Death of mainline protestantism

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Kliner writes (Re Pastor Stoffregen's listing of variants):
Waaaay too much time on your hands, Brian...

I muse:
But when is looking closely at scripture ever a bad use of time? Would you rather someone spent an hour watching Oprah?

[Layman Randy]

I would actually be willing to buy a plane ticket to Minneapolis for the opportunity to meet with the gang that seems to be willing to gather there.

Is your suitcase large enough to bring ribs for everyone?

I won't cast visions anymore.  I leave that to God.

Then, it seems to me, the questions are: Does God communicate his vision to us? What role do we have in bringing God's vision to fruition?

While the KJV of Proverbs 29:18 is often quoted about the necessity of vision -- there is a variety of translations of that verse.

(KJV) Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.

(NKJV) Where there is no revelation,[or prophetic vision] the people cast off restraint; But happy is he who keeps the law.

(NIV) Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.

(ESV) Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint,[or the people are discouraged] but blessed is he who keeps the law.

(NASB) Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law.

(NRSV) Where there is no prophecy, the peeople cast off restraint, but happy are those who keep the law.

(CEV) Without guidance from God law and order disappear, but God blesses everyone who obeys his Law.

(The Message) If people can't see what God is doing, they stumble all over themselves;
But when they attend to what he reveals, they are most blessed.

It seems to me that whether it is a vision, a revelation, a prophecy, or guidance, there is a necessity for that to be seen/heard/understood by us for it to have an effect on our lives.

And, hence, INTERPRETATION !!  By its nature creating Versions triggers interpretations by the editor - or is it the other way around? 
8 Versions.  Which interpretations of what versions correlate with which "mainline protestant denominations"?

[Brian Stoffregen]

And, hence, INTERPRETATION !!  By its nature creating Versions triggers interpretations by the editor - or is it the other way around? 
8 Versions.  Which interpretations of what versions correlate with which "mainline protestant denominations"?

Lutherans do not authorize one "right" translation. As far as I know, none of the mainline denominations do that. So, main-liners are faced, sometimes, with a multitude of different translations/interpretations of a passage of scriptures. Ambiguity is part of who we are as readers of different translations. And, there is something beyond the Bible with it's myriad of translations that unites us as ELCAers (and other mainliners). I've stated before that it is our constitutional Confession of Faith. It states what we believe as ELCAers.

[Ken Kimball]

And, there is something beyond the Bible with it's myriad of translations that unites us as ELCAers (and other mainliners). I've stated before that it is our constitutional Confession of Faith. It states what we believe as ELCAers.

Really?  I'm inclined to think, "Not really."  Traditional-orthodox and progressive-revisionists seem to "interpret" our ELCA Confession of Faith quite differently.   I'm not sure that constitutes any real unity.

Ken Kimball 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Really?  I'm inclined to think, "Not really."  Traditional-orthodox and progressive-revisionists seem to "interpret" our ELCA Confession of Faith quite differently.   I'm not sure that constitutes any real unity.

How then do you interpret it? How might your interpretation of it be different than mine?

[Pr. Jerry Kliner]

And, hence, INTERPRETATION !!  By its nature creating Versions triggers interpretations by the editor - or is it the other way around? 
8 Versions.  Which interpretations of what versions correlate with which "mainline protestant denominations"?

Lutherans do not authorize one "right" translation. As far as I know, none of the mainline denominations do that. So, main-liners are faced, sometimes, with a multitude of different translations/interpretations of a passage of scriptures. Ambiguity is part of who we are as readers of different translations. And, there is something beyond the Bible with it's myriad of translations that unites us as ELCAers (and other mainliners). I've stated before that it is our constitutional Confession of Faith. It states what we believe as ELCAers.

I think you rely too much on an administrative document, Brian.  The ELCA constitution is merely a practical, organizational document, hence why it almost immeadately points beyond itself.  To hold the authority of the Constitution in higher regard than the Scriptures (which are the norma normata), the chief Lutheran symbols (ie. the Creeds and the Confessions), and even the body of tradition within the Lutheran community, is a sad misplacement of trust. 

Besides, constitutions can be ammended.  If we were to ammend the "Confession of Faith" in the ELCA constitution, would that then change what you believe?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

[Ken Kimball]

Really?  I'm inclined to think, "Not really."  Traditional-orthodox and progressive-revisionists seem to "interpret" our ELCA Confession of Faith quite differently.   I'm not sure that constitutes any real unity.

How then do you interpret it? How might your interpretation of it be different than mine?

See Pastor Kliner's comments in the previous post.  He's pretty much where I'm at.   
Ken Kimball

[J. Thomas Shelley]

And, hence, INTERPRETATION !!  By its nature creating Versions triggers interpretations by the editor - or is it the other way around? 
8 Versions.  Which interpretations of what versions correlate with which "mainline protestant denominations"?

Lutherans do not authorize one "right" translation. As far as I know, none of the mainline denominations do that. So, main-liners are faced, sometimes, with a multitude of different translations/interpretations of a passage of scriptures. Ambiguity is part of who we are as readers of different translations. And, there is something beyond the Bible with it's myriad of translations that unites us as ELCAers (and other mainliners). I've stated before that it is our constitutional Confession of Faith. It states what we believe as ELCAers.

I think you rely too much on an administrative document, Brian.  The ELCA constitution is merely a practical, organizational document, hence why it almost immeadately points beyond itself.  To hold the authority of the Constitution in higher regard than the Scriptures (which are the norma normata), the chief Lutheran symbols (ie. the Creeds and the Confessions), and even the body of tradition within the Lutheran community, is a sad misplacement of trust. 

