Homosexuality, Women's Ordination and Divorce
One of the common misnomers in the debate about Homosexuality is a refernce to Orientation or Experience in deciding whether this is acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
The first assumption stated is that Paul never spoke about Sexual Orientation. Well, this is correct. But what Paul did talk about was our sinful orientation. But in Romans 5:12- Paul talks about how people were sinful by nature due to fall of Adam, this language is continued in Romans 5:21-Where Paul talks about the reign of sin. In Romans 8:5-8-Paul talks about how because of our sinful nature, our very intuitions are against God because of our own sinful mind. So Paul does talk about our sinful orientation, but it is never in a good way. To state you approve of Homosexuality based on oreintation is acceptable if you are a heretic in the mode of Origen or Pelagius who denies the Doctrine of Orginal Sin, or from any sort of Armenian tradition. This argument in Lutheran circles though is in direct contrast to what is taught regarding Orginal Sin in Article 2 of the Augsburg Confession. If one is to state our own nature as an authoriative source. One could claim that they need four women to be sexually sastified, or they would like to engage in sex acts every night outside of marriage. I have a lot of bad desires throughout the day, this does not mean I should act on them. The only reason, people don't do it, is because they might figure the social stigma is worse than the actions themselves. My point with this is to appeal to our natures as authoriative in determining if something is right or wrong, is something Paul was against due to the corruption of our nature.
Why didn't Jesus speak on this issue? Well, does his silence promote acceptance, or agreement with Old Testament teachings? Here one is just speculating. But let's look at what Jesus says in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9. Here Jesus cites as a defintion of what consitiutes a marriage-One Man and One Women, created by God and urges man not to seperate. Those who like to ignore this text like to just focus on the warnings against divorce, but ignore why divorce is such a negative. The argument made for marriage as Natural Law is made by Luther in the Small Cathecism pg. 369 Kolb and Wengert, where he cites Matthew 19:6, and then Genesis 2:18(21-24). Speaking of how God created the very instution of marriage, so the man and women may become one. GLBT Advocates never mention this for if they address Luther's position as one of Natural Law, they know they are admitting their position is in direct contrast to the Confessions.
Doesn't the Church allow Divorce? Yes, a few points should be made. The Church never celebrates divorce, nor the circumstances that lead to divorce, nor does a Divorced pastor ever get up and talk about how good a thing is a divorce. Malachi 2:16- Makes clear God hates divorce. Deut 22:19, 24:1, and Jeremiah 3 state that divorce is acceptable on grounds of adultery. In Mark 10:5-Jesus states the reason divorce is allowed is because of people's sinfulness. Then Jesus affirms in Matthew 19, and Mark 10 that divorce is only sufficent on grounds of infidelty. Paul makes clear in I Corinthians 7:27-Not to seek a divorce. Divorce does happen though on grounds of abandonment, or general incompablity. As Jesus states this is due to people's sinfulness. Should the Church allow remarriage? I think it would be hard to justify it, if someone left his wife, for another women. It would also be difficult if someone had no repentance for a previous divorce. But due to God's forgiving nature as stated in I John 1:9 that God will forgive and we can move on. It should also be noted why their are reasons given for divorce, never is there a reason given for Homosexual activity in the Bible.
