Two comments:

1) I don’t know that I have laughed out loud this much ever.

2) The spoof is clever and right on but we also need to remember Matt Harrison’s encouragement to confess our own sin as we rebuke the ELCA.

Thanks Charlie for some really great parody! The last verse is my favorite.

TR

we also need to . . . confess our own sin as we rebuke the ELCA.

Of course I agree, Tim. And most of my writing on this blog–and really, for at least the past eight years–has been to address the problems in our own house, the LCMS. But what’s going on in the ELCA this week is so egregious that it cries out for condemnation.

The ELCA, also known as . . .

The ELCGay

The ELDNCA

The Extremely Liberal Church in America

The Ex-Lutheran Church in America

Impressive creative and appropriate polemic. I had trouble singing along with a couple verses, couldn’t quite match the rhythm. Maybe Pastor Henrickson could record himself singing along to the tune as an example for us all!?

Actually it is quite sad and points to the spirit of antichrist within the ELCA. But the same tendencies to decide doctrine by vote, to ignore theological discipline, let Pietism run its course by teaching being decided by feelings and cultural relevance (like contemporary worship) and the implicit gnosticizing gospel reductionism inherent in such think is all present in the LCMS as well. Let us repent now lest we also perish.

It’s really a shame that John the Steadfast features posts like this. While it may make “us” feel good to kick at the ELCA, at a low point like this, it surely does no good at all, and in fact, only confirms the stereotype that LCMS Lutheran “confessional Lutherans” are a bunch of insensitive jerks.

At this time where there are a lot of grieving Lutherans, who may finally be open to listening to what The LCMS has to say, posting this garbage is very harmful.

I highly recommend John the Steadfast consider taking the approach of Pastor Paul McCain who put up an excellent response to this situation today.

http://cyberbrethren.com/2009/08/20/the-elca-formally-endorses-homosexuality-how-to-respond/

@6: I’m one of those grieving Lutherans, who grieve while I have friends and family who may be lost in the ELCA. This is a creative and truthful polemic and has its place. I also appreciate the post today on Cyberbrethen as you did.

@6: You might do well also to read the following brief catechesis about the 8th commandment. This one is good: http://revcwirla.blogspot.com/2008/04/8th-commandment-brief-catechesis.html

Do you have a problem and consider it unloving when Jesus and John the Baptist used words/phrases like: “brood of vipers”, “white-washed tombs”, “fox”, etc? Or, some of Luther’s creative and colorful language? (see also above).

Okay, I have a weird sense of humor, but this…really? This is found to be funny? To be rather frank, souls being lost, I don’t think is remotely funny IN THE SLIGHTEST. This is the enemy of Christ, that foe of old, in their midst, that THEY welcomed, and it is seen as fodder for parity? I will be on my knees this evening, but not because I am doubled over with laughter, it will be in prayer for the souls lost in this decision. And we wonder why we “confessionals” aren’t listened to or taken seriously. In doubt, look at the above lyrics.

Actually it is quite sad. . . .

Yes it is. But it also worthy of satire, as a form of condemning error. If anyone thinks that such is out of bounds, then that person knows neither the Bible nor Lutheranism, both of which use satirical polemics.

Just a thought,

First I would suggest, “lighten up”.

Second, there is nothing wrong with parody or satire in a situation like this. Sometimes all you can do is laugh. But it’s gallows humor if anything. We all see the path the LCMS is on, and it’s but a few decades behind the ELCA, if that long. No one thinks this is a laughing matter in a “ha ha” kind of way. It’s horrible what has happened to the ELCA. I found the parody song hysterical.

As a currently bereft member of the ELCA I do find the song parody funny, sad and true all at the same time. At ALPB one person posted a picture of the Titanic hitting the iceberg with the smokestacks emblazoned E L C A and the “Gods Work, Our Hands” CWA theme on the stern. Gallows humor, but as spot-on a satire as the song. I’d even wager that if you massaged the wording a little more and siguised the source Goodsoil/LCNA would probably put it into one of their “liturgies”. Maybe as the collect.

Mark Young,

I would also suggest the critics take a look at the second letter to the Corinthians. Would they take St. Paul to task for his biting sarcasm and ridicule?

I’ve been reading about the Church Fathers lately, including their letters, and I would suggest anyone who has a problem with the parody and satire of Pastor Hendrickson probably has no understanding of the Church Fathers and what they wrote. Or what Luther himself wrote.

Pastor Hendrickson,
Am I missing something here, are you saying,
that because some here don’t find your parity funny, let alone untimely,we don’t know Luther (lutheranism ?)or HOLY SCRIPTURES?
“If anyone thinks that such is out of bounds, then that person knows neighter the Bible nor Lutheranism, both of which use satirical polemics.” Really?

I am no theological scholar, I attended no sem, I know no hebrew (yiddish yes) or greek, I know German well, but in which book of the New Testament do Peter, James, John, Paul, or Christ HImself, laugh & use satire at THE LOSS OF A SOUL, to eternal torment or separation from God? I have several translations here at home, the three languages I know, I find not one verse, not one Apostle, nor Christ LAUGHING at the loss or DOCTINE OF DEMONS prevading His church. Which one would you be using? Christ wept outside Jerusalem, Paul & Peter GRIEVED at the thought, in the parable of the rich man, was Abraham laughing at him sitting in hell? No, Pastor, they were not, nor should we! Everything in it’s season, this is a time of mourning Pastor, not rejoicing, let alone what you call satire.

