Author Topic: Another contribution to the endless controversy  (Read 30750 times)

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #465 on: June 22, 2021, 09:48:39 AM »
Moderator Peter Speckhard writes on the endless controversy......

"We have been down this road before because you proceed as though though nobody interacted with you. You lament that TLSB has a section about women but not men, and when multiple people point out why that makes perfect sense, you just keep pointing it out. You donít say, ďOkay, in that point youíre making sense,Ē or ďI hadnít looked at it that way,Ē nor do you disagree or even acknowledge the point was made. You just hold onto to your original lament. A year from now youíll asking why TLSB has a section about women and not men."

Pr. Speckhard is on target when observing that I have not stated it makes sense to me that TLSB refers to wife and women as biblical topics without referring to husband and man as biblical topics.

Wife cannot be a biblical topic without husband also being a biblical topic.   The term wife defines a relationship with a husband.  You can't have one without the other.  IOW, no woman can be, or could never have been a wife, without a husband. 

The same is true for woman being a biblical topic without man being a biblical topic.  No woman can be human alone...so also, no man can be human alone.   Adam could never have known what it means to be a human, not God or one of the animals, without the woman God created to complete God's work of creating Man, male and female, in the image of God.

Finally, I find use of the term "lament" in reference to my posts condescending.  Reciprocal mutuality in any conversation avoids the persistent use of "you" in reference to how the other person has been, is now and will forever be misguided. 

Marie Meyer 

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #466 on: June 22, 2021, 10:39:41 AM »
Moderator Peter Speckhard writes on the endless controversy......

"We have been down this road before because you proceed as though though nobody interacted with you. You lament that TLSB has a section about women but not men, and when multiple people point out why that makes perfect sense, you just keep pointing it out. You donít say, ďOkay, in that point youíre making sense,Ē or ďI hadnít looked at it that way,Ē nor do you disagree or even acknowledge the point was made. You just hold onto to your original lament. A year from now youíll asking why TLSB has a section about women and not men."

Pr. Speckhard is on target when observing that I have not stated it makes sense to me that TLSB refers to wife and women as biblical topics without referring to husband and man as biblical topics.

Wife cannot be a biblical topic without husband also being a biblical topic.   The term wife defines a relationship with a husband.  You can't have one without the other.  IOW, no woman can be, or could never have been a wife, without a husband. 

The same is true for woman being a biblical topic without man being a biblical topic.  No woman can be human alone...so also, no man can be human alone.   Adam could never have known what it means to be a human, not God or one of the animals, without the woman God created to complete God's work of creating Man, male and female, in the image of God.

Finally, I find use of the term "lament" in reference to my posts condescending.  Reciprocal mutuality in any conversation avoids the persistent use of "you" in reference to how the other person has been, is now and will forever be misguided. 

Marie Meyer
"Lament" is in no way a condescending word nor was my use of it intended as such. But I'll be happy to consider alternatives in the future. In any event, as I said upstream, the thing about men and women as topics was only an example of why we've been down this road so many times that the thread title includes the phrase "endless controversy." If you don't think it makes sense to have a special focus on women in the study notes in light of the fact that the Bible itself focuses predominantly on men ("Why does it say Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob so often but Sarah, Rebeccah, and Rachel a lot less?"), then I guess we just disagree. But I think the disagreement is not doctrinal but merely a matter of editorial goals. A study Bible tries to address anticipated questions. What about the women of the Bible? That is a question that comes up all the time in studies. What about men in the Bible? I've never had that question come up. As a user of the study Bible I wouldn't expect the editors to devote space to questions that they don't anticipate anyone having. So maybe our disagreement is over simply over whether the editors guessed right about what the potential questions were when they were deciding what to address.
 
