• Study of the Lutheran Confessions, Wednesdays @ 5:30p

  • September 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
  • Sermons on YouTube

  • Post Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Tags

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 259 other followers

  • Blog Stats

    • 28,723 hits

Observations/Reflections on a recent pastor’s conference, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Apologetics”

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Apologetics”

Jesus Christ, My Sure Defense

 

swd-logoA recent pastor’s conference (Oct 2016) of the South Wisconsin District (a district of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, LCMS) offered participants the opportunity to hear from Dr. Horvath (of Athanatos Christian Ministries) and Dr. Peter Scaer (an Exegetical Professor at Concordia Theological Seminary-Fort Wayne, IN).  Both presenters, in my opinion, offered insightful reflection on numerous challenges currently faced within in our society and by the church.

Dr. Horvath founded Athanatos Christian Ministries (AMC, Inc.) a group “to equip Christians to defend the Christian faith through the arts and literature, in addition to using evidence and argument.”  Much of his presentation consisted of “connecting the dots” for what is currently going in Christendom, with reflection on the rise of the “religiously unaffiliated.”

For example, Dr. Horvath noted that in the early 1990s, the religiously unaffiliated (i.e. those having left the church and not returning) were in the 5% range of the U.S. Population.  Yet, in 2016, that percentage jumped to 25%.  In the span of around 20 years, the number of religiously unaffiliated jumped 20%.  Commenting on a reason for the rise in the number, Dr. Horvath observed a connection between the effects of the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s and the growing divorce rate that followed.  The increasing number of religiously unaffiliated from the early 1990s to 2016 reflect the consequences of acm_1120x198parental divorce and the effects of such divorce on the children, including growing disbelief and disconnection (even atheism) in relation to the Christian faith.

Divorce has consequences.  Sin has consequences.  Horvath suggests that challenges the society and church are now facing have been influenced by actions of the past.

Another insightful connection concerning the direction of our culture is that of information gathered about communications related to the need for population control (i.e. in affiliation with the Center for Family Planning Program Development, 1969 [The Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population, Frederick S. Jaffe]; Too Many Americans, L. & A. Day; and Public Health & Population Change, Sheps & Ridley, 1967).

Though “dated,” the following (partial list of) “proposed measures to reduce fertility, by universality or selectivity of impact in the U.S.” are eerily being fulfilled, with many, also within the church, oblivious to such an agenda, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood:

Restructuring of family: a) Postpone or avoid marriage b) alter image of ideal family size (i.e. from greater to lesser)

Compulsory education of children

Encourage increased homosexuality

Encourage women to work

Payments to encourage contraception

Abortion and sterilization on demand

Allow harmless contraceptives to be distributed nonmedically

Make contraceptives truly available and accessible

Improve maternal health care, with family planning a core element

Though many migsin12ht view such occurrences, not as fulfilling an agenda, but simply as our “progression” as a society, recognizing the influences of the past upon our own day can help us in the church to better understand and respond to our current, and continual, challenges, moving us to repentance, also for our silence, and to steadfast faith in our Lord, who is the Head of His Church and faithful, even though we be faithless (Colossians 1:23; Colossians 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:13).

God calls His people to wariness and to preparedness (Luke 21:36; 1 Timothy 6:12; James 1:12; Revelation 2:10), as well as to boldly confess His Name.

On an information table for Athanatos Christian Ministries at the pastor’s conference was a brief information sheet entitled, “Know thy Enemy,” which consisted of quotes from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, and reference to her book, The Pivot of Civilization and a Plan for Peace (1923). Compare the following quotations:

“The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately.  Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period.  Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives.”

Margaret Sanger, in The Pivot of Civilization, 1923

“…the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future in the face of which the wishes and the selfishness of the individual must appear as nothing and submit.  It must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge.  It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and can therefore pass it on. And put this into actual practice.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925

The above quotes of Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler indicate that both wanted to either segregate or limit certain “types” ofsanger_and_hitler people.  What’s amazing is that Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, included blacks as those who were “feeble-minded” and “of the moron class.”  Where is the outcry today against such racist and prejudicial comments, even by African Americans, who also make use of and advocate for a group such as Planned Parenthood whose founder sought to limit the population of certain people and groups in order to establish a society based upon her own ideology?

