Differences between ELCA and LCMS doctrinally, an interesting look.

[James_Gale]

The statements stand, until corrected, as the public witness of the ELCA.

I agree with you. 

But that's not the issue in this thread.  The issue here is the self-styled "primer" and its use of the web-site material.

I'm not sure what you think that I -- a holder of leadership positions in the NALC -- can do about the ELCA's web site.

[George Erdner]

And whoever compares "something from the ELCA website" to official statements of the LCMS is doing everyone a disservice.

Not so, Richard.

The ELCA alone bears the responsibility for its public statements about what it believes, posted on its web site. How can anyone be faulted for citing what the ELCA itself posts on its own web site?

Your point makes little sense.

Pr. Johnson's point makes perfect sense.

The linked document purports to be a "primer to some of the differences that exist between the ELCA and the LCMS in regards to what we believe, teach, and confess."  It's not.  If it were, it would use the officially approved statements of both church bodies as a starting point.

You're right that the "ELCA alone bears responsibility" for what's posted on its web site.  However, the fact that the ELCA has been negligent or reckless in carrying out this responsibility does not mean that the ELCA "believes, teaches, and confesses" what is posted.  

I do think that it would be fair in a "primer" to cite the linked material as evidence that in practice, the ELCA with some frequency deviates from its official teachings.  But only after laying out the official teachings.  And in order to be fair to the reader, an author must clearly identify the author and source of the deviating text.  If a text has been approved by a churchwide, synodical, or congregational body, the primer should say that.  If it has not been, the primer should say that as well.  If a primer does not follow these practices, it will be inherently misleading.

Are the things posted on the ELCA's website under the title "What We Believe" not what the ELCA believes? Since when can we not trust that the information contained on the ELCA's website that purports to be "What We Believe" has not been "approved by a churchwide, synodical, or congregational body"? Doesn't the fact that it's published by the ELCA imply that it's "approved"?

What's the difference between the links to the ELCA's website and these links to the LC-MS website?

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=563

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=564

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2682

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=m&word=MONARCHIANISM

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2677

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=565 Salvation:

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=568.

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf

http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/believe/statements/statementdoc.pdf

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2676

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=D&word=DEVIL

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2120

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2724

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2702 Homosexual Ordination:

If the links to the ELCA's "What We Believe" pages do not contain what the ELCA believes, perhaps you or Pastor Johnson or Austin could post the correct links for everyone?

The statements stand, until corrected, as the public witness of the ELCA.

I agree with you. 

But that's not the issue in this thread.  The issue here is the self-styled "primer" and its use of the web-site material.

I'm not sure what you think that I -- a holder of leadership positions in the NALC -- can do about the ELCA's web site.

Like I said, the fact that you are in the NALC and not the ELCA doesn't prevent you from posting the correct links. Or, if you cannot, you could prevail on Pastor Johnson or on Austin to do so.

[ptmccain]

I remain puzzled that there is such a kerfuffle about a comparison of what is posted on The LCMS and the ELCA's web site, statements of what these respective churches stand for. You can't fault the Gnesio group for quoting from the two church's web sites.

If there is a problem with anything on the ELCA's web site, it is up to the ELCA to correct it, but until then, the statements stand as written, and are the ELCA's public witness to the world.

[Richard Johnson]

Perhaps you should contact the ELCA webmaster and inform him/her of the problems the web site is causing you as an ELCA pastor.

There are one heck of a lot of things causing me more problems as an ELCA pastor than stupid things on the ELCA web site.

The simple truth is that a "web site," no matter who is managing it, does not represent the official teaching, opinion, or position of the ELCA. The web site quotations from which started this website does everyone a disservice by citing unofficial and inaccurate things on the ELCA website.

Are there differences in doctrine between the two church bodies? Probably so. But if someone wanted to do a fair analysis, they would compare apples to apples.

[Richard Johnson]

The problem is that the person writing this stuff on the website is writing it with the authority of the National Office.

The "National Office" has no formal authority in the ELCA, regardless of what the "National Office" might think.

[ptmccain]

Richard, it is not "just" a web site. It is the ELCA's most public witness to the world, literally. It is accessible to, and accessed by, countless numbers of people from around the world. What is stated there represents the ELCA, and every person affiliated with it. If I were you I would not be so cavalier about it. It most certainly *does* represent the official teaching, opinions and positions of the ELCA.

Seem to me you would do better to direct your ire toward the ELCA and its public statements on its web site than try to find fault with people who quote it.

The logic of your argument, Richard, forgive me, but it is bearing an unsettling resemblance to the mental gymnastics displayed by Brian S.

