Author Topic: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?  (Read 138150 times)

kls

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2040 on: February 08, 2011, 03:59:51 PM »
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.

George,

What are you doing on 3/27 or 6/5 of this year?  I'll be in Atlanta on the first day and Perry, GA (2 hours south of you) on the other.  I would love nothing more than to meet you and show you a different side of the LCMS than what you may have seen before.  What do you say?  Want to worship together?  I am not kidding at all.  I'd love for you to accept.

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5204
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2041 on: February 08, 2011, 04:03:07 PM »
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.  


That actually isn't what Redaction Criticism is about.

Example: the Books of Samuel and Kings tell the story of Israel and Judah from before the United Kingdom down to the Babylonian Exile. Over and over again in Kings we are told that the author giving us a short version of events that are narrated in other texts, usually the "acts of  . . . . " (e.g. 1 Kings 11.41) or "the annals of the kings of . . . ."  2 Chronicles tells mainly the same stories, but sometimes with different emphases and lessons and even different sources (see 2 Chron 9.29). For the record, Redaction Criticism asks what lessons can be drawn from the similarities and differences  The sacred writers were making decisions. Why did they each do it in the way they did?

The same kinds of questions can be and are asked about, for example, the way that the same parable can appear in a different context in one Gospel than in another, or the same events be recounted in a different order. What is the sacred writer trying to convey not just by the story but by the way he presents the story? If the Holy Spirit is guiding the sacred writers in these decisions, I think we should pay attention to them.

Peace,
Michael
Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

pastormesser

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2042 on: February 08, 2011, 04:03:48 PM »
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.

No, George, it simply confirms the fact that, for all your lecturing about the difference between sterotyped impressions as compared to reality, you struggle to understand the difference yourself, which is evidenced by your "one stiff-necked LC-MS pastor" comment here.  Since I identified your comment as ignorant, voila, I'm a stiff-necked LC-MS pastor.  See how that works?  

Furthermore, what this conversation on this never-ending thread has proven is simply that there are many who want to convert the strong stance the LC-MS takes on certain doctrinal issues into petty meanness, which bears itself out in the inability to be personable, provide compassionate, loving pastoral care, etc.  That's all.  But, carry on . . .

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2043 on: February 08, 2011, 04:17:22 PM »
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.

George,

What are you doing on 3/27 or 6/5 of this year?  I'll be in Atlanta on the first day and Perry, GA (2 hours south of you) on the other.  I would love nothing more than to meet you and show you a different side of the LCMS than what you may have seen before.  What do you say?  Want to worship together?  I am not kidding at all.  I'd love for you to accept.

I already said that I have been to an LC-MS worship service, and I saw that the people were nice. I played guitar there. On 3/27, I'll probably be playing guitar for the Sunday School kids between services, and probably playing guitar for worship. The schedule for 6/5 isn't set in stone yet. It might be an organ service, or it might be a piano/guitar service. The thing is, I'd really prefer to not miss taking communion just to find out that there is a second LC-MS congregation where the people are also nice. I don't need to be convinced that the people in the LC-MS are nice. I thought I've made it clear that I understood that the stereotype reputation of the LC-MS isn't based on reality. That being the case, why do I need to be convinced of what I already know to be true? I also am aware that most non-LC-MS Lutherans, and even many non-Lutherans, have an erroneous impression of the LC-MS. How would seeing nice people inside an LC-MS church again possibly change my perception of what people who aren't in the LC-MS think of the LC-MS?

kls

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2044 on: February 08, 2011, 04:21:02 PM »
How would seeing nice people inside an LC-MS church again possibly change my perception of what people who aren't in the LC-MS think of the LC-MS?

Well, I thought we might enjoy each other's company, too.  I recognize a "no" when I hear it.  I've been married for so long, I've forgotten what it feels like to be shot down by a man.   :'(

Harvey_Mozolak

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
    • View Profile
    • line and letter lettuce
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2045 on: February 08, 2011, 04:28:12 PM »
never-ending thread\

The Never-ending Thread... if you find the right set of two words among the 32,000 plus posts, highlight and click on them... you will at that instant be changed from ELCA to LCMS or from LCMS to ELCA and not only in name but your entire world-view, ability to accept or reject HC(riticism) and HC(ommunion open or closed), WO (Women's ordination or WO (Woe to ordained women) will just be replaced by the complete opposite.  So please be carefuuuuuuuuuuu    Harvey Mozolak belonging to neither now in limbo  (see that was something I did not believe in, limbo)
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 04:30:48 PM by Harvey_Mozolak »
Harvey S. Mozolak
my poetry blog is listed below:

http://lineandletterlettuce.blogspot.com

Michael Slusser

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5204
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2046 on: February 08, 2011, 04:31:09 PM »

The Never-ending Thread... if you find the right set of two words among the 32,000 plus posts, highlight and click on them... you will at that instant be changed from ELCA to LCMS or from LCMS to ELCA and not only in name but your entire world-view, ability to accept or reject HC(riticism) and HC(ommunion open or closed), WO (Women's ordination or WO (Woe to ordained women) will just be replaced by the complete opposite.  So please be carefuuuuuuuuuuu    Harvey Mozolak belongs to neither now in limbo  (see that was something I did not believe in, limbo)
Or even CoWo, eh, Harvey?  :D

Peace,
Michael


Fr. Michael Slusser
Retired Roman Catholic priest and theologian

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2047 on: February 08, 2011, 04:37:55 PM »
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.  


