ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: ptmccain on August 20, 2010, 11:51:51 AM

Title: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 20, 2010, 11:51:51 AM
Here if a very well done, thought-provoking analysis of CORE and the NALC, from a former member of the ELCA, Pastor David Ramirez:

http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=76

A snippet:

If Lutheran CORE is going to work as an umbrella organization, it will have to be ready to deal with potential sources for huge friction. I see two fault lines, ripe for trouble, which must be recognized and dealt with by the leadership of Lutheran CORE. One is the potential rivalry between LCMC and the NALC, the two big wolves in the pack. The other is the relationship between the traditionalists who leave the ELCA and those who are remaining within. I cannot see how the two will not be connected.

Word Alone Ministries has already moved to a firmer position against remaining in the ELCA. LCMC will almost certainly take a much harder line against the ELCA—and those who remain in it—than the emerging NALC. First, LCMC is made up of people who already left the ELCA back in 2001. Secondly, LCMC has picked up the majority of the congregations that have left the ELCA since last summer. This means that the LCMC has by and large gotten the congregations that were the most prepared, the best informed, and the most willing to leave. These “first wave” congregations left as soon as possible and needed a place to land. LCMC, as an already constituted and functioning body, aside from any other reasons, was obviously an attractive choice. The NALC on the other hand will not get many of those “first wave” congregations. Rather, as compared to the LCMC, the NALC will pick up more churches that were not as well informed, prepared to leave, or unanimous. In my estimation, over the next several years it will most likely be the NALC that will gain many of the congregations making a slower exodus from the ELCA. Regardless of whether one considers these “second wave” and later congregations timid or careful, this uneven distribution will shape the relationship between the LCMC and the NALC. Additionally, “evangelical catholics” and former LCA congregations who leave the ELCA are more likely to join the NALC, giving it a more varied composition than the LCMC. But perhaps most importantly, as mentioned above, the NALC will allow congregations within the ELCA to join. To a much greater extent than the LCMC, the NALC will have to guard against merely being the ELCA pre-2009.

 
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 20, 2010, 01:14:53 PM
I should also mention that if you go to the link, there are a number of good comments there, by some participants here.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Revbert on August 20, 2010, 10:23:49 PM
I don't think the NALC is the ALC reborn (that would probably be the LCMC). Looking at the basic NALC structure (strong bishop speaking for the church in a teaching role, deans supporting that position, etc), it looks more like the LCMS with female pastors and less (for now) dogmatic infighting.

YMMV.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: SmithL on August 20, 2010, 11:20:21 PM
Looking at the basic NALC structure (strong bishop speaking for the church in a teaching role, deans supporting that position, etc), it looks more like the LCMS with female pastors and less (for now) dogmatic infighting.
YMMV.
Like the old LCA?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Chuck on August 20, 2010, 11:39:36 PM
Like the old LCA?

Augustana shall rise again!  ;D
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on August 20, 2010, 11:49:38 PM
Like the old LCA?

Augustana shall rise again!  ;D

God help us, with the Ministerium of Pennsylvania not far behind!
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 21, 2010, 01:03:39 AM
Like the old LCA?

Augustana shall rise again!  ;D

God help us, with the Ministerium of Pennsylvania not far behind!

Would they ever refer to it as MOP?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Terry W Culler on August 21, 2010, 07:35:49 AM
Maybe the General Council with a picture of Charles Porterfield Krauth on their letterhead?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 21, 2010, 04:16:10 PM
@ Pastor Hebbeler

How do you figure the NALC is structurally like the LCMS+women pastors? Could you explain more?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Revbert on August 21, 2010, 05:25:28 PM
@ Pastor Hebbeler

How do you figure the NALC is structurally like the LCMS+women pastors? Could you explain more?

Well...reading the proposed constitution, the NALC bishop has the authority to speak for the NALC in a teaching mode, and the deans are there to support the bishop. While I'm not 100% conversant in LCMS politics these days, it has a lot more look and feel of the LCMS than the ELCA as I mosey through the proposed constitution.

Think of my comment more as shorthand than literal descriptions of both groups.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 21, 2010, 05:42:49 PM
"it has a lot more look and feel of the LCMS than the ELCA as I mosey through the proposed constitution."

In what way, specifically?

I am interested, because I haven't heard anyone say that before.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: LutherMan on August 21, 2010, 05:51:01 PM
http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=12047

Steadfast Lutherans have a new thread up:
"ELCA Splinter Group CORE to Constitute a New Church this Week but Falls Short on Scriptural Authority, by Pr. Rossow"
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 21, 2010, 11:01:31 PM
ptmccain writes;
Here if a very well done, thought-provoking analysis of CORE and the NALC, from a former member of the ELCA, Pastor David Ramirez:
(and then he posts a link which I will not repost.)

And Lutherman writes:
Steadfast Lutherans have a new thread up:
"ELCA Splinter Group CORE to Constitute a New Church this Week but Falls Short on Scriptural Authority, by Pr. Rossow"

I comment:
And so it goes, folks. No surprise.
Even before the new church body is formed, a certain wing of the LC-MS (which I am reliably told is in the minority, but nonetheless is a "voice" of the LC-MS) denounces it. I am not sure that CORE and the new church body should think that wing of the LC-MS is their friend.
And so it goes. No surprise.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: LutherMan on August 21, 2010, 11:09:02 PM

I comment:
And so it goes, folks. No surprise.
Even before the new church body is formed, a certain wing of the LC-MS (which I am reliably told is in the minority, but nonetheless is a "voice" of the LC-MS) denounces it. I am not sure that CORE and the new church body should think that wing of the LC-MS is their friend.
And so it goes. No surprise.

Our voice decidedly voted Rev. Harrison in as Synodical President.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 21, 2010, 11:21:29 PM
"Decidedly"? I thought it was 51 percent?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: LutherMan on August 21, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
JesusFirst called it a referendum, right?  In 2004
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Evangel on August 21, 2010, 11:36:26 PM
"Decidedly"? I thought it was 51 percent?

Believe it was 54 - an 8 point margin.  My guess is your 51% "thought" was why the LWF press release called it a slim margin (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3049.0)?

{edit - fixed my math - duh - time for bed}
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 22, 2010, 01:18:10 PM
"Even before the new church body is formed, a certain wing of the LC-MS (which I am reliably told is in the minority, but nonetheless is a "voice" of the LC-MS) denounces it. I am not sure that CORE and the new church body should think that wing of the LC-MS is their friend.
And so it goes. No surprise."

A good friend of mine always prays that The Lord surrounds him with friends that will tell him when they believe him to be error or on a dangerous path. I think its a good prayer.

Pastor Austin, do you have any substantial or specific critiques of my article, or will this thread also be subjected to your glancing opinions, like the above, which are typically unsubstantiated and unproven.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 22, 2010, 01:38:18 PM
I am not particularly interested in your article, Pastor Ramirez.
I only noted that - even before this new church body is fully-formed - you and others like you are leaping to point out how it is flawed, how it continues the "errors" of the LCA and ALC, how it does not meet your standards of what Lutheranism is. Those who are in this newly-forming church body may want to respond. I don't.
Long history has proven to me that there would be no point in attempting to critique your article, especially since I think it will have little effect on anything and I am not a part of the newly-forming church body.
As for your assessment of the ELCA... yeah, we know what you think. No news there. And I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Edward Engelbrecht on August 22, 2010, 02:04:07 PM
"Decidedly"? I thought it was 51 percent?

Believe it was 54 - an 8 point margin.  My guess is your 51% "thought" was why the LWF press release called it a slim margin (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3049.0)?

{edit - fixed my math - duh - time for bed}

But was the vote on the first ballot for president, I wonder?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 22, 2010, 03:44:40 PM
"I am not particularly interested in your article, Pastor Ramirez...Those who are in this newly-forming church body may want to respond. I don't...Long history has proven to me that there would be no point in attempting to critique your article, especially since I think it will have little effect on anything and I am not a part of the newly-forming church body."

Pr. Austin, if you're not game for a real discussion/debate, then follow your own logic and spare us the condescending assertions you are unable to back up.

So far I have had very positive and helpful conversations with those involved with CORE, and hope to have more.

Also, I am not like a lot of other folks around here who will endlessly engage you in a wild goose chase. Consider this my last word to you on this particular matter since you yourself admit you aren't interested in the topic of this thread. Perhaps on another subject another day we will be able to converse, but I truly hope you actually follow through with your reasoning and don't hijack another discussion.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 22, 2010, 04:22:46 PM
Pastor Ramirez writes:
So far I have had very positive and helpful conversations with those involved with CORE, and hope to have more.

I note:
I would have to have that comment verified by someone in CORE before I could begin to believe it.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 25, 2010, 05:58:58 PM
I can believe it.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 25, 2010, 06:19:40 PM
I was hoping this thread would return, and I am glad it has, and now on the main board, visible to all. Pastor Ramirez's article on LOGIA was well written and contains real food for thought. I do disagree with his overall tone of pessimism, however. As reported by Pastor Johnson on the Columbus happenings board, the Convocation has gotten off to a great start. Fine addresses by Spring, Braaten and Hinlicky. And more to come today and tomorrow. The theological and intellectual weight behind NALC is going to be substantial. These are great people, orthodox people.

What would it take to favorably impress "conservative Missouri" (i.e., the conservative wing of Missouri) about NALC? I ask that not in a snippy or confrontational way, but as a discussion starter.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Weedon on August 25, 2010, 06:42:06 PM
Well, first thing is:  you don't need to impress us.  We love you guys and we're happy that you have stood up for the real norming authority and power of God's Word.  That rejoices our hearts and encourages us. 

If we have a sadness, it is that we think that the full root of the problems that led to the situation you are fighting now has not been plumbed.  Yes, the women's ordination matter again.  I don't bring it up to belabor it, but simply to note that it's of a piece with what set things in the direction they ended up.  I know that most of you don't believe that; I don't think I'll ever convince you.  But I sure wish there were a way you all could at least explore the question and seek to understand how setting aside the Scriptures and the way they have been interpreted on the question universally in the Church's tradition on that area, makes it easy to do so in others. 

And I know already how offensive my words are to you all.  I don't mean to cause you all pain.  May the Lord bless and guide your further studies and thoughts on all the issues before you.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Edward Engelbrecht on August 25, 2010, 07:01:11 PM
I was hoping this thread would return, and I am glad it has, and now on the main board, visible to all. Pastor Ramirez's article on LOGIA was well written and contains real food for thought. I do disagree with his overall tone of pessimism, however. As reported by Pastor Johnson on the Columbus happenings board, the Convocation has gotten off to a great start. Fine addresses by Spring, Braaten and Hinlicky. And more to come today and tomorrow. The theological and intellectual weight behind NALC is going to be substantial. These are great people, orthodox people.

What would it take to favorably impress "conservative Missouri" (i.e., the conservative wing of Missouri) about NALC? I ask that not in a snippy or confrontational way, but as a discussion starter.

We are praying for you and greatly encouraged by your efforts to disassociate with the strange doctrines and practices that have eminated from the ELCA. I do not believe this is time to "favorably impress" LCMS conservatives. There will be time for such discussions later (William points out things that will naturally come up). I think you have enough on your plate right now just getting organized and would encourage you to make that your focus.

In Christ,
EE
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 25, 2010, 07:14:37 PM
It has been a long time since women's ordination was a matter of serious theological reflection. In the LCMS the case is closed. In the ELCA, the case is closed the other way. I would follow with interest a new church body's deliberations on this matter as long as the outcome was not a foregore conclusion. My cynical side says that any actual debate would be window-dressing on the preordained conclusion that women's ordination is not contrary to Scripture or the catholic faith.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 25, 2010, 07:25:28 PM
Very irenic and honest responses so far, thank you gentlemen. This can and will be an excellent discussion.

Just to make it clear, and to avoid letting a possible mistaken impression stand, I myself am not involved in the NALC efforts at this time, although I am very supportive of them and have high hopes for NALC as a center-right Lutheran body. I am remaining in the ELCA "for a season", for very concrete and specific reasons. 

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: mariemeyer on August 25, 2010, 07:41:37 PM
It has been a long time since women's ordination was a matter of serious theological reflection. In the LCMS the case is closed.  

I can't resist.  Really?  When was it given serious theological reflection?  Not in my life time.  The year I was born a lay delegate to the 1938 LCMS convention asked that woman's suffrage be considered. The 30 year discussion on suffrage began with the premise that a male pastorate was a given.  When suffrage was granted in 1969, the resolution stated that the synod now held that texts previously thought to prohibit suffrage were in fact God's defense of a male pastorate. 

The LCMS has yet to follow the example of Lutheran churches such as the SELK, the Lutheran Church of Japan, the Australian Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church of Madagascar and the Mekana Jesu Church of Ethiopia  to give the defense of a male pastorate serious consideration.

Marie Meyer   
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 25, 2010, 07:51:07 PM
It has been a long time since women's ordination was a matter of serious theological reflection. In the LCMS the case is closed.  

I can't resist.  Really?  When was it given serious theological reflection?  Not in my life time.  The year I was born a lay delegate to the 1938 LCMS convention asked that woman's suffrage be considered. The 30 year discussion on suffrage began with the premise that a male pastorate was a given.  When suffrage was granted in 1969, the resolution stated that the synod now held that texts previously thought to prohibit suffrage were in fact God's defense of a male pastorate. 

The LCMS has yet to follow the example of Lutheran churches such as the SELK, the Lutheran Church of Japan, the Australian Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church of Madagascar and the Mekana Jesu Church of Ethiopia  to give the defense of a male pastorate serious consideration.

Marie Meyer   
Well, every time someone expresses the fear that WO is rearing its head in the LCMS, they get assured that it isn't even on the radar screen, which is why I said the case was closed in the LCMS. Do you really think it is an open question or matter of ongoing, legitimate debate? To be fair, WO has never been debated in my lifetime either. It was settled "pro" in some churches long before I came of age, has never been discussed in the history of the ELCA as far as I can tell, and has been repeatedly rejected in the LCMS.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Edward Engelbrecht on August 25, 2010, 08:09:27 PM
Looks like this thread is about to be co-opted as a debate about WO. I think those posts should go elsewhere. I am more interested in reading about developments in the NALC.

Someone please share something interesting about NALC so we can stay focused. Thanks.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: LutherMan on August 25, 2010, 08:14:42 PM
I am praying that NALC will take a higher authority towards Scripture than ELCA has.
Dig into God's Word.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 08:27:46 PM
The book Women Pastors? The Ordination of Women in Biblical Lutheran Perspective is the most extensive and comprehensive collection of essays on the subject of the ordination of women every published in English, with essays contributed by Lutherans from across the globe.

It appears that some here think that unless the issue is discussed in the context of an "open question" it is not a valid or substantial discussion.

That is a false assumption.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 08:40:34 PM
I was hoping this thread would return, and I am glad it has, and now on the main board, visible to all. Pastor Ramirez's article on LOGIA was well written and contains real food for thought. I do disagree with his overall tone of pessimism, however. As reported by Pastor Johnson on the Columbus happenings board, the Convocation has gotten off to a great start. Fine addresses by Spring, Braaten and Hinlicky. And more to come today and tomorrow. The theological and intellectual weight behind NALC is going to be substantial. These are great people, orthodox people.

