Filling Future Pastoral Vacancies

[peter_speckhard]

And so long, Peter, as you and your cohort consider progressive Christians as the enemy, the polarization will continue. So long as evangelicals let the right-fringe be their public face and keep on kicking the crap out of moderate conservatives, they will not be able to start even a modest cooperation with other Christians. So long as every political issue gets welded to the abortion question, dialogue and cooperation will be very difficult.
Can your people, pray, study scripture and work with partnered gay clergy if the issue is immigration reform or care for the elderly? Can your people pray and work with those hanging on the "new look" at our nation's racial history if the issue is voting rights or fair housing practices?
Meanwhile, the progressive Christians, or dare I say the moderate progressives, have to do the same for the far left of their ranks, the people for whom gender issues, government organization, and denunciation of their enemies become their only sermon topics. (I wrote here, last year, I think, my disgust at a zoom gathering for my seminary alma-mater where every speaker had to first of all state his approval of the "new" sexualities and every participant in the discussions was someone who made it clear he or she or they spoke from a "gay," "lesbian," "queer," etc etc. perspective.)
You and your allies, Peter, do not have to embrace Nadia Bolz-Weber and all her writings, but you do need to embrace those of us progressives who find some - not all - of her work helpful. You don't have to approve of married gay pastors, but if you're going to work with us at all, you will have to be ready to work with some of them. And if your church body puts a hyper-LCMS loyalist on the board of LIRS, I'd sit alongside that person and work to help immigrants. Would he sit beside me?
I'm willing to say, if necessary, where I think Pastor Bolz-Weber goes off the beam; but others have to be equally critical of the Falwell kid (nothing like his father, really) and the "independent" (which means un-churched and un-monitored) Christians seeking favor in high places. Yes, there are home-schoolers who are racist, own up to that.
(And as I write this, I see that Mark Brown has a resolution describing my entire church body and our ecumenical partners as heretical and unworthy of any cooperation at all. I guess I should really weep for the dismal future of Lutheranism. If it goes on this way, it will not survive our children's generation.)

I wasn't thinking exclusively about social issues and politics. But yes, I can work with Muslims, Mormons, Jews, Unitarians, and Liberal Protestants on areas of mutual interest.

If we're going to limit it to social/political issue, abortion is central (not the only issue that matters, but in our context the central issue) because of the sheer enormity of the evil, the fact that in our time the predominant anti-Christian view of humanity, sex, marriage, and family congealed around it, grows out of it, and absolutely depends upon it, and the fact that opposition to abortion has been a component of Christian faith and life from the beginning, meriting specific mention in the Didache. There simply is no Christian pro-choice argument to be made (even the Libertarian idea of Christians being Christian and letting pagans do pagan things falls short when it comes to taking a human life), which makes that issue different from, say, international trade deals, the death penalty, minimum wage laws, inner city policing, decisions about oil and natural gas pipelines, or any number of issues about which Christians can reasonably differ.

Even Matthew 18 includes a time for dialog and a time for decision. At some point, favoring dialog is merely postponing decision. If it matters to you that the polarization not continue, quit polarizing. The fact of the matter is that by my way the polarization reorganizes itself in new and healthier ways. You will still be you and the ELCA will still be the ELCA, but you won't represent one of the poles within the framework of future ecumenical work. 
 

[PrTim15]

What if the greatest challenge tot he church in the last 500 years, now becomes the greatest opportunity for working together? What if Christianity becomes less divided and more unified. What if we are the front end of a great global revival?

Count me in. The RC church, the Orthodox, many Evangelicals, and various traditionalist Protestant denominations could show a united front to the world on most of the things that non-Christians see. And I think we do more than we know. As C.S. Lewis said, to the enemies of Christianity, the Church appears far more united than it seems to people on the inside Christianity. The big outlier is liberal Protestantism, which actively works against whatever united witness the rest of us might present. The young women interviewed in the article I posted on another thread who prefer to be sterilized would all reject Christianity as taught among any of those kinds of Christians, but could easily blend in to a liberal Protestant denomination.

What you're talking about requires leadership, and leadership requires decision-making, and decisions by definition involve a cutting away of some possibilities in favor of others. To me, the big decision that is hanging out there and ripening is what to do about the irreconcilable rift between liberal Protestants and all other Christians.   

My sense the the conversation is already going on locally where like minded congregations/lay leaders and clergy are facing incredible challenges. To think we will ever move on a national level first flies in the face of all the history of the LCMS. Good things start at fringes and on ground levels of institutions. The LCMS in Convention is really not had a strong mission emphasis in the last 7 years. I think the train will leave the station and the mainline will be writing documents that are titles, “A Lutheran Response to…”

I hate the word ecumenism…it’s very churchy, I like collaboration…perhaps too much like business. 