This discussion has gone from lighthearted to not so lighthearted very quickly. As far as the satirical song goes, I find it funny. I think Pr. Hendrickson’s songs should apprear in the next hymnal supplement. (Let the reader understand what “tongue in cheek” means).

As far as satire in scripture goes regarding the lost and damned, the prophets are chalk full of this. Isaiah, especially in his Tyre Oracle, lambastes those pagans for their pride. Ezekiel does the same by lamenting Pharoah’s decent into Sheol. Amos calls the women of Samaria “Fat Cows” (Cows of Bashan, and Bashan is a very fertile place where things grow lush and fat). The point of prophetic satire was twofold, 1) to call the wayward to repentance but also 2)to serve as a clear warning to those who would emulate that behavior and idolatry.

I think satire includes grief. Did Amos deride the women of Samaria for no reason? Of course he was concerned over the ruin of Jacob, as are we today. After all, elca is a group of people claiming to be ‘church’ but who just sit around and itch each others’ ears, much like in the prophet’s day. And they are leading people astray, you’re right. And we should pray. And we should also condemn this teaching so that those with ears will hear.

Not all people like satire in communication. I think this is a matter of taste. Scripture does use it as a rhetorical tool. We use it in our preaching to make certain rhetorical points. The song was clever. And we all know Pr. Hendrickson’s propensity for this sort of humor.

As I reread the comments I can’t help but wonder if Pr. Hendrickson’s rhetoric has accomplished its original intent. . . .

If there were any legitimate complaint, it would be that Rev. Henrickson’s song parody doesn’t quite reach the levels of mockery and ridicule against the blasphemous heterodoxy of the E_CA and its leaders that were attained by Martin Luther when he commissioned Lucas Cranach to prepare caricature woodcuts of the pope and of the pope’s origin and birth.

Such a complaint would probably be due more to the limitations, in this day and age of political correctness, on the Brothers of John the Steadfast publishing scatological song parodies on its website, rather than Rev. Henrickson’s ability to adequately ridicule with song parody the E_CA’s perverted positions.

Dear Dutch,

There is a vast difference between satirically mocking a “church” body for its public actions and laughing at people losing their souls.

I am quite sure that Pr. Henrickson is just as deeply saddened and grieved over the situation in the ELCA as you are or I am. Just as I am quite sure that it was no laughing matter for Luther and company to see souls being lost in the Roman Catholic Church in their day. Nevertheless, Luther was known for his satire and humorous anecdotes regarding very serious matters. And, I’m quite sure that he and his pals were wont to chuckle a bit from time to time, even while realizing the gravity of the situation. Luther knew and understood that there was a time to make light of serious situations and a time to be serious as a heart attack about them.

Besides all this, read the words of Pr. Henrickson’s parody again. He is only stating what the ELCA has publicly confessed to be their position. You see it as bad taste, but really the bad taste is that this is REALLY what they confess to believe. I mean, honestly, where is the offense here? Judging from what I’ve seen this week, I doubt very seriously that those who support the ELCA’s liberal agenda would take much offense at this parody. I half believe they would proudly sing right along with what Pr. Henrickson has written. They might even adopt this song and sing it at future Assemblies, if Pr. Henrickson would be kind enough to release the copyright to them.

In Christ,
Pr. Messer

Psalm 2:1-6 (NKJV)

1 Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

EJG

I do understand what you are trying to say, & yes, I am aware of the above. I do not agree. I find it crass, base, and locker room. I try not to poke fun at things that grieve our Lord and there is alot here to cause grief. I don’t think He sees any humor in their choice.

I agree with those who find the events of this week in the E?CA to be simply tragic and a total disrgeard for the Word of God. The E?CA has indeed turned its back on teaching the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

/In this spirit, then, we need the humor lade criticism which Pr. Hendrickson offers. As a talkshow junky amid my writing, I thoroughly enjoy seeing how social critics use parody to expose the errors of the left. After all, we know how much the Law points our finger back at us and calls us to repent of our sin.

In many ways, humor both serves to satire an obvious and public disregard for God’s Word as the E?CA has demonstrrated AGAIN this week. At the same, the same humor serves to call us time and again to Christ who truly does forgive us our sins. So, let the parodies sing, from the above hilarity to other priceless treasures such as “Wichita Layman,” “DELTO Pawn,” etc. Ai’t it g good amid tragedy, God gives us the gift of laughter!

“Just a thought” wrote: While it may make “us” feel good to kick at the ELCA, at a low point like this, it surely does no good at all. . . .

Of course I disagree. I think it is appropriate, even necessary, to denounce and condemn error. And I don’t do it to “feel good about ourselves.” I certainly recognize the problems in our own house, and have written about them extensively. In fact, I rarely write about problems in church bodies I no longer belong to. (I used to belong to an ELCA-predecessor church body.) But this action by the ELCA is worthy of strong condemnation.

Mark Young wrote: I’m one of those grieving Lutherans, who grieve while I have friends and family who may be lost in the ELCA. This is a creative and truthful polemic and has its place. I also appreciate the post today on Cyberbrethen as you did.

Thank you, Mark. I echo what you say. It is a time for, on the one hand, grief for the souls misled and misfed in the ELCA, and, on the other hand, condemnation of the persistent perpetrators of this perversion.