What would it take to favorably impress "conservative Missouri" (i.e., the conservative wing of Missouri) about NALC? I ask that not in a snippy or confrontational way, but as a discussion starter.

Back to the discussion ....

I appreciate the question, though I'm unsure what you mean by "conservative Missouri" -- the number of Misourians who would simply, comfortably and without question agree with the NALC would be extremely few, to the point of statistical irrelevance. The mainstream position of The LCMS is obviously one that the NALC should be more concerened about and interested in, and that is a conservative theology. I personally look forward to engaging NALC folks in any way, shape or form. To whatever extent the NALC stands in opposition to the false theology that has overtaken the ELCA, I stand with them, as does The LCMS.

I believe both Rev. Weedon and Rev. Engelbrecht have made very good points and I would simply affirm what they said.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 25, 2010, 09:06:44 PM
I was hoping this thread would return, and I am glad it has, and now on the main board, visible to all. Pastor Ramirez's article on LOGIA was well written and contains real food for thought. I do disagree with his overall tone of pessimism, however. As reported by Pastor Johnson on the Columbus happenings board, the Convocation has gotten off to a great start. Fine addresses by Spring, Braaten and Hinlicky. And more to come today and tomorrow. The theological and intellectual weight behind NALC is going to be substantial. These are great people, orthodox people.

What would it take to favorably impress "conservative Missouri" (i.e., the conservative wing of Missouri) about NALC? I ask that not in a snippy or confrontational way, but as a discussion starter.

Back to the discussion ....

I appreciate the question, though I'm unsure what you mean by "conservative Missouri" -- the number of Misourians who would simply, comfortably and without question agree with the NALC would be extremely few, to the point of statistical irrelevance. The mainstream position of The LCMS is obviously one that the NALC should be more concerened about and interested in, and that is a conservative theology. I personally look forward to engaging NALC folks in any way, shape or form. To whatever extent the NALC stands in opposition to the false theology that has overtaken the ELCA, I stand with them, as does The LCMS.

I believe both Rev. Weedon and Rev. Engelbrecht have made very good points and I would simply affirm what they said.



Thank you, Pastor McCain. Maybe "LOGIA Missouri" would be even more accurate for my purposes then "conservative Missouri". What would it take for NALC to win over even Pastor Ramirez and the LOGIA folks? Maybe that just won't ever happen: the critique authored by him, though fair and civil, was quite detailed. NALC, can, hopefully, form very cordial relations with most of the LCMS, even while the two bodies continue to disagree on WO.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 09:09:43 PM
The views and concerns expressed, exceedingly well, in the LOGIA article would mirror what the vast majority of members of The LCMS ministerium would think and be concerned about.

I think it would be, perhaps, an interesting exercise for those who are in the NALC to ask themselves why the formation of the NALC now, after CWA 09 and not long before, for instance, when the ELCA entered into fellowship with church bodies that formally, official and quite openly teach contrary to the Lutheran Confessions on the nature and meaning of the Lord's Supper.

Perhaps this is the kind of conversation that would prove interesting and helpful. We shall see.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 25, 2010, 09:11:47 PM
The ELCA has had close working relationships with the LC-MS for many years, even though we disagree on the issue of ordination for women. This has not been divisive of our common work in Lutheran World Relief, Lutheran Disaster Response and dozens of Lutheran social service agencies. We don't think we have to "win over" the LC-MS to our views on ministry in order to work together in the name of Jesus. The LC-MS has continued to work with us for forty years, even though the dreaded "WO" issue was out there.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 09:14:32 PM
The LCMS regards the activities identified in the previous post as cooperation in externals, not indicative of agreement in the Faith, or as an expression of church fellowship. At its last convention indicated that the status quo can not, and will not, remain. The actions of the ELCA have made that impossible, a fact recognized and formally adopted as an action assigned to the LCMS Praesidium for their study and recommendation for action within one year.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 25, 2010, 09:16:25 PM
ptmccain writes:
The views and concerns expressed, exceedingly well, in the LOGIA article would mirror what the vast majority of members of The LCMS ministerium would think and be concerned about.
I comment:
We were told elsewhere in this forum that this was not the case. But never mind...

ptmccain writes:
I think it would be, perhaps, an interesting exercise for those who are in the NALC to ask themselves why the formation of the NALC now, after CWA 09 and not long before, for instance, when the ELCA entered into fellowship with church bodies that formally, official and quite openly teach contrary to the Lutheran Confessions on the nature and meaning of the Lord's Supper.
I comment:
Actually, ptmccain raises here a point worth pondering. If it is not just about sexuality, why didn't the people who are now heading out the ELCA doors do so after those other decisions? Some did, but not very many. As I read it, the fledgling church body is already cozy with Anglicans.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 25, 2010, 09:20:25 PM
ptmccain writes:
At its last convention indicated that the status quo can not, and will not, remain.
I comment:
Which "status quo"? And can we get a subject in that sentence to make it understandable?

ptmccain writes:
The actions of the ELCA have made that impossible, a fact recognized and formally adopted as an action assigned to the LCMS Praesidium for their study and recommendation for action within one year.
I comment:
Well, not exactly "impossible," or there would be no reason to have anyone study the situation, would there? If the Synod thought continued relations were "impossible," I think it would have taken quite different action.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 09:24:47 PM
NALC, can, hopefully, form very cordial relations with most of the LCMS, even while the two bodies continue to disagree on WO.

There will be a host of issues on which we disagree, but I am certain there will be civil and cordial relations, even as we have enjoyed the same with WordAlone, CORE, etc. I know, for example, Concordia Publishing House has been warmly received at previous WordAlone and CORE gatherings, and we are there in full force at this week's events, with two of our "road representatives" who represent us very well. We are already your partners in ministry and are eager to provide resources that are faithful to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.

I personally have enjoyed a number of very cordial conversations and communications with the leadership of WordAlone and CORE and have enjoyed our conversations, in which we have spoken frankly of our disagreements, and our common challenges and mutual concerns.

I'm really enjoying Richard Johnson's coverage of the events in Columbus, since I was unable to attend.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Scott6 on August 25, 2010, 09:27:48 PM
At its last convention indicated that the status quo can not, and will not, remain. The actions of the ELCA have made that impossible, a fact recognized and formally adopted as an action assigned to the LCMS Praesidium for their study and recommendation for action within one year.

Here are the "resolveds" from 3-03 (sans the amendment to add a date one year from the 2010 convention):

Resolved, That the task force be thanked and commended for its work on identifying practical implications of the 2009 ELCA decisions on human sexuality; and be it further

Resolved, That, in keeping with the basic principles set forth in the task force statement, cooperation in externals with other Lutheran churches, including the ELCA, continue with theological integrity; and be it further

Resolved, That we give thanks to God for the opportunity to give witness to God’s care for all people through such cooperative work; and be it further

Resolved, That the CTCR, in consultation with the Praesidium and other entities and individuals as needed, develop more in-depth theological criteria for assessing cooperative endeavors, determining what would necessitate termination of such cooperative efforts; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Praesidium, in consultation with the CTCR, provide an assessment of the current state of cooperation in externals and a full report of criteria for on-going assessment of the same by the next convention.

The resolution was to ask what criteria would make such cooperation impossible; it did not yet say that it was impossible, and it did not say that such cooperation in externals cannot and will not remain.  That's entirely possible, it's just not yet resolved.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 09:32:01 PM
Scot, you and I were both watching the proceedings and heard the comments by the President elect, who declared that the status quo is unacceptable, and in fact, it was that speech making that point clear that resulted in the adoption of the resolution and the amendment of the resolution to call for this action to be completed in one year, not simply deferred to the next convention.

We all know that the ELCA actions have now reached a point of being so egregiously and so openly and publically offensive that status quote ante CWA 09 can not stand.

We all await the study and recommendations forthcoming.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 25, 2010, 09:37:36 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Scott, and I'm glad to see that most of the delegates still believe cooperation with the ELCA is possible. I don't know the full context of the idea that the new LC-MS president believes the "status quo unacceptable," and if he does, perhaps your presidium can convince him that he is wrong or at least remind him that a decision about cooperation with the ELCA (in those "externals," of course) is not his decision alone.
There are tens of thousands of people out there in social service agencies, Lutheran World Relief programs and disaster response teams who would be affected if we did not continue to share this portion of the Gospel ministry together.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Scott6 on August 25, 2010, 10:11:14 PM
Scot, you and I were both watching the proceedings and heard the comments by the President elect, who declared that the status quo is unacceptable, and in fact, it was that speech making that point clear that resulted in the adoption of the resolution and the amendment of the resolution to call for this action to be completed in one year, not simply deferred to the next convention.

Yes, the PE stated that the status quo is unacceptable, but that's not what was formally resolved by the convention.  The resolution simply does not say that.

In any case, I agree with the approach that Matt described to me in my interview with him, which I am hoping to include as part of an article for the October issue of the Forum Letter.

Thanks for the clarification, Scott, and I'm glad to see that most of the delegates still believe cooperation with the ELCA is possible.

I don't think this is accurate, either.  The convention did not express any decision that cooperation with the ELCA is possible and will continue to be possible.  What it did resolve was that coherent criteria need to be developed by which to evaluate the possibility of continued cooperation as they don't currently exist.  Lacking those criteria, it was resolved that cooperation will continue "with theological integrity" -- problem being, that's exactly what needs to be evaluated.


In sum, I agree with neither of you on this point as I think the case of what actually was resolved is being overblown on both sides.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 10:35:27 PM
Their was a significant number of delegates demanding all cooperative efforts of any kind be ended immediately. The President Elect was able to assure the delegates that he and the Praesidium will give this their top priority and as a result of the speach he gave, in which he distinguished between cooperating in any effort directly with Higgins Road, as being on one end of the spectrum, to supporting the independent Lutheran entity, the LWF, there are various levels and types of cooperation.

The delegates voted to amend the resolution to require the work on this to be concluded in one year, not the three years as was put forward by the floor committee.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Weedon on August 25, 2010, 10:37:37 PM
The report was to be submitted in one year; the conclusion, though, was not foregone.  It will be depend on what is discovered, no?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 25, 2010, 10:44:11 PM
Conclusions are not foregone, in their specifics and details.

That the status quo will stand is highly, highly unlikely, as the President Elect made clear.

I frankly do not understand, why, if this is truly cooperation in externals, why we do not partner with organizations such as Catholic World Relief, or whatever organization runs the most efficient and effective relief services.

There is nothing sacro-sanct about working with entities simply because they have the word "Lutheran" in their name.

I have however been impressed that John Nunes has definitely moved LWR back to a more discernibly Christ/Gospel focused organization.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 26, 2010, 01:31:17 AM
ptmccain writes:
I frankly do not understand, why, if this is truly cooperation in externals, why we do not partner with organizations such as Catholic World Relief, or whatever organization runs the most efficient and effective relief services.
I comment:
Because the LC-MS is already partnered with what is the most efficient and effective relief service. And anyone who thinks LWR is not "Gospel-centered" needs to have more contact with LWR and its people and its programs.
If the LC-MS provides any support to the LWF, I do not know what it is. I would be very surprised if any money from the LC-MS goes to the LWF, although some associate members of the LWF are related to the LC-MS and we are happy they are part of our fellowship.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Edward Engelbrecht on August 26, 2010, 07:37:13 AM
I'm interested in learning what sort of Confessional Subscription will prevail in the NALC. Are there any clear proposals at this time?

Also, do the framers of the NALC plan to have altar and pulpit fellowship with the Protestant denominations that have fellowship agreements with the ELCA?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 26, 2010, 09:08:02 AM
I'm interested in learning what sort of Confessional Subscription will prevail in the NALC. Are there any clear proposals at this time?

Also, do the framers of the NALC plan to have altar and pulpit fellowship with the Protestant denominations that have fellowship agreements with the ELCA?

The link (http://www.lutherancore.org/pdf/NALC-draft-provisional-constitution.pdf) to the NALC proposed constitution was in one of the other NALC threads. Maybe if so many people didn't feel compelled to launch brand new threads about subjects already being discussed it wouldn't get so confusing trying to find information that was already posted. 

Article 2 – Confession of Faith
The North American Lutheran Church confesses:
2.01 The Triune God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
2.02 Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.
a. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.
b. The proclamation of God’s message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
c. The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.
2.03 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, "according to which all doctrines should and must be judged." (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Part I)
2.04 The Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as true declarations of the faith of the Church.
2.05 The Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession.
2.06 The other confessional writings in the Book of Concord, namely, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord, as further valid interpretations of the faith of the Church.
2.07 The Gospel, recorded in the Holy Scriptures and confessed in the ecumenical creeds and Lutheran confessional writings, as the power of God to create and sustain the Church for God’s mission in the world.
2.08 The NALC honors and accepts The Common Confession (2005), attached in an appendix hereto, as a summary of teachings otherwise affirmed in the Lutheran Confessions.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 26, 2010, 09:34:51 AM

Maybe if so many people didn't feel compelled to launch brand new threads about subjects already being discussed it wouldn't get so confusing trying to find information that was already posted.

George, this particular thread we're on now, was launched to discuss Pastor Ramirez's recent critique of NALC, on the LOGIA website. I think that was a very good topic for its own thread, and not a rehash of material that could be found on older threads.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 26, 2010, 09:46:55 AM

Maybe if so many people didn't feel compelled to launch brand new threads about subjects already being discussed it wouldn't get so confusing trying to find information that was already posted.

George, this particular thread we're on now, was launched to discuss Pastor Ramriez's recent critique of NALC, on the LOGIA website. I think that was a very good topic for its own thread, and not a rehash of material that could be found on older threads.

Maybe so, but it was off of that topic halfway through the first page. Given that no thread in here ever remains strictly about the launch post, it makes little sense to launch a whole new thread to discuss what was a minor sub-thread. Pastor Ramriez's name doesn't even appear in the title. The launch post of this thread should have just been a single post inside a general thread about the NALC. Attempting to start a discussion on one teeny, tiny focused aspect of a topic that is generally being discussed already is an exercise in futility. Throw in a confusing title that doesn't really indicate what the new, redundant thread is about, and all that results is confusion.

Is it so wrong to ask for a little bit of "good order"? I don't think there's a prize awarded for who launches the most new threads with ambiguous titles on the same general topic.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 26, 2010, 09:53:39 AM
George, let me say that on the whole I really admire your zeal in keeping this board efficient and in fighting trim. You are like a "coach on the floor" to use a basketball term.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 26, 2010, 03:45:29 PM
Thank you, Pastor McCain. Maybe "LOGIA Missouri" would be even more accurate for my purposes then "conservative Missouri". What would it take for NALC to win over even Pastor Ramirez and the LOGIA folks? Maybe that just won't ever happen: the critique authored by him, though fair and civil, was quite detailed. NALC, can, hopefully, form very cordial relations with most of the LCMS, even while the two bodies continue to disagree on WO.

