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 - Mike Bennett

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68
991
ELCA Churchwide Assembly 2007 / Re: Welcome to Chicago
« on: July 31, 2007, 02:58:52 PM »
I'm kind of hopeful for another big showy protest at the ELCA convention.

I assume that you hope for the well-being of the Church Universal and the success of her mission.  Can you explain how these hopes coexist?

Jon Edwards

I'm not Paul, but I can offer one way these hopes could coexist.  The sooner those who would trouble the Church are exposed for what they are and are forced to withdraw in shame, the better.  Before you rise up and accuse me of an unChristian attitude, remember the imprecatory Psalms. 

Mike Bennett

992
LCMS Convention 2007 / Re: ELDoNA?
« 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

993
LCMS Convention 2007 / Re: ELDoNA?
« 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

994
Your Turn / Re: Bishop Hanson and Homosexuality
« on: July 31, 2007, 10:34:05 AM »
And if your congregation council does not make its decisions public, you need to speak with your pastor or the president of the congregation immediately.

If you read Vern's sentence (which I can only guess is the one you are answering, as you refuse to quote the posting to which you reply) you will see that grammatically it suggests his congregation *does* make its decisions public.

Mike Bennett

995
Mr. Hansen and the archbishop can believe as they state about the Bible and I can consider them part of the Body of Christ. I reject the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Mosaic authorship of the whole Pentateuch (which includes the account of his death). So can they consider me a part of the Body of Christ?

Well, Mr. Hansen, the archbishop, Jesus Christ and St. Paul.  I think the latter two add significant luster to the group (no offense intended to Don or the archbishop).

Mike Bennett

996
Your Turn / Re: Bishop Hanson and Homosexuality
« on: July 27, 2007, 11:12:41 PM »
Fellowship of Confessing Lutherans is a highly-biased partisan group (which they are allowed to be), but I would not accept their explanation as a fair description of the stance or history of Bishop Hanson's ministry. And I ask again: Why is Pastor McCain obsessed with this?

"Highly biased. " "Obsessed."  Who is it you say is poisoning the waters here?

Mike Bennett

997
Forum Blogs / Re: Bishop Payne Comes Out in Support of Change
« on: July 27, 2007, 10:51:35 PM »
If this time it is in the hotel, that makes it an even greater ecclesial provocation.


And, given that Holy Communion is being celebrated every day of the CWA as a part of the CWA, what possible statement can be made by celebrating Holy Communion separately, in the CWA headquarters hotel?   I don't see how this event can fail to be devisive, in intent as well as in effect.  Can somebody, anybody, please suggest a non-divisive motive for this event - a motive other than "making a statement" or "being in solidarity with" the former pastor from Atlanta?  Holy Communion isn't celebrated to make statements or expressing solidarity, unless I misunderstand badly the reasons for celebrating Holy Communion.

Mike Bennett

998
Your Turn / Re: The Gospels -- Jesus Remembered
« on: July 27, 2007, 10:35:45 PM »

I can see clearly from your posts why there needs to be both an LCMS and an ELCA. I could not, in good conscience, preach the text as you suggest, and you couldn't do it the way I do. We belong in different church bodies.

And yet, several ELCA pastors here would, I think, preach the text much more as Peter suggests rather than as you suggest.  And as one of them pointed out a few replies downstream, the Church has forever interpreted the text much more as Peter suggests.  I don't think it's realistic to suggest that your way is the ELCA way.  There is in fact a current discussion going on in ELCA pitting "your" way against "Peter's" way of interpreting Scripture.  I think it's useful for the LCMS participants in this forum to know that; presumably the ELCA participants already did know it.

Mike Bennett

999
Your Turn / Re: The Battle Lines are Drawn
« on: July 23, 2007, 04:34:03 PM »

However, for most of us in most of our communications, e.g., sermons, newsletter articles, etc. we usually find that most understand and respond as we expect, and a few misunderstand and/or respond in ways we do not expect. Seldom is it a case that everyone misunderstands a communication. When they do, it is probably caused by poor writing (or a computer glitch?). However, when they are mixed, the different understandings and responses are likely to be caused by something within the reader/hearer.

To use a big example, part of the causes of different denominations and fighting within denominations are different responses to what is written in scriptures. Do you then blame scriptures for not communicating God's will clearly, or are the differences found in the ways people read and understand the Bible?

I remember being taught that the Holy Spirit has a role in proper understanding of Scripture.  I don't remember anything about such involvement in the writings of Austin, Stoffregen, or Bennett, each of whom says darned well what he means to say 99% of the time, without stuttering.

1000
Your Turn / Re: The Battle Lines are Drawn
« on: July 23, 2007, 12:40:54 PM »

Eric:
Charles, please do try and reflect on where the hostility you lament comes from, and how much of it you are registering in yourself is actually being at least partially generated by what you write.

Me:
I do reflect. I have no control over how people respond to what I write. Believe me, after more than 40 years of writing for publication, I know this!


