More on Crisis at Luther Seminary-Update 1/21
When searching the blogsphere for commentary on Kelly Fryer I came across this gem from a blog called On the Cusp-
http://dapeeg.blogspot.com/2006/01/well-im-pissed.html
1. In this blog the commentator who is a Pastor in the ELCA states:
My comments in Bold . His comments emphaized in Italics
" In other words, she's gay and living in a relationship with another woman.
Now, I would like to have a good, solid theological discussion about Kelly Fryer's fitness to teach theology ... whether she's gospel centered, whether her words are faithful, and so on. There's plenty in her writings and teachings to discuss, believe me. I haven't really sat down and read Kelly Fryer's writings in great detail. But I did have her as a student. She pushes for more contemporary music, which is good depending on your situation. Her views about the Office of Ministry I agree with some of them, and disagree with some of them. She does seem to be as I stated early more into self-help than Gospel-centered preaching. But the main point isn't to issue a critique in this area. One of here closest students said she openly denied Hell in class, well this teaching is debunked http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/univeralism-revised.html. Thankfully this student condemned her teaching on this subject.
But I don't give a rat's ass as to how she achieves orgasm. This line which I do here some at Luther Seminary is totally devoid of logic. If you don't care how one achieves orgasm at all than Pederastry, Adultery, Polyandry, and Beastiality would be permissable. Basically any form of sexual behavior is permissable. But then one would probably say it needs to be two consenting adults, which is basically an outcome which is achieved just because society says it is permissable.
Nor do I think it makes any difference to, or makes her less effective at, her calling to teach others to go out and tell people about Jesus. As I have stated here on more than one occasion, this isn't quite in line with what is said in 1 Timothy 3, which defines standards of behavior very clearly seperate from other standards of behavior for Pastors. If one corrupts the law to the point where impentitent sin is OK, then the Gospel is not being preached.
And people wonder why our denomination is shrinking. We are soooooo screwed up." The author seems to have no grasp of stastics either. The reason the ELCA is shrinking isn't because of not allowing Homosexual ministers. If that was the reason look at the demographics for the ECUSA, and the UCC. The groups that are growing are churches that have an evangelistic focus like the Southern Baptists, and generally more conservative bodies.
But then the Author goes on to give more insight into Luther Seminary in his next post.
http://dapeeg.blogspot.com/2006/01/still-pissed-off.html
How one goes about labeling "Word Alone" as a fundamentalist organization is hard because of what exactly that term means. As stated here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/11/fundamentalists_26.html.
. As far as Word Alone not keeping up with the ELCA constituion. A couple problems with that statement.
1. You are making the assumption that the ELCA constution is some sort of divine authority. As far as Word Alone not abiding by the ELCA constution, if you read the Word Alone Common Confession http://wordalone.org/docs/wa-comconf.htm. It does what Melancthon did when writing the Augsburg Confession and tries to show it's agreement with it.
2. When you accuse people of being suppodesly confessional, because they don't elevate Christ above scriptures you're own lack of knowledge of Lutheran Confessional writings is on display as evidenced here. As evidenced here http://emerti.blogspot.com/2005/07/authority-of-bible.html , where as direct quotes are taken from the Luther Confessions. To say Luther promoted the authority of scriptures when only dealing with Christ is wrong. While, it is true Luther viewed scripture's main teaching as Christ, this is not to say Luther viewed the rest of scripture as non-authoritative. So your Luther quote, and my several from the article on Biblical authority are not at odds.
3. To name profesors as Fundamentalists is odd. When you come across Liberal Thelogians, they label anyone with a higher view of scripture than them as a fundamentalist. As I stated earlier this is a hard term to define, so I can't really comment on it's damage. I can speak as to the Profesors I had who weren't fundamentalists.
Like the Old Testament Profesor who said the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac should be taken out of the Bible because it promotes Child Abuse
Or the Pastoral Care Profesors who openly praised Abortion. Or my New Testament Profesor who said that Romans 9-11 stated that everyone from Carnal Israel shall be saved, wrong Romans 9-27.
The Emerti Prof who spoke of the Dalai Lama as a role model for the Christian Faith, although I would hear several students promote blatant Inner-Faith unionism. he wasn't a Fundamentalist. Nor My Theology Prof who openly denied the Virgin Birth.
Profesors would promote Process Theology, Univeralism along with other heresies detailed on this blog. One NT profesor had students read a book that said if you really loved Jesus you want to f*&% him. But these are the Profesors whose portyal of the Christian Faith at Luther Seminary is what seems to be what this ELCA pastor considers acceptable. The funny thing about Luther Seminary it is the most Conservative of all the ELCA seminaries.