[PrTim15]

Thanks Dave…should have checked your post before I put mine up…i agree with you about local practitioners:)

[Dave Benke]

My sense the the conversation is already going on locally where like minded congregations/lay leaders and clergy are facing incredible challenges. To think we will ever move on a national level first flies in the face of all the history of the LCMS. Good things start at fringes and on ground levels of institutions. The LCMS in Convention is really not had a strong mission emphasis in the last 7 years. I think the train will leave the station and the mainline will be writing documents that are titles, “A Lutheran Response to…”

I hate the word ecumenism…it’s very churchy, I like collaboration…perhaps too much like business.

I think this is your response, Tim.  You included it in the former response bar.  Because -  who even are you?  Do you still use a fax machine?  You're not up to date or up to speed.  Old-timer.  Get out of the ministry now and let us young guys take over. 

As to the comment itself, would a local conversation lead to you collaborating on youth ministry, say, with the Presbyterians?  Or sharing a youth minister?  Or a food pantry?  What would local conversations about differences in practice and theology look like, or would they not be deemed important?   

As to the LCMS and Mission emphases at Conventions, good luck with that changing in any substantial way.  There are online resources on Making Disciples for Life, including videos called Connect to Disciple (https://files.lcms.org/file/preview/7SZtpzaeLxISlpoo6BDukNsCQdYWRbUh?).  I think actually the better work is going to be regional in this arena - in the LCMS at the District or area level (West Coast, say).  And depending on the courage and conviction of the regional folks, that would be a good way to initiate conversation about collaboration and cooperatin without just remaining absolutely local.

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

What if the greatest challenge tot he church in the last 500 years, now becomes the greatest opportunity for working together? What if Christianity becomes less divided and more unified. What if we are the front end of a great global revival?

Count me in. The RC church, the Orthodox, many Evangelicals, and various traditionalist Protestant denominations could show a united front to the world on most of the things that non-Christians see. And I think we do more than we know. As C.S. Lewis said, to the enemies of Christianity, the Church appears far more united than it seems to people on the inside Christianity.  . . .

That's a good argument for churches continuing (or beginning again) to practice ecumenism.

Peace,
Michael

Continue how? Endless dialogs? That's the opposite of making a decision. The dialogs have been going on for decades and the fact is that liberal Protestantism has continued to move faster and more furiously away from the other groups, which have if anything grown closer together despite in some cases not being much of a factor in the dialogs.

You can't decide that our problems should go away. That isn't a decision. Decisions that aren't hard would be made already. Leaders consider the dialog but also know when the dialog has outlived its usefulness and the time has come to go this way and not that way. Not recognizing that time is a faiure of leadership. The decision I think needs to be made (formally or informally, by action or changed attitude and a general movement) is a genuine de-cision, a cutting away. Let liberal Protestantism go its own way, where it will end in a haze of agnostic universalism, and embrace a different vision of Christian unity that simply doesn't include them. If they repent, great, welcome back. But no welcome back without an actual coming back.

I think a way through this impasse might be for symposia at the seminaries involving cross-Lutheran connections on some topic of theological importance - Christology (from SW's post), for instance, and then opening it up to the way the theology spins into practice from either the same perspective or the differing perspectives presented.  That would take a bit of courage for the seminaries, I guess, but don't go to the level of denominational hierarchy and structure, which seem to get lost in the ether quickly.

Dave Benke

I would be all for that, with the following caveat-- we all agree to be respectful, but the underlying assumption is not that all the things presented are acceptable variations on Lutheranism/Christianity and the goal is not working together despite differences but overcoming differences by determining truth and falsehood and repenting where needed. If, in order to be invited to participate, we have to agree in advance that we will go away accepting that everything presented was not bad but just different, then there is no point. It is decision-postponing filibustering dressed up like serious dialog.

In some ways the different takes on the assumptions and purposes of this forum would foreshadow how those symposia would go. Progressives would insist, "First acknowledge that I and my positions represent an acceptable form of Christianity, then let us seek ways to understand each other and work together amicably." Assuming the progressive conclusion -- that our differences are not church-dividing-- becomes a pre-condition for starting the discussion. A more productive way is to begin with no such precondition. Tell us what you think and why and we'll consider it. We'll tell you what we think and why, and invite you to consider it. This is why some people think that very worst thing that can happen in this forum is that someone or some opinions be called un-Lutheran, heterodox, or heretical. We must first agree that we are all well within the confines of acceptable Christianity, and then we can look are the interesting tapestry of diverse opinions. But a discussion of whether or not anyone or their beliefs is actually un-Lutheran, heterodox, or heretical? That's just beyond the pale.

