ALPB Forum Online

Archived Boards => LCMS Convention 2007 => Topic started by: Keith Falk on July 22, 2007, 12:48:40 AM

Title: ELDoNA?
Post by: Keith Falk on July 22, 2007, 12:48:40 AM
I read what the acronym means... I went to their website... (www.eldona.org (http://www.eldona.org))  So rather than just directing me to their website, is anyone able to provide a bit of commentary on them?  They seem to be disaffected LC-MS folks... but I'm not sure on that.  Any help would be appreciated, so I can better understand their answers to the interview questions!
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave_Poedel on July 22, 2007, 01:23:08 AM
That's what it looks like to me too. There have been a fair number of these "associations" that have popped up over the years, and most of them attract a couple of pastors and then function doing whatever they do.† Most issue some sort of epistle, and if someone can raise some money, they publish a newsletter.† Most have not grown beyond their start.† Frankly, I had never heard of these "North American" diocese guys until Peter's posting that mentioned them.Interesting is that some sites list them as a Lutheran body....I wonder if their dual affiliation constitutes "unionism" <grin>

As to other groups that have formed over the years, and NOT at all in the same category as ELDoNA at all, from my own probably flawed analysis, would be the Higher Things guys and the guys who came up with the journal "Logia".†I have been a long time subcriber to Logia and, while not agreeing with tone sometimes evident, find it to be a good journal which has a very definite point of view within Confessional Lutheranism. They seem to have found a bit more of a niche and have expanded beyond their beginnings.†
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: janielou13 on July 22, 2007, 06:57:16 PM
Unionism is OK,,,,, sinful unionism is quite another,,,,,,, doesn't one of the Ten Words speak to that ?? 8>)
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 22, 2007, 07:02:42 PM
Some exceptions, from my own probably flawed analysis, would be ... the guys who came up with the journal "Logia".

I've got to correct a serious misimpression that your comment may have given Dave. LOGIA was started by "some guys" who were intentionally not doing anything politicaIt is no more interested in creating new little splinter groups than Lutheran Forum is. It has nothing to do with Synodical politics or associations. The contributing editors to LOGIA include Synodical district presidents, former Synodical Vice Presidents, Wisconsin Synod professors, ELCA pastors, a lot of LCMS types, including professors at both of our seminaries. I know all about LOGIA, because I happen to be one of "the guys" who "came up" with the journal LOGIA. It has been going strong, four times a year, offering the largest independent Lutheran theological journal for nearly fifteen years now. By largest, I mean sheer volume of content in each issue. You get your money's worth from this journal, to be sure. Anyone who reads "Lutheran Forum" owes it to himself/herself to read LOGIA. http://www.logia.org
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 22, 2007, 10:26:10 PM
ELDoNA literally swept into the LCMS convention.  If you're into science fiction movies, the ELDoNA crew was reminiscent of the opponents of Bruce Willis in "The Fifth Element," the main diocesan leader wafting through the hallways in a great coat or frock of some kind and the others buzzing around waiting for command-tones.  It was really cool to watch, in that kitschy scary way.  I hope I had something to do with them doing what they're doing.

As to Logia, outside of a reasonable amount of potshotting at yours truly and the usual WELS/ELSian fellowship gnesio-stridency, what is there possibly not to enjoy from Norman Nagel or Leonard Klein, among others?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 22, 2007, 10:49:49 PM
ELDoNA literally swept into the LCMS convention.† If you're into science fiction movies, the ELDoNA crew was reminiscent of the opponents of Bruce Willis in "The Fifth Element," the main diocesan leader wafting through the hallways in a great coat or frock of some kind and the others buzzing around waiting for command-tones.† It was really cool to watch, in that kitschy scary way.† I hope I had something to do with them doing what they're doing.
Dave Benke
Dave, rest assured you did. And whatever else you may have on them, you'll never be able to dress your part as well as they did theirs, short of actually dressing as a priest of Asherah. I actually have a lot of sympathy for at least some of the ELDoNA outlook, but the thing is, they give the impression that they all fancy themselves Athanasius contra mundum, which would be fine except I can't really imagine any context in which they wouldn't eventually be found playing that role anyway. That takes some of the oomph out of their bold confession. If the LCMS soudly rejected Kieschnick and did everything ELDoNA wanted, in a ten years they'd be in a state of confession against the LCMS again for some other reason, as Athanasius contra mundum. I could be wrong about that, but they certainly give that impression. That having been said, I still think they have some good points worth considering. 
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave_Poedel on July 23, 2007, 02:05:32 AM
ELDoNA literally swept into the LCMS convention. If you're into science fiction movies, the ELDoNA crew was reminiscent of the opponents of Bruce Willis in "The Fifth Element," the main diocesan leader wafting through the hallways in a great coat or frock of some kind and the others buzzing around waiting for command-tones. It was really cool to watch, in that kitschy scary way. I hope I had something to do with them doing what they're doing.

As to Logia, outside of a reasonable amount of potshotting at yours truly and the usual WELS/ELSian fellowship gnesio-stridency, what is there possibly not to enjoy from Norman Nagel or Leonard Klein, among others?

Dave Benke

Oh, do tell more.  Are you serious?  I have an image of this scene in my mind and it sounds hilarious.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 23, 2007, 10:43:53 AM
Quote
I read what the acronym means... I went to their website... (www.eldona.org)† So rather than just directing me to their website, is anyone able to provide a bit of commentary on them?

Considering the 'answers' that have followed your request (the making of assertions based on having no clue about the history of either Logia or Higher Things or the relationship/lack thereof between them, and commentary by an LCMS 'bishop' poking at them for their wearing of churchly garb), I think one can easily see that reading their website is a far better idea than asking those who are ignorant of them to comment on them.

Quote
They seem to be disaffected LC-MS folks... but I'm not sure on that.† Any help would be appreciated, so I can better understand their answers to the interview questions!

The diocese consists of those who recognized that the LCMS had strayed, which necessitated (by reckoning of their conscience) their leaving--most after the 2004 convention, some earlier--and who subsequently recognized that fellowship existed between them. At present, a number of LCMS, ELS, WELS, etc., pastors are making inquiry of them.

Did Dave Benke play a role in their leaving the LCMS? It is best to consider this in tems of a dog biting a neighborhood kid and the owner of that dog. His biting the kid (by praying for the salvation of people already dead, by communing at an ELCA church, etc., etc.) is not really the reason that the owner is punished, but the fact that a) the dog already had a history of biting, and b) the owner blatantly said that it never was going to do anything about his biting, so that he would be able to treat the kids obnoxiously in the future, as well. That, among other things, was part of the 'too much' they had experienced in the LCMS.

Yet, it was so much more than Dave Benke. It was the continued practice of open communion being tolerated (i.e., restudied ad aeternum), the continued violation of Augustana XIV, etc.

Yet, it was more than that, too: it was the LCMS 'system'--Walther's experiment fallen into horrible abuse that led to such goings on. Thus, the formation of a system that is not like the American 'synods', nor yet like the state church episcopacies...a system in which there is no coercive power exercised over congregations, but in which the Superintendent's/Bishop's relationship is with the pastors and not with the parishes.

But now I have spoken too far for one who is not a member and, thus, has no standing so to speak; for authoritative answers (including whatever style tips Pres. Benke needs), I would suggest you do the non-Missourian thing and simply ask them by using the contact link on their website.

As to Pr. Speckhard's speculation:

Quote
If the LCMS soudly rejected Kieschnick and did everything ELDoNA wanted, in a ten years they'd be in a state of confession against the LCMS again for some other reason

I would say that the time spent serving LCMS congregations by those involved would contradict that. Their leaving was not capriciousness but conviction, not by snap judgment, but by long consideration...not simply over these most recent issues, but because of some long-standing ones, as well. I do not think it inappropriate to ask that others not take a 'worst construction' approach to this new body (or to the ACLC, the OLCCIC, and so on) simply because of the history of the nanosynods (so that now we can debate who came up with that term) that have left Missouri in the past, etc. This is, imo, a different thing altogether, something unlike the others I have seen, at least. At any rate, I would think that we could all find something better to do than to a) criticize their clothing and b) sin against both the equal members and the one elected first among equals by saying that the former were "buzzing around waiting for command-tones"...but, of course, that is the sort of comment one has learned to expect from the Rev. Benke and his cohorts, who need have no contact with a person or group before making such comments about them.

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 23, 2007, 10:59:22 AM
BTW, wrt:

Quote
I actually have a lot of sympathy for at least some of the ELDoNA outlook, but the thing is, they give the impression that they all fancy themselves Athanasius contra mundum, which would be fine except I can't really imagine any context in which they wouldn't eventually be found playing that role anyway. That takes some of the oomph out of their bold confession.

I think that saying such a thing after one conversation is pretty rash. Perhaps understanding the background of that one conversation might help:

1) I had not actually gotten around to telling them that I had suggested that you interview them. It hadn't dawned on me that you might be up that quickly, and everyone was just sitting for a second before leaving for supper when you came in.

