Another contribution to the endless controversy

[peter_speckhard]

Wrong on two points, Peter. I’m suggesting that a gracious God is able to say OK to both views on what constitutes coordination. What we must wait to bring together is how you and I are going to get along and have full church fellowship while holding these desperate views.
As for the “novelty and innovation” semi-insult, I commend your deft, though incomplete “moderation.”
I’ll be in fellowship with you, even though you don’t ordain women.
Can you be in fellowship with me, and simply not go to ELCA services where women preside?

You are simply sidestepping the whole issue of what God has revealed to be His will. What errors a gracious God may choose to tolerate is a separate issue entirely from what is truth and what is error. And you assume that being in full fellowship is the absolute mandate that matters more than any other consideration.

[Dan Fienen]

Peter writes:
The ELCA has taken the side of novelty and innovation.

I comment, first to Peter:
Thanks for ignoring and dismissing all our theology and prayer and discussion and calling our view mere "novelty and innovation." You keep finding new ways to insult us.

I did not call your view "mere" novelty and innovation. I said it was on the side of novelty an innovation. Which manifestly, literally, metaphorically, and in all other is perfectly true and accurate. If you think it insulting to be found on the side of novelty and innovation, don't be on that side. And if I were looking for new ways to insult you, I certainly wouldn't choose an old, well-worn, and familiar observation about you, which is that you're on the side of novelty and innovation.

Charles, why do you care so much what we say about you or whether we insult you? Do you value our opinion so much?

[Dave Likeness]

The 'ELCA has adopted the rather simplistic approach to fellowship with other denominations:

"We can agree to disagree"   This approach accomplishes nothing and puts the emphasis on
artificial unity which is really not unity at all.  Their Altar fellowship with denominations which
deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion is not genuine unity.

[Tom Eckstein]

Dave, your mask is slipping. You shouldn’t let people see that in your view true dialog can only happen between people who doubt their own position, and those who favor dialog are really expressing their openness to the idea that what they believe could be false. You should continue to publicly favor dialog in any and every situation while insisting that openness to dialog is the sign of supreme confidence in one’s own position, and unwillingness to dialog is a sign of fear.

The LCMS is not pretending any more than the ELCA is pretending. Both have considered a question. Both have answered it. The LCMS has taken the side of global Christendom through the centuries. The ELCA has taken the side of novelty and innovation. Both sides are equally certain.

Peter, I love what you said above - especially the portion I emphasized.  People can debate whether we're interpreting the WO prohibition texts correctly.  What they CAN'T debate is the simple fact that the vast majority of Christians throughout history and still today view the WO prohibition texts as clearly teaching that it is not God's will for women to serve in the pastoral office.  Therefore, as I said in a previous post, those minority of modern Christians who have jumped head first into the practice of WO are not only engaging in "novelty and innovation" but are NOT practicing Christian humility out of respect for the Church catholic.

[DCharlton]

Pastor Charlton, are all theological concepts totally universal and eternal? Can the Spirit not guide the church in different ways in different times or different places? The date of Easter controversies come to mind, the time when Christians were excommunicated for not observing Easter on the “right” day. Or the Synod of Whitby in 664 which imposed the “Roman” way of computing the date for Easter on the Irish and Britons?
Now: Dare  I play with speculation concerning The Spirit?
“Well, here are all these Christians passionate about a male-only clergy,” thinks The Spirit. “They’ve got a lot of history and some quirky theology behind them, but it would be a whopping can of worms opened to make a fast change.”
   The Spirit takes another sip of chamomile tea. “Then, we’ve got these Protestants and others just tearing along, with some trendy theology and after only a couple-hundred years of discussion, ordaining women right and left. Bishops even! It’s not doing any real harm and is actually doing some good in some places for some people. I don’t like the rift between those two groups, but losing those ELCA folks would be bad for the Church, and making those LCMS people put women in their pulpits would probably be bad for their churches and the Church. They will both overstate their positions, but let Us let them both continue with Our blessing. There’s time to find ways to bring them together.”
See. Both can be right.

What an incredibly obtuse and ignorant response to what I said.  It doesn't really warrant a response, but I'll try anyway.

