I missed this one when it happened:
ELCA drops out of Lutheran Malaria Initiative; Lutheran World Relief and LCMS to continue joint effort to combat malaria.
Interesting how when it comes to its obsession with secular politics the ELCA never seems to run out of cash. I understand that all denominations have budget priorities, but any organization that engages in race-baiting, funds Washington lobbyists, or issues political proclamations about everything under the sun has no business calling itself a Christian church.
I wish that all denominations - be they conservative or liberal - would take a decade-long break from secular politics of any kind. Stop yammering about "social justice" and instead work to feed the poor. Re-discover the Gospel of the Lord, and engage in some serious prayers. Stop "organizing the community" and actually live in it. If Mark Hanson, Pat Robertson, Jim Wallis, or any other Christian leader wants to be a politician, let him or her run for office and stop trying to hijack God for their own selfish purposes. Using church donations to help politically powerful groups while ignoring the cries of dying children - that is evil.
I suppose that this should not bother me, since I am no longer a Lutheran. Yet since the decision of August 2009 to reject the Gospel in favor of secular politics the ELCA has started giving voice to every filthy, dirty instinct the human spirit can vomit forth. How much longer will God let this go on?
At any rate, if you wish to donate and help to actually do something for social justice click here.
Showing posts with label Mark Hanson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Hanson. Show all posts
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
The final authority?
Over at Lutheran CORE Pastor Steve King had this post concerning ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson's remarks about homosexuality and Biblical authority.
Two observations:
1. This is probably as close as we will ever get to an admission by the ELCA's leadership that the Bible does not condone homosexual behavior. Throughout the debate leading up to August's vote we had been told that the Biblical passages condemning homosexuality were either (a) an error in translation, and that the Bible was actually condemning forced homosexuality as opposed to consenting homosexuality, or (b) the Gospel brought Grace, and therefore the prohibitions against homosexuality had been overturned in the same way condemnation under Mosaic Law was now set aside.
Both (a) and (b) contradict one another to some extent, and they are certainly not the result of serious study of the Bible. But they make perfect sense if the ELCA is a political party instead of a church. In politics, log-rolling and bargaining with various factions is crucial. Proposition (a) would appeal to certain Lutherans who believe that the Bible is an instrument of racism, imperialism, colonialism, sexism, etc. and has been interpreted to suit the aims of rich and powerful. For lifelong liberals who nevertheless have been faithful to the Gospel and its teachings, and are troubled by this abrupt about face on homosexuality, Proposition (b) is a welcome escape hatch to dive out of.
If your goal is to supplant the Bible with a brand-new Gospel that appeals to the politics of a new and hip generation, then both (a) and (b) can be used to appeal to the faction it is aimed for. So what if (a) and (b) are inconsistent with each other? What is politics without a little inter-party tension?
2. If the Bible is not the last word on homosexuality (as Hanson suggests), then what else in the Bible can be discarded as not being able to stand up to our understanding of the world today?
In the past the Bible has been used to justify apartheid, colonialism, communism, imperialism, racial segregation, health care reform, Aryan supremacy, redistribution of wealth, monarchy, anti-war activism, and a host of other secular political causes. In each case adherents made the same type of arguments that the ELCA is now putting forward - that the Bible needs to be understood in the light of "modern" thinking. The notion that the writers of the Bible might have been wise and knew what they were talking about does not seem to have been seriously considered.
So I must ask: what other parts of the Bible can now be set aside, and how are we to determine what they are?
Leviticus is a special thorn in the side of proponents of ordaining homosexual ministers and blessing same-sex unions. So opponents point to dietary restrictions, laws concerning offerings, worship and the priesthood in Leviticus and say, "Since these are obsolete, so are prohibitions against homosexuality."
But Leviticus contains the only explicit condemnation of incest in the Bible. Should these prohibitions against incest be tossed along with the ones against homosexuality? If not, why not? Note also that Jesus, when presented with the opportunity to overturn Mosaic Law (Matthew 5), not only did not do so, but in the case of sexual matters strengthened them (verses 27-30).
I think that it would be more logically consistent - and honest - for the ELCA to simply discard the Bible altogether. There has been no consistent criteria cited by the ELCA's leadership in guiding us as to what parts of the Bible they see as valid (other than vague appeals to "modern understanding"). Why should they keep a book they clearly have serious problems with and are ready to disregard at the drop of a hat?
Two observations:
1. This is probably as close as we will ever get to an admission by the ELCA's leadership that the Bible does not condone homosexual behavior. Throughout the debate leading up to August's vote we had been told that the Biblical passages condemning homosexuality were either (a) an error in translation, and that the Bible was actually condemning forced homosexuality as opposed to consenting homosexuality, or (b) the Gospel brought Grace, and therefore the prohibitions against homosexuality had been overturned in the same way condemnation under Mosaic Law was now set aside.
Both (a) and (b) contradict one another to some extent, and they are certainly not the result of serious study of the Bible. But they make perfect sense if the ELCA is a political party instead of a church. In politics, log-rolling and bargaining with various factions is crucial. Proposition (a) would appeal to certain Lutherans who believe that the Bible is an instrument of racism, imperialism, colonialism, sexism, etc. and has been interpreted to suit the aims of rich and powerful. For lifelong liberals who nevertheless have been faithful to the Gospel and its teachings, and are troubled by this abrupt about face on homosexuality, Proposition (b) is a welcome escape hatch to dive out of.
If your goal is to supplant the Bible with a brand-new Gospel that appeals to the politics of a new and hip generation, then both (a) and (b) can be used to appeal to the faction it is aimed for. So what if (a) and (b) are inconsistent with each other? What is politics without a little inter-party tension?
2. If the Bible is not the last word on homosexuality (as Hanson suggests), then what else in the Bible can be discarded as not being able to stand up to our understanding of the world today?
In the past the Bible has been used to justify apartheid, colonialism, communism, imperialism, racial segregation, health care reform, Aryan supremacy, redistribution of wealth, monarchy, anti-war activism, and a host of other secular political causes. In each case adherents made the same type of arguments that the ELCA is now putting forward - that the Bible needs to be understood in the light of "modern" thinking. The notion that the writers of the Bible might have been wise and knew what they were talking about does not seem to have been seriously considered.
So I must ask: what other parts of the Bible can now be set aside, and how are we to determine what they are?
Leviticus is a special thorn in the side of proponents of ordaining homosexual ministers and blessing same-sex unions. So opponents point to dietary restrictions, laws concerning offerings, worship and the priesthood in Leviticus and say, "Since these are obsolete, so are prohibitions against homosexuality."
But Leviticus contains the only explicit condemnation of incest in the Bible. Should these prohibitions against incest be tossed along with the ones against homosexuality? If not, why not? Note also that Jesus, when presented with the opportunity to overturn Mosaic Law (Matthew 5), not only did not do so, but in the case of sexual matters strengthened them (verses 27-30).
I think that it would be more logically consistent - and honest - for the ELCA to simply discard the Bible altogether. There has been no consistent criteria cited by the ELCA's leadership in guiding us as to what parts of the Bible they see as valid (other than vague appeals to "modern understanding"). Why should they keep a book they clearly have serious problems with and are ready to disregard at the drop of a hat?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)