Estranged members sue ELCA-LCMC congregation

[Coach-Rev]

Yes, I defend the church I serve. Don't you?
As to assigning "blame" for any alleged "mess," I do not want to do that from afar; I do not want to say definitively what the situation in that church is or what it means for the whole wide world. You apparently do.

Yes, as long as that church is in accord with its historic roots and understanding of Scripture, aka "unless I can be convinced by Scripture or reason..."

That you do not want to call out evil, devilish behavior, and so on says a lot more about you than my willingness to cry "BS" says about me. 

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Cottingham persists (re defending one's church body):
Yes, as long as that church is in accord with its historic roots and understanding of Scripture, aka "unless I can be convinced by Scripture or reason..."
That you do not want to call out evil, devilish behavior, and so on says a lot more about you than my willingness to do so says about me.
I comment:
But you - and a chancelful of others - have set yourselves up as individuals who decide, on their own, or in small groupings, exactly how a church is "in accord" or "evil, devilish" etc.
     That's fine, so long as you recognize that you are doing so on your own as an individual and in these small conventuals.
Have at it. Your puritan and separatist forbears did the same.
That's what got us the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and when those separatists and conventuals got too exclusivist and persecuted Roger Williams, that's how we got Rhode Island.
Why do you seem to think you can continue to call us heretics, "evil," "devilish" and such things without consequence? That's absurd.
    Have the guts of those puritans and separatists and move on. Maybe the NALC or the LCMC will be your Leiden until you decide you have to start your own colony somewhere or until a Roger Williams arises in the NALC and LCMC and the internal wars begin again.

P.S. My deepest apologies for not knowing about a joint Lutheran-Presbyterian congregation. I was thinking in terms of what is prescribed in the documents and it was wrong of me not to consider that in some places, even further progress was being made. Sorry for the error and for overstating my point.

[James Gustafson]

P.S. My deepest apologies for not knowing about a joint Lutheran-Presbyterian congregation. I was thinking in terms of what is prescribed in the documents and it was wrong of me not to consider that in some places, even further progress was being made. Sorry for the error and for overstating my point.

Good enough for me, I've deleted my other post on this issue.

[Coach-Rev]

Pastor Cottingham persists (re defending one's church body):
Yes, as long as that church is in accord with its historic roots and understanding of Scripture, aka "unless I can be convinced by Scripture or reason..."
That you do not want to call out evil, devilish behavior, and so on says a lot more about you than my willingness to do so says about me.
I comment:
But you - and a chancelful of others - have set yourselves up as individuals who decide, on their own, or in small groupings, exactly how a church is "in accord" or "evil, devilish" etc.
     That's fine, so long as you recognize that you are doing so on your own as an individual and in these small conventuals.
Have at it. Your puritan and separatist forbears did the same.
That's what got us the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and when those separatists and conventuals got too exclusivist and persecuted Roger Williams, that's how we got Rhode Island.
Why do you seem to think you can continue to call us heretics, "evil," "devilish" and such things without consequence? That's absurd.
    Have the guts of those puritans and separatists and move on. Maybe the NALC or the LCMC will be your Leiden until you decide you have to start your own colony somewhere or until a Roger Williams arises in the NALC and LCMC and the internal wars begin again.

P.S. My deepest apologies for not knowing about a joint Lutheran-Presbyterian congregation. I was thinking in terms of what is prescribed in the documents and it was wrong of me not to consider that in some places, even further progress was being made. Sorry for the error and for overstating my point.

Charles, your juvenile and immature ongoing method of insult by insinuation has risen to a whole new level.  I hope you are thoroughly ashamed, but I'm guessing not.  In either case, you ought to be.  I'd better stop now before I stoop to your level and get the moderators upset.   

[James_Gale]

Pastor Cottingham persists (re defending one's church body):
Yes, as long as that church is in accord with its historic roots and understanding of Scripture, aka "unless I can be convinced by Scripture or reason..."
That you do not want to call out evil, devilish behavior, and so on says a lot more about you than my willingness to do so says about me.
I comment:
But you - and a chancelful of others - have set yourselves up as individuals who decide, on their own, or in small groupings, exactly how a church is "in accord" or "evil, devilish" etc.
     That's fine, so long as you recognize that you are doing so on your own as an individual and in these small conventuals.
Have at it.
.  .  .  .