2) Considering that they made no attempt to 'assert' themselves, but were merely present and available for conversation/consolation of those whom the were fairly certain would be weary from 'losing', being given the opportunity to speak to the issues that you presented in the short time they could spend led to a very direct and passionate speaking to such things as they were given opportunity to address.

I think, too, that the passion (and your lack of convention background) may have blocked your view of the humor in what they said; knowing them and knowing their background, they were simply having a good time with you while staying focused on what needed to be said--especially their expression of concern for the pastors who followed the dissent process to 'the end' only to find that 'the end' was 'being ignored'. This is by no means a group that has been tilting at windmills; they are, to a man, gentle pastors who would have been content to serve their parishes quietly and without controversy, had not the rising tide of false teaching and practice in Missouri made it necessary for them to speak out.

Fwiw,

EJG

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on July 23, 2007, 12:32:23 PM
† I hope I had something to do with them doing what they're doing.

Dave Benke

Dave,

Are you sure you meant to say this? I want to put the best construction on this.  Please help me to understand how any of us can be happy over schism.  It was Jesus' prayer that we might be one.  I hope and pray that you in your office and all of us whatever our station life would pray and work for the end to division in the Body of Christ. Blessings!
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 23, 2007, 12:53:06 PM
BTW, wrt:

Quote
I actually have a lot of sympathy for at least some of the ELDoNA outlook, but the thing is, they give the impression that they all fancy themselves Athanasius contra mundum, which would be fine except I can't really imagine any context in which they wouldn't eventually be found playing that role anyway. That takes some of the oomph out of their bold confession.

I think that saying such a thing after one conversation is pretty rash. Perhaps understanding the background of that one conversation might help:

1) I had not actually gotten around to telling them that I had suggested that you interview them. It hadn't dawned on me that you might be up that quickly, and everyone was just sitting for a second before leaving for supper when you came in.

2) Considering that they made no attempt to 'assert' themselves, but were merely present and available for conversation/consolation of those whom the were fairly certain would be weary from 'losing', being given the opportunity to speak to the issues that you presented in the short time they could spend led to a very direct and passionate speaking to such things as they were given opportunity to address.

I think, too, that the passion (and your lack of convention background) may have blocked your view of the humor in what they said; knowing them and knowing their background, they were simply having a good time with you while staying focused on what needed to be said--especially their expression of concern for the pastors who followed the dissent process to 'the end' only to find that 'the end' was 'being ignored'. This is by no means a group that has been tilting at windmills; they are, to a man, gentle pastors who would have been content to serve their parishes quietly and without controversy, had not the rising tide of false teaching and practice in Missouri made it necessary for them to speak out.

Fwiw,

EJG
Hey, I wasn't trying to be rash, I was just sharing what I called an impression, and was very up front in these threads that the impression was based on that interview. So I think everyone who regularly reads this forum was up to speed, and of course the forum is also a good place for you to correct misunderstandings. And, yes, I could tell that a lot of it was just you guys having fun and engaging in banter, as when you (forgive me if it was one of the others present, I didn't write down the names to go with the faces and I'd never met any of you before) began by saying "I have one side to my personality-evil" and everyone laughed. I tried to engage at a similar level when the person speaking explained that he always began conversations with new acquaintances like this in order to lower expectations as far as possible, and I merely responded, "Well done," which was supposed to be humorous but only garnered a few smiles. I'm pretty confident that my reports of your answers have fairly represented the substance of that interview.   
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave_Poedel on July 23, 2007, 01:11:39 PM
I am confused: did the ELDoNA guys leave the LCMS?  If so, that makes their website and answers to Peter's interview more understandable to me.  If they left the LCMS, what were they doing at the Convention? If they are in the LCMS, why?
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: janielou13 on July 23, 2007, 02:45:15 PM
"If they left the LCMS," what were they doing at the Convention?"

Yes they have left Mother Mo,,,,,, but their take might be that they were pushed out.

",,,,,,,what were they doing at the Convention?"

Moths to the flame ?
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 23, 2007, 02:52:44 PM
Quote
Hey, I wasn't trying to be rash, I was just sharing what I called an impression, and was very up front in these threads that the impression was based on that interview.

I'm sorry; my words appeared far harsher than I intended.

Quote
And, yes, I could tell that a lot of it was just you guys having fun and engaging in banter, as when you (forgive me if it was one of the others present, I didn't write down the names to go with the faces and I'd never met any of you before) began by saying "I have one side to my personality-evil" and everyone laughed.

That might have been me.

Quote
I tried to engage at a similar level when the person speaking explained that he always began conversations with new acquaintances like this in order to lower expectations as far as possible, and I merely responded, "Well done," which was supposed to be humorous but only garnered a few smiles.

That definitely was me. I thought your response was funny, though it would have been less funny if I openly showed it; if the ELDoNA guys didn't react to the humor, it may just have been a function of them being 'protective' of me. That is a distinguishing feature of those in ELDoNA, imo: they actively seek to make sure that people are taken care of...to provide what they experienced the LCMS not providing.

Quote
I'm pretty confident that my reports of your answers have fairly represented the substance of that interview. †

I agree with that statement, and I hope that my words did not lead anyone to believe otherwise.

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 23, 2007, 02:59:24 PM
Quote
I am confused: did the ELDoNA guys leave the LCMS?  If so, that makes their website and answers to Peter's interview more understandable to me.?

Yes.

Quote
If they left the LCMS, what were they doing at the Convention?

Just because you're not in a body, that doesn't mean that you aren't concerned about it. ELDoNA had representatives at the ACLC/OLCCIC conference, perhaps at the ELS convention, will have them at the meeting of The Augustana Ministerium, etc. Among other things, they sought to support those who have attempted to be heard and have been 'thrown away' by the LCMS.

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 23, 2007, 03:11:55 PM
Wow. A group of people who thought the LC-MS dead wrong, left it, and still show up to trouble it. At least they had the integrity to leave it.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave_Poedel on July 23, 2007, 04:20:35 PM
EJG:  Eric, we don't use pseudonyms here...besides, as a fellow Pole, everyone knows that your spelling of your pseudonym is not the traditional Grabowski spelling ....just a FYI.... ;)....but you will probably inform me that yours is the CORRECT spelling.....
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 23, 2007, 04:38:27 PM
Dan,

I was speaking about ELDoNA's attire.  We're very style conscious here in the Northeast.  I received a wonderful bishop's cassock replete with the appropriately-colored buttons, piping and sash from a pastor on the anniversary of his ordination.  I thought the pictures had wandered westward and ELDoNAns were taking their sartorial cues from me.

As to denominational affiliation, the comments of Grabauski (is that short for Grabau?  If so, I and many in the land of LCMS/ALPB take a mediating position between Grabau and Walther = Loehe), which were on the toughish side of the ALPB-meter but right down the middle of the neo-Flacian punch-n-poke contingent, would lead me to understand that the lads were heretofore in the LCMS.  In that case, as one who was asked to leave, I could scarcely request them to do the same.  That would be churlish.  On the other hand, apparently they've already left.

So - come back, ELDoNA!  Come to the salty waters of Atlantic, where Almy and Slabbinck are handy to transit.  You can come with me to Chiarelli's in Ozone Park, the gourmet clergy garment barn of Queens.  We'll take the A Train to Pitkin Avenue.  You'll find me to be a kindly bishop in the manner of Loehe.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on July 23, 2007, 04:57:45 PM
Dan,

I was speaking about ELDoNA's attire.† We're very style conscious here in the Northeast.† I received a wonderful bishop's cassock replete with the appropriately-colored buttons, piping and sash from a pastor on the anniversary of his ordination.† I thought the pictures had wandered westward and ELDoNAns were taking their sartorial cues from me.

Dave Benke

Thanks, Dave, I appreciate the clarification.  I wonder if anyone will use Roger Pittelko style bishop's shirts..or maybe borrow one from President Wollengerg? I never thought of the COP as style setters.  Maybe a new magazine, BQ - Bishop's Quarterly.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 23, 2007, 05:43:54 PM
EJG:† Eric, we don't use pseudonyms here...besides, as a fellow Pole, everyone knows that your spelling of your pseudonym is not the traditional Grabowski spelling ....just a FYI.... ;)....but you will probably inform me that yours is the CORRECT spelling.....

Dave, I just now saw the "quote" button above your post, so I am still learning the parameters of the board. Unfortunately, more people are able to identify 'Grabauski' than 'Stefanski', as it has been my typical signature on the 'net since the late 80s, early 90s. Thus, by no means is it used to hide who I am, etc.

As to the spelling, it's not a matter of being correct, but of being a corrective to a district president who was fond of calling me "The Polish Stefan," which seemed not a good thing with the spectre of morals charges still hanging over his head. This being about the time that a short term seminary president was referring to anyone with a non-Hoeflingite view of the Ministry as a Grabauite, Grabau_ski seemed a better alternative.

