FireDragon76

3 hours ago, Burl said:

Thank you for your generous response, but I was not trying to poke you or Lutherans.  Rather I was attempting to use your post as a springboard and dive into the deeper waters of sin and forgiveness and wash off the sociopolitical dust from the issue.

I do believe the ECLA finds the ten commandments a binding document.  The questions to me revolve around 1) why do most churches seem to consider gblt related sin differently from heterosexualy related sin and 2) why does the church take its lead from the unchristian realm of politics and not from Scripture?  

I fully support the acceptance and baptism of gblt persons.  I have seen Doré's Biblical Illustrations and it seems obvious heaven has all the interior decorators    But working from politically constructed logical frameworks and not Scripture is really abandoning the gospel.

My understanding of the Christian tradition calls me to engage with those politically constructed logical frameworks for the purpose of sharing God's love with others.     The best way to help others is to have them teach us how to help them.  That means taking the actual lived-experience of gay people seriously, including their politics.  That doesn't mean uncritical affirmation, but the "burden of proof" is not on historically marginalized people, that's for sure.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Well, belief in miracles might indeed harm others: I had a great friend from college who, when she got a bit older, got in with a religious group that refused doctors and any medical 'intervention' relying instead on God (i.e. miracles):she died of cancer. I would think in the history of Christianity, in the history of religion, we have many examples of people relying on miraculous interventions - all for naught to their harm, be it greater or lesser in degree. 

Plus, although I disagree with any ethic that denies basic human respect to any individual or group, your position is a bit convenient as some of these other folks might be just as passionate, in their denial of scientific evidence, when they believe they were dealing with sin - as you are with your belief in miracles. Both are at odds with your appeal to scientific evidence. 

"As a Lutheran, I don't believe anti-homosexual teachings are essential to my faith, since we separate theology from ethics." Are you serious? How much can we chip away at Lutheran Christian ethics before it impacts theology?  

I have no idea what you mean when you say, "individuals' consciences can be bound on this issue in different ways according to their understanding of God's Word, and that must be respected." So are you saying the individual understanding trumps Christian ethics?    And it sounds, a bit like Orthodoxy: that Lutherans would accept an anti--LGBT conscience? 

Of course you don't view it as throwing the baby out but you are dismissing an entire expression of Christianity for an anti-gay conscience while you accept the same from individual Lutherans conscience? 

 

"Lutherans do have a doctrine of divinization of sorts but it is understood in terms of mystical union through participation in the ordinary sacramental life of the Church gathered around the Word, and it is very much secondary to justification." Well this is wordy, can you explain it? 

That's unfortunate about your friend but from a Lutheran POV  that has more to do with not appreciating the sacramental nature of vocation and how God provides for us through creation.  It has less to do with belief in miracles as God's acts within history.

You should really read that article by Pr. Ed Knudson about George Tiller.  Individual moral agency is crucial to our sense of ethics.  As Dietrirch Bonhoeffer pointed out, there is really no such thing as a Christian or Lutheran ethics that is divorced from secular ethics.  

Our church's social statements are persuasive but they are not coercive, it's ultimately up to the individual in their relationship with God and their neighbor to judge matters of ethical importance.

The Lutheran doctrine of divinization is similar to Orthodoxy's (though from an Augustinian theological framework) but it's not the one thing that we talk about, unlike the Orthodox Church that makes it the only paradigm for talking about salvation.  The primary way we talk about salvation is in terms of justification and this is also the doctrine that shapes our particular approach to ethics as well.  

8 hours ago, Burl said:

In almost any Christian church, save the Metropolitan, gblt attendance is negligable.  Often 0%. The sin issue is with the overwhelming heterosexual majority but pastors are not going anywhere near that subject because the pews would empty out like a dump truck. They keep the focus on gblt folks who quit the church decades ago.

In my congregation there are several people that I know that are gay that serve in our ministries.  I don't think that's uncommon in many mainline churches.  We, as a Lutheran congregation in the ELCA, seem to be slightly more conservative than average and have no particular ties to LGBT-advocacy ministries. 

