Memorials Committee Tries to Avoid Trainwreck

[Eric_Swensson]

Eric asks:
What does it mean "to be Missourian in outlook"?

I answer:
It means when they look out their windows, they see a river running between Iowa and Nebraska. 

There are people in the ELCA, some of them with roots in the LC-MS, who tend to view certain things more like the way those things are viewed in that church body than in the ALC, LCA or ELCA. But surely you knew that.

Of course, but that is no explanation, or at least it doesn't address how you meant it in that exchange with Pr McCain. One such interpretation, based on your repeated pattern of hostility to the LC-MS, is that you were making an inference that was an ad hominem at Pastor McCain and  a swipe at Missouri.

I just got back from Brasil where I attended the 11th International Luther Congress at Canoas. LCMS academics are received with honor there. Robert Kolb gave one of the best received keynotes, even with his being the only one gven by video link. When you said you were off down to SA I thought I might see you there. 

Imagine my surprise when you replied to the first post I made in two weeks , and that just to correct a typo. I guess it's "Welcome Back..."

I was glad to hear from our new moderator that we are going to make this a less onerous place for the sake of the visitors. How about it?

[ptmccain]

The prospectus of Concordia Publishing House's twenty volume extension of the American Edition was a particularly big hit at the conference.

[Charles_Austin]

Eric includes in a comment a reference to:

based on your (that is "my" ) repeated pattern of hostility to the LC-MS,

I object:
Wrong! I have no "hostility" towards the LC-MS! I have high regard for the kind of churchmanship that I have seen among LC-MS people; and some of the best things about the parish where I am interim are due to their LC-MS background.
I do think the LC-MS is wrong about some things (as is the ELCA). And some LC-MS members and defenders are a mite too self-righteous for my taste. I also don't understand some of the developments in that church body over the past 15+ years.
But I'm not "hostile." They are fellow Lutherans and fellow members of the body of Christ. I have preached and presided in LC-MS churches and LC-MS clergy have been in my church.

[Mike Bennett]

The prospectus of Concordia Publishing House's twenty volume extension of the American Edition was a particularly big hit at the conference.

Say what?

And when will the Logos version be available?

Mike Bennett

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

Eric includes in a comment a reference to:

based on your (that is "my" ) repeated pattern of hostility to the LC-MS,

I object:
Wrong! I have no "hostility" towards the LC-MS! I have high regard for the kind of churchmanship that I have seen among LC-MS people; and some of the best things about the parish where I am interim are due to their LC-MS background.
I do think the LC-MS is wrong about some things (as is the ELCA). And some LC-MS members and defenders are a mite too self-righteous for my taste. I also don't understand some of the developments in that church body over the past 15+ years.
But I'm not "hostile." They are fellow Lutherans and fellow members of the body of Christ. I have preached and presided in LC-MS churches and LC-MS clergy have been in my church.

I think you proved Eric's point.

Rob Moskowitz

[Charles_Austin]

Rob Moskowitz writes (re my intended-to-be-kind words about the LC-MS):
I think you proved Eric's point.

I wonder:
How? Eric accused me of being "hostile" to the LC-MS. I strongly object to this characterization of my views and I explained that I consider people in the LC-MS fellow Lutherans and fellow members of the Body of Christ (though I find the words and tactics of some of them unpleasant), and that I have a high regard for many aspect of the LC-MS (though I think it wrong on some matters.) If an LC-MS congregation invites me to preach, I accept; and if I were to do so, I would not use the occasion to point out how I think they are wrong. How is this being "hostile"?

[Eric_Swensson]

Eric includes in a comment a reference to:

based on your (that is "my" ) repeated pattern of hostility to the LC-MS,

I object:
Wrong! I have no "hostility" towards the LC-MS! I have high regard for the kind of churchmanship that I have seen among LC-MS people; and some of the best things about the parish where I am interim are due to their LC-MS background.
I do think the LC-MS is wrong about some things (as is the ELCA). And some LC-MS members and defenders are a mite too self-righteous for my taste. I also don't understand some of the developments in that church body over the past 15+ years.
But I'm not "hostile." They are fellow Lutherans and fellow members of the body of Christ. I have preached and presided in LC-MS churches and LC-MS clergy have been in my church.

Charles, my use of the word "hostile" is based on my interpretation of the words you write in this forum and nothing else, so you can say that over the years you do this and that, and you can attempt to explain your actual understanding, but if you do not think that you come across as  hostile that is puzzling. A more plausible explanation for your reaction is that you don't like being called on it. Why not take a poll?

Anyway, perhaps it is me that is being hostile--hostile to the prejudice that is easily seeen in many people in the ELCA against LC-MS, branding them as theological neanderthals, as anri-woman, close-minded becasue of closed-communion. Whereas some embrace ambiguity as a general theological good, yet cannot grant an even-handed disposition toward people of other denominations, well, what can we say?