The second presenter, Dr. Peter Scaer of Concordia Theological Seminary also offered insightful reflection of challenges that we face as Christians and encouragement for the body of Christ.  Similar to Dr. Horvath’s presentation, Dr. Scaer spent some time reminding us of earlier generations and their influences upon us in our day.  He mentioned, for example, Lawrence Lader, who was influenced by Margaret Sanger, who spoke of the need for limiting the size of the family.  Dr. Scaer also mentioned H.G. Wells, whom he referred to as an “eugenicist.”

Additionally, Dr. Scaer also spent time informing us about the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, whose idolatrous agenda was rebellion against men and against God, who divorced her first husband, was involved in numerous affairs, and ironically, said that women don’t need men.  Dr. Scaer had also observed that Sanger had used (coined) the phrase, “Every child a wanted child” (emphasis mine).

Dr. Scaer’s presentation also included a critique of how the LCMS has responded in the past to Planned Parenthood and abortion, noting that Concordia Publishing House had published a book by Rehwinkel entitled, Planned Parenthood, which essentially “sold” Planned Parenthood to Lutherans.  What was quoted of this work, and others, would be disturbing to those concerned about life in general and about the Christian doctrine in particular, since a great emphasis was placed, not on what God says, and what He says about life (i.e. 5th Commandment, “You shall not murder”), but on the individual circumstances (i.e. of the pregnant woman) and the challenges that she would face if the child was born, or the “solutions” offered if the baby was not born.  In other words, Rehwinkel and others offered the counsel that the life of the baby was ultimately the woman’s choice and that she determined the continued existence or death of another human being.

In contrwhobrokethebaby-gartonast to Rehwinkel and others, Jean Garton, author of Who Broke the Baby, was a healthy critique to the genocide of the unborn, offering insight and commentary on the ideology and practice of abortion, which both run contrary to the Word of God and what God reveals about life and its gift.

Dr. Scaer offered more than commentary reflecting end-of-life issues like abortion.  He also asked the question whether we can talk about marriage (i.e. 4th & 6th Commandments) outside the church?  He answered, “We must!”  Same-sex “marriage” is the great challenge for today’s church, Scaer commented.  As this practice is more greatly accepted, society and the church more greatly suffer.  And, as Dr. Horvath had earlier noted, sin has consequences.  The effects of homosexuality (rebellion against God) destroy society.  This is something that “the left” know, but don’t want to admit.  “Where (natural/traditional) marriage works, society works,” said Scaer.

Rather than retreat to the shadows, claiming that little can be done, Dr. Scaer offers encouragement.  Politically, laws can change, and even little laws can help.  In contrast to the thought, “Laws can’t change,” Scaer responds, “Laws can be changed” and that “Man’s law is changeable.”  “They change all the time.”  In other words, in the secular world, there is still something that concerned citizens can do.

james1-12God calls the church to be faithful to the Lord who bought her, the same Lord Who Himself was “born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” (Gal. 4:4-5, NKJ).  God is God, and Christ is Head of His Church.

This Lord is the same Christ who is the “bridegroom,” (Matthew 9:15; John 3:29) who “loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:25-27, NKJ).

Though a “weeding out” take place, the faithful will become more visible.  The Church confesses Christ.  In Him, she lives.

Advertisements

Synod president responds to SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling | LCMS News & Information

GCF-SCOTUS

 

Synod president responds to SCOTUS same-sex marriage ruling | LCMS News & Information.

St. Paul & ethics

In the Pocket Dictionary of Ethics, Grenz & Smith write, “Paul sought to understand the significance of Jesus’ entire life, ministry, death, resurrection and exaltation for ethical living.  He also attempted to apply Jesus’ teachings to the situations faced by the early churches under his care” [1]

These words seem to imply that Paul the apostle had not fully understood the significance of Jesus’ life for ethical living.  In addition, these words suggest that Paul may have been deficient in applying Jesus’ words to the matters of his day.  However, the very words of Paul in his letters[2] demonstrate otherwise.