The substantive part of my post has since by highlighted by Tom Eckstein but here it is again:

I have no doubt that God relates to you the same way He relates to me, as His baptized children. He worked/works through His created order to create us vis the human agency if others, redeem through the work of Jesus, and sanctify by the Holy Spirit also in a mediated way. In that divine action, He uses different people in different ways. God, not human reason, makes the husband the head of the wife, all husbands male, and all wives female. God, not human reason, designed His Church to have overseers and for those overseers to be male. None of that does an end run around the first commandment. It honors the first commandment by letting God be God and believing Him when He speaks.

In fact, I have never had any doubts about the fact that you and I relate to each other as siblings and to God as His children, and have stated it many times over many years. In the Christian church a person, as such, relates to any other person as such as a sibling in Christ. Men as a group do not have a relationship with women as a group, nor do individuals relate to each other as Christians in terms of who is male and who is female. God has indeed made male and female different and that difference factors into any individual's particular vocations. 

 

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #467 on: June 22, 2021, 10:58:42 AM »
Wife cannot be a biblical topic without husband also being a biblical topic.   The term wife defines a relationship with a husband.  You can't have one without the other.  IOW, no woman can be, or could never have been a wife, without a husband. 

The same is true for woman being a biblical topic without man being a biblical topic.  No woman can be human alone...so also, no man can be human alone.   Adam could never have known what it means to be a human, not God or one of the animals, without the woman God created to complete God's work of creating Man, male and female, in the image of God.
[emphasis added]

Mrs. Meyer,

In the context of the comments about TLSB, the bold portion makes absolutely no logical sense and certainly is not supported by the rest of the quote.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #468 on: June 22, 2021, 01:27:36 PM »
God has indeed made male and female different and that difference factors into any individual's particular vocations.

I have been following the thread and I suspect that this sentence may be the point of difference in the recent ongoing back-and-forth discussion about male and female.  While I think that all may agree that there are "differences" between the genders (although the extent and specificity of those differences would no doubt be debated), that those differences factor into a "particular" vocation, I would suspect, is a sticking point.  I wonder if we all simply said that all vocations are free of gender considerations, the debate would end.  But then again, I may still be missing something....
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Dave Benke

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12454
    • View Profile
    • Atlantic District, LCMS
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #469 on: June 22, 2021, 01:59:44 PM »
God has indeed made male and female different and that difference factors into any individual's particular vocations.

I have been following the thread and I suspect that this sentence may be the point of difference in the recent ongoing back-and-forth discussion about male and female.  While I think that all may agree that there are "differences" between the genders (although the extent and specificity of those differences would no doubt be debated), that those differences factor into a "particular" vocation, I would suspect, is a sticking point.  I wonder if we all simply said that all vocations are free of gender considerations, the debate would end.  But then again, I may still be missing something....

I'm certainly fine with it. 

Let's take, for example, the vocation/calling/gift of "Pastor," which is through the centuries imbedded in the ritual of ordination.  Of course it's the word "shepherd," and is listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit in Ephesians 4, "poimenes", linked with teacher.  Were there women who were shepherds/shepherdesses, ie actually tended a flock of sheep/goats, or was that restricted to males only?  The answer is yes, and the Biblical referent is Rachel (Genesis 24 et al), who was a respected shepherdess and bonded with Jacob out there in the field with the sheep.  That was her calling, her vocation. 

So in my experience I have been privileged to serve with women who had/have a pastoral vocation.  They care for the sheep  - in a spiritual sense they are committed and gifted in the care or cure of souls.  They visit, pray, tend to and nurture.  So they have a pastoral calling or vocation.  It's a specific gift of the Spirit.  It's not a gift of service/diakonia only, it's a gift of tending.   It's as natural as waking up in the morning.  That happens to be exactly the same for me.  Maybe it's a reason I can recognize it in others. 

Therefore the pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense, is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned.

Dave Benke

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #470 on: June 22, 2021, 02:04:30 PM »
Therefore the pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense, is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned.

