Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - TravisW

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31
421
Your Turn / Re: Where are your men?
« on: December 12, 2008, 02:06:26 PM »
Q. "Where are your men?" 

A.  "pregame at 11, kickoff at noon"

 ;)

422
Your Turn / Re: Another irregular call at ELCA congregation - mine
« on: December 11, 2008, 05:20:08 PM »
I read this thread, went to the church's website and read the November newsletter.  You did the right thing.  In moving on, I believe that you're continuing to do the right thing.  Even so, it's sad to see your home church move in a direction opposite of what you believe.

423
Your Turn / Re: Happy Happy Clappy Clappy
« on: December 10, 2008, 05:59:16 PM »
I submit that no church music ever sounds truly contemporary anymore.  By the time a popular musical style has been assimilated by the masses to a great enough degree to put into a church service, it's essentially outdated in comparison to the music that is truly "contemporary" in the sense of cutting-edge modern pop music (modern pop music seemingly being the benchmark for "contemporary").  Most of what is considered "contemporary" in church sounds to my ear like sappy Chicago songs from the early 80s, or the closing tune from an ABC After-School Special.  

Now, that's my take on it.  My personal preference isn't necessarily for older music, but rather for bolder music.  So much that is in contemporary services is so saccharine to my ears that it's almost painful (the same can happen with older hymns, but they typically have a stronger rhythmic sense within the melody).  

424
I'll argue that any financing of PP is generally supporting abortion, simply due to the extent of their abortion lobby.  If somebody needs a pap smear, give them a check and let them figure it out. 

425
Your Turn / Re: Question on Rules for 2009 ELCA ASSEMBLY
« on: December 05, 2008, 01:15:02 AM »
Thanks for acknowledging that.

I have never believed  total agreement is  the basis of any denomination, church, or even a marriage and a family.

However, all these things have to have a central core of belief or creed . Whether it is a confessional statement, or a wedding vow, promises are made and you share what you believe in, as a matter of faith without knowing the future.

My point was that  it would be very sad to even consider the possibility of leaving, either as a pastor or congregation. And I pray it never gets to that  point.  But, if it did, my emphasis was on the fact that  our congregation would continue on and preach the Gospel and share ministry and mission. That would be true even  if at some point ( one or three or five or ten years from now) the ELCA split, was dissolved, or diminished.

In that sense, to continue to proclaim the Good News, we don't need the ELCA. Would we be diminished in some respects? Probably. Would we be poorer in our ecumenical and inter-Lutheran dialogue, most likely. But we wouldn't close the doors or cease to operate.  Since this is a public forum, I just wanted it noted that these words are not to be construed as the congregation I serve would leave, or I would leave. So much is unknown. Some pastors are promoting congregations who are orthodox should stay in ELCA but withdraw financial support.  We are just waiting to see what happens in MN and then will act in response, but are not being pre -emptive. And hopefully the good folks there will not go off the deep end.

Now, you contend we "need the ELCA". I guess my point was, if it is the ELCA of today, that may be possibly true, but far more from a collegial standpoint than necessity. And if if it is the ELCA of 2009 or 2011 (or whenever the revisionists finally get their agenda foisted on the whole church )you speak of , many churches and pastors  will "not be needing" the ELCA as they will see it as a church which has lost it's confessional moorings.


Lastly, a topic which hopefully is not too much thread drift but pertains to 2009 .....is anyone on this forum who is an ELCA pastor or layperson concerned if the vote goes off a cliff that they will have a decision to make that affects them personally in remaining on the clergy roster (or not) of ELCA, and a congregational process, and the two may not be in congruence?

Jeff Ruby       

Agreed, Pastor Ruby, I wrote too strongly and it is evident that your parish is an active part of the ELCA. But you have said you really don't "need" the ELCA. I contend that you do, even if it doesn't always do what you want it to do.
Sorry about the harsh words and nonetheless, cheers.


Very good post. 

Our congregations currently need the ELCA, but they don't need the ELCA.  The majority of them started before the ELCA existed.  Many started several generations of church bodies before, and some started before there was even an association of Lutherans.  Lutheranism in America is filled with fantastic examples of this.