Lutherans have never been a tradition defined by particular ethical stances.  We really have no juridically binding documents on sexual ethics.  We don't exactly approve of premarital sex but we don't define ourselves as taking a particular stand against it.  Many of us are concerned about how traditional approaches to sexuality among Christians harms the sense of moral agency of younger people and distorts sexuality in ways that are unhelpful.

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Again, this is the baby with the bathwater scenario: you have identified a blind spot (that is indeed wrong) but it doesn't mean every last person or every Orthodox church is anti humanistic in all they do. Hopefully, they will catch up, not merely with science but, regardless of science, the love of others for themselves.

However, you do realize the whole 'confronted by scientific evidence' could be applied to those who believe men can predict future events, work 'miracles.' resurrect from the dead, and on and on. So, it is possible for a church who is anti LGBTQ to simply 'profess their faith' and disregard scientific evidence. Now I for one would still disagree with such a church on this issue as I would also ask those of other churches to explain what they mean and how they can seemingly disregard science. We have to allow for the goose and the gander.

The difference is that belief in miracles does not harm my neighbor (and in the case of the resurrection, it's arguable it's essential to the faith, at least as my church understands it), but anti-LGBT attitudes have a proven track record in doing so.   As a Lutheran, I don't believe anti-homosexual teachings are essential to my faith, since we separate theology from ethics.   And our church agrees on this point, since we recognize that individuals' consciences can be bound on this issue in different ways according to their understanding of God's Word, and that must be respected.   But in Orthodoxy, there is no respect for a pro-LGBT conscience.

I don't view it as a bathwater scenario, and I think that sort of rhetoric trivializes the harm that the Church as an alleged divine institution has caused to marginalized groups throughout the ages.

Lutherans do have a doctrine of divinization of sorts but it is understood in terms of mystical union through participation in the ordinary sacramental life of the Church gathered around the Word, and it is very much secondary to justification.  

26 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree that all churches (all religions, all people) should accept LGBTQ people but it is also true that many truly believe(d) they were being faithful. I believe they are wrong, or to be more kind, still on their way, but it seems neither fair nor accurate to call all such people or imply that all the activities of such churches are anti-humanistic.

So, the reality is you are speaking in generalities and, at the same time, it is (seemingly) true in the specifics for certain churches regarding their acceptance and inclusion of LGBTQ people.

There may indeed be instances, too many instances, of principles above people but it is questionable whether this fully defines such churches as you charge.

But it still seems to be not "they all" but one according to what you have written.

I don't know what else to call it when people are confronted by scientific evidence about sexual orientation but they still choose to treat gay people as problematic, instead of accepting them.  That seems the very definition of anti-humanistic.

Being holy and divinized also means you never have to say you are sorry to groups you have hurt, because you never have to question your own assumptions since they are "holy".  That's one reason the doctrine of theosis is not unproblematic.

On 8/2/2018 at 4:54 PM, Burl said:

Jesus taught things to his disciples, who then were sent out to teach the good news to the four corners of the earth.  By Pentecost, the person who was killed and resurrected has surpassed this plane and was seated at the right hand of the Father.

Yes, he taught that he was the way and the life, and that no one could approach the Father except through him.  He taught that he must die and suffer or the comforter could not be sent.

Those teachings must be interpreted through his actions..

I appreciate your perspective.  I'd like to hear you elaborate on this more.  This seems similar to our own perspective as Lutherans, and it is why we do not place discipleship or praxis above religious or theological concerns of being a Christian.   Jesus is not another Moses or Socrates.   It's common for Americans to be pragmatic and/or utilitarian and want to know "What good does this do for me/us?", but the Gospel gives us something far more valuable than merely personal or societal self-help or transformation.   Psychology,  sociology, and political science does a better job of that, anyways.

7 hours ago, Burl said:

Further back to the C18 and the circuit riders on the American frontier.  Also why the US is the place Darbyism and uneducated preachers took root.

Darbyism/Dispensationalism is also salient, and explains America's bizarre foreign policy in the middle east, as well as the relative disregard for social justice in American Evangelicalism.   I actually think its more pernicious than the fights against evolution.