Take for example Paul’s words as recorded in Romans 12, where he writes, “For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith” (v3), or these, “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. 10 Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.  Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.  Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.  Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.  Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.  If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (v9-18).

Specifically, these words of St. Paul the Apostle, inspired by God to write what he wrote, indicate not a seeking to understand, but certainty, in applying Jesus’ words to how God’s people are to live.  St. Paul knew and understood what he was writing about, not, however, due to experience, but due to the revelation of Christ (i.e. 1 Corinthians 14:6; Galatians 1:12ff; 2:2; Ephesians 3:3).

St. Paul the apostle was not seeking to understand how to live.  He sought to preach Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2).  He sought to the please God who had sent Him.  Ethically speaking, Paul knew how he was to live and how others were to live.  He knew and believed what God had revealed to Him.  The issue was not in Paul’s understanding, it was in actually doing what God said.

Read Romans 7:7-25, for example.  Here, Paul speaks of the struggle between his sinful flesh and the spirit.  His problem was not that he did not “know” how to apply the teaching of Christ.  He certainly did.  Rather, his problem concerned the battle of the flesh and spirit, not only within himself, but also within everyone who has believed in God and His promises since the Fall of Adam and Eve, even into our day, even to the end of this world (see Galatians 5:16-26).

Instead of seeking to understand Christ’s teaching for everyday living as God’s people, Paul sought to preach and teach the truth of God’s Word.  In doing so, Paul actually did apply Jesus’ teaching to the everyday situations of the church in his day.  He did not merely attempt to declare God’s law and judgment upon sin, and to preach the forgiveness of sins.  He did proclaim these very truths, as God Himself had given him to do.  Had the hearers of his preaching and teaching not believed or acted according to the words of Paul, this would not have been due to what Paul had said, but to the hardened hearts of those who heard him speak.

Grenz and Smith’s use of the word “attempt” is unfortunate, for it leads the reader to assume that Paul failed to faithfully apply God’s Word.  But look at the letters of Paul, and you will find something quite different.


[1] Stanley J. Grenz & Jay T. Smith, Pocket Dictionary of Ethic (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 2003.

[2] Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & Timothy, Titus, Philemon.

God and Lying

In a recent, “Answers to Your Questions” section of the Time of Grace Magazine (Spring 2012, p6-7), Pastor Jeske of Time of Grace addresses the question, “Does God condone lies?”

Inclusive of Jeske’s response was a reference to the Israelite midwives who saved the baby boys he had ordered to be murdered (see Exodus 1:15-21).  Jeske states that the Jewish midwives had “lied about why they hadn’t been able to kill” the boys (Exodus 1:18-20).

However, the text doesn’t explicitly indicate that the women had lied at all.  Here’s what the text actually says, along with Pharaoh’s question following his command to kill the male born babies”

“So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, ‘Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?’  And the midwives said to Pharaoh, ‘Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them’” (Exodus 1:18-19, NKJ).

The presumption that the midwives were lying in their answer to Pharaoh has no immediate merit from the text.  And the text itself does not indicate that they had in fact lied.  Therefore, the reference to the lying of the midwives in the Exodus text has little to do with the question of lying.

Of importance in addressing the question of lying, however, is the reference that “the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive” (Exodus 1:17).  Because they feared God, the midwives did not murder those whom Pharaoh ordered to murder.  They were willing to risk “their own lives to save those babies” (7).

In fearing God as they had, the midwives would not have needed to lie to Pharaoh.  And because they feared God, God blessed them (“dealt well with them,” Exodus 1:20), and not because they saved the lives of the baby boys, as Jeske seems to suggest (see below).

Also inclusive of Jeske’s response to the question about whether God condones lies was a reference to the same Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was involved in a plan to assassinate Adolf Hitler.