[peter_speckhard]

My sense the the conversation is already going on locally where like minded congregations/lay leaders and clergy are facing incredible challenges. To think we will ever move on a national level first flies in the face of all the history of the LCMS. Good things start at fringes and on ground levels of institutions. The LCMS in Convention is really not had a strong mission emphasis in the last 7 years. I think the train will leave the station and the mainline will be writing documents that are titles, “A Lutheran Response to…”

I hate the word ecumenism…it’s very churchy, I like collaboration…perhaps too much like business.

I think this is your response, Tim.  You included it in the former response bar.  Because -  who even are you?  Do you still use a fax machine?  You're not up to date or up to speed.  Old-timer.  Get out of the ministry now and let us young guys take over. 

As to the comment itself, would a local conversation lead to you collaborating on youth ministry, say, with the Presbyterians?  Or sharing a youth minister?  Or a food pantry?  What would local conversations about differences in practice and theology look like, or would they not be deemed important?   

As to the LCMS and Mission emphases at Conventions, good luck with that changing in any substantial way.  There are online resources on Making Disciples for Life, including videos called Connect to Disciple (https://files.lcms.org/file/preview/7SZtpzaeLxISlpoo6BDukNsCQdYWRbUh?).  I think actually the better work is going to be regional in this arena - in the LCMS at the District or area level (West Coast, say).  And depending on the courage and conviction of the regional folks, that would be a good way to initiate conversation about collaboration and cooperatin without just remaining absolutely local.

Dave Benke

The main cultural change that has to precede any formal or organizational change is for the smaller, conservative churches of the mainline brands-- the LCMS, ACNA, Orthodox Presbyterian, et al-- to stop understanding themselves primarily in relation to their mainline counterparts and start working directly together where possible and taking the place of the mainline in relation to Rome and Orthodoxy. As long as the words partnership, dialog, cooperation, and ecumenism make us think first of the mainliners, we're still mired in the old ecumenical template that needs to change if Tim's "what if" vision is to see any kind of fruition.

[PrTim15]

To a greater or lesser degree these more practical conversations are occurring. Dave I never get these new fangled things and always seem to mess it up…we may look back in a couple years and see covid as an accelerator of mainline decline.  Desperation for incomes, place and resources may compel a lot of congregations and pastors to rethink isolationist understanding. There’s so much contraction going on in the mainline, perhaps people with less than congruent theology will align around a more congruent heart and desire for survival to figure it out.  We serve a Lord who has used talking donkeys:)

[Dave Benke]

What if the greatest challenge tot he church in the last 500 years, now becomes the greatest opportunity for working together? What if Christianity becomes less divided and more unified. What if we are the front end of a great global revival?

Count me in. The RC church, the Orthodox, many Evangelicals, and various traditionalist Protestant denominations could show a united front to the world on most of the things that non-Christians see. And I think we do more than we know. As C.S. Lewis said, to the enemies of Christianity, the Church appears far more united than it seems to people on the inside Christianity.  . . .

That's a good argument for churches continuing (or beginning again) to practice ecumenism.

Peace,
Michael

Continue how? Endless dialogs? That's the opposite of making a decision. The dialogs have been going on for decades and the fact is that liberal Protestantism has continued to move faster and more furiously away from the other groups, which have if anything grown closer together despite in some cases not being much of a factor in the dialogs.

You can't decide that our problems should go away. That isn't a decision. Decisions that aren't hard would be made already. Leaders consider the dialog but also know when the dialog has outlived its usefulness and the time has come to go this way and not that way. Not recognizing that time is a faiure of leadership. The decision I think needs to be made (formally or informally, by action or changed attitude and a general movement) is a genuine de-cision, a cutting away. Let liberal Protestantism go its own way, where it will end in a haze of agnostic universalism, and embrace a different vision of Christian unity that simply doesn't include them. If they repent, great, welcome back. But no welcome back without an actual coming back.

I think a way through this impasse might be for symposia at the seminaries involving cross-Lutheran connections on some topic of theological importance - Christology (from SW's post), for instance, and then opening it up to the way the theology spins into practice from either the same perspective or the differing perspectives presented.  That would take a bit of courage for the seminaries, I guess, but don't go to the level of denominational hierarchy and structure, which seem to get lost in the ether quickly.