As my good friend Carl wrote he in a later post said Word Alone was hypocritical for wanting ordination exceptions, but not for people engaged in same sex-behavior. This is a ridicilous analogy.
1. Episcopal Ordination has no scriptual backing. For scripture never associates special gifts with Ordination.
2. It is totally inconsistent with Lutheran Theology's historic witness.
3. The ELCA adopted what is called the Milwaukee Common Ground Resolution in Feb. 2000. Which calls for people to have Freedom in regards to ordination practices. So it is well-within ELCA legal proceedings to do such a thing. The only reason this is a big deal is becuase it becomes a circus everytime someone wants this exception.
How does this relate to Same-Sex exceptions. Well it doesn't. As I have stated their needs to be behavioral codes for ministers as stated in I Timothy 3. Why because the Law condemns our sinful nature, it makes us realize the error of it's way and the need for Christ. For a Church to have ministers engaged in proud, open and impentitent sin makes the case that human nature is good, and the Gospel serves to affirm not convict human nature.
Also, the ELCA doesn't allow for this behavior in any of its legal documents. So to violate legal documents would hence deserve punishment.
posted by Stew at 12:25 PM
1 Comments:
Stewart--
I checked out this guy's webblog again and he is ranting once more about the "Fundamentalists" in the Word Alone Movement. I was looking at where he has served and his previous call was in Glenwood, Minnesota. As you know, the Glenwood/Starbuck area has a lot of Word Alone people up there. This is my guess why he dislikes them so.
Bob Lewis was trying to make the point that objections to the episcopate and Vision and Expectations are the same thing because they both want to change the established rules. However, what he is forgetting is that foreign understandings have been added to Lutheran belief and therefore, when the real Lutherans want a real ordination, they have every right to the real thing. However, those who want to change Visions and Expectations are not arguing from traditional Lutheran belief which make the two cases apples to oranges.
I will make no comment about his political statements. Here are Bob Lewis' statements.
20 January 2006
Only three more years ...
... until the reign of terror ends. Will we survive it? One wonders.
Here's an interesting piece my Libertarian buddy Markus forwarded to me, written by Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas. (Hint: if you're wondering why a Republican would write a piece like this, that's because Paul ran for President as the Libertarian candidate in 1988.) It's a real eye-opener, and a good argument for why we need a viable third way in this country, to rescue us from the Republicrats.
BL
posted by Bob Lewis at Friday, January 20, 2006 0 comments
19 January 2006
The Big Lie
Bush and his cronies say that they're all about "states' rights." Scalia says he's a "strict constructionist."
But the Big Lie is exposed at times like Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling upholding Oregon's assisted suicide law, which permits physicians (in a highly controlled environment) to prescribe a death-causing amount of painkillers to a terminally ill person with six months or less to live.
It seems that "states' rights" and "strict constructionism" for the theocrats, "Religious Right" and social re-engineers of Bush and his ilk only go so far. Cross the line of what they like, and suddenly "the federal government must intervene."
This is a line I hear over and over from these people. That fundamentalist organization that I love to hate in our denomination, WordAlone, has as one of their tenets the "right" of a congregation to ordain a person that doesn't agree with the ecumenical agreement our denomination entered into with the Episcopal Church (USA). This violation of the church constitution is "OK" with them. But should a congregation wish to ordain a gay or lesbian pastor who is in a committed relationship - also violating the church constitution - and the hue and cry goes up, "OH NO, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THAT, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" And calls for church discipline start flying, from the very people who want to violate the law themselves. They seek selective protection from the law when it conflicts with their agenda, but want it enforced when they agree with it.
Of course, there's some conservative crap floating around out there about how "liberals can be duplicitous in such matters, too." The example I read about was that if the Supreme Court had intervened in, say, the Ohio ban on gay marriages, or another state's ban on equal rights for gays and lesbians, liberals would applaud that kind of federalism. But as I understand it, the Federal Government is about ensuring that the rights of all individuals are protected ... "equal protection under law." So-called "interfering" when a majority trumps the rights of a minority isn't "selective enforcement." It's what the Federal Government is to be about.
As I said in an earlier post, duplicity and hypocrisy are their own rewards. At the end of the day, justice will prevail and the Big Lie will be exposed for all to see ... this time, with this Supreme Court ruling, we got to see it in real time.
BL
posted by Bob Lewis at Thursday, January 19, 2006 0 comments
Post a Comment
<< Home