Dave Benke

What?! you mean it's just fine for a male in a pastoral vocation to identify as female?!   :o
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #471 on: June 22, 2021, 02:09:51 PM »
God has indeed made male and female different and that difference factors into any individual's particular vocations.

I have been following the thread and I suspect that this sentence may be the point of difference in the recent ongoing back-and-forth discussion about male and female.  While I think that all may agree that there are "differences" between the genders (although the extent and specificity of those differences would no doubt be debated), that those differences factor into a "particular" vocation, I would suspect, is a sticking point.  I wonder if we all simply said that all vocations are free of gender considerations, the debate would end.  But then again, I may still be missing something....

I'm certainly fine with it. 

Let's take, for example, the vocation/calling/gift of "Pastor," which is through the centuries imbedded in the ritual of ordination.  Of course it's the word "shepherd," and is listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit in Ephesians 4, "poimenes", linked with teacher.  Were there women who were shepherds/shepherdesses, ie actually tended a flock of sheep/goats, or was that restricted to males only?  The answer is yes, and the Biblical referent is Rachel (Genesis 24 et al), who was a respected shepherdess and bonded with Jacob out there in the field with the sheep.  That was her calling, her vocation. 

So in my experience I have been privileged to serve with women who had/have a pastoral vocation.  They care for the sheep  - in a spiritual sense they are committed and gifted in the care or cure of souls.  They visit, pray, tend to and nurture.  So they have a pastoral calling or vocation.  It's a specific gift of the Spirit.  It's not a gift of service/diakonia only, it's a gift of tending.   It's as natural as waking up in the morning.  That happens to be exactly the same for me.  Maybe it's a reason I can recognize it in others. 

Therefore the pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense, is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned.

Dave Benke
The pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense is one to which every Christian is called and is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned, either. Certainly my mother, to take one example, visits, prays for, tends to, and nurtures a large number and wide variety of people on a daily or weekly basis. I don't think anything anyone has said in TSLB, any other LCMS materials, or in this thread would say she is doing something wrong.


Dave Benke

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12454
    • View Profile
    • Atlantic District, LCMS
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #472 on: June 22, 2021, 06:25:17 PM »
God has indeed made male and female different and that difference factors into any individual's particular vocations.

I have been following the thread and I suspect that this sentence may be the point of difference in the recent ongoing back-and-forth discussion about male and female.  While I think that all may agree that there are "differences" between the genders (although the extent and specificity of those differences would no doubt be debated), that those differences factor into a "particular" vocation, I would suspect, is a sticking point.  I wonder if we all simply said that all vocations are free of gender considerations, the debate would end.  But then again, I may still be missing something....

I'm certainly fine with it. 

Let's take, for example, the vocation/calling/gift of "Pastor," which is through the centuries imbedded in the ritual of ordination.  Of course it's the word "shepherd," and is listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit in Ephesians 4, "poimenes", linked with teacher.  Were there women who were shepherds/shepherdesses, ie actually tended a flock of sheep/goats, or was that restricted to males only?  The answer is yes, and the Biblical referent is Rachel (Genesis 24 et al), who was a respected shepherdess and bonded with Jacob out there in the field with the sheep.  That was her calling, her vocation. 

So in my experience I have been privileged to serve with women who had/have a pastoral vocation.  They care for the sheep  - in a spiritual sense they are committed and gifted in the care or cure of souls.  They visit, pray, tend to and nurture.  So they have a pastoral calling or vocation.  It's a specific gift of the Spirit.  It's not a gift of service/diakonia only, it's a gift of tending.   It's as natural as waking up in the morning.  That happens to be exactly the same for me.  Maybe it's a reason I can recognize it in others. 

Therefore the pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense, is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned.

Dave Benke
The pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense is one to which every Christian is called and is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned, either. Certainly my mother, to take one example, visits, prays for, tends to, and nurtures a large number and wide variety of people on a daily or weekly basis. I don't think anything anyone has said in TSLB, any other LCMS materials, or in this thread would say she is doing something wrong.

