Is the ALPB Forum Online a safe space?

[John_Hannah]

So an LCMS pastor says what it means to be LCMS is to be either sub-Confessionsl or extra-Confessional. Does that qualify as the same sort of thing as calling some teaching or church body un-Lutheran? Should I feel unsafe that Pr. Hannah is here denouncing his own and my church body? Or should I maybe get over it and engage with his opinion if I think the topic important?

On the active threads right now we’ve had a lot of participation from Pr. Tim, who was the “moderate” candidate running against Harrison in the last LCMS election, Dave Benke, and John Hannah. That’s a pretty fair representation of the side of the LCMS to which Dave would not need to apply any prefixes like arch-, uber-, hyper-, super-, etc. which is the signal by which he identifies the other, lamentable, and much larger side of the synod. We’ve had Brian and Charles representing those who are happy with the direction of the ELCA as well people like Pr. Shelley who represents a smaller synod, several LCMS pastors who would indeed merit some sort of prefix from Dave, some ELCA Lutherans or ex-ELCA Lutherans unhappy with the direction of the ELCA who have joined the NALC or gone over to Rome, two now Orthodox laymen, one former LCMS, one former ELCA, and a smattering of others. Everyone is welcome. Nobody has been told not to participate. Nobody’s views have been censored. If you want more diversity, go invite someone to post here. Frankly, complaints about the lack of diversity in this forum strike me as mere whining because it is easily the most diverse forum of its kind in the known universe.

See my reply #28.   

[David Garner]

I don't know. I recognize some threads do not. However, check out "Coronavirus" with 355 pages and hardly ever a theological thought.

An excellent example, that one.  If you go to the first page, you get a bunch of folks talking about their church's practice, whether they are shut down, etc.  The first political post is this one.

https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7391.msg472251#msg472251

Pretty easy math if you ask me.

[David Garner]

The next political post is right under that one.  You might guess it was by someone else.  But you'd be wrong.

[Charles Austin]

Mr. Garner:
Yeah, but again, Pastor Austin has run off more female ELCA clergy from this forum than any other single person.
Me:
I will dispute that, but let it go.

[Steven W Bohler]

Mr. Garner:
Yeah, but again, Pastor Austin has run off more female ELCA clergy from this forum than any other single person.
Me:
I will dispute that, but let it go.

No, you did not let it go.  You disputed it. 

[Richard Johnson]

I recall at least one saying she doesn't post here any longer because of him.  That's one more than I'm aware of saying the same of anyone else.

So you "recall" "at least one," and that's "more than you're aware of saying the same of anyone else." Well, you're not the moderator, and so you don't hear from others who have left. I can tell you that a lot more than one ELCA clergy women have left because of the perceived hostility from various posters who are not Charles.

[Dan Fienen]

While I firmly disagree with the Biblical propriety of WO, I have been disamyed at the uncivil and bile filled ways that some of the people who have posted here (some of whom have themselves departed or were removed from these precincts) have treated women and especially ordained women. Disagreement with their ordination is no excuse for disrespect uncouth behavior.

[David Garner]

I recall at least one saying she doesn't post here any longer because of him.  That's one more than I'm aware of saying the same of anyone else.

So you "recall" "at least one," and that's "more than you're aware of saying the same of anyone else." Well, you're not the moderator, and so you don't hear from others who have left. I can tell you that a lot more than one ELCA clergy women have left because of the perceived hostility from various posters who are not Charles.

Fair enough.

[Charles Austin]

I do not understand how we could ever discuss “theology“ without having the cultural and, yes, political angle to it.
We could hash out again the arguments of the second or third century, or the 15th or 16th century, would that help anybody today?
Do we ever talk enough about the proclamation of the gospel today, how we reach people today?
“Love your neighbor.“ A nice gospel imperative, but how can you talk about that without talking about immigration, housing, racism, economic inequality? Not to mention the problems faced by women trying to survive and exercise their vocations and skills  in a male-dominated culture.
Closed communion? A dead issue. The people we are  trying to reach and the majority of our members don’t care about it.
The kind of “confessionalism“ that finds an answer to every question in the 16th century documents? That’s just silly.
Scripture locked in quasi-fundamentalist boxes? That’s not even Lutheran.
Now I love the 16th century. Beloved Spouse claims I know more about the 16th century than I do about what happened last week.
But we don’t live there, and we need people in this discussion who understand that, we need people in this discussion will even refute our favorite ideas from the 16th century.
Blessings to those go to Rome or Constantinople, and I’m glad they have found their place in the Church catholic.
But this should be predominantly an inter-Lutheran forum.
But a future lies in accepting change, because there will always be change and there has always has been change.
Otherwise, we are just trying to extract nuggets from the mine after the canary has died.