[Richard Johnson]

Richard, it is not "just" a web site. It is the ELCA's most public witness to the world, literally. It is accessible to and accessed by countless numbers of people from around the world. What is stated there represents the ELCA, and every person affiliated with it. If I were you I would not be so cavalier about it.

It most certainly *does* represent the official teaching, opinions and positions of the ELCA.

Seem to me you would do better to direct your ire toward the ELCA and its public statements on its web site than try to find fault with people who quote it.

(1) I don't believe I said it was "just a web site."
(2) The ELCA is not like the LCMS or the Vatican. Every page on the web site does not go through 164 different reviews.
(3) I have no ire. I barely have an IRA.
(4) James, who is an eminently reasonable layman, an attorney, and affiliated with the NALC, seems to get the point rather clearly. Why you don't is beyond me.

Well, no, that's not quite true. It isn't beyond me at all. I get it quite clearly.
The logic of your argument, Paul, forgive me, but it is bearing an unsettling resemblance to the pre-time out Paul McCain.

[ptmccain]

The ELCA's web site is the ELCA's public face to the world. What is posted there represents the ELCA. You may say it is not accurate, it is an error, it is wrong, but the fact is that it is posted there, and until, and unless, it is changed, it does, de facto, represent the ELCA publicly.

Why you don't, can't, or refuse, to get this point, is what is escaping me.

[Richard Johnson]

The ELCA's web site is the ELCA's public face to the world. What is posted there represents the ELCA. You may say it is not accurate, it is an error, it is wrong, but the fact is that it is posted there, and until, and unless, it is changed, it does, de facto, represent the ELCA publicly.

Why you don't, can't, or refuse, to get this point, is what is escaping me.

I think you already said that.

[George Erdner]

Richard, it is not "just" a web site. It is the ELCA's most public witness to the world, literally. It is accessible to and accessed by countless numbers of people from around the world. What is stated there represents the ELCA, and every person affiliated with it. If I were you I would not be so cavalier about it.

It most certainly *does* represent the official teaching, opinions and positions of the ELCA.

Seem to me you would do better to direct your ire toward the ELCA and its public statements on its web site than try to find fault with people who quote it.

(1) I don't believe I said it was "just a web site."
(2) The ELCA is not like the LCMS or the Vatican. Every page on the web site does not go through 164 different reviews.
(3) I have no ire. I barely have an IRA.
(4) James, who is an eminently reasonable layman, an attorney, and affiliated with the NALC, seems to get the point rather clearly. Why you don't is beyond me.

Well, no, that's not quite true. It isn't beyond me at all. I get it quite clearly.
The logic of your argument, Paul, forgive me, but it is bearing an unsettling resemblance to the pre-time out Paul McCain.

So, why won't you just direct everyone to where the official statements can be found by posting a link? Are the the ELCA's official statements of belief not on the web anywhere?

[Marshall_Hahn]

Perhaps you should contact the ELCA webmaster and inform him/her of the problems the web site is causing you as an ELCA pastor.

There are one heck of a lot of things causing me more problems as an ELCA pastor than stupid things on the ELCA web site.

The simple truth is that a "web site," no matter who is managing it, does not represent the official teaching, opinion, or position of the ELCA. The web site quotations from which started this website does everyone a disservice by citing unofficial and inaccurate things on the ELCA website.

Are there differences in doctrine between the two church bodies? Probably so. But if someone wanted to do a fair analysis, they would compare apples to apples.

I appreciate that the statements on the website do not have the same authority as "social statements" and the like, but what is being compared here are the statements on the website of the ELCA with comparable statements on the website of the LCMS.  Is this not "apples to apples"?  As to the explanation that the ELCA is a much more diverse body than the LCMS, with a wider range of opinions on these topics, my question is, if that is so, then where is that diversity of opinion on this website?  In other words, where on this "What We Believe" portion of the website can one find orthodox theological teaching expressed?

Marshall Hahn   

[Richard Johnson]

Excellent questions.

[Richard Johnson]

So, why won't you just direct everyone to where the official statements can be found by posting a link? Are the the ELCA's official statements of belief not on the web anywhere?

Sorry, George, I have a day job. I can't drop everything to do your research for you.

Here: http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Statements-of-Belief/ELCA-Confession-of-Faith.aspx

[Brian Stoffregen]

Explain to me how getting first hand information about the ELCA is dangerous and why getting biased information from ELCA opponents is better.

But Charles, isn't it all about interpretation with you?

It's always about interpretation with everyone. We're honest about it. As soon as anyone says or even think, "This means …" they are interpreting. It's true with scriptures or any other statements.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Some believe this, and some believe that.  Big tent....

And our confession of faith states what the ELCA believes. Every synod and congregation is to agree with our confession of faith as it is part of their constitutions. Outside of that confession, there can be a lot of diversity, but isn't any diversity with our core confession of faith.