Messages

Joel Osteen packs them in.   Should we therefore assume that his theology is better than ours and that God is the cause of his great numbers?   Or do we apply 2 Tim 4:3-4?

It is fascinating to me that the incident of "A Statement" can arouse such passion 70 years later, so much so that it seems to have remained impossible for anything like an "objective" historical account of it. If that is the case, it is little wonder that we're a long way from an objective account of the whole Preus/Seminex matter. - The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

As time goes on, I think we will have a better perspective of what the whole "Preus/Seminex matter" ended up doing to the LCMS. I think the LCMS needed both moderates and conservatives in the 1970's to stay relevant in doing effective mission and ministry. It is a shame that the "moderate" wing was clipped off, just because the Synod was veering off to the left a little bit more than what was needed. The baby (i.e. cultural relevance and a broader view of adiaphora) was thrown out with the bath water (i.e. a view that the N.T. is not an accurate historical account of Jesus' words and works).

Is it an unspoken assumption that is that the LCMS is not doing effective mission and ministry?   If so, I disagree.

Well, your response implied that we are, but logic and reason simply weren't the best tools to do so.  You're now moving the goalposts to claim we are not called to discern God's wisdom at all.

Living by faith, if not discerning God's wisdom, at least is an acceptance of the reality that God's wisdom is not our wisdom.  That's not moving the goalposts.

But at some point we are called to determine whether women may be ordained, whether homosexuals may be married....

Really?  Why?

I guess we are not called to determine whether murder, stealing, adultery, etc.  is okay.

That's a good point, Mr. Shenks. There just might be too many things in some LC MS congregations that would be hard for refugees from the ELCA to swallow.

Yes, most of the "refugees" from the ELCA created two new denominations rather than unite with the LCMS.

Many of us in the LCMS did not expect the "refugees" from the ELCA to join the LCMS.     The make or break issue with the ELCA for most of them was the issue of homosexuality, not the issue of women pastors.

There was an excellent interview on Issues, Etc. this week with Pastor Todd Peperkorn, who has suffered from depression and at one time considered suicide:  http://issuesetc.org/2014/08/12/3-suicide-pr-todd-peperkorn-81214/

And then it leaves the arena of pastoral discretion and becomes the name-calling thingy we so seem to love in our denomination - legalists vs. liberals, etc. etc.  And the lay-folks, who want some kind of negotiated peace, are left to say, as they often have, that the problems in the Missouri Synod are mostly among the clergy. 

Dave Benke

Some of the problem is with laypeople who have not been properly instructed in the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and the doctrinal positions of the LCMS - which in the end is also a clergy problem.

Agreed, to some extent.  I find that what laypeople love about being Lutheran is the clear exposition of the Gospel, Law/Gospel, Sin/Grace, and, in the congregations that I witness as vibrant, the sense of the communion of saints as strengthened for service individually and corporately with love in the room and love for the world.  They can't get enough of that.  What they either don't know or don't want to spend as much time on is the denomination-specific data.  And yet it's important.  So to the extent that vibrant Lutheran Christians are in vibrant Lutheran fellowships of believers, we're in a very good place for the Lutheran future (to reference the thread-topic).  To the extent that all doctrinal positions of the denomination are not known by let's say a super-majority of the congregants, we've got work to do.

As an aside, I get involved in all kinds of other enterprises as an enterpreneurial District President.  So in discussing a property transformation with a congregation and a collaborative prospective partner agency the other day, I brought up the Lutheran Housing Support Corporation and its programs and grants, since I'm on the board.  And the participants, especially from the outside, were blown away by the depth of our potential response to an opportunity.  You may say that's a Realm of the Left issue.  But in life, what is received is that the LCMS is alert and aware of the full scope of human need from a spiritual perspective.  Dialogue ensues.  A good thing.

Dave Benke

Well, the congregation I am in must be the exception.   Pastor Lassman went through the entire Book of Concord and our Adult Bible Class was packed.   I fill in for Pastor in teaching Adult Bible Class in the summer when he is on vacation, and have dealt with a variety of issues of LCMS doctrine with great interest from those attending.   I am currently finishing up a 4  week class on the liturgy.   Communion practice has come up, and there have been no complaints about the practice of closed communion.  Sometimes I think we are too afraid to teach our doctrines in case someone in the audience will be offended.   But in my experience people will respond positively if the teaching is sound.

And then it leaves the arena of pastoral discretion and becomes the name-calling thingy we so seem to love in our denomination - legalists vs. liberals, etc. etc.  And the lay-folks, who want some kind of negotiated peace, are left to say, as they often have, that the problems in the Missouri Synod are mostly among the clergy. 

Dave Benke

Some of the problem is with laypeople who have not been properly instructed in the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and the doctrinal positions of the LCMS - which in the end is also a clergy problem.

As a  LCMS layperson I would like to look at this from the other side.   Why would I want to take the Lord's Supper in a congregation of a denomination with which the LCMS is not in altar and pulpit fellowship?   Such an act is a violation of the Eighth Commandment - witnessing to a unity that does not exist.   I have no problem attending a service with members of my family at their church who are not LCMS and not going up for communion if it is offered.  It does not make them any less part of my family.

You should want to receive the sacrament for the reasons Luther gives in the catechism, to know that Jesus' body and blood has been given for you for the forgiveness of your sins. It is a means God has given us to receive his grace like no other means. If you believe these words, you are worthy and well prepared.

I have no assurance that I actually receive Christ's body and blood in a congregation that denies the Real Presence.  And as I said before, communing at a congregation with which the LCMS does not have pulpit and altar fellowship confesses falsely that I am in agreement with the doctrine of that congregation when I am not.