I believe a good start would be for Lutheran CORE and the Missouri Synod to get a handful of guys on either side to sit down and talk about WO. That's it, just talk and report, and be as frank and honest in their reports as possible about how they view the other's method and conclusions.

This interaction would be enlightening in terms of seeing two very different ways of reading Scripture hang out together on a particular topic.

But such a dialogue or talk would need to have no other pressures: altar and pulpit fellowship, cooperation in externals, etc.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: mariemeyer on August 26, 2010, 04:59:31 PM
I believe a good start would be for Lutheran CORE and the Missouri Synod to get a handful of guys on either side to sit down and talk about WO. That's it, just talk and report, and be as frank and honest in their reports as possible about how they view the other's method and conclusions.  

As stated on the Columbus Happenings thread, I plan to hope this discussion after the Labor Day week-end.  For it to be fruitful, ELCA and LCMS persons would not only have to open and honest in the discussion, they would also have to refrain from making assumptions about each other.  Speaking from the LCMS side of the aisle, it means that we of the LCMS cannot begin with the assumption that persons who do not regard maleness as a prerequisite for the pastoral office are guilty of disregarding Scripture. IOW, they are not heretics. 

May I assume that "a handful of guys" includes "gals?"

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 26, 2010, 05:40:43 PM
Thank you, Pastor McCain. Maybe "LOGIA Missouri" would be even more accurate for my purposes then "conservative Missouri". What would it take for NALC to win over even Pastor Ramirez and the LOGIA folks? Maybe that just won't ever happen: the critique authored by him, though fair and civil, was quite detailed. NALC, can, hopefully, form very cordial relations with most of the LCMS, even while the two bodies continue to disagree on WO.

I believe a good start would be for Lutheran CORE and the Missouri Synod to get a handful of guys on either side to sit down and talk about WO. That's it, just talk and report, and be as frank and honest in their reports as possible about how they view the other's method and conclusions.

This interaction would be enlightening in terms of seeing two very different ways of reading Scripture hang out together on a particular topic.

But such a dialogue or talk would need to have no other pressures: altar and pulpit fellowship, cooperation in externals, etc.


Thank you Pastor Ramirez. I am certainly no spokesman for NALC. But as far as I can tell, NALC will allow for WO as part of its identity. That is the assumption I and others are making. I am sure that over time, there will be plenty of frank and cordial exchanges between NALC and other bodies on theological and ecclesiological issues. Certainly the LCMS will be an extremely important dialog partner for NALC, I would predict.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 26, 2010, 05:48:00 PM
I believe a good start would be for Lutheran CORE and the Missouri Synod to get a handful of guys on either side to sit down and talk about WO. That's it, just talk and report, and be as frank and honest in their reports as possible about how they view the other's method and conclusions.  

As stated on the Columbus Happenings thread, I plan to hope this discussion after the Labor Day week-end.  For it to be fruitful, ELCA and LCMS persons would not only have to open and honest in the discussion, they would also have to refrain from making assumptions about each other.  Speaking from the LCMS side of the aisle, it means that we of the LCMS cannot begin with the assumption that persons who do not regard maleness as a prerequisite for the pastoral office are guilty of disregarding Scripture. IOW, they are not heretics. 

May I assume that "a handful of guys" includes "gals?"

Marie Meyer

Ms. Meyer, certainly the majority thinking in the LCMS has historically been that the Pastorate is reserved for men only. That is unlikely to change, but nothing is utterly impossible. You never know. But there are some voices, such as yours, in the LCMS who argue in favor of WO. While I would never get involved in what is an internal LCMS matter, may I say you have my respect as you advocate for your cause. (Again, I do not wish to butt in on what is an intra-LCMS matter.)
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 26, 2010, 08:03:49 PM
Thank you, Pastor McCain. Maybe "LOGIA Missouri" would be even more accurate for my purposes then "conservative Missouri". What would it take for NALC to win over even Pastor Ramirez and the LOGIA folks? Maybe that just won't ever happen: the critique authored by him, though fair and civil, was quite detailed. NALC, can, hopefully, form very cordial relations with most of the LCMS, even while the two bodies continue to disagree on WO.

I believe a good start would be for Lutheran CORE and the Missouri Synod to get a handful of guys on either side to sit down and talk about WO. That's it, just talk and report, and be as frank and honest in their reports as possible about how they view the other's method and conclusions.

Such discussion occurred back in the 70's when ALC and LCMS were in altar and pulpit fellowship. I imagine any present day discussions would have the same results -- and there is now 40 years of God blessing us Lutherans with female pastors.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 26, 2010, 09:16:56 PM
I don't want to be misunderstood. I am NOT talking about a "joint study of the issue" as in the 70's as if we aren't sure what we believe. I am talking about a dozen or so guys sitting down, some of the sharpest, pious, and articulate from either side, and carefully explaining where each side is and why. Then, each side can report back and each side can go from there on how best to follow up: let's talk more about X, "them's is crazy!" or let's all just get along and hug.

The above would be a fair open exchange of positions and surely edify in the sense that it would promote better understanding and clarity of what people actually believe. Furthermore, without strings attached, it would allow each side to decide how to proceed afterwards.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 26, 2010, 09:17:21 PM
Lawrence804 writes:
Ms. Meyer, certainly the majority thinking in the LCMS has historically been that the Pastorate is reserved for men only. That is unlikely to change, but nothing is utterly impossible. You never know. But there are some voices, such as yours, in the LCMS who argue in favor of WO. While I would never get involved in what is an internal LCMS matter, may I say you have my respect as you advocate for your cause. (Again, I do not wish to butt in on what is an intra-LCMS matter.)

I comment:
You need to read more carefully, Lawrence804. Deaconess Meyer has never said she favors ordination for women, nor has she ever advocated for that particular "cause." It is not correct to say she is a "voice" in the LC-MS who argues in favor of ordination for women, for according to her postings on this board, she has not.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on August 27, 2010, 01:04:47 AM
I don't want to be misunderstood. I am NOT talking about a "joint study of the issue" as in the 70's as if we aren't sure what we believe. I am talking about a dozen or so guys sitting down, some of the sharpest, pious, and articulate from either side, and carefully explaining where each side is and why. Then, each side can report back and each side can go from there on how best to follow up: let's talk more about X, "them's is crazy!" or let's all just get along and hug.

The above would be a fair open exchange of positions and surely edify in the sense that it would promote better understanding and clarity of what people actually believe. Furthermore, without strings attached, it would allow each side to decide how to proceed afterwards.

And I would be in favor of such a back and forth.  I think there needs to be a new study of the WO issue by Lutheran CORE, and it needs to be a real study.  I would welcome the Missouri Synod as a debate partner. (Even if I wouldn't be considered as one of "the guys" !)  :D
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Edward Engelbrecht on August 27, 2010, 07:08:26 AM
I believe a good start would be for Lutheran CORE and the Missouri Synod to get a handful of guys on either side to sit down and talk about WO. That's it, just talk and report, and be as frank and honest in their reports as possible about how they view the other's method and conclusions.  

As stated on the Columbus Happenings thread, I plan to hope this discussion after the Labor Day week-end.  For it to be fruitful, ELCA and LCMS persons would not only have to open and honest in the discussion, they would also have to refrain from making assumptions about each other.  Speaking from the LCMS side of the aisle, it means that we of the LCMS cannot begin with the assumption that persons who do not regard maleness as a prerequisite for the pastoral office are guilty of disregarding Scripture. IOW, they are not heretics. 

May I assume that "a handful of guys" includes "gals?"

Marie Meyer

Ms. Meyer, certainly the majority thinking in the LCMS has historically been that the Pastorate is reserved for men only. That is unlikely to change, but nothing is utterly impossible. You never know. But there are some voices, such as yours, in the LCMS who argue in favor of WO. While I would never get involved in what is an internal LCMS matter, may I say you have my respect as you advocate for your cause. (Again, I do not wish to butt in on what is an intra-LCMS matter.)

Adopting WO would split the LCMS, without question.

Oddly, the younger women I know seem little interested in WO and wonder instead whether their husbands might make more money so they can stay home with the children. I think there's a significant generational divide on such matters.

I wonder whether NALC would consider adopting a deaconess program rather than WO. Interest in deaconesses is growing in the LCMS and internationally. Our congregation has a deaconess and is blessed by her service.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 08:29:05 AM
Or, on the other hand, perhaps the NALC does present a viable option for church membership for those persons who cannot, or will not, support the doctrinal position of The LCMS because of our position on the ordination of women.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 27, 2010, 08:42:43 AM
Lawrence804 writes:
Ms. Meyer, certainly the majority thinking in the LCMS has historically been that the Pastorate is reserved for men only. That is unlikely to change, but nothing is utterly impossible. You never know. But there are some voices, such as yours, in the LCMS who argue in favor of WO. While I would never get involved in what is an internal LCMS matter, may I say you have my respect as you advocate for your cause. (Again, I do not wish to butt in on what is an intra-LCMS matter.)

I comment:
You need to read more carefully, Lawrence804. Deaconess Meyer has never said she favors ordination for women, nor has she ever advocated for that particular "cause." It is not correct to say she is a "voice" in the LC-MS who argues in favor of ordination for women, for according to her postings on this board, she has not.

I am sorry, Charles, if I spoke incorrectly. I had gotten the impression over time on this board that Deaconess Meyer did favor ordination for women in the LCMS, and she was a polite advocate for that issue. If I misrepresented her position, I apologize to her and to the board in general.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 08:56:06 AM
Lawrence, you were not incorrect.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 27, 2010, 09:08:04 AM
Lawrence804 was incorrect, if we take Deaconness Meyer at her word and read precisely what she has written here for a long time. She has never said she favors ordination for women and she has said she is not an advocate for it within the LC-MS or anywhere else.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Michael Slusser on August 27, 2010, 09:25:27 AM
Lawrence804 was incorrect, if we take Deaconness Meyer at her word and read precisely what she has written here for a long time. She has never said she favors ordination for women and she has said she is not an advocate for it within the LC-MS or anywhere else.
Lawrence804 got that impression from this board, not necessarily from Dcs. Meyer herself; anyone reading this board could have got the same impression, because some have always imputed that to her, and Pr. McCain pointed out that Lawrence804 was "not incorrect" in his inference from the board. Quite right.

As I read her, she has consistently called for examination of whether the ordination-of-women debate's arguments have contaminated and distorted discussion of the proper relationship between men and women in creation and in life, including the life of the church. Of course, I could be wrong.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 27, 2010, 09:31:22 AM
Pastor Ramirez writes:
I don't want to be misunderstood. I am NOT talking about a "joint study of the issue" as in the 70's as if we aren't sure what we believe.

I muse:
Of course we are "sure" of "what we believe." Some of us, including this humble correspondent, were sure that women should not be ordained. And I learned that I was wrong about that.
I think I have heard a couple of people say - even here in this sometimes-august board - that we may not have done a good job of unpacking just why we believe and act the way we do. So rather than just saying "We know what we believe," might there not be some value in asking ourselves and having others ask us just why that is?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 09:46:30 AM
No, in fact, he was correct.

And here is why.

Marie Meyer has said she will not answer any question about her position on the ordination of women, steadfastly refusing to say if she believes women can/should be ordained as pastors.

But her activities for several decades clearly indicate where she stands on the issue.

I would like, respectfully, to point out that she was a founding organizer and leader of the group: "Different Voices/Shared Vision" an organization that published a newsletter and eventually published a web site that contained voluminous quantities of materials regarding women as priests and pastors, with links to a myriad number of groups, including even the most radical feminist theologians and theological organizations. The organization's vision statement put their agenda this way:

“We are committed to, and actively seek, a change in the Synod, where no longer will a woman be restricted by her gender in serving the body of Christ in any role to which the Lord has called her.”

Rev. Ralph Bohlmann (President Emeritus of the LCMS) and his administration took a supportive attitude toward “Different Voices” when in 1989 at the opening service of their first national conference the Synod First Vice-President Rev. August Mennicke preached while his daughter, Sheryl Mennicke, a member of the ELCA, conducted the service as “the Worship Leader.”

Mary Todd clearly recognizes the goal of the Voices/Vision organization Marie Meyer helped found and lead, in her book, "Authority Vested" where she very clearly lays out the group's efforts toward the ordination of women in The LCMS. See: http://books.google.com/books?id=jacTm7vTaoYC&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=marie+meyer+different+voices/shared+vision&source=bl&ots=dVlmZ2acqY&sig=5BO1gQQ5ATpc8St5iVHcxikE66A&hl=en&ei=EcF3TKaRDIODnQfgjpidCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=marie%20meyer%20different%20voices%2Fshared%20vision&f=false

Let me quote from a perceptive analysis by Pastor Eric Rottman, in a paper he gave in 2002

"Scaer rightly observes, "We are only deceiving ourselves if we believe that the LCMS has not been affected by feminist thought." Who can argue with that? Voices/Vision believes that the Missouri Synod’s prohibition of women’s ordination must be subjected to "dialogue and discussion." This group actively seeks "a change in the present understanding of the role of women in the ministries of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, that no longer will a woman be restricted by her gender in serving the Body of Christ in any role to which the Lord has called her." The Daystar Network shares this call for change, setting up its straw man with the following assertions: o "We affirm gender equality as women and men created in the image of God. o "We affirm that every Christian is commissioned in baptism to continue Christ’s mission of announcing the promises of the kingdom to each other, to other Christians and to all people in our society and world. o "We will speak out to courageously apply the gospel to issues of ministry, fellowship, the Eucharist and worship, and we will vigorously promote and support the freedom of the gospel within the ministry of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod." Then there is Professor Mary L. Todd of Concordia, River Forest, who rejects St. Paul by concluding his so-called orders of creation argument is "anachronistic." Theological feminism is but one aspect of liberation theology, the whole of which attempts to alleviate human oppression in the name of Christianity. Rather than using the Scriptures as a lens through which the world is perceived, liberation theology relies on contemporary experience as the basic hermeneutic for understanding and formulating the Christian faith: "All feminist theologians agree that women’s experience, as defined by feminists, must be the center of theological reflection." The particular starting point for theological feminism is its claim that men in a male-dominated society oppress women, a claim that can in no way be disputed or ignored. Trouble arises, however, when theological feminism looks at the Scriptures as a product of the male-dominated societies in which they were written, rather than the Divine Word the Christian faith believes them to be. It seems fair, generally speaking, to categorize most of the Missouri Synod’s feminists as "biblical feminists."9 Politically, if not theologically, they do not have the liberty blithely to throw away the Scriptures, as the more radical feminists do. They must proceed with more of a Barthian, "Word in the words" hermeneutic: the Bible contains God’s Word, but the divine words must be sifted out from their human packaging. God’s words must be retained, but the rest may be used or discarded as necessary.

Marie Meyer was responsible for publishing a collection of essays that clear also were aiming at the ordination of women, a point so obvious, the publisher, the ALPB itself, even acknowledged it in their description of the book, something that Marie Meyer, after the book was published, denied, but....again, the obvious was simply noted and identified, accurately.