The questioner noted that Bonhoeffer had lied to the SS about knowing the location of certain Jews, though he had known.  The questioner also noted that “Bonhoeffer later remarked that it would have been immoral and evil for him to have told the ‘truth’ in that situation.”  The questioner then puts forth the question, “Under certain circumstances, does God condone lies?” (6)

In response to this question, Jeske begins rightly by giving references to Holy Scripture (i.e. Exodus 20:16; Colossians 3:9; Proverbs 12:22).  He gives examples of even David and Abraham who had lied.

Jeske, then, however, gives the irrelevant example of the midwives (see above) and references Bonhoeffer, praising both.  “I commend the midwives and Bonhoeffer.  They were confronted with moral dilemmas and chose to save lives rather than collaborate in murder.”  Jeske continues and writes, “I’m sure their lies were understood and overlooked by God because their actions brought about a greater good” (7).

I won’t argue that a moral dilemma had not confronted both the midwives and Bonhoeffer.  They had “choices” to make.  As God-fearers, the midwives did as they were given to do, to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).  Also, Bonhoeffer did well in saving those Jews.

Jeske suggests that God understands and overlooks lies on the basis of the greater good that results on account of those lies.  Where are the Bible passages to support such a view?  They are in fact non-existent.

Answering the question about lying on the basis of any “greater benefits” that may follow weakens God’s command against lying and deceiving.   What Jeske is doing is replacing God’s law with human opinion.  Instead of speaking truthfully about God’s prohibition of lying, Jeske is opening the door for human explanations and excuses to support the act of lying as dependent on the circumstance, contrary to God’s Word.  By doing this, Jeske also closes the door to the sweet Gospel, which is reserved for those who have no excuses for their sin, but who only seek the mercy of our gracious God.

In this article, Jeske minimizes sin.  And in minimizing sin, Jeske minimizes the need for forgiveness.  In saying that God understands and overlooks the sin of lying, Jeske almost suggests that God accepts lying, dependent on the results.  Yet the Word of the Lord indicates that God does not accept lying at all.  Lying is sin.  Rather than make explanations or excuses for the sin of lying or any sin, repentance is in order.

Rather than say what is not truthful about how God sees sin, Christians are to confess Christ.  This means speaking the truth about what God says concerning the Law and sin.  It also means speaking the truth about what God says concerning God’s unmerited Grace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ.

Because Jeske fails to clearly articulate the Law in answering the question about lying, so he also fails to even speak at all about the forgiveness of sins, the very forgiveness needed by all.

“Under certain circumstances, does God condone lies?” The Biblical answer is a sound, “NO.”  Lies are sin.  One could also ask a related question, “Under certain circumstances, does God condone sin?”  Again, the Biblical answer is a sound, “NO.”

As much as we might want to be out from under the unconditional law of God, which allows for no explanations or excuses, we cannot.  As long as we continue attempting explanations and excuses for our behaviors and actions, even if we should be seeking the “greater good,” we are avoiding the weight of God’s law and His Holy Word.  And in such a state, we don’t have God’s forgiveness, for we only demonstrate an unrepentant heart.

A repentant heart, on the other hand, is one that accepts God’s Holy Law full force, and, having nowhere at all to turn, seeks only God’s mercy in Christ Jesus.  And there, in Christ, the repentant sinner walks by faith, wholly certain of having peace with God.

God does not condone lies, even under certain circumstances.  But God does indeed forgive sin, on account of Jesus Christ.

“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:1).

Vocation-Serving God, Serving Neighbor

 

In the Ten Commandments, God gives His people what they are to do—love Him and love neighbor (Exodus 20:1-17; Matthew 22:34-40).  God even commands His people how to love others (i.e. Honor father and mother, not murdering, not bearing false witness (gossiping), etc.), as well as how to love Him (having no other gods before Him, not misusing His Name, and using His Word rightly).  By doing these, the people of God serve Him and one another.

We do not have to invent or discover “new ways” of serving God and the church.  God has already given us what to do.

