Temple Prostitution: a modest proposal

[Dan Fienen]

Charles, would you care to show how the hermeneutical priciples and doctrine of scripture by which the blessing of PALM same sex relationships and ordination of those in such a relationships was approved would demonstrate the imperissiblility of Peter's modest proposal I'm sure that we would all appreciate it.

Dan

[George Erdner]

People here will not be surprised when I say:
Read it.
Hated it.
Believe the author should repent of it.
Seriously considered canceling my subscription to Forum Letter because of it.

If I were to write something linking the LC-MS with the Spanish Inquisition or Soviet Russia, lacking only the thumbscrews and the gulag, would Forum Letter print it? All in good fun, of course. Not. 

Wouldn't the decision to print or not print such an article depend on whether or not the LC-MS had recently done something counter to Christian understanding of Scripture and the understanding of Scripture contained in the Lutheran Confessions? You make it sound like some sort of tit for tat situation, where if someone makes an observation about one Lutheran denomination, then there must be a second similar observation made about another Lutheran denomination to bring about some sort of cosmic balance to the universe.

I would guess that if the LC-MS did something as egregious as what the ELCA did at the CWA last August, and you were to think of and write some clever satire about what had transpired, it would be accepted for publication. But, since the LC-MS has not done anything as egregious as what the ELCA did, then there's nothing about which to write such a satiric piece. Is there?

[Harvey_Mozolak]

maybe you could look at it this way... do you think this is the kind of writing that is a biblical response, the kind of thing you'd print on the back of your Sunday bulletin for education or inspiration in the truth...  I know that may not be the purpose of the ALPB forums but other stuff has been of a different sort...   oh, that the other side did not believe in Christ as Lord and Savior, that they did not honor and desire the Holy Sacraments, read the Scrptures daily, that they despised the Holy Spirit and and...   ridicule is not one of the gifts of the Spirit...  I sin that way, way too often, loving my enemies is a bit harder.  Enough said for me.      Harvey Mozolak

[Brian Stoffregen]

I would guess that if the LC-MS did something as egregious as what the ELCA did at the CWA last August, and you were to think of and write some clever satire about what had transpired, it would be accepted for publication. But, since the LC-MS has not done anything as egregious as what the ELCA did, then there's nothing about which to write such a satiric piece. Is there?

When the LCMS pastor said that my wife couldn't receive communion with her parents (even though she had been confirmed in an LCMS congregation,) that was just as egregious, in my opinion. When a seminary classmate went to communion with his wife, and the pastor passed him by at the altar, that was just as egregious, in my opinion. From the way I, and many others, interpret 1 Corinthians 11, they have turned the Lord's Supper into their own supper. By excluding members of the body of Christ, they are not properly discerning the body, and thus they are eating and drinking judgment on themselves.

Of course, this judgment comes from a particular interpretation of scriptures, which those in the LCMS don't agree with -- well, those who practice close(d) communion. Apparently there are some within their ranks who are as open with God's grace in the sacrament as the ELCA.

[peter_speckhard]

I would guess that if the LC-MS did something as egregious as what the ELCA did at the CWA last August, and you were to think of and write some clever satire about what had transpired, it would be accepted for publication. But, since the LC-MS has not done anything as egregious as what the ELCA did, then there's nothing about which to write such a satiric piece. Is there?

When the LCMS pastor said that my wife couldn't receive communion with her parents (even though she had been confirmed in an LCMS congregation,) that was just as egregious, in my opinion. When a seminary classmate went to communion with his wife, and the pastor passed him by at the altar, that was just as egregious, in my opinion. From the way I, and many others, interpret 1 Corinthians 11, they have turned the Lord's Supper into their own supper. By excluding members of the body of Christ, they are not properly discerning the body, and thus they are eating and drinking judgment on themselves.

Of course, this judgment comes from a particular interpretation of scriptures, which those in the LCMS don't agree with -- well, those who practice close(d) communion. Apparently there are some within their ranks who are as open with God's grace in the sacrament as the ELCA.

So in your opinion, the action of the CWA were "just as" (meaning to the same degree) egregious as the pastor who turned away your wife from communion. Yet surprisingly, you were in favor of what the CWA did. Do you often support proposals that are in your own opinion egregious?

[A Catholic Lutheran]

People here will not be surprised when I say:
Read it.
Hated it.
Believe the author should repent of it.
Seriously considered canceling my subscription to Forum Letter because of it.

If I were to write something linking the LC-MS with the Spanish Inquisition or Soviet Russia, lacking only the thumbscrews and the gulag, would Forum Letter print it? All in good fun, of course. Not. 

I, for one:
-Read it.
-LOVED it.
-Think it shows the flaws of the ELCA's "ethics" wonderfully.
-Am surprised that Charles would read the Lutheran Forum in the first place, much less have a subscription to it.

As for alledging a link between the LCMS and the Inquisition or something like that...well that has been considered "good fun" among ELCA types, no?

So relax.  It was a brilliant piece that illustrates the absurdity of the ELCA's sectarian reasoning and rationale.