You might also find interesting what the Encyclopedia of Women in Religion in North America has to say:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EoJrHDirVQUC&pg=PA318&lpg=PA318&dq=%22voices/vision%22+marie+meyer&source=bl&ots=zV5ZmaEzeN&sig=PxyeaYQ9a1wjeYRG4W8mRofx3q0&hl=en&ei=Sr13TNL0IY-LnQek2dSXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22voices%2Fvision%22%20marie%20meyer&f=false

The very web site that Marie Meyer was involved in setting up to review "The Creator's Tapestry" contains a number of links to pro-women's ordination publications and perspectives: http://www.creatorstapestry.com/

Simply put, the simple reality is that in spite of her refusal to answer where she personally stands on the ordination of women, Marie Meyer has, through her organizations, publications and web activities demonstrated her support for the ordination of women as pastors. It is an inescapable conclusion that is obvious to anyone who takes the time to review all this material.

I spoke personally to two members of the CTCR recently and asked them, point blank, if they had ever asked Marie Meyer where she stands. One said, "Why bother? We all knew and were perfectly aware of where she stood on the issue. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise." He said, "I insisted that the issue be brought up because it was painfully obvious this is the elephant in the room on these issues." The other simply told me, "Yes, I asked her, point blank, and she refused to answer me."

So, to conclude: Marie Meyer has been deeply, personally and very actively part of, and supportive, of people, organizations, web sites, and publications that clearly advocate for the ordination of women. She has personally promoted and recommended all these resources and materials, and has been an active participant in these efforts, leading them in fact. So when she says that nobody should/could point to them and conclude that she is in favor of the ordination based only on the fact that she refuses to answer anyone's question about her personal position on this issue, I regard that as fundamentally dishonest and deceptive and I would, again, respectfully urge the game-playing to stop and let truth prevail.

Now, I say all this not to be "rude" or "disrespectful" but because I believe it is important to put the facts on the table.



Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: DeHall on August 27, 2010, 10:05:56 AM
As I said.

Deaconess Meyer has not advocated for women's ordination on this forum and to my knowledge, she has not done so anywhere. Indeed, it seems that many conservatives in the LCMS presume that she favors it and then grow frustrated and angry when she refuses to state a position.

Mike

Really?  You believe that someone can be actively involved in organizations like Daystar and Voices/Vision and NOT advocate the positions these organizations hold?   Do you believe that someone could be involved with an organization like The Brothers of John the Steadfast and not advocate the positions that group holds?

Actions often do speak louder than words.....
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 10:10:02 AM
While not explicitly advocating for WO, Deaconess Meyer has made clear in this forum that the LCMS all-male pastorate needs defending and that she finds every defense of it the LCMS has ever offered inadequate. A logical conclusion from that is that, absent a better reason not to ordain women than has hitherto been offered, the LCMS ought to ordain women. So although it is indeed an inference that she favors the ordination of women, it is not an uncharitable or illogical one. I think a dispassionate observer to this forum (without any background information apart from her own comments her) who had no skin in the game and no reason to see Paul or Marie vindicated or repudiated would conclude that if the LCMS went through a process that led to ordaining women, Deaconess Meyer would at the very least not object and would very probably applaud the change.  
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 27, 2010, 10:14:46 AM
Pastor Ramirez's wide-ranging critique of NALC touched on many other points besides WO. In this passage, he takes on some of NALC's intellectual and theological leading lights, Dr. Braaten, Dr. Hinlicky and Dr. Jenson, saying that they are akin to 60's radicals who are neoconservatives today:

How serious can Lutheran CORE actually be about “seeking new directions for Lutheranism” if many of the “traditionalist” theologians of Lutheran CORE are merely the radicals of yesterday? I cannot help but wonder how serious Lutheran CORE’s theological conference will be considering that one of their presenters is Dr. Paul Hinlicky, a traditionalist who has publicly suggested that gay unions have “goods analogous to marriage,” and in certain situations might be “recognized” by the church. I fail to see how Dr. Carl Braaten and Dr. Robert Jenson will produce a coherent vision for North American Lutheranism, seeing as after having helped lead mid-twentieth-century Lutheranism “out of the ghetto” into a brave new world, it blossomed into the ELCA. It is akin to watching modern neoconservative Republicans champion and “conserve” the liberal traditions that they as Democrats built a generation ago.

I think of the above cited gentlemen as thoroughly conservative and orthdodox, and always have.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 27, 2010, 10:16:59 AM
ptmccain writes (after posting and posting);
Now, I say all this not to be "rude" or "disrespectful" but because I believe it is important to put the facts on the table.
I comment:
And what he actually did, and I fear what he meant to do, was not to put "facts on the table," but to put blood on the floor.
Good grief!

And Peter writes:
While not explicitly advocating for WO, Deaconess Meyer has made clear in this forum that the LCMS all-male pastorate needs defending and that she finds every defense of it the LCMS has ever offered inadequate. A logical conclusion from that is that, absent a better reason not to ordain women than has hitherto been offered, the LCMS ought to ordain women.
I comment:
No. A "logical conclusion" would be that the male pastorate needs defending, nothing more. Anything more is speculation. Pure and simple.

Peter writes:
So although it is indeed an inference that she favors the ordination of women, it is not an uncharitable or illogical one.
I comment:
Despite the fact that she says in clear distinct words that she does not mean that?? !!!
I honestly do not understand you people.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 10:37:55 AM
And Peter writes:
While not explicitly advocating for WO, Deaconess Meyer has made clear in this forum that the LCMS all-male pastorate needs defending and that she finds every defense of it the LCMS has ever offered inadequate. A logical conclusion from that is that, absent a better reason not to ordain women than has hitherto been offered, the LCMS ought to ordain women.
I comment:
No. A "logical conclusion" would be that the male pastorate needs defending, nothing more. Anything more is speculation. Pure and simple.

No, the logical conclusion is precisely what I said. I acknowledged it was an inference, you insist on calling it speculation, pure and simple. But you are right about one thing--you truly don't understand "us people".
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: mariemeyer on August 27, 2010, 10:56:29 AM
A few personal thoughts:

First: I am troubled that LCMS women who question whether the male/female distinction critical for marriage is a spiritual distinction are heard as feminists determined to get something for women that God has given only to men. It is as if men and women are playing a zero sum game where men lose spiritual authority if women speak or act with the authority Christ confers upon His Bride. 

 What if the issue is not women usurping male spiritual authority, but men claiming that the unique power and authority of Christ’s self-emptying love over sin, death and the devil is either inherent in human maleness or so bound to human maleness that Christ cannot speak or act authoritatively though a woman in the same way he speaks or acts though a man?

 Second, I am persuaded that certain aspects of how LCMS defends a male pastorate blur or distort God’s design for the relationship of His sons and His daughters. Underlying the defense of a male pastorate is the claim that in the home and the church the sons of God have spiritual authority in relation to His daughters and the brothers of Christ are authoritative spiritual leaders in relation to His sisters. The result is not the mutual interdependence of man and woman, but a certain spiritual dependence of woman on man that hinders her growth into the fullness of being the true counterpart God created woman for man.

Third: I ask that any discussion regarding God’s design for the life, service, conduct and relationship of men and women in the Church not focus on any individual.

Finally, Bill and I will be on vacation until Labor Day. I would respectfully ask that a new thread related to authority in the church and the pastoral office be started early in September. 

Marie Meyer

 
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 10:58:25 AM
I would welcome that kind of thread, but can we please all agree to love one another enough to be totally honest and upfront with one another? Deaconess Meyer, would you be willing to have a discussion in the context of being totally forthright about where, precisely, you stand on the question of women in the pastoral office? I would find that level of honest and open conversation to be refreshing and most helpful.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: James Thomas Sharp on August 27, 2010, 11:02:17 AM
You know, a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question could end a lot of this.

Just sayin'.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 11:07:17 AM
While not explicitly advocating for WO, Deaconess Meyer has made clear in this forum that the LCMS all-male pastorate needs defending and that she finds every defense of it the LCMS has ever offered inadequate. A logical conclusion from that is that, absent a better reason not to ordain women than has hitherto been offered, the LCMS ought to ordain women. So although it is indeed an inference that she favors the ordination of women, it is not an uncharitable or illogical one. I think a dispassionate observer to this forum (without any background information apart from her own comments her) who had no skin in the game and no reason to see Paul or Marie vindicated or repudiated would conclude that if the LCMS went through a process that led to ordaining women, Deaconess Meyer would at the very least not object and would very probably applaud the change. 


Pr. Speckhard,

I agree with this.

However, while the conservatives are apt to write them off as "code words",  I do note that Voices/Vision's statement is "“We are committed to, and actively seek, a change in the Synod, where no longer will a woman be restricted by her gender in serving the body of Christ in any role to which the Lord has called her.”

Well, we in the LCMS, do not believe that God will call any woman to serve a congregation as a pastor.  On the face of it, who could actually disagree with this statement?

Now, do some in Voices/Visions include being called as a pastor in these roles and advocate for an according change in the LCMS? Yes. In fact, I believe some women pastors belong to Voices/Vision.

But I will say this. I have studied what Deaconess Meyer has said on the subject of women's roles.  I have pressed her on it in this forum and on LQ.  In best construction, I believe her when she says that she does not have a position but finds the arguments against women's ordination given so far to be unpersuasive.  I believe that she yearns for an argument that is persuasive so that she may defend this position as doctrine and not just practice in good order like others might preclude women from acting as lectors.  In other words, I see her as what you might call agnostic on the subject rather than atheistic.

My two cents, and while it pulls back the curtain, I am fighting within myself on this. Deaconess Meyer does not impress me as one who plays games. If she advocated womens' ordination, I believe that she would come out and say that.  The fact that she consistently does not gives me pause in drawing conclusions.

Mike
Mike, we agree on this. Marie's stated position is that we EITHER need a better defense of the practice OR we ought to change the practice. She would probably be happy either way, which is why she refuses to say she favors WO; it isn't necessarily true. The problem as I see it is that by treating the practice as an open question rather than a given-- in other words, by looking at it as though the universal practice needs defending rather than that the recent, sectarian innovation needs defending, she shows that in her mind, the proponents of the change have been persuasive in a way that the LCMS has not. Putting the burden on the LCMS to persuade her shows where she is absent that persuasion.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 11:10:13 AM
The fact that you frame a complex question in a Yes or No fashion and demand an answer does not help your case.

It is not a "complex question" it is a very simple one.

If we want to have an open, honest and forthright conversation about an all male pastorate, it is only common sense that we should all put our cards on the table, face up, and stop the coy game-playing and the dishonest approach of avoid stating clearly, honestly and openly where we stand on the question of an all male pastorate.

Should the pastorate be open to women, or not?

It is not a complex question.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 27, 2010, 11:18:11 AM
And the thread which was supposed to be about the NALC is hijacked because someone who is not, will not and cannot be a part of the NALC must exercise his obsession with ordination for women even to the point of bullying. Nice work.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 11:26:00 AM
And the thread which was supposed to be about the NALC is hijacked because someone who is not, will not and cannot be a part of the NALC must exercise his obsession with ordination for women even to the point of bullying. Nice work.
Charles, if you follow the discussion you'll see that the ordination of women was/is a key point to consider under this topic thread, and that who would or would not be a part of NALC (and with their reasons why) is perfectly relevant. This thread was not hijacked, but as usual you've posted something that says nothing about anything related to that discussion but only gripes about the other posters. Nice work.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 11:38:51 AM
The problem as I see it is that by treating the practice as an open question rather than a given-- in other words, by looking at it as though the universal practice needs defending rather than that the recent, sectarian innovation needs defending, she shows that in her mind, the proponents of the change have been persuasive in a way that the LCMS has not. Putting the burden on the LCMS to persuade her shows where she is absent that persuasion.

This is an excellent EXCELLENT observation with many ramifications far beyond just WO.

It is a question that was asked at the time of the Refomation and ended up creating various offshoots -- i was tempted to say schisms, but such would be inflammatory -- in the Christian church.

It continues to be asked today.

What is the proper relationship between Scripture and tradition?  What is the proper relationship between Scripture and cultural attitudes?

I believe both of those questions will prove integral to the success (or failure) of the Koinonia Project.

Mike
Also key is the understanding that the burden is always on the innovation, which is why the Reformation was a battle of which side was the innovator and which side sought continuity with orthodox, catholic practice through time. To put the burden on the status quo to justify itself to you is to put yourself on the outside looking in. That's why the pope thought Luther had pitted himself against the Roman church long before Luther thought that; simply by nailing his theses to the door Luther had called into question what others accepted as a given. The difference, though, was that Luther was able to demonstrate that the status quo was itself an innovation. Today's questioners of a male-only pastorate cannnot do that.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: James Thomas Sharp on August 27, 2010, 11:46:33 AM
It's not a complex question.  There can be complex reasons for coming up with a yes or no answer, but, in the end, the answer should either be yes or no.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: SKPeterson on August 27, 2010, 11:54:43 AM
While the suggestion was that there be LCMS participants who favor WO possibly included, should there not also be potential inclusion of representatives from NALC who might question WO and/or outright repudiate it?  It looks suspiciously like stacking the deck.  Also, I would hope that this process expressly incorporates the doctrine of vocation and call and how the differing sides view the proper response(s) of women to the call to service in the Church.   
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 11:56:32 AM
Persons representing The LCMS in the discussion should be fully supportive of, and advocates for, the position that women should not be pastors. Persons representing the NALC should hold the opposite point of view.

That is the only way that honest and productive discussion can proceed.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 27, 2010, 11:57:59 AM
While the suggestion was that there be LCMS participants who favor WO possibly included, should there not also be potential inclusion of representatives from NALC who might question WO and/or outright repudiate it?  It looks suspiciously like stacking the deck.  Also, I would hope that this process expressly incorporates the doctrine of vocation and call and how the differing sides view the proper response(s) of women to the call to service in the Church.   

That is a good point, there probably are some in NALC who oppose WO, but I still sense the majority are in favor. A woman who stepped up to the mike just before the morning session adjourned, asked that NALC promulgate a statement on WO in the near future.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 12:12:24 PM
Marie Meyer has said she will not answer any question about her position on the ordination of women, steadfastly refusing to say if she believes women can/should be ordained as pastors.

So her silence means she must be for it?

Quote
Marie Meyer was responsible for publishing a collection of essays that clear also were aiming at the ordination of women, a point so obvious, the publisher, the ALPB itself, even acknowledged it in their description of the book, something that Marie Meyer, after the book was published, denied, but....again, the obvious was simply noted and identified, accurately.

No, a publisher/editor can believe that diverse viewpoints should be included in the publication. Although CPH may not publish essays contrary to LCMS's doctrine. That doesn't seem to be the policy of ALPB.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 27, 2010, 12:14:28 PM
Pastor Ramirez's wide-ranging critique of NALC touched on many other points besides WO. In this passage, he takes on some of NALC's intellectual and theological leading lights, Dr. Braaten, Dr. Hinlicky and Dr. Jenson, saying that they are akin to 60's radicals who are neoconservatives today:

How serious can Lutheran CORE actually be about “seeking new directions for Lutheranism” if many of the “traditionalist” theologians of Lutheran CORE are merely the radicals of yesterday? I cannot help but wonder how serious Lutheran CORE’s theological conference will be considering that one of their presenters is Dr. Paul Hinlicky, a traditionalist who has publicly suggested that gay unions have “goods analogous to marriage,” and in certain situations might be “recognized” by the church. I fail to see how Dr. Carl Braaten and Dr. Robert Jenson will produce a coherent vision for North American Lutheranism, seeing as after having helped lead mid-twentieth-century Lutheranism “out of the ghetto” into a brave new world, it blossomed into the ELCA. It is akin to watching modern neoconservative Republicans champion and “conserve” the liberal traditions that they as Democrats built a generation ago.

