Differences between ELCA and LCMS doctrinally, an interesting look.

[ptmccain]

Racin, how many times must this be said?

A kilt is NOT a skirt. I strongly advise you never tell a Scotsman, or an Irishman, wearing a kilt, "Nice skirt!" . . . particularly after they have had a few whiskeys.

You have been warned.

 

[DeHall]

Amazingly, I am in agreement with this to some extent. While the ELCA's lack of doctrinal uniformity and definitiveness regarding important matters is very, very difficult to accept, I can see where the apparent practice of the LC-MS to elevate every issue, down to when to wear this and when to wear that, can be seen as equally difficult to accept in the opposite extreme. I do not wish to remain part of a denomination that has standards so loose that it allows non-celibate homosexuals to be ordained. But I also do not wish to join a denomination that has standards so strict that it has a dress code for clergy.

Neither extreme strikes me as spiritually beneficial.

Another so-called "Statement of Fact", Mr. Erdner?

[racin_jason]

Racin, how many times must this be said?

A kilt is NOT a skirt. I strongly advise you never tell a Scotsman, or an Irishman, wearing a kilt, "Nice skirt!" . . . particularly after they have had a few whiskeys.

You have been warned.

 

Golly, my ELCA-shaped "open to a variety of interpretations" got the best of me there,....sorry for the poor exegesis on my part.  

[George Erdner]

Amazingly, I am in agreement with this to some extent. While the ELCA's lack of doctrinal uniformity and definitiveness regarding important matters is very, very difficult to accept, I can see where the apparent practice of the LC-MS to elevate every issue, down to when to wear this and when to wear that, can be seen as equally difficult to accept in the opposite extreme. I do not wish to remain part of a denomination that has standards so loose that it allows non-celibate homosexuals to be ordained. But I also do not wish to join a denomination that has standards so strict that it has a dress code for clergy.

Neither extreme strikes me as spiritually beneficial.

Another so-called "Statement of Fact", Mr. Erdner?

No, merely an observation expressed through the obvious use of hyperbole.

At least, it would have been obvious who anyone whose sole intent wasn't to search for nits to pick.

[DeHall]

No, merely an observation expressed through the obvious use of hyperbole.

At least, it would have been obvious who anyone whose sole intent wasn't to search for nits to pick.

I see....Still having problems admitting when you're wrong.

[Brian Stoffregen]

So, Brian, again you tell only half the story and convienently twist that half-truth to be something that it isn't.  Both "Definitions and Guildlines" and "Visions and Expectation" are not supposed to lay out the Biblical and theological rationales, but only the policy.  And they were backed up and formed by the PCB's statements on human sexuality, which were in force until the farce that is HSGT.

The Social Statement did not change our policy. It led to revisions in Visions and Expectations and Definition and Guidelines.

I'm pretty sure that predecessor statements were received as information, and they were not in force as teaching statements of the ELCA until they were approved by the ELCA. I point specifically to the Statement on Communion Practices that had adopted by both the ALC and the LCA in 1978; but it did not become official in the ELCA until it was approved it in 1989. (It has since been replaced by The Use of the Means of Grace.)

[Brian Stoffregen]

Racin, how many times must this be said?

A kilt is NOT a skirt.

And an alb is not a dress -- even though that's what little kids seem to think it is.

[Steven Tibbetts]

The Social Statement did not change our policy. It led to revisions in Visions and Expectations and Definition and Guidelines.

So you're saying that the Social Statement did not change our policy; it lead to changes in our policies.   Ah, yes, we understand much better now.

PCB (that is, LCA and ALC) Social Statements were carried forward into the ELCA, except when both churches addressed a topic differently.  The previous statements related to human sexuality were officially judged different enough that they were not brought forward as ELCA teaching, though they were received as useful teachings from the PCBs and could be used to help determine ELCA policies and practices.  Which they were.  And, yes, that is as confusing in 2010 as it was in 1987.

The common Statement on Communion Practices was not a Social Statement of either the ALC or LCA, and thus needed to be adopted by the ELCA to be regarded as our practice.

Pax, Steven+

[Brian Stoffregen]

The Social Statement did not change our policy. It led to revisions in Visions and Expectations and Definition and Guidelines.

So you're saying that the Social Statement did not change our policy; it lead to changes in our policies.   Ah, yes, we understand much better now.

How could the Social Statement change a policy that we didn't have? The predecessor bodies had statements, but as you indicated, they were not brought forward as ELCA teaching.

The common Statement on Communion Practices was not a Social Statement of either the ALC or LCA, and thus needed to be adopted by the ELCA to be regarded as our practice.

You are correct.

[racin_jason]

Racin, how many times must this be said?

A kilt is NOT a skirt. I strongly advise you never tell a Scotsman, or an Irishman, wearing a kilt, "Nice skirt!" . . . particularly after they have had a few whiskeys.

You have been warned.

 

Golly, my ELCA-shaped "open to a variety of interpretations" got the best of me there,....sorry for the poor exegesis on my part.  

Hey, Mr. Recipient of the official Forum Online Get Us Back on Topic Award, how is this on topic?

[Bucking for the 2010 nomination]

I thought I had skillfully connected our diversion to the topic at hand.  

...and besides, it was an award, not an induction to sainthood.  Even Tom Hanks made a few bad pictures even though he won an academy award.

[Steven Tibbetts]

How could the Social Statement change a policy that we didn't have?

Huh?  There were several "implementing resolutions" of the Social Statement that changed policies.  Then, of course, the most basic purpose of the Social Statement was to provide theological cover (white wash?) for changing the ministry policies regarding homosexuals. 

Nice try, Brian.

[George Erdner]

The Social Statement did not change our policy. It led to revisions in Visions and Expectations and Definition and Guidelines.

So you're saying that the Social Statement did not change our policy; it lead to changes in our policies.   Ah, yes, we understand much better now.

How could the Social Statement change a policy that we didn't have? The predecessor bodies had statements, but as you indicated, they were not brought forward as ELCA teaching.

The common Statement on Communion Practices was not a Social Statement of either the ALC or LCA, and thus needed to be adopted by the ELCA to be regarded as our practice.

You are correct.

Since when does the ELCA need written documents to set policy? It does what it does, not what its formal policies say it should do, unless it wants to follow it's own written word.