Point of Trivia: perhaps the most famous of the Grabowskis actually lives near me, too...Norm 'Woo Woo' Grabowski, aka 'Treble' on the "Batman" series, Petoski on "Canonball Run," something or other else on "Hooper," etc...I run into him now and again at Wal-Mart. Of course, Randy Weaver and Thom Robb also live in the area (not that I am linking the two of them!), whatever that means.

BTW, our family is not related to most of the Stefanskis you meet; therefore, we intentionally mispronounce our own name, too.

Now, let me see if I can design a footer... (after which, I'll probably stop posting...)

EJG

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 23, 2007, 05:48:53 PM
As to denominational affiliation, the comments of Grabauski (is that short for Grabau?† If so, I and many in the land of LCMS/ALPB take a mediating position between Grabau and Walther = Loehe), which were on the toughish side of the ALPB-meter but right down the middle of the neo-Flacian punch-n-poke contingent, would lead me to understand that the lads were heretofore in the LCMS.† In that case, as one who was asked to leave, I could scarcely request them to do the same.† That would be churlish.† On the other hand, apparently they've already left.

So - come back, ELDoNA!† Come to the salty waters of Atlantic, where Almy and Slabbinck are handy to transit.† You can come with me to Chiarelli's in Ozone Park, the gourmet clergy garment barn of Queens.† We'll take the A Train to Pitkin Avenue.† You'll find me to be a kindly bishop in the manner of Loehe.

Y'know, it's like dealing with my Baptist neighbors: as long as we're in separate church bodies and don't pretend we're the same, we get along very well. Either of us being outside of the LCMS makes you a much more likable guy. Unfortunately, I think that your leaving would have had a much greater positive impact on Missouri than mine did.

EJG (now with a working signature, but still a zero post count, evidently an evaluation of quality)
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 23, 2007, 06:21:55 PM
I like your candor, Eric.  My sense for the longest time has been that the gnesio-Lutheran substrata on the right edge of the LCMS and sort of in the mainstream of the ELS and WELS is dependent on Reformed theological processes.  The evangelical and catholic phraseology that I find helpful in describing Lutheranism is time-tested and in use in many areas of practice - does this (whatever the issue) pass the evangelical test - does it come down on the side of the Gospel?  Does this pass the catholic test - does it have universal applicability for the Church now and through the ages?  I find that process of discernment to be helpful in forming a dynamic and centrist Lutheran movement not only here in the US but around the world for the future.

One of the side benefits (or deficits, depending on your view) of my suspension and subsequent release has been seen in the much-discussed dispute resolution process.  At a certain appeal level, the appellant can name a District President to be on the three-person panel.  The respondent DP names one, and a third is chosen.  I've been on a flotilla of those panels since coming off suspension.  I think the appellants are thinking "he can feel my pain."  Which I do.  Appropriately, of course.  So consider yours felt.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 24, 2007, 09:15:31 AM
They seem to be disaffected LC-MS folks... but I'm not sure on that.† Any help would be appreciated, so I can better understand their answers to the interview questions!
Yup.† That is what they are.† I spent some time talking to their Primate about a year or so ago, and though things may have changed since then, at that time they had not really moved very far from the LCMS other than in polity.

Yet, it was more than that, too: it was the LCMS 'system'--Walther's experiment fallen into horrible abuse that led to such goings on. Thus, the formation of a system that is not like the American 'synods', nor yet like the state church episcopacies...a system in which there is no coercive power exercised over congregations, but in which the Superintendent's/Bishop's relationship is with the pastors and not with the parishes.
Again from my discussion with their Primate, they are much more congregational than you might think.† As a group, they were not really interested in moving into the historic apostolic succession at that time.† (The Primate seemed to be, but the other Pastors were wary of taking that step, and he could not do anything along those lines without their approval.)†

The Bishops' relationship with the pastors as it was explained to me, seemed to be sort of a "first among equals," who's authority was combination of a coordinator similar to an old ALC Bishop, with some elements of the Moravian Church model where the Bishop's role is that of the guarantor of orthodoxy and the one who performs ordinations.† Things may have changed since then.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: LutherMan on July 24, 2007, 09:56:05 AM


EJG (now with a working signature, but still a zero post count, evidently an evaluation of quality)

Some of the best posts have come from those 'stuck' at a zero count on the LCMS convention reports. 
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: John Rutowicz on July 24, 2007, 09:57:02 AM
Hello.

With all of this talk about Polaks, North-eastern culture and clothing, and Grabau, I just couldn't resist coming on here.  Yes, I am the so called "diocesan leader" wafting through the halls of the convention giving out command-tones to my mindless drones.  Actually, I'm just one of the mindless drones who happens to like frock coats.

One of my goals in wearing the coat (besides simply dressing like a Lutheran pastor) was to grab attention.  Obviously I've accomplished that goal.  Being mocked by none other than the famous Dr. David Benke, I feel somehow honored.  Well, I'm not offended, but I didn't think I was all that frightening.  At least I wasn't wearing the Missouri Synod clerical uniform - the polo shirt.

I will not speak for ELDoNA, only for myself, but ELDoNA is trying to simply be Lutheran in doctrine and practice.  We're not ecumenists.  We don't worship the 1932 Brief Statement.  We're not trying to be more Missouri than Missouri.  We think the world needs an essentially 16th century Lutheranism, gently updated for the 21st century.  We don't want anything to do with Pietism, Rationalsm, Ecumenism, or Revivalism.  We want a fully liturgical, sacramental form of Lutheranism, and we know one thing for certain, the LCMS isn't it.  The LCMS is just the most respectable form of Baptist-like Protestantism in America.

I probably would have left the LCMS eventually anyway not only because of various doctrinal problems, but because of the Baptist flavor of the whole thing, but yes Dr. Benke, your Yankee Stadium "event" and the synod's subsequent approval and advocacy of such syncretism was the last straw for me.  Now, I'm sure you're a very personable man, but I could not be in fellowship with you, nor President Kieschnick.  I believe that salvation itself is at stake when one engages in syncretism or has fellowship with those who are unrepentant for syncretism.

Missouri has nothing to fear from ELDoNA.  ELDoNA will, no doubt, always be a very small group of people, and not very appealing to most Missourians.  And besides, I would think Dr. Benke would like the message we give to LCMS conservatives.  We essentially tell them to stop fighting for control of the institution and be true to their confession.

Now, I give myself over to whatever criticism you would like to make.

Pastor John Rutowicz
St. Boniface Ev. Lutheran Church
Niles, MI
(a.k.a. The Grand Master of Command-Tones)
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: janielou13 on July 24, 2007, 11:51:08 AM
Where ever did you find a real frock coat ??  Norm Nagel in his Valparaiso incarnation wore one with knee breeches and buckled shoes,,,,,,, really wowed the undergrads.  He brought the outfit back with him after his Cambridge days,,, it looked more smart than silly, actually, and Nagel was made for it and it for him.

Suppose now Wippell's is the closest place to find one,,,,,,, one hopes it wouldn't set off the Homeland Secutiry strange alien alarm when it got to customs.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 24, 2007, 12:11:30 PM
Oh Grand-Master of the Commanding Tones,

I'm curious to hear a bit more about you guys, so I have at least two questions for you just by way of information.

First, why did you see it necessary to start your own denomination rather than joining an existing denomination?  If the big ones didn't seem appropriate (ELCA, LCMS, WELS and perhaps ELS, if they can be considered "big"), what about some of the other micro-synods?

Second, could you please flesh out your statement: "I believe that salvation itself is at stake when one engages in syncretism or has fellowship with those who are unrepentant for syncretism" a bit more?  Thanks.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: John Rutowicz on July 24, 2007, 12:17:19 PM
Where ever did you find a real frock coat ??†

http://www.clergyapparel.com/

John Rutowicz
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 24, 2007, 12:26:47 PM
First, why did you see it necessary to start your own denomination rather than joining an existing denomination?† If the big ones didn't seem appropriate (ELCA, LCMS, WELS and perhaps ELS, if they can be considered "big"), what about some of the other micro-synods?

Perhaps you missed the earlier posting on this: http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=676.msg19818#msg19818

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: John Rutowicz on July 24, 2007, 12:53:38 PM
First, why did you see it necessary to start your own denomination rather than joining an existing denomination?  If the big ones didn't seem appropriate (ELCA, LCMS, WELS and perhaps ELS, if they can be considered "big"), what about some of the other micro-synods?

I am not aware of other appropriate micro-synods.

Second, could you please flesh out your statement: "I believe that salvation itself is at stake when one engages in syncretism or has fellowship with those who are unrepentant for syncretism" a bit more?  Thanks.

Well, I'm not quite sure how to flesh it out, but I guess I'd start by saying Jesus is the only way of salvation.  One must be in Him to be saved.  Worshipping other gods puts one outside of Christ.  Having fellowship with such a person causes one to share in his wickedness.

I know you're probably looking for more than that, but that's the basic idea.