I was simply asserting that while two things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way, they can both be wrong.  In other words, if I can prove proposition A to be false, it doesn't automatically prove that proposition B is true. 

Your argument that if two statements are taken equivocally they might both be true at the same time doesn't address the question. 

[Charles Austin]

Dave Likeness totally misunderstands the ELCA position when he writes that it is ”We can agree to disagree."
No that is not true. We say that our disagreements still exist, but we will work to overcome them. And to reach agreement. But meanwhile we can be in mission and ministry and in fellowship together.
We do not simply “agree to disagree.”

[D. Engebretson]

We say that our disagreements still exist, but we will work to overcome them. And to reach agreement. But meanwhile we can be in mission and ministry and in fellowship together.
We do not simply “agree to disagree.”

Disagreements come in different ways and are of varying levels of seriousness.  Are there limits for the ELCA with regard to differences?  That is, are there some differences that preclude being in "mission and ministry and in fellowship together"? Or limit the degree of that fellowship and cooperation?  What unresolved differences would keep the ELCA from seeking or entering into such fellowship and cooperation?

[Charles Austin]

I don’t know for certain, but I believe, unfortunately, that for many in the ELCA, the refusal to ordain women or to even discuss it, would be a reason for not fully sharing mission and ministry together.
I have personally seen two Presbyterian Churches and their pastors come to a greater, more “sacramental“ view of the sacrament, as a result of sharing with ELCA congregations.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Charlton, it can be “true” that God finds an all-male priesthood for the Roman Catholic Church, the Missouri Synod, and maybe some others, “pleasing.”
And it can be “true” that God finds women clergy in the ELCA, the Episcopal church and numerous other denominations also “pleasing.“

[Brian Stoffregen]

Pr. Austin,

I’m no more interesting in debating and rehashing it again than Donna is. You’ve come to your conclusions; I have come to mine. That’s why whatever else it is, it is not an “endless controversy.” It is a settled area of disagreement.

I believe that God can and does change people's minds. It's certainly happened to me over the years. Whatever is "settled" now, could be changed as we better come to understand God's ways in our world.


There are numerous studies on how faith grows (or matures, which might be a better analogy).

[Brian Stoffregen]

In your goofy scenario, the Holy Spirit says the ELCA is right but has the patience for how slow to catch on the LCMS is. Even pretending to be God doesn’t render you capable of imagining mutually exclusive positions both being correct.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter writes:
The ELCA has taken the side of novelty and innovation.

I comment, first to Peter:
Thanks for ignoring and dismissing all our theology and prayer and discussion and calling our view mere "novelty and innovation." You keep finding new ways to insult us.

I did not call your view "mere" novelty and innovation. I said it was on the side of novelty an innovation. Which manifestly, literally, metaphorically, and in all other is perfectly true and accurate. If you think it insulting to be found on the side of novelty and innovation, don't be on that side. And if I were looking for new ways to insult you, I certainly wouldn't choose an old, well-worn, and familiar observation about you, which is that you're on the side of novelty and innovation.

We see it as being on the side of the Gospel. It is being on the side of God's grace. As I recall one speaker saying during a homosexuality discussion, it's because we are so centered on justification by grace that we must have these discussions. From our perspective, you are on the side of the Law. Because you view us from that perspective, the charge of antinomianism keeps being hurled at us. From our perspective, you are legalistic.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Can you really be in fellowship with us and accept that when we have joint worship no ELCA women pastors or partnered homosexual pastors are allowed to lead part of the worship? Can you really be in fellowship with us and accept that in the exchange of pastors between our church bodies no ELCA women pastors or partnered homosexual pastors will be accepted by the LCMS?

What do LCMS folks do when they attend an LCMS congregation where women are reading lessons when they believe that's wrong? Does that mean that the LCMS is not in fellowship with itself?

You say that you are willing to be in fellowship with me, how does that create an obligation for me to be willing to be in fellowship with you? We have differing understandings as to what is necessary for fellowship. Why does that create an obligation for me to abandon my principles in favor of yours?

Loving one's enemies is difficult. Continuing to seek to be friends and kind towards those who are unfriendly and unkind can be difficult; but I believe that's what God has called us to do. We repent when we fail to do that.