I have friends and family who may be lost in the ELCA.

I too. As you may recognize, “Henrickson” is not a German name. My grandparents came from the Church of Sweden and, over here, joined the Swedish Augustana Synod–now part of the ELCA. My great-uncle was an Augustana Synod pastor (he baptized me). I have lots of friends and relatives in the ELCA. I helped an ELCA pastor colloquize into the LCMS. (In fact, two ELCA pastors.) Lots of connections. So I am not happy for the “faithful remnant” still in the ELCA. But that does not stop me from condemning the errors of that heterodox–perhaps now apostate–church body.

“Dutch” wrote:

To be rather frank, souls being lost, I don’t think is remotely funny IN THE SLIGHTEST.

See my comments #21 and #22 above.

look at the above lyrics.

Yes, please do, Dutch. Please tell me what is not accurate about the errors approved–nay, celebrated–by the ELCA.

“Left Coast Confessional” wrote: there is nothing wrong with parody or satire in a situation like this. Sometimes all you can do is laugh. But it’s gallows humor if anything. . . . No one thinks this is a laughing matter in a “ha ha” kind of way. It’s horrible what has happened to the ELCA. I found the parody song hysterical.

Thank you, LCC. You “get” what I’m doing.

“Dutch” asked me: Am I missing something here, are you saying, that because some here don’t find your parity funny, let alone untimely,we don’t know Luther (lutheranism ?)or HOLY SCRIPTURES?

Yes, you are missing something, Dutch. I’m not saying that because you don’t find this particular parody funny, etc. etc. What I am saying is that if you think that “satire, as a form of condemning error” (my words) is out of bounds, then you know “neither the Bible nor Lutheranism, both of which use satirical polemics.”

In both the Old Testament and the New, you will find the apostles and prophets, the psalmists and our Lord himself, using all of the following literary/rhetorical forms: invective, denunciation, mockery, satire, and the like. If you’re not aware of those many instances, then you don’t know the Bible. Likewise with Luther and the Luther Confessions. Have you not read the Damnamus (”We condemn. . .”) passages in the Book of Concord?

Dutch, think of Elijah mocking the prophets of Baal. Think of Isaiah or the other OT prophets mocking the idols of the nations–and those Israelites who go along with their idolatry. Think of Jesus or John’s invective against the Pharisees, Paul’s against the Judaizers. That sort of thing.

Think of Luther mocking the pope. Etc. etc. etc.

Josh Sullivan wrote:

The point of prophetic satire was twofold, 1) to call the wayward to repentance but also 2)to serve as a clear warning to those who would emulate that behavior and idolatry.

Yes, Pastor Sullivan, you get it too.

Not all people like satire in communication.

True, particularly in our “soft” ecclesiastical age.

I think this is a matter of taste.

De gustibus non est disputandum. (Roughly translated: That’s why there’s chocoate and vanilla. And a clicker on your mouse.)

Thomas Messer wrote:

There is a vast difference between satirically mocking a “church” body for its public actions and laughing at people losing their souls. I am quite sure that Pr. Henrickson is just as deeply saddened and grieved over the situation in the ELCA as you are or I am.

You got that right, Pastor Messer. Again, I make a distinction between the “faithful remnant” in the ELCA, that is, “those who err ingenuously” (to use Book of Concord language), and, on the other hand, “the stiff-necked proponents” of the ELCA apostasy. My disgust is directed at the latter.

He is only stating what the ELCA has publicly confessed to be their position. You see it as bad taste, but really the bad taste is that this is REALLY what they confess to believe.

Correct. All I have done is to put the ELCA positions into poetical form. From bad to verse.

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision.

Thank you, Eric. That says it.

Steven Peterson wrote: As a currently bereft member of the ELCA I do find the song parody funny, sad and true all at the same time.

Thank you, Steven. That’s exactly how I feel about the parody: It’s “funny, sad, and true all at the same time.”

Say, “Peterson”. . . . Swedish? Formerly Augustana Synod? Chicago? Minnesota? Those are my roots.

Well done Rev. Henrickson. And to use a tune by the Village People for this abomination was very clever.

I guess now the elcA has women in black and men preaching in chaps.

I am a member of the ELCA. I have read much of what is posted regarding the convention. The sermon by Bishop Hansen particularly moved me. What is being done there is being done prayerfully and lovingly. I have also read this blog and come away with a very different taste. One of ego, fear of differences, and hate. It makes me sad. Please trust God to do His work through a variety of sources. He is not confined to the LCMS. God’s Grace is not limited by your understanding of it.
Peace to us all,
Kiki

Charles,

Yes, I’m Swedish – my parents were baptized and married in the old Augustana (married at Augustana Lutheran in Sioux City). I’m Iowa and S. Dakota stock, with a few years in the MN wilderness. My grandfather (morfar)was actually baptized in the old Church of Sweden which today is something I don’t think he’d recognize. I was confirmed in an LCA Church, but still believe in the Confessions and the Catechism, which leaves me sort of gobsmacked at what’s happened. We’ll probably move to LCMS, but now we’re in the Knoxville, TN area and too many of the LCMS come off as neo-Baptist, but I may be in the wrong. Any suggestions?

Kiki M. wrote:

What is being done there is being done prayerfully and lovingly.

I don’t see how endorsing a perversion that God denounces can be done “prayerfully and lovingly.”