Rutowicz
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: pilgrimpriest on July 24, 2007, 01:35:10 PM
Where ever did you find a real frock coat ?? 

http://www.clergyapparel.com/

John Rutowicz

Everything for the man or woman who would be Pope, Archbishop of Titipu, or High-priest of Kahless the Unforgettable. I especially liked the white and gold-edged cassocks... a guy could become some kind of Super-Pope with that one! :)

Priest Robert
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 24, 2007, 01:37:08 PM
I did not get the memo that "frock coats" are required to appear as a Lutheran pastor.

Is it just me, but is it just a little sad, and weird, that the entire ALPB's excellent live blogging category of the recent convention now has been reduced, seemingly, to conversations about ELDONA, an organization consisting of seven or so pastors and even fewer congregations?

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 24, 2007, 01:45:38 PM
John,

As one estimable diocesan leader to another, my comments on things sartorial could never be taken as mockery, surely, because of the old adage, "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery." †Here on ALPB-Bay, maybe we can do some garment-swapping so I can get my hands on that frock coat. †I'm thinking you ordered the regular one, though, and not the bishop's one; I only saw you and yours from a bit of a distance so I couldn't be sure. †If so, you need to take the upgrade and get me the one you're wearing. †We're not allowed to use the term "bishop" anyway in the LCMS so I need the clothes to make the point; there was an overture to the last synod convention to assess a $500 fine for such usage, by which we in the Atlantic Diocese (oops, District) would have brought in thousands and thousands of Tetzelian coin into the coffers, had the overture been passed.

As to syncretism, your error as I see it is in establishing hard and fast "fellowship" rubrics for civic events and then making them divisive of and terminal to eucharistic or church fellowship within your denominational group. †As you're aware, this whole dialog is in its third or fourth CTCR rescension. †Beneath that, I believe the practical question to you is what what constitutes a conscience-binder of the degree that mandates leaving your denominational fellowship. †

I don't believe I've ever met or conversed with you, so your decision to boogie from the LCMS was made absent any contact with me and based on whatever public information and denomational decisions you had. †And let's face it, if you're going to boogie, you may as well do so elegantly, and you have accomplished that.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: janielou13 on July 24, 2007, 02:28:22 PM
In lieu of 'let's all just get along' perhaps a better solution would be for all just to become synods of one,,,,,,,,, then everone could be a bishop, and I'll buy stock in Wippell's.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: John Rutowicz on July 24, 2007, 03:38:01 PM
Dear Dr. Benke

Thanks for the upgrade to elegant.  Perhaps someday I may meet you when I'm visiting my family in Connecticut.  I agree with Father Stefanski that it is much easier to be civil and relaxed when our fates are not intertwined.  Hopefully some day we may see eye-to-eye, but I think it was much better that I left because there was no middle ground to be had.

Just as a matter of clarification, I am not the bishop nor any kind of diocesan leader.  Iím a simple parish pastor with a frock coat and a beautiful set of chasubles, so at least I can be insignificant in style.

Of course, five baptisms, four conformations, two funerals, and one wedding in the last three years isnít so bad for a congregation of 25.

Pr. Rutowicz
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: John Rutowicz on July 24, 2007, 03:40:57 PM
Is it just me,  

Yes, it's just you.

but is it just a little sad, and weird,

aww!  Having a bad day?  Here's a smiley face for you.   :)
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Richard Johnson on July 24, 2007, 03:43:09 PM

Of course, five baptisms, four conformations,

I've been trying to get people to conform in my parish for 23 years. How do you do it?
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 24, 2007, 03:48:47 PM
First, why did you see it necessary to start your own denomination rather than joining an existing denomination?† If the big ones didn't seem appropriate (ELCA, LCMS, WELS and perhaps ELS, if they can be considered "big"), what about some of the other micro-synods?

Perhaps you missed the earlier posting on this: http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=676.msg19818#msg19818

EJG

Yep, I did.  Thanks.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 24, 2007, 03:51:03 PM
I know you're probably looking for more than that, but that's the basic idea.

You're probably right, but that's enough to sate my curiosity for now.  Thanks.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Daniel L. Gard on July 25, 2007, 11:14:21 AM
This thread has been interesting to read and I cannot resist offering my own thoughts.

I am one who resists splits in the Synod and argue for the continuation of our fellowship.  With that said, I do appreciate the integrity which drives some like the ELDoNA pastors to leave the LC-MS.  I may disagree with their decision but I believe they reached it as a matter of conscience.

Incidently, I have never persoanally read or heard an ELDoNA pastor condemn those who remain in the Synod. So I thank them for their willingness to let others also live by conscience.

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 25, 2007, 06:33:08 PM
One might however question the wisdom of ELDONA men attending a LCMS convention when clearly they are in the process of recruiting from the ranks of the LCMS ministerium, then taking umbrage that their presence was not formally "recognized" as if they are simply another Lutheran church body observing the convention. There is something unseemly about this situation of the ELDONA presence at The LCMS convention. Some may understandably describe it as "sheep stealing." It reminds me of the time a gaggle of Greek Orthodox priests/former-LCMS pastors showed up at a LCMS conference doing their best to woo men away from their calling in The LCMS.

I may respect the fact that they are taking a principled stand (even if I do not agree with them), and their right to follow the dictates of their conscience, but I do not agree with their presence at a LCMS convention and regard the "air time" they have received seems to be well out of proportion to their significance.


Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: pilgrimpriest on July 25, 2007, 09:03:11 PM
It reminds me of the time a gaggle of Greek Orthodox priests/former-LCMS pastors showed up at a LCMS conference doing their best to woo men away from their calling in The LCMS.

:( Tacky. Especially since were it in reverse they'd have been promptly shown the door. Apologies by proxy.

Fr. Bob
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 25, 2007, 09:11:03 PM
One might however question the wisdom of ELDONA men attending a LCMS convention when clearly they are in the process of recruiting from the ranks of the LCMS ministerium, then taking umbrage that their presence was not formally "recognized"

I do not agree with their presence at a LCMS convention and regard the "air time" they have received seems to be well out of proportion to their significance.

I think we might do well to speak only the truth about them, Paul.

1. They were not "recruiting" any more than the presiding bishop of ELCA was. That they are being contacted by some LCMS guys should not prevent their attendance any more than it would prevent John Molstad's, etc. (Of course, some of the ELS guys and WELS guys are checking out ELDoNA, too.

2. They took no "umbrage" about not being recognized; they took umbrage that the dissenting pastor was not having his dissent dealt with...that dissent in Missouri is as Consensus said it would be a couple of years ago: "futile."

3. The thought that they should not appear at an LCMS convention is tantamount to their not appearing anywhere within Lutheranism, because there are pastors all over who are making inquiry of them. More, though, all but one of their pastors left Missouri after the 2004 convention, and they desired to attend this one as a matter of 'confirmation'...to gain firsthand knowledge of Missouri continuing to go in the direction they thought it was going.

4. Missouri was small and orthodox once, too...and got far more attention than it should have; some would say it still does get too much attention. Be that as it may, the nature of a conversation is that it goes in whatever direction its participants desire; in this case, they have desired to talk about ELDoNA; those that don't want to hear it could, conceivably, walk away by not reading messages in this topic area. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate reaction than complaining about what others wish to discuss...especially when several of the posts have simply sought to clarify misinformation and groundless grousing...which, nonetheless, continues.

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 25, 2007, 10:32:42 PM
Just calling it as I, and many others, see it, Eric.

No Missouri Synod father would have thought of attending a Lutheran church body's convention that they regarded to be heterodox and sit in the back and have "conversations" with people "willing to talk to them." We both know what's going on here.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 26, 2007, 07:44:45 AM
I think there's a thread out there waiting to be needled on the attraction of the Orthodox churches for Lutheran pastors.  Jery Pelikan (+) has been the most notable of the contingent, but it's my understanding that there's a sizable group that has been migrating in the midwest.   St. Vladimir's Seminary is right down the block from Concordia Bronxville, and the newly arrived clergy here in the Atlantic District tend to take graduate courses either at St. Vlad's or at Fordham, so there's plenty of cross-fertilization. 

Anyway, what's the attraction?  It would be easy to pick at the many law-oriented practices revelatory of doctrinal differences.  However, my sense is that at the core the attraction for pastors is a secure ecclesiology, a sense of church being Church that includes holy orders.   

ELDoNA at the very least dresses the part. 

Arguing for an evangelical catholic Lutheran core is from my point of view productive of assisting those considering jumping the fence in any direction to participate in what is ecclesiologically our elegant Lutheran leanness a la Loehe, for example,  while understanding that the more diverse expressions of life in the Body that mandatorily accompany a larger national denomination are not only to be tolerated, but are to be celebrated.

My view is that ELDoNA is lonely and wants to come home. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 26, 2007, 08:21:43 AM
Dave, your comment reminded me of another truly odd moment in the convention when the delegate moved to exclude Loehe from the fathers whose birthdays we will be commemorating.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 26, 2007, 10:18:44 AM
Just calling it as I, and many others, see it, Eric.