Women's Ordination- Well, we know from Scripture that Deborah was placed in a role of leadership in Judges 4 and 5 over a man. We know in Romans 16- That Paul thanks Many Women for their help in the ministry. We know in I Corinthians 1:11-That Chloe(A women) is spoken of as head of a household. We know in the four Gospels that Mary Magadalene was the first proclaimer of Christ's death. The Book of Esther is a recount of how she saved the Jews from the Persians. So there is women's leadership in the Bible. But one looks at pasages like 1 Timothy 2 and says Women can't be ordained, we changed that know we need to change Homosexual Orientation. Well, we know in I Timothy 1:4- that certain false teachings have arisen. Most scholars have figured out in the region of Ephesus and Crete- There was a heretical Goodess cult that engaged in sexual ritual as a form of worship. Since this witness might be troubling. Wholah- You have I Timothy 2:12, it should be noted before this is a warning against Women wearing all sorts of provactive clothing, this would seem to be pointing to the Historical thesis. Now, someone is going to say what about verses 13 through 15. Well in 13-14 it should be noted that Eve was appealing to her own desires, as were the women cult in this time period. So to appeal to one's very nature is problematic, as would be a man's. But in this time, Women still had a very important role in the raising of children. The reason this was said, was to not be a stumbling block to the Gospel. Here the point wasn't to say women were worthless. I think this passage applies in places like Saudi Arabia in that the view of women would be so perverted in that society, it is not acceptable for them at this time to serve as ministers there. So this shows the point of ordaining women isn't that we are more enlightened than the scriptures. Which as Luther says are "without error".
Since aren't we all sinners can't Homosexuals serve as ministers? Well as I Timothy 3 states. Their are definite qualifications for serving in the Pastoral Office, even though we all are sinners. But Hebrews 10 26-31 that to abuse grace is to pervert the Gospel. For as I Timothy 3:6-7- For a Minister to be Self-Righteous is a perversion of the Gospel, and to go on embracing sinfulness in public in a perversion of the Gospel. The question isn't whether we all sin, the question is whether our sin convicts us, thereby seeking to turn us from it. This is not to say the Church shouldn't be welcoming of all people, but to act as if some sort of sinful behavior is acceptable, is to pervery why Christ came.
When I am refering to Homosexuals, I am refering to practicing Homosexuals. I am also condemning any sort of self-righteous towards Homosexuality(I Cor 5:12, John 7:24), or any sort of persecution ( Leviticus 19:18). They are to be welcomed into our Church as all people, and not make light of their situation publicly(Matthew 18:15). I realize the emotional detail involved with this issue and I try to live out Ephesians 4:15. This is something my fellow theological conservatives don't always do the best.
The first assumption stated is that Paul never spoke about Sexual Orientation. Well, this is correct. But what Paul did talk about was our sinful orientation. But in Romans 5:12- Paul talks about how people were sinful by nature due to fall of Adam, this language is continued in Romans 5:21-Where Paul talks about the reign of sin. In Romans 8:5-8-Paul talks about how because of our sinful nature, our very intuitions are against God because of our own sinful mind. So Paul does talk about our sinful orientation, but it is never in a good way. To state you approve of Homosexuality based on oreintation is acceptable if you are a heretic in the mode of Origen or Pelagius who denies the Doctrine of Orginal Sin, or from any sort of Armenian tradition. This argument in Lutheran circles though is in direct contrast to what is taught regarding Orginal Sin in Article 2 of the Augsburg Confession. If one is to state our own nature as an authoriative source. One could claim that they need four women to be sexually sastified, or they would like to engage in sex acts every night outside of marriage. I have a lot of bad desires throughout the day, this does not mean I should act on them. The only reason, people don't do it, is because they might figure the social stigma is worse than the actions themselves. My point with this is to appeal to our natures as authoriative in determining if something is right or wrong, is something Paul was against due to the corruption of our nature.
Why didn't Jesus speak on this issue? Well, does his silence promote acceptance, or agreement with Old Testament teachings? Here one is just speculating. But let's look at what Jesus says in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9. Here Jesus cites as a defintion of what consitiutes a marriage-One Man and One Women, created by God and urges man not to seperate. Those who like to ignore this text like to just focus on the warnings against divorce, but ignore why divorce is such a negative. The argument made for marriage as Natural Law is made by Luther in the Small Cathecism pg. 369 Kolb and Wengert, where he cites Matthew 19:6, and then Genesis 2:18(21-24). Speaking of how God created the very instution of marriage, so the man and women may become one. GLBT Advocates never mention this for if they address Luther's position as one of Natural Law, they know they are admitting their position is in direct contrast to the Confessions.
