Acts 2:14-21
May 14-21, 2008
Lutheran church plans a “mass-baptism”
Eisleben, Germany -- On November 11th, 1483, the great reformer, Martin Luther, was carried up the street from the house where he was born to the church of Saints Peter and Paul. With Martin’s father and godparents standing by, the local priest held the day-old little Luther naked over the baptismal font and dunked him three times into the cold November waters of God’s certain grace. “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” He was named Martin because November 11th is the feast day for Saint Martin of Tours. Certain that Martin was now saved for all eternity, his father brought him home to begin his life as the son of a copper mining prospector.
It is 525 years later in the same city now called Lutherstadt Eisleben. The pastors of that same church where Martin Luther was baptized, along with a couple of neighboring pastors from Eisleben, are planning something big in honor of the 525th anniversary of Martin Luther’s baptismal birthday. Their goal: baptize 525 people in Saints Peter and Paul church on November 11th, 2008. It is a lofty goal to be sure. But will they be able to make it happen? Claudia Bergmann, one of the pastors of the historic church says, “Will we reach 525? I don’t know. But what better way is there to find out then to try?”
There is a lot of excitement surrounding this event. There are already people registered to be baptized or to have their children baptized. Lot’s of people are talking about what baptism means in a town where only 13% of the population is Christian. Some are traveling from all over Germany in order to receive the sacrament of Baptism in this historic place at the remains of the very font in which Martin Luther was baptized.
Hundreds of newspapers throughout Europe picked up the story and have been writing about the “mass-baptism”. The pastors in Eisleben are thrilled about the press, but not about the choice of words. “We aren’t going to baptize 100, 200, or 525 people all at once,” says Pastor Claudia Bergmann. “It won’t be a mass-baptism. No fire hoses or anything unworthy of the sacrament of Baptism. One at a time. If we reach our goal of 525, we will still only be around 18% of the number that were baptized on Pentecost. I think that’s a pretty humble start, don’t you?”
So what does 525 people being baptized on the 525th anniversary of Martin Luther’s Baptism have to do with today’s reading? Other than the fact that the article refers to the reading. Baptism. Yes, both stories contain mass Baptisms and conversion.
Our theme for today is, “The Evangelization of Every People.” Today’s reading from Acts is part of the sequence of events following the Pentecost account of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples, causing them to speak in tongues. Following this event Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, goes out into the crowd and preaches a sermon so profound so convincing that 3000 people were baptized and became believers that very day. Some in the crowed thought that the apostles were drunk. I would say that these people were like the liberal theologians of today who cannot conceive of anything supernatural happening, even if God is involved.
What was it about Peter’s sermon that was so compelling? What purpose does a preacher serve? It’s because Peter preached with authority, filled with the Holy Spirit that the people were “cut to the heart” as verse 37 states. This is how God evangelizes all people he sends a true preacher who preaches the gospel message with the authority and the power that comes from the Holy Spirit. A true preacher delivers the gospel message in a way that causes faith to happen in the hearers of this message. This faith brings forth repentance and baptism is the seal put upon this conversion.
Romans 10:14-17 (ESV)
14 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? 15 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!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Article 5 of the Augsburg Confessions states:
That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel (the office of preaching) and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.
They condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Ghost comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.
Article 5 follows article four, I’m from southern Iowa and even I can do that math, Article 4 states that we are saved by faith alone. And how does this saving faith happen? Article 5 explains through hearing the gospel proclaimed by a true preacher and receiving the sacraments.