Just curious.  Do you think that Luther, Melanchthon, and the gang warranted the same admonition?

[George Erdner]

I'd better stop now before I stoop to your level and get the moderators upset.   

Good idea. I've felt the wrath of the moderators when I stooped to his level. 

[Charles_Austin]

My objection, people, is that Pastor Cottingham and his cohort seem to think they can denounce their fellow ELCA Lutherans, call them names, pronounce judgment on the church body and use terms like "devilish" and "evil" to apply to what we do and then expect there to be no consequences.
"Oh, my," cry they, "we are passed over for calls!" Well, what the heck did you think would happen? You went beyond the bounds of fair criticism. And if your bishops overreacted, that's just part of the whole dynamic, isn't it?
I would have thought you to be honored by the comparison with the puritans and separatists, who had the courage to leave their homeland for the sake of their faith. If what was happening to them in England was unjust, then their very suffering bore witness to the truth they claimed to espouse.
For heaven's sake! If you want to be a dissident or revolutionary or reformer, at least summon up the guts to take the punches and lay off the "poor me, I'm so persecuted, can't-get-a-call" attitude.

[Dan Fienen]

By all means, let's save our sympathy for those who really need it - the poor members of the ELCA who were on the majority side, who got the policy changed to be more like what they thought was best and what they wanted and still found that not everybody thought that they were heros, celebrated their prophetic courage, and that some even dared complain that they had changed key elements of how the Bible was understood.  Some didn't like what happened but rather than decently keeping quiet, paying their dues and cheering for the victors, they were upset and angery.  How dare they!  The victors were willing for them to hang around so long as they didn't cause trouble and kept the mission support coming.  Wasn't that enough to placate the poor loosers?!?   

Dan

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Fienen, your continuing characterization and misrepresentation of what has happened and is happening in the ELCA - filtered through your LCMSism - is not helpful to any kind of discussion.
I seriously doubt that you have had nearly enough close contact with or exposure to the "revisionist" elements of the ELCA to make the kind of statements you make. Consequently, they are uncharitable and wrong.

[Coach-Rev]

My objection, people, is that Pastor Cottingham and his cohort seem to think they can denounce their fellow ELCA Lutherans, call them names, pronounce judgment on the church body and use terms like "devilish" and "evil" to apply to what we do and then expect there to be no consequences.
"Oh, my," cry they, "we are passed over for calls!" Well, what the heck did you think would happen? You went beyond the bounds of fair criticism. And if your bishops overreacted, that's just part of the whole dynamic, isn't it?
I would have thought you to be honored by the comparison with the puritans and separatists, who had the courage to leave their homeland for the sake of their faith. If what was happening to them in England was unjust, then their very suffering bore witness to the truth they claimed to espouse.
For heaven's sake! If you want to be a dissident or revolutionary or reformer, at least summon up the guts to take the punches and lay off the "poor me, I'm so persecuted, can't-get-a-call" attitude.

\

For the love of Mike, Charles, take a deep breath, hold it for a few seconds, and exhale.  Not once have I called you any name, but your persistence sure pushes me to the limits on that.  Thank heavens for the 8th commandment.  That said, if you think that a sitting bishop being involved as heavily as this in a lawsuit is just fine and dandy, which is denounced by the Apostle Paul (Oh, there I go again, using Scripture as a means of applying the 3rd use of the law...), then perhaps your lamenting about not getting a call long ago had tremendous merit.  Too bad they then changed their minds about it, apparently.   

Oh, that's right - we can't postulate from afar, despite the known facts of the case staring you  (dare I say clubbing you over the head?) right in the face.   

[Coach-Rev]

Pastor Fienen, your continuing characterization and misrepresentation of what has happened and is happening in the ELCA - filtered through your LCMSism - is not helpful to any kind of discussion.
I seriously doubt that you have had nearly enough close contact with or exposure to the "revisionist" elements of the ELCA to make the kind of statements you make. Consequently, they are uncharitable and wrong.