That actually isn't what Redaction Criticism is about.

Example: the Books of Samuel and Kings tell the story of Israel and Judah from before the United Kingdom down to the Babylonian Exile. Over and over again in Kings we are told that the author giving us a short version of events that are narrated in other texts, usually the "acts of  . . . . " (e.g. 1 Kings 11.41) or "the annals of the kings of . . . ."  2 Chronicles tells mainly the same stories, but sometimes with different emphases and lessons and even different sources (see 2 Chron 9.29). For the record, Redaction Criticism asks what lessons can be drawn from the similarities and differences  The sacred writers were making decisions. Why did they each do it in the way they did?

The same kinds of questions can be and are asked about, for example, the way that the same parable can appear in a different context in one Gospel than in another, or the same events be recounted in a different order. What is the sacred writer trying to convey not just by the story but by the way he presents the story? If the Holy Spirit is guiding the sacred writers in these decisions, I think we should pay attention to them.

Peace,
Michael

I stand duly corrected...  Like I said, I did not learn Redaction Criticism as a primary resource.  If I misunderstand and mischaracterize redaction criticism, I beg pardon.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
« Last Edit: February 08, 2011, 04:42:07 PM by A Catholic Lutheran »

Mike in Pennsylvania

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2048 on: February 08, 2011, 04:38:05 PM »
Actually, I find redaction criticism as described by Fr. Slusser to be the helpful part of so called scholarly criticism.  What I think Pr. Kliner described is source criticism, which in the long run is not particularly helpful.  It isn't all that useful a question to try to reconstruct the pre-history of the Pentateuch or the Gospels, although one should recognize there is a pre-history.  More useful is the question why did the sacred writers include what we now have as Holy Scripture in the form that it exists?  Recognizing that Matthew has gathered many of Jesus' sayings into five long sermons, and what Matthew may be trying to tell us by that, I think is helpful.  Trying to figure out what was or wasn't in Q isn't really much use.  FWIW
NALC Interim Pastor

A Catholic Lutheran

  • Guest
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2049 on: February 08, 2011, 04:40:48 PM »

The Never-ending Thread... if you find the right set of two words among the 32,000 plus posts, highlight and click on them... you will at that instant be changed from ELCA to LCMS or from LCMS to ELCA and not only in name but your entire world-view, ability to accept or reject HC(riticism) and HC(ommunion open or closed), WO (Women's ordination or WO (Woe to ordained women) will just be replaced by the complete opposite.  So please be carefuuuuuuuuuuu    Harvey Mozolak belongs to neither now in limbo  (see that was something I did not believe in, limbo)
Or even CoWo, eh, Harvey?  :D

Peace,
Michael

I am always amazed that there seems to be a shared penchant for acronymns among the military and among Lutherans...   :D

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 #2050 on: February 08, 2011, 04:49:58 PM »
Perhaps the term "Higher Criticism" has some of the problems as does the term "Contemporary Worship."  The terms themselves are actually quite vague covering (depending on the person employing the terms) a multitude of things, some quite destructive to faithful reading of the Bible or faithful worship of God, some even helpful in some circumstances.  For some one or both of those terms has become little more than label of distrust and disapproval, for others it has become an assumption, little examined and very poorly defined.

Rightly or wrongly, Higher Criticism has come to mean for many in the LCMS the tools which support and implement the attitude that would separate the word of God from what the Bible says (the Bible contains the word of God but just because it is in the Bible does not mean that it is God's word for me or for us today). The Bible becomes simply an historical record of how other people of other times and circumstances perceived and thought about God.  Similarly, the Lutheran Confessions become primarily an historical record of what the early reformers thought about God.  Useful for us today, even inspiring and in a way authoritative, especially as we show some continuity between their faith and ours, but hardly to be taken in every detail as accurate.  They are stories to which we perhaps give different meanings than they did, and we certainly do not expect to run into many historical facts there - though we can imaginatively base many spiritual truths.  Here we come to the hermeneutic of suspicion - we accept what the Bible says as historically accurate only when we must, when it is confirmed by outside data that we trust to teach us history much, much more than can trust the Bible.