I think of the above cited gentlemen as thoroughly conservative and orthdodox, and always have.

This is the heart and soul of the Missourian critique of Lutheran CORE, the NALC, and "moderate/third way" Lutheranism in general. The soul searching has to go deeper than merely pushing the clock back to 1960's/70's Lutheranism. That is and was an untenable position. Moderate Lutheranism will always either lurch forward into full liberal overdrive, or, on occasion, it recovers its roots in orthodoxy. I would suggest Prof. Kurt Marquart's "Anatomy of an Explosion" to truly see and understand the perils and effects upon Christianity of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. These are dead end roads.

The real situation is NOT that neo-orthodoxy is the conservative answer to balance out liberalism.

Rather, neo-orthodoxy is liberalism's more conservative cousin, with which it shares many assumptions and presuppositions. Classic, orthodox Lutheranism is what actually has an answer to liberal theology. Neo-orthodoxy, as can be seen by study and experience is impotent against its cousin.

As referenced on another thread, Bishop Michael McDaniels paper at the Fort Wayne Symposium several years back encapsulates this perfectly.

Maybe someone can help me with a link...
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Durkin_Park on August 27, 2010, 12:18:01 PM

Why should those representing the NALC hold the opposite point of view though?  The NALC has not yet adopted a position, and my understanding was that these discussions were in part to establish a position.


If you ordain women, you have a position. Those who disagree are tolerated, but the position is pretty dang clear.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 27, 2010, 12:23:14 PM

Why should those representing the NALC hold the opposite point of view though?  The NALC has not yet adopted a position, and my understanding was that these discussions were in part to establish a position.


If you ordain women, you have a position. Those who disagree are tolerated, but the position is pretty dang clear.

The NACL hasn't ordained anyone yet. It has indicated that it will accept currently ordained pastors who happen to be female. If the NALC were to adopt a policy against ordaining new women pastors, it would still need to decide how to deal with currently ordained women pastors. It is not an an automatic given that all current women pastors would be de-frocked. It could be that they'd adopt a policy to allow all currently ordained women pastors to be "grandmothered" and to continue to serve for the remainder of their lives, but that there would be no new women pastors ordained.

It's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to make it out to be.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 27, 2010, 12:27:20 PM
Mr. Erdner writes:
It could be that they'd adopt a policy to allow all currently ordained women pastors to be "grandmothered" and to continue to serve for the remainder of their lives, but that there would be no new women pastors ordained.

One who has watched the women's ordination debate and implementation of the practice responds:
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 12:29:13 PM
Marie Meyer has said she will not answer any question about her position on the ordination of women, steadfastly refusing to say if she believes women can/should be ordained as pastors.

So her silence means she must be for it?

Quote
Marie Meyer was responsible for publishing a collection of essays that clear also were aiming at the ordination of women, a point so obvious, the publisher, the ALPB itself, even acknowledged it in their description of the book, something that Marie Meyer, after the book was published, denied, but....again, the obvious was simply noted and identified, accurately.

No, a publisher/editor can believe that diverse viewpoints should be included in the publication. Although CPH may not publish essays contrary to LCMS's doctrine. That doesn't seem to be the policy of ALPB.

Quote
Simply put, the simple reality is that in spite of her refusal to answer where she personally stands on the ordination of women, Marie Meyer has, through her organizations, publications and web activities demonstrated her support for the ordination of women as pastors. It is an inescapable conclusion that is obvious to anyone who takes the time to review all this material.

From what I've heard from her on this forum is that she believes that the arguments for both sides should be heard; and that her concern is more about the relationships between males and females -- and their relationships before God.

Quote
I spoke personally to two members of the CTCR recently and asked them, point blank, if they had ever asked Marie Meyer where she stands. One said, "Why bother? We all knew and were perfectly aware of where she stood on the issue. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise." He said, "I insisted that the issue be brought up because it was painfully obvious this is the elephant in the room on these issues." The other simply told me, "Yes, I asked her, point blank, and she refused to answer me."

So again, silence is interpreted as consent. You certainly don't go there when we say that Jesus is silent about The Issue. In fact, he is silent about ordination. Although, he was not silent about commissioning Mary Magdalene to be the first "apostle" (literally, "one sent with a message"). She was sent with the message of the resurrection to the others (by Jesus in John, by an angel in the synoptics).

Quote
Now, I say all this not to be "rude" or "disrespectful" but because I believe it is important to put the facts on the table.

Your "facts" are: Silence means approval.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 27, 2010, 12:32:31 PM
In the ACNA, they have, for now, compromised. Some dioceses permit WO, some, like Fort Worth, do not. I doubt The NALC will adopt such a patchwork solution, but you never know.

I get the sense that ACNA and NALC will be very close friends and partners.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Scott6 on August 27, 2010, 12:35:13 PM
Persons representing The LCMS in the discussion should be fully supportive of, and advocates for, the position that women should not be pastors. Persons representing the NALC should hold the opposite point of view.

That is the only way that honest and productive discussion can proceed.

Talking to folks around here, I think that there are plenty of folks associated with CORE and the NALC who are willing to reconsider the practice of women's ordination and are genuinely concerned over the matter.  That is, there is a third position (or perhaps more) where folks really aren't sure anymore one way or the other and are willing to revisit the question.  This dynamic leads to honest and perhaps even more productive discussion as well.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 12:38:53 PM
The problem as I see it is that by treating the practice as an open question rather than a given-- in other words, by looking at it as though the universal practice needs defending rather than that the recent, sectarian innovation needs defending, she shows that in her mind, the proponents of the change have been persuasive in a way that the LCMS has not. Putting the burden on the LCMS to persuade her shows where she is absent that persuasion.

This is an excellent EXCELLENT observation with many ramifications far beyond just WO.

It is a question that was asked at the time of the Refomation and ended up creating various offshoots -- i was tempted to say schisms, but such would be inflammatory -- in the Christian church.

It continues to be asked today.

What is the proper relationship between Scripture and tradition?  What is the proper relationship between Scripture and cultural attitudes?

There is also the relationship between Scripture and the interpreter. It's likely that an ELCA interpreter will finds scriptures to support the ordination of women and an LCMS interpreter will find scriptures to be against the practice.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 12:41:02 PM
The NALC has women's ordination in its constitution. It is the position of the church body. The most productive conversation, most helpful for others who wonder/doubt/don't know, to follow is one where the practice is discussed by those who support it and those who do not.

We do ourselves no favors simply to say, "OK, let's all agree that WO is now an open question and none of us really know for sure what we think, and certainly should not say we do, or advocate one way or the other."

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 12:47:32 PM
It's not a complex question.  There can be complex reasons for coming up with a yes or no answer, but, in the end, the answer should either be yes or no.

Does God speak through women? Can you answer that with a simple yes or no? If it is yes, then why shouldn't they read lessons and preach sermons and teach adult classes?

However, ordination is also about presiding at Holy Communion; should women do that? Can someone agree that God can speak through women and they should be able to preach sermons; but shouldn't preside?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 12:48:46 PM
Peter made a very good point earlier in this thread, which I hope Marie Meyer, and other members of The LCMS who share her opinions, really do need to pay close attention to. Marie's modus operandi, in my opinion, has been to keep asserting, for decades now, that The LCMS has not proven its position on women's ordination to her satisfaction, when in fact, the real issue is that Marie Meyer and others who share her view have not met the burden of proof, which rests entirely on them, to make their case that the historic doctrine and practice of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, until the last century, of all male-pastorate, is the erring position.

There finally comes a time when a church must simply say to people who keep insisting that it is wrong, a clear, firm, and definitive: No. There is no obligation on the part of the church to keep responding to claims that it has not "satisfied me" or "established clearly enough" and so forth.

The time for "no" has come and those who can not accept or support that no, should really consider where they would find a happy church home where their points of view are held to be true and acceptable.

Perhaps with the formation of The NALC, that opportunity is now available to them?

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Scott6 on August 27, 2010, 12:50:50 PM
Does God speak through women?

Yes.

If it is yes, then why shouldn't they... preach sermons...? [or preside over communion]

Because He hasn't called them into the Office of the Holy Ministry.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 12:51:26 PM
In the ACNA, they have, for now, compromised. Some dioceses permit WO, some, like Fort Worth, do not. I doubt The NALC will adopt such a patchwork solution, but you never know.

That was also true in The Episcopal Church. There were, I think, three diocese who did not accept female priests.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: mariemeyer on August 27, 2010, 12:55:31 PM
"Rev. Ralph Bohlmann (President Emeritus of the LCMS) and his administration took a supportive attitude toward “Different Voices” when in 1989 at the opening service of their first national conference the Synod First Vice-President Rev. August Mennicke preached while his daughter, Sheryl Mennicke, a member of the ELCA, conducted the service as “the Worship Leader.” "
The above is history by Paul McCain.

I will not defend myself in regard to anything Paul McCain has written about me.  I will, however, address the error of what he has written about Dr. Bohlmann and the late Dr. Mennicke.

I was a leader in planning the first Different Voices/Shared Vision Free Conference. As such I was responsible for inviting each of the participants including the preacher at the opening service, First Vice President August Mennicke. Few thought someone in so high a position would accept the invitation, but they did not know the pastoral heart of the man. Today, Dr. Bohlmann will confirm that he was not enthusiastic about Mennicke preaching, but he allowed his VP the make that decision. Cheryl Mennicke served as cantor for the service.

In the storm that followed the conference, there was a call for Mennicke to repent for preaching and  participating in a service where his daughter was cantor. He refused to do so.  Dr. Bohlmann was concerned about the implications of Mennicke's actions and the perception that he as president supported DV/SV.  In fact, Dr. Bohlmann used my leadership in planning the conference as the basis for not re-appointing me to the President's Commission on Women. For the record, CTCR chairman  Sam Nafzgar also accepted the invitation to speak. He defended "The Order of Creation" as currently taught in the LCMS. I based my paper on Luther's Magnificat Commentary and what Mary teaches us about God's order.

Concluding observations:  Dr. Mennicke understood that the conference was not about the ordination of women.  His opening sermon was on man and woman as One Body of Christ. My comments regarding Dr. Bohlmann are not intended to be disrespectful, but to correct what McCain has written. Dr. Bohlmann and I are dear friends.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 12:55:52 PM
But you clearly do not understand, Pr. Yakimow.  This is not a complex question and yields itself to simple "yes" and "no" answers.

I think that it got really complex when some anti-women-ordination folks express appreciation and admiration for Pastor Erma Wolf's sermon. Shouldn't they have refused to listen to a sermon by a woman? By hearing it, haven't they placed themselves under the authority of this female pastor?

It seems to me that they are expressing a third position: "We don't believe women should be ordained, but that woman pastor's sermon was excellent."
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 01:00:03 PM
Actually, that relationship exists only if you accept such a postmodern perspective.

Nope, it goes back to the Great Schism and the Reformation and Counter Reformation and the creation of denominations. Folks read the same scriptures and came to quite different interpretations of it. Since the words of the Bible were the same, the differences came either from the interpreters' culture or the interpreters themselves. The "postmodern perspective" is recognizing what has been going on for centuries.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 01:03:58 PM
Peter made a very good point earlier in this thread, which I hope Marie Meyer, and other members of The LCMS who share her opinions, really do need to pay close attention to. Marie's modus operandi, in my opinion, has been to keep asserting, for decades now, that The LCMS has not proven its position on women's ordination to her satisfaction,

It seems to me that Marie's position is that the LCMS's arguments against women's ordination leads to other conclusions concerning the standing of males and females before God and with each that she has troubles accepting.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
Does God speak through women?

Yes.

If it is yes, then why shouldn't they... preach sermons...? [or preside over communion]

Because He hasn't called them into the Office of the Holy Ministry.

There are many female pastors who are certain that God has called them into the Office of the Holy Ministry -- often at great personal sacrifice. How can you say that God has not called them?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 01:05:59 PM
But you clearly do not understand, Pr. Yakimow.  This is not a complex question and yields itself to simple "yes" and "no" answers.

I think that it got really complex when some anti-women-ordination folks express appreciation and admiration for Pastor Erma Wolf's sermon. Shouldn't they have refused to listen to a sermon by a woman? By hearing it, haven't they placed themselves under the authority of this female pastor?

It seems to me that they are expressing a third position: "We don't believe women should be ordained, but that woman pastor's sermon was excellent."
Not at all the same. It is a question of authorization from God, not talent. If a security guard who is not authorized to carry a weapon takes out a pistol and drops a fleeing bad guy at three hundred yards, I can admire the shot and rejoice that the bad guy is dead while still finding the officer guilty of an illegal shooting.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 01:08:26 PM
was not about the ordination of women.  

Here, again, is the fundamental problem with what Marie Meyer posts.

For decades she has led and advocated for organizations, groups, web sites, books, papers and the like that all advocate for the ordination of women, that recommend papers, books and lectures that advocate for the organization of women, that refer people to web sites of organizations established for the purpose of advocating for the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church, and so forth, that point people to feminist theologians of all kinds, who clearly are zealous advocates for the ordination of women, without ever, once, stating that she is opposed to the practice of the ordination of women, but simply saying, "I refuse to answer questions about that issue."

This is the kind of behavior that I find to be at the heart of why there can not be open, honest dialog and discussion about any of these issues with Marie Meyer and others who follow her tactics regarding these issues.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 01:10:13 PM
where his daughter was cantor.

Again, we have game playing going on with words. She was "listed as cantor."

Clearly, she was the liturgist and led the worship service, while her father merely preached the sermon.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 01:14:33 PM
But you clearly do not understand, Pr. Yakimow.  This is not a complex question and yields itself to simple "yes" and "no" answers.

I think that it got really complex when some anti-women-ordination folks express appreciation and admiration for Pastor Erma Wolf's sermon. Shouldn't they have refused to listen to a sermon by a woman? By hearing it, haven't they placed themselves under the authority of this female pastor?

It seems to me that they are expressing a third position: "We don't believe women should be ordained, but that woman pastor's sermon was excellent."
Not at all the same. It is a question of authorization from God, not talent. If a security guard who is not authorized to carry a weapon takes out a pistol and drops a fleeing bad guy at three hundred yards, I can admire the shot and rejoice that the bad guy is dead while still finding the officer guilty of an illegal shooting.

Ah, but the analogy is more like a law officer who has been authorized to carry and use a weapon by a city police department, but uses it legally -- shooting someone to protect others or himself from harm outside of the city's jurisdiction, e.g., in another state. Would he be commended for saving someone's life -- or charged with unauthorized use of a firearm?