I guess what I'm saying is that congregations currently require, but their survival isn't entirely dependent upon, the ELCA.

426
Your Turn / Re: Thoughts on the Suicide of a Friend
« on: December 05, 2008, 12:46:18 AM »
Hymns are a beautiful and powerful thing.  Even these tired eyes tear up every time I sing (or hear) "Beautiful Savior". 

Pr. McCain, I am sorry to hear about your friend.  Despair is powerful beyond the scope of rationality, but thanks be to God that His power is triumphant over all. 

427
Your Turn / Re: Mum is the word - Why you don't post
« on: December 05, 2008, 12:04:47 AM »
Back on the point for a moment:
There is a theological issue involved here beyond being nice and one that the Lutheran “Streitkultur” needs to take more seriously.  Christian language, and especially theological argument, should witness to the God who is Love, incarnate in Jesus, who is the Truth.  Truth and love are finally one.  When language seeking the truth is not spoken in love it is inadequate in its witness.  We are to speak the truth in love not to be nice, but because when we speak the truth in something other than love, then what we say is defective precisely as truth.  When Luther says that the 8th commandment means that I should interpret my neighbor in the best possible light, I think we should take that as an epistemological point: I am most likely to rightly understand the neighbor when I interpret the neighbor in the best light.  That should apply to theological argument.  We ought to think about how Luther on the 8th commandment applies to arguments in settings like this one.  (I will grant that I myself in some of the ecumenical arguments within the ELCA a few years ago may have spoken in less than loving ways; I am not sinless in this respect.)
Michael Root

Have you given any thought to the fact that some people come from a family or cultural environment in which love abounds, but is expressed at a high decibel level? I would imagine that there are some in here with very little first hand experience with the low-key, soft, gentle Hallmark Card expressions of love that others seem to regard as the only flavor that love comes in. Some marital relationships I have observed that are clearly based on intense feelings of mutual love are also marked by yelling, screaming, occasional plate throwing and extremely passionate "make-up" relations. I suspect that one of the things that keeps many people at arm's length from Christianity is the idea that the only valid expression of Christian love appears to be too "fairy tale" for some people to identify with.

Good point.  A buddy of mine and I have often talked about how all ELCA clergy (since we're both ELCA members) seem to have taken a "niceness" class.  The ALPB has taught me that this isn't necessarily the case.   ;) 
That being said, I'm personally used to a bit of "acidity" and a whole lot of stubbornness when it comes to argument, moreso than outright hostility or flat-out passive-aggressiveness. 
However, my pet peeve is the straw-man argument.  Members of this forum has burned so many straw men that it's contributing to global warning. 

428
Your Turn / Re: TEC unraveling officially begins
« on: December 04, 2008, 11:21:34 PM »
In reference to yesterday's formation of a new North American Anglican Province, dig this from the New York Times report:

Quote
Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal who frequently blogs on Anglican affairs, said he doubted that a rival Anglican province could grow much larger.

"I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians," he said. "That’s not a market niche that is underserved."




Wow, Mr. Naughton really doesn't get the point. 

Check out this quote:

However, Jim Naughton, of the Episcopal Church denied charges of unorthodoxy. He said: “There are small antigay Christian denominations all over the US and we have existed in the midst of these denominations for ages. At this point, this is just another of those small antigay Christian denominations. They are distinguished from other small antigay churches in the US by their global pretensions, but the relationships they have cultivated with a handful of like-minded leaders in Africa do not really change the dynamic here in the US.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5289581.ece


Welcome back Vicar Bob!

Mr. Naughton would tend to disagree if he were an Episcopalian in Moorhead, MN, where the vast majority of Episcopalians are refugees from the oft-dismissed African nations.  Like so many, he doesn't grasp the difference between "antigay", and "anti-revisionist".  I doubt that there are many who are against the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals in TEC who are "anti-gay".     

Unfortunately, this shoddy attempt at rhetoric is more similar to the ridiculous Coleman/Franken campaign commercials than what a spokesperson for any church body should be using. 