The sacrament that today’s message concentrates on is baptism. Baptism is the first time in your lives that you heard a true preacher bestow the promises of Christ upon you and elect you for the kingdom of heaven, even if you do not remember it or did not choose it, God’s work was done within you. Baptism is a once and for all thing. I am often asked, “ but can’t we deny our baptism or reject God?” To which I simply answer, with the Dr. Phil response “ how is that working for you?” I believe that the good Lord would get a fine laugh out of one of us mere humans trying to break his all powerful grip upon us. You see we as humans , by nature are forgetful of God’s promises and therefore God doesn’t just send a preacher one time but over and over to remind us of His all powerful, fatherly , divine love, mercy, and grace. This repetition is not for the sake of salvation, as I said Baptism is a once and for all thing, but for the sake of your consciences and the work for your neighbors that comes from you after hearing a true preacher.
The Baptism promise can be found in
Romans 6:4:
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
In your baptism your flesh was put to death and God raised up a new creation. So why, if your flesh is dead, is it still functioning here on earth? Luther believed that you are not called to one time repentance but a life of repentance. Baptism’s claim is a onetime thing but the death that it bestows is a daily dying to self and flesh. The repentance that comes out of this death to self is the result of the new creation’s existence within you. Today’s reading says in verse 21 quoting from the book of Joel 2:32 21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ This calling upon the name of the Lord isn’t gaining you New life, and it isn’t you asking to be created a new rather it is the proof or the fruit of the repentance that is being worked within you by the power of the Holy Spirit. You do not call upon the name of the Lord in order to be saved but because he has saved you. In answer to my previous question, “Why is our flesh still here when you are a new creation?” Because God chooses to use you in this world to witness to and serve your neighbors who have not yet been saved or chosen. You are to do God’s electing. You are to live a life of repentance as witness to your neighbors, not to gain your salvation but because of it.
In the newspaper article I read earlier we see that God is still calling people to himself. He is still calling people to be baptized and saved. He is still creating the body of believers just as he was at Pentecost. How magnificent would it be to see 3000 people come forward to be baptized, compelled by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the evangelization of all people. This is your call as the priesthood of all believers.
If you came here tonight wondering if you were one of the elected and are still not for sure, then I am now telling you you are! If you didn’t think that you had yet been elected then I am electing you. I’m sure that all of you have been baptized and if not then call Pastor Wells and be baptized. As for the rest of you go in the peace that salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord brings loving and serving your neighbor. Go live a life worthy of your calling, not to gain salvation or the favor of the Lord but because you have already obtained favor and salvation. Go and give it away.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Ethics final paper
Currently in the ELCA one question threatens to split the church; that question is, “Should the ELCA ordain openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship?” This is an interesting debate; one side believes that the Bible is the final authority for the church, with tradition and the Book of Concorde as a second. Both scripture and tradition condemn homosexuality as sin therefore the ordination of homosexuals is threatening Luther’s stance of (sola scriptura) scripture alone as authority. The other side claims that the Bible is outdated in this circumstance as it could not comprehend a committed homosexual relationship therefore the verses that condemn homosexuality as sexual immorality should be ignored.
To consider this question from an ethical stand point is to consider it through the lens of the ethical theory “Divine Command.” In this paper I will: explore Biblical text that proves that it is unethical, from a Divine Command Theory perspective, to ordain openly homosexual persons, explain the Divine Command Theory, present both sides of the current argument, then draw a conclusion based upon the most convincing evidence.
Genesis 1:26-31 (ESV):
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
In the above Genesis passage God is forming creation and then He establishes an order to that creation. He made man and woman in His own image and then gave them domain over the creatures of the earth. So, God established a creation then created man to rule over and care for that creation. It is obvious that God didn’t create the fish in the sea to subdue the earth or the birds in the sky for that matter rather they are to be creatures in creation not rulers of it. The point is that there is a certain order to this creation account.
God created humans male and female; again establishing an order to this creation. Then He blessed them and gave them His first command, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” He commanded man and woman to multiply; this is the first office (or vocation) that God created. Man and woman are to reproduce through sexual intercourse and fill the earth with their offspring. Their second office is to subdue the earth. Webster’s dictionary defines “subdue” as, “to conquer and bring into subjection.” “To bring into subjection” supports the stance that there is an order to God’s plan for creation. He creates offices and set ups the law so that creation will remain in order and will not fall into chaos. Then in verses 29 and 30 God supplies everything that is required for humans to fulfill their calling (vocation). This is creation in the form it was intended and ordered; anything to the contrary would be immoral and contrary God’s command.