[Dave Likeness]

Journalist Austin:  "Women trying to survive.....in a male-dominated culture"

In FIRST THINGS issue of November 2021, it is mentioned that women comprise
59.5% of college students and men 40.5%.  Females now earn 60% of the
undergraduate degrees in college and the majority of master's degrees & Ph.D's

I see this as a trend which concerns professional careers. For example:

In the academic world, women are asserting themselves which then translates
into the real world....More female doctors, more female lawyers, more female
dentists, more female engineers, etc.

[peter_speckhard]

I do not understand how we could ever discuss “theology“ without having the cultural and, yes, political angle to it.
We could hash out again the arguments of the second or third century, or the 15th or 16th century, would that help anybody today?
Do we ever talk enough about the proclamation of the gospel today, how we reach people today?
“Love your neighbor.“ A nice gospel imperative, but how can you talk about that without talking about immigration, housing, racism, economic inequality? Not to mention the problems faced by women trying to survive and exercise their vocations and skills  in a male-dominated culture.
Closed communion? A dead issue. The people we are  trying to reach and the majority of our members don’t care about it.
The kind of “confessionalism“ that finds an answer to every question in the 16th century documents? That’s just silly.
Scripture locked in quasi-fundamentalist boxes? That’s not even Lutheran.
Now I love the 16th century. Beloved Spouse claims I know more about the 16th century than I do about what happened last week.
But we don’t live there, and we need people in this discussion who understand that, we need people in this discussion will even refute our favorite ideas from the 16th century.
Blessings to those go to Rome or Constantinople, and I’m glad they have found their place in the Church catholic.
But this should be predominantly an inter-Lutheran forum.
But a future lies in accepting change, because there will always be change and there has always has been change.
Otherwise, we are just trying to extract nuggets from the mine after the canary has died.

Ah, an inter-Lutheran forum that accepts that Lutheran doctrine is old news, nobody cares about the issues that many "confessional" Lutherans spend time on, and that many positions held by Lutherans outside the ELCA are quasi-fundamentalist and not Lutheran, and focuses instead on the plight of women in a male-dominated world, immigration, housing, racism, and inequality. That would make the forum almost as diverse as the ELCA-DNC nexus.

[Charles Austin]

Thread drift. The issue is What happens when women get out into the workforce.

[Charles Austin]

So expound your RNC/Trumpist/evangelical lines, Peter, if you ever find a foothold in America, 2021.

[David Garner]

It seems clear to me that the dominant character of this forum is Republican, Missouri Synod, and conservative culturally. As post Trump-Republican it means only anti-Democrat (the political party). As Missouri Synod, it means only sub-confessional or extra-confessional ideology (e.g., six day, tightly closed communion, prohibition of any and all ecumenism).

The dominant participants seldom attempt to convince but only denounce. Instead of discussion, there is only disgust. Instead of tolerance for alternate ideas, there is only rejection of personalities. The unfortunate Missouri habit to "blanket condemn" all persons affiliated with competitive church bodies is assumed to be proper and accurate. (E.g., "every single member of the ELCA is taken to believe in abortion, non-theistic evolution, etc.)

I guess that as long as the present members are happy, we will not expand participation. We represent only a minority of Americans, a minority of Christians, and a minority of Lutherans. But we are grateful for the opportunity to "knock" Pastors Austin. Stoffregen and other "heretics" that pop up occasionally.

That's the way it looks to me.

Peace, JOHN

I'd wager my views would not be welcome should I go to an LCMS Church and present them, and I've presented them here, where they are generally not agreed with, but seem to be well received.

I wonder what the difference is?

You are quite right. Your views on church, ministry and sacrament would not be welcome. (I hasten to add that I generally agree with you as an LCMS outlier.)

What is welcome are your views on culture and politics. Sadly, the cultural and political seem to have replaced the theological here.

But that's where we're at.

How does the conversation generally get steered into the cultural and political?

I don't know. I recognize some threads do not. However, check out "Coronavirus" with 355 pages and hardly ever a theological thought.

So expound your RNC/Trumpist/evangelical lines, Peter, if you ever find a foothold in America, 2021.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[peter_speckhard]

So expound your RNC/Trumpist/evangelical lines, Peter, if you ever find a foothold in America, 2021.

Charming as usual. If my name were Mary and I decided that your response was too obnoxious for me and I left, would that count as you having driven me off the forum? Or would that mean that Mary needed a thicker skin? Or would you not say things like to a Mary in the first place out of respect for her being a woman?

I get that this forum isn't for everyone. No forum is. But efforts to widen its scope, given it already has the widest scope of any forum of its kind in the world, would almost inevitably end up narrowing its scope.