Trinity Sunday

[Charles Austin]

Brian (re change in the LCMS):
Prior to that document, many in the LCMS were pretty much like the ALC and LCA in their critical approach to scriptures. That changed.
Me:
Yes, this was my experience also. And I knew and heard of LCMS pastors who - sometimes painfully and for both good and bad reasons - changed how they preached and what they said in public after 1973.

[Jeremy_Loesch]

Dog's Eulogy on Holy Trinity Sunday

He was a good dog in the ways all dogs are good. Really good in the ways some are.

An infallible old pope (not a poetic new pope) declared that after death we can see our dogs in the "eternity of Christ."
I wish I could baptize my dog.
I don't know about his faith- but he does good work: He has a stained-glass window dedicated to him at a church in town. The pastor said kids come to the church "for Jesus and that dog."

I have carried him for walks in two of his sixteen years; the first because he was too small and now this last year because he spins around a shriveled leg like a dervish with a lost shoe. His days are spins and pants and he naps long naps.

I can carry him because he's kid-size. I got him when my son grew too big to hold. I rock him without my always noticing. As a new dad I rocked my kid, bags of groceries, tool boxes; new dads do that. The dog lets me rock him. He doesn't squirm. Mellow.

On our walk I carry him besides the hedgerows. See his nose dart left and right as he picks up the faded morse code from far-below pee spots and dashes. He gets his information second-hand from the barking around the hills. A gossip is an echotier in French- my dog passes on the echoing barks in his foreign pink tongue.

Luther had his dog Toelpel who will be in heaven "with a golden tail." The kind reformer and kind pope were comforting crying children. I want to be comforted. My ailing dog is older by two years than Kipling's.

There was a German pastor kicked out of the church for baptizing cats. Imagine the third splash of water- all yowls, claws and the unwinding of a broken spring. My old dog wouldn't fuss at the splashes of water.

One, two, three: He'd calmly, respectfully lick the Trinity off his nose- feathers and all- trusting something good was happening that he didn't fully understand.

You wrote that? That's beautiful. Thank you for sharing this. My condolences.

Jeremy

[James J Eivan]

Brian (re change in the LCMS):
Prior to that document, many in the LCMS were pretty much like the ALC and LCA in their critical approach to scriptures. That changed. (Emphasis Added)
Me:
Yes, this was my experience also. And I knew and heard of LCMS pastors who - sometimes painfully and for both good and bad reasons - changed how they preached and what they said in public after 1973.

It is interesting that while much is said and written about 'that document' nothing has been said or written indicating 'that document' contains anything in conflict with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.


Apparently 'that document' enabled pastors to better preach, teach and express the Scriptures and Confessions.

[readselerttoo]

Brian (re change in the LCMS):
Prior to that document, many in the LCMS were pretty much like the ALC and LCA in their critical approach to scriptures. That changed. (Emphasis Added)
Me:
Yes, this was my experience also. And I knew and heard of LCMS pastors who - sometimes painfully and for both good and bad reasons - changed how they preached and what they said in public after 1973.

It is interesting that while much is said and written about 'that document' nothing has been said or written indicating 'that document' contains anything in conflict with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.


Apparently 'that document' enabled pastors to better preach, teach and express the Scriptures and Confessions.

Except "that document" placed itself or was placed by vote to be on par with scripture and the Lutheran confessions.  It isn't.  It makes the LCMS skirt close to sectarianism and reduces the confessional priority of scripture as the only judge, rule and norm see FC preface (richter, regel. richschnur) of Christian teaching by creating additional parameters.  big no no

[James J Eivan]

Brian (re change in the LCMS):
Prior to that document, many in the LCMS were pretty much like the ALC and LCA in their critical approach to scriptures. That changed. (Emphasis Added)
Me:
Yes, this was my experience also. And I knew and heard of LCMS pastors who - sometimes painfully and for both good and bad reasons - changed how they preached and what they said in public after 1973.

It is interesting that while much is said and written about 'that document' nothing has been said or written indicating 'that document' contains anything in conflict with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.


Apparently 'that document' enabled pastors to better preach, teach and express the Scriptures and Confessions.

Except "that document" placed itself or was placed by vote to be on par with scripture and the Lutheran confessions.  It isn't.  It makes the LCMS skirt close to sectarianism and reduces the confessional priority of scripture as the only judge, rule and norm see FC preface (richter, regel. richschnur) of Christian teaching by creating additional parameters.  big no no

OK ... the document is in accordance with scriptures and the confessions .... but is sectarian.  Guess that's clear as mud. 