I agree with your assessment of the vocation.  Not by the way, when it comes to the history of role assignments by gender the tending/nurturing/visiting/praying functions have often been distributed to females, so the dudes can go out and make war or lift heavy objects.  So pastoring is a good thing for males to do in contradistinction.  At the same time, the genuine nature of caring is not gender distinctive.

At the same time, when it comes to the shepherding vocation in churches, I
a) don't know about what TSLB would say about what we're saying
b) don't have the other LCMS materials handy to know what they say about visitation/prayer/tending ministries
c) don't know for sure that other (particularly) LCMS folks here would agree with what we're saying
d) know for sure that there are plenty of LCMS clergy who would disagree with what we're saying in the sense that their opinion is that visitation/tending/prayer belongs to their Divine Call and no one else should be out there doing that.  Some pastors specifically prohibit even the male elders from praying with the sick, seeing that as a distinctive function of the pastoral office.  That, of course, is about as insecure as insecurity can get.  Through the years I had difficulty with some pastors who enrolled their leaders in the Atlantic District diaconate, and then were unhappy that those deacons were tending/caring/praying/visiting.  Insecurity - "taking my job away."  No - distributing the gifts of the faithful so that everyone in the Body is nurtured. 

Anyway, it's a good topic in my opinion for discussion, because most local congregations are definitely far heavier in weight at the far end of the life spectrum, and those sheep need regular tending.  It's also good for the pastor to develop leaders with those shepherding gifts, and mirrors the discipling words of our Lord to tend/feed/nurture the sheep.

Dave Benke

Dave Likeness

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 5101
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #473 on: June 22, 2021, 07:11:26 PM »
In a healthy parish you will see the pastor encourage members to reach out and
to actively share the love of Christ with those who are hospitalized, home-bound,
or in nursing homes.   Sometimes this will involve reading Scripture and having a
prayer with them. The larger the parish the more important this becomes.  Both
men and women have demonstrated they are comfortable doing this.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #474 on: June 22, 2021, 07:18:34 PM »
Therefore the pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense, is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned.

Dave Benke

What?! you mean it's just fine for a male in a pastoral vocation to identify as female?!   :o


Well, we are often accused of wearing dresses.
"The church Ö had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3793
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #475 on: June 22, 2021, 07:36:26 PM »
God has indeed made male and female different and that difference factors into any individual's particular vocations.

I have been following the thread and I suspect that this sentence may be the point of difference in the recent ongoing back-and-forth discussion about male and female.  While I think that all may agree that there are "differences" between the genders (although the extent and specificity of those differences would no doubt be debated), that those differences factor into a "particular" vocation, I would suspect, is a sticking point.  I wonder if we all simply said that all vocations are free of gender considerations, the debate would end.  But then again, I may still be missing something....

I'm certainly fine with it. 

Let's take, for example, the vocation/calling/gift of "Pastor," which is through the centuries imbedded in the ritual of ordination.  Of course it's the word "shepherd," and is listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit in Ephesians 4, "poimenes", linked with teacher.  Were there women who were shepherds/shepherdesses, ie actually tended a flock of sheep/goats, or was that restricted to males only?  The answer is yes, and the Biblical referent is Rachel (Genesis 24 et al), who was a respected shepherdess and bonded with Jacob out there in the field with the sheep.  That was her calling, her vocation. 

So in my experience I have been privileged to serve with women who had/have a pastoral vocation.  They care for the sheep  - in a spiritual sense they are committed and gifted in the care or cure of souls.  They visit, pray, tend to and nurture.  So they have a pastoral calling or vocation.  It's a specific gift of the Spirit.  It's not a gift of service/diakonia only, it's a gift of tending.   It's as natural as waking up in the morning.  That happens to be exactly the same for me.  Maybe it's a reason I can recognize it in others. 

Therefore the pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense, is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned.