The “Divine Command Theory” is the theory that moral values are derived from the commands of God therefore to perform an action contrary to God’s commands would be an immoral action. For instance the seventh commandment states, “You shall not commit adultery;” thus if a person has sexual intercourse with another person other than their spouse they are committing an immoral action.
It is only right and ethical to consider the evidence from both sides of the argument for or against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship before a decision on its morality can be reached. First, I will consider the evidence in favor of the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship.
The argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship is based upon three premises: Jesus’ command to love your neighbor, contextual criticism of particular Biblical passages, and the idea that every person is in a sinful state.
Matthew 22: 34-39 (ESV)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The lawyer in the above passage was trying to trick Jesus into answering a question in a way in which they could accuse Him of Blasphemy. But Jesus, being the master of debate that He is, didn’t quote any of the commandments instead He went to the book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 6:5
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Jesus followed this answer with a summary of all the commandments: 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. It is from this passage that the first argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship comes from. Proponents arguing from this passage are saying that above all the other commandments and laws of the Bible we must first love God and then love our neighbor. Many of these proponents are very devout people as they hold God in the highest regard in their hearts and take their calling to serve their neighbor with the utmost sincerity. By excluding openly homosexual persons from the ordained ministry, in their view, we are not obeying our calling to love and serve our neighbor.
Contextual criticism is defined as: A form of criticism which views the literary text as a self-contained verbal structure. Akin to the New Criticism, contextualism holds that a work of art generates self-referential meanings within its own internal and autonomous context. (Glossary of Literary Theory by Greig E. Henderson and Christopher Brown) This theory considers Biblical passages in their original context. It asks questions of the text like: What was the author’s original intent? What were the circumstances the author was addressing in this passage? What was the cultural context in which this text was written? These are all valid and helpful questions that help us to form a deeper understanding of the Biblical text. Proponents for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship that are arguing from contextual criticism are saying that Biblical passages like:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
And
Romans 1:24-27 (ESV):
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
could not conceive of a committed homosexual relationship therefore the context in which they were written does not apply to today’s understanding of a committed homosexual relationship.
Romans 3:21-24 (ESV):
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
No human on this earth or in the history of this earth has ever transcended their sinful state outside of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Romans 3:21-24 is law and gospel. 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, in this verse we find the result of the law applied to human righteousness; no one lives up, all fall short of the Glory of God, and this is the judgment applied to sinners, Guilty! But then we have the gospel: 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Proponents of the ordination of homosexual persons in a committed relationship view this piece of scripture as saying that we are all sinners, there is no difference, and therefore homosexuality is no greater sin as another.
On the surface these three arguments in favor of the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship seem like pretty compelling evidence but in reality they are twisting scripture to fit a certain world view. These interpretations are made by persons who approach scripture to stand over it and interpret it to fit their position as opposed to one who approaches scripture as the authoritative Word of God, letting scripture interpret them, there by standing under its authority. I cannot, in good conscious, leave these arguments in this paper without pointing out the deceitfulness of their content and make the argument against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship in the process.
Matthew 22: 34-39 (ESV)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
This is the divine Word of God and it is authoritative! The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart and the second is to love your neighbor. But what does loving our neighbor entail? If this were God’s only command then I could see the logic in the idea that by excluding openly homosexual persons from ordained clergy we are not loving our neighbor. However, this is not God’s only Word on this issue and to view it as the only word is to twist scripture. Verses such as:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Or
Romans 1:24-27 (ESV):
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
contradict the idea that we should just accept our neighbor no matter what their sexual orientation. I am the father of three beautiful children. If my son Joey (7) was putting candy from a store in his pocket with the intent to steal it from the store I would not let him do so even if by pointing out his sinful behavior I might offend him. My point is that you would have a hard time finding a neighbor that I loved more than my wife and kids as I am first called to the office of husband and father. However loving Joey does not mean that I should avoid hurting his feelings by not teaching him that stealing is a sin. Loving him means that I should point out when his behavior if sinful and correct his behavior so that he may avoid the sinful behavior in the future.