Please trust God to do His work through a variety of sources. He is not confined to the LCMS.

Never said he was. But as far as sodomy is concerned, “His work” usually involves fire and brimstone.

Steven Peterson wrote:

We’ll probably move to LCMS, but now we’re in the Knoxville, TN area and too many of the LCMS come off as neo-Baptist. . . .

That’s the dilemma, isn’t it? Too many of the LCMS congregations come off as neo-Baptist, and too many of the ELCA ones come off as neo-Gaian. It can be hard to find a Lutheran Lutheran church.

Any suggestions?

If I find out about a Lutheran church in your area that actually wants to be Lutheran (i.e., uses the hymnal, catechism, etc.), I’ll let you know. You might have to drive a bit, though.

For the brother in Knoxville, go to First Lutheran (Pr. Paul Busher and Pr. Derek Roberts). For those struggling with free speech, Michael Savage has reminded us this week that polite speech does not need protection; shocking speech does. Thanks for the shocking satire.

Paul – First was the one we’re considering, so thanks for the confirmation. It’s actually a very nice church downtown, but not a very far drive, thankfully. Knoxville’s pretty easy to get around in. I listened to one of Pr. Robert’s sermons on-line and was quite pleased. I read another post here about another person transitioning out of ELCA over the host of troubles to LCMS – interesting commentary.

Yes, Steven, Paul’s suggestion of First Lutheran Church in Knoxville looks very promising. I just checked out their website, and it looks like they are actually a Lutheran Lutheran church!

First-Knoxville’s website

First-Knoxville’s listing at the lcms.org congregation locator

Thanks, Charles. On a lighter note, how’s this whole “no women pastors” thing working out? I jest, in that I’ve never actually had one even in the ELCA. I guess most of the congregations I’ve grown up in were more conservative but, as you may have experienced, eventually undone by a little too much Scandinavian politeness.

Steven Peterson wrote:

how’s this whole “no women pastors” thing working out?

With male clergy only, we’ve got more pastors than we have available calls.

I’ve never actually had one even in the ELCA. I guess most of the congregations I’ve grown up in were more conservative. . . .

The NIMBY Principle: “As long as the female/homo clergy are ‘Not In My Back Yard,’ I’m going to make like an ostrich with its head in the sand and ignore what’s going on my church body.” Then, twenty years later, that same person wonders how the church got to be so liberal.

but, as you may have experienced, eventually undone by a little too much Scandinavian politeness.

I am ashamed to say that it was the Church of Sweden–the largest and most liberal “Lutheran” church body in the world–that introduced female impastors (pastorettes) to Lutheranism. Now, fifty years later, Den Svenska Kyrkan also has no problem with homosexuality at all.

Exactly, with a few mea culpas thrown in on my part. The most I’ve done is stand up in support of traditional liturgies – why do they always have to be at 8 am and not at the 10:30? I’m still youngish (early 40’s) enough that most of this was well in place or moving along while I was still immature in my faith. It was very sad to see the reactions of the older members of my congregation when they heard the synod had recommended approval of the study and revision of the ministry standards. A few looked like they’d taken a punch to the gut. But now I have a son in confirmation and a daughter close behind. I’ve got my family to look out for and the ELCA just kicked them in the teeth.

I feel betrayed, if that’s the right word, by the leadership who always seemed to say,”Well, we’ll go here, but no further.” Somewhere I missed the nudge, nudge, wink, wink. I look back on it now and it all seems to have been extraordinarily well-planned. I believe the ELCA leadership is relying on Sisyphean exhaustion and inertia to carry the day. They’ve worn down the last active resistance and now it’s just mopping up the oldsters that won’t leave until they’re carried out in a casket.

Right on Stephen. It has been a frog in the kettle thing. Notice that even the Statements this week are still frog in the kettle – we will allow you conservatives to stay in our denomination and we will not rebuke you because you are conscious bound to uphold your outdated view of Scripture.

They are just one step shy of going all the way and making it thier official church teaching but they knew that may not fly. Satan has taught them well how to decieve. Of course, in the end they get what they want which is to have the most radically conservative leave thier fellowship and the lazy conservatives just stay in the fellowship and will over time cave and be a part of Satan’s plan.

TR

I am a member of the ELCA. I have read much of what is posted regarding the convention. The sermon by Bishop Hansen particularly moved me. What is being done there is being done prayerfully and lovingly. I have also read this blog and come away with a very different taste. One of ego, fear of differences, and hate. It makes me sad. Please trust God to do His work through a variety of sources. He is not confined to the LCMS. God’s Grace is not limited by your understanding of it.

A suicide bomber, who is a devout adherent to Islam, believes his actions are done prayerfully and lovingly. Are they? Does God hear his prayers and condone his actions? Absolutely not!

In the same way, when a group of so-called Christians assembles and decides to forsake the Word of God and condone homosexuality, their actions are not prayerful and loving. The heart of all true Christian prayer is, “Thy will be done.” God has made it vividly clear what His will is regarding sexuality. The majority in the ELCA have decided to forsake His will, and the prayers they continue to offer up in the process of forsaking His will are nothing more than empty words and a sham, no matter how lovingly they speak them.