That is a particularly LCMS understanding of the sacrament. I don't find it in scriptures nor our confessions.

And gee, I am in the  LCMS.   So I do accept the findings of our theologians that it is in the Scriptures and the Confessions.

An uncertain sacrament is no sacrament at all, just like an uncertain salvation is no salvation at all.

Mr. Edmond writes:
I have no assurance that I actually receive Christ's body and blood in a congregation that denies the Real Presence. 

I comment:
Then what would it hurt to take part in their supposedly "symbolic" ritual? You might feel you're not getting "The Real Thing," and if you think what is going on is only a meaningless "symbol," why not? (I am unconvinced that many people outside of certain LCMSers and some traddy Roman Catholics tie the whole "Unity" wagon to reception of the sacrament.)

The harm is two fold:

1. I am baring false witness and violating the 8th Commandment.  Thus I am harming myself
2. I am misleading those in attendance that their ritual means something that it does not.   Thus I am harming others.

Please spell my name correctly - it is Edmon, not Edmond - although it is commonly misspelled.   I could add the Ph.D. to it make make everyone call me Dr. Edmon - but that is a little much!

As a  LCMS layperson I would like to look at this from the other side.   Why would I want to take the Lord's Supper in a congregation of a denomination with which the LCMS is not in altar and pulpit fellowship?   Such an act is a violation of the Eighth Commandment - witnessing to a unity that does not exist.   I have no problem attending a service with members of my family at their church who are not LCMS and not going up for communion if it is offered.  It does not make them any less part of my family.

You should want to receive the sacrament for the reasons Luther gives in the catechism, to know that Jesus' body and blood has been given for you for the forgiveness of your sins. It is a means God has given us to receive his grace like no other means. If you believe these words, you are worthy and well prepared.

I have no assurance that I actually receive Christ's body and blood in a congregation that denies the Real Presence.  And as I said before, communing at a congregation with which the LCMS does not have pulpit and altar fellowship confesses falsely that I am in agreement with the doctrine of that congregation when I am not.

As to self-excluding, I am not excluding myself from an LCMS altar so John's comment on that is not relevant.   As to the practice of closed communion in the Scriptures and the Confessions, pastors and theologians of the LCMS have spoken to this numerous times.   People just choose not to accept what the Scriptures and the Confessions say on the matter.   

As a  LCMS layperson I would like to look at this from the other side.   Why would I want to take the Lord's Supper in a congregation of a denomination with which the LCMS is not in altar and pulpit fellowship?   Such an act is a violation of the Eighth Commandment - witnessing to a unity that does not exist.   I have no problem attending a service with members of my family at their church who are not LCMS and not going up for communion if it is offered.  It does not make them any less part of my family.

If the current CCM ruling stands, than clergy who publicly teach in agreement with the ACELC platform can now also be subject to church discipline. For example, the ACELC very clearly rejects the most recent LCMS Synodical resolutions related to women in the church. Over at the BJS site I have come across reading comments from a few LCMS clergy that seem to be publicly teaching in agreement to the position of the ACELC. They also can be defrocked if the current CCM ruling remains standing.

Procedural comment - the only groups that can override a CCM ruling is the CCM itself or a Synodical Convention.   So this ruling will probably stand until at least July 2016.

Including the words "Go and sin no more" - i.e. Jesus would be not condone the sin of homosexuality.

...

The old Adam (EVE) in us is so clever that we of the LCMS convince ourselves that "others" willfully deny a particular text or two, willfully dismiss texts as culturally bound or willfully interpret  texts to protect their conscience, but not us. 

...

Sorry - old "Eve" is not Biblical.  Nice try though.

<<snip>>

Why can't we simply agree that the Scriptures do not err in the sense that they express what God wants them to express for the sake of instructing us in God's essence and will and teaching us all that is essential for our salvation?

Furthermore, we can be grateful to the evangelical Confessors for rightly identifying for us who subscribe to the Confessions the essential articles of faith. We are assisted by them in identifying what is essential in the Scriptures. On these matters the Scriptures do not err or mislead. They are an infallible rule and norm for the articles of faith, but not for these other, non-essential issues, e.g., history, geography, astronomy, etc.

Would you agree that Scriptures do not err when they express God's will in rejecting homosexual activity and women's ordination or is there an interpretive rule in Scripture for relegating those items to areas where the Scriptures err?

Dan

The Scriptures do not reject "women's ordination."

Christians today must continue to wrestle with what the Scriptures teach regarding how we are to love and care for all others, including those who lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and heterosexual. The will of God in Jesus frames how we approach the Scriptures in order to discern the will of God for us today with respect to all sexual behaviors. It is not that the Scriptures "err" with respect to teaching about sexual ethics and mores; it is that Christians have learned to judge for themselves what is right (Lk 12:57; 1 Cor. 6:3) and such judging has led many of them (most of them?) to condemn sexual behaviors that the Scriptures seem to have allowed (e.g., levirate marriage, polygamy, sex with slaves, concubinage, very early marriage, women as property, etc.) and not to condemn other behaviors that the Scriptures seem to have condemned or discouraged (e.g., intercourse during marriage, masturbation, birth control, exogamy, "spilling semen," etc.). I do not think the Scriptures give us unequivocal guidance in discerning the will of God today toward all homosexual behaviors.

Why are you in the LCMS?   There is no way the Synod is going to ever accept this faulty reading of Scripture.    Please be honest, resign from Synod, and find a church body that agrees with your views.