Memorials Committee Tries to Avoid Trainwreck

[Eric_Swensson]

"...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.

LOL! What, did Charles text message the answer to you?

I think what Charles meant by "stuff" did include that but it also meant " a lot of stuff" another way of saying that could be "the world". See, as you all know, we are informed by many things, from ur parents and teachers and peers to where we go for our news. It becomes a problem when the world trumps Scripture. Now, no one thinks that they are guilty of this, but it is apparent to others, and boy is it apparent in the issue of human sexuality.  What Don was asking Charles is 'How can you call yourself traditional if you write as you do on these issues?"

Anyone can jump in here, Brian included, but we'll be awaaiting Charles, who must be at some fine Chicago eatery (we will no doubt hear his menu choices). 

[Keith Falk]

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.

That "Someone" identified himself (without any editing, so it was there from the initial posting) as Ken Kimball.  While he is a someone, he is also a particular someone who should be identified as such.

[Charles_Austin]

My most humble apologies for not noting Ken Kimball's name, his posting is under another sign, and then he writes his name at the bottom. navyman does it too, sometimes making it unclear who is saying what.

[Brian Stoffregen]

LOL!  :DWhat, did Charles text message the answer to you?

Nope. I thought of it all by myself.

I think what Charles meant by "stuff" did include that but it also meant " a lot of stuff" another way of saying that could be "the world".

Instead of trying to read Charles's mind about what he thought, why not ask him? Or tell us what you think the "lot of stuff" might be -- share what's in your mind. That's what I did. I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. That really wasn't the response I intended, though.

[Charles_Austin]

My explanation of "stuff" -- Anyone who thinks our church and/or churches are based only on "Scripture" and the "Lutheran Confessions" does not have a realistic view of the world. Our churches are also grounded - sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally - on a lot of other things.

A minimal list:
The ethnicity of the founders and their way of doing things.
The geographic or cultural milieu in which a denomination or congregation functions.
How much money they have to spend.
What kind of controversies they have been through.
The personalities and theologies of previous pastors.
The influence of certain families or contributors.
How much contact they have had with other churches or other denominations.
The enthusiasm and/or zealotry of newer members.
The educational level of the members.
The "spirituality" of the parish: sacramental or pietistic or born-again or civil religion or new age or whatever.
The religious make-up of their community.
The political and social zeitgeist of the day.
and ... and ... and...

All these things and more constitute the "stuff" that is foundational or basic for our denominations and parishes. We hope that scripture and confessions - the urgrund of our type of organized religion - are the key and most influential aspects of our life together, but even that involves interpretation and a give-and-take.

And - here I go again! - the influence of all these things may be one of the ways in which the Spirit leads and guides the Church through ever-changing times. (Because God is not silent, nor is God done with us yet.)

[Eric_Swensson]

My explanation of "stuff" -- Anyone who thinks our church and/or churches are based only on "Scripture" and the "Lutheran Confessions" does not have a realistic view of the world. Our churches are also grounded - sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally - on a lot of other things.

A minimal list:
The ethnicity of the founders and their way of doing things.
The geographic or cultural milieu in which a denomination or congregation functions.
How much money they have to spend.
What kind of controversies they have been through.
The personalities and theologies of previous pastors.
The influence of certain families or contributors.
How much contact they have had with other churches or other denominations.
The enthusiasm and/or zealotry of newer members.
The educational level of the members.
The "spirituality" of the parish: sacramental or pietistic or born-again or civil religion or new age or whatever.
The religious make-up of their community.
The political and social zeitgeist of the day.
and ... and ... and...

All these things and more constitute the "stuff" that is foundational or basic for our denominations and parishes. We hope that scripture and confessions - the urgrund of our type of organized religion - are the key and most influential aspects of our life together, but even that involves interpretation and a give-and-take.

And - here I go again! - the influence of all these things may be one of the ways in which the Spirit leads and guides the Church through ever-changing times. (Because God is not silent, nor is God done with us yet.)

No one said "our church and/or churches are based only on "Scripture" and the "Lutheran Confessions" (why do you put those words in quotes?) and what we were talking about wasn't the church being "based on" but "shaped by". I already addressed that many things shape us in addition to Scripture and the Confessions, but what trumps what?

You are prepared to say that the Spirit is leading us to change our policy and you are discerning that through some sort of fairness doctrine, and you will do that knowing that it will definitely not be all of "us" who will be going into this Brave New World. Lots of luck!

[Charles_Austin]

Eric writes:
You are prepared to say that the Spirit is leading us to change our policy and you are discerning that through some sort of fairness doctrine, and you will do that knowing that it will definitely not be all of "us" who will be going into this Brave New World. Lots of luck!

