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.
Look, actual theology makes distinctions that are supposedly binding. The Formula of Concord stated what was the argument, it stated positive conclusions, and it stated negative conclusions. The argument, stated well by Peter, is "what do we do about the former mainline?" This is a serious question because those bodies have individually made decisions at the denomination/church level that have placed them far outside of historical normative Christian teaching and outside of present worldwide normative church teaching. And they present themselves as if nothing is out of order. They do this while still claiming the name of brother and confessional identity.
This is a very practical argument because in the USA you have people who move constantly. So you get practical problems like an ELCA member wants to "transfer membership" to an LCMS congregation, what do you do? Likewise sadly you have LCMS members who move who might request a transfer to an ELCA congregation. Now members who are paying attention might not do that, but pastors still have a responsibility to sheep that don't hear quite as clearly. None of that casts judgment upon individuals within institutions. I'm sure there are Christians, fine pastors and even fine congregations within the ELCA and the broader mainline. But that doesn't change the fact that the formal teaching of that church is contrary to scripture and confessions. And it does not change the fact that the call to repentance at that level has been ignored. And it doesn't change the fact that their formative institutions are merely hardening these positions as good and true. Transferring someone into such a body is transferring them into a known wolf den. Accepting somebody in transfer doesn't question a baptism - although there are documented ELCA places where that might be appropriate - but it does question as the agenda reception asks "Do you hold all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God and the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, drawn and confessed in the small catechism, to be faithful and true?" Do they hold the sixth commandment as the church in all times and places has taught? Or have they been formed by the contemporary ELCA and so do not?
Another series of questions that broadens out the circle to include other bodies is women's ordination. There is an intuitive theological distinction between churches that practice women's ordination and those that erase the 6th commandment. Why would clear and formal separation from the later be appropriate and necessary, while one might bear with the former practice? Which is to ask why would the LCMS, LCMC and NALC be able to see each other as Lutheran, but the ELCA as an institution has placed itself outside?
A church that wants to do theology would provide both positive and negative conclusions to those problems. And they would provide them clearly. Charles is so annoyed at my little pretend motion that he won't address me by name and does what he always does and claims it says all the people aren't Christian instead of simply the institution. I'm sure you John think that I'm just being hyper-political or uber-fundy or some other epithet to signal "I'm not so gauche". But I'd say to you that this is real theology that has impact on people's lives and very possibly eternal fates. And refusing to engage by the mere dodge of thinking that asking such things is in bad taste is the political act. And we have played politics with this for at least 30 years. There comes a time to be in earnest. Clear anathemas on formal teaching should be spelled out. Would that change what most American Christians do? I doubt it. They are largely libertines who will not broach binding doctrine. But at least then I would have done my job as a watchman and warned them.
