as we list names, like LCMS type folks...
it does interest me that so many of them, whom any number of us list as sources of more than inspiration, would today be classified as liberal (using the term liberally) and yet when they were our profs they were not decidedly so, perhaps at the edge things but not outside any pale on any issue and in fact they were very solid in things that are still important like the core of the Faith, Gospel, Lutheranism and so forth...
I still wonder why so few, almost if any, profs, theologians, bishops and so forth in the ELCA who came from the LCMS/AELC background did not have at least some pause in the movement that has led to more a more universalistic view of salvation, the sexuality issues and so forth...
to me it seems that no matter what position you take you ought to be very critical of it as you were of the place you left... may be more so because of your personal investment and the way hubris tends to veil the ego...
how can some who were so central on the Gospel have forsaken some of the deposit of the faith, and with seeming ease?
Let me give a for instance that has nothing to do with the usual issues. As I look at my own journey... I once hated the over use of the terms Word of God and devil, for instance. I did not reject them but found that Word of God had replaced Christ with a more "biblicistic" viewpoint and the devil was being given more than his due and our responsibility was being replaced by the excuse of Satanic temptation. OK, even assume that that was true. I then noticed that Word of God and devil were completely disappearing as terms in my sermons and teaching and when I realized that, I knew that was error and needed to be re-corrected.
Anyone…? Do I make any sense?
Harvey Mozolak
Harvey Mozolak