No Missouri Synod father would have thought of attending a Lutheran church body's convention that they regarded to be heterodox and sit in the back and have "conversations" with people "willing to talk to them." We both know what's going on here.

Complaining about a thread is just silly...and perpetuates what you are complaining about.

The ELDoNA guys were not sitting in the back and having conversations with anyone. They observed. That's what was going on. I know what's going on, because I actually saw it.

As to their hospitality suite, the most obvious purpose carried out by it was the advertising of those who were not allowed to advertise in the convention hall: Vox Visuals, The Augustana Ministerium, and so on.

It is sad that Missourianism tends to make people so cynical and expecting of devious motives. It's bad enough when you apply such judgments to one another, but it seems that no one is immune from being suspect to those who are in such a divided and contentious body.

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 26, 2007, 10:24:37 AM
My view is that ELDoNA is lonely and wants to come home.†

Mine--actually knowing those involved--is that ELDoNA considers itself to be at home and went to offer to support to the struggling, especially to those who contacted its bishop because they've had enough of Missouri's falseness ("a very pleasant time of contention was had by all on the convention floor, as every decision advanced a false teaching agenda, after which all merrily went to their seminary's reception," etc.).

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 26, 2007, 10:54:19 AM
You have a point Eric and if I have in fact judged hearts and motives, I am sorry.

It just seems to me however that it is a bit odd to advertise the ELDONA presence before the convention and its presence in a hospitality suite, open to inquirers. Such actions, to me, give the appearance of sheep stealing and I just don't think that is right.

Motivations may well be pure and high-minded, but I do not think it is right to do this kind of thing.

That's my opinion.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 26, 2007, 09:23:55 PM
I would want to tack on to Paul's point here this proviso - when speaking of "false teaching" and "false teaching agenda," Eric, add a healthy dose of "in the opinion of ELDoNA and its ilk" before completing the sentence.  I just put "and its ilk" in there because of the word "ilk."  Very much under-utilized. 

But really, if ELDoNA is our LCMS de facto magisterium, they ought to be paid, and paid handsomely.  And get some serious mike time.  And finally, donate that long frock coat to a needy East-Coast bishop because they'll have the money for the garb upgrades.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 27, 2007, 06:21:15 PM
I would want to tack on to Paul's point here this proviso - when speaking of "false teaching" and "false teaching agenda," Eric, add a healthy dose of "in the opinion of ELDoNA and its ilk" before completing the sentence.† I just put "and its ilk" in there because of the word "ilk."† Very much under-utilized.

Just to clarify: the quotation marks were not meant to be a quote of ELDoNA, but of the mood of the LCMS convention. Thus, when speaking of "false teaching" and "false teaching agenda," it was not "in the opinion of ELDoNA and its ilk," but simply in the understanding of this writer both during and after the convention--and as much or more because of my reading of the 'conservatives' as of the JF crowd. The 'right' has come home talking about how pleasant everything was, and reckoning the convention as if they hadn't lost on every issue and nearly every seat on the boards, just because people were civil to them (even to those who were at the mic continuously...the chief sign of poor organization).

Fwiw,

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 27, 2007, 06:23:56 PM
Motivations may well be pure and high-minded, but I do not think it is right to do this kind of thing.

That's my opinion.

To which you are certainly entitled and with which I, in part, sympathize. From my interactions with the ELDoNA guys, though, I don't think that 'sheep stealing' ('shepherd stealing'?) was an aim.

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 27, 2007, 06:58:28 PM
I think there's a thread out there waiting to be needled on the attraction of the Orthodox churches for Lutheran pastors .†. . Anyway, what's the attraction?† It would be easy to pick at the many law-oriented practices revelatory of doctrinal differences.† However, my sense is that at the core the attraction for pastors is a secure ecclesiology, a sense of church being Church that includes holy orders.†
That seems, IMHO, to be true for those who want to "return Home" whether that Home is across the Bosphorus or the Tiber.† I would add to your short list, a sense of History.† I believe it was John Henry Cardinal Newman who wrote something to the effect that, "to be deep in History is to cease to be a Protestant." (Not all EC's see Lutheranism as Protestant, nor do they see themselves as Protestants except in the sense of not being under the authority of the Pope.)

At any rate, every now and then someone wonders out loud - or in print - whether or not†the desire to heal the wounds of the 16th century and reunite with Holy Mother Church is a fundamental "internal logic" which lies deep in the heart of Evangelical Catholic Lutheranism.† (Personally, I think they are right.† It is.)† Among the EC's who have internalized that, and feel impelled to contribute to the reunion of the Church, some see Rome as "Home."† Others see Eastern Orthodoxy as "Home," as being closer to the ideals of the early Lutheran reformers and closer to the Patristic era Church; so they "swim the Bosphorus" rather than the Tiber.† It could be as simple as that.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 27, 2007, 07:26:29 PM
Reunite with Holy Mother Church? We are already in "holy mother church" so no reunification is necessary.

"The Church is the mother that begets and bears all Christians by the Word of God."

No need to be in visible union with the three crowned bishop in Rome for that!
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 27, 2007, 08:26:10 PM
I think you're making my point here, Eric.  If ELDoNA does NOT think there was "falseness" there at the convention and was just receiving those in the LCMS who opined with you that falseness indeed prevailed, then maybe ELDoNA DOESN"T think there's "falseness" in Missouri, and were warding off the grumpies.  If that's the case, then they'll need to request that mass re-instatement interview that Dan and I want them to apply for.  In which case
a) they will tell the "false-folk" to cease and desist and
b) they will have no use for that long frock coat unless and until one of them is elected as a DP in a saltwater district.  What with global warming, that eventual saltwater district could be Central Illinois!  But for now, the coat of one color (or is it all colors) should rest in eastern New York.  One man's opinion.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 27, 2007, 10:16:05 PM
Reunite with Holy Mother Church? We are already in "holy mother church" so no reunification is necessary.

"The Church is the mother that begets and bears all Christians by the Word of God."

No need to be in visible union with the three crowned bishop in Rome for that!
I was responding to + Benke's question as to what was the attraction leading what is apparently a small but steady stream of Lutherans across the Bosphorus (and by implication, the Tiber.)  Your statement is a fair representation of LCMS ecclesiology, but doesn't address + Benke's question as to what might be the attraction of Eastern Orthodoxy to Lutherans who have chosen become Eastern Orthodox.

While your statement is what I would expect to hear from a mainstream LCMS pastor, keep in mind that many Evangelical Catholic Lutherans - not Confessing Evangelicals, now, but Evangelical Catholics (including but not limited to those who are swimming the Tiber and the Bosphorus,) who do not see themselves or Lutheranism, for that matter, as really Protestant, have a different ecclesiology, and a different set of imperitives steming from that ecclesiology.   Here, we have to simply agree to disagree.

Do you have an answer to + Benke's question?

Blessings,
Irl
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 27, 2007, 10:17:41 PM
No, Irl, my statement is a fair representation of the theology of the Lutheran Confessions, not merely "LCMS Ecclesiology." Granted, your sect has embraced a mixtum compositum of confessions, but it by no means the case that you are representing historic Lutheranism. The Papacy's claims about itself have no validity or legitimacy and must be rejected precisely for the sake of the Evangel. And there is nothing "catholic" about what is uniquely Roman in Roman Catholicism.

As for Pres. Benke's question: what question?

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 27, 2007, 10:19:52 PM
Incidently, + Benke, welcome to the ALPB Forum Online. †I hope you stay, and respond to other threads of discussion in addition to this one. †And while your participation in that Memorial after 9-11 was controversial - at least within the LCMS, some of us applaud you for your participation. †That was a painful, extrordinary time. †You did well, In my humble opinion. †Thanks!

Blessings,
+ + Irl Gladfelter
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 27, 2007, 10:26:21 PM
No, Irl, my statement is a fair representation of the theology of the Lutheran Confessions, not merely "LCMS Ecclesiology." Granted, your sect has embraced a mixtum compositum of confessions, but it by no means the case that you are representing historic Lutheranism. The Papacy's claims about itself have no validity or legitimacy and must be rejected precisely for the sake of the Evangel. And there is nothing "catholic" about what is uniquely Roman in Roman Catholicism.
As a lawyer might say, exception noted.† (And respected.)† This is area in which we simply differ;† "agree to disagree" and move on . . .† There are still areas in which there are common interests which we can work together to advance.
 
So, how do you answer + Benke's question?† What is the attraction leading some Lutherans to cross the Bosphorus (and by implication, the Tiber?)

