Cloudy / 52° F
Chilstrom still limiting his opinion [UPDATED]
Published 9:12am Thursday, October 25, 2012 Updated 11:15am Thursday, October 25, 2012It is disappointing to read that Pastor Chilstrom is still limiting his concern in homosexual issues to an overwhelming identification with the victims of oppression.
As far as this goes, his concern has led to a significant awareness of the injustice and suffering experienced by many.
But there are other issues that Pastor Chilstrom was regularly confronted with regarding the larger question of healthy sexual development during his years of leadership.
These other issues are important to our vote. I think, for example, of the on-going debate with Minneapolis psychologist, Merton P. Strommen, in publications such as the Metro Lutheran and in Strommen’s book, The Church and Homosexuality.
Strommen has been known to Lutherans through his significant published research on Lutheran youth.
Strommen often referenced the extensive research that shows that 25 percent of all 12 years old boys have not yet developed a firm sexual orientation.
What about their rights to have adult modeling of heterosexual life as the norm? Do the 2 percent have all the rights? What about the thousands of boys who have been victimized while in a vulnerable development stage and have had their emotional lives traumatized by an intimacy disorder as a result?
Do we accept responsibility for their future when we claim minority rights that go beyond limiting injustice to dominating other people’s lives?
The empirical evidence is vast. While we do not know the processes we do know the result.
Literally thousands of cultures of the world go to great lengths to distinguish between the dress and behavior of the sexes in order to protect children in developmental years.
The Scriptural teaching also gives evidence of the public standard that are useful for society, and by inference, for avoiding developmental disorders.
I am not here attempting to assert that all sexual disorders are developmental, but in pre-Christian Corinth up to 90 percent of the boys were victims of adult violation of their rights.
We need cultural fences.
Writing to Christians in this community, Paul described their pre-Christian days, including their homosexuality and said of all of the unacceptable practices and the people who were bound in them, “And this is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 6:11)
Whether they were sanctified (cleansed and set apart) from homosexual practice to a heterosexual life or set apart to celibacy for the glory of God, is not the issue.
The issue was walking in newness of life, in service to the health and wholeness of God’s creation.
God’s grace is free, our response is one of devotion.
We do suffer in this life from many different kinds of physical and emotional disorders. This isn’t heaven yet.
But the life of openness, honesty, forgiveness and serving the welfare of others, including those who are developing, is still an overcoming life, creating a glad expectation of good things to come.
I urge you to vote yes for developmental and family health,
Robert Overgaard
A pastor and native of the Fergus Falls area, longtime local denominational leader, retired
hmmmmmmmm–could it be Paul was writing to Christians still living in a society where “up to 90 percent of the boys were victims of adult violation of their rights.”?
What exactly does condenming rape and pediophelia have to do with committed partnerships? Did Paul advocate making a committment to one person? Wouldn’t committed partnerships between two members of the same sex also accomplish Paul’s goal? Wasn’t he realy saying, and this is likely true, heteroxesual men should stop victimizing boys and commitment themselves to a woman. (He does not take a stand against committed partnerships between two people of the same sex. The letter writer should do his research with a more open mind.)
And what does sex have to do with civil advantages of tax benefits, property ownership and survivorship?