ELDoNA?

[LutherMan]

I'd be curious why Pr. Stefanski is not a member of ELDoNA.

And, is it just me, or is the name a bit on the grandiose-sounding side?

Which name, Pr. Stefanski or ELDoNA?

   Stefanski does sound like a polack pope's name!

However, I know him to be a very orthodox Lutheran with an excellent catechetical curriculum...

Gottesdienst:
God’s Grace in Liturgy and Life

http://www.grabauski.com/

[ptmccain]

Stefanski is his real name.

I was referring to "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America."

That sounds a bit on the grandiose side to me.

Not even The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, for all the accusations about how we are triumphalistic, has ever claimed to name itself, oh, something like: THE evangelical Lutheran church in America. That's a grandiose and arrogant claim. Oh, whoops. There is actually a Lutheran church that calls itself that. Never mind.

But calling yourself, "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese in North America" strikes my ears in the same way.

[LutherMan]

Stefanski is his real name.

Yes, I know that.  Gee, I hope he won't take umbrage at what I said...

[Gladfelteri]

Stefanski is his real name.

I was referring to "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America."

That sounds a bit on the grandiose side to me.

Not even The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, for all the accusations about how we are triumphalistic, has ever claimed to name itself, oh, something like: THE evangelical Lutheran church in America. That's a grandiose and arrogant claim. Oh, whoops. There is actually a Lutheran church that calls itself that. Never mind.

But calling yourself, "The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese in North America" strikes my ears in the same way. 

Grandiose?  Through my admittedly "Romanized" filter, it sounds rather modest.     They are not claiming to be "The Lutheran Church" - only a (nongeographical) Diocese of the "larger Evangelical Lutheran Church."

[John Rutowicz]

And, is it just me, or is the name a bit on the grandiose-sounding side?

Once again, yes, it’s just you.

Let’s see, pastor McCain’s criticisms of ELDoNA so far have been:

1)   ELDoNA is small.  “an organization consisting of seven or so pastors and even fewer congregations?”
2)   ELDoNA might engage an LCMS pastor in conversation and tell him to not have fellowship with those involved with syncretism.  That’s "sheep stealing."
3)   ELDoNA is too grandiose-sounding a name.

Wow!  Along with my need to play dress-up and my need to be subject to heavy-handed authority, it’s all coming together for me now.  I now see the error of my ways.  I’ll get right on the phone to St. Louis and beg for forgiveness.

[ptmccain]

Let’s see, pastor McCain’s criticisms of ELDoNA so far have been:
1)   ELDoNA is small.  “an organization consisting of seven or so pastors and even fewer congregations?”
2)   ELDoNA might engage an LCMS pastor in conversation and tell him to not have fellowship with those involved with syncretism.  That’s "sheep stealing."
3)   ELDoNA is too grandiose-sounding a name.

John, you don't serve yourself or your organization well when you misrepresent criticisms of it.

I've not criticized ELDoNA for being small. I have however questioned the wisdom of giving it as much "air time" as the ALPB forum has done, a coverage out of proportion to its size and/or significance.  That was my comment, which you seem to have misunderstood.

Nothing wrong with ELDoNA talking to people. Something not right about coming to a LCMS convention with the express purpose of wooing people away from their church body. That's called sheep stealing. It is inappropriate. Again, you misunderstood and therefore misrepresent my point.

The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book as The ELCA giving itself that name. You got this one correct.

[John Rutowicz]

Pastor McCain,

I haven't misunderstood you nor have I misrepresented your arguments.  Rather than continue to argue with you, I'm going to bow out.  I will let you have the last word.

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor McCain writes: re the group under discussion:
The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book at The ELCA giving itself that name.

I comment:
Here's a test. Can Pastor McCain make a comment without part of it being some kind of irrelevant and unconnected jab at the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the Church of England?

[scott3]

Pastor McCain writes: re the group under discussion:
The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book at The ELCA giving itself that name.