By the way, a sect is "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."

Apparently you are having difficulties demonstrating how the document is different (and heretical) ... therefore it is rather difficult to honestly label it sectarian?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Brian (re change in the LCMS):
Prior to that document, many in the LCMS were pretty much like the ALC and LCA in their critical approach to scriptures. That changed. (Emphasis Added)
Me:
Yes, this was my experience also. And I knew and heard of LCMS pastors who - sometimes painfully and for both good and bad reasons - changed how they preached and what they said in public after 1973.

It is interesting that while much is said and written about 'that document' nothing has been said or written indicating 'that document' contains anything in conflict with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.


Apparently 'that document' enabled pastors to better preach, teach and express the Scriptures and Confessions.

Except "that document" placed itself or was placed by vote to be on par with scripture and the Lutheran confessions.  It isn't.  It makes the LCMS skirt close to sectarianism and reduces the confessional priority of scripture as the only judge, rule and norm see FC preface (richter, regel. richschnur) of Christian teaching by creating additional parameters.  big no no

OK ... the document is in accordance with scriptures and the confessions .... but is sectarian.  Guess that's clear as mud. 

By the way, a sect is "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."

Apparently you are having difficulties demonstrating how the document is different (and heretical) ... therefore it is rather difficult to honestly label it sectarian?

Your original comment needs some nuancing, too. "It is interesting that while much is said and written about 'that document' nothing has been said or written indicating 'that document' contains anything in conflict with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions." That document contains nothing in conflict with the LCMS's understanding of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. It's not a document that expresses the ELCA's understanding of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. In fact, as Charles and I have heard from some older LCMS clergy, it doesn't express their understanding of (nor what they had been taught) about Scripture and the Lutheran Confession.

"Sectarian" depends on how you define "a larger group to which they belong." If the larger group is only the LCMS, then it was inline with what the larger group believes. If the larger group are the Lutherans, i.e., those who adhere to the Augsburg Confession, the LCMS is seen as sectarian by some of us. If the larger group is the one holy catholic and apostolic church, I see the LCMS as sectarian.


The sectarian policies as I see them are the refusal to worship with other Lutherans/Christians. Refusing to be part of Lutheran World Federation. The refusal to share the Lord's Supper with other believers. Classifying others as heretical or heterodox, (while considering themselves as orthodox or confessional).


In my conversation with the conservative LCMS pastor, who would insist that if folks agreed with his preaching they needed to join an LCMS congregation, I asked if the LCMS was sectarian. He said that they were. I'm pretty sure that in his view, they were right and everyone else was wrong.

[readselerttoo]

Brian (re change in the LCMS):
Prior to that document, many in the LCMS were pretty much like the ALC and LCA in their critical approach to scriptures. That changed. (Emphasis Added)
Me:
Yes, this was my experience also. And I knew and heard of LCMS pastors who - sometimes painfully and for both good and bad reasons - changed how they preached and what they said in public after 1973.

It is interesting that while much is said and written about 'that document' nothing has been said or written indicating 'that document' contains anything in conflict with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.


Apparently 'that document' enabled pastors to better preach, teach and express the Scriptures and Confessions.

Except "that document" placed itself or was placed by vote to be on par with scripture and the Lutheran confessions.  It isn't.  It makes the LCMS skirt close to sectarianism and reduces the confessional priority of scripture as the only judge, rule and norm see FC preface (richter, regel. richschnur) of Christian teaching by creating additional parameters.  big no no

OK ... the document is in accordance with scriptures and the confessions .... but is sectarian.  Guess that's clear as mud. 

By the way, a sect is "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."

Apparently you are having difficulties demonstrating how the document is different (and heretical) ... therefore it is rather difficult to honestly label it sectarian?

You are not demonstrating to me how the 1973 document clarifies and does not place itself on par with the scriptures and the Lutheran  confessions.  In fact all you bring to the table are accusations with little substantive proof.

[James J Eivan]

Brian (re change in the LCMS):
Prior to that document, many in the LCMS were pretty much like the ALC and LCA in their critical approach to scriptures. That changed. (Emphasis Added)
Me:
Yes, this was my experience also. And I knew and heard of LCMS pastors who - sometimes painfully and for both good and bad reasons - changed how they preached and what they said in public after 1973.

It is interesting that while much is said and written about 'that document' nothing has been said or written indicating 'that document' contains anything in conflict with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.