5 hours ago, thormas said:

"....they all have tendencies that put principles and theory ahead of actual people."

So we have one? Do you mean a particular church or are you including all the Eastern churches and all their people? How many Orthodox Christians have you heard? You're saying they aren't humanistic and people-centersd? Odd, I taught with an Orthodox Priest (went to school with others) and not only his faith but he was a model for a 'people centered' or humanistic life. 

 

I'm speaking in generalities of course.   But on the whole, what I said is true, especially considering the Church's attitude towards sexual minorities.  It's anti-humanistic, worse than Roman Catholicism in that regard.    Putting principles above people is exactly what that entails.

16 minutes ago, Burl said:

Sorta kinda.  The descriptor 'Evangelical' was used to describe a particular church polity where everything was owned and directed by a single pastor.  Billy Graham is the prime example.  No conciliarity with other churches, no particular common education.  Many will not accept baptisms not performed by their worship leaders. 

Contrast with magisterial churches which have a top-down hierarchy or the communal churches where the community runs the churchnand hires the pastor for a salary.  

Because every Evangelical church is unique and unsupervised , they vary widely in theolgical accuracy and preaching style.  

That's a good observation.  Even in religious denominations that don't have the church owned by the pastor, American Evangelicals typically will have an authoritarian, personality-driven leadership style rather than consensual or communal decision-making.  This goes back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries when this type of religion became dominated by personalities.

3 hours ago, Jack of Spades said:

 

Sure, the US religion has been exported globally, in fact I grew up in a family that was member in a revival movement with traceable roots to the US evangelicalism (called Viidesläisyys or literally "the fifth" - that family history probably explains some part of my interest in the US culture).

 

What I meant was, the US Evangelicalism seems to have become so political and so filled with political "Americanism" that it's not probably the kind of a thing too many people abroad would be very welcoming of. It's practically the same situation as with the Russian Orthodox church. Why would someone in say, Germany, want to convert to a religion that's filled with Russian nationalism? If not as a political pro-Russia statement

 

That's one reason American Evangelical missionaries are so distressed by the rise of their religion being linked to nationalism and racism/xenophobia, as it was in the past decade.   On the one hand, their religious base at home is pleased but it hurts the reputation of missionaries overseas.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

It would be interesting to have you name a few that wouldn't say the same things (realistic view, values authenticity, values people over theory, humanistic and people centered) about their expressions as you do about yours and also think that's what Jesus was about.

I've never heard an Orthodox Christian say anything good about humanism, that's for sure.   Sure, hints of it can be found in Dostoyevsky, or the atypical St. Maria of Paris, but in practice the Orthodox Church looks upon ordinary human concerns as problematic, favoring a spiritual life of detachment and contemplation.

I don't think moralism is such a difficult concept to understand.  It's not unique to Lutheranism, even if it is something we generally frown upon.

As I pointed out, according to the Barna research group, the reason kids leave the church is bigotry, hypocrisy, and moralism.   Problems with perceived conflict between science and religion aren't the leading cause of kids disaffiliating with the Church.

Lutherans set low expectations so I don't see how we are going to be fairly accused of being hypocritical.  We have a realistic view of human life that values authenticity, and we aren't known for moralism.   If you want a philosophical approach to the Christian faith, there are much better choices but in my experience they all have tendencies that put principles and theory ahead of actual people.   One thing I value in my Lutheran tradition is how our ethics is humanistic and people-centered.  I think that's what Jesus was about, ultimately.

25 minutes ago, thormas said:

I will try to watch it but I have been asking for your explanation of your beliefs - anything? Also, I was referring to your language and you simply providing a deeper explanation for one who is not a Lutheran. I am not asking for a thoroughly researched, reasoned dissertation - only an explanation that goes beyond the quotes and catch words and addresses certain issue that have been mentioned.

There is a time for everything under the sun - this is the time for discussion and explanation, I don't pray or celebrate the sacraments on a website.

I am not a doctor of divinity or a preacher, and Lutheranism is difficult to explain to someone who is used to a more philosophical approach to the Christian faith.  All I know is that my own congregation's religion steeped in  "traditional theism" doesn't seem incomprehensible for the people that are sitting in the pews from different walks of life and education levels, from the very young to the very old.