We serve God by keeping His Word (not despising it, but believing it), worshiping only Him—the Holy Trinity (not committing idolatry), and hearing His Word (going to church where His Holy Word is proclaimed and receiving and rejoicing in His free gift of forgiveness and life, given through the preached Word, the Absolution, and the Lord’s Supper).

We serve God also by serving our neighbor.  This kind of service takes place in our vocation, our calling(s).  This is where we serve God and our neighbor.  Parents care for, and discipline their children, in their vocation.  Children honor and obey their parents in their vocation.  Teachers teach and instruct in their vocation.  Students hear and learn in their vocation.  Pastors preach and teach and administer the sacraments in their vocation.  Congregational members hear what is preached and receive from the Lord what He speaks and gives through the Words and the actions of the pastor.

Serving God this way, in one’s vocation, does not mean that we necessarily like or will like those who serve us.  Pastors and congregations, students and teachers, parents and children, civil authorities and citizens, and others all have their weaknesses, their quirks, and their sins.  They do not always do, act, or speak as they should within their vocation.  But rather than using these shortcomings as excuses not to honor or recognize those whom God has placed to serve us, all the more ought we to “bear with one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2).  Also, concerning vocation, it is the office that we are to recognize, and to help the one in that office to do as he or she should.

Vocation is how God would have us serve one another.  “Discovering new ways of serving God and the church” is not of God, for God has already given us how to serve Him and one another.

The question then is, “how are we doing” at serving Him and serving one another in the calling to which God has called us? (1 Corinthians 7).  The answer for all of us is-poorly.  We are failing.  We do not do as we should and we do as we ought not (Romans 7).  God is not first in our lives, and we seek to serve ourselves first and not others.  Instead of encouraging one another to do as God has given us to do, we complain, tear down, bicker, and intentionally hurt our neighbor for what they have done or have not done.  We take the anger we have towards ourselves out on others.  In doing so, we do not love as God would have us love.  We despise and profane the Name of God among us, and demonstrate, not service to God, but service to ourselves and the evil one.

Yet God, in His service to the Father on our behalf, completely and perfectly demonstrated, not service to Himself or for Himself, but to His Father for us, and to us in obedience to His Father (Hebrews 5:8), that His Father declare from heaven, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17).  In other Words, Jesus fulfilled His calling, His vocation, before the Father, for you.

Jesus kept His Father’s Word.  He truly loved His neighbor (you and me), both in saying what the Father had given Him to say (the word of Law and Gospel), and doing what the Father had given Him to do (suffer and die on the cross).  Jesus did neither of these for Himself, but for us, for you.  He came to save you from your disobedience, neglect, and misuse of your calling, both to serve God and to serve one another.

Instead of inventing new ways of serving God and the church, all we have to do is look to what God Himself says.  In doing that, we will have more than enough “to do.”  In doing that, we will also recognize how we do not do as God would have us do.  But by God’s grace through His Son, we will also recognize how Christ has done all that His Father had given Him to do.  By God’s grace through Jesus, we will recognize that Christ, having done all that the Father had given Him to do, means new and eternal life, for Christ, in shedding His blood on the cross, shed His blood to cover all of our sins, all of our sins against God and against one another.

This means that those same sins no longer condemn us as guilty before God.  Those same sins against God and one another can hurt us no more, for in their place is Christ, the sinner of all sinners.

In return, Christ, having taken our place, gives to us what is His (called “the great exchange”).  His obedience and service to His Father is counted as our own.  Therefore, because of Jesus, God sees you as perfectly obedient and a faithful servant, not because of what you do, but because of what Christ Himself did.

Thus does St. Paul say, “Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1).  Having peace with God means that all before Him is “alright.”  We have no need to fear for all that we have done and all that we have done wrong in our specific callings.  Before God, on account of Jesus, there is nothing but peace.  And because of Jesus, the Father also says to you, “You are My beloved child, in whom I am well pleased.”

In contrast to taking these words as reason to “sit back and take it easy,” the Christian hears these words, and, in distinction from the sinful nature to serve nothing but itself, the Christian, according to the new man, seeks to all the more serve God and neighbor, faithfully and sacrificially, giving him or herself even in death for the benefit and well-being of those whom God would have be served.  Life begins to be focused on the other, on God and neighbor, not on self and ego.