Sure he has:  the LCMS was smarter - they jettisoned all of those elements, and guess what??!  They then corrupted the ELCA through merger!

And since when are you the judge of who may or may not participate in said discussions?  Quite frankly, being a "revisionist" yourself, your comments are also not helpful to any kind of discussion.

[Charles_Austin]

I see nothing wrong with a bishop trying to preserve the property of one of his congregations if he believes it is being wrongly taken from the people who want to continue as ELCA members. Do you?
And, Pastor Cottingham, you refer to actions of the church body to which I belong - actions which I and millions of others support - as "evil" and "devilish" (your precise words).
And you have constantly complained about the difficulty that "traditionalists" have in getting calls. I only note that, given the language you are using, I'm not the least bit surprised a bishop wasn't eager to put you in a parish. 
You want to have the hoop-de-doo of a "victim" or the smoke and thunder of a revolutionary opposing the evil of the administration, but you don't seem to be able to handle the consequences.
So you left the ELCA. Fine. Best wishes on your ministry.
I reject your attempts to call mine "devilish" and "evil."

Pastor Cottingham writes:
Quite frankly, being a "revisionist" yourself, your comments are also not helpful to any kind of discussion.
I comment:
And there you are. I rest my case. Whatever troubles you may have experienced in the ELCA just might have been the result of the attitude expressed in statements like that.

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Fienen, your continuing characterization and misrepresentation of what has happened and is happening in the ELCA - filtered through your LCMSism - is not helpful to any kind of discussion.
I seriously doubt that you have had nearly enough close contact with or exposure to the "revisionist" elements of the ELCA to make the kind of statements you make. Consequently, they are uncharitable and wrong.

Actually, I was thinking more of your reaction to Pr. Cottingham and others than the ELCA in general.

Dan

[Coach-Rev]

Whatever troubles you may have experienced in the ELCA just might have been the result of the attitude expressed in statements like that.

The adjectives, my dear Charles, were directed specifically at a sitting bishop who is in direct contradiction to the directives of Scripture.  If you wish to paint those comments at representing the whole of the ELCA,well, that is your choice.

On the contrary, the troubles that exist in the ELCA are precisely because of the attitude you've so aptly expressed here time and time again.  Your continued disdain for and insulting attitude towards anyone who dares show even a hint of criticism toward your beloved institution is what is not helpful, and I find it the prevailing attitude of the vast majority of revisionists.

With that, I refuse to engage you on this any longer.   Your disdain and contempt is more than evident.  You have embodied time and time again the reasons I and so many others have left or continue to leave the ELCA. 

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Cottingham writes:
On the contrary, the troubles that exist in the ELCA are precisely because of the attitude you've so aptly expressed here time and time again.  Your continued disdain for and insulting attitude towards anyone who dares show even a hint of criticism toward your beloved institution is what is not helpful, and I find it the prevailing attitude of the vast majority of revisionists.

I comment:
My irritation - I say for the thousandth time - is not towards those who criticize the ELCA. It is certainly not towards those who show "even a hint" of criticism. (And BTW, I do love my church body. Do you not love yours?)
     It is towards those who denounce, carp, condemn, pronounce judgement, and otherwise try to write our fellowship out of the Lutheran communion or the Church.
     It is towards those who, having taken their stand - supposedly based on their faith and conscience - against the direction of their church body (and not only on The Issue), and then expect no reaction.
     My irritation is towards those who supposedly are part of our fellowship, but arrogantly announce that they despise what we do and refuse to support our common mission, those who claim that because we disagree on some things they will no longer honor our fellowship, its leaders and members in anything.
     "You, ELCA," they say, "are unbiblical, your leaders are corrupt and I will not give you my full support. Now, would you please nominate me for a call to one of your parishes?" Give me a break!
     Not all the "traditionalists" denounce, carp, condemn, despise and pronounce judgement. I hope we can treat them as partners. I admit that some of us have a hard time doing that.
     You have left the ELCA. But your continued obsession with who we are and what we do - even after you are no longer with us - strongly suggests that it was good for you and for us that you left.
     I say again: best wishes for your ministry in your new church body. And I think that will go better if you let go of mine. And I hope we are done here.