It’s not a matter of ego, fear of differences, and hate for us to point out the truth in this matter. Nor is it because we believe that God is confined to the LCMS or that His grace is limited by our understanding of it. Lord knows we have our own problems in our own fellowship. Heck, 99.9% of the time we’re focused on the issues we face right here at home on this site. No, the reason we can, and must, speak out against the ELCA’s actions is because we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that their actions this week violate God’s will. God is vividly clear in His Word about how He views homosexuality. He hates it. He detests it. It is an abomination in His sight. Period. Those who have a problem with us pointing that out need to take the matter up with God, not us.

And, by the way, regarding these actions being lovingly done, how loving is it for a church body to decide to knowingly and willingly set itself apart from the will of God and the history of His Church and do its own thing? How loving is it to deceive people into believing that their homosexual lifestyle is acceptable in God’s sight, when He has made it clear it is not? What of people like my aunt and her lesbian partner? I’ve been confessing the truth to them for years when I’ve been given the opportunity to do so. I love them and, because I love them, I have always spoken the truth to them about their lifestyle. But now they have another large denomination telling them that God accepts their lifestyle. O happy day! They don’t have to give up their sinful lifestyle now; they can just join an ELCA congregation and live happily ever after. How loving is it to drown out the good confession many of us have made to loved ones living in sin?

Furthermore, how loving is it to tear a church body apart? I have ELCA friends who are grieving heavily over these actions. They cannot stay in their church body any longer. Many of them have struggled with staying up to this point, but now they have no choice but to leave. They would not share the view that what the ELCA is doing is being done prayerfully and lovingly. Not by a long shot!

What the ELCA is doing is not being done prayerfully and lovingly, but selfishly and deceitfully. If you want to conclude that my saying this is egocentric, based on fear of differences, and hateful, so be it. My conscience is held captive to the Word of God. Here I stand. So help me God. Amen!

Amen! Rev. Messer

Well said & well done Pastor Messer!!!! Both you & those you mentioned above will be in my prayers.

A straightforward reading of the Biblical passages regarding homosexual behavior, whether OT or NT can leave no doubt about God’s attitude. I hope Kiki reads them.
I, for one, feel very sad that Kiki has been so misled by her own shepherds. They have sold out to the culture, and their “Prayerful” and “loving” decision is based on love for themselves, but not for God’s Word, or for their membership. As far as prayer is concerned, it seems to me that the prophets of Ba-al did a lot of praying, too.

If this issue was the LAST STRAW for ELCA members. I pray that the LCMS pastors through new membership classes teach them how other issues that they have accepted are wrong also. If this is not realized it will only add to the church growth and librals in our LCMS. Pray for all.

Do you let homosexuals be members of LCMS churches?
This is a sincere question. I am not a high powered clergy-type like some of you are, and I don’t know that much about LCMS.
Kiki

Do you let homosexuals be members of LCMS churches?

Is the homosexual repentant or unrepentant of his sin? If repentant, yes; if openly unrepentant, no.

This is true for any sinner, whatever the sin, and is consistent with Christ’s institution of the Office of Keys, as Lutherans teach in the Catechism.

Wow. I didn’t know that. What about alcoholics, or other addicts? It brings many questions to my mind. Like, when a baby is baptized, they become a member, right? (or not right?) So, if they are a member and eventually discover they are gay, then what? Do you have excommunication?

So, (another question, sorry) how are people screened if they want to join a LCMS church? Do you take just anyone?

Are you a Lutheran of any sort, Kiki? Have you read the Catechism? Read, under the Chief Part on Confession, the section on the Office of the Keys. That will answer your question about repentance and impenitence, forgiveness and excommunication.

BTW, do you recognize that God’s word teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful?

How are people brought into the church? By baptizing and teaching, according to Christ’s commission.

Sorry, Kiki, I forgot that you mentioned in comment #33 that you are a member of an ELCA congregation. Were you taught the Catechism? Do you have a Catechism?

Yes. I am an ELCA Lutheran. I have read Luther’s small catichism. (This is most certainly true
As far as sinfulness of homosexual behavior, I don’t know. I have heard much theological discussion about the interpretations of scripture on that.

May I suggest that you read the sermon on marriage I posted today on the home page of this site.

Yes.
I read it. Is this why the LCMS does not ordain women? Because we are to be submissive to men?

Is this why the LCMS does not ordain women?

The question is wrongly put. The burden of proof is on those who advocate the innovation that is the ordination of women. The Missouri Synod, like the vast majority of Christendom throughout history, does not ordain women to the office of the ministry. It is up to those who break with the Scriptures and Christian history to prove their case of why they ordain women.

Is this why the LCMS does not ordain women? Because we are to be submissive to men?

The Ephesians 5 passage is about Christian marriage, about Christian wives voluntarily submitting to their husbands as unto the Lord, and Christian husbands loving their wives and giving themselves up for them as Christ loved the church. It is not directly about not ordaining women to the ministry. Other passages speak more directly to that matter, e.g., 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.

I’m just an interested lay person, not a scholar. What I have observed is that a female pastor can use gifts that speak and minister to some folks that a male may not be able to. In a small way it is like AA. It takes an addict to truly help another addict in a way that no one else can. And I can extend this to gay clergy. In some churches, there are many gay members. To hear the gospel of Jesus from a person you can so fully relate to is powerful.
I’m not at all trying to be difficult…but I have a hard time understanding why someone with a call to ordained ministry should be denied the opportunity to respond to that call. Can you understand my point?
Kiki

Kiki,

We don’t expect you to be a scholar but we do hope that you can see the difference between how you are doing theology and how the lay people and pastors on this site are doing theology. You are basing theology on expediency and practical matters. (For example, your defense of women pastors is a pracitcal one – that is, that they have something to offer.) These things are important but they do not trump God’s word. If God’s word tells us something that does not seem expedient or practical for us or does not even seem to make sense to us, we do not reject it and choose what makes sense to us. We choose to believe what God’s word says.

