Author Topic: Some changes afoot  (Read 18609 times)

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2010, 09:59:23 AM »
Erma writes (after the gut-wrenching laughter):
Trust me when I say this:  there are many and various ways of disapproving of women pastors.  And some of those who most vocally approve of women pastors are, I fear, in need of a trip to their confessor regarding their sin of being two-faced. 

I comment:
Can't speak to the sins of others or the number of faces they have. I don't dispute that some women encounter difficulties. There are women pastors and there are women pastors.
And - if there are ELCAers who don't believe women should be ordained, still with us after all these years, I guess that it is possible to continue in a church body with such disagreements. A sign of hope.

Ken Kimball

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #61 on: November 29, 2010, 10:06:01 AM »
I'm feeling a little miffed that I didn't make anybody's list.   :'(  ::)   ;D   And I do think that Pr. Knudson is LCMC and not ELCA any longer.

Ken

Still ELCA, despite being censured and admonished, until my congregations take their second vote (Jan 16) or I am removed from the roster of the ELCA (in which case I will remain pastor at Old East and Old West) or Old East and Old West are expelled along with their pastor.   

James Gustafson

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #62 on: November 29, 2010, 10:13:35 AM »
I'm feeling a little miffed that I didn't make anybody's list.   :'(  ::)   ;D    

I'll put you on a list, now which side did you want?  Naughty or Nice?  :D  I'll make sure it's checked twice.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12575
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2010, 10:26:02 AM »
You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree.  Some of those who disagree are intemperate in their language.  Some within the church body complain that intemperate language and punitive actions have been taken against them - well, they can rarely prove those things happen and they need to understand that when one takes a stand one must accept criticism and you graciously personally deplore it if, if, these things really happen so why are they still complaining?  They have your grudging sympathy.

It cuts both ways.  Part of the cost of being prophetic, of supporting all the new things that the Holy Spirit is trying to do in the church and in the world, of being with the wave of the future as judged by what young people of your acquaintance are saying, is criticism.  Every time you discover that old interpretations were, if not wrong at the time, are wrong now; that with our modern science and sociology we understand many things better than they did of old when people wrote out what they thought God was inspiring them to write; every time you advance into the brave new future there will be some who resist, who will miss the old, comforting orthodoxies that must be changed or abandoned and they will be vocal in their opposition.  Deplorable that not everyone gets with the program, but there it is.  Sometimes a prophet has to simply endure the criticism and whining about how few in a particular get it and are on your side, which you are confident is God's side, does no good.  When one takes a stand one must accept criticism and there is often a cost to being prophetic.  If you can't stand the heat, don't be prophetic.

I can also understand how aggravating it is to have a fellow church body critize your church for the prophetic actions you are taken.  And after all the effort your church put into trying to get them on board and would have welcomed them to march into the future with you.  After all, you think that they are wrong on some of their policies and chide them for their pretentions and helpfully point out their inconsistencies and wish they would be more respectful of the larger Lutheran community that your church represents, why should they complain that they think that your Biblical interpretations (which are becoming standard in the scholarly community) betray the faith.  If you do not complain that they are not being Lutheran how dare they complain that your church has departed from what Lutheranism has taught!  Well, again, that is part of the cost of being prophetic.

As has been pointed out to the traditionists, if you are unwilling to accept the cost of taking a stand, don't do it.  To take a stand even if it offends some, even if it angers some, you've got to accept the cost.  

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

tcswans

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #64 on: November 29, 2010, 10:32:12 AM »
Art Hebbeler writes:
Ah, Charles,. I hate to rain on your parade, but unless you are speaking of the ELCA from an official policy standpoint, there are still many in the ELCA who aren't thrilled with the idea of women pastors.

I respond:
You would have to provide me with some evidence that - after more than 35 years and several female bishops - "many" still disapprove of women pastors. Wishful thinking on your part, I believe.


Last Sunday at my church: the organist-choirmaster is female, the interim pastor is female, the lector is (as usual) a female. The Prayers of Intercession are offered by the female president of the congregation, who also presents the announcements at the end of the service, calling for comments from the previous, also female, congregational president. The latter encourages attendance at a service, later that day, celebrating the ordination of Elizabeth Platz in 1970. The ushers/greeters are two females. The Vocal Solo is sung by a female. One hardly hears a male voice throughout the entire liturgy.

What do you suppose would be the reaction to someone (such as myself) who was so incautious as to express even the wispiest, most tentative reservations about the wisdom and utter finality of the decision to ordain women?

There may well be more doubters than Pr. Austin suggests. Far more.

Tim Swanson

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12575
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #65 on: November 29, 2010, 10:46:49 AM »
I was not aware that this was a discussion forum for ELCA members in good standing and of good behavior.  Are LCMS folk, ex-(or soon to be ex-)ELCA folk and other sorts welcome so long as we express only respect and admiration for the prophetic actions of the ELCA and leave no messes on the floor?
 If there are not enough ELCA posters in the mix we have only too choices, increase the number of ELCA posters or get rid of a bunch of the interlopers.

Perhaps the company here is too rough for the delicate sensibilities of good, decent, loyal ELCAers.  Well, as has been suggested for some Traditionalists who complain of their treatment at Synodical meetings and other gatherings of the ELCA - that is the cost of making a stand, or, in other words, if you can't stand the heat keep quiet.   8)

Dan

And yes, I do personally deplore some of the intemperate, rude and inappropriate language that is used by certain posters here about the ELCA.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 10:50:28 AM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #66 on: November 29, 2010, 10:53:37 AM »
Pastor Fienen, you will have to excuse me and perhaps I am having a bad week, and most likely we are not communicating properly; but I fear that I see in your recent post the kind of patronizing stereotypes and unctuous language that just makes my teeth itch.

I shall try to illustrate (italics added to show the teeth-itchy parts):
You write: You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree
I comment: So in your mind it is just a matter of "getting with the new things," and that the changes belong to a "leadership" that has simply accomplished a "political task." I find that demeaning and insulting to our leaders and those who attend assemblies.

You write:
Some of those who disagree are intemperate in their language.  Some within the church body complain that intemperate language and punitive actions have been taken against them - well, they can rarely prove those things happen and they need to understand that when one takes a stand one must accept criticism and you graciously personally deplore it if, if, these things really happen so why are they still complaining?  They have your grudging sympathy.
I respond:
You write as if this were a bad thing. I am sorry if "traditionalists" experience trouble. But I do say that they may need to toughen up. What's wrong with that? We have people here who want to call their bishops apostate heretics and then wonder why they can't get a call. Duh!

You write:
It cuts both ways.  Part of the cost of being prophetic, of supporting all the new things that the Holy Spirit is trying to do in the church and in the world, of being with the wave of the future as judged by what young people of your acquaintance are saying, is criticism.
I comment:
I have always been willing to accept responsible criticism. And again, I find the italicized phrases - given your previous postings - patronizing.

You write:
Sometimes a prophet has to simply endure the criticism and whining about how few in a particular get it and are on your side, which you are confident is God's side, does no good.  When one takes a stand one must accept criticism and there is often a cost to being prophetic.  If you can't stand the heat, don't be prophetic.
I comment:
But the point here is that "my side" (a term I dislike) is apparently in the majority.

You write:
I can also understand how aggravating it is to have a fellow church body critize your church for the prophetic actions you are taken.  And after all the effort your church put into trying to get them on board and would have welcomed them to march into the future with you.
I comment:
The ELCA may absolutely no efforts to get the LCMS "on board" with our statement on human sexuality. We aren't that stupid.

I guess I am sort of saying: At this point in history, I don't seek your "understanding." I certainly don't seek your "agreement" or even a "consensus."
We are different kinds of Lutherans. Period. Stop. End of story.
I am not even sure that the kind of LCMS Lutheran most prevalent in this forum is the "real" LCMS.
Perhaps we ought to leave each other alone.

Paula Murray

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #67 on: November 29, 2010, 10:58:24 AM »
Erma is so very right; there are any number of people out there who are still unhappy about the decision to ordain women, and some of them say that they approve.  Closet - yea gads, what can I call them? well, chauvinists is a term of political art and so inappropriate - whatever, abound.  It's as me Da used to say, "If you want to know a person's heart, watch what they do rather than listen to what they say." 

And I am, proudly, though confusedly, an Irish-Norwegian blend, blue-eyed, auburn hair (at least, once upon a time) with RC and Haugean Lutheran roots.  What's that do to a quota system, much less my personality?

Yours in Christ,
Paula Murray
Who, if she keeps to her current rate of posting, will hit the 600 mark in 15 or 16 YEARS.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 11:05:11 AM by Paula Murray »

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #68 on: November 29, 2010, 11:14:24 AM »
The latter encourages attendance at a service, later that day, celebrating the ordination of Elizabeth Platz in 1970.

Which makes perfect logical sense. <shrug>
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but its not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

Team Hesse

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #69 on: November 29, 2010, 11:16:52 AM »
Pastor Fienen, you will have to excuse me and perhaps I am having a bad week, and most likely we are not communicating properly; but I fear that I see in your recent post the kind of patronizing stereotypes and unctuous language that just makes my teeth itch.

I shall try to illustrate (italics added to show the teeth-itchy parts):
You write: You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree
I comment: So in your mind it is just a matter of "getting with the new things," and that the changes belong to a "leadership" that has simply accomplished a "political task." I find that demeaning and insulting to our leaders and those who attend assemblies.



Wellllll, Charles, I found what Pastor Fienen wrote to be spot-on. I was there when the "leadership" decided to be prophetic. The consensus of the ELCA was recognized by those present to be opposed to the changes under consideration. There was a profound sense of disappointment that, in the words of one my task force colleagues,"the church is just not ready for these changes." Another member piped up with "we have to be prophetic" and they were off to the races and my excruciating headaches began. What you find demeaning and insulting I consider the truth. I was there, you were not.

As to the rest of what you wrote to Pastor Fienen, there is no point to responding to any of it because you have already closed your mind to any other viewpoint. You have your reward, enjoy your Prophetic Brave New Church. You are correct that there is no point in continuing these "discussions" other than to correct obvious statements of error--Like the one you stated above.

Lou

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #70 on: November 29, 2010, 11:22:53 AM »
I am still sorry, Lou, that if we are to discuss the ethics of genetic engineering and agriculture, (and I sort of wish we didn't think we had to do that) we will not have your voice in our discussions.

Pilgrim

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1634
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #71 on: November 29, 2010, 11:25:08 AM »
Tim Christ comments: To the point of the thread (which sidetracked pretty quickly as usual): As one who does not peruse the archives, given that keeping up with various threads is time-consuming enough, the poster who suggested archiving the minimal information in some of the lines (conventions, assemblies, etc.) and various other lessor utilized threads made considerable sense to me (if it addresses the storage issue), as well as (if possible) some limitations on numbers of posts within a given time period. And duly noting Brian's reflection of that having happened elsewhere resulting in his simply utilizing lengthier posts, well, perhaps a limitation on lenth (not as restrictive as twitter, but along that line) would force people to think and write more succinctly and to the point. As I believe the journalist among us would testify, haiving column/word length boundaries are beneficial along these lines. It is good training, or so it seems to me, for all of us ... from writing to preaching!  ;)
Pr. Tim Christ, STS

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12575
    • View Profile
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #72 on: November 29, 2010, 11:38:16 AM »
Pastor Fienen, you will have to excuse me and perhaps I am having a bad week, and most likely we are not communicating properly; but I fear that I see in your recent post the kind of patronizing stereotypes and unctuous language that just makes my teeth itch.

From my perspective you probably should know patronizing since I often find you to be patronizing.
Quote
I shall try to illustrate (italics added to show the teeth-itchy parts):
You write: You know, I can understand how annoying it must be to have one's church body constantly critizied by those who interpret the Bible more traditionally and have not gotten with the new things that the leadership perceive the Holy Spirit doing and convincing majorities of voting delegates to agree.  
I comment: So in your mind it is just a matter of "getting with the new things," and that the changes belong to a "leadership" that has simply accomplished a "political task." I find that demeaning and insulting to our leaders and those who attend assemblies.
Perhaps not you personally, but one argument that I have heard used on these fora over and over again it that things like the acceptance of PALMSGR as acceptable to God is one of the "new things" that Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit going to do.  Sometimes it seems to me that just about anything that the church decides to do that is new and different is labeled a "new thing" that the Holy Spirit is doing.  It has even been suggested that those who do not go with it are actually resisting the Holy Spirit.  As for the leadership convincing the majority to go along with what they believe should be happening, I thought that was what leadership did.  A leader is one who leads, hopefully through discussion, argumentation, persuasion, and showing the rightness of the action.  I did not intend to accuse them of anything underhanded but that they have lead your church.  That I and others disagree with the direction the leadership is leading is a slightly different concern.
Quote
You write:
Some of those who disagree are intemperate in their language.  Some within the church body complain that intemperate language and punitive actions have been taken against them - well, they can rarely prove those things happen and they need to understand that when one takes a stand one must accept criticism and you graciously personally deplore it if, if, these things really happen so why are they still complaining?  They have your grudging sympathy.
I respond:
You write as if this were a bad thing. I am sorry if "traditionalists" experience trouble. But I do say that they may need to toughen up. What's wrong with that? We have people here who want to call their bishops apostate heretics and then wonder why they can't get a call. Duh!
So it is a good thing when traditionalists experience trouble?!?  They should take it as a salutary toughening up experience?!?  That is what I call "grudging" sympathy.  Perhaps those who have pushed for these changes also need to toughen up.  If you are going to change what somebody's church has done and stood for for years, you should expect them to get emotional about it.
Quote
You write:
It cuts both ways.  Part of the cost of being prophetic, of supporting all the new things that the Holy Spirit is trying to do in the church and in the world, of being with the wave of the future as judged by what young people of your acquaintance are saying, is criticism.
I comment:
I have always been willing to accept responsible criticism. And again, I find the italicized phrases - given your previous postings - patronizing.
Are you saying that in your opinion the Holy Spirit is not moving the ELCA in these directions?  Several times it has been suggested that the acceptance of PALMSGR in ordained leadership roles is a non-issue for young people and traditionalists are going to loose out because young people don't go along with them.  (Perhaps you have not said this, but this is not only about you.)
Quote
You write:
Sometimes a prophet has to simply endure the criticism and whining about how few in a particular get it and are on your side, which you are confident is God's side, does no good.  When one takes a stand one must accept criticism and there is often a cost to being prophetic.  If you can't stand the heat, don't be prophetic.
I comment:
But the point here is that "my side" (a term I dislike) is apparently in the majority.

My bad here, I left out a word or two.  What I meant was how few in a particular forum or discussion get it.  Your complaints have been about lack of respect from posters on this forum (and lack of respect from the LCMS in general for the ELCA and their audacity at saying the ELCA is wrong).
Quote
You write:
I can also understand how aggravating it is to have a fellow church body critize your church for the prophetic actions you are taken.  And after all the effort your church put into trying to get them on board and would have welcomed them to march into the future with you.
I comment:
The ELCA may absolutely no efforts to get the LCMS "on board" with our statement on human sexuality. We aren't that stupid.

I guess I am sort of saying: At this point in history, I don't seek your "understanding." I certainly don't seek your "agreement" or even a "consensus."
We are different kinds of Lutherans. Period. Stop. End of story.
Of courses the ELCA did not try to get the LCMS "on board" with the statement on human sexuality.  But over the years, especially during the formation of the ELCA there were efforts to get the LCMS "on board".  You still seem to resent that we do not agree that your version of Lutheranism is every bit as valid, authentic, even orthodox as that in the LCMS.
Quote
I am not even sure that the kind of LCMS Lutheran most prevalent in this forum is the "real" LCMS.
Perhaps we ought to leave each other alone.


You keep saying that you consider the LCMS to be a valid Lutheran denomination where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered as though that meant that you are now free to take pot shots at the LCMS, make snarky comments about disunity within the LCMS and complain that we do not respond by saying that ELCA version of Lutheranism is just correct as what we in the LCMS believe, teach and confess.  (Although its not exactly clear what the ELCA teaches about some topics since, for example, you affirmed in your latest legislation, CWA '09, that the ELCA has four correct teachings on a certain topic, some of which directly oppose others.)

Dan
« Last Edit: November 29, 2010, 11:42:40 AM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Revbert

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #73 on: November 29, 2010, 11:46:01 AM »
Charles,

I don't have to give you examples. Erma and Paula have offered their own, well-qualified-on-the-issue, comments.

I don't understand your snipe about "wishful thinking."  There are still many congregations out there that will not accept a woman candidate for a call vacancy, just as there are many that will not accept a PALMS candidate for a vacancy.

Once again, you demonstrate your READY-FIRE-AIM approach to comments here.

GalRev83

  • Guest
Re: Some changes afoot
« Reply #74 on: November 29, 2010, 11:50:50 AM »
I'm feeling a little miffed that I didn't make anybody's list.   :'(  ::)   ;D   And I do think that Pr. Knudson is LCMC and not ELCA any longer.

Ken



*sniff* me, too.....!

Put Smith under "in the ELCA but critical of it."

For quotas, put me under ethnically German and Jewish (come on, that should get a bonus for me), vocationally and occupationally a wife, stepmom, stepgrandmom and stepgreatgranny and ordained female person of almost 28 years experience.

For lunch, put me down for ham and cheese on rye with brown mustard :D