Estranged members sue ELCA-LCMC congregation

[Don Whitbeck]

I  think I will go to Georgia and try to get George's congregation to join the LCMC or start an LCMC congregation near George so he can leave and quick bi*****g about the ELCA constantly.  We know you hate it, George. 

George, if you ever leave the ELCA, will you quit writing about it?  Just curious. 

Talk about false witness! I do not hate the ELCA. I just have no respect for the current Presiding Bishop, a position I take based on his actions and the actions that took place under his leadership. Replace him with a confessional Lutheran who sets on a course of undoing the damage Hanson has done, and I'll be totally on board. Replace Hanson with a confessional Lutheran who is open to repealing the errant 2009 Social Statement and restoring the ELCA to scriptural faithfulness, and I'll be lobbying the NALC to enter into merger talks with the ELCA.

ELCA to scriptural faithfulness, and I'll be lobbying the NALC to enter into merger talks with the ELCA.

Do you actually believe that would happen?  I don't not in a million years!

[Kevin Cook]

Dan, you know if you looked back on my posts, you are one of the people who I've mentioned that I respected their honest and balanced views. 

But then again, what do I know, I'm a narrow minded liberal. 

Chuck Sampson, YEP! WOW! JUST WOW!  Here, I'll repeat it for you!  WOW!  JUST WOW!

You know, for a bunch of y'all bitc***g about honesty, "why won't you revisionists just admit what you believe?!", I did. 

I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE LCMS.  I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S A** WHAT YOU DO THERE ABOUT YOUR ISSUES!

I am so tempted to really publicize the BJS threads on WO and the facebook page to all the LCMS people I know and watch the exodus.  Except y'all would be so happy.  And I can't do that to people who actually like their congregations.  I wish there was an Exposing the LCMS site!

So there.  Now are ya all happy.

bye

Delete my post, throw me off, ban me for life!  ask me if i give a sh

yeah, I'm one angry s*b         there, I said it for you!

Better yet, I'm just gone.

 

[Pilgrim]

And some of us are not panicked into psychotic fear if our colleges and seminaries allow enough academic freedom to explore and examine all views. Nor do we call for a purge of any faculty member of student that does so.

Having attended an ELCA seminary, I can say confidently that what you claim is not the case.  20 years ago it was not the case that "all views" could be explored.  All views from the left could be explored.

As well as further back, although some of us were blessed with orthodox and faithful teachers, but their retirements occurred shortly after our departure. Those who have ascended to professorships in many cases are the result of 60s & 70s liberalism, uncritically examined, but fondly remembered and thoroughly embraced (sounds much like a certain cheerleader and a certain presiding Bishop in these parts).

[George Erdner]

I  think I will go to Georgia and try to get George's congregation to join the LCMC or start an LCMC congregation near George so he can leave and quick bi*****g about the ELCA constantly.  We know you hate it, George. 

George, if you ever leave the ELCA, will you quit writing about it?  Just curious. 

Talk about false witness! I do not hate the ELCA. I just have no respect for the current Presiding Bishop, a position I take based on his actions and the actions that took place under his leadership. Replace him with a confessional Lutheran who sets on a course of undoing the damage Hanson has done, and I'll be totally on board. Replace Hanson with a confessional Lutheran who is open to repealing the errant 2009 Social Statement and restoring the ELCA to scriptural faithfulness, and I'll be lobbying the NALC to enter into merger talks with the ELCA.

ELCA to scriptural faithfulness, and I'll be lobbying the NALC to enter into merger talks with the ELCA.

Do you actually believe that would happen?  I don't not in a million years!

I doubt that it would happen, but it is possible. I think that if there was a clear and obvious alternative to Hanson that the remaining traditionalists in the ELCA could get behind and support, and the remaining traditionalists can mount an aggressive campaign to get traditionalists picked as voting members for the CWA when Hanson is up for re-election, then I think Hanson could be replaced with someone who'll work to undo the damage Hanson has wrought. Now, thinking that something is possible is a lot different from thinking it is probable. I think the chances of Hanson being replaced are slim and none.

[Charles_Austin]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

[Brian Stoffregen]

My best recommendation is to ignore the ELCA's self-anointed cheerleaders. That makes life much more pleasant.  

So it is true, at least for some, that ignorance is bliss.

[Scott6]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The day that the ELCA becomes confessional and orthodox is the day I leave.   