That's one reason I prefer to refer you to videos to explain more difficult bits of our theology.

If you want a more detailed explanation of the distinction between Law and Gospel,  Rev. Jordan Cooper might be helpful.  He comes from a more conservative perspective than my own approach based on Gerhard Forde's theology, but it's still a good overview:

I actually came to be Lutheran because I felt that is where God called me to be and it involved a great deal of prayer and searching, including wandering through the Episcopal Church for about a year and a half.  Once I found a Lutheran church, it involved the better part of a year to actually understand Lutheran theology because I came from an approach based on theosis, similar to what you seem to believe is the authentic expression of the Christian faith.  I understood intuitively as an Orthodox Christian something of Luther's own plight as I struggled with spiritual abuse in that church, particularly their lack of respect for the bound conscience of Christians.

I still saw problems at the particular Episcopal Church I ended up at, where there was still a great deal of moralism present, particularly towards homosexuals, whom I witnessed being treated in an ungracious manner  (they appeared to have problems baptizing a baby of a gay couple until it became a national story, and the church congregation reacted very defensively.)  Being a pro-LGBT Christian, I felt it was not a safe space for me.   Furthermore, arguments about the theology of baptism in the church that came out surrounding the issue, made me feel it was time to find a church that believed baptism conferred actual grace and was not merely a symbol of a covenant.

That video I showed you involving  the Rev. Elizabeth Eaton, our presiding bishop, explained what it means to be Lutheran.  I don't see how the language was particularly obscure or arcane, or incomprehensible to modern people. 

Lutherans believe there are tensions within the Christian life, and we find those even within the Bible, principally in Law and Gospel.  These are not resolved through discursive reasoning but through living the Christian life in a community based on prayer and the sacraments.  Perhaps that is what is missing from this discussion. 

23 minutes ago, Jack of Spades said:

 

I wonder if the US Evangelical movement should be even considered part of global mainstream Christianity at all, but rather a some kind of a sect. The European versions of the churches that come from a similar theological tradition are far less political. The US Evangelical Church stands out as an outlier. 

American religion in the past two or three decades has been exported globally.  Fundamentalists in the US have taken their culture war overseas, particularly into Africa and Russia.  Parts of Australia also have ties to US fundamentalism.

American religion owes alot to sects such as the Puritans or Pietists that were either outlawed in their home countries or found social controversy and backlash.   Utopian idealism was very common as well.

39 minutes ago, thormas said:

Good lord, you are beating a dead horse. Merely because the Kingdom was not established, it does not follow, given what a prophet is, that he was a failed prophet. Prophets didn't predict the future, we have OT books written well after the lifetime of a prophet when events have come to pass, and some of those now past events are put back on the lips of prophets of an earlier age. 

Again, Jesus did say he didn't know but also said it would come to pass 'soon.' 

As for the story of the prophesy of the destruction of the temple, see above about OT prophet 'prophesies.' Of course you didn't mention when the gospels were written, when Jerusalem and the Temple tumbled and how that 'plays' into 'new temple of God for Christians: the body, the person of Jesus.

Again, scholars? and now you're calling people names simply because you disagree: now they're radical scholars. 

I simply don't understand where your iconclasm is coming from.  I don't find the received tradition concerning Jesus all that problematic, nor do I find things like the Jesus Seminar all that persuasive.  If I did, I doubt I would be a Christian.

13 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think a lot of it can be a waste of time, but can't an idea of a kingdom to come  simply be an aspiration rather than a concrete prediction?

Even Jesus says the time hasn't been revealed to him.  Too much is made of his "failure" as a prophet, in light of this.  He does prophesy the destruction of the temple and a calamity falling on Israel but that's far different from accurately predicting the end of our present cosmic order, something that the text does not necessarily suggest (but some more radical scholars, operating within a certain Christian paradigm in the background, do seem to presuppose as a necessary criterion for authenticity).