Apparently 'that document' enabled pastors to better preach, teach and express the Scriptures and Confessions.

Except "that document" placed itself or was placed by vote to be on par with scripture and the Lutheran confessions.  It isn't.  It makes the LCMS skirt close to sectarianism and reduces the confessional priority of scripture as the only judge, rule and norm see FC preface (richter, regel. richschnur) of Christian teaching by creating additional parameters.  big no no

OK ... the document is in accordance with scriptures and the confessions .... but is sectarian.  Guess that's clear as mud. 

By the way, a sect is "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."

Apparently you are having difficulties demonstrating how the document is different (and heretical) ... therefore it is rather difficult to honestly label it sectarian?

You are not demonstrating to me how the 1973 document clarifies and does not place itself on par with the scriptures and the Lutheran  confessions.  In fact all you bring to the table are accusations with little substantive proof. <Emphasis added>

Accusations ??  Where?? I have simply asked for documentation that 'that document' is in conflict with the Scriptures and Confessions.  How is asking a question an accusation?

[TERJr]

What's the over/under on how many more posts it will take to get to homosexuality?

[Eileen Smith]

John Reumann+ wrote an article a number of years ago on this subject.  He came down on the side of seeing our pets in heaven.  I wish I had saved it as it was so poignant. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Accusations ??  Where?? I have simply asked for documentation that 'that document' is in conflict with the Scriptures and Confessions.  How is asking a question an accusation?

If the document only says what Scripture and the Confessions state, it's unnecessary. I'd rather read Scripture and the Confessions. The ELCA and I would guess all the other Lutheran bodies get along fine without "that document". It's unnecessary. Why do you have it?

[Steven W Bohler]

Accusations ??  Where?? I have simply asked for documentation that 'that document' is in conflict with the Scriptures and Confessions.  How is asking a question an accusation?

If the document only says what Scripture and the Confessions state, it's unnecessary. I'd rather read Scripture and the Confessions. The ELCA and I would guess all the other Lutheran bodies get along fine without "that document". It's unnecessary. Why do you have it?

Of course, by that reasoning then the Confessions themselves are unnecessary.

[peter_speckhard]

Dog's Eulogy on Holy Trinity Sunday

He was a good dog in the ways all dogs are good. Really good in the ways some are.

An infallible old pope (not a poetic new pope) declared that after death we can see our dogs in the "eternity of Christ."
I wish I could baptize my dog.
I don't know about his faith- but he does good work: He has a stained-glass window dedicated to him at a church in town. The pastor said kids come to the church "for Jesus and that dog."

I have carried him for walks in two of his sixteen years; the first because he was too small and now this last year because he spins around a shriveled leg like a dervish with a lost shoe. His days are spins and pants and he naps long naps.

I can carry him because he's kid-size. I got him when my son grew too big to hold. I rock him without my always noticing. As a new dad I rocked my kid, bags of groceries, tool boxes; new dads do that. The dog lets me rock him. He doesn't squirm. Mellow.

On our walk I carry him besides the hedgerows. See his nose dart left and right as he picks up the faded morse code from far-below pee spots and dashes. He gets his information second-hand from the barking around the hills. A gossip is an echotier in French- my dog passes on the echoing barks in his foreign pink tongue.

Luther had his dog Toelpel who will be in heaven "with a golden tail." The kind reformer and kind pope were comforting crying children. I want to be comforted. My ailing dog is older by two years than Kipling's.

There was a German pastor kicked out of the church for baptizing cats. Imagine the third splash of water- all yowls, claws and the unwinding of a broken spring. My old dog wouldn't fuss at the splashes of water.

One, two, three: He'd calmly, respectfully lick the Trinity off his nose- feathers and all- trusting something good was happening that he didn't fully understand.

Bravo!

[Charles Austin]

It disturbs me that a German pastor was allegedly booted out because he baptized cats. But cats may not need baptizing, having once been divine themselves. And if one were to baptize a cat, the method would have to be sprinkling, not immersion. That latter could be a problem and the officiant might be subject to charges of animal abuse. 

[Dan Fienen]

It disturbs me that a German pastor was allegedly booted out because he baptized cats. But cats may not need baptizing, having once been divine themselves. And if one were to baptize a cat, the method would have to be sprinkling, not immersion. That latter could be a problem and the officiant might be subject to charges of animal abuse.

Unless, of course, it were a Turkish Van cat.