Messages

[1) I understand that at least one of the predecessor bodies (prior to LCA) had the Histoic Episcopate or Apostolic Succession.  I've met several fine, old pastors ordained by bishops who had this excellent and now lost mark of the church.  I'm thinking it was the Augustana strand?  Maybe not, but I'd love to hear who did and why it was kabashed.

2) A great thesis, I think, could be done on the relative ecclesiologies and theologies of the ALC vs LCA - not in compettiton, just comparison.  For it seems to me I was always told that the ALC was more conservative and the LCA more liberal.  However, from historical perspective - the limited view I have -- it seems that the finer point is that, as we know, the ALC was more congregationalist and LCA more hierarchical.  As such, it seems to me and I would love to hear some discussion on this -- the ALC was actually more susceptible to cultural shifts and trends as a congregationalist polity because each congregation could, in many ways, go their own way (a bit overstated, I know, but without central authroity and oversight whose interpretaton is correct?).  The LCA, on the other hand, with its structure of bishops and some sort of palpable unity would actually slow down the integration of cultural shifts and preserve more of the tradition (truly conservative in the sense Luther and even Christ were). 

What say you?  I'm leaving for camp today, so I'll probably not have access to this discussion til Friday night, but I still would love to hear some thoughts!
[/quote]

Regarding the historic episcopate: Actually, no.  This is a common misunderstanding.  The Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church (commonly called Augustana Synod) never did have an understanding of itself as having any kind of historic episcopate.  Although they were a Swedish-based ethnic synod (the only Lutheran option for Swedish-Americans), they did not view themselves as simply the daughter church of the Church of Sweden.  George Stephenson's description of the Augustana Synod as "a daughter" is true in the sense that they shared an ethnic kinship, but not much more than that.  In fact, there was often strong resistance against identifying their group in such a way.  When Archbishop Nathan Soderblom from Sweden visited the US in the 1920s, he was welcomed by the Augustana Synod for ethnic reasons, but the content of his preaching was heavily criticized by many within the Augustana Synod, claiming he was preaching essentially a Unitarian understanding of Christianity.  And what is even more telling is that Soderblom presented a pectoral cross to the then-president of the Synod (Brandelle, I think).  They accepted the cross, but with the explanation that in doing so they did not adopt any kind of understanding of the role of a bishop or apostolic succession of bishops.  But they did acknowledge it as a sign of friendship.  Having said this, there were some isolated voices in the Augustana Synod who wanted to adopt such an understanding, but they were definitely a minority.  If I remember right, I think there were a few pastors who went to Sweden to receive ordination from Swedish bishops, but this practice was not mainstream.

Regarding the LCA as "liberal" and TALC as more "conservative," in some ways those generalizations hold truth, but I think it's more complex than that, and it all depends on what one means by those descriptions.  The LCA tradition was more Americanized in general, and they weren't all that involved in the theological disputes that happened among more Midwestern-based Lutheran synods.  Hence, they were less doctrinally rigid, content to affirm subscription to the Lutheran confessions as a basis for church fellowship rather than requiring explanatory theses beyond that.  But when we think about "liberals," which tradition did Mark Hanson come out of?  He came out of TALC!  I say this not to single out Mark Hanson, but simply to demonstrate that there were "liberal" and "conservative" elements in both of those groups.  And by the way, if I'm not mistaken, I think that TALC actually approved the use of the title "bishop" before the LCA did.

Did anyone else have a printing defect in their copy of Forum Letter this month?  I was getting into an article only to notice that one page was mostly blank, and a bunch of content was missing. 

A suggestion by Dr. Nagel that I try to meet: Read Go Giertz "The Hammer of God " once a year. Guards against Pietism.

I am well aware of the Hammer of God, having read it a number of times.  And I'm well aware of the possible dangers of subjectivism.  There certainly are aspects of historical Pietism that can be theologically critiqued.  But you're ignoring a large part of history is you just dismiss Pietism as a whole.  It (and coming up with a single, accepted definition of Pietism is hard indeed) was a corrective to established churches that were failing in their task of feeding people with the Word of God.  Subjective and objective, they always need to be held in proper tension.  I think it's important to look at a historical phenomenon with a little more nuance.

Are these therewith removed from use and abjured as pietistic incursions, lesser hymnic lights in the song-firmament?

"Lord, Thee I love with all my heart."
"Thee Will I Love, My Strength, My Tower."
"I Come O Savior, To Thy Table"
"I Know That My Redeemer Lives"
"I Want to Walk as a Child of the Light"
"If Thou But Trust in God to Guide Thee"

On the other hand, "Jesus, What a Wonderful Child" is non-pietistic and can be embraced.  That's a good thing.

Dave Benke

No.

