[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqIDuMgV4Vs]
by Nathaniel Torrey
Former Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Presiding Bishop Herbert Chilstrom is at it again. After writing an open letter to Catholic Archbishop John Nienstedt, criticizing his affirmation of the Minnesota marriage amendment that will be on the ballot November 6th, Bishop Chilstrom and his wife Minister Corinne Chilstrom appear on one of a series of ads against the marriage amendment. The amendment affirms the traditional understanding of marriage as being a union between one man and one woman.
In the ad, Bishop Chilstrom admits that he was reluctant to address the issue of same-sex marriage when he was first elected Bishop. However, after being invited to a meeting where 25 gay men were present Minister Chilstrom tearfully recalls, “We just asked them ‘what do you want from the church?’ They said, ‘We just want to be accepted like everyone else.’”
The canard that Christians must not be accepting of gay people because they ask them to repent is really growing tiresome. I suppose we don’t love alcoholics either because we ask them to stop drinking, or ask liars to stop lying, gluttons to not indulge to much, and adulterers to stop having affairs. I think my point at the bottom of this previous post is sufficient for now.
There are various pieces of legislation on the presidential ballots tomorrow regarding same-sex marriage. Regardless of how you vote, don’t think the Church’s unwillingness to accept sin is not compatible with love. Let’s not forget the old, but useful, saw, “Love the sinner, but hate the sin.”
Comment by Pudentiana on November 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm
I believe that the Church at large is so corrupted by sin and compromise that we are blinded by this extreme case of heretical teaching which dishonors our Creator and besmirches the concept of Christ and the Church’s relationship.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm
The canard that Christians must not be accepting of gay people because they ask them to repent is really growing tiresome. I suppose we don’t love alcoholics either because we ask them to stop drinking
The canard that you can compare some group of people whom you don’t know and who are causing no obvious harm to themselves or others to alcoholics and still be “accepting” is pretty tiresome, too.
Comparing them to those who engage in bestiality and pederasty is tiresome, too. And quite frankly, just a little hard to believe that you “accept” such people while making such outrageous and slanderous claims.
I say, let us vote for RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. You can have the liberty to believe that gay people are comparable to alcoholics or pedophiles and you shall retain the liberty to marry who you wish in accordance to your belief system and let us have the liberty to make our own decisions in accordance to OUR belief system.
What do you say? Yes or no to religious liberty? Or do I even need to ask?
Comment by Liberty Man on November 5, 2012 at 9:30 pm
When you redefine to Marriage as something else, you force a society to accept what is wrong and have to financially support that. Thus by redefining marriage, you are creating a new state religion that has dominance over all faith. That is against the 1st Amendment and gives government an over reaching and burdensome foot on the church’s throat.
We have already seen the society become more narcissist creating problems at all levels from an government education process that has destroyed families by interjecting a “Secular Religion”. Secularist Religionists (humanists) have redefined “Tolerance” as to be hateful of great institutions, Christianity and Judaism.
The intitution of Marriage is just one more institution to be targeted for destruction by Secular Religionists.
Intellectuals have created more death in the last century with their utopian ideas. It is all about creating a religion for which people are forced to bow down to another and worship state. Intellectuals created Nazi Germany, Stalinists and Chinese Communist which collectively murdered over 175 Million. We even have non-science secular religionists who are directly responsible for 180 million dead Africans because of unfounded hysteria about DDT. Not science… but the religion of rabid secular religionists.
And when a man says he knows better then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he then mocks Jesus by saying he is not God. Herbert Chilstrom does not know Christ when he pretends he is God. If I was still in the ECLA I would be seeking a Matthew 18 resolve, but I am not and the current leadership has lost their humility to reply.
Peace be with you.
.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 6, 2012 at 7:43 am
“Liberty” man…
When you redefine to Marriage as something else, you force a society to accept what is wrong and have to financially support that. Thus by redefining marriage, you are creating a new state religion that has dominance over all faith.
Hold on, this just is not factually accurate.