Pastor Wolf is authorized to preach and preside.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 01:26:31 PM
But you clearly do not understand, Pr. Yakimow.  This is not a complex question and yields itself to simple "yes" and "no" answers.

I think that it got really complex when some anti-women-ordination folks express appreciation and admiration for Pastor Erma Wolf's sermon. Shouldn't they have refused to listen to a sermon by a woman? By hearing it, haven't they placed themselves under the authority of this female pastor?

It seems to me that they are expressing a third position: "We don't believe women should be ordained, but that woman pastor's sermon was excellent."
Not at all the same. It is a question of authorization from God, not talent. If a security guard who is not authorized to carry a weapon takes out a pistol and drops a fleeing bad guy at three hundred yards, I can admire the shot and rejoice that the bad guy is dead while still finding the officer guilty of an illegal shooting.

Ah, but the analogy is more like a law officer who has been authorized to carry and use a weapon by a city police department, but uses it legally -- shooting someone to protect others or himself from harm outside of the city's jurisdiction, e.g., in another state. Would he be commended for saving someone's life -- or charged with unauthorized use of a firearm?

Pastor Wolf is authorized to preach and preside.
Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 01:32:04 PM
Just how clearly was she the presiding minister over the service rather than a worship leader?

She was vested, led from the chancel, conducted the entire liturgy.

Again, we can play with words all we want, but they don't change the facts of what happened.

This was clearly an action designed to "make a statement" and so forth.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 01:38:40 PM
Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.

So it boils down to: you decide whom God will authorize to preach and preside. We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding that God indeed calls women to the ordained ministry.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 01:44:00 PM
Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.

So it boils down to: you decide whom God will authorize to preach and preside. We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding that God indeed calls women to the ordained ministry.
And you are wrong about that.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 27, 2010, 01:47:10 PM
In the Lutheran Book of Worship, which includes in the list of "prepared by" and copyright holdering institutions "Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod", the rubrics for the liturgy indicate that a lay assistant can optionally perform these parts of the liturgy:

Kyrie
Opening line of the Hymn of Praise
The Old Testament Lesson (1st reading)
The Psalm
The Epistle (2nd reading)
The Prayers of the Church (aka Prayers of the People), though the Pastor prays the final petition.
Offertory Prayer
Post Communion Prayer
Dismissal

At more than a few Lutheran churches I've worshipped at, lay assistants usually did everything listed with the "A" rubric, while the ordained pastor did everything with the notation "P". Sometimes they did so wearing ordinary clothes, sometimes they wore plain albs without stoles, which would be inappropriate.

So it boils down to: you decide whom God will authorize to preach and preside. We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding that God indeed calls women to the ordained ministry.

You and Austin can keep posting the mantra, "We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding" until your typing fingers bleed, but that doesn't mean diddly. When you can post actual Scriptural passages that could be construed as being support for women's ordination, or links to compelling and persuasive arguments, then you'll be contributing something worth reading. Even if all you did was posted your own rationale and reasons why you believe the ELCA got it right, that would be a post worth reading, though it might well be rejected or refuted. But frankly, your consistent playing of the "The ELCA believes this" card is incredibly non-productive, if not downright counterproductive to those who might agree that women's ordination does have some scriptural foundation.  

Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.

So it boils down to: you decide whom God will authorize to preach and preside. We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding that God indeed calls women to the ordained ministry.
And you are wrong about that.

See what I mean? Peter has your number. As long as all you can manage to come up with is the lame "We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding", the only appropriate response is "And you are wrong about that." 
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: mariemeyer on August 27, 2010, 01:47:21 PM
Paul:

Quit dirverting attention from the fact that you falsely represented both Augie Mennicke and Ralph Bohlman.  Playing word games about the difference betweenl cantor and worship leader does not let you off the hook.

Did you read what I wrote?  If Ralph Bohlmann was supportive of DV/SV why did he not reappoint me to his Commission on Women? Since then he has acknowledged that it had more to do with the fear of how I was being interpreted than anything I actually said or wrote.  

Your spin on history does a disservice to two men who faithfully served the LCMS. Find other ways to prove that I am the dishonest person you say I am.

Marie
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 01:48:38 PM
Marie, I have not misrepresented either of them. Dr. Bohlmann erred in approving Dr. Mennicke's participation, and Dr. Mennicke erred in participating in an event where a woman led the worship service. The context of the event was clearly such that he should not have participated.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 01:50:24 PM
Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.

So it boils down to: you decide whom God will authorize to preach and preside. We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding that God indeed calls women to the ordained ministry.
And you are wrong about that.

Again, in your opinion.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 27, 2010, 01:53:08 PM
See what I mean? Peter has your number. As long as all you can manage to come up with is the lame "We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding", the only appropriate response is "And you are wrong about that." 

And if he shows so little respect for our church and our people, why should we respect him and his church? The argument, "We're right because I say so," doesn't go very far.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 01:53:33 PM
Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.

So it boils down to: you decide whom God will authorize to preach and preside. We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding that God indeed calls women to the ordained ministry.
And you are wrong about that.

Again, in your opinion.
What I have stated is the objective truth. That it is merely my opinion is merely your opinion.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 27, 2010, 02:01:56 PM
See what I mean? Peter has your number. As long as all you can manage to come up with is the lame "We in the ELCA are certain that Scriptures supports our understanding", the only appropriate response is "And you are wrong about that." 

And if he shows so little respect for our church and our people, why should we respect him and his church? The argument, "We're right because I say so," doesn't go very far.

If you only could see how incredibly funny that reply is, coming from you. It takes some real chutzpah to condemn a statement as lacking respect when you don't respect anyone in here enough to present any sort of evidence or persuasive argument for your position. If anyone is showing no respect for the ELCA and its people, it is self-anointed spokespeople who demand respect like petulant three year olds. If you want your position respected, you'll have to do a better job of presenting it than whining about a lack of respect for your church. If you respect the ELCA, then take the time to craft a well-reasoned response that makes a case for women's ordination.

Frankly, in here one of the thing that makes the ELCA such a disrespected laughingstock is the manner in which you and Austin defend it. If the way you two respond to others is an example of the best the ELCA has to offer, it's a wonder anyone pays any attention to it.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: mariemeyer on August 27, 2010, 02:04:18 PM
Marie, I have not misrepresented either of them. Dr. Bohlmann erred in approving Dr. Mennicke's participation, and Dr. Mennicke erred in participating in an event where a woman led the worship service. The context of the event was clearly such that he should not have participated.

If I did not know otherwise, I would think the above is quoted directly from a CN editorial written after the first Different Voices/Shared Vision conference.  CN led the charge of those who mainteined Mennicke needed to repent of his ways.  The editor claimed
he knew just what Dr. Bohlmann and Dr. Mennicke "should" not do.

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
Stoffregen does not believe in "objective truth" -- we have seen him on his forum doubt/question:

The physically resurrection of Christ.
The Virgin Birth.
The two natures in Christ.
etc. etc. etc.

The problem with the post-modern/liberal thinking in Stoffregen's position is that he, whether he understands it or not, embraces a Bultmannian/Tillichian view of Christianity.

Historical, objective truths set forth in Scripture, don't matter, as long as there is still some sense of an experience with "justification by grace" and as long as those words are mouthed, with little to know definition, anchored in actual historical events, persons and places.

As I've said before, Stoffregen's participation in here provides a valuable service. Nobody has to take my word for it, or any other grumpy old conservative/traditionalist's word for it when we describe the abject intellectual poverty that has gripped the theological thinking throughout most of the ELCA. We need merely refer people to this forum and invite them to read Stoffregen's gazillion comments.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 02:15:47 PM
You are now merely trying to deflect the conversation, Marie.

The woman was fully vested.
She led the entire worship service.
She did so from the chancel.

It is disingenuous of you to suggest this was merely an act of being "cantor." You and I both know what the agenda was for this action. You also have here on this forum defended Marva Dawn who, while she was still in the LCMS, vested and preached. But for you, this also, apparently has nothing to do with the ordination of women.

I hope that when you return from vacation and we open that topic on women's ordination, you will participate with full disclosure of what your position is on the issue, for the sake of honest and open conversation.

Have a good vacation.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Christopher Miller on August 27, 2010, 02:29:27 PM
And what if she did, Paul? What if she made her position clear to you?

It seems to me that:
If she said she was in favor of WO, you wouldn't listen to a thing she said.
In the current context, you haven't listened to a thing she said.
Even if she agreed with you, I have a feeling you wouldn't listen to anything she said.

You continue to belittle anyone who disagrees with you, and for that, I call you to repentance.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 02:37:06 PM
And what if she did, Paul? What if she made her position clear to you?

Then we could finally have an open, honest conversation and talk about the issue in the context of candor and honesty, rather than coy word games.

Of course, we would disagree, but we could at least know precisely where both of us stand on the issue and stop the game-playing.

Thanks for the invitation to repent. I do that very often, and if not often enough, my wife is there to remind me.

 :)
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 27, 2010, 02:44:17 PM
You are now merely trying to deflect the conversation, Marie.

The woman was fully vested.
She led the entire worship service.
She did so from the chancel.

It is disingenuous of you to suggest this was merely an act of being "cantor." You and I both know what the agenda was for this action. You also have here on this forum defended Marva Dawn who, while she was still in the LCMS, vested and preached. But for you, this also, apparently has nothing to do with the ordination of women.

I hope that when you return from vacation and we open that topic on women's ordination, you will participate with full disclosure of what your position is on the issue, for the sake of honest and open conversation.

Have a good vacation.

Did she do everything, or just those elements of the service marked with the rubric "A" that I listed earlier.

And, how "fully" was she vested? Plain alb with nothing more than a cincture, or did she also wear a stole, pectoral cross, or anything additional?

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 02:47:50 PM
George, in our Synod, and even more so now over twenty years ago, a woman vested in an alb, leading the worship service from the chancel was offensive and scandalous, and in the context of the action, everyone knew what was going on. There was/is nothing innocuous about it.


Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 02:54:44 PM
Mike, sorry, you are wrong. Too bad you don't see that.

Deaconess Meyer refuses to engage in open and honest conversation because before it begins she already announces what she will and will not talk about and what questions she won't answer.

She keeps referring to an all-male pastorate but won't say if she agrees with an all-male pastorate, or not.

How is that conducive to a conversation about an all male pastorate?

She wants to set not only the agenda for the conversation, but the ground rules of what can, and can't, be asked or discussed.






Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ddrebes on August 27, 2010, 03:30:10 PM
I find this exchange extremely helpful, Peter.  Thank you for articulating your position clearly, and how you could compliment the abilities of someone you don't believe has the authority to preach.  I disagree, strongly, but you have resolved questions I've had since I saw you and a few of the LCMS posters compliment Pastor Wolf's sermon.

But you clearly do not understand, Pr. Yakimow.  This is not a complex question and yields itself to simple "yes" and "no" answers.

I think that it got really complex when some anti-women-ordination folks express appreciation and admiration for Pastor Erma Wolf's sermon. Shouldn't they have refused to listen to a sermon by a woman? By hearing it, haven't they placed themselves under the authority of this female pastor?

It seems to me that they are expressing a third position: "We don't believe women should be ordained, but that woman pastor's sermon was excellent."
Not at all the same. It is a question of authorization from God, not talent. If a security guard who is not authorized to carry a weapon takes out a pistol and drops a fleeing bad guy at three hundred yards, I can admire the shot and rejoice that the bad guy is dead while still finding the officer guilty of an illegal shooting.

Ah, but the analogy is more like a law officer who has been authorized to carry and use a weapon by a city police department, but uses it legally -- shooting someone to protect others or himself from harm outside of the city's jurisdiction, e.g., in another state. Would he be commended for saving someone's life -- or charged with unauthorized use of a firearm?

Pastor Wolf is authorized to preach and preside.
Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: SKPeterson on August 27, 2010, 04:24:33 PM
I find this exchange extremely helpful, Peter.  Thank you for articulating your position clearly, and how you could compliment the abilities of someone you don't believe has the authority to preach.  I disagree, strongly, but you have resolved questions I've had since I saw you and a few of the LCMS posters compliment Pastor Wolf's sermon.

But you clearly do not understand, Pr. Yakimow.  This is not a complex question and yields itself to simple "yes" and "no" answers.

I think that it got really complex when some anti-women-ordination folks express appreciation and admiration for Pastor Erma Wolf's sermon. Shouldn't they have refused to listen to a sermon by a woman? By hearing it, haven't they placed themselves under the authority of this female pastor?

It seems to me that they are expressing a third position: "We don't believe women should be ordained, but that woman pastor's sermon was excellent."
Not at all the same. It is a question of authorization from God, not talent. If a security guard who is not authorized to carry a weapon takes out a pistol and drops a fleeing bad guy at three hundred yards, I can admire the shot and rejoice that the bad guy is dead while still finding the officer guilty of an illegal shooting.

Ah, but the analogy is more like a law officer who has been authorized to carry and use a weapon by a city police department, but uses it legally -- shooting someone to protect others or himself from harm outside of the city's jurisdiction, e.g., in another state. Would he be commended for saving someone's life -- or charged with unauthorized use of a firearm?

Pastor Wolf is authorized to preach and preside.
Probably both. My issue is saying that Erma, who is no doubt a fine preacher, is authorized. I don't think the ELCA has the authority from God in the Scriptures to do what it claims to do. So the question becomes by swhat authority do we authorize. If I authorize the U.S. Marines to do into Mexico and bust up drug cartels, they are still unauthorized because I lacked authority to authorize it. And if the ELCA authorizes Erma to preach, she still is not authorized because God in the Scriptures has not authorized the ELCA to do that. The point of the analogy, however, was simply to make clear that there is no contradiction between saying that Erma preached a great sermon that she never should have preached, just as a sharpshooter might make an incredible shot that he never should have taken, and I can compliment the preaching or the marksmanship without agreeing that it was authorized.

I would like to offer my thanks as well Pr. Speckhard and follow with a question that might bring together this strand and the strand that is the kerfuffle between Pr. McCain and Dcn. Meyer.

Forgive my ignorance here, but it would be helpful for me to know  - Is there a liturgical role for women separate from that of lay men, and is there a special liturgical role for women in the diaconate that an Erma Wolf could fulfill in lieu of the pastoral office? I guess this boils down to the boundaries within the liturgy and the interactions within that liturgy between lay and pastoral roles - who has authority where and to what extent and for how long, and how is this authority defined/demarcated through Scripture and the Confessions?  A complicated question, but important for me to assess and understand the arguments.  Thanks.
  
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: SKPeterson on August 27, 2010, 04:25:13 PM
And perhaps answers, etc should be moved to another topical thread?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 04:32:28 PM
If and when Deaconess Meyer is interested in talking about an all-male pastorate and coming clean on where she stands on the issue, I'll be interested in a conversation with her about it. Until that happens, it is just going to be Marie Meyer repeating herself and saying the same things she has been saying for the past nearly thirty years. Sorry, but that does not strike me as discussion.