Blessings,
Irl
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 27, 2007, 10:32:53 PM
+ Benke,

[snip]

Blessings,
+ + Irl Gladfelter

Ooo -- a bishop slap-down!† The + vs. the ++.† ;) ;D :D

[Would I be: - Yakimow?  Though I would prefer: * Yakimow]
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 27, 2007, 10:47:44 PM
No one can imagine how it tickles me to find that the LC-MS has its troublesome dissidents on the fringe. Of course Herman Otten has set the platinum standard, and gets points for persistence and staying power.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 27, 2007, 10:57:06 PM
No one can imagine how it tickles me to find that the LC-MS has its troublesome dissidents on the fringe. Of course Herman Otten has set the platinum standard, and gets points for persistence and staying power.

Glee?!?!† An expression of glee at another denomination's troubles?!?!† Moderator!† Oh, Moderator -- for the love of the children, please, please, please do something to make the horror stop!† Oh the humanity!!!

 ::)† ;D
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 27, 2007, 11:11:36 PM
The key to keeping gleeful, Charles, is to see the world as we see it; most of Christendom is just the troublesome fringes of the LCMS. That ought to keep you tickled until kingdom come. Be brave, Scott.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 27, 2007, 11:40:26 PM
+ Benke,

[snip]

Blessings,
+ + Irl Gladfelter

Ooo -- a bishop slap-down!† The + vs. the ++.† ;) ;D :D

[Would I be: - Yakimow?† Though I would prefer: * Yakimow]
Oops . . .  :-[  I did not intend it to come across that way . . .†  :-\

Blessings,
+ Irl
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 27, 2007, 11:45:53 PM
I think you're making my point here, Eric.† If ELDoNA does NOT think there was "falseness" there at the convention

I didn't say that, though, did I?

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Mel Harris on July 28, 2007, 02:39:38 AM

[Would I be: - Yakimow?† Though I would prefer: * Yakimow]


Then why is your name at the top now listed as "._.Yakimow"?† †???

As I remember posting a while back, I think it likely that a "+" was placed upon you when you were baptized.

Mel Harris
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 28, 2007, 07:21:34 AM
What is the attraction leading some Lutherans to cross the Bosphorus (and by implication, the Tiber?)

I think there is some element in here of guys preferring the fancy duds and playing "dress up."


Seriously, I believe that Pres. Benke is correct that a good bit of the time it is a desire to find "security" and a highly authoritarian structure claiming divine right to make eternally binding decrees on the people of God offers a certain comfort to people who need that kind of thing. The romance of alleged "historic succession" is also important for some. Much more could be said, of course.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 28, 2007, 08:27:21 AM
Quote from Irl Gladfelter:† What is the attraction leading some Lutherans to cross the Bosphorus (and by implication, the Tiber?)

Answer by ptmccain:† I think there is some element in here of guys preferring the fancy duds and playing "dress up."

My comment:† That may be an element for some but if so that is unfortunate and is no reason to convert.

ptmccain observes:† Seriously, I believe that Pres. Benke is correct that a good bit of the time it is a desire to find "security" and a highly authoritarian structure claiming divine right to make eternally binding decrees on the people of God offers a certain comfort to people who need that kind of thing. The romance of alleged "historic succession" is also important for some. Much more could be said, of course.

My observation:† I agree.† Among possible reasons for choosing to "swim the Bosphorus" rather than the Tiber is that Eastern Orthodoxy considers the Roman Catholic Church to be heretical on a number of points, including the institution of the monarchial Papacy.† The Eastern Orthodox Churches are ruled by a Holy Synod (council of Bishops) presided over by a Patriarch who, while greatly respected, is only a "first among equals;"† and Constantinople seems to have no direct authority over the Autocephalous Churches.† Moral authorithy, yes, but not legal authority.† There is a sort of "rough democracy" in Eastern Orthodox† polity (I mean that in a good sense) which requires the assent / consent of the Bishops before any significant change in doctrine etc. really becomes effective.† For the Greek Church, the assent of a majority of the Monks on Mt. Athos seems to be important, etc.† Unlike Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy does not "fix the moment" of the real presence, or attempt to define it in other than rather general terms.

There are many other points which would seem to make Eastern Orthodoxy more comfortable than Roman Catholicism to someone coming out of conservative Lutheranism, but I will leave those to someone who has "crossed the Bosphorus" like Priest Robert McMeekin.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: R. T. Fouts on July 28, 2007, 09:53:38 AM
Nice try Scott.

I just goolged "Scott Yakimow" and on the 2nd page an entry from this APLB forum came up, showing you as Scott._.Yakimow.   

You've been out-smarted by Google, Scott.   :P   
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: pilgrimpriest on July 28, 2007, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from Irl Gladfelter:  What is the attraction leading some Lutherans to cross the Bosphorus (and by implication, the Tiber?)

Answer by ptmccain:  I think there is some element in here of guys preferring the fancy duds and playing "dress up."

My comment:  That may be an element for some but if so that is unfortunate and is no reason to convert.

ptmccain observes:  Seriously, I believe that Pres. Benke is correct that a good bit of the time it is a desire to find "security" and a highly authoritarian structure claiming divine right to make eternally binding decrees on the people of God offers a certain comfort to people who need that kind of thing. The romance of alleged "historic succession" is also important for some. Much more could be said, of course.

My observation:  I agree.  Among possible reasons for choosing to "swim the Bosphorus" rather than the Tiber is that Eastern Orthodoxy considers the Roman Catholic Church to be heretical on a number of points, including the institution of the monarchial Papacy.  The Eastern Orthodox Churches are ruled by a Holy Synod (council of Bishops) presided over by a Patriarch who, while greatly respected, is only a "first among equals;"  and Constantinople seems to have no direct authority over the Autocephalous Churches.  Moral authorithy, yes, but not legal authority.  There is a sort of "rough democracy" in Eastern Orthodox  polity (I mean that in a good sense) which requires the assent / consent of the Bishops before any significant change in doctrine etc. really becomes effective.  For the Greek Church, the assent of a majority of the Monks on Mt. Athos seems to be important, etc.  Unlike Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy does not "fix the moment" of the real presence, or attempt to define it in other than rather general terms.

There are many other points which would seem to make Eastern Orthodoxy more comfortable than Roman Catholicism to someone coming out of conservative Lutheranism, but I will leave those to someone who has "crossed the Bosphorus" like Priest Robert McMeekin.

The short course is like this (and forgive the terseness I'm on a tight schedule this morning):

1. The visible head of the Church on Earth is Christ in the Eucharist surrounded by His bishops, priests, deacons and people gathered in the one true faith as proclaimed in the Scriptures and defined by the Creed (Nicene-Constantinopolitan), and as faithfully taught in the Divine Liturgy, Holy Tradition (capital "T") and the teachings of the fathers. (Luther agrees with us on this point at least: there is no "Vicar of Christ" as "vicar" implies an absence of someone. Christ is present and ruling in His Church, not absent.)

2. Apostolic Succession is a succession of teaching and fellowship (Acts 2:42) among those set apart for the episcopal and priestly offices as a stewardship of the truth. (An understanding implicit in previous Lutheran ordinals, but somehow lost to those lusting after ECUSA orders... weird!)

3. If any one departs from the faith (vis a vis heresy or apostasy) they have, by their own volition, excommunicated themselves from the Church.

4. If a bishop or priest teaches contrary to the faith they are considered "anaxios" (unworthy) and the people should neither listen to them or acknowledge them as bishops or priests (and I have heard of the laity shouting down an Orthodox bishop with "anaxios!" and turning their backs on Him for permitting a female Episcopal priest to process vested in his cathedral at an "ecumenical" service).

5. The ministry of the proclamation of the Word of God is the right and the responsibility of all the baptized "royal priesthood" in the Church. The Bishops and priests are set apart as teachers of Orthodoxy, and to administer the holy mysteries (sacraments). They stand at the altar when required to serve, and among the laity at all other times.

Again, sorry for the brevity and tone. Gotta run.

Fr. Bob
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 28, 2007, 11:26:26 AM
Anyway -- this should fool them...

Scott, maybe "Yakky Maw" would do as well?

: )
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 28, 2007, 11:50:57 AM
Reminds me of an old Irish blessing/curse:

May those who love us love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we'll know them by their limping.


Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: jafrahm on July 28, 2007, 04:11:50 PM
I believe ELDoNA is comprised entirely or nearly entirely of former LCMS pastors.  www.eldona.org

Many of those involved with ELDoNA are also involved with the Augustana Ministerium, which is not a new synod or church body, but does cross synod/church body lines.
www.augustanaministerium.org

ELDoNA, as seen in previous posts by others, is attempting to deliberately go slowly in its development.  But I can't speak to that much further as I am not a member of it.

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 28, 2007, 06:35:06 PM
I'd be curious why Pr. Stefanski is not a member of ELDoNA.

And, is it just me, or is the name a bit on the grandiose-sounding side?

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: LCMS87 on July 28, 2007, 07:20:31 PM
I'd be curious why Pr. Stefanski is not a member of ELDoNA.

And, is it just me, or is the name a bit on the grandiose-sounding side?

Which name, Pr. Stefanski or ELDoNA?
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: LutherMan on July 28, 2007, 07:28:50 PM
I'd be curious why Pr. Stefanski is not a member of ELDoNA.