For instance, it does not make sense to human reason that the body and blood of the Lord could be in, with and under the bread and wine of holy communion but we believe it because the Bible says it is so.

The Bible’s view that homosexuality is a sin may not make sense to those who accept the culture’s view of homosexuality that it is not a sin but the Bible says it is and so we believe it.

I encourage you to re-think how you understand theology and place God’s word above all. We will never see eye to eye on this as long as you are putting practical matters above Scripture and that of course is contrary to what Jesus wants us to do. He says that as long as we continue in his word we are his discples (John 8:31).

TR

Here is an update from the ELCA perspective. Here are the views of Bp. Kevin Kanouse of the NT-NL Synod (a former pastor and family friend): http://www.ntnl.org/resources/NR-8-09.pdf.

I responded to my mother that whenever I would hear the “The Spirit is Moving!” from the pro-gay crowd up north, I think I understood how a Polish villager felt upon hearing “The Wehrmact is Moving!”

Here was my response to my family:

All,

I appreciate Bp. Kanouse’s letter. But, the horse has now left the barn, hasn’t it? Will there be a counter move at the next CWA to reverse course? Unlikely. It’s much easier to give inappropriately than to take away properly. And what happens when one of the synods elects a gay bishop? What will happen to all of the congregations whose bound consciences prohibit them from calling a gay pastor? How will they be accommodated? In short, they probably won’t. I doubt that conservative churches are going to be tolerated nearly as much as the pro-gay churches were over the last 8-10 years that called gay pastors or kept them on the roster. The Church of Sweden had similar provisions in place and dropped them within 10 years. “Bound conscience” seems to be a limited time offer!

I also keep thinking about other synod and national gatherings, especially youth meetings. What’s the official policy going to be? Openly gay. Any conservative opposition will likely be muted or ignored. Conservatives were effectively marginalized throughout the whole sexuality study process (at least in E.WA and ID the synod really came out with a major propaganda campaign) and I get the feeling that conservatives are needed in the ELCA in a “give us your money, and shut up while we make fun of your backwards ways” manner. Object lessons for comfortable derision at synod gatherings. The rhetoric out of (some, I’m generalizing I know) the LCNA/Goodsoil types is rife with talk of “neanderthals” v. “a new poetry”, etc.

And I won’t even get into the whole full communion with the Methodists debacle. How you have full communion with a group that doesn’t even believe the same things happen in the Eucharist is beyond me. Full communion for the ELCA is sort of like Most Favored Nation status for the U.S. Everyone gets it, regardless.

I’m now realizing just how far the church has moved away from what I was taught in confirmation; I guess you can blame Bomgren;). I hardly recognize the ELCA anymore. As someone else said, it has the appearance of a bottle of perfume, but there’s nothing in it, only the outward form. The ELCA has now affirmed its official theology as: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” – H.R. Niebuhr.

I understand the Bishop’s call to remain, I’m just not sure my heart’s in it anymore. If we conservatives haven’t been listened to for the last 8-10 years, why would the culmination of events at CWA and calls now for unity this past week suddenly change that? I expect that “consensus” on sexuality will be declared soon by a coalition of the blind leading the blinded. Perhaps going over to Missouri would entail giving up some things, but I feel I may be giving up more by staying and trying to change something that will not be changed.

Love,

Steve

Hi.

Thanks for the reply. You wrote:
“We don’t expect you to be a scholar but we do hope that you can see the difference between how you are doing theology and how the lay people and pastors on this site are doing theology. You are basing theology on expediency and practical matters. (For example, your defense of women pastors is a pracitcal one – that is, that they have something to offer.) These things are important but they do not trump God’s word. If God’s word tells us something that does not seem expedient or practical for us or does not even seem to make sense to us, we do not reject it and choose what makes sense to us. We choose to believe what God’s word says.”

I do understand the difference in how most on this board do theology and the way I approach it. I do think practical is important! Jesus did too. As far as God’s word trumping everything else, you are selective in what parts of God’s word you choose to use as your trump card. What about the rest of the laws of Leviticus? You (we) don’t practice them today. Why just certain things you interpret as important? Like no women clergy? The homosexual thing is another matter in scripture. Much of what is thrown about as refering to homosexuality in the Bible is actually refering to rape, incest or pagan rituals.
I guess we don’t agree. That’s OK. There is room for everyone in God’s Kingdom (or so I believe). Thanks for the discussion.
Ya know, I just wanted some interpretations and explanation of where the LCMS comes from on these topics, so I could more fully understand. I know I have learned primarily ELCA theology. But it seems you are defensive, as if my questions were somehow bad or wrong. I am not damned to hell cuz I support the ELCA and their inclusion of all who are called to share their gifts. I am grateful they will accept sinners.
Peace to us all~
Kiki

Kiki,

I am not selective in what I pick as trump cards. I asserted that the entire scripture trumps human reason.