Galatians 6:1 (ESV):
6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Loving our neighbor means correcting them when they’re behavior is sinful. To allow a neighbor to continue to sin would be contrary to the teaching of scripture even if it brings persecution upon us from “the world,” which leads me to the second false teaching in this argument.
To consider scripture in its original context is a fine way to study the Word. It helps us to understand the author’s original intent which aids us in comprehending what God is requiring of us today. However to say that the teachings of the Bible are not applicable to life today is blasphemy. In the Lutheran church scripture is meant to be the final authority for the church. The Word of God does not have an expired shelf life. The proponents for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship are denying the Word of God by saying that its lessons do not apply to life today in this particular circumstance. The denying of the Word of God as authority leads us into the discussion of the final false argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship.
The desire to hold up the homosexual life style as an example of a proper relationship for a Christian leader is to deny that this lifestyle is sinful as it is considered sexual immorality. As the Bible verses I have pointed out in this paper show, it is clearly sinful and to lift this lifestyle as an example of a proper healthy Christian relationship is to blatantly disobey God’s divine command.
The argument against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship is based upon the belief in sola scriptura, scripture alone as authority. Scripture as authority is a belief that has been held by the Christian church since the first century. Tradition has also been proposed as a source of authority since this time. Neither scripture nor tradition has ever supported the homosexual life style as a God ordained position. To lift up this lifestyle as a proper Christian relationship is to let today’s world view override scripture and tradition as the authority of the church. It scares the life out of me to hand of the authority of Christ’s church to the world view of those who would call our two thousand year belief in scripture and tradition as outdated.
Not only is this lifestyle against the clear commands of God to avoid sexual immorality, it is also contrary to God’s order of creation as stated in Genesis 1:26-31. God created man and woman, not man and man nor woman and woman, for the purpose of multiplying and filling the earth and with the intention of them subduing the earth and ruling over it. There is no physical way that a homosexual relationship could produce offspring because it is not a God ordained office. In fact by partaking in a homosexual relationship a person is denying the very first command of God and is denying the office in which they were called. To deny God’s command and His order of creation is to behave in an unethical way according to the Divine Command Theory.
There are those who the question this argument by asking what about the spiritual gift of celibacy or the elderly or a barren woman who doesn’t poses the ability to multiply? Again this is rhetoric. There is not found in scripture anything that states that celibacy is a sin but is in fact considered a spiritual gift. This is a different office created by God and not one contrary to his commands. As for the barren and the elderly, this is a physical state not a behavior and therefore is a cross that that person if chosen to bear and not a behavior that contradicts the divine commands of God.
I started this paper by looking at Genesis 1:26-31 and stating that the intention of this paper was to show that the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship was unethical when viewing it through the lens of the ethical theory of Divine Command. I have made the arguments for and against his practice and have concluded that not only does scripture condemn this life style as sinful and sexual immorality but it is against the order of creation therefore is an unethical behavior.
To consider this question from an ethical stand point is to consider it through the lens of the ethical theory “Divine Command.” In this paper I will: explore Biblical text that proves that it is unethical, from a Divine Command Theory perspective, to ordain openly homosexual persons, explain the Divine Command Theory, present both sides of the current argument, then draw a conclusion based upon the most convincing evidence.
Genesis 1:26-31 (ESV):
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
In the above Genesis passage God is forming creation and then He establishes an order to that creation. He made man and woman in His own image and then gave them domain over the creatures of the earth. So, God established a creation then created man to rule over and care for that creation. It is obvious that God didn’t create the fish in the sea to subdue the earth or the birds in the sky for that matter rather they are to be creatures in creation not rulers of it. The point is that there is a certain order to this creation account.