Doesn't the Church allow Divorce? Yes, a few points should be made. The Church never celebrates divorce, nor the circumstances that lead to divorce, nor does a Divorced pastor ever get up and talk about how good a thing is a divorce. Malachi 2:16- Makes clear God hates divorce. Deut 22:19, 24:1, and Jeremiah 3 state that divorce is acceptable on grounds of adultery. In Mark 10:5-Jesus states the reason divorce is allowed is because of people's sinfulness. Then Jesus affirms in Matthew 19, and Mark 10 that divorce is only sufficent on grounds of infidelty. Paul makes clear in I Corinthians 7:27-Not to seek a divorce. Divorce does happen though on grounds of abandonment, or general incompablity. As Jesus states this is due to people's sinfulness. Should the Church allow remarriage? I think it would be hard to justify it, if someone left his wife, for another women. It would also be difficult if someone had no repentance for a previous divorce. But due to God's forgiving nature as stated in I John 1:9 that God will forgive and we can move on. It should also be noted why their are reasons given for divorce, never is there a reason given for Homosexual activity in the Bible.
Women's Ordination- Well, we know from Scripture that Deborah was placed in a role of leadership in Judges 4 and 5 over a man. We know in Romans 16- That Paul thanks Many Women for their help in the ministry. We know in I Corinthians 1:11-That Chloe(A women) is spoken of as head of a household. We know in the four Gospels that Mary Magadalene was the first proclaimer of Christ's death. The Book of Esther is a recount of how she saved the Jews from the Persians. So there is women's leadership in the Bible. But one looks at pasages like 1 Timothy 2 and says Women can't be ordained, we changed that know we need to change Homosexual Orientation. Well, we know in I Timothy 1:4- that certain false teachings have arisen. Most scholars have figured out in the region of Ephesus and Crete- There was a heretical Goodess cult that engaged in sexual ritual as a form of worship. Since this witness might be troubling. Wholah- You have I Timothy 2:12, it should be noted before this is a warning against Women wearing all sorts of provactive clothing, this would seem to be pointing to the Historical thesis. Now, someone is going to say what about verses 13 through 15. Well in 13-14 it should be noted that Eve was appealing to her own desires, as were the women cult in this time period. So to appeal to one's very nature is problematic, as would be a man's. But in this time, Women still had a very important role in the raising of children. The reason this was said, was to not be a stumbling block to the Gospel. Here the point wasn't to say women were worthless. I think this passage applies in places like Saudi Arabia in that the view of women would be so perverted in that society, it is not acceptable for them at this time to serve as ministers there. So this shows the point of ordaining women isn't that we are more enlightened than the scriptures. Which as Luther says are "without error".
Since aren't we all sinners can't Homosexuals serve as ministers? Well as I Timothy 3 states. Their are definite qualifications for serving in the Pastoral Office, even though we all are sinners. But Hebrews 10 26-31 that to abuse grace is to pervert the Gospel. For as I Timothy 3:6-7- For a Minister to be Self-Righteous is a perversion of the Gospel, and to go on embracing sinfulness in public in a perversion of the Gospel. The question isn't whether we all sin, the question is whether our sin convicts us, thereby seeking to turn us from it. This is not to say the Church shouldn't be welcoming of all people, but to act as if some sort of sinful behavior is acceptable, is to pervery why Christ came.
When I am refering to Homosexuals, I am refering to practicing Homosexuals. I am also condemning any sort of self-righteous towards Homosexuality(I Cor 5:12, John 7:24), or any sort of persecution ( Leviticus 19:18). They are to be welcomed into our Church as all people, and not make light of their situation publicly(Matthew 18:15). I realize the emotional detail involved with this issue and I try to live out Ephesians 4:15. This is something my fellow theological conservatives don't always do the best.
posted by Stew at 11:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home