Dave Benke
The pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense is one to which every Christian is called and is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned, either. Certainly my mother, to take one example, visits, prays for, tends to, and nurtures a large number and wide variety of people on a daily or weekly basis. I don't think anything anyone has said in TSLB, any other LCMS materials, or in this thread would say she is doing something wrong.

I agree with your assessment of the vocation.  Not by the way, when it comes to the history of role assignments by gender the tending/nurturing/visiting/praying functions have often been distributed to females, so the dudes can go out and make war or lift heavy objects.  So pastoring is a good thing for males to do in contradistinction.  At the same time, the genuine nature of caring is not gender distinctive.

At the same time, when it comes to the shepherding vocation in churches, I
a) don't know about what TSLB would say about what we're saying
b) don't have the other LCMS materials handy to know what they say about visitation/prayer/tending ministries
c) don't know for sure that other (particularly) LCMS folks here would agree with what we're saying
d) know for sure that there are plenty of LCMS clergy who would disagree with what we're saying in the sense that their opinion is that visitation/tending/prayer belongs to their Divine Call and no one else should be out there doing that.  Some pastors specifically prohibit even the male elders from praying with the sick, seeing that as a distinctive function of the pastoral office.  That, of course, is about as insecure as insecurity can get.  Through the years I had difficulty with some pastors who enrolled their leaders in the Atlantic District diaconate, and then were unhappy that those deacons were tending/caring/praying/visiting.  Insecurity - "taking my job away."  No - distributing the gifts of the faithful so that everyone in the Body is nurtured. 

Anyway, it's a good topic in my opinion for discussion, because most local congregations are definitely far heavier in weight at the far end of the life spectrum, and those sheep need regular tending.  It's also good for the pastor to develop leaders with those shepherding gifts, and mirrors the discipling words of our Lord to tend/feed/nurture the sheep.

Dave Benke

I know of no LCMS pastor who holds to your d) above and forbid anyone but themselves with praying with the sick.  And yet you say there are "plenty" and then speak of some in the Atlantic District.  Perhaps that is where they have all ended up?

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #476 on: June 22, 2021, 07:50:16 PM »
God has indeed made male and female different and that difference factors into any individual's particular vocations.

I have been following the thread and I suspect that this sentence may be the point of difference in the recent ongoing back-and-forth discussion about male and female.  While I think that all may agree that there are "differences" between the genders (although the extent and specificity of those differences would no doubt be debated), that those differences factor into a "particular" vocation, I would suspect, is a sticking point.  I wonder if we all simply said that all vocations are free of gender considerations, the debate would end.  But then again, I may still be missing something....

I'm certainly fine with it. 

Let's take, for example, the vocation/calling/gift of "Pastor," which is through the centuries imbedded in the ritual of ordination.  Of course it's the word "shepherd," and is listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit in Ephesians 4, "poimenes", linked with teacher.  Were there women who were shepherds/shepherdesses, ie actually tended a flock of sheep/goats, or was that restricted to males only?  The answer is yes, and the Biblical referent is Rachel (Genesis 24 et al), who was a respected shepherdess and bonded with Jacob out there in the field with the sheep.  That was her calling, her vocation. 

So in my experience I have been privileged to serve with women who had/have a pastoral vocation.  They care for the sheep  - in a spiritual sense they are committed and gifted in the care or cure of souls.  They visit, pray, tend to and nurture.  So they have a pastoral calling or vocation.  It's a specific gift of the Spirit.  It's not a gift of service/diakonia only, it's a gift of tending.   It's as natural as waking up in the morning.  That happens to be exactly the same for me.  Maybe it's a reason I can recognize it in others. 

Therefore the pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense, is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned.

Dave Benke
The pastoral vocation in the broadest and true sense is one to which every Christian is called and is not gender distinctive as far as I'm concerned, either. Certainly my mother, to take one example, visits, prays for, tends to, and nurtures a large number and wide variety of people on a daily or weekly basis. I don't think anything anyone has said in TSLB, any other LCMS materials, or in this thread would say she is doing something wrong.

