Started by Christopher Miller, December 02, 2011, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on December 29, 2011, 12:38:25 AMActually, it seems to me that your definition of confessional and orthodos is much narrower than most of us in the LCMS. If I read you correctly, for you confessional and orthodox consists only one thing - salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. A quite limited and narrow definition. As long as that doctrine is somehow adhered to one is orthodox and confession no matter what from the Scripture and the Lutheran confessions is discarded, denied or toyed with.
Quote from: Charles_Austin on December 29, 2011, 10:02:29 AMI covered the decision to merge the three Lutheran bodies as a reporter for The New York Times, which put the merger story on Page One. Later, I was director of news for the LCA and attended a number of CNLC meetings, including the final ones; and I spent time with all the key players, writing for the LCA news service, The Lutheran magazine, and guiding secular reporters through the merger process, including running the newsroom at the ELCA Constituting Convention. I agree that the AELC had undue influence. They were strong and stubborn and the LCA and ALC were maybe (in my not-so-humble opinion) a little too nice to them. After all, they had come through the great tribulation. Segments of the ALC never took the "national church" very seriously. Or they didn't like "Minneapolis" and came to conventions to complain about "Minneapolis." I concluded this after I had attended several national ALC conventions. Some of these segments - ELCA bishops have told me - never "really" joined the ELCA. At the last, or maybe the penultimate, CNLC meeting, Bishop Crumley told the LCA representatives that he had reservations; that maybe "we don't have it all in place" and hinted that a postponement might be in order. Some back-room negotiations kept the process rolling. Dr. David Preus of the ALC, it seemed to me, took a "looser" approach to the merger documents and agreements than did the LCA and AELC people. The ALC leaders might have fostered the idea that the "national expression" of the ELCA would be weak and easy to ignore or control. And here we are, more than two decades later. We haven't yet hit the time span between All Saints' Eve, 1517 and 1580, but then it took longer to spread the words around in those days. P.S. I still contend that overall the ALC and LCA and AELC were "moderate" to "liberal" in all things and that no one should be surprised at the directions the ELCA took.
Quote from: Team Hesse on December 29, 2011, 11:01:24 AMSomething has been lost though.....They are dying away now, but I cherish the old ALC Pastors wistfully speaking of the old days when they would attend an old ALC district convention for the collegiality and good spirit and decide who would be the national convention delegate by who among those who had not attended yet had an opening in his schedule and could go. Much less agenda aggrandizement, much less sectarian spirit. Altogether a much healthier way to be christian than today's aggressive politicizing of every item into political divides of "liberal" or "conservative--probably another instance of AELC passion wreaking havoc outside of the LCMS which seems to have these kinds of divisions as part and parcel of their internal culture.I now believe it is simply odd that a church has notions of liberal or conservative. Augsburg 7 you know.
Quote from: Dadoo on December 29, 2011, 12:12:26 PMI agree with this: On the whole, we were moderate.
Quote from: Dan Fienen on December 29, 2011, 03:11:05 PMI'm still trying to figure out just what it should mean for conservatives this insistence that the ELCA has always been a moderate to liberal denomination, everyone should have been able to see that from the beginning, and realistically, that is not going to change. But what sould the implications of that be for conservatives who are members of the ELCA or are considering being members of the ELCA. They are being told that they are not joining or belonging to a conservative denomination and they should not hope that is going to change. Perhaps they should not even consider trying to change that.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 29, 2011, 01:48:04 PMQuote from: Dadoo on December 29, 2011, 12:12:26 PMI agree with this: On the whole, we were moderate. Within the range of Christian thinking in the U.S., the ELCA is moderate. Among the range of Lutheran thinking in the U.S., the ELCA is the most liberal Lutheran denomination.
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on December 29, 2011, 11:07:19 AMPresident Preus did speak against the new church. He believed that there were too many differences to overcome, but he would support the will of the people of the ALC.
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on September 04, 2008, 05:08:25 AMQuote from: Brian Stoffregen on September 04, 2008, 01:51:12 AMWe are the "big tent" denomination. Big tents are for circuses.Christe eleison, spt+
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on September 04, 2008, 01:51:12 AMWe are the "big tent" denomination.
Quote from: Dan Fienen on December 29, 2011, 03:11:05 PMI'm still trying to figure out just what it should mean for conservatives this insistence that the ELCA has always been a moderate to liberal denomination, everyone should have been able to see that from the beginning, and realistically, that is not going to change. But what sould the implications of that be for conservatives who are members of the ELCA or are considering being members of the ELCA. They are being told that they are not joining or belonging to a conservative denomination and they should not hope that is going to change. Perhaps they should not even consider trying to change that. Yet the ELCA has been insistent that they welcome conservatives, value their contribution to the conversation, and want them to be a part of the big tent. Even so, Pr. Stoffregen (as I remember, I think it was a week or more ago and I do not have the reference at my finger tips) said specifically that positions that conservatives hold (especially on same sex issues but also on things like women's ordination, and I guess view of Scripture, but I digress) are not forbidden in the ELCA but they should not expect any support for their beliefs or any help to spread them. Pr. Austin has been insistent that he hopes that all those who were disappointed by CWA '09 would remain in the ELCA, that their voices in the conversation are important. He seems somewhat disparaging towards those who feel they must leave (he certainly wants them to stay), but wishes that if they must they would do so (abiding by all the rules) will all due haste and never speak about the ELCA again, except may to report how graciously they were treated. If they stay, they should always be respectful toward the rest of the ELCA and the decision that were made and fulfill all obligations. If they feel badly treated, and some probably have been, consider that they may have had a hand in causing their ill treatment by their disrespectful bahavior and their failure to fulfill their obligations. He seems to want to assume unless proven otherwise that traditionalists have at least in part deserved what they have gotten. With all of that, what place is there within the ELCA for conservatives or traditionalists? They will always be at best a tolerated minority existing on the sufferance of the majority. The "Liberals" can expect their positions to be supported and celebrated by the ELCA, the "Conservatives" with get whatever support that they can provide for themselves. Can they expect Sunday School material, Bible Study material, teaching at the colleges and seminaries of the ELCA to support their viewpoint or offer it as a viable position? They are wanted, but it seems to me told to then sit on the sidelines. It seems to me a bit confusing. On the one hand the traditionalists are told that they are desired to be a part of the whole but implicitly told that while they are wanted and can join in the conversation, to never expect their beliefs to be a part of the ELCA ethos when their beliefs differ from that of the liberal majority. Pr. Austin despairs of meaningful theological diaglog with the LCMS. What is the LCMS offered by the ELCA but an opportunity to be a part of a larger church that will never embrace what we believe and will allow us in only if we will play nice and not upset the majority. We are told, the ELCA will never be LCMS so why don't you stop being LCMS and become ELCA. Our beliefs are apparently respected, but why don't you drop them or allow them to be strange personal opinions so that you can join us and support our causes. Why would we? Would the ELCA be willing to do that to be closer to the LCMS? I doubt it. Dan
Quote from: Dadoo on December 29, 2011, 08:16:33 PM...As soon as either side asserts that diversity is nice but that their side is "right" diversity ends and division starts and all kinds of political bullying and other unsavory tactics will be pulled out. ...