When we said that black folk and white folk could get married, we didn’t “redefine” marriage, we allowed adult citizens to marry whom we had no legitimate right to deny marriage to. This was not “forcing” prejudiced folks to “accept what is wrong.” They just had to accept the religious liberty of others to marry the person of their choice.
If we had CONTINUED to deny that right, THAT would have actually been forcing something upon others, but just saying, “Okay, you miscegenationists, you can marry…” is not forcing anything other than equal rights, equal liberty.
On the other hand, denying folk THEIR religious liberty to worship God how they see fit, to marry others as they see fit before God and community, THAT is actually forcing your religion on others.
In either the anti-miscegenists’ case or the gay marriage case, that is just factually NOT creating a new state religion. It just isn’t, not in any real sense of the word in the real world.
If you think that is so, you’d have to actually make that case. As it stands, that is just an unsupported and ridiculous claim.
“Liberty” man…
And when a man says he knows better then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he then mocks Jesus by saying he is not God.
Again, factually, this is not what is happening. We are NOT saying we know better than God. We’re saying we disagree with YOUR OPINION about what God thinks. But my little man, YOU ARE NOT GOD. When we disagree with your opinions, it does not mean we are disagreeing with God.
So, do you all have any factual, real world reasons to support your efforts to deny religious liberty to others or is all you have fear-mongering and irrational, emotion-based reasons?
Comment by Clare Flourish on November 5, 2012 at 6:26 pm
I am with Dan Trabue. So you hate what you call the sin of homosexual activity. Fine. Don’t do it, then. But, er, have you ever been tempted to it? Why are you so obsessed with sins to which you are not tempted? No motes of your own?
Comment by J P Logan on November 5, 2012 at 10:15 pm
“Fine. Don’t do it then.”
What a stupid, sophomoric way of thinking.
I think it’s a sin to fly jets into skyscrapers too.
“Fine, don’t do it then.”
So, we should allow OTHER people to do it, if it brings them pleasure? I’m sure those lovely pilots on 9/11 got pleasure from what they were doing.
I think it’s wrong to burglarize a house.
“Fine. Don’t do it then.”
Should I stand by and gawk while someone burglarizes yours? Burglars derive pleasure from what they do. that’s the foundation of your morality, right? If you feel like doing it, do it.
Looks like Dan brought some other deep ethical thinkers along for the ride.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 5, 2012 at 11:00 pm
JP, color me unimpressed with childish bullying. Here is the argument:
Support religious liberty.
You can have the freedom to think homosexuality is a sin. You can have the freedom NOT to marry a guy, if you think it’s wrong.
We expect and demand the same liberty. We want the freedom to follow God as best we see fit and make up our own minds about God’s opinion on homosexuality. We want the freedom to marry who WE see fit.
This seems to me to be an adult, rational, moral position to take.
Rather than ad hom attacks and slander and infantile bullying, DEAL WITH THE ARGUMENT being made, like an adult. Do you have any rational support to oppose my argument?
If not (and so far, we’ve seen nothing but petulance), then you can’t really expect people to bow down to your wishes because you call people names. Indeed, it only makes you beneath contempt, beneath having a discussion with, if you aren’t willing to address the arguments made.
Feel free to start showing us how you “men” think.
Comment by Clare Flourish on November 6, 2012 at 1:02 am
JP, it really is that simple. Flying a plane into a skyscraper causes death and destruction. It is a bad thing. Lovemaking in a long term relationship, like a gay marriage, in Sweden and soon in the UK, then the US, brings a couple together. It is a Good thing. It is not good for the man to be alone.
Comment by Ray Bannister on November 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Is it just me, or is there something grotesque about the elderly taking radical positions? I mean, aside from his being a bishop and (supposedly) Christian, it just seems like the normal thing would be for people to grow wiser and less flaky as they age. When you watch this, it’s embarrassing, like when some guy in his 80s drives by in a red Corvette convertible, and you cringe. It makes you think, “If you’re trying to look young, it ain’t working!”
