Friday, April 29, 2005

can't you see what this is doing to ECUSA?

Hello Human People!

Shrimp here. You know, before the internet we had to rely on our news about humans mainly from the clams who like to hang out on beaches with you. But now, we surf the internet. And we find out very interesting facts about you.

One is that you seem to have bad eyesight. The Lord our Maker gave you a book (BTW, that was one of things he did for you our of His big heart--you should cherish it, so read it some time. He has a special affection for us too, which is why we got a dispensation on being eaten for a while) ANYWAY, you got bad eyesight there in the ELCA, guys. Can't you see what is happening over in the ECUSA when cultural elites try and tell you some new "contextual" hermeneutics?

Here one of those really smart humans with a PhD in theology scores some pretty solid hits. You should read it:

"It gets tiring to have to repeat the same points over and over again. Nonetheless, here goes.
First, there is a contemporary consensus among critical biblical scholars (liberal and conservative, revisionist and orthodox, reappraiser and reasserter) that the plain teaching of scripture consistently condemns all same-sex activity, and the Bible nowhere speaks positively of it. See, for example, Appendix 1 of Northeast SEAD’s Response to the New York Diocese’s “Let the Reader Understand.”

Rom. 1 does not refer to heterosexuals engaging in same-sex activity. Paul understands “contrary to nature” to mean, not contrary to one’s ordinary inclinations, but contrary to God’s intention in creating humanity as male and female. 1 Cor 6:9 does not refer to cultic prostitution. Paul is quoting the LXX of the Leviticus prohibition of a man lying with another man.
Second, the Church has a historic hermeneutic for determining which passages of scripture continue to be binding on contemporary Christians and which are not. The moral law of scripture is binding; ceremonial, civil, and ecclesiastical law are not, although the principles on which these laws are based are. The Church has consistently condemned same-sex activity as a violation of the moral law.

See my discussion at:

Third, the biblical authors were certainly aware of same-sex activity. As pointed out above, all one has to do is read Plato’s Symposium. What is interesting about the biblical approach is that it is not an accomodation to the surrounding culture. Other cultures of the time were certainly patriarchal, and just as concerned about issues of power, property, and identification of legitimate heirs. Nontheless, they were generally tolerant of homosexual activity. Jews and Christians were not.

Fourth, the Christian tradition has never regarded a strong desire (an “orientation") as sufficient grounds for regarding the acted out expression of that activity as legitimate. (Has any moral tradition ever endorsed this notion? It certainly would have been foreign to Plato or Aristotle.) Augustine points out that one of the starting points for Christian ethical behavior is learning how to sort out legitimate and illegitimate desires. The traditional spiritual path of purgation, illumination, union presupposes just such a sorting out of desire."

Think about it.


Eli said...

3. This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.

That's copied word for word from the ELCA's statement of faith. I'm no scholar, but that sounds a lot like it being a moral handbook to me. If "authoritative source and norm" doesn't mean that, then I am confused.

Shrimp said...

Eli: you've hit the nail on the head. So, eveyone, what is the issue here? Why is there no accountability? Whay should any ELCA member not just go wild and do whatever they want?

The good ship ELCA...

The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...