Ironically, it is my opinion that she and her brother Herman Otten share very similar rhetorical styles. I pick up issues of Christian News and read nothing but reprints of reprints of reprints of old articles.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on August 27, 2010, 04:33:28 PM
Pastor Ramirez's wide-ranging critique of NALC touched on many other points besides WO. In this passage, he takes on some of NALC's intellectual and theological leading lights, Dr. Braaten, Dr. Hinlicky and Dr. Jenson, saying that they are akin to 60's radicals who are neoconservatives today:

How serious can Lutheran CORE actually be about “seeking new directions for Lutheranism” if many of the “traditionalist” theologians of Lutheran CORE are merely the radicals of yesterday? I cannot help but wonder how serious Lutheran CORE’s theological conference will be considering that one of their presenters is Dr. Paul Hinlicky, a traditionalist who has publicly suggested that gay unions have “goods analogous to marriage,” and in certain situations might be “recognized” by the church. I fail to see how Dr. Carl Braaten and Dr. Robert Jenson will produce a coherent vision for North American Lutheranism, seeing as after having helped lead mid-twentieth-century Lutheranism “out of the ghetto” into a brave new world, it blossomed into the ELCA. It is akin to watching modern neoconservative Republicans champion and “conserve” the liberal traditions that they as Democrats built a generation ago.

I think of the above cited gentlemen as thoroughly conservative and orthdodox, and always have.

This is the heart and soul of the Missourian critique of Lutheran CORE, the NALC, and "moderate/third way" Lutheranism in general. The soul searching has to go deeper than merely pushing the clock back to 1960's/70's Lutheranism. That is and was an untenable position. Moderate Lutheranism will always either lurch forward into full liberal overdrive, or, on occasion, it recovers its roots in orthodoxy. I would suggest Prof. Kurt Marquart's "Anatomy of an Explosion" to truly see and understand the perils and effects upon Christianity of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. These are dead end roads.

The real situation is NOT that neo-orthodoxy is the conservative answer to balance out liberalism.

Rather, neo-orthodoxy is liberalism's more conservative cousin, with which it shares many assumptions and presuppositions. Classic, orthodox Lutheranism is what actually has an answer to liberal theology. Neo-orthodoxy, as can be seen by study and experience is impotent against its cousin.

As referenced on another thread, Bishop Michael McDaniels paper at the Fort Wayne Symposium several years back encapsulates this perfectly.

Maybe someone can help me with a link...

Pastor Ramirez, thank you for your response. The above issue was one of several in your LOGIA piece that really provided food for thought. On the whole, I respectfully disagreed with a lot of what you said about tNALC, on a "gut sense" level. But I won't try to fake a knowledge of technical theology that I don't possess. I won't try to start spouting stuff like "you misread Braaten's hermeneutic, and here's why..."  ;) I was hoping others, more knowledgeable than me in technical theology, would take up the discussion from the traditionalist ELCA theological Braaten/Jenson standpoint. Perhaps they may yet. It would be great to have an extended discussion on this thread of that and the other points you make in your LOGIA article.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: SKPeterson on August 27, 2010, 04:56:00 PM
Per Mike's suggestion, I've started a new thread http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3204.msg172735;topicseen#msg172735 (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=3204.msg172735;topicseen#msg172735) to hopefully provide a separate forum for debate perhaps leading to a discussion on WO, but more generally on the role of women and lay more broadly within in the liturgy.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 27, 2010, 05:06:07 PM
Paul, I think you are wrong to press the yes/no thing on Marie because there is the possibility that she would very much like to be convinced of the LCMS position but hasn't been so convinced yet, so she is looking for a discussion that will help her make up her mind. I am in a similar position on artificial birth control. The LCMS approves of it but can't really give a coherent explanation for how the teaching changed, or what it used to be and what it is now. I have serious misgivings; I'm willing to be persuaded by the LCMS position (I used to hold it without even thinking about it) but want it explained. The RC position at least makes sense to me, whereas the LCMS position seems to me at least like it just sort of changed with the general flow of the culture. So I hold my own misgivings as an acceptable private opinion within the parameters of LCMS doctrine (as far as I know, the LCMS teaching does not require me to approve of artificial birth control) but wish there would be a serious theological discussion of the issue. So if someone said that they would only participate in such a discussion with me if I first answered a yes/no question of whether I believe in artificial birth control, I would be unable to answer and probably would simply prefer to have the discussion with someone else.

Now, perhaps you are convinced that Marie already has a position but is adopting an affected neutrality, in which case that is something personal concerning a two-way lack of trust between you and her, but the demand for a yes/no answer doesn't solve it.

The difference, and I keep coming back to this, is that my objection is to an innovation while Marie's objection is to a lack of an innovation.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 05:13:14 PM
Peter, I'm not pressing the yes/no thing for any other reason than that I want a level playing field, a fair one, an honest one. If a person wants to talk to me about why The LCMS insists on an all-male pastorate, continues to propose a whole host of things for me to read that point me, again and again, to advocates for women clergy, etc. and I ask them, "Do you think women should be pastors?" and they answer, "I won't answer that question. That's not my issue." Then I'm not interested in conversing with a person who won't be honest and upfront.

It's just that simple.

I've documented today, rather thoroughly, her long track-record on the issue and why there is such a contradiction between what she has done and she says when asked about the issue.

If I talk to you, Peter, about birth control after all the posts here you have made about birth control, and ask you are you "for it" or "against it" and you said to me, "I won't answer that question, it is not my issue" I would say, "Oh, ok" and not be interested in talking more about it with you. You, would not do that, of course. You would say, "Well, that's a good question, I'm not really sure where I stand on it. I think I like what the RC church teaches on it and it sure seems like we used to teach it in our circles, but I'm still thinking it through, but here are the reasons I find myself persuaded, but here is why I don't" and so forth, that's a world of difference than the coy game-playing I get get from Marie Meyer on the issue of the ordination of women.

And your point today, well made, it that Marie Meyer is wrong to keep demanding that her church respond to her assertions and "prove her wrong" on her comments surrounding an all-male pastorate. I for the life of me can't figure out why she just won't come flat out and say what she believes and why on the issue of an all male pastorate, and then make her best case for it. The burden of proof is on her, not on us.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Carol Schmidt on August 27, 2010, 06:17:06 PM
@ptmccain #70, #153, and elsewhere in this thread

In your lengthy post (#70), at least one of your claimed "facts" is incorrect.  You overstate Marie Meyer's involvement in setting up the website http://www.thecreatorstapestry.com (http://www.thecreatorstapestry.com)  She was asked to write something for it and graciously did.  She had nothing to do with links to publications or posting the perspectives of people other than herself.  That "She has personally promoted and recommended all these resources and materials...leading them in fact," is not true.  You should have checked your facts before putting them on the table and you do owe her an apology.  Your seeming recklessness in this causes me to question every other "fact" you claim to know about Marie Meyer and what she thinks.

Marie and I don't agree on everything, but she has some interesting ideas I'd like to hear more about.  If you'll take your foot off her throat, perhaps she will voice her own thoughts.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 06:20:03 PM
Thanks for your note Carol.

Please help me understand what you are saying.

Marie Meyer did not know the site was going to be prepared and posted on the Internet? She had no input as to its content or purpose? She was not consulted as it was being thought about and put together? She was unaware she would be listed under the link "women"?

Or are you saying she was not personally responsible for the HTML programming on the site and designing and building it?

Thanks for clarification.

Marie has done a very thorough job expressing her view, in fact, many times over. I would love to hear what she actually believes about the ordination of women.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Carol Schmidt on August 27, 2010, 06:34:42 PM
Can you read, Paul?  If so, can you pick out what is important in what you read?

Thanks for taking another look at what I wrote.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 06:36:46 PM
Carol, I really would appreciate your responses to my questions asked for the sake of clarification before I can consider how I might want to change my comments about Marie Meyer's involvement in "The Creator's Tapestry" web site.

Oh, and can I ask you where you stand on the question of the ordination of women as pastors?

I just took at look at the paper by Mrs. Lepper featured on the site which contains her arguments for women as pastors.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Carol Schmidt on August 27, 2010, 06:41:03 PM
Paul, women are pastors.  But back to your dishonesty regarding accusations you made against Marie Meyer...
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Carol Schmidt on August 27, 2010, 06:42:56 PM
Wow, how do you keep changing what you wrote in a post already posted?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 06:44:06 PM
Carol, kindly help me understand the extent of Marie Meyer's involvement in the web site. You have told she was not respondible for the links on the site, ok, that's fine. But would you please answer my other questions? Are you saying Marie Meyer had nothing to do with the web site's planning, preparation or otherwise? That she knew nothing of it only that she was asked to contribute a paper? Why is she listed under the "women" link when others are not?

And, Carol, do you support the service of women as pastors in the church? Do you believe women can, and should, be permitted to serve as pastors in the church?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Carol Schmidt on August 27, 2010, 06:55:04 PM
Who are you, Paul?  The grand inquisitor?  How about if you slow down and respond to what I wrote?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 27, 2010, 07:03:23 PM
Carol, I gladly accept what you have to say that "she had nothing to do with links to publications or posting the perspectives of people other than herself." OK, that's fine. Happy to make it clear that I acknowledge your assertion about that.

Given all that Marie has told us about her leadership in forming the "St. Louis 7" and so forth, I'm assuming she had a hand in planning for the web site and what it could/should be about and what it would be doing. I'm glad to be corrected if my assumptions about Marie Meyer's involvement in the planning of the web site is incorrect. Would you help me please and answer the questions I'm asking? Would you however clarify Marie Meyer's involvement in the planning and overall thinking about the web site and blog site? Are you saying that Marie Meyer did not know the site was going to be prepared and posted on the Internet? She had no input as to its content or purpose? She was not consulted as it was being thought about and put together?

Carol, would you also please tell me what your position is on the ordination of women as pastors in The LCMS? Do you support that, or not? I'm trying to understand where the "Creator's Tapestry" web and blog folks are coming from on this issue, given the various materials on the site.

Thanks.




Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Edward Engelbrecht on August 27, 2010, 07:31:08 PM
Does anyone know whether the NALC will have deaconesses?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 28, 2010, 12:17:29 AM
Does anyone know whether the NALC will have deaconesses?

From the website (http://www.thenalc.org/constitution.php) linked to in one of the other NALC threads:

Article 5 – Commissioned Lay Ministry

5.01 Commissioning and reception of lay ministers shall be a function of the NALC. The NALC shall define the standards of acceptance into and continuance in lay ministries, which shall include persons serving as Associates in Ministry, Deaconesses, Diaconal Ministers and other lay vocations.

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Carol Schmidt on August 28, 2010, 12:23:46 PM
@ptmccain #162

Paul, what is commonly said about assumption seems applicable in this case.  Each of your assumptions in #162 are wrong.  And by acknowledging that what you previously stated as fact was in fact assumption, your integrity and intent are once again called into question.  In addition, although you "gladly accept" and "acknowledge" part of what I originally posted @#154, you have failed to address your false accusations and mean-spirited badgering of Marie.  You strike me as a man attempting to gather nails for her crucifixion, but finding none you nevertheless pound away with your little hammer.  You still owe Marie Meyer an apology.

Regarding the website, there is no official position, no doctrinal test to pass before being included.  It's a place where people who have been ignored and silenced by the official LCMS mechanism are free to share their ideas.  The "agree with me or go to hell" mentality is small and dying.  It just takes the ponies a little longer to get the word to Missouri.

I don't speak for anyone else, but I will tell (and have told) you my position on the ordination of women.  Women are pastors is my position.  There is no can or should.  Can or should is sin in the LCMS when there is evidence all around us that women are pastors.  Who we are is determined by God, not men.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 28, 2010, 01:53:08 PM
Carol, thanks for your observations. I acknowledged what you said to be true, but would you mind now answering my questions? I remain very unconvinced that your Creator's Tapestry website and blog was conceived, planned and formed without Marie's knowledge and involvement.

What you regard as badgering, I regard simply as asking a simple question and asking a sister in Christ to demonstrate the common courtesy and decency, not to mention the integrity, to provide an answer.

Thanks for acknowledging that you do support women as pastors and believe The LCMS should have them. I wish Marie Meyer would be as candid and forthright.

Thanks.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Carol Schmidt on August 28, 2010, 02:44:40 PM
You are simply wrong, Paul.  And seemingly without ears, remorse, or conscience.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 28, 2010, 02:48:04 PM
Well, Carol, I'm sorry you won't answer my questions. I have acknowledged what you indicated to be the truth, that Marie Meyer is not responsible for the links on your site. But I would like to understand what involvement she had in discussing, planning and working with you on the web site we are talking about.

But, again, I do sincerely appreciate your honesty, candor and upfront admission that you believe that women can be, and should be, ordained as pastors in The LCMS. That is the kind of honesty I'm asking for from Marie Meyer.

Thanks.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Richard Johnson on August 28, 2010, 07:48:29 PM

Now, I say all this not to be "rude" or "disrespectful" but because I believe it is important to put the facts on the table.


Oh, I get it. The "rude and disrespectful" part was just an unfortunate byproduct of your real intent.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Richard Johnson on August 28, 2010, 07:58:47 PM
But back to your dishonesty regarding accusations you made against Marie Meyer...

Paul McCain posts on alpb's forum online.
ALPB's forum online made a reference to Paul's dishonesty.
Therefore Paul knows that he is dishonest.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on August 29, 2010, 08:44:07 PM

If the LC-MS provides any support to the LWF, I do not know what it is. I would be very surprised if any money from the LC-MS goes to the LWF, although some associate members of the LWF are related to the LC-MS and we are happy they are part of our fellowship.

Your "surprise" is, quite frankly, shocking to me.

Many LCMS congregations send money and other support to Lutheran World Relief, and have done so from the time of LWR's formation over 6 decades ago.

The Rev. John Nunes, LWR's President and CEO, is a pastor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Every LWR press release concludes, "Lutheran World Relief is a ministry of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS), individuals and parish groups in international relief, development, advocacy and social responsibility."  

In the current flooding crisis in Pakistan, LCMS World Relief and Human Care says (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=17493) it "is responding through inter-Lutheran partner Lutheran World Relief, Baltimore (http://www.lwr.org/)."  That link, incidentally, is part of the direct quote from the LCMS website.  

Pax, Steven+

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 29, 2010, 08:51:03 PM
Lutheran World Relief is not the Lutheran World Federation.
They are two totally different entities, although the LWF department for World Service works with Lutheran World Relief.
Unshock yourself.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 29, 2010, 08:55:41 PM
The following is offering in a whimsical manner:

Somebody needs to go to bed and get a good night's sleep. Obviously, the good pastor simply made a simple mistake, but yet another excuse to pounce on people by the resident Genevan night owl, I suppose.

 ;D

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on August 29, 2010, 08:58:50 PM
Lutheran World Relief is not the Lutheran World Federation.
They are two totally different entities, although the LWF department for World Service works with Lutheran World Relief.
Unshock yourself.