And I think Brorson's hymn simply communicates that the good news of Christ has an impact on our lives.  I think it also communicates the theology of the cross.

That's a nice pietistic hymn. Is the tune decent? :-)

The tune is beautiful.  Google the Danish title and you can hear various people sing it.  By "Pietistic," I suppose what you mean is that the text is intensely personal.  Yes it is, as are many other beloved hymns, one of which is "Ah, Holy Jesus."

O Holy Night was actually written by a Unitarian abolitionist.  That helps explain the line "chains shall he break for the slave is our brother."  I have nothing against abolitionism, of course, but I think one needs to think about the "theology" of the song: "Truly he taught us to love one another."  OK, but is that really the most significant aspect of Christ's work?  Under scrutiny, the song proclaims Christ as an example of benevolence (active good will toward the neighbor) and not as savior from sin and eternal death.  When sung properly, it can be beautiful, but I concur with the comment that I have never heard it sung as a congregational hymn.  And that's probably a good thing, as it doesn't seem to be meant for that purpose.

My favorite Christmas hymn is actually from the Scandinavian tradition, which has not been very well represented in the American context.  Hans Adolph Brorson wrote the following hymn "Mit Hjerte Alltid Vanker" (My Heart is Filled with Wonder), translated by Gracia Grindal:

"My heart is filled with wonder
to think how poor, forlorn
the manger was for Jesus
the night that he was born.
And yet it is my treasure
my hope, my faith, my light
I cannot ever leave you,
O blessed Christmas night!

A wonder unlike any
that I have ever known,
to think that God almighty
would leave his heavenly throne.
To sleep in this dark stable
without a kingly crown,
to think that God almighty
from heaven would come down.

This stable dark and dreary
shall be a palace rare!
Each day I'll learn to seek it
instead of earthly care.
Here I have found the flower,
the rose for which I've yearned.
When I remember Jesus
my heart within me burns!

Does anyone know what happened to David Barnhart's blog, the one where he keeps track of the congregations that have left the ELCA since August 2009?  He seems to have abruptly stopped posting in January of this year without any explanation.

I've been in touch with Pastor Barnhart about churches transferring affiliation, as well as several other people who forward both of us information on the topic. It appears that the exodus of congregations has slowed to such a trickle that it is no longer news. I have had minimal news this year myself, from any source. There is some, but not much. I think it's safe to say that the post 2009 CWA Exodus is over. What congregations leave the ELCA from now on appear to be just the normal attrition level of pre-2009 CWA times.


That's not to say that some new event might not trigger a renewal of the Exodus. I don't think it likely, but I do see it as possible.

That might be true (that the exodus has come to an end and won't start up again), but I'd still be interested in seeing which churches are departing.  There are some who haven't gotten around to discussing affiliation issues yet, but nonetheless have some opinions.  But I can understand that the work of keeping track of it all can be tedious.

Does anyone know what happened to David Barnhart's blog, the one where he keeps track of the congregations that have left the ELCA since August 2009?  He seems to have abruptly stopped posting in January of this year without any explanation.

I tend to not think of Advent as a penitential season or one of "preparation."  Rather, in keeping with the focus of Lutheran preaching in the 16th century, the focus is on the ways that Christ comes to us, not on our preparations.  There was a helpful article in Lutheran Forum a while back about this.

http://www.lutheranforum.org/extras/LF2012-2_27-30_Haemig_Advents.pdf

My sense in reading the taskforce proposal is that they are open to flexibility for the future.  I understand the disappointment of ILT folks, but let's now think creatively about how to include ILT in the NALC seminary plan for the future.  I think if a residential option were in place as well as the accredidation, it would be a much different story.  So the goal now should be to engage the relevant persons in conversation about how ILT could become one of the "houses of study" that the proposal discusses.  With a little effort and willingness to listen on all sides, I think that could happen.  I plan on bringing it up at the convocation this August.  At the same time, we should be grateful for the opportunity that Trinity in Ambridge has extended.  For me it's not either/or but both/and.

Craig Koester and Walter Sundberg.  And, though he was retired long before I started seminary, Roy Harrisville Jr. was influential if for no other reason than sheer entertainment!

Oliver Olson has always and in many places been a strong critic of the LBW, particularly with regard to the eucharistic prayers and the idea that the sacrament is a "celebration" and what he calls a "re-actualization" of the Supper.

In this he is not alone. When the supper is seen as our action towards God or a once again re-sacrificing of Jesus--(a sacrifice that was completed, once for all, "it is finished") then it is indeed proper to ask what in the name of Gertie's goats is going on here.


Reclaim has its problems. The absolution comes across as conditional and needs to be modified IMO, and the exhortation places the emphasis wrongly making it difficult for my Norwegian member to commune (he believes he is not worthy). The funeral service is also more consistent with Lutheran Pietism than Orthodoxy.