I comment:
Here's a test. Can Pastor McCain make a comment without part of it being some kind of irrelevant and unconnected jab at the ELCA, the Episcopal Church, or the Church of England?

Charles, being a former English major I'm sure you probably already know this, but in light of a number of your recent posts, I thought that I'd offer one defintion of ad hominem for you: "ad hominem — an argument "against the man" or person. This is a device employed to attack not the issues but rather the one you are arguing with, especially on a personal level or basis. It is usually employed by those whose arguments are weak."

[Charles_Austin]

Scott writes:
"ad hominem — an argument "against the man" or person.

I comment:
Ah, but my comment is not "against" Pastor McCain; who may be a nice person and a child of God. It is not against him as a person and I am not arguing for or against anything. I am only observing his tendency to use every possible occasion - relevant or not - to say something critical of the ELCA. Perhaps his is sort of an "ad ecclesiam" way of taking part in this forum. He's free to do so, of course, but I think it clutters discourse.

[scott3]

Scott writes:
"ad hominem — an argument "against the man" or person.

I comment:
Ah, but my comment is not "against" Pastor McCain; who may be a nice person and a child of God. It is not against him as a person and I am not arguing for or against anything. I am only observing his tendency to use every possible occasion - relevant or not - to say something critical of the ELCA. Perhaps his is sort of an "ad ecclesiam" way of taking part in this forum. He's free to do so, of course, but I think it clutters discourse.

Uh, sure.  Do you have any swampland I could purchase?




[Speaking of clutter...]

[peter_speckhard]

Let’s see, pastor McCain’s criticisms of ELDoNA so far have been:
1)   ELDoNA is small.  “an organization consisting of seven or so pastors and even fewer congregations?”
2)   ELDoNA might engage an LCMS pastor in conversation and tell him to not have fellowship with those involved with syncretism.  That’s "sheep stealing."
3)   ELDoNA is too grandiose-sounding a name.

John, you don't serve yourself or your organization well when you misrepresent criticisms of it.

I've not criticized ELDoNA for being small. I have however questioned the wisdom of giving it as much "air time" as the ALPB forum has done, a coverage out of proportion to its size and/or significance.  That was my comment, which you seem to have misunderstood.

Nothing wrong with ELDoNA talking to people. Something not right about coming to a LCMS convention with the express purpose of wooing people away from their church body. That's called sheep stealing. It is inappropriate. Again, you misunderstood and therefore misrepresent my point.

The name: it is rather silly to make such a grand claim, equally as wrong in my book as The ELCA giving itself that name. You got this one correct.

A couple of minor points of clarification. The thread called ELDoNA came to be because one of them invited me to interview them at the convention and I found the interview interesting, so I included it in the list of interviews I put on the convention thread. That generated questions since nobody had ever heard of them before. So somebody began a thread to discuss who they are and what they're up to. My point is merely that the ALPB does not really give them airtime-- the airtime is free for anybody who wants it and uses it to discuss things Lutheran-- and apparently enough people have found it interesting enough to keep the discussion going. As for Paul McCain's "criticisms" I don't think they were so much criticisms as merely pointing out some of the things about ELDoNA that are different from your typical Lutheran body like ELS, WELS, ELCA, LCMS and therefore make ELDoNA worth its own thread. To whit, ELDoNA is much smaller, has a much longer (as Paul terms it, "grandiose") name, apparently wears cool attire (which Paul picked up from the discussion here and Pr. Benke's pointed hints that they should give some of it to him), is comprised of former LCMS pastors, and had a hospitality suite at the convention. Those are all pretty much factual bits of information which some will approve of and some won't.  No need for sniping about it, just say why you think what you think.