As Christ lived, not for Himself, but in obedience to His Father and in service to us, so those born of God live, not for themselves, but in obedience to the Father in service to others.  This means that the Christian will seek, not his own benefit and gain, but that of others whom God has called to help and serve.

Such service to others will not take a “one size fits all approach.”  Nor does it have to be sought.  Rather, the Lord Himself reveals how we are to live with and to love one another, even as He, in Christ, loved and loves us, forgiving our sins and giving life and joy and peace (1 John 4:11).   As God loves us, so do His people love one another.

 

A question of compromise…

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, the noun compromise can mean: 1) a settlement in which each side gives up some demands or makes concessions,  2)    a) an adjustment of opposing principles, systems, etc. by modifying some aspects of each b) the result of such an adjustment, 3)    something midway between two other things in quality, effect, etc., or 4)    a) exposure, as of one’s reputation, to danger, suspicion, or disrepute b) a weakening, as of one’s principles.

The verb, to compromise, can mean: 1)   to settle or adjust by concessions on both sides, 2)    to lay open to danger, suspicion, or disrepute, 3)    to weaken or give up (one’s principles, ideals, etc.) as for reasons of expediency, 4)    Med. to weaken or otherwise impair !drugs that compromised his immune system.”

Temptation to compromise the faith is always present, for the Christian and for the Church.  As long as one is in the flesh, the struggle will rage.

The time for compromise, to give in to the state when it would compel organizations to neglect, or forsake, their principles, especially on such a matter as the adoption of children by homosexual “couples,” is not now or ever (A question of compromise OneNewsNow.com).   Not only would a “modification” mean a loss of credibility for the LCFS (and by extension, the LCMS), it would open wider the door for further policy changes.  In addition, such action would give approval to behavior which God calls sinful.

Should the LCMS continue “business as usual” if the LCFS changes its policy in favor of the state and idly “stand by,” not only will the LCFS be compromising, so will the LCMS.  Her confession will be weakened in the sight of the world, as well as among her own pastors and congregations.

Any concession by the church or a churchly organization approving of sin, or giving the impression that sinful behavior is acceptable, misrepresents Christ, profanes God’s Name, and falls under God’s judgment (Romans 1:32).

“Rainbow Rave” at UWP

Exponent Online » Features Lead Story » Rainbow Rave.

For clarification, the gay Lutheran pastor who spoke at the recent Rainbow Rave conference on Nov 6, Javen Swanson, does not represent all Lutherans, nor the Biblical Christian faith.  The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and other smaller Lutheran bodies still believe that the very written words of the Bible still do indeed apply today, for they are God’s Word and remain forever (Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:25), and testify of Christ and his Word and work for our salvation (Luke 24:44, 46-47).

The two parts of Swanson’s session on “Christianity and Homosexuality,” which he called, “deconstructive” and “constructive” work, greatly misrepresent the Biblical text (i.e. Genesis 18:16-19:29).  The account of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about hospitality.  It’s about God’s judgment upon a sinful rebellious people, whom, by the way, God would have spared if even 10 righteous had been found in the city (Genesis 18:32).  Romans 1:26-27 could be used as a “proof text” which speaks of homosexuality as sin, but one should also read the entire chapter, esp. verses 18-32.  It’s not just homosexuality which God condemns, but all and every sin. (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  And yet, only those who are called sinners does God forgive, save, and give eternal life (Luke 15; John 3:16; 6:47; 20:31; 1 Timothy 1:15).

If Swanson were to truly present what the Bible says according to that what is written, he would discover a text which throughout does rightly speak against sin, but a text which also clearly reveals Jesus to be the Savior from sin, by means of his death on the cross (John 6:47; 20:31).

If the Bible doesn’t say what it means and doesn’t mean what it says, then why is Swanson so concerned about making it say what it doesn’t?


%d bloggers like this: