Author Topic: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?  (Read 138145 times)

edoughty

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2025 on: February 08, 2011, 01:07:48 PM »

Because even if the answer is, "Well, we're not like that in church," that simply compounds the issue-- it seems like we're being told, "We're nice in person but when we leave church and get in a discussion, our pleasant attitude goes away."


No denomination's members have that unfortunate trait monopolized.

Mike Bennett

I agree with you there, Mike.  I just thought I would mention it because that seemed to be the argument put forth recently here, and I don't think it's an adequate defense from any denomination's members.

Drive-by Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2026 on: February 08, 2011, 02:20:56 PM »
Some of you continue to miss the point that this is an internet forum, not a church.  I have witnessed and been at the receiving end of the best pastoral and diaconal care since becoming a member of the LCMS.  Aside from doctrinal issues, this forum is hardly the place to make up your mind about whether you'd find a home in any particular church, let alone an LCMS church.  Obviously, the best way to know for sure is to visit and see if the Lord is leading you to that particular church.  Match up what you're experiencing at that church with Scripture, then you'll be set.  You might be surprised and actually delighted to learn how welcoming we in the LCMS are, though.

I think the point that George and some of the rest of us non-LCMS folk are trying to make, Kim, is that regardless whether this is a church, what we non-LCMS folk see here is the public behavior & witness of LCMS members.  This is the first impression we get. 

In a fair number of cases, that first impression is not so positive.  So we'd be unlikely to darken the door of an LCMS congregation.  Because even if the answer is, "Well, we're not like that in church," that simply compounds the issue-- it seems like we're being told, "We're nice in person but when we leave church and get in a discussion, our pleasant attitude goes away."


After 1 1/2 years of lurking on this forum, I finally have the pro-ELCA tactic all figured out.  Here it is:

Interesting to note that when some ELCA pastors and laymen are challenged to provide a deep, scriptural justification for identifying what the ELCA believes, we read comments intended to deflect the issue:  "The LCMS is bad, because....".  Alternatively, the topic in question is dismissed altogether: "I choose not to engage in this topic (insert_topic_here).  It is something we ELCA'ers have always believed, so why question it.  The LCMS is wrong, because we.....ummmmm, we ummmmm.....said so.  So there."

In other words, when all else fails, those LCMS'ers are just not nice people.  How many thousands of times have we read ELCA-types post this.  Good one! ;D

I noticed that this forum is polarized with either diehard ELCA'ers or devout LCMS'ers engaged in heated debates.  This is an internet forum.  "Well, we're not like that in church."

Inside an LCMS church, you won't find heated debates about what the ECLA believes/doesn't believe.  We have other things to think about....like praying and worshipping. ;)
Outside an LCMS church, you won't find heated debates about what the ECLA believes/doesn't believe.

Please keep in mind that 99.999% of LCMS laypeople don't even think about the ELCA and its issues.  Really, the ELCA is not on the radar screen.

Don't rely mainly on what is written on an internet forum.  Go visit a couple of LCMS churches, talk to the people in person, and ask lots of questions.  While you are at it, ask for deep scriptural justification.  You'll get it. ;)

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2027 on: February 08, 2011, 02:28:12 PM »
Don't rely mainly on what is written on an internet forum.  Go visit a couple of LCMS churches, talk to the people in person, and ask lots of questions.  While you are at it, ask for deep scriptural justification.  You'll get it. ;)

I've done that. I didn't get it. I was pointed to some Scripture passages, which didn't appear to me to address the issue. When I asked for clarification, I was given reading assingments in texts other than the Bible. Proof-texting and telling people to read Walther, Krauss or some other theologian is not providing deep scriptural justification.


pastormesser

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2028 on: February 08, 2011, 02:35:16 PM »
I think that illustrates one of the reasons why we ELCA pewsitters would have trouble with the LC-MS. From your response, I get the impression that if I went to an LC-MS pastor concerned about some personal problem, instead of getting caring counseling that is in conformance to scripture (which is what I'd want), I'd get a dry lecture and an assignment to read something Walther wrote about what Luther wrote about what was in the Bible.

Yes, George, that's exactly what would happen.  You would walk in with a personal problem expecting compassionate, pastoral care, and we'd lecture you and give you some reading assignments.  Yep, that's how all the LCMS pastors operate.  I know I do.  I don't have time to waste on people's personal problems.  I'm too busy studying theology.  Let them read a thing or two; that should suffice.  Then I can stick my head back into my books.  

This is probably the most ignorant thing I've read to date on this forum - and that's saying a lot!  Good grief.  

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2029 on: February 08, 2011, 02:40:10 PM »
Some of you continue to miss the point that this is an internet forum, not a church.  I have witnessed and been at the receiving end of the best pastoral and diaconal care since becoming a member of the LCMS.  Aside from doctrinal issues, this forum is hardly the place to make up your mind about whether you'd find a home in any particular church, let alone an LCMS church.  Obviously, the best way to know for sure is to visit and see if the Lord is leading you to that particular church.  Match up what you're experiencing at that church with Scripture, then you'll be set.  You might be surprised and actually delighted to learn how welcoming we in the LCMS are, though.

I think the point that George and some of the rest of us non-LCMS folk are trying to make, Kim, is that regardless whether this is a church, what we non-LCMS folk see here is the public behavior & witness of LCMS members.  This is the first impression we get. 

In a fair number of cases, that first impression is not so positive.  So we'd be unlikely to darken the door of an LCMS congregation.  Because even if the answer is, "Well, we're not like that in church," that simply compounds the issue-- it seems like we're being told, "We're nice in person but when we leave church and get in a discussion, our pleasant attitude goes away."


After 1 1/2 years of lurking on this forum, I finally have the pro-ELCA tactic all figured out.  Here it is:

Interesting to note that when some ELCA pastors and laymen are challenged to provide a deep, scriptural justification for identifying what the ELCA believes, we read comments intended to deflect the issue:  "The LCMS is bad, because....".  Alternatively, the topic in question is dismissed altogether: "I choose not to engage in this topic (insert_topic_here).  It is something we ELCA'ers have always believed, so why question it.  The LCMS is wrong, because we.....ummmmm, we ummmmm.....said so.  So there."

In other words, when all else fails, those LCMS'ers are just not nice people.  How many thousands of times have we read ELCA-types post this.  Good one! ;D

I noticed that this forum is polarized with either diehard ELCA'ers or devout LCMS'ers engaged in heated debates.  This is an internet forum.  "Well, we're not like that in church."

Inside an LCMS church, you won't find heated debates about what the ECLA believes/doesn't believe.  We have other things to think about....like praying and worshipping. ;)
Outside an LCMS church, you won't find heated debates about what the ECLA believes/doesn't believe.

Please keep in mind that 99.999% of LCMS laypeople don't even think about the ELCA and its issues.  Really, the ELCA is not on the radar screen.

Don't rely mainly on what is written on an internet forum.  Go visit a couple of LCMS churches, talk to the people in person, and ask lots of questions.  While you are at it, ask for deep scriptural justification.  You'll get it. ;)

Sigh!

In a really serious manner, let me say this...  IF you are serious about promoting a sense of the LCMS being a welcoming and serious group of people, you are NOT accomplishing your goal.  IF, on the other hand, you are trying to spoof or satirize the LCMS, you ARE doing a heckuva bang up job.

I grew up in the LCMS.  There are serious LCMS characters on this board.  I am not hostile to the LCMS nor am I a "company man" for the ELCA.  But the rhetoric you are employing is making me bristle.  Please take this with due charity...  But do think about it...  Please.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12240
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2030 on: February 08, 2011, 02:49:19 PM »
I remember reading an account back in the '70s of source criticism as applied to the New Testament and how it can help us understand what was really going on.  The example was a source critical analysis of the Peter's confession of Christ.  You begin with Jesus asking what people thought - probably bascially original as was the follow-up question of what the disciples thought.  It was there that it became more interesting.  Peter's initial response of Jesus being the Christ the Son of God was again likely orginal but Jesus' response was not.  Following the principle that Jesus had no thought of initiating a church and that all churchly references were later additions read back into the original Gospel accounts by the church and for the purposes of the church, Jesus reply approving of what Peter said and saying that He would build the church upon that rock, was all later additions and not original to Jesus or to the event being told.  So we set that aside as telling us something about the church that eventually developed but not from Jesus Himself.  Similarly, Jesus prediction of His death at the hands of the Jewish leaders was a later churchly addition to bolster their claims against the Jewish establishment and again not from Jesus Himself, who, of course, would have no real idea of how and when He would die.  Peter's horrified rejoinder that such must not happen was also added later.  Finally we have Jesus retort to Peter, scolding him for what he said, "Get behind me Satan" and that what Peter said came from Satan and not from God, that obviously would not have been added later so it must be original.  So, once we have applied Source Criticism to the pericope, sifted out the later additions made by the church to make this useful for furthering the developement  of the church, we have the orginal story.  Jesus asks the disciples who they think He is, Peter responds by saying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, which Jesus then rejects in the strongest terms.  This helps demonstrate that Jesus saw Himself as simply an itinerant Jewish preacher hoping to purify and renew Jewish faith.  All the rest was added later by the church.

Now I certainly hope that this sort of Higher Critical slicing and dicing of the text is obsolete and would not be done today, at least in respectable Lutheran (i.e. ELCA) circles.  But it is this sort of thing that soured many of us on the pretense of Higher Critical interpretation being neutral, objective (we assume that Jesus gave no thought to forming a church and that anything speaking about the church that would develope must have been added - one theory of the development of the church elevated to a firm exegetical rule), and useful for faith development and preaching.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Matt Staneck

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Shabbat Shalom! Matthew 11:28-30, 12:8
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2031 on: February 08, 2011, 03:13:43 PM »
Here's what I gather from this discussion.  That broad generalizations, by and large, are not helpful.  One response to the charge that many to most to all LCMS folks and/or pastors are dry and lecture driven is defensiveness.  "We are not like this, you are wrong."  Another approach is to say, "Holy cow, people actually look at us like this?  Including people I respect on this forum?  Uh oh, even though I feel it's really a mischaracterization, where do they get this from?  Kyrie Eleison ON ME.  I am a sinner.  Father forgive ME my sins, for they are great and many.  How can I now communicate that my citing of certain biblical passages, and great commentators of the Bible (Luther, Walther, THE CONFESSIONS) are not drawn from some dead orthodoxy but actual pastoral and practical concern?"

I would posit that the LCMSers here cite "extra-Biblical" writings because they are from folks who have dealt with actual real pastoral issues and sought to address them by way of scripture.  Walther is not cited in a vacuum.  Luther is not cited in a vacuum.  The Confessions are not cited in a vacuum.  They write in a pastoral sense, very concerned about the flock and how the Gospel is portrayed.  I would cite the Confessions because they are so very pastoral and compassionate.  I could not just flippantly say, "Go read the Formula" and expect you to find that satisfactory.  Rather the response would be, "Hey let's take a look at how our ancestors in the faith dealt with this and other issues."  And when the objection arose/arises "Just where did they get that from?"  It can then be lovingly pointed out that the only source they draw from is scripture, and THE WORD, Jesus Christ Himself. 

Confessional Lutheran theology is bound to Christ.  Having theology right is important not because we like being boring or vicious brutes, but because it is about Christ.  It is about the Gospel.  It is about being pastoral.  It is about being sensitive to concerns folks have.  That's what being a Lutheran is about.  Do we come off as distant oafs at times?  Boy do we.  And that's why I contend a huge issue in Mother MO is approach to argumentation, social skills sometimes be lacking.  But at the end of the day that is not ultimately what matters.  Our theology is ultimately what matters because of the pastoral concerns.  And "Hey, let me show you were others have struggled and wrestled with this before." "Oh you mean I'm not the only one?  And what did they find in struggling/wrestling?"  "They found Christ." 

Forgive us when we fall short of this, and don't write us off.  Join the struggle.

M. Staneck
Matt Staneck, Pastor
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church
Queens, NY

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2032 on: February 08, 2011, 03:23:23 PM »
I remember reading an account back in the '70s of source criticism as applied to the New Testament and how it can help us understand what was really going on.  The example was a source critical analysis of the Peter's confession of Christ.  You begin with Jesus asking what people thought - probably bascially original as was the follow-up question of what the disciples thought.  It was there that it became more interesting.  Peter's initial response of Jesus being the Christ the Son of God was again likely orginal but Jesus' response was not.  Following the principle that Jesus had no thought of initiating a church and that all churchly references were later additions read back into the original Gospel accounts by the church and for the purposes of the church, Jesus reply approving of what Peter said and saying that He would build the church upon that rock, was all later additions and not original to Jesus or to the event being told.  So we set that aside as telling us something about the church that eventually developed but not from Jesus Himself.  Similarly, Jesus prediction of His death at the hands of the Jewish leaders was a later churchly addition to bolster their claims against the Jewish establishment and again not from Jesus Himself, who, of course, would have no real idea of how and when He would die.  Peter's horrified rejoinder that such must not happen was also added later.  Finally we have Jesus retort to Peter, scolding him for what he said, "Get behind me Satan" and that what Peter said came from Satan and not from God, that obviously would not have been added later so it must be original.  So, once we have applied Source Criticism to the pericope, sifted out the later additions made by the church to make this useful for furthering the developement  of the church, we have the orginal story.  Jesus asks the disciples who they think He is, Peter responds by saying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, which Jesus then rejects in the strongest terms.  This helps demonstrate that Jesus saw Himself as simply an itinerant Jewish preacher hoping to purify and renew Jewish faith.  All the rest was added later by the church.

Now I certainly hope that this sort of Higher Critical slicing and dicing of the text is obsolete and would not be done today, at least in respectable Lutheran (i.e. ELCA) circles.  But it is this sort of thing that soured many of us on the pretense of Higher Critical interpretation being neutral, objective (we assume that Jesus gave no thought to forming a church and that anything speaking about the church that would develope must have been added - one theory of the development of the church elevated to a firm exegetical rule), and useful for faith development and preaching.

Dan

Dan, I think the problem is two-fold...  The first lies within the HC method itself, which is a foundational principle of a "hermeneutic of suspicion" that demands that the text itself cannot be deemed trustworthy, and hence must be viewed with skepticism and be critically disected.  Can the HC techniques be used without such a foundational premise that the text must be suspect?  I would argue a prohibitive "yes," though it requires care and thoughtfulness.  The problem I see is that so often those who use HC techniques (whether it be a strict Historical Criticsim, or a Socio-Political Criticism, or Genre/Form Criticism... all of which so frequently gets lumped into the "HC" label) get used carelessly and without much thought so that, in the end, they do not help deepen our understanding of the text but rather ends up dismissing the text.

The second problem seems to me to be endemic to the ELCA, which is a hosility to the Bible itself.  So we end up with stories like one that got told on this forum where a professor entered the classroom at an ELCA college on the first day of class, hurled his Bible into the wall, while saying "This is what I think of the Bible..." then supposedly gently gathering the shattered pages back up and saying "But this is what I think of the Word of God."  As if somehow we can bi-forcate the Word from the Text which is the primary witness of the Word.  Or at an ELCA pastors conference that I was at where Marva Dawn began her address by asking us all to take out our Bibles, only to find that out of the 80+ clergy in the room only two had their Bibles with them.  (To be fair, I was among those who didn't...  But I bring it with me ever since!  Sadly, I have never had another presenter at an ELCA clergy conference ever ask us to get out our Bibles, though some have projected snipets of text on screens, etc...)  My point is that, HC not-withstanding, all too often I experience either a spirit of neglect (ie. just not even thinking about Scripture) or hostility to the Biblical witness.

I dunno...  Some of it is a reaction "against" Biblical fundamentalism (ie.  "We're NOT fundamentalists..."), some of it is a post-enlightenment feeling that we've intellectually superceded the Biblical witness (ie. "Oh, everyone who thinks knows the Bible is not really "true."), some of it is just down-right nasty...  Back to the point, I know the two problems are inter-related, but you have to be careful of trying to distinguish the two.  Because it's ever-so-easy to get mad at one when you're in fact dealing with the other...

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 03:39:43 PM by A Catholic Lutheran »

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2033 on: February 08, 2011, 03:26:44 PM »
I think that illustrates one of the reasons why we ELCA pewsitters would have trouble with the LC-MS. From your response, I get the impression that if I went to an LC-MS pastor concerned about some personal problem, instead of getting caring counseling that is in conformance to scripture (which is what I'd want), I'd get a dry lecture and an assignment to read something Walther wrote about what Luther wrote about what was in the Bible.

Yes, George, that's exactly what would happen.  You would walk in with a personal problem expecting compassionate, pastoral care, and we'd lecture you and give you some reading assignments.  Yep, that's how all the LCMS pastors operate.  I know I do.  I don't have time to waste on people's personal problems.  I'm too busy studying theology.  Let them read a thing or two; that should suffice.  Then I can stick my head back into my books.  

This is probably the most ignorant thing I've read to date on this forum - and that's saying a lot!  Good grief.  

Actually, that confirms that there is at least one stiff-necked LC-MS pastor who cannot grasp phrases like "I get the impression" to understand that I'm talking (as I often have, at great length) about the difference between stereotyped impressions as compared to reality.

If I was really a person in trouble seeking pastoral care, I am confident that I'd be nervous. I might be a little timid. (This is empathetic conjecturing, that is, I am attempting to imagine what someone else might think.) Given a choice between walking through the doors of a church where I've heard rumors that the pastor is likely to be a stern and stiff-necked authoritarian and walking through the doors of a church where I've heard rumors that the pastor is a kind and caring person, I suspect I'd base my decision on the rumors I heard. I know, rumors are often wrong. I know, it's real easy to say, "Ignore the rumors and stereotypes. Just because we have a reputation for being judgemental and stand-offish and haven't gotten along real well with other Christians or even other Lutherans for over 150 years, that's no reason not to stop in and check us out. You just might find that maybe we're not like that. And here's a book by Walther that explains why."

BTW, I did attend an LC-MS worship service not too long ago. The people were very nice. The pastor didn't speak to me, but the other people did, and they were extremely nice and cordial.

Here's what I gather from this discussion.  That broad generalizations, by and large, are not helpful.  


In a thread titled "Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS?  Why or Why Not?", the #1 answers to both "Why?" and "Why Not?" are the broad generalizations and general stereotyped impressions that disaffected ELCA'ers have about the LC-MS. Of the 318 Congregations identified as having left the ELCA that I know which denomination they changed their affiliation to, 3 went to the LCMS. One of those was a former AELC congregation that returned home.

If you folks in the LC-MS want help in understanding why only 3 out of 318 congregations of disaffected ELCA'ers considered and chose the LC-MS, you need to get over being so defensive and open your minds to what we're telling you. On the other hand, if you do not care about why disaffected ELCA'ers aren't considering the LC-MS in large numbers, continue to remain defensive and take offense at anything you don't like hearing.

The handful of anecdotes about individuals leaving ELCA churches for LC-MS churches are refreshing to hear, but at a time when thousands and thousands of Lutherans are leaving ELCA congregations and looking for new homes, wouldn't you think that there would be more than just a handful of anecdotes about a few people here and there swimming the Missouri River?

racin_jason

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1171
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2034 on: February 08, 2011, 03:27:43 PM »
I think the point that George and some of the rest of us non-LCMS folk are trying to make, Kim, is that regardless whether this is a church, what we non-LCMS folk see here is the public behavior & witness of LCMS members.  This is the first impression we get.  

In a fair number of cases, that first impression is not so positive.  So we'd be unlikely to darken the door of an LCMS congregation.  Because even if the answer is, "Well, we're not like that in church," that simply compounds the issue-- it seems like we're being told, "We're nice in person but when we leave church and get in a discussion, our pleasant attitude goes away."


Oh, I get the point.  I wonder how an HC analysis of Matthew 7:3 might look?  ::)

We're discussing why or why not an ELCA member would join an LCMS church. We're speaking in generalities here. I know that many of the generalities about the ELCA said here are true, even though they are frustrating to hear.

A woman worshiped at the church I serve for a month or two. She belonged to a WELS church though she grew up in an LCA church in Philadelphia. When it came down to her joining our church, she admitted that she had a lot of trouble with our church's practice of having women serve as communion distributors. I made no apologies. I told her this is who we are, this is how we do things, and if she wants to worship here she'd have to get used to it. If not, that's okay too, we understood. She ended up not joining and returned to the WELS church, with the suggestion she needed to talk to the pastor there about her issues with that church.

The ELCA is a big diverse church, the product of many mergers. We have many ways of doing things, are inconsistent, tolerate (putting it gently) what i view as unorthodox Christian theology, let alone Lutheran. We ordain women. We have open communion. Some have problems with this, but it's who we are. That's the log in our eye and some of us are troubled by it.  

To diminish or dismiss an ELCA layman's impression of the LCMS (as what I see as what happened to Erik F's admittedly caustic post) belies the point. The LCMS has a long history of conflict. The LCMS has more conservative views on women. These issues may come up in congregations. ELCA members might not want to join a church that is confronted by those issues.  Adding clarity to this subject is helpful. Attempts to justify or rationalize the situation, let alone shooting the messenger, doesn't strike me as productive.  
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 03:31:01 PM by racin_jason »
Recipient of the official Forum Online Get Us Back on Topic Award

Matt Staneck

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Shabbat Shalom! Matthew 11:28-30, 12:8
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2035 on: February 08, 2011, 03:33:50 PM »
George,

I should have wrote an entire post following that statement to address it instead of just writing that one sentence. ;)

M. Staneck
Matt Staneck, Pastor
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church
Queens, NY

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2036 on: February 08, 2011, 03:36:14 PM »
I remember reading an account back in the '70s of source criticism as applied to the New Testament and how it can help us understand what was really going on.  The example was a source critical analysis of the Peter's confession of Christ.  You begin with Jesus asking what people thought - probably bascially original as was the follow-up question of what the disciples thought.  It was there that it became more interesting.  Peter's initial response of Jesus being the Christ the Son of God was again likely orginal but Jesus' response was not.  Following the principle that Jesus had no thought of initiating a church and that all churchly references were later additions read back into the original Gospel accounts by the church and for the purposes of the church, Jesus reply approving of what Peter said and saying that He would build the church upon that rock, was all later additions and not original to Jesus or to the event being told.  So we set that aside as telling us something about the church that eventually developed but not from Jesus Himself.  Similarly, Jesus prediction of His death at the hands of the Jewish leaders was a later churchly addition to bolster their claims against the Jewish establishment and again not from Jesus Himself, who, of course, would have no real idea of how and when He would die.  Peter's horrified rejoinder that such must not happen was also added later.  Finally we have Jesus retort to Peter, scolding him for what he said, "Get behind me Satan" and that what Peter said came from Satan and not from God, that obviously would not have been added later so it must be original.  So, once we have applied Source Criticism to the pericope, sifted out the later additions made by the church to make this useful for furthering the developement  of the church, we have the orginal story.  Jesus asks the disciples who they think He is, Peter responds by saying that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, which Jesus then rejects in the strongest terms.  This helps demonstrate that Jesus saw Himself as simply an itinerant Jewish preacher hoping to purify and renew Jewish faith.  All the rest was added later by the church.

Now I certainly hope that this sort of Higher Critical slicing and dicing of the text is obsolete and would not be done today, at least in respectable Lutheran (i.e. ELCA) circles.  But it is this sort of thing that soured many of us on the pretense of Higher Critical interpretation being neutral, objective (we assume that Jesus gave no thought to forming a church and that anything speaking about the church that would develope must have been added - one theory of the development of the church elevated to a firm exegetical rule), and useful for faith development and preaching.

Dan

Oh, and the other thing is the account you cite is an example of Redactive Criticism which is not so-much in vogue anymore...  I only run across Redactive Critique when I'm with pastors of a certain...vintage.  I learned RC (Redactive Criticism) mostly as a tangent at Seminary.  (For the record, Redactive Criticism is the technique of literally redacting (ie. "blacking out") the sections of the texts that are not in common, in order to "distill" the real text apart from the Matthean, Markan, and/or Lukan influences.)  I dislike redactive criticism because it is literally destructive at it's heart.  

When I was in Seminary and learning HC methods (in the mid-to-late 90's), thankfully they were not teaching redactive criticism...  Instead the Socio-Political method was the technique du joir at Wartburg, which attempted to understand the text in light of socio-economic lenses.  Again, if you are devoted to the text, maybe these tools help deepen our view.  (Or, let me put this in terms of good "I" language...  I have experienced these tools to help deepen my understanding and love of the Biblical text, but I have also come to reject the "hermeneutic of suspicion" that was taught to me in Seminary.)

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

kls

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2037 on: February 08, 2011, 03:41:59 PM »
To diminish or dismiss an ELCA layman's impression of the LCMS (as what I see as what happened to Erik F's admittedly caustic post) belies the point. The LCMS has a long history of conflict. The LCMS has more conservative views on women. These issues may come up in congregations. ELCA members might not want to join a church that is confronted by those issues.  Adding clarity to this subject is helpful. Attempts to justify or rationalize the situation, let alone shooting the messenger, doesn't strike me as productive.  

Of course it's easy to ignore the fact that I put forth upthread who it is that really gets credit for the decision any of us have made to choose our church . . . of course it's none of us on this forum.  It's the Holy Spirit.  What I continue to maintain is that the stereotypes put forth on here towards the LCMS are not all they're cracked up to be.  I heard them, too, when I was still in the ELCA.  What I continue to also maintain is that I have never been on the receiving end of such strong pastoral care and Biblical teaching as what I have within the LCMS.  Funny how those comments of mine continue to go unnoticed.   :-\  So let's start a thread on whether disaffected LCMS'ers would consider the ELCA; I'll bet we'd see quite a bit of defensiveness on the part of the ELCA participants on this forum, no? 

Perhaps this thread has run its course.  So to sum it up, some on this forum won't consider the LCMS; some who have never even heard of this forum will.  ;)

 

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12240
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2038 on: February 08, 2011, 03:48:26 PM »
So, what I hear from a few here is that the LCMS has gotten a reputation of being only concerned about theology, not people and their problems, that we are argumentative and down right rude to outsiders and because that is how we are perceived we simply have to accept that we are that way and repent.  What we do now I'm not sure.  Perhaps if we simply became more open and tolerant to alternative ways of doing things and thinking about things, take theology much less seriously and the teaching of our spiritual forfathers and confessors (why bother about the Book of Concord any more, who cares about that but a few nit pickers) then perhaps people would perceive us differently and we could be more acceptable.  In other words, nothing wrong with the LCMS that becoming less Missouri and more like the ELCA could not cure.

Dan
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 04:12:50 PM by Dan Fienen »
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2039 on: February 08, 2011, 03:58:35 PM »
George,

I should have wrote an entire post following that statement to address it instead of just writing that one sentence. ;)

M. Staneck

As I recall, you did write an entire post. And a good post it was. It was also totally beside the point on the issue of "Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS?  Why or Why Not?", but was a very good post nevertheless. Basically, you answered the questions, "Would a loyal LC-MS'er who was pleased to be in the LC-MS consider the ELCA? Why not?". Those are also good questions, and you presented good answers. But that's not what's above this thread where it says "Subject:".

Perhaps this thread has run its course.  So to sum it up, some on this forum won't consider the LCMS; some who have never even heard of this forum will.  ;)


Now Kim, surely you can come up with a better summary than just "some". Care to at least quantify it a little bit more than just "some"?  ::)

So, what I hear from a few here is that the LCMS has gotten a reputation of being only concerned about theology, not people and their problems, that we are argumentative and down right rude to outsiders and because that is how we are perceived we simply have to accept that we are that way and repent.  What we do not I'm not sure.  Perhaps if we simply became more open and tolerant to alternative ways of doing things and thinking about things, take theology much less seriously and the teaching of our spiritual forfathers and confessors (why bother about the Book of Concord any more, who cares up that but a few nit pickers) then perhaps people would perceive us differently and we could be more acceptable.  In other words, nothing wrong with the LCMS that becoming less Missouri and more like the ELCA could not cure.

Dan

Actually, I suspect that there are other ways that the LC-MS might communicate to the rest of the world the message, "Hey folks, we're not like people think we are. We're actually really nice people." Frankly, becoming more like the ELCA wouldn't do you folks any good at all. What you do behind your closed doors is who you really are, what people outside your doors think you are inhibits those people who do not know you from entering through your doors. Changing what you do inside your doors won't change what people outside your doors think of you. So, if you want to convince the people outside your doors that their false impressions of the LC-MS are wrong, then you'll have to do something that is visible to people outside your doors.

I leave figuring out that that might be to your collective imaginations and the inspiration & guidance of the Holy Spirit.