Dave Benke

I would be all for that, with the following caveat-- we all agree to be respectful, but the underlying assumption is not that all the things presented are acceptable variations on Lutheranism/Christianity and the goal is not working together despite differences but overcoming differences by determining truth and falsehood and repenting where needed. If, in order to be invited to participate, we have to agree in advance that we will go away accepting that everything presented was not bad but just different, then there is no point. It is decision-postponing filibustering dressed up like serious dialog.

In some ways the different takes on the assumptions and purposes of this forum would foreshadow how those symposia would go. Progressives would insist, "First acknowledge that I and my positions represent an acceptable form of Christianity, then let us seek ways to understand each other and work together amicably." Assuming the progressive conclusion -- that our differences are not church-dividing-- becomes a pre-condition for starting the discussion. A more productive way is to begin with no such precondition. Tell us what you think and why and we'll consider it. We'll tell you what we think and why, and invite you to consider it. This is why some people think that very worst thing that can happen in this forum is that someone or some opinions be called un-Lutheran, heterodox, or heretical. We must first agree that we are all well within the confines of acceptable Christianity, and then we can look are the interesting tapestry of diverse opinions. But a discussion of whether or not anyone or their beliefs is actually un-Lutheran, heterodox, or heretical? That's just beyond the pale.

I think that's basically fair.  Pot-shotting gets you nowhere.  One of the hallmarks of the Missouri Synod at various times in its history was the willingness to "cooperate in externals" with any ecumenical partners, because that area of the work specifically did NOT include altar and pulpit fellowship.  In the various cultural wars, however, there's been a kind of pullback on that, at least in my opinion, that unless we're in agreement in areas heretofore NOT involved in altar and pulpit fellowship, ie ministries of care and compassion, we can't really work with you on say a food pantry.  And there has come to be a hesitation about interacting with others around that point of view.  In our local park, we have worked together in cleanup with Mormons.  Was that wrong?  Not in the least, as the former LCMS world-view had it.   And we have given food to poor folks with Pentecostals, and along with other community folks who were openly gay.  Wrong?  Not in the least. 

Anyway, if there were a confab about cooperation in externals and what we hold in common in our faith, it could lead to something nice. 

All that said, the more ultra-confessional groups and denominations have basically one bible passage that rules all the others, and which creeps into "cooperation in externals."  It's Romans 16:17 which ends with the lovely exhortation "and avoid them."  Why would we run a multi-denominational food pantry with anyone outside our confessional box?  I should be passing by on the other side of the street even to have to listen to their Pentecostal incantations or Other-Lutheran inclusions, shouldn't I?  If we called the question on that over-interpretation, it might be an internal starting point.

Tim's points on overall survivability are cogent, as is the reference to Mr. Ed, a favorite childhood show (To a greater or lesser degree these more practical conversations are occurring. Dave I never get these new fangled things and always seem to mess it up…we may look back in a couple years and see covid as an accelerator of mainline decline.  Desperation for incomes, place and resources may compel a lot of congregations and pastors to rethink isolationist understanding. There’s so much contraction going on in the mainline, perhaps people with less than congruent theology will align around a more congruent heart and desire for survival to figure it out.  We serve a Lord who has used talking donkeys:).


Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

I guess I just don't see that attitude in too many places. We're going from running a small food pantry (inefficiently) to hosting Northwest Indiana Food Bank, a secular charity that needs a building with a parking lot like ours and some able bodies to load food into cars periodically, along with whatever donations people offer. They aren't Lutheran or even religious, nor are they a government program. She'll use whatever church has a suitable facility, and they do all the work of screening the clients, working with wholesalers to get perishables, and letting the clients know when and where to ick up the food. All we have to do is put out cones for the line of cars, direct traffic, load trunks, and do so without blocking any streets. So if the goal is to get food to people who need food, you can't do it more efficiently than that. But I guess we're cooperating in externals with atheists and pagans and anyone else who might donate food to a food pantry.

Many conservative LCMS churches work with 40 Days for Life, founded by an Evangelical with events featuring mostly Catholics and Evangelicals. Or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, same deal. We host AA, Al-anon, and Teen Al-anon in our building without any religious tests. The only time people bristle about working together is when something presents itself as a Christian thing and the togetherness aspect is the real point rather than the food distribution of help for young mothers or whatever. When people who don't think our differences are church-dividing invite us to an "isn't this neat that we're so united despite our differences" event, we generally demur.

[Mark Brown]

The biblical explanation that Paul gives in these things is not the "cooperation in externals".  That is a holding pattern hoping that with continued interaction one party comes to repentance.  But holding patterns eventually have to land the plane or run out of gas.  We are out of gas with the former mainline.

