in general.
“I assume you are not suggesting that their resorting now to off-topic personal attacks is somehow justified?”
What attack? Seriously, I didn’t see an attack, I saw them calling you on rude behaviour.
“And, I hope you’re feeling better soon! Summer colds are a real drag.”
Ugh. Thanks, and no kidding. At least I am a stay at home mum, and sons #1 and #2 are very good about hanging out with the little ones when a bad cold saps my patience and brain power.
August 22, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Hummm. I suppose you would see calling homosexuality a sin as a personal attack. It’s not. I can believe (and I do), that all kinds of things are sins, and still like the person who is committing the sin. If I start to forget how to do that, all I have to do is read the journal I’ve kept on and off for twenty years or so, and remember all the people who like and love me despite all my besetting sins.
August 22, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“I suppose you would see calling homosexuality a sin as a personal attack.”
I call that an opinion. An incorrect opinion, but just an opinion, but not a personal attack.
Yes there are gay people who think that any word said against homosexuality is a personal attack. Yes there are gay people who think any word said against homosexuality must be fueled by homophobia. I am not one of those people, so I’d like to ask you Kate as politely as possible, to please stop making such assumptions based either on stereotypes that all gay people are that sensitive, or based on personal experiences you’ve had. Either way, *I’m* really not that fragile. And I’m really not afraid of other people’s opinions.
I believe bringing up another person’s sexual orientation in a conversation that isn’t even about that person, perhaps in order to distract from the topic at hand, is a personal attack. I think opining on the state of another person’s salvation, when that too is not the subject of the discussion to be a personal attack. I believe bringing up another person’s sexual orientation in a conversation that isn’t about that person, in order to discredit that person’s opinions is disingenuous. I believe the rhetoric of “parading” my sin around is nothing but a lie and a personal attack. In this thread I did not mention or even allude to homosexuality at all, in general or my own private life specifically and I certainly haven’t “paraded” it, whatever that’s supposed to mean. If by “parading” one means that no gay person should ever speak about anything ever, well then, yes, guilty as charged. But I think it’s also rude to attempt to shut people up by bringing up their personal life, perhaps in a misguided and frankly foolish attempt to embarrass them. I think calling me a “blatant agitator who has rejected the teachings of the New Testament and encourages other people to do the same” is a lie and a personal attack.
I have simply talked about the language of this statement of faith. I’m not sure what that has to do with my sexual orientation. Frankly I think it might be fun to get to know other commenters a little better so that I could bring up the sins of their lives any time I wanted to distract from the debate. Really, I think harping on the gay thing is a bit lame if for no other reason than it’s really too easy, and doesn’t require much cleverness. They know one thing about me that they don’t like. Isn’t it interesting how often *they* bring it up?
Anyway, Jason might have said, “*I believe* you have rejected the teachings of the New Testament.” That would be true from his point of view as that is what he believes. Instead he stated that I have in fact done so. That is false. We disagree about interpretation, and he’s free to state his opinion, just as I am free to state mine. But believe it or not, Jason is not God. Jason may believe that his opinions are God’s opinions (or that God’s opinions are Jason’s), but anyone who knows anything about total depravity and the original sin of pride, knows that’s nothing but the exact lie Satan wants us to believe, and the first one he used in the Garden of Eden. *I believe* we’re both doing our level best to faithfully understand God’s will for our lives. *I believe* he has honestly and faithfully studied and prayed about this. I give him the benefit of the doubt on that, even though we disagree. He does not grant me the same respect. I’m not sure that’s a personal attack, but it certainly isn’t Emily Post, and it certainly isn’t “pastoral.”
So if there’s some repenting to do here, I’d say there’s plenty to go around.
But mostly I’d say having complete and totally random anonymous strangers judging the state of my salvation in a blog post is nothing at all like what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 18.
None of those attacks had anything to do with my so-called “rude behavior”. If they’d wanted to talk about my rude behavior, they could have done so. I think that would be something like, “When you said, XXXX I thought that was rude.” See how that’s different than, “You’re GAY!!!!” LOL. I assume they are capable of discussing my “rude behavior” without referencing my sexual orientation at every opportunity. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re capable of that, but apparently not willing to do so. So who exactly is obsessing about homosexuality?