25 minutes ago, thormas said:

I don't think they do (plus, which specific scholars?): there is a legitimate disagreement among some scholars but I think it is a bit much to say scholars purposely ignore certain elements of the gospels.

Actually there is a tension is Jesus's sayings about the Kingdom already present and the Kingdom still coming - but indeed it was seen as a physical Kingdom, established by God. However, we see it differently, of necessity it seems, since the Kingdom was not established in the lifetime of his disciples.

I find that a sad view for any Christian to hold on to.  If the Kingdom did not exist in even a seminal form with the disciples, then I think this whole business is a waste of time.

Jesus was not merely reiterating Jewish expectations of his time.  At least we should be able to recognize him as an original thinker.  Even scholars like Don Cupitt  (of the Jesus Seminar, whose scholarship I don't agree with) recognize that Jesus was capable of being a creative synthesizer of his own religious tradition.  

15 minutes ago, thormas said:

I didn't say he failed, just that, if indeed he was, as many serious biblical scholars state, an apocalyptic prophet, he was wrong: the Kingdom was not established in the lifetime of his followers. I actually have no problem with this as I recognize that he was a man and also that he did (seemingly) say "only the Father knows." 

Not in the heart: Jesus preached the establishment of the Kingdom on earth (as was the Jewish hope/expectation) and that it would be done by God.......not man. It was a Kingdom not of the heart (this seemingly suggests that man had something to do with its establishment); it was the Kingdom of God, here and now. 

Seemingly we disagree with Jesus' take on the Kingdom given what we are both saying. For Jesus, in the Kingdom, there would be no violence or oppression because the old had passed away and God's reign would be established. However, never said he failed.

 

Those scholars ignore certain elements of the Gospel narrative and they over-literalize Jewish apocalyptic imagery.  N.T. Wright is careful to point this out in many of his works.

Jesus did see the Kingdom as a present reality.  He does after all say, "The Kingdom of God is among you" (Luke 17:21), and earlier in Luke 11:20 he states that the power of exorcism he has is part of the inbreaking of God's Kingdom.  He did not merely see it as a future reality.

On 7/27/2018 at 9:55 AM, thormas said:

However, Jesus didn't come for the world, to either praise or condemn it. He was a Jew who came for Jews with the specific intention to preach the coming Kingdom. He was not presenting a perfect walk to God, he was calling on God's chosen people, already in covenant with God, to prepare for the Kingdom: as this was expected in the lifetime of his followers; there was no time to perfect anything. 

 

Jesus was wrong, the Kingdom did not come and the communities that followed him had to adjust ...

I don't follow certain liberal scholarship in believing Jesus was a failed prophet (I'm in more agreement with N.T. Wright's scholarship).   The Kingdom is God's reign by grace in the human heart.  That is why Lutherans (and some other Protestants) distinguish between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world, it is really just a distinction between Law and Gospel.

Since the kingdom of God has always been based on God's reign in the human heart, Jesus did not fail.  In fact, he was wildly successful.  Of course, the Kingdom suffers violence, of course it is oppressed. But it would be foolish to say it's a failure.

4 hours ago, thormas said:

So........what is this distinction, in your understanding?

" The law says, ‘do this,’ and it is never done. Grace says, ‘believe in this,’ and everything is already done.”   - Martin Luther, Heidelberg Disputation, Theological Thesis #26

The Law is whatever in the Bible that threatens or accuses the conscience, typically by way of commandment.  The Gospel is whatever promises the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.   Jesus "turn the other cheek" is actually Law.   Law can be oppressive if it is misused. 

A bullied child should not be told they need to just turn the other cheek as their religious/spirituality duty, at least not right away until it can be placed within a wider context and is safe to do so.   I know people who were bullied because they were gay or transsexual.  Their bullying wasn't simply due to a lack of empathy but the powerful hold that ideology and religious teachings have on the human imagination.  Asking them to take their pummelings cheerfully wouldn't serve justice.