I respond:
No, I am not yet prepared to say that, nor am I discerning anything though "some sort of fairness doctrine." But history shows that some did not come with us into the mergers that formed the ALC and the LCA; some did not come with us into the ELCA (or came in but acted as if they didn't) ; some did not come with us when we chose to ordain women, some did not come with us iinto fellowship with the Episcopal Church. So it is reasonable to assume that some will not come with us into whatever shape of the ELCA or its successors emerges in the future.
Nor do I consider our future an ecclesial version of Huxley's engineered utopia. The future is in the hands of God, not social engineers (though God might work through such folk.) We should understand that we do not need "lots of luck," but care, prayer, and cooperation. I'm prepared, I hope, to offer that. Are you?

[Eric_Swensson]

Prepared to pray? Already there. Prepared to be unfaithful to God's Word? Please. Care and cooperation? I've been doing that for years, but if the ELCA makes the transgressions that have been being overlooked a legal reality, I would not advise cooperation with that for anyone.

Again, comparing sexuality to issues of merger and partnership with other denominations  shows that you do not look at these issues as a traditionalist does and perhaps you should consider no longer thinking of yourself as one. This is not an issue where many people can "go along to get along". Should the ELCA make that mistake they will learn soon enough.

[Charles_Austin]

Eric writes:
Care and cooperation? I've been doing that for years, but if the ELCA makes the transgressions that have been being overlooked a legal reality, I would not advise cooperation with that for anyone.

I ask: A "legal reality"? So if the ELCA allows some things by not lowering the boom even though they are officially illegal, you do advise cooperation; but if certain things are made "legal," your advice is different?

Eric again:
Again, comparing this to women's ordination shows that you are not able to look at these issues as a traditionalist does and you should consider no longer thinking of yourself as one. And your comparing this issue to ones of merger and partnership with other denominations shows you really do not place Scripture and Confessions very high on the list of considerations.

Me, again:
That depends on what "this" is. I don't think I have to let you define "traditionalist." I might think of some "traditionalist" things lacking in your views.
Again, I'm not "comparing" what you call "this issue" - the sex thing? right or wrong? - with those other things. And it's not fair to say that I do not place "Scripture and Confessions" very high on the list of consideration just because I have a different view of Scripture and Confessions than you do.

But my question: is it legalizing something that you don't like that breaks the deal, but if something you don't like continues to go on illegally without sanctions, you're still with us? That would be cool. It would be like living together despite our differences.

[Eric_Swensson]

Eric writes:
Care and cooperation? I've been doing that for years, but if the ELCA makes the transgressions that have been being overlooked a legal reality, I would not advise cooperation with that for anyone.

I ask: A "legal reality"? So if the ELCA allows some things by not lowering the boom even though they are officially illegal, you do advise cooperation; but if certain things are made "legal," your advice is different?

It seems there's nothingthose of us who are opposed to this can do about it. I am not proposing it as a way ahead!

[Charles_Austin]

So if the ELCA "legalizes" what you don't like, that's a deal-breaker. But if the ELCA lets something go on that is technically illegal, but something that is proving to be unenforced or unenforceable, you're still with us? Again. Cool.

[Deb_H.]

We should understand that we do not need "lots of luck," but care, prayer, and cooperation. I'm prepared, I hope, to offer that. Are you?

I can't speak for Eric, but I have a hunch he is no more prepared to offer what you ask than Elijah was prepared to offer the same to Ahab.  (I Kings 18:17-18)  Nor am I.  Care, prayer, and cooperation are characteristics which are not unique to Christian religion. 
We first need to see language like "humility," "repentance," "forgiveness of sin," "obedience," and such, and have some general agreement on what those mean for the Christian life.

Lou

[Eric_Swensson]

So if the ELCA "legalizes" what you don't like, that's a deal-breaker. But if the ELCA lets something go on that is technically illegal, but something that is proving to be unenforced or unenforceable, you're still with us? Again. Cool.

I answered this already. You really need to get this--it is not about what I like or don't like. It's about crossing the line. I am not going to cross it. I really don't get what you are reading into what I wrote. I think that if the goodsoil amendments get to the floor and don't pass, we will be able to see V&E enforced. That is the goal.

[Charles_Austin]

Eric opines:
I think that if the goodsoil amendments get to the floor and don't pass, we will be able to see V&E enforced.

I wonder:
But supposing we don't see V&E enforced?

[mchristi]

I think that if the goodsoil amendments get to the floor and don't pass, we will be able to see V&E enforced. That is the goal.

Why do you think that if these proposals/memorials don't pass that anything will change from the status quo of enforcement in the policy set forth in Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline (the actual document that effects the disciplinary process)?  It currently gets enforced in some places and not in others, sometimes rather quietly and sometimes more publically.  Do you think that those who are reticent to press charges now will suddenly change their minds and start backing and enforcing the policy?

Mark C.