I do not wish to argue about anything today. I am reflecting on the research we mulled over in our seminar. A young Finn, Jussi Koivisto, wrote a paper on Luther's view of doctrine and life in the 1535 Galatians commentary. Luther believed that when it came to doctrine we must be 100% committed to truth about the divine doctrine concerning faith, cling to that in hope, but when it comes to love, in that theological virtue we must be generous, bearing the burden of others, including those who would sin against us.

So here we are today. Those who are committed to traditional Lutheran doctrine are judged as close-minded, those who would change the doctrine to be accepting are judged as "the way to go."

[Charles_Austin]

Eric writes:
So here we are today. Those who are committed to traditional Lutheran doctrine are judged as close-minded, those who would change the doctrine to be accepting are judged as "the way to go."

I comment:
But Eric. I am committed to traditional Lutheran doctrine.

[navyman]

Eric writes:
So here we are today. Those who are committed to traditional Lutheran doctrine are judged as close-minded, those who would change the doctrine to be accepting are judged as "the way to go."

I comment:
But Eric. I am committed to traditional Lutheran doctrine.

Charles, with all do respect, which one are you committed to?  Liberal, Revisionist, moderate or Traditionalist.  I don't think any Traditional Lutheran is for gay ordination, or acceptance of Glory Theology, or thowing away the Lutheran Confessions, for CCM, as well as Scripture, as we have done in the ELCA!  However, I should say many pew members and Pastors don't believe or follow gay acceptance as non-sin, and deserves special treatment.  I think Luther's statement on perversion still stands, as well as Scripture, no matter what humankind says!  God's Law still stands, as well as preaching the true Gospel of Jesus Christ!

Regards!

Don

[Charles_Austin]

Eric writes, when I say I am committed to traditional Lutheran doctrine:
Charles, with all do (sic) respect, which one are you committed to?  Liberal, Revisionist, moderate or Traditionalist.  I don't think any Traditional Lutheran is for gay ordination, or acceptance of Glory Theology, or thowing away the Lutheran Confessions, for CCM, as well as Scripture, as we have done in the ELCA!

I respond:
Again, you seem to want to define "traditional Lutheran doctrine" in your way.  Well, I think traditional Lutheran doctrine can embrace a lot of (but perhaps not all) of those things. And I certainly do not agree that the ELCA has thrown away the confessions or scripture.  If you believe it has, well, then ....

[BeornBjornson]

Well then...stay and fight to uphold Scripture and the Confessions for the sake of the majority of ELCA laity and congregations that remain traditional and orthodox, just as Eric and many others have been and continue to do!
Ken Kimball

[Charles_Austin]

Someone writes:
Well then...stay and fight to uphold Scripture and the Confessions for the sake of the majority of ELCA laity and congregations that remain traditional and orthodox, just as Eric and many others have been and continue to do!

I comment:
There's that "fight" language again. Why does it have to be "fight"? I intend to stay in the ELCA and preach and proclaim the Gospel based on scripture and live within a church shaped by the Lutheran Confessions (and some other stuff). But I do not do so "for the sake of the majority of ELCA laity and congregations," nor is it for any minority. It is for the sake of the Gospel. And let us also be clear; It may be that the ways some of us lift up the Gospel (not "fighting" but proclaiming) and "do church" based on the Lutheran confessions are not exactly the same ways that Eric and some others choose.

[Eric_Swensson]

Eric writes, when I say I am committed to traditional Lutheran doctrine:
Charles, with all do (sic) respect, which one are you committed to?  Liberal, Revisionist, moderate or Traditionalist.  I don't think any Traditional Lutheran is for gay ordination, or acceptance of Glory Theology, or thowing away the Lutheran Confessions, for CCM, as well as Scripture, as we have done in the ELCA!

I respond:
Again, you seem to want to define "traditional Lutheran doctrine" in your way.  Well, I think traditional Lutheran doctrine can embrace a lot of (but perhaps not all) of those things. And I certainly do not agree that the ELCA has thrown away the confessions or scripture.  If you believe it has, well, then ....

Charles, Don wrote that, not me-. I do wish you would read things more carefully. I decided to let your description of yourself as "traditional Lutheran" go by without comment. 

[Eric_Swensson]

Someone writes:
Well then...stay and fight to uphold Scripture and the Confessions for the sake of the majority of ELCA laity and congregations that remain traditional and orthodox, just as Eric and many others have been and continue to do!

I comment:
There's that "fight" language again. Why does it have to be "fight"? I intend to stay in the ELCA and preach and proclaim the Gospel based on scripture and live within a church shaped by the Lutheran Confessions (and some other stuff). But I do not do so "for the sake of the majority of ELCA laity and congregations," nor is it for any minority. It is for the sake of the Gospel. And let us also be clear; It may be that the ways some of us lift up the Gospel (not "fighting" but proclaiming) and "do church" based on the Lutheran confessions are not exactly the same ways that Eric and some others choose.

 "...live within a church shaped by the Lutheran Confessions (and some other stuff)." LOL! What other stuff?

[Brian Stoffregen]

"...live within a church shaped by the Lutheran Confessions (and some other stuff)." LOL! What other stuff?

The Constitution and Bylaws of the ELCA, one's synod, and one's congregation -- and the common confession of faith included in each of those.