The statements, not even implications, but statements that I don’t understand sin, that I don’t recognize my own sins, that I don’t confess them, and that I don’t repent of them also assume a personal knowledge of me that no one here has. At all. Arrogance is rude, wouldn’t you agree? I would suggest that, while that may not rise to the level of an attack, it certainly isn’t exactly Miss Manners-approved behavior either.
And though I’m happy to continue to clarify my thoughts on this, I’m not sure it’s going to serve a useful purpose as we’re not going to agree about their inappropriate behavior. And I don’t want it to seem like I care more about their opinions than I do, any more than they care about the opinions of a hell-bound unrepentant sinner who “parades” his sin in front of everyone.
Drink plenty of liquids!) Good to hear your sons are helping out. As we say in our house, “They were raised right.”
August 22, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I believe you when you say that you aren’t that fragile. So, next time you give that impression to me, I’ll just ask you if that is the impression you meant to give, and maybe you can answer without scarcasm? Deal?
Discussions aren’t limited to this one blog post, and you know full well what he meant by “parading your sin”. He was speaking specifically about asserting that it is not a sin to be in a gay partnered relationship. The blatant agitator bit – he’s not lieing, again he is calling you on your behaviour on this blog – not just this post. I did not see his post as “YOU’RE GAY”, and I respectfully ask you to think and pray about why you did.
And that, my brother, is nitpicking in the extreme – exactly what you accuse us of doing. From my point of view, you have indeed rejected some biblical teachings.
Calling your salvation into question, was I think, a mistake. On other threads I’ve called Gene Robinson’s salvation into question. What’s the difference? He is in a position of leadership, and is leading others astray. Do I think that you may be endangering your soul because you are a partnered gay man? Maybe. Those are the sorts of issues I really struggle with. I don’t doubt that when I die, the Lord will confront me with sins I didn’t realize were sins, that I ought to have repented of but didn’t. I can only hope and pray that won’t bar the door for me, just as I can hope and pray that your being a partnered gay man won’t bar the door to you, when the time comes. I do think that you are walking a dangerous road, though.
I’m trying to raise them right, so far so good. I think they are great kids, but I am not biased at all, nope, not me.
August 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm
As a side note – why do you think it is that revisionism and gay advocacy go hand in hand? After all, it was the Bishop of New Westminister who was the first bishop in Canada to allow same sex blessings, and he preached from his pulpit that he didn’t believe in a literal resurrection.
August 22, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Well, since I’ve been called the liar here, and since Kate’s one issue with my calling out of Alan was the issue of leadership, I’ll address them both.
First, I want to make it clear that Alan is lying if he states that I am posting anonymously. (He may be referring to others, in which case I digress, but that seems to be an issue he has with me as well.) I have used my full name in all my posts. I have posted on his blog and had a rambling conversation with him, in which I identified myself as a pastor within Detroit Presbytery, of which his church, Northside Presbyterian of Ann Arbor, is a part. I have not been hiding behind any layer of anonymity on this blog from the start. And of anybody posting on this blog, I am likely the closest to having the kind of pastoral authority that Alan requested. So to point these issues out seems appropriate. I have made comments at Presbytery and at my questioning before the CPM and COM of Detroit Presbytery. I am not hiding.
Second, I want to show that Alan is indeed an ordained leader in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and should fall under those standards. It can be confirmed through his letter printed in the Letters to the Editor on The Presbyterian Layman website (www.layman.org) on August 17 of this year. He describes his wedding ceremony and lists himself as an elder. It should be noted that his participation in this office is proscribed currently by the PC(USA)’s Book of Order. It should also be noted that Northside Presbyterian has had no less than three letters published within the last ten days in the Layman supporting gay marriage (and indirectly ordination), and that Northside has announced that they have plans to introduce through Detroit Presbytery another attempt to have our Book of Order changed. This church is not some outpost that happened to welcome Alan; it is on the forefront of encouraging GLBT marriage and ordination within the PC(USA). So even if we have to go as far as leadership to question Alan’s commitment to the biblical faith, there you go. I’m not intending to judge Alan; I believe that 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 do that. It’s Scripture which shows us the Law which condemns us and from which we learn righteousness. If I don’t point it Scriptural violation when I know it’s occurring blatantly, then I have guilt as well.