My dad told me that one thing he learned from his dad was that in writing letters to the editor or making any kind of critical remark, it is important to have a genuine suggestion (not a sarcastic one like "Perhaps it would be better if you took your medication before writing columns..." Actually my dad didn't use that example, but it is one I've been tempted toward at times); otherwise you're just griping or insulting people for no reason. Sometimes that suggestion is implicit, e.g. if someone says "That is heresy!" they're implicitly suggesting that the other person not say or believe that. But other times the suggestion needs to be more explicit. So, again because I'm new to moderating this, I'm going to use this exchange as an example, not because I thought it was particularly egregious but because it serves to make the point. It would have been better had Paul simply inquired as to the reasoning behind the rather unusual name ELDoNA or else made a suggestion of what he thought would be a better name, and it would have been better had John taken the opportunity of the "criticism" to explain how they came up with it. Then everyone would have been enlightened and nobody would have been irritated. Which would have been good, because naming churches is a tricky business; with "Missouri Synod" taken, it is pretty much a scramble for second best.

Also, please do not post anything merely as a comment about the other posters (unless it is clearly in good fun) and please remember that fierce partisans of virtually every side of everthing are welcome here, so a throwaway line or casual aside that pokes fun at anything might rankle people. Be witty, sharp, pointed, painfully honest, etc. but do it as though the people with whom you disagree are in the room. And if I had some witty and pointed way of saying all this I would, but alas, you're stuck with a lame moderator. So in short, we'll have a great forum as long as everyone is wittier and more good-natured than me. (Than I. Sorry Charles.)

[Harvey_Mozolak]

>>making any kind of critical remark, it is important to have a genuine suggestion (not a sarcastic one

 >>with "Missouri Synod" taken, it is pretty much a scramble for second best.

 >>alas, you're stuck with a lame moderator.

Ah, but the lame do run... with thanks to THE Moderator  --Harvey Mozolak

[Grabauski]

A couple of minor points of clarification. The thread called ELDoNA came to be because one of them invited me to interview them at the convention

One more clarification: one who is not a member of ELDoNA pointed out that you would probably find their comments interesting and suggested that you visit their suite. (I.e., lest anyone think they were--contrary to the moderator's intent--grubbing for attention, and as I made clear at some earlier point, I hadn't even had the opportunity to mention to the ELDoNA guys that Pr. Speckhard might be stopping by before he actually did.)

Wrt to Pr. McCain's wondering as to why I am not a member of ELDoNA at this point, if I may be permitted to give just the briefest of answers:

1) If this is the path (and, it most likely is), it is one that I will not venture to walk until there is universal understanding and affirmation of it within the parish I serve. I could rush that, I think, and not 'lose' anyone, etc., but I don't think that is the right way to do things here, and it is not the way that I have done anything here in the past. The parish declared themselves at least temporarily separate from the LCMS because of the way they thought themselves and their pastor to be treated and thereby occasioned my resignation from the LCMS roster to continue to serve them...something that otherwise would not have been likely to happen until this summer. (The details of such things are, mercifully, fading from short term memory, having been so badly lied about on the internet and elsewhere by those who were 'close' but not really aware of the facts of the situation. We have desired nothing other than peace, but had no choice but to stand on principle, even when other LCMS pastors could not understand the need for such a stand to reaffirm what was taught in the midst of congregational conflict--i.e., that we would not tolerate the district's teaching and tolerating the abuse of Mt. 18 and the Eighth Commandment, etc.)

2) It is my belief that my being a member of ELDoNA at this point could do them more harm than good.

3) There are things that I can facilitate better, at this point, by being 'unaffiliated' than by being a member of the diocese.

I'm sure that such a brief response doesn't satisfy, but I don't think that elaborating further would really be of benefit.

EJG

[Grabauski]

2) It is my belief that my being a member of ELDoNA at this point could do them more harm than good.

"Them" in this sentence refers to ELDoNA, btw, not to the parish.

To wit, "2) It is my belief that my being a member of ELDoNA at this point could do the Diocese more harm than good."

Just to be clear.

EJG