Ahh, worship wars.....


Lou

Lou, as I mentioned, Sundbeg's book deals with how the two keyed absolution has a long history in Lutheran worship as well as the exhortation to examine oneself before communion. Also, most recent scholarship downplays the differences between "orthodoxy" and "pietism." The danger of subjectivism is a real danger that needs to be guarded against, but every liturgical option carries its own set of dangers, ssuch as in " cheap grace."

I had a conversation a month ago with Dr Rast on our mutual acquaintance with Steve Paulson. He mentioned that at one LQ meeting he and Steve had a rather contentious interchange with Skip Sundberg and Gracia Grindal about whether the absolution is conditional or unconditional. I will continue to side with Rast and Paulson that the absolution is a comfort to sinners only when it is proclaimed unconditionally. And that is my main complaint about the "two-keyed" approach to the absolution and exhortation as found in Reclaim--they throw us back upon ourselves--Am I repentant enough? Am I sorry enough? The comfort of the Gospel depends on God--not my attitude about it.


Lou

Lou,

Luther himself and other Lutheran Reformers included the two keyed absolution and exhortation to Communion in their liturgical orders.  This was also the practice in most of American Lutheranism until fairly recently.  Read Sundberg's book.  I'm not saying that we should just blindly accept what has been done in the past, but the fact that Luther and his colleagues used such devices as the two key absolution and the exhortation to Communion ought to at least give one pause before tossing it out the window.  For Luther, the binding key helped to ensure that people would receive the absolution with the proper gratitude.  How can one fully understand the meaning of the absolution without understanding the threatening dangers of our sins?  Throwing back on ourselves?  Well, as I have said, I am aware of the possible danger of subjectivism.  But the gospel does get applied in my life and yours, in our circumstances, and rightly causes introspection. 

Oliver Olson has always and in many places been a strong critic of the LBW, particularly with regard to the eucharistic prayers and the idea that the sacrament is a "celebration" and what he calls a "re-actualization" of the Supper.

In this he is not alone. When the supper is seen as our action towards God or a once again re-sacrificing of Jesus--(a sacrifice that was completed, once for all, "it is finished") then it is indeed proper to ask what in the name of Gertie's goats is going on here.


Reclaim has its problems. The absolution comes across as conditional and needs to be modified IMO, and the exhortation places the emphasis wrongly making it difficult for my Norwegian member to commune (he believes he is not worthy). The funeral service is also more consistent with Lutheran Pietism than Orthodoxy.


Ahh, worship wars.....


Lou

Lou, as I mentioned, Sundbeg's book deals with how the two keyed absolution has a long history in Lutheran worship as well as the exhortation to examine oneself before communion. Also, most recent scholarship downplays the differences between "orthodoxy" and "pietism." The danger of subjectivism is a real danger that needs to be guarded against, but every liturgical option carries its own set of dangers, ssuch as in " cheap grace."

I am actually new to the board of directors of ReClaim Resources. Hence, I agree with their vision of worship. I know this is a sensitive topic for many, and I really dont want to get caught up in a big debate here. But i will simply clarify afew things about their/our "agenda." The guiding principle is that worship should be based on the sinful human need for repentance rather than a celebratory eucharistic piety. Hence, there is a two keyed absolution as well as exhortation before communion. As someone noted, there is also concern for getting the direction straight in worship, that all parts of the service proclaim the word of God. Also, there is the concern that in lbw/elw resources, the assumption seems to be that everyone in attdndance in worship is a baptized and believing Christian. While that might be ideal, it is not realistic. Many of the funerals I have been called upon to conduct, the person wsa not baptized. So, the focus of the service, while not denying the importance of baptism theologically, instead seeks to proclaim the gospel to those in attendance, not assuming they are. Hristians, encouraging them to respond in faith to what has been proclaimed. I dont see it as a regrwssion at all. Having used some of the resources, I have found them to be very helpful. A good summary of the principles under which ReClaim operates can be found in Walter Sundberg's book "Worship as Repentance." I commend it to you. I am NALC, by the way, as well as LCMC, and although I might have some differences of opinion about some of these issues with others, I dont regard their views as heretical, and I have to say that I still appreciate the contributions of those of differing pieties. Peace.

Jim Nestingen is no longer in the ELCA

The ELCA webpage still lists him on the ELCA clergy roster.

I thought he was in the NALC...

Nestingen did officially join the NALC, but for some reason is still listed on the ELCA roster.  Likely he never formally resigned from the roster and they haven't gotten around to removing him.  Same thing happened with Paull Spring, I believe.  I know of another retired professor who has joined the NALC and has not officially resigned from the ELCA roster.  Lots of things in flux right now, and it will take time for it to get all straightened out.