I have sometimes thought of this as the Rorschach school of Biblical interpretation.  The Bible and its stories become the ink blots that we then interpret to fit our culture and greater knowledge of the nature of the world and human society.  It seems to me in reading some discuss how they understand the Bible that the word of God does not reside in the text so much as in what they make of the text.  In itself it is only words on a page.  Only when I take those words and imaginatively interact with them and filter them with my own sense of what God would say to me do they become word of God.  And what is word of God for me in my unique situation may not be what is word of God for you in yours.  It is all subjective.  There is no objective word of God.

That some of the Higher Critical tools can be and are used nondestructively to help us actually better understand the text we at time forget.

Dan
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2051 on: February 08, 2011, 04:55:17 PM »
My point is a simple one: I see you attacking the "tool". It's not the tool! In skilled hands it is a marvelous tool. Blaming HC for the problems of the ELCA (or anything else for that matter) is not unlike blaming (and seeking to ban) the hammer when you smash your thumb!


Disaffected ELCAer here, who on just about everything in this thread finds himself in either outright agreement with most of the LCMS folks here, or at least quite sympathetic to their positions.  I still consider the LCMS as an option, but am not to the point of inquiring about colloquy.  For me, though, one of the things that has changed in the last couple of years is that some of the things that were highest on my "Why I'm not going to Missouri" list have become a part of the ELCA.

I'm not sure if the use of the Historical Critical method is what has brought us to the place we are in the ELCA.  I have been observing for several years, however, that there is a very significant difference in the way this tool is used from the way I was taught it by Dr. Gold at PLTS in 1988 -- which would be a thoroughly feminist ELCA approach.  That difference:

I was taught that HC is a tool, one of many to exegete the Scriptures, one that has brought some good things to light.  I don't know what seminarians are taught today, but I do know what I read in recommended books, ELCA publications, and the broad conversation that goes on as this church seeks to examine the Scriptures while addressing contemporary matters -- both amongst the theologians/teachers and the laity/clergy-in-the-trenches.  HC is used as the primary tool, seemingly the only one used.  I say seemingly because when challenged, some of the older tools are hauled out, but always in the service of affirming what was already "demonstrated/shown/revealed" by the HC practitioner.  

20 years ago we were, at least in some places, still providing our up-and-coming pastors and theologians with tool boxes that had several tools and teaching them (us) how to use all of them.  Since then, we have become so reliant upon one tool, that we neglect the others.  It is as if my grandfather, a cabinet-maker, only used his electric saw.  Granted, it was a marvelous, modern tool -- one that wasn't around when he first learned his trade.  Made lots of noise, too, in his workshop/garage, which impressed his grandsons.  But when Grandpa built my dresser and desk (which might explain why going to a furniture store, even a premium one, is so disgusting for me) he used lots of other wood working tools.

Pax, Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10214
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2052 on: February 08, 2011, 04:55:54 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. 


On the other hand, we put up with the same exact behavior from our brethren in the ELCA -- so much so that we often don't even notice it, while that's all non-ELCA people see.

Perhaps this is another manifestation of the "We're a friendly church" syndrome.

spt+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

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 #2053 on: February 08, 2011, 05:34:25 PM »
George,

What I attempted to do was express how LCMSers can address concerns disaffected ELCAers would have, namely pastorally.  If we take serious the Confessions then we'll take serious their catholicity (ecumenism being a big concern over in the ELCA) and their pastoral implications (give me the Gospel, comfort me in my disaffected pain).  So if a disaffected ELCAer came to me, God willing, I would show how we in the LCMS understand the Confessions (as well as other Lutheran writers) as addressing those two concerns (among others of course).  And the only real response to mischaracterizations is to find out why someone thinks that way.  To start that conversation I ask for forgiveness.  Then I would explore just where this understanding comes from.  If it's real (i.e. not a mischaracterization ((btw is mischaracerization a word? and is what I just did with the double parentheses even a real thing?)), then it has to be dealt with a real way, not just dismissed as in error.  But I see no reason to back off the Confessions.  The Confessions speak to the very real concerns and issues a disaffected ELCAer has/would have and is struggling with.  No Confessional Lutheran in their right mind would subvert the Scriptures in place of the Confessions.  But the Confessions serve as our hermeneutic of reading the Scriptures.  The road map, if you will, on the road trip of life.  

So what I had intended to get across was that a disaffected ELCAer can definitely find their concerns addressed and their struggles wrestled with as well by an orthodox LCMS Pastor and/or person.  That is how I would attempt to handle the instance of a disaffected ELCAer walking into my office, and I know I'm not even close to being the only one because the institution I attend has taught me to think this way.

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

RDPreus

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
    • Christ For Us
Re: Would Disaffected ELCA'ers Consider LCMS? Why or Why Not?
« Reply #2054 on: February 08, 2011, 06:05:35 PM »
On the question of whether or not we can follow the hermeneutics of the Lutheran Confessions while using the historical critical method, I recommend this paper.

http://www.christforus.org/Hermeneutics%20of%20the%20Lutheran%20Confessions%20and%20the%20Historical-Critical%20Method.pdf