Statement of the 44, TTMBO, and ACELC

[John Mundinger]

But to love your neighbor as you love yourself is to return to living life under the law and therefore living life under a curse.   Of course the law is necessary for us sinners.   But nevertheless loving the neighbor is not living life for the neighbor exclusively because loving self comes first in the equation.   Love of neighbor under the law is primarily self-centered love.  It is not the "law" of Christ.

Except that to love our neighbors as ourselves is one of the two "new" commandments that our Lord gave us.  Moreover, if we think about the two "new" commandments in the context of third use, it is no longer living under the curse.  Rather, it is understanding the Law in the light of the Gospel - not an obligation but how we choose to live in thanksgiving for what God, in Christ, has done for us.

Actually, the "new" commandment is given in John 13:34-35 - and it's not a quote from Leviticus:


“I give you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, so you also must love each other.  This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, when you love each other.”


What is new is that Jesus becomes our model of what loving each other is about; and the way we love one another is our witness to the world that we are Jesus' disciples. Something, I believe, the church has failed miserably at doing; and it has greatly harmed our witness to the world.

Thanks for that correction.  Actually, I was thinking of Matthew 22:37-40 and Jesus' affirmation of the commandments to love God and love neighbor.

But those commands weren't "new". Both come from the Old Testament.

I agree.  But, I also operate from the understanding that both are fulfilled and, having been fulfilled, reaffirmed in Christ.  And, the second of those "old" commandments is best understood as restated in the "new".

[Donald_Kirchner]

I don't know whether that is a valid assumption both on Mr. Mundinger's part or Mrs. Meyers', LCMS87.

For he confirmed what he wrote by stating that he was not kidding. Mrs. Meyer re-posted what he wrote and asked me why, when I asked her if she was kidding.

Mr. Mundinger's sparring with readselerttoo further confirms that.

So no, LCMS87, what he wrote, as confirmed by Mr. Mundinger and Mrs. Meyer, is not a correct Christian teaching, which is why I responded that, thanks be to God, the majority of Christians, including me, disagree with his repeated and confirmed statement.

So, Mrs. Meyer, do you agree with me or with Mr. Mundinger's original statement?

Or, as Mr. Mundinger would put it, apology accepted.   

[John Mundinger]

"The fact that we are not able to assume the unique role of self-sacrifice Jesus accomplished does not mean we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrifice for the sake of our neighbor.  And our neighbor includes not only fellow Christians but all people."

If that is how you read it, you correctly understood what I was trying to say.

[Donald_Kirchner]

"The fact that we are not able to assume the unique role of self-sacrifice Jesus accomplished does not mean we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrifice for the sake of our neighbor.  And our neighbor includes not only fellow Christians but all people."

If that is how you read it, you correctly understood what I was trying to say.

Then why did you repeatedly confirm your statement and, when I asked Mrs. Meyer if she was kidding, you assumed I was addressing you and further confirmed your statement?

Do you now disavow your original statement?

[John Mundinger]

Do you now disavow your original statement?

No.  I'm saying that I said the same thing as LCMS87 said, only with slightly different words.  And, in all honesty, I have read and re-read what I said and do not understand how you might come to the conclusion that it is substantially different from the ways that LCMS87 suggested that I should have said it.

[LCMS87]

Do you now disavow your original statement?

No.  I'm saying that I said the same thing as LCMS87 said, only with slightly different words.  And, in all honesty, I have read and re-read what I said and do not understand how you might come to the conclusion that it is substantially different from the ways that LCMS87 suggested that I should have said it.

You left out the NOT.  Your statement as you made it is that we are not called to lives of self-sacrifice because Christ sacrificed himself. 

[Donald_Kirchner]

Do you now disavow your original statement?

No.  I'm saying that I said the same thing as LCMS87 said, only with slightly different words.  And, in all honesty, I have read and re-read what I said and do not understand how you might come to the conclusion that it is substantially different from the ways that LCMS87 suggested that I should have said it.

For most folks, Mr. Mundinger, an affirmative and a negative (inserting a "not" versus leaving it out) are not the same thing.  IOW:

"But, I'd suggest that, just because we cannot assume that unique role of self-sacrifice, that we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrifice for the sake of the neighbor, including those neighbors who are sisters and brothers in Christ with whom we disagree."

and

But, I'd suggest that, just because we cannot assume that unique role of self-sacrifice, that we are not exempt from a calling of self-sacrifice for the sake of the neighbor, including those neighbors who are sisters and brothers in Christ with whom we disagree.

is not "the same thing," only with "slightly different words."   