Here is more on Law and Gospel and the usage of these distinctions: https://www.livinglutheran.org/2017/04/luthers-preaching-still-preach/

What P says sounds good but bullying is often more than simply a slap on the cheek that is resolved through non-retaliation and a bit of compassion.     Turning the other cheek is an ideal but its not necessarily always realistic.  Obligating a bullied child to be the therapist for their bully isn't necessarily an ethical thing to do.  As my pastor pointed out to me once, nobody can force you to be a martyr.   

That's why I appreciate the Lutheran distinction between Law and Gospel.  Sometimes the most sensible, beautiful sounding stuff can turn out to be quite problematic in actual practice.  Life is always more complicated.  Which is one reason I am not fond of the whole "Red Letter Christian" Neo-Anabaptist movement, which is really quite fundamentalist in tone at times.   I'm more of a Christian realist.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

How did we get to the attack on liberal Episcopalians?   

Fides formata, faith formed in love: so, we have the self-revelation of God (who is Love), Jesus' response of love, even unto death, then  we have communities formed by those who accept the Christ as the Word and the Messiah of Love (God): thus we are formed in Love (i.e. in God, in Christ). Thus fides formata: faith formed in love.                                                                        The Catholics just said, "you're welcome!" :+}

You choose not to or are unable to respond in detail, other than quoting poor Dave and now Luther. Oddly, you seem to run scared of love, fearing it will be misused, but such 'love' is not God and does not form anything. I have never mentioned or even give passing notice to such pseudo-love which is merely selfishness; it is a will to power, it is not love and it is only the Love that is God that creates, saves and forms us to his likeness.

 

I was in a church that told me that God was loving but their behavior bordered on spiritual abuse.  They preached a great deal of what we Lutherans would call "cheap law".   I spent years of my life in a religion based on theosis and platitudes about love.  So I think I am speaking from some experience.   It is something that made me give up on being a Christian for some time.

The problem of authoritarianism is a problem in North America among Christians, far more than peoples hangups with traditional theism.  According to a Barna survey, the leading reason young people say for not being involved in the Church is because Christians are bigoted or hypocritical.  That directly ties into what I have been talking about, because that kind of attitude came out of that imperial, constantinian religious synthesis. 

16 minutes ago, thormas said:

Yet we are obliged to try, especially in this age, to present the Christian Story so it speak again, to contemporary people, and can be Good New. If not.................

Actually, the idea of re-gifting such sweater gifts makes the point: it is not a gift of great worth or actually any worth at all as it is easily forgotten and, when remembered, given away because it is irrelevant. Think, instead of a gift, that is received and treated as having worth, even great worth. It is truly accepted and it is 'used.' The analogy makes the point: the gift or grace of God, if accepted, is to be used or in our case, embodied/incarnated so it is lived in and through us; revelation is the self-revealing, the self-giving of God and, as in any love, it is meant to be be lived, to become one, in/with the beloved; it is meant to be accepted, to be used. BTW, no-one but you is talking about law (although it seems to be an attempt to define and dismiss another's opinion), I am merely talking about the reality of a gift that is given, accepted (and used). 

You are right, the gracious giver makes no demands but the reality persists: a gift of great worth, a truly meaningful gift (as I assume God's is) used if accepted. Try going to someone's house for dinner and not eating (i.e. using) the gift of food that has been given to you out of their generosity. But as with law, you miss the point with your use of the word requirement: we are not talking about etiquette, legal obligations or requirement, we are talking about the simple act of giving and receiving. Further the equivalent is not 'living up to the Law, it is 'obeying' the law of God, as did Jesus. However, properly understood, to obey is to make important to you what is important to another: so for the one who receives, truly receives the Law of God, it becomes important to them (as it is to God, for it is none other than love), which means, not that they 'live up to it' but  that they live it (again incarnate love). 

A distinctive? God's grace is not a safe space it is Life, it is God. Manipulation, seriously? There is no manipulation in the giving of any gift if it is truly given in love. All I have said about love, gift, God, Jesus has no implication of manipulation or self-interest: I am not talking about the Giver, I'm talking about the one who receives the gift which goes to the points we discussed above. Nobody is manipulating God's Word: if it is the word of Life, it is to be lived (used). Further, look how many have moved on from Christianity - not because the Word of God was manipulated but because it was not understood - especially for a 21st C people. Properly understood, there is no distinction between the Law of Love and the Gospel of Love - except by those among us who miss that it is the same Father revealed in both.