Ah, I got confused by your original post:
ptmccain writes:
I frankly do not understand, why, if this is truly cooperation in externals, why we do not partner with organizations such as Catholic World Relief, or whatever organization runs the most efficient and effective relief services.
I comment:
Because the LC-MS is already partnered with what is the most efficient and effective relief service. And anyone who thinks LWR is not "Gospel-centered" needs to have more contact with LWR and its people and its programs.
If the LC-MS provides any support to the LWF, I do not know what it is. I would be very surprised if any money from the LC-MS goes to the LWF, although some associate members of the LWF are related to the LC-MS and we are happy they are part of our fellowship.

Mea culpa.

Steven+
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 29, 2010, 09:08:18 PM
If so, then Pastor Tibbetts is perfectly capable of making his own complaint about my correction. And I notice that he is, not surprisingly, gracious enough to note that he got it wrong.
 The "plain reading" of his comments led to my comment. If an LC-MS congregation or district or the gosh-darn Synod itself sends money to Lutheran World Relief, it is not sending any money to the Lutheran World Federation.
I would not "pounce" on Pastor Tibbetts, who is a fellow member of the ELCA and one of the most responsible posters on this entire board.
And wow! Here ptmccain, who repeatedly says he will not respond to me, will not answer my questions, but chooses to mock what I post (somehow separating "me" from what I write); now decides to butt in to my personal life. The so-called "whimsy" disclaimer ain't working, especially from such a one as ptmccain.
If I had insomnia, which I don't, I would resent the mocking of an illness.
I have said before, I sleep just fine; there are reasons why I post when I do, and it's nobody's damn business what they are so people should do me the courtesy (any of that left?) of shutting up about it.


Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Richard Johnson on August 29, 2010, 09:17:22 PM
Now you're starting to sound like George . . .   ;D
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 29, 2010, 09:20:21 PM
Sounding "like" Mr. Erdner wouldn't be all bad. Saying what he says would.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 29, 2010, 09:24:06 PM
Sounding "like" Mr. Erdner wouldn't be all bad. Saying what he says would.
How do you separate "him" from what he writes?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 29, 2010, 09:34:47 PM
I don't. Mr. Erdner's style of posting seems to be who he is, a man of firm opinion and strongly held viewpoints. What he says is often wrong and disrespectful.
I have almost given up trying to correct those flaws.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on August 29, 2010, 09:42:42 PM

I would not "pounce" on Pastor Tibbetts, who is a fellow member of the ELCA and one of the most responsible posters on this entire board.

Aw, shucks!

Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 29, 2010, 09:50:51 PM
I don't. Mr. Erdner's style of posting seems to be who he is, a man of firm opinion and strongly held viewpoints. What he says is often wrong and disrespectful.
I have almost given up trying to correct those flaws.

When you finally do stop, we'll all be happier people. It's not your job to "correct" me, especially since you do such a rude and piss-poor job of it. Not to mention that your "corrections" are themselves sometimes errant.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Richard Johnson on August 29, 2010, 09:54:30 PM
STOP IT, BOTH OF YOU!!  >:(
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: George Erdner on August 29, 2010, 10:04:43 PM
STOP IT, BOTH OF YOU!!  >:(

Could you please be more specific? Are we to stop correcting each other or what?  ::)
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 30, 2010, 01:48:02 AM
Our Esteemed Moderator brought up the view that this humble correspondent was starting to "sound like George." I credited Mr. Erdner with being a man of strong conviction and firmly-held opinion.
But I'm done now.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lois Voeltz on August 31, 2010, 06:29:48 PM
Carol, thanks for your observations. I acknowledged what you said to be true, but would you mind now answering my questions? I remain very unconvinced that your Creator's Tapestry website and blog was conceived, planned and formed without Marie's knowledge and involvement.

I have chosen not to get invovled in this thread until this post.  Carol and I are the ones that had the idea of a blog and website. We researched how to do it, learned how to do the lay-out, she & I discussed categories (on the website) and how we would link the two sites.  The Creator's Tapestry document was at the beginning of our sites.  We decided to use the media available for widest distribution - online blog and website.  (Much like Luther did using the printing press!)  We know that publishing a hard-copy book would be too expensive.  And CPH would not publish a book that we would write - inviting conversations on both sides of the debate about the role of women in ministry and the church.  (How I wish the booklet that the Australian Church published could be published by CPH, a booklet that presents many sides to the difficult Biblical texts that speak about women in the church.)  We presented the idea to the other women but made it very clear that there would be no 'one point of view' but instead, the blog and website are to be sites for a variety of voices, as Carol said in another post.  We started by suggesting to any of the women that have been communicating for the past 5 years to write an article.  Marie wrote as well as other men and women.  Each writer's opinion is just that.  The blog and website are wide open but not just one point of view.  Some writers affirm women's ordination.  Others do not.  All the articles and links are not of one voice, are decisions made by Carol and me.

Please do not present Marie as a controller of us or any other group of women or men.  She is not!  I hope you can take the time to read the entire blog and website.

Lois Voeltz
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: ptmccain on August 31, 2010, 07:58:29 PM
Lois, thank for your note. As I reflect on the agenda being advocated by your group, I am reminded of a report that Hermann Sasse once shared. The effort to continue to push for the ordination of women in The LCMS can not be entertained by "discussion" or by treating the issue as if it were, in fact, something to be debated. The dishonest game playing must end.

Here's that story that well describes the situation here:

“During the First Session of the Second Vatican Council a lady turned up in Rome and asked for an audience with the pope to discuss with him the question of the ordination of women to the Catholic priesthood. She was Dr. Gertrud Heinzelmann, a lawyer at Lucerne, the famous centre of the Roman Church in Switzerland. Pope John, who was otherwise kindness and patience personified, lost his patience. ‘Tell that suffragette that I shall never receive her. She should go back to her homeland.’ Why did the good pope, who was otherwise prepared for a dialog even with the worst enemies of the Church, give such a harsh answer? Could he not have replied something like this: ‘Tell my daughter that the ordination of women is against the Word of God’? This was his argument when the Archbishop of Canterbury declared such ordination to be against the tradition of the Church. Could he not have referred her for further information to one of his theologians? John was not an intellectual like his predecessor. He was not a great theologian either. But he was, as his ‘Journals’ show, a great pastor. Every pastor knows, or should know, that there are cases, when a discussion is impossible."

Sasse, “Ordination of Women”, in The Lutheran 5.9 (3 May 1971): 3.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: LutherMan on August 31, 2010, 08:05:20 PM
I have noticed that the pro WO crowd seem to be the graying generation who were around for the turbulent Seminex years in the LCMS.  Aren't they of SP Kieschnick's generation and older?
I was an adult during Seminex.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on August 31, 2010, 09:17:51 PM
So let me see if I understand this.
Ordination for women cannot be discussed within the LC-MS unless all participants agree as the foundation for "discussion" that ordination for women is totally impossible. It is not a matter that can be "debated" within the LC-MS and it is "dishonest" to do so.
Is that right?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: jpetty on August 31, 2010, 10:00:16 PM
Yes, some things just can't be thought.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 31, 2010, 10:56:34 PM
So let me see if I understand this.
Ordination for women cannot be discussed within the LC-MS unless all participants agree as the foundation for "discussion" that ordination for women is totally impossible. It is not a matter that can be "debated" within the LC-MS and it is "dishonest" to do so.
Is that right?

No. "There are cases when discussion is impossible," is, I believe, the conclusion Sasse drew, and Paul thinks that discussing the ordination of women with the Daystar crowd is one of those cases. In other words, he sees zero chance of them ever changing their mind and views the call for discussion in the same vein as the LCNA folks insisting on vote after vote every time they were voted down, until such time as they finally won a vote, at which point it became time to move on, case closed. At some point the discussion has to end, as it effectively did in the ELCA on women's ordination long ago and PALMS ordination more recently.

As for whether Paul is right about that, there may be some disagreement, but your charaterization of what he said is totally wrong as I read it. I beleive he has made clear that some personal history with some of the main players informs his diagnosis.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on September 01, 2010, 02:25:27 AM
Peter writes:
"There are cases when discussion is impossible," is, I believe, the conclusion Sasse drew, and Paul thinks that discussing the ordination of women with the Daystar crowd is one of those cases.

I ask:
"with the Daystar crowd"? don't know much about who those folk are. But what about with NALC or someone else? Does the NALC have to agree that women's ordination is impossible before the subject can be discussed?
It has been my experience that serious theologians, some of them at high levels in the LC-MS do not take this extremist view. Rather than say "we won't talk about this," they say "here is what we believe, now we will listen to you (even if we think you will not convince us that you are right)."
That is much more wholesome and brotherly than the view laid down by ptmccain.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: J.L. Precup on September 01, 2010, 03:06:58 AM
Peter writes:
"There are cases when discussion is impossible," is, I believe, the conclusion Sasse drew, and Paul thinks that discussing the ordination of women with the Daystar crowd is one of those cases.

I ask:
"with the Daystar crowd"? don't know much about who those folk are. But what about with NALC or someone else? Does the NALC have to agree that women's ordination is impossible before the subject can be discussed?
It has been my experience that serious theologians, some of them at high levels in the LC-MS do not take this extremist view. Rather than say "we won't talk about this," they say "here is what we believe, now we will listen to you (even if we think you will not convince us that you are right)."
That is much more wholesome and brotherly than the view laid down by ptmccain.


The LCMS does not have a history of mergers...some small assimilations, yes.  I could easily envision the LCMS courting the NALC and possibly bringing it aboard as a separate non-geographical district (synod to you ELCA folks).  If it is advantageous, possibly allowing the NALC to bring along some female clergy if they are not the senior pastor (in an isolation ward with a district president (bishop), someone like Paul McCain, "persuading" congregations to drop their female pastors), and with the provision that all future clergy comes from LCMS seminaries...therefore, problem solved...no more female clergy.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: John_Hannah on September 01, 2010, 08:26:09 AM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: James Thomas Sharp on September 01, 2010, 08:41:21 AM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Order of Creation.

Nonsense?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: John_Hannah on September 01, 2010, 09:00:43 AM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.


...and after roaches.   ;D
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: James Thomas Sharp on September 01, 2010, 09:19:44 AM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.


...and after roaches.   ;D
So we should probably come to a consensus on the ordination of roaches before we start negotiating on ordination of human women?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Erma S. Wolf on September 01, 2010, 10:02:58 AM
The LCMS does not have a history of mergers...some small assimilations, yes.  I could easily envision the LCMS courting the NALC and possibly bringing it aboard as a separate non-geographical district (synod to you ELCA folks).  If it is advantageous, possibly allowing the NALC to bring along some female clergy if they are not the senior pastor (in an isolation ward with a district president (bishop), someone like Paul McCain, "persuading" congregations to drop their female pastors), and with the provision that all future clergy comes from LCMS seminaries...therefore, problem solved...no more female clergy.

On their heads?  ::) :o
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Weedon on September 01, 2010, 10:10:34 AM
Pr. Precup,

That is an interesting speculation.  I wonder, though, if the NALC really has much interest in it?  The "grandfathering out" has parallels to the way Archbishop Vanags handled the situation in Latvia when he was consecrated, immediately halting the ordination of women, but providing a living for those women who had been previously ordained.  I think in the article Dr. Tighe did on him, Vanags was reported to regard it as a Church error, but that the individuals so ordained ought not bear the burden of the Church's mistake.  I wonder if the Archbishop will be at Pr. Harrison's installation?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: vicarbob on September 01, 2010, 10:19:15 AM
Isn't there an "invitee" list ??? A Lutheran Arch-bishop 8)
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Scott6 on September 01, 2010, 10:34:06 AM
I wonder, though, if the NALC really has much interest in it?

Judging from the conference and convocation in Columbus, the LCMS isn't really much of a "blip" on the radar screen for NALC / CORE.  Ryan Schwarz did try to draw some attention to the existence of the LCMS and the role it could play vis-a-vis NALC, but other than that, there wasn't much.

Something that struck me as rather funny was in a video that was shown introducing NALC.  A number of people were interviewed and spoke passionately of their desire that there be a confessional Lutheran church in America, and that they wanted to be a part of it.  Which left me thinking: [tongue-in-cheek]"Gee.  They're right!  Wouldn't it be great if there were a confessional Lutheran church body in America?  Wow -- I'd want to be part of that." [/tongue-in-cheek]  :-\
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 01, 2010, 12:11:12 PM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 01, 2010, 01:22:15 PM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.

Gee, even AF's Lutheran Study Bible doesn't make THAT claim. But then you're the Biblical scholar. You certainly must be right about this.  ::)
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: SKPeterson on September 01, 2010, 01:41:31 PM
I wonder, though, if the NALC really has much interest in it?

Judging from the conference and convocation in Columbus, the LCMS isn't really much of a "blip" on the radar screen for NALC / CORE.  Ryan Schwarz did try to draw some attention to the existence of the LCMS and the role it could play vis-a-vis NALC, but other than that, there wasn't much.

Something that struck me as rather funny was in a video that was shown introducing NALC.  A number of people were interviewed and spoke passionately of their desire that there be a confessional Lutheran church in America, and that they wanted to be a part of it.  Which left me thinking: [tongue-in-cheek]"Gee.  They're right!  Wouldn't it be great if there were a confessional Lutheran church body in America?  Wow -- I'd want to be part of that." [/tongue-in-cheek]  :-\

Funny, sad and true.  There is a subtle, implicit bias of many in the old ELCA against the LCMS.  I do not know how or when this occurred, except that it has been there my entire life as far back as I can recall, and strengthened after the absorption of the AELC into the ELCA. Perhaps people feel they'd get the old "I told you so" from the LCMS and aren't ready to face it, just yet.  Maybe it's just plain, old Swedish stubbornness.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 01, 2010, 02:49:07 PM
Perhaps people feel they'd get the old "I told you so" from the LCMS and aren't ready to face it, just yet.  Maybe it's just plain, old Swedish stubbornness.

What do you mean they "would" get the "I told you so." They aren't getting it now? Testing, testing...Is this thing on?  :D :D
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Lawrence804 on September 01, 2010, 03:32:11 PM
I also noticed that statement about confessional Lutheranism and thought it a bit odd. Missouri has been like the Rock of Gibraltar for decades. I hope tNALC has a warm and cordial relationship with LCMS over time. Despite some doctrinal differences, they are natural allies.
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: J.L. Precup on September 01, 2010, 04:08:15 PM
I also noticed that statement about confessional Lutheranism and thought it a bit odd. Missouri has been like the Rock of Gibraltar for decades. I hope tNALC has a warm and cordial relationship with LCMS over time. Despite some doctrinal differences, they are natural allies.

Hmmm, I've been to Gibraltar...only difference I've seen is they serve beer there as opposed to Spanish wine.   ;D
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: James Thomas Sharp on September 01, 2010, 04:17:02 PM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.
My wife had three kids.

She had my daughter and my two sons.

In the first account, evidently she had all three at the same time.

And, of course, I'm sure it means something to you that whoever wrote 1 Timothy says that Adam was created first and then Eve?
Title: Re: NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 01, 2010, 04:49:52 PM
If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.

Gee, even AF's Lutheran Study Bible doesn't make THAT claim. But then you're the Biblical scholar. You certainly must be right about this.  ::)

I knew that there must be some reason why I didn't buy that resource.