And, is it just me, or is the name a bit on the grandiose-sounding side?

Which name, Pr. Stefanski or ELDoNA?

 :D† Stefanski does sound like a polack pope's name!

However, I know him to be a very orthodox Lutheran with an excellent catechetical curriculum...

Gottesdienst:
Godís Grace in Liturgy and Life

http://www.grabauski.com/
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 28, 2007, 07:38:22 PM
Stefanski is his real name.

I was referring to "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America."

That sounds a bit on the grandiose side to me.

Not even The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, for all the accusations about how we are triumphalistic, has ever claimed to name itself, oh, something like: THE evangelical Lutheran church in America. That's a grandiose and arrogant claim. Oh, whoops. There is actually a Lutheran church that calls itself that. Never mind.

But calling yourself, "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese in North America" strikes my ears in the same way.

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: LutherMan on July 28, 2007, 07:46:18 PM
Stefanski is his real name.

Yes, I know that.  Gee, I hope he won't take umbrage at what I said...
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 28, 2007, 08:12:15 PM
Stefanski is his real name.

I was referring to "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America."

That sounds a bit on the grandiose side to me.

Not even The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, for all the accusations about how we are triumphalistic, has ever claimed to name itself, oh, something like: THE evangelical Lutheran church in America. That's a grandiose and arrogant claim. Oh, whoops. There is actually a Lutheran church that calls itself that. Never mind.

But calling yourself, "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese in North America" strikes my ears in the same way.†
Grandiose?  Through my admittedly "Romanized" filter, it sounds rather modest.†  :)  They are not claiming to be "The Lutheran Church" - only a (nongeographical) Diocese of the "larger Evangelical Lutheran Church."
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: John Rutowicz on July 29, 2007, 07:38:52 AM
And, is it just me, or is the name a bit on the grandiose-sounding side?

Once again, yes, itís just you.

Letís see, pastor McCainís criticisms of ELDoNA so far have been:

1)   ELDoNA is small.  ďan organization consisting of seven or so pastors and even fewer congregations?Ē
2)   ELDoNA might engage an LCMS pastor in conversation and tell him to not have fellowship with those involved with syncretism.  Thatís "sheep stealing."
3)   ELDoNA is too grandiose-sounding a name.

Wow!  Along with my need to play dress-up and my need to be subject to heavy-handed authority, itís all coming together for me now.  I now see the error of my ways.  Iíll get right on the phone to St. Louis and beg for forgiveness.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 29, 2007, 01:14:52 PM
Letís see, pastor McCainís criticisms of ELDoNA so far have been:
1)   ELDoNA is small.  ďan organization consisting of seven or so pastors and even fewer congregations?Ē
2)   ELDoNA might engage an LCMS pastor in conversation and tell him to not have fellowship with those involved with syncretism.  Thatís "sheep stealing."
3)   ELDoNA is too grandiose-sounding a name.

John, you don't serve yourself or your organization well when you misrepresent criticisms of it.

I've not criticized ELDoNA for being small. I have however questioned the wisdom of giving it as much "air time" as the ALPB forum has done, a coverage out of proportion to its size and/or significance.  That was my comment, which you seem to have misunderstood.

Nothing wrong with ELDoNA talking to people. Something not right about coming to a LCMS convention with the express purpose of wooing people away from their church body. That's called sheep stealing. It is inappropriate. Again, you misunderstood and therefore misrepresent my point.

The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book as The ELCA giving itself that name. You got this one correct.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: John Rutowicz on July 29, 2007, 02:56:38 PM
Pastor McCain,

I haven't misunderstood you nor have I misrepresented your arguments.  Rather than continue to argue with you, I'm going to bow out.  I will let you have the last word.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 29, 2007, 04:43:10 PM
Pastor McCain writes: re the group under discussion:
The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book at The ELCA giving itself that name.

I comment:
Here's a test. Can Pastor McCain make a comment without part of it being some kind of irrelevant and unconnected jab at the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the Church of England?
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 29, 2007, 04:55:37 PM
Pastor McCain writes: re the group under discussion:
The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book at The ELCA giving itself that name.

I comment:
Here's a test. Can Pastor McCain make a comment without part of it being some kind of irrelevant and unconnected jab at the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the Church of England?

Charles, being a former English major I'm sure you probably already know this, but in light of a number of your recent posts, I thought that I'd offer one defintion of ad hominem for you: "ad hominem — an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak."
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Charles_Austin on July 29, 2007, 05:14:50 PM
Scott writes:
"ad hominem ó an argument "against the man" or person.

I comment:
Ah, but my comment is not "against" Pastor McCain; who may be a nice person and a child of God. It is not against him as a person and I am not arguing for or against anything. I am only observing his tendency to use every possible occasion - relevant or not - to say something critical of the ELCA. Perhaps his is sort of an "ad ecclesiam" way of taking part in this forum. He's free to do so, of course, but I think it clutters discourse.
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 29, 2007, 05:18:41 PM
Scott writes:
"ad hominem — an argument "against the man" or person.

I comment:
Ah, but my comment is not "against" Pastor McCain; who may be a nice person and a child of God. It is not against him as a person and I am not arguing for or against anything. I am only observing his tendency to use every possible occasion - relevant or not - to say something critical of the ELCA. Perhaps his is sort of an "ad ecclesiam" way of taking part in this forum. He's free to do so, of course, but I think it clutters discourse.


Uh, sure.† Do you have any swampland I could purchase?

::)


[Speaking of clutter...]
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 29, 2007, 09:24:40 PM
Letís see, pastor McCainís criticisms of ELDoNA so far have been:
1)   ELDoNA is small.† ďan organization consisting of seven or so pastors and even fewer congregations?Ē
2)   ELDoNA might engage an LCMS pastor in conversation and tell him to not have fellowship with those involved with syncretism.† Thatís "sheep stealing."
3)   ELDoNA is too grandiose-sounding a name.

John, you don't serve yourself or your organization well when you misrepresent criticisms of it.

I've not criticized ELDoNA for being small. I have however questioned the wisdom of giving it as much "air time" as the ALPB forum has done, a coverage out of proportion to its size and/or significance.† That was my comment, which you seem to have misunderstood.

Nothing wrong with ELDoNA talking to people. Something not right about coming to a LCMS convention with the express purpose of wooing people away from their church body. That's called sheep stealing. It is inappropriate. Again, you misunderstood and therefore misrepresent my point.

The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book as The ELCA giving itself that name. You got this one correct.
A couple of minor points of clarification. The thread called ELDoNA came to be because one of them invited me to interview them at the convention and I found the interview interesting, so I included it in the list of interviews I put on the convention thread. That generated questions since nobody had ever heard of them before. So somebody began a thread to discuss who they are and what they're up to. My point is merely that the ALPB does not really give them airtime-- the airtime is free for anybody who wants it and uses it to discuss things Lutheran-- and apparently enough people have found it interesting enough to keep the discussion going. As for Paul McCain's "criticisms" I don't think they were so much criticisms as merely pointing out some of the things about ELDoNA that are different from your typical Lutheran body like ELS, WELS, ELCA, LCMS and therefore make ELDoNA worth its own thread. To whit, ELDoNA is much smaller, has a much longer (as Paul terms it, "grandiose") name, apparently wears cool attire (which Paul picked up from the discussion here and Pr. Benke's pointed hints that they should give some of it to him), is comprised of former LCMS pastors, and had a hospitality suite at the convention. Those are all pretty much factual bits of information which some will approve of and some won't.  No need for sniping about it, just say why you think what you think.

My dad told me that one thing he learned from his dad was that in writing letters to the editor or making any kind of critical remark, it is important to have a genuine suggestion (not a sarcastic one like "Perhaps it would be better if you took your medication before writing columns..." Actually my dad didn't use that example, but it is one I've been tempted toward at times); otherwise you're just griping or insulting people for no reason. Sometimes that suggestion is implicit, e.g. if someone says "That is heresy!" they're implicitly suggesting that the other person not say or believe that. But other times the suggestion needs to be more explicit. So, again because I'm new to moderating this, I'm going to use this exchange as an example, not because I thought it was particularly egregious but because it serves to make the point. It would have been better had Paul simply inquired as to the reasoning behind the rather unusual name ELDoNA or else made a suggestion of what he thought would be a better name, and it would have been better had John taken the opportunity of the "criticism" to explain how they came up with it. Then everyone would have been enlightened and nobody would have been irritated. Which would have been good, because naming churches is a tricky business; with "Missouri Synod" taken, it is pretty much a scramble for second best.