It may seem rude of me not to address these comments to Alan personally, but following Matthew 18, I think that I am commanded after the confrontation here to close the conversation and stop further association with him unless repentance takes place. I’ve said my bit. Further, I do apologize for the thread going in this direction, but I do not feel it is off-topic in that the conversation very much headed this way.
August 22, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Well, that is some background I didn’t know.
August 22, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Wow, this whole thread started ugly and stayed ugly. I hope it was worth it but know it wasn’t. Shame on all of us.
August 23, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I never said Jason was anonymous. I don’t know him. We’ve never met. I saw him once at a distance at presbytery, but we’ve never talked in person and I’m not sure I could pick him out of a line-up. He is definitely some random stranger I’ve never met. Dr.D. however is anonymous. I was referring to the both of them collectively. Unless Dr.D is actually Dr.D’s name, which I doubt.
So that’s that.
Jason’s “showing” that I’m an ordained leader is hardly a secret. In fact, it’s laughable. I came out on the floor of GA when I was an elder commissioner several years ago. I’ve made no secret of being an ordained elder. Any of the information he’s posted here can be found on my blog and elsewhere. So his attempt to “out” me is silly at best.
Again, if Jason had actually been concerned about any of this, it isn’t like he couldn’t address me personally, either via email or in person, as he lives nearby. He condemns himself by noting that we live in the same presbytery, probably less than an hour away from each other. But he didn’t actually bother to contact me one-on-one. He may claim he’s following Matthew 18, but that’s clearly another lie. His concern apparently goes no farther than attempting to post public condemnation in a blog post rather than addressing me personally. So perhaps his concern is real, but if so his actions do not correspond to that concern. After exhibiting this childish behavior, however, I suspect that his actions demonstrate that his concern is phony too. Even after being called on his bad manners he continues.
So Jason, take the plank out of your own eye, won’t you?
“to close the conversation and stop further association with him unless repentance takes place.”
Thank you Jason. That is the wisest thing you’ve said in this thread.
Kate wrote, “And that, my brother, is nitpicking in the extreme”
You don’t think there’s a difference between claiming that we know God’s truth perfectly and claiming that we *believe* we understand God’s word? Wow, Kate. Perhaps you are far more confident in your interpretation of the Bible than any human being has a right to be, in my opinion. Nitpicking? No, it’s basic Biblical interpretation.
“ust as I can hope and pray that your being a partnered gay man won’t bar the door to you, when the time comes.”
If you think that what we do in life earns us our salvation, Kate, then I guess the kindest, most respectful thing I can say is, “I strongly disagree.”
“As a side note – why do you think it is that revisionism and gay advocacy go hand in hand? ”
I have no idea what that means. If by revisionism, you just mean believing the the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, then I would think it strange if that belief didn’t go hand in hand with gay advocacy. What, in particular, do you mean by revisionism, and what is it that I believe that you believe qualifies as revisionism?
August 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm
No, but I don’t think that is what Jason was doing, either.
I absoluely don’t think that what we do earns our salvation, and I am puzzled as to how you could think that. I was talking about unconfessed sin.
By revisionism, I mean – denying the virgin birth, preaching that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross and rise again, it was all just a beautiful metaphor, that sort of thing.
August 23, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I have no idea what you believe or don’t believe, Alan, other than what you have written here.
August 23, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Jason wrote:
“I’m not intending to judge Alan; I believe 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 do that.”
Well, since this blog post is supposed to be about the Lutherans and their faith affirmations, maybe it would be interesting to examine what Martin Luther actually wrote in his Bible translation of 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.
Jason, according to Luther’s Bible, do those two passages, in your opinion, judge Alan? Why?
I believe they don’t speak about Alan at all, not even close.
August 24, 2009 at 8:00 am
“No, but I don’t think that is what Jason was doing, either.”
