Tom Messer,
Hey—let's go backwards through your post, shall we?
As for the paper you wrote in response to Pr. Curtis' paper/presentation, I read it when you first posted it here a few weeks back or so. I don't think I need to write a detailed response to it. My response would be rather short: You have chosen to hone in on one aspect of Pr. Curtis' paper/presentation and have written a response to that one aspect, giving the reader the impression that this is the only thing Pr. Curtis has said on the matter. Then, you appear in other venues around the blogosphere and make ridiculous and mocking statements, which misrepresent Pr. Curtis' paper/presentation, saying things like, "According to Pr. Curtis, none of this should matter, since God will save His elect," as if Pr. Curtis has argued that we should all sit around and twiddle our thumbs and do nothing, since God will do His thing and not lose any of His elect, when you have to know that this is not at all what Pr. Curtis has argued.First, the great thing about writing things down, is that people can say things, but then, you know...things are written down.
So, in my paper, I can point out to page 15, where I I show out how the Confessions looks at election differently than Pr Curtis. On p 17 I object to his position that the elect will like only liturgical worship. And on p. 19 I talk about his objections concerning guilt motivated missions work—how the issue is one of stewardship and election really doesn't solve the problem as he thinks it would.
You can make statements then—"[you] have written a response to that one aspect, giving the reader the impression that this is the only thing Pr. Curtis has said on the matter."—but that is why we write things down. To say "Well, let the reader decide that."
Now let's go to:
You did get it wrong, Mark, because you jumped into this discussion and honed in on what I (and others) were saying about students and vocations and then went all crazy and started telling us that we were saying things we weren't saying. Just like you did in response to Pr. Curtis' paper. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and re-read what was written and your responses to what was written.I am CRAZY!!!! I'm CRAZY for the truth!!!
Eh, that sounded better in my head with the music and all....
Anyway, with vocation, I'd point to my initial post:
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4114.msg238650#msg238650That was my original thought. I think I stand by it—it neatly covers the peer minister idea. (so helpful to have things written—and hyperlinks!)
Students have a vocation the same as any lay person has a vocation. And that includes being a Christian.
That is the vocation that is important here. What does it mean to be a lay Christian? That is the issue. Y'all confuse it with your "student is a student, farmer is a farmer" talk. The vocation of a Lutheran student is to be a Lutheran. What does that mean? That's the issue. Not that a student is a student.
Now, as to the last comment:
But, I'll stop now, because I know that, whether or not Pr. Weedon and I are in complete agreement regarding the doctrine of vocation (which I'm pretty sure we are), I do completely agree with him that it would be rather fruitless to carry on this discussion with you. I must say, I look forward to the Koin. Because there, we are not going to be able to walk away from one another when the going gets tough. We are not going to be able to ignore comments and throw up our hands and say discussion is "fruitless".
Nope. Things will be different then. I look forward to it.