The biblical pattern is that: sure, in the secular world, I can work just fine with whatever polymorphic perversity is the flavor of the day.  If I couldn't "then you would need to go out of the world (1 Cor 5:10)."  But I am not being taken out of the world.  Me working under a secular flag with someone who supports abortion - if that work does not directly encourage or sustain an abortion regime - is fine.  But let's be real, it isn't conservatives who are regulating progressives out of the professions.  It the the successor religion that is saying Orthodox Christians can't be doctors, lawyers or employees. They don't want to work with us, unless we are useful idiots and accept their entire program as kosher.  Orthodox Christians have always been rather good at following Paul's admonition here.  Where we have completely failed is within the church. "But I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality, etc (1 Cor 5:11)."   The biblical pattern is salt among the world, but don't lose your saltiness.   And cooperating in externals at this point is basically flavorless.

[Brian Stoffregen]

How depressing it must be, and what a burden it must be for you who have to discern and define with such fervor where God is not present and how God is absent (at least in the "form" that counts)!
You also eagerly sign up for the policing of God's grace to make sure that everyone has subscribed on to "right doctrine" or it's "No sacrament for you!"
The Lord invites and you want to verify credentials, demand proof of id and do a quick mind-check to make sure everything is "right."
Oh, and even if someone should happen to be "right" with regard to sacrament (and "correct" Lutheran words and meaning, of course), but belongs to a Lutheran church that does something else you claim violates God's rule book, it's "bar the doors!" or "fence off the altar rail" because that "other" thing - like thinking women could be pastors - cancels out the Lutheran words and meaning on the sacrament.
Yuck.

You seem more depressed than anyone else in the thread. I guess not caring about "right doctrine" isn't the upper it is advertised to be.

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.”
― Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities

Pretty much the same can be said of "right doctrine." When it's just holding on to the faith of our ancestors; it's not very exciting. When it informs us about how to talk about our experiences with God today, it can't help but be a life-giving and faith affirming topic.

The entire confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees re hand washing consists of Jesus sharply distinguishing between right doctrine as revealed in Scripture and human traditions, and the latter must only serve but never usurp the former.

 Those "human traditions" were the folks attempting to interpret and obey the commands from God. As such, they aren't all that different from the "traditions" that Paul handed on in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6. They aren't all that different from our Confessional writings. We believe that they are correct interpretations of Scriptures. Other Christians don't agree with us. They aren't all that different from your "tradition" of closed communion. You believe that it is a correct interpretation of scriptures. Others disagree.


Who gets to determine if a human interpretation of scriptures is "right doctrine" or "human tradition"?

[Dave Benke]

I guess I just don't see that attitude in too many places. We're going from running a small food pantry (inefficiently) to hosting Northwest Indiana Food Bank, a secular charity that needs a building with a parking lot like ours and some able bodies to load food into cars periodically, along with whatever donations people offer. They aren't Lutheran or even religious, nor are they a government program. She'll use whatever church has a suitable facility, and they do all the work of screening the clients, working with wholesalers to get perishables, and letting the clients know when and where to ick up the food. All we have to do is put out cones for the line of cars, direct traffic, load trunks, and do so without blocking any streets. So if the goal is to get food to people who need food, you can't do it more efficiently than that. But I guess we're cooperating in externals with atheists and pagans and anyone else who might donate food to a food pantry.

Many conservative LCMS churches work with 40 Days for Life, founded by an Evangelical with events featuring mostly Catholics and Evangelicals. Or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, same deal. We host AA, Al-anon, and Teen Al-anon in our building without any religious tests. The only time people bristle about working together is when something presents itself as a Christian thing and the togetherness aspect is the real point rather than the food distribution of help for young mothers or whatever. When people who don't think our differences are church-dividing invite us to an "isn't this neat that we're so united despite our differences" event, we generally demure.

This is pretty much where our folks come from in terms of working together locally.  As to Mark's comment - And cooperating in externals at this point is basically flavorless., these endeavors are in fact savory, and bring opportunity in the doing to witness Christ.

Dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don’t know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don’t know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

Dear Pastor Speckhard- As Pastor Austin points out between the lines the retirement program for prophets is short and painful. Prenez courage, soyez fort!

Peter (Let the light of burning bridges guide you forth) Garrison

[peter_speckhard]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don’t know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don’t know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

So one view is that Christianity is incompatible with the pro-choice position. The contrary view is that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. So to accommodate both views, we should compromise and agree that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. Seems reasonable.