Just wow . . . but it will be interesting to see how Charles and Brian respond to this admission.

A. I believe that the ELCA is confessional and orthodox. I believe that we have the correct understand and practice of what it means to be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.


B. The ELCA is not confessional and orthodox in the very narrow sense that the LCMS uses the terms. Should the ELCA became that kind of confessional, orthodox church, I'm gone, too.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I  think I will go to Georgia and try to get George's congregation to join the LCMC or start an LCMC congregation near George so he can leave and quick bi*****g about the ELCA constantly.  We know you hate it, George. 

George, if you ever leave the ELCA, will you quit writing about it?  Just curious. 

Talk about false witness! I do not hate the ELCA. I just have no respect for the current Presiding Bishop, a position I take based on his actions and the actions that took place under his leadership. Replace him with a confessional Lutheran who sets on a course of undoing the damage Hanson has done, and I'll be totally on board. Replace Hanson with a confessional Lutheran who is open to repealing the errant 2009 Social Statement and restoring the ELCA to scriptural faithfulness, and I'll be lobbying the NALC to enter into merger talks with the ELCA.

ELCA to scriptural faithfulness, and I'll be lobbying the NALC to enter into merger talks with the ELCA.

The phrases "scriptural faithfulness" and in an earlier post "confessional and orthodox" seem to mean, "agree with my beliefs about faithfulness, confessions, and orthodoxy." I'm sure that Charles and I, like millions of others in the ELCA, believe that we are scripturally faithful in our confession of faith and in our practices of that faith. It's just that what we hear God speaking in his Word is not what you are hearing.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

What's your answer to his question? Did you really think that a merger of the two most liberal Lutheran bodies in the United States would suddenly result in a conservative Lutheran body? I don't recall that any of the objections to the merger were about our theological differences, method of exegeting and interpreting scriptures, because essentially there weren't any. It was some of our structural differences that were problematic and the biggest arguments that I heard were about what percentage should be paid into the pension fund.


I don't recall any arguments about women's ordination, removing "inerrancy and infallible" that had been in the ALC constitutions (I remember some comments about that, but no real arguments -- not like with the pension percentage.)

[George Erdner]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

I thought that the ELCA would be liberal as compared to the LCMS or WELS. I never thought it would be considered liberal in comparison to the Universal Life Church or the Scientologists.
 
 

[Dan Fienen]

So, from the beginning, the ELCA was to be a liberal denomination, dedicated to liberal ideals, theological as well as social?  Conservatives would be welcome so long as they did not get in the way of the liberal path and trajectory of the ELCA.  They should not, and it has been so from the beginning, expect that their beliefs would in any way be supported or even especially welcome, they would be tolerated and welcome only under sufferance solong as they would be useful.  Is that what it means that the ELCA was from the beginning a liberal denomination and nobody should have been fooled into thinking otherwise?
 
Dan

[James Gustafson]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

What's your answer to his question? Did you really think that a merger of the two most liberal Lutheran bodies in the United States would suddenly result in a conservative Lutheran body? I don't recall that any of the objections to the merger were about our theological differences, method of exegeting and interpreting scriptures, because essentially there weren't any. It was some of our structural differences that were problematic and the biggest arguments that I heard were about what percentage should be paid into the pension fund.


I don't recall any arguments about women's ordination, removing "inerrancy and infallible" that had been in the ALC constitutions (I remember some comments about that, but no real arguments -- not like with the pension percentage.)

And thus, to the American Public at large and even the aware Christian American citizen, the word Lutheran is worse than meaningless as a descriptor, it's a contradictory oxymoron.  To the non-Lutheran American, the word Lutheran is irrational. 

[readselerttoo]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

I thought that the ELCA would be liberal as compared to the LCMS or WELS. I never thought it would be considered liberal in comparison to the Universal Life Church or the Scientologists.

au contraire...in my neck of the woods back then the "old" ALC did not resemble the LCA.  The minority position of the old ALC lost much of its influence in connection with altar-pulpit fellowship conversation, imo. 

[Dan Fienen]

I thought that the ELCA would be liberal as compared to the LCMS or WELS. I never thought it would be considered liberal in comparison to the Universal Life Church or the Scientologists.

I'm sorry George, but that is way out of line.  I have no great  love of ELCA theology, but your comparison is odius, and way inaccurate..
 
Dan