I’m happy that my grandmother in her 90s may have gotten absentminded but she’s not absentmoraled.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 5, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Shame on you for attacking someone’s age, rather than dealing with the questions raised. It’s for “reasoning” like this (ie, ad hom attacks in place of rational discussion) that you all are losing this argument.
I’d think you’d want to approach this from a less emotional, more dispassionately rational point of view if for no other reason than to try to win people over to your thinking.
May your friends not attack you in your old age in the way that you’ve done here.
Comment by J P Logan on November 5, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“Shame on you. Shame on you.”
Do you have even a clue that you sound like a 3rd-grader?
What do you think happens? Ooh, that person on the blog said “Shame on you!” I’ll just crawl up into the fetal position and guilt-trip myself into oblivion.
You come in here like some great Prophet, tell us Christians have been getting it wrong for 2000 years, let men marry men, let men marry parakeets, etc etc etc. The problem with your “morality” (for lack of a better word) is that you can’t come up with any rational or Christian argument for it – nothing more than “Shame on you!”
The feminists used that tactic on the mainlines back in the 1970s, and it worked. Just whine and complain and do the pouty lip thing, and the men cave in.
There are conservative men on this blog. We aren’t easy to manipulate. We think. “Shame on you” doesn’t work here.
Hey, I got it – “Shame on me!” So what? Try arguing like an adult male.
Comment by Walt Pryor on November 5, 2012 at 7:21 pm
We must be very careful to not condone sin, our sin, or theirs. I doubt that most homosexuals only want to be accepted. The evidence for the last 40 years is, they want to mainstream homosexuality. We can still love the Spirit in them, if they are sincere. But as soon as they start pushing for expansion of homosexuality we must have the courage to say, NO! Homosexuals do not need to be married in the Church. They should not be allowed to speak to children about normalizing homosexuality. Most of us fight temptation and try to overcome it. We do not go around asking the World to accept our sin as normal. We hide it, confess it, and accept Gods grace.
This woman is the reason God does not want women over men in the Church. Women are more emotional than men. A woman thinks with her heart, men think with their head. Satan has deceived the world and it is time to stand up for the Word of God. We must stop compromising, retreating, and stop being conditioned to think like the World. We are in the world but not of the world, so lets stop thinking like we are. This is not about love or tolerance. This is about obedience. Israel was never punished for not loving, but Israel was punished severely for not obeying God.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 5, 2012 at 9:30 pm
Walt…
But as soon as they start pushing for expansion of homosexuality we must have the courage to say, NO! Homosexuals do not need to be married in the Church.
“Pushing for expansion of homosexuality…” This means nothing. Are you suggesting that gay folk want to “create” more gay folk? Expand the numbers of gays? Do you think they’re trying to recruit you, Walt? That’s BS. A lie. Ridiculous. Shame on you for making such a slanderous suggestion.
Some churches, mine for example, want the religious liberty to marry who we wish to marry. Are you taking a stand against religious liberty? Really?
Fellas, if you don’t want to marry a gay guy, you don’t have to. Stop living in this false spirit of fear. Let people live the lives they feel led BY GOD to live and start worrying about your own sins a bit more. If people are mistaken, they are responsible before God, not you.
Let’s leave it to people to decide for themselves where God is leading, rather than trying to impose your religious views on other people.
Give us liberty, or give us death.
Walt…
This woman is the reason God does not want women over men in the Church.
You are welcome to worship your god in whatever cave you want, my brother. We’ll make our stand before God on our own, without your hunches, thank you very much.
How about it, my man? You and your church can marry who you wish and we won’t stop you. In return, you allow us the same liberty. What do you say?