God created humans male and female; again establishing an order to this creation. Then He blessed them and gave them His first command, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” He commanded man and woman to multiply; this is the first office (or vocation) that God created. Man and woman are to reproduce through sexual intercourse and fill the earth with their offspring. Their second office is to subdue the earth. Webster’s dictionary defines “subdue” as, “to conquer and bring into subjection.” “To bring into subjection” supports the stance that there is an order to God’s plan for creation. He creates offices and set ups the law so that creation will remain in order and will not fall into chaos. Then in verses 29 and 30 God supplies everything that is required for humans to fulfill their calling (vocation). This is creation in the form it was intended and ordered; anything to the contrary would be immoral and contrary God’s command.
The “Divine Command Theory” is the theory that moral values are derived from the commands of God therefore to perform an action contrary to God’s commands would be an immoral action. For instance the seventh commandment states, “You shall not commit adultery;” thus if a person has sexual intercourse with another person other than their spouse they are committing an immoral action.
It is only right and ethical to consider the evidence from both sides of the argument for or against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship before a decision on its morality can be reached. First, I will consider the evidence in favor of the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship.
The argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship is based upon three premises: Jesus’ command to love your neighbor, contextual criticism of particular Biblical passages, and the idea that every person is in a sinful state.
Matthew 22: 34-39 (ESV)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The lawyer in the above passage was trying to trick Jesus into answering a question in a way in which they could accuse Him of Blasphemy. But Jesus, being the master of debate that He is, didn’t quote any of the commandments instead He went to the book of Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy 6:5
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Jesus followed this answer with a summary of all the commandments: 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. It is from this passage that the first argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship comes from. Proponents arguing from this passage are saying that above all the other commandments and laws of the Bible we must first love God and then love our neighbor. Many of these proponents are very devout people as they hold God in the highest regard in their hearts and take their calling to serve their neighbor with the utmost sincerity. By excluding openly homosexual persons from the ordained ministry, in their view, we are not obeying our calling to love and serve our neighbor.
Contextual criticism is defined as: A form of criticism which views the literary text as a self-contained verbal structure. Akin to the New Criticism, contextualism holds that a work of art generates self-referential meanings within its own internal and autonomous context. (Glossary of Literary Theory by Greig E. Henderson and Christopher Brown) This theory considers Biblical passages in their original context. It asks questions of the text like: What was the author’s original intent? What were the circumstances the author was addressing in this passage? What was the cultural context in which this text was written? These are all valid and helpful questions that help us to form a deeper understanding of the Biblical text. Proponents for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship that are arguing from contextual criticism are saying that Biblical passages like:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
And
Romans 1:24-27 (ESV):
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
could not conceive of a committed homosexual relationship therefore the context in which they were written does not apply to today’s understanding of a committed homosexual relationship.
Romans 3:21-24 (ESV):
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
No human on this earth or in the history of this earth has ever transcended their sinful state outside of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Romans 3:21-24 is law and gospel. 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, in this verse we find the result of the law applied to human righteousness; no one lives up, all fall short of the Glory of God, and this is the judgment applied to sinners, Guilty! But then we have the gospel: 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Proponents of the ordination of homosexual persons in a committed relationship view this piece of scripture as saying that we are all sinners, there is no difference, and therefore homosexuality is no greater sin as another.
On the surface these three arguments in favor of the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship seem like pretty compelling evidence but in reality they are twisting scripture to fit a certain world view. These interpretations are made by persons who approach scripture to stand over it and interpret it to fit their position as opposed to one who approaches scripture as the authoritative Word of God, letting scripture interpret them, there by standing under its authority. I cannot, in good conscious, leave these arguments in this paper without pointing out the deceitfulness of their content and make the argument against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship in the process.
Matthew 22: 34-39 (ESV)
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
This is the divine Word of God and it is authoritative! The greatest commandment is to love God with all your heart and the second is to love your neighbor. But what does loving our neighbor entail? If this were God’s only command then I could see the logic in the idea that by excluding openly homosexual persons from ordained clergy we are not loving our neighbor. However, this is not God’s only Word on this issue and to view it as the only word is to twist scripture. Verses such as:
1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
Or
Romans 1:24-27 (ESV):
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
contradict the idea that we should just accept our neighbor no matter what their sexual orientation. I am the father of three beautiful children. If my son Joey (7) was putting candy from a store in his pocket with the intent to steal it from the store I would not let him do so even if by pointing out his sinful behavior I might offend him. My point is that you would have a hard time finding a neighbor that I loved more than my wife and kids as I am first called to the office of husband and father. However loving Joey does not mean that I should avoid hurting his feelings by not teaching him that stealing is a sin. Loving him means that I should point out when his behavior if sinful and correct his behavior so that he may avoid the sinful behavior in the future.
Galatians 6:1 (ESV):
6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Loving our neighbor means correcting them when they’re behavior is sinful. To allow a neighbor to continue to sin would be contrary to the teaching of scripture even if it brings persecution upon us from “the world,” which leads me to the second false teaching in this argument.
To consider scripture in its original context is a fine way to study the Word. It helps us to understand the author’s original intent which aids us in comprehending what God is requiring of us today. However to say that the teachings of the Bible are not applicable to life today is blasphemy. In the Lutheran church scripture is meant to be the final authority for the church. The Word of God does not have an expired shelf life. The proponents for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship are denying the Word of God by saying that its lessons do not apply to life today in this particular circumstance. The denying of the Word of God as authority leads us into the discussion of the final false argument for the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship.
The desire to hold up the homosexual life style as an example of a proper relationship for a Christian leader is to deny that this lifestyle is sinful as it is considered sexual immorality. As the Bible verses I have pointed out in this paper show, it is clearly sinful and to lift this lifestyle as an example of a proper healthy Christian relationship is to blatantly disobey God’s divine command.
The argument against the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship is based upon the belief in sola scriptura, scripture alone as authority. Scripture as authority is a belief that has been held by the Christian church since the first century. Tradition has also been proposed as a source of authority since this time. Neither scripture nor tradition has ever supported the homosexual life style as a God ordained position. To lift up this lifestyle as a proper Christian relationship is to let today’s world view override scripture and tradition as the authority of the church. It scares the life out of me to hand of the authority of Christ’s church to the world view of those who would call our two thousand year belief in scripture and tradition as outdated.
Not only is this lifestyle against the clear commands of God to avoid sexual immorality, it is also contrary to God’s order of creation as stated in Genesis 1:26-31. God created man and woman, not man and man nor woman and woman, for the purpose of multiplying and filling the earth and with the intention of them subduing the earth and ruling over it. There is no physical way that a homosexual relationship could produce offspring because it is not a God ordained office. In fact by partaking in a homosexual relationship a person is denying the very first command of God and is denying the office in which they were called. To deny God’s command and His order of creation is to behave in an unethical way according to the Divine Command Theory.
There are those who the question this argument by asking what about the spiritual gift of celibacy or the elderly or a barren woman who doesn’t poses the ability to multiply? Again this is rhetoric. There is not found in scripture anything that states that celibacy is a sin but is in fact considered a spiritual gift. This is a different office created by God and not one contrary to his commands. As for the barren and the elderly, this is a physical state not a behavior and therefore is a cross that that person if chosen to bear and not a behavior that contradicts the divine commands of God.
