After nearly 50 years in the Christian ministry, I am confused and disappointed by the words and actions of some believers. Years ago, youth were encouraged to wear bracelets saying, “WWJD” (What Would Jesus Do?) A bit simplistic perhaps but still not a bad motto.
Jesus spent much of his time eating and fellowshipping with “sinners” and others of society’s outcasts, giving hope to many whom society condemned. He was also very up front and gracious with opponents. In my tradition, Martin Luther, in his explanation of the 10 commandments, encouraged us to “put the most charitable construction” on what a neighbor says and does.
A letter was recently sent to the members of two congregations (and perhaps more?) Its goal appears to be to cause dissent in these members with their church’s choice to remain in the ELCA after its decision to ordain openly homosexual clergy to serve in churches open to them.
I see no problem with free speech, but when sent with no signature or return address, I’m saddened. Someone sent it with first class postage (expensive) and no sense of accountability? If we claim to follow Christ, let’s agree to disagree agreeably and take responsibility for our actions.
Nathan G. Lundgren
Brainerd
Comments (39)
Add comment45vs9mm on Leviticus
I didn't intend to list all of the laws of Leviticus. It wasn't about leaving them out. Most scholars argue that after removing the purely ritualistic codes there are still 300 that we could be expected to follow. I listed those that I personally am relieved not to follow. Judith comments that these are merely ritualistic and not moral. However, they are commandments that somehow some humans have justified not following. I did NOT pick and choose. I pointed out that most sanctimonious Christians DO pick and choose, whether they are focusing on the prosperity Gospel or homosexuality. They focus on those things that are most advantageous to them (those that cast them in a most righteous light) or those they fear that are foreign to them, leaving the log in their own eye. The zeal and venom people attack gays with and yet completely ignore sins that are totally egregious, such as adultery, child abuse, human trafficking, greed, deception...
Cling to your Bible verses all you want. Homosexuality was barely mentioned in the Bible, and plenty of noted, well-respected scholars have reconciled themselves with modern homosexual families, much like scholars reconciled themselves with interracial marriage (constitutional amendment prohibitions also supported zealously with Bible verses), slavery and women's suffrage. It was NOT mentioned in the context familiar to modern day families whatsoever. It was essentially a non-issue -- Jesus had much bigger fish to fry. So I don't understand why or to what gain people have attacking a group that has done them no personal harm and that didn't appear to be even a remotely major issue for God's mouthpiece on earth. It floors me that people are so fearful of this group.
Muel
I didn't trap myself whatsoever. I pointed out the absurdity of your argument. Problem is you are so far down the rabbit hole you can't see it.
That IS my point. We don't eat shellfish or pork. We don't FOLLOW the rules of Leviticus. So to use them as a basis (it is one of 6 passages most often cited on homosexuality) for passing judgement on gays is ridiculous, when so few of the other laws in that same section are known much less followed.
we were all created in his name
I have yet to read any attack (to the group you are referring to) towards a person or group in this thread. Stating that something is a sin is not an attack, we all must try to follow all of the laws set by God, just as Jesus did and believe in the Gospel just as our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did.
Judy, in true love and
Judy, in true love and compassion, someone needs to tell you (and it can be me) that your wrath against homosexuality appears to be deep seeded and maybe something you should examine on a personal level. I know you know glbt people. I can't imagine how they manage to stay in relationship with you. Certainly, it is your right to cling to your interpretation and your faith. I'm sad that you are so willing to do it at the expense of family members, neighbors and citizens in the state. There is no pending amendment against atheists or even Easter-only catholics. Yet I would suggest that they pose a greater threat to your way of life than the gay people who live down the road from your house ever will. My heart breaks for you and your absolute certainty on something that has no clear-cut answers. It is the same certainty, I fear, that has been on the wrong side of history too many times.
45vs9mm attacks
"god's bloopers."
insisting that these people are going to hell.
people on this thread speaking in judgement of gay people, when they have no idea what is in an individual's heart.
demonizing gay people as "other" and "evil"
use of certainty in judgement when original context and translation aren't discussed.
but I was speaking more in terms of the discourse statewide and what has been the national discussion.
I am willing to bet you my paychecks between now and the election that I can tell you exactly what the pro-straight only marriage folks are going to do in terms of attacks on gay people, because this election is being coordinated by the same guy who ran the campaign in NC, WA, CA, ME and now here. Great article in the St. Cloud Times last week or so listing every step out. Guaranteed the same campaign, with the same distortion, fear-mongering tactics, attacks on the moral character of an entire group of people will come into play in MN. And strangely, when this issue is on the ballot, there isn't an increase in violence against catholics, mormons, or those who push the amendment. But there is a documented, actual rise in unprovoked attacks against gay people. One prevailing theory is that people carry their "fear and frustration" to the next level and lash out at the next person they can. We do not live in a tolerant society.
Ask any gay kid how many times he's been jumped before he graduates highschool. Or, go to OutfrontMN's anti-violence department for actual MN statistics.
Your argument that by eating shellfish...
...so we should abandon the ten commandments holds no water with me. Why? Because I'm a Catholic, and it was the Catholic Church that Christ entrusted with keeping his teachings. The dietary rules and circumcision were already disposed of as unnecessary rituals that God had imposed for a different time when the apostles were still alive.
At no point, however, did the apostles or anyone in a position of handing down dogma say that the moral law could be disposed of. You, however, seemed to be saying we should obey all laws, both ritual (not necessary for salvation, but important as a means of binding people to God), and the moral laws. Now I see that what you're really saying is we should ignore everything in the Bible. So why don't you quit the charade and admit you don't believe in the Bible or God, and argue based on your true God--completely unfettered sexual license. I have no time to argue scripture with someone who clearly doesn't understand them nor scriptural history but twists them to suit his own purposes.
what you meant to say was
what you meant to say was that you have no interest to discuss the context and meaning of Biblical passages that scholars have debated for years with someone who holds an interpretation different from yours. You have no idea what my belief system is, and it is unfortunate that you would make such a judgement, because you are sorely wrong. Then again, I'm not surprised.
Also, please point out where in this thread I have promoted the idea of "unfettered sexual license..." because that is not something I stand for nor can recall mentioning. But as long as it suits your purposes, make whatever claims you feel necessary.
In fact, you assume that your interpretation is the only correct one. So much so, that you are willing to push your single interpretation of a Biblical text on the entire state as the "true" religion. No wonder the Lutherans bailed on you guys.
Say, muehlbau
Say, muehlbau you seem to say that you as a Roman Catholic have a vast knowledge of Scripture. When did the Pope and his many leaders all the way down to the local Parish Priests suggest or actually allow detailed Bible study by the Laity?