Besides, constitutions can be ammended.  If we were to ammend the "Confession of Faith" in the ELCA constitution, would that then change what you believe?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Jerry, I remember the pathetic video released by former PBp Herbert W. Chilstrom in the wake of the 1993 Draft Statement on Human Sexuality debacle entitled Can We Talk About This?.

Near the beginning of the video PBp Chilstrom said that as Lutherans we need to turn to our foundational documents--and then he picked up not a Bible, not the Book of Concord, but the Model Constitution for Congregations!   So Brian is in august company in making that assertion.

Not that I agree with what is being asserted!

[Layman Randy]

And, hence, INTERPRETATION !!  By its nature creating Versions triggers interpretations by the editor - or is it the other way around? 
8 Versions.  Which interpretations of what versions correlate with which "mainline protestant denominations"?

Lutherans do not authorize one "right" translation. As far as I know, none of the mainline denominations do that. So, main-liners are faced, sometimes, with a multitude of different translations/interpretations of a passage of scriptures. Ambiguity is part of who we are as readers of different translations. And, there is something beyond the Bible with it's myriad of translations that unites us as ELCAers (and other mainliners). I've stated before that it is our constitutional Confession of Faith. It states what we believe as ELCAers.

I think you rely too much on an administrative document, Brian.  The ELCA constitution is merely a practical, organizational document, hence why it almost immeadately points beyond itself.  To hold the authority of the Constitution in higher regard than the Scriptures (which are the norma normata), the chief Lutheran symbols (ie. the Creeds and the Confessions), and even the body of tradition within the Lutheran community, is a sad misplacement of trust. 

Besides, constitutions can be ammended.  If we were to ammend the "Confession of Faith" in the ELCA constitution, would that then change what you believe?

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Jerry, I remember the pathetic video released by former PBp Herbert W. Chilstrom in the wake of the 1993 Draft Statement on Human Sexuality debacle entitled Can We Talk About This?.

Near the beginning of the video PBp Chilstrom said that as Lutherans we need to turn to our foundational documents--and then he picked up not a Bible, not the Book of Concord, but the Model Constitution for Congregations!   So Brian is in august company in making that assertion.

Not that I agree with what is being asserted!

Huh...1993.  "Due to technical difficulties, reality ends here.  We apologize for any inconveniences."

[J. Thomas Shelley]

[
Huh...1993.  "Due to technical difficulties, reality ends here.  We apologize for any inconveniences."

15 years later and we are still reviewing a Draft Statement on Human Sexuality.  Deja vu all over again.

[deaconbob]

hence the thread, death of mainline protestantism.

[Charles_Austin]

How long did it take to sort out the two natures of Christ? Longer than 15 years, I think.

[Layman Randy]

How long did it take to sort out the two natures of Christ? Longer than 15 years, I think.

So the discussion of topic is destined to continue until a date certain?

[Brian Stoffregen]

I think you rely too much on an administrative document, Brian.  The ELCA constitution is merely a practical, organizational document, hence why it almost immeadately points beyond itself.  To hold the authority of the Constitution in higher regard than the Scriptures (which are the norma normata), the chief Lutheran symbols (ie. the Creeds and the Confessions), and even the body of tradition within the Lutheran community, is a sad misplacement of trust.

Corporations have two legal documents and one optional one.

1. The Articles of Incorporation which define it as a corporation in regards to the state. This is the highest legal document. If there are conflicts between this and the other documents, the Articles win.

2. The Constitution (which is not legally required by the state, but it is by the ELCA,) defines the congregation as part of the ELCA.

3. The Bylaws (and continuing resolutions,) which spell out how the congregation will run itself.

Your statements about your beliefs above are no different than the ELCA's statement of faith. Practically speaking, we do not approach scriptures with a blank page. All kinds of people can read scriptures for all kinds of different reasons. As Lutheran Christians, we approach scriptures with a pretty full page. We read scriptures with a belief in the Trinity: one God in three persons. We read scriptures with a belief that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, the Son of God. We read scriptures believing that God's Word comes to us as Law and Gospel.  We read swcriptures believing that our Confessional writings help us to properly understand the words of the Bible. So are the things I see the Confession of Faith declaring about ourselves to the world.

Besides, constitutions can be ammended.  If we were to ammend the "Confession of Faith" in the ELCA constitution, would that then change what you believe?

If it were to be amended, it would indicate a change in what the ELCA believes. If it is no longer what I believe, why would I stay in an organization whose beliefs I consider faulty?

[Charles_Austin]

Furthermore, the constitutions and similar governing documents are not "articles of faith," but the explanations of the ways we have agreed to operate as the ELCA.
For example, some say a "social statement" should be put out to a vote by congregations or ELCA members. Nothing in our "doctrine" would prohibit us from doing this, and nothing in our doctrine requires us to do this.
But in forming the ELCA and operating in the ELCA, this is not the way we have chosen to adopt a social statement. We have agreed that social statements are adopted, after appropriate review, by a church-wide Assembly.
That doesn't make the social statement a "law," nor does it make it an "article of faith."
Similar agreements apply to ordinations, congregations, clergy, and synods. We have agreed to act and make our decisions in certain ways.
Personally, I don't like some of the "ways." But nothing that I dislike rises to a level that would cause me to leave the ELCA, or willfully go another direction and take the consequences.