Concerning homosexuality the Bible teaches that it is a sin in such passages as Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, I Cor 6:9-10, Genesis 19:4-9. These are straightforward uses of the term “homosexuality.” You have used human reason to add to the text that these are referring to rape, incest and pagan rituals. When the Bible speaks of those things it uses those terms. Homosexuality is homosexuality. It is not right to import your own meaning into the words.

On another matter you say that there is room for everyone in the kingdom of God. Where does it say that in the Bible? It is not right for you to simply assert things as your belief. True Christian belief is not based on what we believe. It is based on what God’s word says.

Why do you call me defensive? I am not defensive. I have challenged you on what you have asserted and asked you to defend it. That is not being defensive.

TR

I guess I am worse than an ELCA Lutheran! I tend toward Universalism What am I doing here on an LCMS board? LOL.
God’s grace is not limited by our understanding of it. Nor is God’s grace limited to this side of the grave! God wants all of His children at the banquet table. And we will all be there, because of His mercy.

Kiki,

You are welcome here. We are universalist in that sense. We appreciate your point of view but disagree with it and will keep pointing out how and why we differ.

God’s grace is not limited. His son’s blood paid for all sin. His grace is understood only through his word however and that word is clear that salvation is only for those who believe in Jesus Christ. In that sense we could call His grace limited because His word limits it in that way.

Thanks for your input and also thanks for being fair and civil in your comments.

TR

I used to believe that salvation was only for those who believe in Jesus Christ, as you stated. I was in fact, somewhat zealous about that…but I was younger then If grace is grace, how can expectations be put upon it? God’s grace is only if you believe in Jesus Christ? It doesn’t fit the character of God.
It’s like God’s grace is too extravagent to be just purely grace…a gift…so we humans have somehow quantified it so some are “in” and some are “out”. We have humanized it really. We live in a world of winners and losers. And someone has to lose so someone else can win. But I really don’t think God does it our way. He lavishly redeems all people through the ultimate sacrifice of Himself. So we don’t have to die. That is my take on it.
And I am open to discussion.
Kiki

Kiki M.:
Your take on it seems to be the sum of what you’ll take as truth.
That what you used to believe when younger has evolved into something else entirely, is not the working of maturity or growth, but of influences outside of the Word of God.
John 14:6,7 testify, through Christ’s own words, that there is no other way to the Father than through Christ.
Surely you know these words. Surely you see the ‘limits’ placed on what a person can believe, as well as practice and profess, and still hope to find himself in Heaven.
Does it follow, then, that Christ Himself limited the extent of His grace?

Hi Susan,
No. I don’t think Christ Himself limited the extent of his grace! Yes. There is no other way to the Father but through Christ…and Christ died for ALL. Regardless whether they know it, accept it or believe it! Christ paid the sacrifice. All are saved because of His atoning death and resurrection. We can rejoice! “Saving souls” is not up to us! Jesus did it. To proclaim the Good News of this fact is our job, that’s all. Now that’s Good News!
Thanks.
Kiki

Christ died for ALL. Regardless whether they know it, accept it or believe it! . . . All are saved because of His atoning death and resurrection.

Kiki, you are failing to distinguish between the universal atonement and justification by faith. You are totally excluding the necessity of faith, i.e., of believing in Christ. And that is *all over the place* in the New Testament. You can miss it only if you block it out. Take, for example, these passages:

Romans 3:21-26
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I could cite dozens of passages like this. The New Testament could not be any clearer on this point.

Jesus did it. To proclaim the Good News of this fact is our job, that’s all.

Why bother? If “all are saved” “regardless whether they know it, accept it or believe it,” then why bother to preach the gospel and spread the good news? Totally unnecessary.

But that is not the case. Christ has sent his messengers to proclaim the good news, in order that people would hear and believe the gospel and thus be saved:

Romans 10:9-17
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

@69, @70: Pr. Rossow, I might add this one, which also refers to Jesus saving those who believe and destroying those who don’t. Note well the Sodom and Gomorrah reference:

Jude: “5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

And continuing on, note well how this might apply to those in our day who change God’s Word (in this case regarding God’s holy judgement against these sexual sins) to fit the cultural norms:

Jude: “10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.”

And finally, scoffers following their own ungodly passions and causing divisions. This seems to be what has just happened (or was made official) at the ELCA assembly:

Jude: “17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” 19 It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. 20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. 22 And have mercy on those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.”

Mark Y,

Agreed – excellent scriptural commentary on what is going on in the ELCA.

TR

Will you be disappointed if you are wrong?

Will you be disappointed if you are wrong?

I don’t know whom you are addressing with that question, Kiki, but in any case it is beside the point. What matters is what God’s Word says, not our own personal opinions about what we think ought to be.

So how do you handle the countless New Testament passages that explicitly teach salvation through faith, a few of which I have cited in comment #70? How do you explain those particular passages?

OK, well I don’t like throwing Bible passages around to prove points. That’s prooftexting. Sometimes it is like people have elevated the Bible to a status equal with God. We are to worship the One to whom the Bible testifies. It is easier and safer for some to trust a written word that we can use as we want (prooftexting) rather than trust the wildly gracious God whom we cannot control.
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to teach us all things (John 14:26 This is how God chose to speak to us.
“At the name of Jesus EVERY knee shall bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confss that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” Philippians 2: 9-11
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you posses eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” John 5: 39-40

There are contradictions in the Bible. It is not a rule book to figure out the formula and then package it and keep it unchangeable within a particular church. Christ is the living Word, the One who interacts with us and loves us.