I started this paper by looking at Genesis 1:26-31 and stating that the intention of this paper was to show that the ordination of openly homosexual persons in a committed relationship was unethical when viewing it through the lens of the ethical theory of Divine Command. I have made the arguments for and against his practice and have concluded that not only does scripture condemn this life style as sinful and sexual immorality but it is against the order of creation therefore is an unethical behavior.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Article Written for "The Concord" Luther Seminary's school paper.
Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:4)
This passage is a promise from God given through the pen of Paul the Apostle. It doesn’t sound very cheery to hear that God promises to put us death, although, in reality, that is what we all deserve. In the end, life is finally fair: we all die for our sins but the good news is that on account of Christ we are then resurrected as a new creation.
Luther would say that our old selves, although already put to death, still cling to the new creation like a sack of worms until our eventual physical death. Why has Jesus Christ taken us out of this world only to send us right back into it? We, as new creations, exist for one purpose: to love and work for the sake of others in the offices which God has called each one of us to serve.
What does all this have to do with the preservation of life? Good question! God has put us to death with his left hand and has raised us up to life with his right hand. Nonetheless, we sometimes still cling to the habits of the old self. Why do we worry about money, our reputation, our space, personal time, or the next cup of Starbucks? Does a new creation in God’s kingdom need money and all those things we feel provide happiness and comfort? Regardless of what I am told, we will not cease to exist if we do not have another cup of Starbucks God has created you anew for the sole purpose of serving your neighbor. Academic degrees or any other thing you think you have earned are not for you, but for the sole purpose of making you a better servant to your neighbor.
As I reflected upon my first full semester here at Luther I came to realize that this is the most important thing I have learned. I exist first as a husband and father to serve my wife and children, second as a son and brother to serve my family and third as a preacher called by God to deliver the gospel message to bring comfort to afflicted consciences. I am called to each of these offices to serve wholly in Christian faith and love. I am not called by God to the office of “me” and all of the creature comforts I suppose necessary for daily living. God is the very one who provides for me, giving me all I need from day to day so that I might be sustained for the work of serving others. This is God’s greatest gift to me because there was indeed a time in which I thought I was god and only served myself. I never want to be that miserable again. Yet, I have been raised up from the dead and called from my misery, only to be given a new whole life.
This passage is a promise from God given through the pen of Paul the Apostle. It doesn’t sound very cheery to hear that God promises to put us death, although, in reality, that is what we all deserve. In the end, life is finally fair: we all die for our sins but the good news is that on account of Christ we are then resurrected as a new creation.
Luther would say that our old selves, although already put to death, still cling to the new creation like a sack of worms until our eventual physical death. Why has Jesus Christ taken us out of this world only to send us right back into it? We, as new creations, exist for one purpose: to love and work for the sake of others in the offices which God has called each one of us to serve.
What does all this have to do with the preservation of life? Good question! God has put us to death with his left hand and has raised us up to life with his right hand. Nonetheless, we sometimes still cling to the habits of the old self. Why do we worry about money, our reputation, our space, personal time, or the next cup of Starbucks? Does a new creation in God’s kingdom need money and all those things we feel provide happiness and comfort? Regardless of what I am told, we will not cease to exist if we do not have another cup of Starbucks God has created you anew for the sole purpose of serving your neighbor. Academic degrees or any other thing you think you have earned are not for you, but for the sole purpose of making you a better servant to your neighbor.
As I reflected upon my first full semester here at Luther I came to realize that this is the most important thing I have learned. I exist first as a husband and father to serve my wife and children, second as a son and brother to serve my family and third as a preacher called by God to deliver the gospel message to bring comfort to afflicted consciences. I am called to each of these offices to serve wholly in Christian faith and love. I am not called by God to the office of “me” and all of the creature comforts I suppose necessary for daily living. God is the very one who provides for me, giving me all I need from day to day so that I might be sustained for the work of serving others. This is God’s greatest gift to me because there was indeed a time in which I thought I was god and only served myself. I never want to be that miserable again. Yet, I have been raised up from the dead and called from my misery, only to be given a new whole life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