Also, please do not post anything merely as a comment about the other posters (unless it is clearly in good fun) and please remember that fierce partisans of virtually every side of everthing are welcome here, so a throwaway line or casual aside that pokes fun at anything might rankle people. Be witty, sharp, pointed, painfully honest, etc. but do it as though the people with whom you disagree are in the room. And if I had some witty and pointed way of saying all this I would, but alas, you're stuck with a lame moderator. So in short, we'll have a great forum as long as everyone is wittier and more good-natured than me. (Than I. Sorry Charles.)
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 30, 2007, 08:02:52 AM

>>making any kind of critical remark, it is important to have a genuine suggestion (not a sarcastic one

 >>with "Missouri Synod" taken, it is pretty much a scramble for second best.

 >>alas, you're stuck with a lame moderator.

Ah, but the lame do run... with thanks to THE Moderator  --Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 30, 2007, 12:44:15 PM
A couple of minor points of clarification. The thread called ELDoNA came to be because one of them invited me to interview them at the convention

One more clarification: one who is not a member of ELDoNA pointed out that you would probably find their comments interesting and suggested that you visit their suite. (I.e., lest anyone think they were--contrary to the moderator's intent--grubbing for attention, and as I made clear at some earlier point, I hadn't even had the opportunity to mention to the ELDoNA guys that Pr. Speckhard might be stopping by before he actually did.)

Wrt to Pr. McCain's wondering as to why I am not a member of ELDoNA at this point, if I may be permitted to give just the briefest of answers:

1) If this is the path (and, it most likely is), it is one that I will not venture to walk until there is universal understanding and affirmation of it within the parish I serve. I could rush that, I think, and not 'lose' anyone, etc., but I don't think that is the right way to do things here, and it is not the way that I have done anything here in the past. The parish declared themselves at least temporarily separate from the LCMS because of the way they thought themselves and their pastor to be treated and thereby occasioned my resignation from the LCMS roster to continue to serve them...something that otherwise would not have been likely to happen until this summer. (The details of such things are, mercifully, fading from short term memory, having been so badly lied about on the internet and elsewhere by those who were 'close' but not really aware of the facts of the situation. We have desired nothing other than peace, but had no choice but to stand on principle, even when other LCMS pastors could not understand the need for such a stand to reaffirm what was taught in the midst of congregational conflict--i.e., that we would not tolerate the district's teaching and tolerating the abuse of Mt. 18 and the Eighth Commandment, etc.)

2) It is my belief that my being a member of ELDoNA at this point could do them more harm than good.

3) There are things that I can facilitate better, at this point, by being 'unaffiliated' than by being a member of the diocese.

I'm sure that such a brief response doesn't satisfy, but I don't think that elaborating further would really be of benefit.

EJG

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on July 30, 2007, 10:57:53 PM
2) It is my belief that my being a member of ELDoNA at this point could do them more harm than good.

"Them" in this sentence refers to ELDoNA, btw, not to the parish.

To wit, "2) It is my belief that my being a member of ELDoNA at this point could do the Diocese more harm than good."

Just to be clear.

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Mike Bennett on July 31, 2007, 11:10:53 AM
Stefanski is his real name.

Not even The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, for all the accusations about how we are triumphalistic, has ever claimed to name itself, oh, something like: THE evangelical Lutheran church in America. That's a grandiose and arrogant claim. Oh, whoops. There is actually a Lutheran church that calls itself that. Never mind.


If you look anywhere with the name of the denomination to which you refer, you will find that its name is

not THE Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

not The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Amerca

but rather Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

I hope that enables you to withdraw your silly statement, "That's a grandiose and arrogant claim."  Now that you know it's based on falsehood, repeating it would rise above "silly" and would become "false."

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: ptmccain on July 31, 2007, 11:13:53 AM
I withdraw the ... THE.

The name still strikes me as grandiose and arrogant in light of the fact that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not, in fact, the only evangelical Lutheran church in America.

Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Mike Bennett on July 31, 2007, 12:33:14 PM
I withdraw the ... THE.


Thanks.† I only noticed its absence myself when I went to the ELCA web site this morning to look something up for somebody.†


The name still strikes me as grandiose and arrogant in light of the fact that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is not, in fact, the only evangelical Lutheran church in America.





We've had a lot of Lutheran bodies on this continent, and excepting the ones with a geographic reference in their name any one of them could have sounded like THE ONE AND ONLY Lutheran Church or Synod on the continent.† The same could be said of other denominations' names I think.† But thinking of the bodies with geographic reference in their names, consider the offense to non-LCMS Lutherans in the state of Missouri, or non-WELS Lutherans in the state of Wisconsin!

Seriously, I think we've got a lot of significant Lutheran issues in the U.S. and in the world - in fact a lot of Christian issues.† Grandiosity and arrogance in naming would be 'way down low on my own list.

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: scott3 on July 31, 2007, 12:53:31 PM
My favorite name was always "The Church of Christ".

Did I ever mentions my ancestral church body?  I.e., the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (of the Eastern Rite)".
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Gladfelteri on July 31, 2007, 02:35:42 PM
Not even The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, for all the accusations about how we are triumphalistic, has ever claimed to name itself, oh, something like: THE evangelical Lutheran church in America. That's a grandiose and arrogant claim. Oh, whoops. There is actually a Lutheran church that calls itself that. Never mind.

But calling yourself, "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese in North America" strikes my ears in the same way.
If the ELDoNA's founders had† substituted "Church" for "Diocese," that could strike at least some as grandiose (as might the names of most if not all the microsynods.)† But "Diocese?"† No way is that grandiose.† They are only claliming to be a Diocese of a Church - not the Church, itself.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the ELDoNA develops over time.† What a new Church is at the time it is founded is not necessarily what it will be 10 or 20 years or more down the road.†
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Mike Bennett on July 31, 2007, 03:03:49 PM
My favorite name was always "The Church of Christ".


"Disciples of Christ" is like unto it.

Did I ever mentions my ancestral church body?† I.e., the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (of the Eastern Rite)".


My little brother was charismated in your ancestral church body about 10 years ago.† I think they've shortened up the name a bit now.†

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: Grabauski on August 15, 2007, 10:16:40 PM
In case you haven't seen this:

Quote

In† coordination with the Burleson Conference of the Augustana Ministerium, the ELDoNA's Theological Colloquium will† take place at Salem Lutheran Church (Malone, TX) on August 29th, the day before the meeting of the Augustana Ministerium.

The Colloquium is conducted on the model of the "Free Conference," and both clergy and laity are invited and encouraged to attend.

Salem Lutheran Church (Malone, TX) is located approximately one hour from Burleson (for those who are flying to Texas for the Ministerium meeting, DFW and Love Field-Dallas are the† 'fly-to' points for both conferences).

This year's presenters include:
Deacon Jeffrey Ahonen, "The Lutheran Rite in 16th Century Sweden"
Pastor Kent Heimbigner, Ph.D., "The Reliability of Sacramental Acts by Schismatics"
Bishop James Heiser, "The Decree of Upsala (1593) and the Confessional Lutheran Church in Sweden"
Pastor Michael Henson, "A Report on the 2007 Convention of the LCóMS"
Pastor John Rutowicz, "Lutheran Episcopacy and the ELDoNA"
Pastor Michael Totten, Ph.D., "Non Sequitur: The Proper Distinction between Walther and Pieper"

The cost for attendance at the Colloquium is $15. (Attendance is free for members of the ELDoNA.)

<http://web.mac.com/hunnius/iWeb/ELDoNA/2007%20Colloquium.html>

Directions to Salem, and suggestions regarding accommodations, are included in the PDF which can be downloaded from the ELDoNA site.
If you have other questions regarding the ELDoNA or this year's Colloquium, please feel free to contact us via the phone numbers, etc. below.

Rt. Rev. James Heiser
Superintendent/Bishop
The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
c/o Salem Lutheran Church
718 HCR 3424 E
Malone, TX† 76660
(254) 533-2330
hunnius@mac.com
eldona.org

If you had seen it previously, you may have noticed that I was listed as a presenter. Unfortunately, my wife, who normally has the full use of only one arm, fell and broke that arm on Sunday, so I have withdrawn to stay home and take care of her. The remaining speakers are all excellent, though, so the rest you could have had while walking around in the hallway during my presentation will have to be compensated for in some other way. Especially to be heard, in my opinion, is another non-ELDoNA guy, Dr. Kent Heimbigner, who will, it seems, be completing a thought from his previous presentation to the Colloquium.

I think it's time for Pr. Speckhard to return to Texas!

EJG
Title: Re: ELDoNA?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 15, 2007, 10:52:31 PM
I don't know. So far since May I've had extended conferences of one kind or another in Memphis, Quebec, Houston, and Orlando and had extended work-related stays in Michigan and our district camp in North Wisconsin, as well as family vacation time up north, all with confirmation camp with 43 junior high kids who desperately need my guidance (would that they knew it) still coming up. Then LWML (I'm district junior counselor), district pastor's conference, and so forth. I think if I went to the conference in Texas my congregation might have objections. Unless it were guaranteed to be the greatest conference ever, in which case I would go anyway.

But just in case I can't make it, I invite you to post papers presented, or at least synopses, on this site, especially Michael Henson's report on the 2007 LCMS Convention.