I had numerous friends in high school who got drunk, smoked pot, and used foul language. I didn't do any of that. I didn't abandon my principles to be friends with them. In fact, my hope is that they would see something of the Spirit-imposed righteousness in me that might make them want to be in a relationship with God. My life, including my relationship with them and how I treated them, is a witness to our God who so loved the world. (Jesus didn't say that God only loved believers.)

[Brian Stoffregen]

I think the point Peter was making is that this not an “endless controversy” but “settled matter” depending. It is absolutely settled for the church historically speaking; and now it is absolutely settled for revisionists or progressives or whatever the current name is. The point is, Donna has no intention of being convinced otherwise. Nor do I. It’s not that we don’t understand each other’s reasonings; but that understanding them, we reject them. To her, I am in error. To me, she is in error. This is never going to change, until the day we stand before the Throne and all error is lost in the light of His shining truth and holiness.

This may sound strange to you, but I have never thought of this as a matter of being”in error” or not. I can live with differences in interpretation and practice. Maybe that is my ELCA roots coming to light. I do realize that, to LCMS folks, “WO” (how I adore that abbreviation - not) is a matter so egregious as to be heretical. Yet the NALC, my church body, has built an amicable and respectful relationship with the LCMS in spite of the presence of many like me within its ministerium. Yes, some matters are non negotiable - we agree about that. Anyway, I am not interested in rehashing the old pro and con stuff, it’s been done to death around here. We all just talk past each other, you’re  right about that too. I leave it to God.

Dr. Phil often asks “Would you rather be right or happy?” when dealing with broken families. Clearly being right is the most important thing in some parts of the church’s broken family, too.

I simply thought it was a worthwhile read, insightful and enlightening. No agenda, hidden or otherwise.

Donna

Even though I respect much of what the NALC stands for, I believe they have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to WO.  Not only are there no positive affirmations of WO in Holy Scripture, but there are clear prohibitions of WO in Scripture that have been recognized as settling the issue by the vast majority of the Church catholic throughout history - and that is still the case in 2021.  Therefore, those minority of Christians who have jumped head first into the practice of WO in open rejection of the practice of the Church catholic are not acting in Christian humility on this issue.

A major difference is that what some see as universal prohibitions, others see as cultural situations of that time and place, like the length of hair and head covering section.


We also do not have the same understanding of ordination as the Roman Catholics and Orthodox. It is not a sacrament for us. It doesn't produce an ontological change in the one who is ordained. We are set apart by the church for particular functions.

[Jim Butler]

I believe the ALPB has taken an opinion that allows for contribution and interaction with, for instance, the ACNA and NALC with full approval.  Independent and pan-Lutheran.  So the LCMS allows itself to pretend it's in dialog with these groups when as Will and Peter indicate, it really can't do so, won't do so and therefore heads off to places a lot less amenable in actuality like the Southern Baptists or WELS/ELS.  Which is a shame.

On a positive note, the article referenced by RevGal is really enjoyable to read. 

Dave Benke

Why do you say that the LCMS only "pretends" to be in dialogue with these two groups?

I will grant that I haven't spoken to anyone who is part of the ACNA/LCMS dialog, but I have spoken to people who are on the NALC/LCMS dialogue; they have been quite productive overall. A few years ago, they released a joint statement on Scripture: https://thenalc.org/2016/07/28/lcc-lcms-nalc-scripture-statement/

You can’t be in dialog with those you believe to be in error on a given point, Bishop? Really???

And how are those LCMS/ELCA dialogs going these days, Will?

Dave Benke

I don't know about anywhere else, but I was part of the New England LCMS/ELCA dialog for several years. Then, one year, the ELCA simply dropped the discussions. At our last session, we asked when we could schedule our next meeting and the answer was "We'll get back to you." They never got back to us. Jim Keurulainen called their bishop and the NES bishop never returned his call. He tried to talk to her about it a Board meeting for Lutheran Social Services, she didn't want to schedule a day. It was pretty clear that she had no interest in continuing any kind of dialog.

So I guess I'd answer, "Not too well. But not for a lack of trying on our part."