[mariemeyer]

...."But, I'd suggest that, just because we cannot assume that unique role of self-sacrifice, that we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrifice for the sake of the neighbor, including those neighbors who are sisters and brothers in Christ with whom we disagree."


I interpreted the above to state that just because you and I cannot assume the unique role of Christ's self-sacrificial love of Christ, we are not to assume that we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrificial love for the sake of neighbors be they Christians or not, be they Christians with whom we agree or disagree, be they our aged parents or our children, be they our husband or our wife.  IOW, Christian discipleship is a calling to self-sacrificial love. We are to love as we are loved knowing that our love cannot accomplish what Christ's sacrificial love accomplished for us.   

Marie

[Donald_Kirchner]

Pr. Kirchner... I was not kidding. 

What do you disagree with in the following...."But, I'd suggest that, just because we cannot assume that unique role of self-sacrifice, that we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrifice for the sake of the neighbor, including those neighbors who are sisters and brothers in Christ with whom we disagree."

Marie

...."But, I'd suggest that, just because we cannot assume that unique role of self-sacrifice, that we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrifice for the sake of the neighbor, including those neighbors who are sisters and brothers in Christ with whom we disagree."


I interpreted the above to state that just because you and I cannot assume the unique role of Christ's self-sacrificial love of Christ, we are not to assume that we are exempt from a calling of self-sacrificial love for the sake of neighbors be they Christians or not, be they Christians with whom we agree or disagree, be they our aged parents or our children, be they our husband or our wife.  IOW, Christian discipleship is a calling to self-sacrificial love. We are to love as we are loved knowing that our love cannot accomplish what Christ's sacrificial love accomplished for us.   

Marie  [emphasis added]

Do you normally interpret affirmative statements as negative statements and repeatedly question others (like me) who do not but, rather, interpret affirmative statements as affirmative statements?

BTW, if you interpreted Mr. Mundinger's statement as a negative why did you need a clarification of Mr. Mundinger's statement from LCMS87 for which you thanked him?

[John Mundinger]

For most folks, Mr. Mundinger, an affirmative and a negative (inserting a "not" versus leaving it out) are not the same thing.  IOW:

The way that I constructed sentence, "cannot" connoted a negative as did the word, "exempt".

In all honesty, Pr. Kirchner, I often get the impression that your responses are based on an initial worst construction of what I have posted.  It is unfortunate that we apparently are unable to get to a healthier place in our conversations.

[Donald_Kirchner]

For most folks, Mr. Mundinger, an affirmative and a negative (inserting a "not" versus leaving it out) are not the same thing.  IOW:

The way that I constructed sentence, "cannot" connoted a negative as did the word, "exempt".

That doesn't make any sense, Mr. Mundinger.

In all honesty, Pr. Kirchner, I often get the impression that your responses are based on an initial worst construction of what I have posted.  It is unfortunate that we apparently are unable to get to a healthier place in our conversations.

How was I supposed to construe it, Mr. Mundinger? That your affirmative statement actually was a negative?  LCMS87 assumed that it was a a typo, that you inadvertently forgot to put in the "not." But you won't acknowledge that but, rather, state an absurdity, that your affirmative statement is the same as a negative statement only using "slightly different words." (You intended to leave out the "not.")      So, if you don't state that it was a typo but that you meant to state it as you did, how am I supposed to take it?

[John Mundinger]

That doesn't make any sense, Mr. Mundinger.

Pr. Kirchner - I will concede the grammar lesson.  What do you have to say in response to my observation regarding the history of Christianity and what that history might have looked like had love of neighbor better informed the conversations about matters in dispute.

[Dave Benke]

In the category of not wanting to stir the pot here, but just sayin':

ACELCers put out an email to me and others with the following - It has only been a short time since the release of the ACELC Film Project, “If Not Now, When?” but in that time the response has been overwhelming..

Here's the deal.  Their You Tube Part One has had 3350 views, Part Deux less than a thousand views, and another one around a hundred views.  Rapping Pastor Benke, on the other hand, has around 6900 views. 

I believe the significance is that one rapping head is twice as meaningful as a bundled group of talking heads or, in the original latin, Vox populi, vox dei.

Dave Benke

[LutherMan]

In the category of not wanting to stir the pot here, but just sayin':

Dave Benke

Sure sounded like you were intentionally stirring the pot to me.  Just sayin'

[Dave Likeness]

YouTube sent me an email that stated:

"The rapping Bishop Benke video has now been
re-classified as comedy." 

Bottom Line: 6,900 views cannot be wrong.
They are either laughing with you or at you.