429
Your Turn / Re: TEC unraveling officially begins
« on: December 04, 2008, 06:08:27 PM »
In reference to yesterday's formation of a new North American Anglican Province, dig this from the New York Times report:

Quote
Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal who frequently blogs on Anglican affairs, said he doubted that a rival Anglican province could grow much larger.

"I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians," he said. "That’s not a market niche that is underserved."




Wow, Mr. Naughton really doesn't get the point. 

430
Your Turn / Re: Mum is the word - Why you don't post
« on: December 01, 2008, 01:32:15 PM »
1. Time

2.  I write a post, re-read it, and figure that it's really bringing nothing new to the thread or that nobody will bother to read it.  I then delete it. 

431
Your Turn / Re: Happy Happy Clappy Clappy
« on: November 22, 2008, 01:21:51 AM »
Projection screens are just another device or tool or instrument, nothing more. They can be well-used or they can be mis-used or they can be intrusive and offensive. For me, the deal is the aesthetic and devotional "focus" of the service, which - on Sundays - ought to be the altar and the pulpit. Having the words of the liturgy, including the eucharistic prayer, on a screen up in the corner, detracts from the action at the altar.
I fear that many are either just playing with the technology or using it without considering the "bigger picture."
Though I prefer a worship booklet with full text of most things, I have almost never put the text of the eucharistic prayer in the booklet. I want people's attention to be on the altar where the taking and giving thanks and blessing and breaking is going on, rather than on a page in their hands.
I was at one church where, during the organ prelude, slides on the screens "advertised" upcoming events, made announcements, and did other things which, in my opinion, did not lead us into a worshipful state of mind. It was like the commercials that run on the screen while people are coming into movie theater. Yuck!

One positive with video screen is that, when used properly, they can help avoid the "Lutheran Shuffle".  I do agree, though, that nothing on the screen should conflict with what is happening up front at the altar and pulpit.  Beyond that, I don't see the screen as being much different than a booklet or bulletin.  Actually, the screen at least gets peoples' attention out of their pew and over the congregation to the front of the church. 

Then again, I'm biased.  I spend a large part of the service trying to keep a 17-month-old from eating the bulletin and sermon notes. 

432
Your Turn / Re: Happy Happy Clappy Clappy
« on: November 19, 2008, 01:07:37 AM »
I'm not a huge fan of contemporary worship, which is perhaps ironic in my case since I've served time in numerous secular country, rock, and metal bands over the years.  So much of it seems to be musically trite and lyrically worthless; but I have great respect for those who are able to wade through the muckety-muck and fish out those gems that are lyrically edifying and musically tolerable.  There's seriously no way I could do that without some form of therapy at the end of the day.

433
Your Turn / Re: European American Lutheran Association?????
« on: November 19, 2008, 12:33:42 AM »
As a Norwegian/Swedish American, I am offended by the implication of being "white".  I am, in fact, peach-colored. 

On a more serious note, this strikes me as being just as lame as Presiding Bishop Hanson bemoaning the fact that the ELCA has too many light-skinned people.  Believe it or not, but a "person of non-color" can actually preach the Gospel without enslaving or taking the land of those "people of non-non-color".  Also, what structures exist in the ELCA that keep the aforementioned "people of color" from having a voice?  Has this been defined?  If it is undefined, does it really merit an organization based upon the premise? 

434
Your Turn / Re: Politics as cult
« on: November 10, 2008, 05:53:15 PM »
This is too rich: the two messiahs meet today. That is, the one who is being spoken of as such used just that language to describe his first encounter with the other. They can of course relive the moment if one of them reads foxnews:

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

Hope they, and you, have a good day! :)

Did Jerry Jenkins help him write that?

435
"The people who were born after the Apollo pictures of the Earth seen from space represent the first people who will fully inhabit a new consciousness. Those of us, like myself, who took this amazing picture in as someone already living on the Earth, had to learn this consciousness; for those born after me it is their birthright."

Was he listening to "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" while writing this? 

I was born in 1975, but from what I remember, they weren't showing me pictures of the Earth in-utero.  Actually, I don't think I saw them until I was 4 or 5 years old, at which point I had been "already living on the Earth". 

If that is truly my birthright, I am perfectly willing to trade it for a pot of stew.  Any stew...even Dinty Moore. 

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31