So the commandment to love your neighbor and to love God "does not require any specific response?" But there can be a response if called by God but if not called, no response is necessary? Well, this will be a surprise to Jesus given his announcement: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. " He was calling for a response, (metanoia) specifically because of the presence of God. 

Faith vs works: Revelation is the self-revealing, the self-giving of God to us; Faith is the response, the giving of ourself to God; it is relationship. In any relationship, where human beings are involved, relating means doing, responding; it means being for the other. So too our relationship with God: to be for God, is to be for Love; it is to be for his children - your neighbor and the stranger.  Love, is a response, an action, a way of being in the world.

It is not that we have to respond to love, it is that because we are love (Grace), we respond!

 

 

I think this is an area where Lutherans and liberal Episcopalians must disagree.  We don't view the Church as a club of  the enlightened, bound by a romantic appreciation of the past, that must ingratiate itself to social elites and their tastes.   We've more interested in how we communicate the Gospel to the marginalized than the privileged.

Msot of what you have written falls under Luther's condemnation of fides formata or "formed faith", the Catholic dictum of faith formed in love.  We believe in faith formed by Christ, rather, since love without embodiment is just a slogan that those with power will use towards their own ends. 

33 minutes ago, thormas said:

1.Even for Jesus, it was all about God. Jesus didn't focus on himself, he pointed to the Father, his coming Kingdom, the two great commandments and on and on. Jesus, though, is the communicator,is he not? He is the Word spoken/communicated to humanity.

2.As to Scripture, in the period under discussion, weren't there theologians, including Greek Fathers, who knew not to take the Bible or all of it, literally? Then we can go to Augustine (Roman) who takes Genesis literally, as the fundamental revelation from God and, I guess without exegesis (were there two different stories and which came firs?) and we get..........original sin which the Lutherans (and others) accept as....... literal truth.

3.Well here it gets complicated especially if we agree with the Lutheran position that God loves all but choses who is to be saved: does that mean he choses that all will not be saved? And if that is so, where is his Love, where is human freedom..........and where is the once and done salvation from the death and resurrection of Jesus?  But leaving this aside, are you saying it is not  a gradual transformation? Even if 'all are saved' doesn't it still suggest, if we are to believe that God created us in freedom (as seemingly displayed in the 'story' of Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel and on and on), that we have to accept the salvation and live the Way of Jesus, the Way of God? Or do you allow for a situation where a murderer or Hitler, can spend his life doing what they do, have a smoke and a whiskey, waiting for the 'Day' but having no need for metanoia because they are or might have been chosen to be saved. Plus, don't human beings grow, at least in part, by training themselves or forming what we call habits that are either virtuous .....or not. And isn't the one who 'takes up' the salvation presented by Jesus, the one who is virtuous, has formed habits, 'trained' themselves and continually, by embodying love (God), are transformed into a new man, a new woman, a child of God? How can there not be what you call 'cooperation' with God if man is free?

4.Isn't the world, as you call it, where God already is, eternally immanent in his creation - or, to reverse it, with Paul, don't we and the world have our being in God? Isn't the world, the 'place' where Jesus came for man and woman? Isn't it to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Further, it isn't a mere foretaste, because the Kingdom has begun (a seed perhaps but it has begun). The Kingdom doesn't lie ahead, it has begun and we are called to live it - which, of necessity, changes the world, i.e transformation. Salvation is deliverance, if one is delivered or healed that is a transformation or a change from what was prior to the salvation/deliverance.

5.Is the follower of the Christ not to be ethical in the place where they find themselves, the world? Does not Jesus teach us to live the 2 great commandments, does he not tell his parables so we can see ourselves, hear the call and challenge of Life and live that life, is this not an ethic that we are called, taught to live? If Lutherans have a problem with the commandments, look no further than Jesus and the prophets of God. As for technique, isn't that simply how we carry out the living of the great commandments? And, isn't the living the 2 great commandments an imperative, i.e. crucial/important to Jesus in his life and therefore, the life of one who follows him?