It took me far less than my full 40 years as a professional to learn that when I am the speaker or writer, I bear the primary responsibility for clear communication.  If what I say or write is misunderstood, in a large majority of cases it's my fault, not the fault of the hearer or the reader.  If I'm continually misunderstood, the chances that I'm causing the problem rises to near 100%. 

1001
LCMS Convention 2007 / Re: Interviews
« on: July 18, 2007, 03:56:40 PM »
Are saying I'm not nefarious?

I don't know.  I'd read good things about you in the _Forum Letter_, but those are probably just nefarious propagenda to cover up for your nefarious intent.  Is that a black Dracula cape you're wearing?

I think the link I just posted was to an article commenting on the article I'd originally seen, and not the article itself. 

Mike Bennett

1002
LCMS Convention 2007 / Re: Interviews
« on: July 18, 2007, 03:53:17 PM »
I got some great interviews yesterday and over lunch today, but there is no time to write them up and post them yet because of the schedule.Yesterday I spoke with the micro-synod Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America in a group interview. They are all former LCMS guys who have left the synod since the election of President Kieschnick. Interesting take on things from them.

Today I interviewed 3rd veep Wohlrabe, 1st veep Diekelman, long-time veep King whose service was acknowledged this morning, and Dr. Bartelt of the St. Louis sem, who was instrumental in the Res. 5-01 Specific Ministry presentations for the floor committee. All very interesting takes on the questions listed somewhere else in this thread. I doubt I'll be able to post any of them until tomorrow, but stay tuned.

Note to ALPB--Wohlrabe knows too much. After the interview he asked me where this was being published and when I told him he spoke in the minutest of detail concerning the alpb's history and relationship with the LCMS. It turns out his Th.D thesis is on the history of the doctrine of ministry in American Lutheranism and the LCMS. So if anyone wants to know what the alpb folks were up to at, say, the 1935 LCMS convention, Wohlrabe can tell you off the top of his head.

 

That's funny.  I read a paper by him sometime in the past few months in which he referred to the ALPB's _Lutheran Forum_ having now become the _Forum Letter_.   I didn't pay much attention to it, figuring that he hadn't even taken the time to know that the two publications are published concurrently.  Here's the quote:

"In 1914, an organization was started in New York City called the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (ALPB), which began publication of a magazine in 1918 called "The American Lutheran" (which later became "The Lutheran Forum" and now "The Forum Letter") ... No action was ever taken against them in the fashion that President Kieschnick is now proposing the COP take against signers of TTMBO."

And the link: http://www.concordtx.org/opinions/anders.htm

Mike Bennett

1003
LCMS Convention 2007 / Re: Interviews
« on: July 18, 2007, 03:49:29 PM »
I got some great interviews yesterday and over lunch today, but there is no time to write them up and post them yet because of the schedule.Yesterday I spoke with the micro-synod Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America in a group interview. They are all former LCMS guys who have left the synod since the election of President Kieschnick. Interesting take on things from them.

Today I interviewed 3rd veep Wohlrabe, 1st veep Diekelman, long-time veep King whose service was acknowledged this morning, and Dr. Bartelt of the St. Louis sem, who was instrumental in the Res. 5-01 Specific Ministry presentations for the floor committee. All very interesting takes on the questions listed somewhere else in this thread. I doubt I'll be able to post any of them until tomorrow, but stay tuned.

Note to ALPB--Wohlrabe knows too much. After the interview he asked me where this was being published and when I told him he spoke in the minutest of detail concerning the alpb's history and relationship with the LCMS. It turns out his Th.D thesis is on the history of the doctrine of ministry in American Lutheranism and the LCMS. So if anyone wants to know what the alpb folks were up to at, say, the 1935 LCMS convention, Wohlrabe can tell you off the top of his head.

 

That's funny.  I read a paper by him sometime in the past few months in which he referred to the ALPB's _Lutheran Forum_ having now become the _Forum Letter_.  The gist of the piece was that ALPB is a nefarious organization.  I didn't pay much attention to it, figuring that he hadn't even taken the time to know that the two publications are published concurrently. 

Mike Bennett

1004
Mike,

Thanks for the questions.  I hope I can get this response out in time to be of use to you tonight. 

<snip the meat of the response>

Hope this is helpful.  It's a rush job to get it out so you can use it and I have some pressing pastoral care responsibilities to go attend to. 

Ken



Extremely helpful, thank you.  As it turns out there was not occasion to discuss this at congregation council.  But it will be helpful to me nevertheless.  I hope it will be equally helpful to some others, so that I didn't take  you from your responsibilities only for my selfish benefit!

Mike Bennett

1005
The Statement’s Focus:
   A particular focus or target of this statement is the danger to the historic Christian (and Lutheran) faith represented by the “contextual approach to Scripture interpretation”    
Two ignorant questions from one who is hoping to be able to discuss Lutheran CORE and its Statement on Scripture with some intelligence in our congregation council meeting this evening, and is supposed to be doing some actual work for my employer between now and then: 

1. Is "contextualist" a term that's generally used and used by "friends" of that method, or only by detractors?

2. How would you summarize the main features of a "contextual approach to Scripture interpretation"?

Thanks.

Mike Bennett

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68