NALC and CORE: The ALC Redivivus or the New ELCA?

[Erma S. Wolf]

The LCMS does not have a history of mergers...some small assimilations, yes.  I could easily envision the LCMS courting the NALC and possibly bringing it aboard as a separate non-geographical district (synod to you ELCA folks).  If it is advantageous, possibly allowing the NALC to bring along some female clergy if they are not the senior pastor (in an isolation ward with a district president (bishop), someone like Paul McCain, "persuading" congregations to drop their female pastors), and with the provision that all future clergy comes from LCMS seminaries...therefore, problem solved...no more female clergy.

On their heads?  

[Weedon]

Pr. Precup,

That is an interesting speculation.  I wonder, though, if the NALC really has much interest in it?  The "grandfathering out" has parallels to the way Archbishop Vanags handled the situation in Latvia when he was consecrated, immediately halting the ordination of women, but providing a living for those women who had been previously ordained.  I think in the article Dr. Tighe did on him, Vanags was reported to regard it as a Church error, but that the individuals so ordained ought not bear the burden of the Church's mistake.  I wonder if the Archbishop will be at Pr. Harrison's installation?

[vicarbob]

Isn't there an "invitee" list A Lutheran Arch-bishop

[Scott6]

I wonder, though, if the NALC really has much interest in it?

Judging from the conference and convocation in Columbus, the LCMS isn't really much of a "blip" on the radar screen for NALC / CORE.  Ryan Schwarz did try to draw some attention to the existence of the LCMS and the role it could play vis-a-vis NALC, but other than that, there wasn't much.

Something that struck me as rather funny was in a video that was shown introducing NALC.  A number of people were interviewed and spoke passionately of their desire that there be a confessional Lutheran church in America, and that they wanted to be a part of it.  Which left me thinking: [tongue-in-cheek]"Gee.  They're right!  Wouldn't it be great if there were a confessional Lutheran church body in America?  Wow -- I'd want to be part of that." [/tongue-in-cheek] 

[Brian Stoffregen]

If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.

[Richard Johnson]

If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.

Gee, even AF's Lutheran Study Bible doesn't make THAT claim. But then you're the Biblical scholar. You certainly must be right about this. 

[SKPeterson]

I wonder, though, if the NALC really has much interest in it?

Judging from the conference and convocation in Columbus, the LCMS isn't really much of a "blip" on the radar screen for NALC / CORE.  Ryan Schwarz did try to draw some attention to the existence of the LCMS and the role it could play vis-a-vis NALC, but other than that, there wasn't much.

Something that struck me as rather funny was in a video that was shown introducing NALC.  A number of people were interviewed and spoke passionately of their desire that there be a confessional Lutheran church in America, and that they wanted to be a part of it.  Which left me thinking: [tongue-in-cheek]"Gee.  They're right!  Wouldn't it be great if there were a confessional Lutheran church body in America?  Wow -- I'd want to be part of that." [/tongue-in-cheek] 

Funny, sad and true.  There is a subtle, implicit bias of many in the old ELCA against the LCMS.  I do not know how or when this occurred, except that it has been there my entire life as far back as I can recall, and strengthened after the absorption of the AELC into the ELCA. Perhaps people feel they'd get the old "I told you so" from the LCMS and aren't ready to face it, just yet.  Maybe it's just plain, old Swedish stubbornness.

[peter_speckhard]

Perhaps people feel they'd get the old "I told you so" from the LCMS and aren't ready to face it, just yet.  Maybe it's just plain, old Swedish stubbornness.

What do you mean they "would" get the "I told you so." They aren't getting it now? Testing, testing...Is this thing on? 

[Lawrence804]

I also noticed that statement about confessional Lutheranism and thought it a bit odd. Missouri has been like the Rock of Gibraltar for decades. I hope tNALC has a warm and cordial relationship with LCMS over time. Despite some doctrinal differences, they are natural allies.

[J.L. Precup]

I also noticed that statement about confessional Lutheranism and thought it a bit odd. Missouri has been like the Rock of Gibraltar for decades. I hope tNALC has a warm and cordial relationship with LCMS over time. Despite some doctrinal differences, they are natural allies.

Hmmm, I've been to Gibraltar...only difference I've seen is they serve beer there as opposed to Spanish wine.   

[James Thomas Sharp]

If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.

My wife had three kids.

She had my daughter and my two sons.

In the first account, evidently she had all three at the same time.

And, of course, I'm sure it means something to you that whoever wrote 1 Timothy says that Adam was created first and then Eve?

[Brian Stoffregen]

If WO is not to be discussed, that is fine with me. Then we can drop the "Orders of Creation" nonsense. Right?

Peace, JOHN HANNAH

For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.

Only in the second account of creation. In the first, God created them, male and female, at the same time.

Gee, even AF's Lutheran Study Bible doesn't make THAT claim. But then you're the Biblical scholar. You certainly must be right about this. 

I knew that there must be some reason why I didn't buy that resource.