6. I grant you that the idea of Church, based on the Roman state, did go astray. However, church, understood as the communities of those who follow Jesus, is indeed the (well I would not use vessel or instrument because that suggests things not human beings) Body (of Christ) that is called to do what Jesus did and as he said, "whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." So, now it rests on us, the 'new' Body - or embodiment -  of God

Actually, I haven't substituted anything and I have used your language in my responses. However, my challenge to my faith seems much more far reaching that the Lutherans (at least as presented here) who seem to still be ruled by their namesake.  Perhaps I am wrong but that's how I have understood your presentation.

Well, a quick look at Dave and he appears off on two things:

1.Salvation is gratis, a gift but as we all know a gift is to be accepted (or not) and used (or not). If you give someone a beautiful Christmas sweater with reindeer and little squirrels and perhaps a cardinal on it and of course it is covered in gold glitter, and they accept it then go home and throw it in the bottom of the closet, have they really, I mean really, accepted it? Well, sure on one hand they 'took' it, but actually they haven't: to accept a gift is to use it as it is intended. For example, if someone give you a lollipop and you accept it, the only was to truly accept and use it ........is to suck it. So, Dave, on first read, seems to think if we say gratis, that's it but he forgets who he is dealing with: human beings - who have to use or not use the gift. It is not a condition, it is the reality of any gift. Then, of course, we have to explore what Dave means by faith and trust.

Dave's next issue is his take on God: if one, including a Greek Father or two, speaks in terms of deification it is not an either/or, whether God loves us 'as we are'  or only 'as we  are becoming more divine.' It is not either/or, it is both/and. As an example: a good parent loves her child both as she finds her and as she is becoming and growing into her best self (and even when she is not growing but having difficulty in life); the Mother does not bestow love in one case and not the other, rather, the Mother is constant love, she is the one who meets the child 'as she is' and it is her presence, love and encouragement that empowers the child to become her 'best self.'  So too, God does not love us only as we are or only as we are becoming: this is too static a view of God and a limited view of love that not recognize its inherent power. It is Love (i.e. God), ever-present, that comes to us, is given to us  'as we are, wherever we are' and it is this self-same Love that empowers us to respond to Life (i.e. God) and grow to maturity as the likeness, true sons and daughters, of the Father. Love does not chose moments or conditions in which it finds us, Love is always, eternally grace and it is always ours - in all and every 'moment' of our being.

 

One note, let's not get testy about whether or not one has a high view of scripture especially since it remains a bit unclear whether you take it as the revealed word or allow for some exegesis.

 

We believe there are honestly some things as human beings we cannot fully understand about God and salvation, and how God's election relates to human reprobation is one of them.   On this point we are neither Arminian nor Calvinist.

Your analogy of the sweater is a bit off.  Nobody would say that somebody who takes a sweater and puts it in a closet doesn't in fact have the sweater as a gift.  Furthermore, the obligation to wear a sweater as a gift is a matter of custom or dignity, not law.  A gracious giver no more demands that a gift be used in the way that they see fit than God requires we live up to the Law.   The freedom of a Christian to respond to grace is something we have as a distinctive.  Generally Lutherans are not known for being "fruit pickers".    Jesus' grace is a safe space just to be a human being, free of spiritual baggage imposed by more Law-centered religion.  God's love, unlike human love, is free from any self-interest or manipulation.    That's why the danger of humans manipulating God's Word is so real, and why the distinction between Law and Gospel is so critical in our tradition.

Generally we view Law, including Jesus ethical teachings, as aspirational ideals rather than strict obligations.  We don't deny their importance but we bracket them within an understanding of God's grace and forgiveness as unconditional.  Christian freedom is freedom from the condemnation of the Law, but it is also freedom to love our neighbor.  This freedom does not require any specific response on our part but it is open to response as we are called by God.  Therefore, we have a very weak understanding of the role of the Law as a guide for Christian living, it is not something we emphasize a great deal, because we believe it ultimately threatens the integrity of the Gospel if it is over-emphasized.