If all scipture is equally inspired and authorative, God is as likely to drown us in a flood as He is to forgive our sins.
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it, Love your neighbor as yourself” Matt 22: 37-39 All the law and prophets hang on these two commandments” Matt 22: 40 That’s powrful language from Jesus. It is all about Love…not rules, not who can be ordained and who isn’t good enough. None of us are. I think when it comes down to it, Love wins. Period.

OK, well I don’t like throwing Bible passages around to prove points. That’s prooftexting.

But then that’s what you go ahead and do. You can’t have it both ways, Kiki.

Also, “prooftexting,” in a pejorative sense, means taking a brief snippet out of context to prove a point. That is not what I have done. The several passages I have quoted have included some extended ones, they are cited according to context, they all say the same thing, and the necessity of faith for salvation is abundantly clear. Really, you could read the entire New Testament and find the same message on every page. Far from “prooftexting.”

We are to worship the One to whom the Bible testifies.

How do you know that? I thought the Bible was just a book, and an unreliable one at that.

“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you posses eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” John 5: 39-40

This passage you quote actually works against you, Kiki, since in it our Lord teaches the necessity of faith for salvation.

If all scipture is equally inspired and authorative. . . .

So how do you determine which parts, if any, are inspired and authoritative, and which parts aren’t?

I think when it comes down to it. . . .

There is your–and the ELCA’s–problem in a nutshell: Personal opinion over God’s Word.

So how do you determine which parts, if any, are inspired and authoritative, and which parts aren’t?

Yea, my question exactly. If all of Scripture is inerrant and holds the same weight, then you have a problem, because it contradicts itself. That’s why it is necessary to interpret all of scripture in light of all of scripture…and that is why I say that in the end, Love wins.
To err in favor of love over rules is what Jesus did. And what the ELCA is doing as well.

it is necessary to interpret all of scripture in light of all of scripture. . . .

That is true. And all of Scripture teaches justification by faith. There is no promise of salvation apart from faith in Christ.

To err in favor of love over rules is what Jesus did.

What Jesus did is to teach that men should repent, believe in him, and be saved–as he does in the very passage you quoted:

“These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

To come to Jesus–i.e., faith–is to have life. To refuse to come to Jesus–i.e., unbelief–is to not have life.

@77: (apologies if this is a duplicate comment, I didn’t see my other one show up).

Kiki, regarding contradictions, consider the following from C.F.W. Walther’s Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. This is a great treasure we Lutheran-Christians (no, all Christians) have. Before reading and understanding this, in my teenage and early college years, I often wrestled with ’seeming contradictions’. No longer, or, not as much. Thanks Walther.

Walther writes:
“Comparing Holy Scriptures with other writings, we observe that no book is apparently so full of contradictions as the Bible, and that, not only in minor points, but in the principal matter, in the doctrine how we may come to God and be saved. In one place the Bible offers forgiveness to all sinners; in another place forgiveness of sins is withheld from all sinners. In one passage a free offer of life everlasting is made to all men; in another, men are directed to do something themselves towards being saved. This riddle is solved when we reflect that there are two entirely different doctrines, the doctrine of the Law and the doctrine of the Gospel.”

Regarding your comments about ‘Love’ and ‘Love wins’. It is love and it is loving to show a sinner his sin, so that the law might work, before the gospel and forgiveness is offered. It is not love, and not loving, to comfort and make secure a sinner, in his sin by white-washing the sin by saying that ‘love’ overrules rules, as you say. Where does that end? Why only apply this to the sexual sins? Isn’t it also unloving to tell me that I am sinning in other ways too? In all the various ways that I break the commandments. I’m sure one could white-wash many other sins in this way, too, ‘in the name of Love’.

If God’s grace is His way of tolerating sin, then what in the world is Death?
How tolerant is that?
Kiki M, I commend to you this essay:
http://pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2009/08/god-is-not-tolerant-grace-is-not.html
Excellent snippet:
We must not mistake His willingness to become our Savior as His tolerance of sin. He was so intolerant of sin that He bore all of its weight and took its stain in our place. He made Himself to be like us in every way but sin in order to bear the burden of our sin — death.

The Grace of God has been central to the stance of the ELCA. How are we to understand God’s Grace. This is my understanding of Grace: 1) Grace is given freely (un earned) to all who believe in Christ. 2) What does it mean to believe in Christ? did not Christ Himself tell His apostles (I am paraphrasing here) If you believe in Me that you must live by the example that I have given you if you are to be My disciples. 3) God’s Grace is a gift but a gift is not a gift any longer if no one is willing to recieve it. 4) How do we express our willingness to recieve this gift? Through repentance and living our lives in the example that Christ has provided.
The ELCA has cheapened Grace and ignores the call to repentance which Christ clearly called for at every ocassion of addressing the sins of those He incountered. If we all recieve Gace as freely as some woud assert, living our lives in any manner that pleased us, why would we need the Church?
I am a simple layman who trys very hard not to read some hidden meaning behind the words of the Bible as it seem so many are willing to do. Was not the Bible written for us or was it written only for educated and analytical minds to interpret for us. If I am in error please feel free to enlighten me as I am always open to Spirt filled Word.