Well, I can only go by his words. Unlike others, I don’t pretend to be a mind-reader. So if he claims that “The Bible” says something, rather than that *he believes* the Bible says something, I assume that he thinks his Bible actually talks to him. Unfortunately I don’t have that version of the Bible that has the built-in radio from God. I actually have to read and interpret mine for myself. I think people generally mean what they say, and what they write, so I don’t think it’s just a slip of the tongue. Based on his own words, I think instead that he actually believes that he doesn’t do any interpretation, which is an extraordinary position to take for a college educated ordained minister.
“I am puzzled as to how you could think that.”
You and the others implied that one goes to hell for their actions. I’m glad you don’t believe it, so I’m not sure why you’d write it in the first place.
“By revisionism, I mean – denying the virgin birth, preaching that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross and rise again, it was all just a beautiful metaphor, that sort of thing.”
No idea. I don’t believe that. I believe in the virgin birth, that Jesus really died on the cross and was really raised. (Would any one else care to interrogate me while we’re at it? LOL) I’m not sure what *any* of that has to do with this post, or what you’re trying to ask me. However, I am not interested in defending beliefs I don’t hold, if that’s what you’re asking me to do.
“Jason, according to Luther’s Bible, do those two passages, in your opinion, judge Alan? Why?”
Ugh. Can we please not make this about me? Just because some people have bad manners, and try to distract from the discussion because they have no answers to my question doesn’t mean we should encourage their bad manners., Art. Thanks.
August 24, 2009 at 9:03 am
Alan,
Sorry Alan, I meant no offense to you, but it was pretty clear to me that Jason had already put you specifically on trial here. It was easier in a brief blog comment to point to you specifically rather than go into a lengthy description of the class of called individuals you appear to overtly represent. Besides, you didn’t come into this public arena kicking and screaming.
Encouraging bad manners? You say that as if you think any of us could make a dent in the status quo. You know quite well that this is a very dirty and personal arena.
If you don’t want any of this to be about you, then resign your ordination and do what your opponents want you to do (shut up and leave).
August 24, 2009 at 9:14 am
No problem Art, I understand the question. I just don’t think I am personally relevant to the topic of the post.
August 24, 2009 at 9:23 am
Alan,
One more thing. In just under two years, I may, once again, be in a position to vote on an amendment to the PC(USA) BOO that would allow for the ordination of non-celibate GLBTs. This time it will probably be an amendment partially crafted by you personally. When I get up to speak in favor of this amendment, would you prefer that I not hold your public persona up as an example of the caliber of individual we wish to ordain?
August 24, 2009 at 9:29 am
I’d prefer that you hold yourself up as the sort of person we wish to ordain, if you wish. Or someone that your Presbytery knows well (if that person gives their permission, obviously.) By all means, make it personal because people have to eventually understand that these are real people with real lives we’re talking about, not just “the issue” as they’d like to portray it. But using examples of people that they actually know and are in communion with will be a far more effective illustration, in my opinion.
August 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm
“You and the others implied that one goes to hell for their actions.”
Nope. In my case, you inferred it.
My question on revisionism was directed to everyone who has been writing here, not just you.
August 24, 2009 at 1:23 pm
“I do think that you are walking a dangerous road, though…”
I assumed that by dangerous you meant something about salvation. Walking a dangerous road then, I assumed that you were referring to an action that leads to danger. Seems like a reasonable enough inference, but I’m glad you didn’t mean that.
“My question on revisionism was directed to everyone who has been writing here, not just you.”
OK. I still didn’t get the question, but that’s fine.
Hope you’re feeling better!
August 24, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I think you are walking a dangerous road – deciding that I think we earn our salvation was inference on your part.
August 24, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Ok, let me try that again. I do think you are walking a dangerous road, and I was speaking of salvation. I think it is possible to walk away from God to the point where we are endangering our salvation – in that we will have made such a habit of turning away from God that we won’t turn back to Him. Where that point is, I don’t think any of us really have any way of knowing, which is why we are to flee from sin. To infer from that, that I think salvation is earned, is incorrect.