I agree with your assessment of the vocation.  Not by the way, when it comes to the history of role assignments by gender the tending/nurturing/visiting/praying functions have often been distributed to females, so the dudes can go out and make war or lift heavy objects.  So pastoring is a good thing for males to do in contradistinction.  At the same time, the genuine nature of caring is not gender distinctive.

At the same time, when it comes to the shepherding vocation in churches, I
a) don't know about what TSLB would say about what we're saying
b) don't have the other LCMS materials handy to know what they say about visitation/prayer/tending ministries
c) don't know for sure that other (particularly) LCMS folks here would agree with what we're saying
d) know for sure that there are plenty of LCMS clergy who would disagree with what we're saying in the sense that their opinion is that visitation/tending/prayer belongs to their Divine Call and no one else should be out there doing that.  Some pastors specifically prohibit even the male elders from praying with the sick, seeing that as a distinctive function of the pastoral office.  That, of course, is about as insecure as insecurity can get.  Through the years I had difficulty with some pastors who enrolled their leaders in the Atlantic District diaconate, and then were unhappy that those deacons were tending/caring/praying/visiting.  Insecurity - "taking my job away."  No - distributing the gifts of the faithful so that everyone in the Body is nurtured. 

Anyway, it's a good topic in my opinion for discussion, because most local congregations are definitely far heavier in weight at the far end of the life spectrum, and those sheep need regular tending.  It's also good for the pastor to develop leaders with those shepherding gifts, and mirrors the discipling words of our Lord to tend/feed/nurture the sheep.

Dave Benke

I know of no LCMS pastor who holds to your d) above and forbid anyone but themselves with praying with the sick.  And yet you say there are "plenty" and then speak of some in the Atlantic District.  Perhaps that is where they have all ended up?

Agreed. Wow! You've got some creepy pastors in your district, Dave. Never seen or heard of anything like that around here.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but itís not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17537
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #477 on: June 22, 2021, 08:14:11 PM »
I donít think there is anything the pastor could do about it even if he wanted to prevent his female parishioners from praying for, visiting, comforting, and otherwise tending to people; they would do it anyway. The point is one doesnít have to be a Deaconess or have a particular official job, role, or title with the congregation to do those things. Christians do them. Thatís why the shepherding vocation in its widest sense isnít the most helpful sense with which to use it in these discussions.

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 976
    • View Profile
    • church history review
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #478 on: June 23, 2021, 06:07:53 AM »
Pres. Benke wrote:

Quote
d) know for sure that there are plenty of LCMS clergy who would disagree with what we're saying in the sense that their opinion is that visitation/tending/prayer belongs to their Divine Call and no one else should be out there doing that.

I have interacted with pastors who told their members they could only get forgiveness through their absolution and not, for example, through praying the Lord's Prayer. I learned about this view after publication of an article on the topic of confession and absolution and subsequent conversations on the topic.

One pastor who thought this way grew out of this mindset, as I recall. I'm not sure about what happened with others.

I have heard a pastor say that it was his job to preach and the congregation's job to listen, that ministry did not involve dialogue.

So I can't confirm the particular concern Pres. Benke voices but I have seen examples of the attitude he describes. I've not seen these issues in recent years. It would be closer to twenty years ago.
I serve as administrator for www.churchhistoryreview.org.

Coach-Rev

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
  • Rev. Jeff Cottingham, STS
    • View Profile
    • Trinity Lutheran Church
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #479 on: June 23, 2021, 08:31:33 AM »
Well, we are often accused of wearing dresses.

among other things. about 10 years ago, a young 4 year old asked her Grandmother in church "why the guy up front was wearing Jesus's clothes?"
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." - Abraham Lincoln

blog:  http://coach-rev.blogspot.com/
photography:  https://jeffcottingham.smugmug.com/