A Catholic Lutheran

[A Catholic Lutheran]

I would guess that if the LC-MS did something as egregious as what the ELCA did at the CWA last August, and you were to think of and write some clever satire about what had transpired, it would be accepted for publication. But, since the LC-MS has not done anything as egregious as what the ELCA did, then there's nothing about which to write such a satiric piece. Is there?

When the LCMS pastor said that my wife couldn't receive communion with her parents (even though she had been confirmed in an LCMS congregation,) that was just as egregious, in my opinion. When a seminary classmate went to communion with his wife, and the pastor passed him by at the altar, that was just as egregious, in my opinion. From the way I, and many others, interpret 1 Corinthians 11, they have turned the Lord's Supper into their own supper. By excluding members of the body of Christ, they are not properly discerning the body, and thus they are eating and drinking judgment on themselves.

Of course, this judgment comes from a particular interpretation of scriptures, which those in the LCMS don't agree with -- well, those who practice close(d) communion. Apparently there are some within their ranks who are as open with God's grace in the sacrament as the ELCA.

It must really rankle you that the vast majority of Christianity practices some form of "close(d)" communion, huh.  But then again, as you have pointed out, Brian, the ELCA quit "thinking with the Church" some time ago.

So the question is... Why should we care what exactly you think, when you have stopped thinking with the rest of us?

A Catholic Lutheran

[Dan Fienen]

I would guess that if the LC-MS did something as egregious as what the ELCA did at the CWA last August, and you were to think of and write some clever satire about what had transpired, it would be accepted for publication. But, since the LC-MS has not done anything as egregious as what the ELCA did, then there's nothing about which to write such a satiric piece. Is there?

When the LCMS pastor said that my wife couldn't receive communion with her parents (even though she had been confirmed in an LCMS congregation,) that was just as egregious, in my opinion. When a seminary classmate went to communion with his wife, and the pastor passed him by at the altar, that was just as egregious, in my opinion. From the way I, and many others, interpret 1 Corinthians 11, they have turned the Lord's Supper into their own supper. By excluding members of the body of Christ, they are not properly discerning the body, and thus they are eating and drinking judgment on themselves.

Of course, this judgment comes from a particular interpretation of scriptures, which those in the LCMS don't agree with -- well, those who practice close(d) communion. Apparently there are some within their ranks who are as open with God's grace in the sacrament as the ELCA.

Brian,
Would you say that the LCMS interpretation is as valid, as correct, an interpretation as the ELCA interpretation (your interpretation)?  If not, on what basis would you judge one interpretation better than another?  If someone wanted to come to a conclusion about what I Cor. means here, on what basis would you suggest one interpretation rather than another interpretation?  Our could you?  Is the final answer, some say this and others say that?

Dan

[Marshall_Hahn]

It is not ridicule.  It is satire.  And well done.

Marshall Hahn

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Charles, would you care to show how the hermeneutical priciples and doctrine of scripture by which the blessing of PALM same sex relationships and ordination of those in such a relationships was approved would demonstrate the imperissiblility of Peter's modest proposal I'm sure that we would all appreciate it.

I respond:
No, I would not care to do that. And I do not believe "we would all appreciate it" if I did.

[George Erdner]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Charles, would you care to show how the hermeneutical priciples and doctrine of scripture by which the blessing of PALM same sex relationships and ordination of those in such a relationships was approved would demonstrate the imperissiblility of Peter's modest proposal I'm sure that we would all appreciate it.

I respond:
No, I would not care to do that. And I do not believe "we would all appreciate it" if I did.

I would appreciate it. How many people would have to chime in and affirm that they'd also appreciate it before there would be enough to convince you to respond to Pastor Fienen's request? I'm sure if you'd agree to do so if there was enough support others would add their voices to the request.

[Scott6]

It is not ridicule.  It is satire.  And well done.

Marshall Hahn

If it's anything like he posted here, absolutely.  Satire at its best.  I'll have to go to the library (or find Jonathan) and read it for myself...

[Richard Johnson]

Or I could just give you my copies when I'm done with them--just don't tell Richard or Peter.

A previous editor used to claim that surveys showed that every issue of Forum Letter is read by an average of five other people besides the subscriber.

But then I always thought he was just making that up. 

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Erdner writes (re my comment, on why I chose not to respond to Pastor Fienen's query and that most would not appreciate it if I did):
I would appreciate it.

I respond:
No, you would not.

Mr. Erdner again:
How many people would have to chime in and affirm that they'd also appreciate it before there would be enough to convince you to respond to Pastor Fienen's request?
Me again:
What part of "I would not care to do that" is hard for you to understand?

Mr. Erdner:
I'm sure if you'd agree to do so if there was enough support others would add their voices to the request.
Me:
You are wrong. Again.

[peter_speckhard]

People here will not be surprised when I say:
Read it.
Hated it.
Believe the author should repent of it.
Seriously considered canceling my subscription to Forum Letter because of it.

If I were to write something linking the LC-MS with the Spanish Inquisition or Soviet Russia, lacking only the thumbscrews and the gulag, would Forum Letter print it? All in good fun, of course. Not. 

While I don't repent of the article, I will acknowledge that it demonstrates Richard's superior wisdom. If you almost cancelled your subscription after reading what the editor printed, it is a slam dunk you would have cancelled your subscription had it been printed the way I originally submitted it.