albertmohler.com

This is where I found this post. I will comment in BOLD.

I had to hear this one for myself. Presiding Bishop Mark Hansen of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has called for an ecumenical council to convene in order to resolve the question of biblical interpretation in the church. Calling for the global council, Bishop Hansen called upon Pope Benedict XVI, leaders of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and mainline Protestant leaders to convene the council in order to stem the tide of what he called "fundamentalist" readings of Scripture. A lot of the ideas that are cast today in Mainline Denomiations, really didn't develop till the Enlightenment. Such ideas include: Using Social Sciences to try to correct Scripture, downplaying doctrine, and uplifting Social Causes. The idea that Pope Benedict XVI would see eye to eye with Bishop Hanson, or the Orthodox church on issues like Homosexuality is laughable.

"Christianity is in the midst of a global identity crisis because we have not addressed ecumenically the questions of authority and interpretation of scripture," Hanson told the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly last week. Religion News Service reported that the bishop also "called for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran churches to come together to combat a 'fundamentalist-millennialist-apocalypticist reading of Scripture.'" Does by Fundamentalist does he mean people that adhere to the Five Points( Actual Virgin Birth, Atonement, Authority of Scripture, Literal Miracles, and Actual Resurrection) as laid out by the Presbyterian Contraversy in the 20's, if this is what he means then the Orthodox Church and The Roman Catholic Church will keep laughing at Bishop Hanson. I am an amillennialist, who as stated last week is a strong supporter of Israel's right to defense. I really don't know if people like Lahaye, Jenkins, Van Impe, Robertson, and Lindsey are my greatest concerns with their flawed beliefs about the end times. If Hanson' complaint is with Millennialists then he would naturally invite RC Sproul, Alvin Plantinga,D.James Kennedy, and John Piper to this conference. Apocalyptic means bracin for the end times, so when I preach a Funeral Sermon I am being Apocalyptic if I speak about what happens to people after they die. I think what this means is he wants people to care more about Global Social Issues(I.E. The Israeli Wall), than telling people if you don't repent: You're going to burn in Hell. Apocalyptic could also be relating to Millenialist. As I said I hold the Millenialist position to be an errorist position, but hardly consider this position that foremost challenge of my Ministry.

Christianity certainly is "in the midst of a global identity crisis," but that crisis is the result of theological accommodation and confusion -- not biblical literalism. In this context, biblical literalism is code language for any assertion of biblical authority or biblical inerrancy.

As I have said before "When people say, I don't take the Bible literally, this often means they try to find other sources to circumvent the authority of the Bible. This way they can create the Rationalist religion of No Supernatural Doctrines, combined with no concept of sin combined with a Humanist Jesus.

The RNS report also included this: "Although Hanson did not elaborate, mainline churches traditionally are uneasy with literal readings of Scripture, particularly in fundamentalist churches, regarding the end of the world and political unrest in the Middle East. In addition, mainline churches have been divided over what the Bible says about hot-button issues such as homosexuality and women's ordination."

I have already commented on every issu discussed here.

The claim that the ELCA, along with most other liberal Protestant denominations, is deeply divided over issues like homosexuality is truly an understatement. The liberal denominations long ago liberated themselves from anything close to a literal interpretation of Scripture.

This is generally true, but their are people in Mainline Denomiations who do try to get to the central truths Scripture is trying to convey. For instance I believe Genesis 1-3 (The term Day doesn't mean a literal day, but an extended period of time, as this is generally more accepted among Intillgent Design Theorists, while still holding Darwinian Evolution as a very flawed theory. I have argued their are examples of Women's leadership in the Bible, I would also argue that being a women does not take away from one's ability to be used by the Holy Spirit such as the qualities described in I Timothy 3. Their are issues I would disagree with Mohler on, but I think we could both agree our arguments are being based on the Bible, not all sources but the Bible.

Over the past half-century, various heresies, aberrant beliefs systems, and theological movements have found a safe home under the umbrella of the "mainline" denominations. Now, Bishop Hansen want to convene a global council to combat literalist interpretations of the Bible.

This is as true as the Sun rising in the East. The Majority of what I hear at Luther Seminary from fellow students is Humanistic and Rationalistic thinking that looks view different from the Theology of the Early Church. This is perhaps why I have heard more complaining about the Fundamentalists, then about the serious nature of Sin. A lot of what is being said by Bishop Hanson, here is vague, and hard to comment on. The terms Fundamentalist, and Apocalyptic can mean many different things. I think sometime soon, I should lay out thoughts on my Amillenalism, and its implications.

There once was a time when the great councils of the church defended theological orthodoxy. Whatever happened to Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Ephesus? We can only imagine where this bizarre council might meet. The Council of Greenwich Village? Harvard Yard? Riverside Drive? I suggest the Council of Laodicea. The possibilities are endless.

Have a good weekend.

SEEING IS BELIEVING: Hanson's address is available in video format, courtesy of the ELCA.