Comment by Eric Lytle on November 6, 2012 at 9:15 am
Walt, the “god” liberals refer to is not the God of the Bible, the one who told Abraham to “walk before me and be blameless” (Gen 17:1). The real God calls us to a challenge, to be something better than we are, just like a loving human father makes demands and set boundaries. Liberals’ “god” is just an idol, something that puts its stamp of approval on whatever gives them pleasure. Discussing morality with these people is like discussing Mozart with a person who is tone-deaf. There’s no common ground to meet on. They have no conception of sin or salvation. To them the only sin would be to stand in the way of their political agenda. They live happy lives because a conscience is a burden to bear, making you say No to yourself, but I prefer to carry that burden because we’re made in the image of God, we’re not animals just living for the pleasure of the moment.
If they read the Bible at all, it’s not to discern God’s will but to find some verse here and there to beat Christians with, such as twisting “love your neighbor” into “support gay `marriage.'” They can’t comprehend that people with a solid grounding in the Bible can’t be nagged into accepting immorality.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 6, 2012 at 9:29 am
Although I identify as anabaptist (hardly “liberal”), you no doubt would call me a liberal, Eric. To disprove your false charge (at least against Christians like myself), I’ll give you a chance to deal with specifics, rather than making vague and unsupported charges.
I believe the God of the Bible.
I believe God is the great Creator, existing forever.
I believe God created the heavens and the earth.
I believe humanity has a sinful nature and are in need of salvation.
I believe God offers us salvation by God’s grace, through faith in God’s son, Jesus, the man/God who came to earth, teaching us how to live, showing us how to live, dying and being raised from death to be with God in heaven.
I believe salvation is available to all who would repent of their sins and accept God’s gift of salvation, though faith in Jesus Christ.
I believe God reveals God’s Self through the Bible, which I believe to be God’s Holy Word and to be as Scripture, good for education, correction and direction.
I believe God reveals God’s Self through God’s Holy Spirit and God’s Word, written upon our hearts.
I believe that Jesus challenges by his life and teachings to take up our cross and follow in His steps, by God’s grace…
In ALL of that, WHERE SPECIFICALLY am I worshiping a God that is NOT the “God of the Bible…”?
Where am I worshiping “just an idol…”? Specifically.
I challenge you to support your rather unbelievable and unsupported charge or admit (either with an apology or by your simple shame-faced silence) that you misspoke.
Here again, I’m offering specifics and asking you all merely to support your unsupported – and I say hellishly false – charges. Where specifically am I mistaken?
By your silence, are you saying that you DO NOT believe in religious liberty and WILL NOT (if it were up to you) grant us the same grace and liberty that we’re willing to grant you?
That is your right, but just recognize that running from the discussion, shouting ad hom attacks and false charges over your shoulder as you flee – tail between your legs and whining – does nothing but speak poorly of you and strengthen our argument.
Comment by Dan Trabue on November 6, 2012 at 8:11 am
Here’s the thing: I and my tribe (which is increasingly the majority in the US) highly value religious liberty.
I think you all are DEAD wrong about God. I think your efforts and work against our homosexual brothers and sisters is wrong and sinful.
BUT, because I value religious liberty, I support your “right” to be wrong and sinful – as long as it’s not harming someone else. I support your right to marry who you wish in your churches and even to say “homosexuality is a sin” in your churches.
All we’re asking is for the SAME respect and liberty that we’re willing to extend to you.
Will you meet us halfway and allow us that same liberty we’re allowing you?
The answer I’m hearing thus far here is, “No, we want to be free to worship/follow God as we see best, but we’re not wanting to allow the same for you…”
That answer is self-serving and lacking in grace and reason and, for that reason, you continue to lose this argument. Never fear, though. Even when you’re in the minority, I and my tribe will still do for you what you wouldn’t do for us.
The Golden Rule and all that.
Comment by Paul H on November 6, 2012 at 12:47 pm
I think it’s funny (as in “pathetic”) that this high and mighty bishop asked the group of gay men, “What do you want from the church?” Did he see some indication in the New Testament that a church is somehow “custom-fit,” something you order from God to suit the members’ specifications?
In the modernist version of the prodigal son parable, the Father doesn’t wait patiently at home while the son squanders his inheritance on prostitutes. The Father takes him to a brothel.