Charles writes: Peter, you and certain Roman Catholics can, if you wish make pro-choice/pro-life absolutism your final litmus test of who is a Christian and who isn't.
I respond: I do not do that. That would mean calling many pro-life atheists Christian, among other complications.
Charles continues: To do so, however, you must appropriate to yourself rules and rights that are not yours and you re-define Christianity down to one issue, that issue having nothing to do with our Creeds or our Confessions.
I respond: I don't do anything of the sort. There are many issues/doctrines/practices that define Christianity. Nowhere have I suggested that this issue is the only issue that defines the Church. I have said, along with the Cardinal, the true Church speaks with one mind on this particular issue. And it is simply silly to say that the issue has nothing to do with our Confessions when Luther's Small Catechism is part of our Confessions and includes the 5th Commandment.
Charles continues: Those of us who have considered pacifism as the proper moral stance (I have not yet come fully to that position) and have studied the historic "peace" churches, such as the Amish, the Quakers and the Mennonites have learned that, while unwavering in their commitment to pacifism, they do not de-Christianize all those in Christendom who do not take that position.
I respond: No kidding. I, too, have considered and studied those positions and have great sympathy for the position while not finding it completely Scriptural or correct. I do not de-Christianize anyone. There are things Christianity teaches, requires, or forbids that Christians commonly fail at without ceasing to be Christian. But contrary doctrines and teaching are not Christian, and public advocacy of such positions is a betrayal of Christ that requires repentance. You, Charles, should repent of the sin of promoting acceptance of abortion. It is contrary to your vocation as a Servant of the Word.
Charles continues: It seems to me that you do.
I respond: You are wrong about that.
Charles: Now, you often say I do not understand you. But how am I to take these words? "The pro choice movement is external to the Church, and that movement masquerading under the auspices of the Church is comparable to Judas."
I respond: Take them at face value. The pro-choice movement is external to the Church-- that is, it is not part of and is in fact contrary to the overall Christian mission. I believe in that regard I was simply restating what the Cardinal/Archbishop said in his statement.
Charles continues: With those words, I say you have arrogantly and wrongly condemned not only fellow Lutherans in this country, but our colleagues around the world, along with members of dozens of other Christian denominations.
I respond: Preaching the Law is arrogant? What makes you so certain I do so "wrongly"? You're really that certain the Word of God condones abortion?
Charles continues: With that and on other issues - usually relating to sexuality - you denounce and pronounce judgment on millions of us Lutherans and you end any possibility of dialogue.
I respond: No I don't. I'm always willing to dialog. But not with the precondition that nobody's position be called un-Christian. That kind of dialog starts with a false assumption and builds on sand. If there is to be meaningful dialog, the views of the people involved must be open and stated, and I think, along with the Didache and the RC Church, that the pro-choice position is not compatible with Christianity.
Charles continues: Do that if you wish, but if you do, I think you should abandon the ALPB forum and go your own way, for you are in no way representative of the mission of the ALPB.
I respond: Nonsense. But think what you like. I suppose if it ever came about that somehow condoning abortion were a mission-critical thing for the ALPB, I'd go my own way. As it is, I moderate a forum where you are perfectly free to post what you've just posted.
Charles continues:The recent issue of Forum letter has some of the history reminding us how your famed uncle seemed to be promoting his personal views through the newsletter. During those days, when I was in the "higher" circles of Lutheran officialdom, I frequently defended him with the label of "loyal opposition" and "strong critic." But I never heard him - either in print or in his evening salons - denounce entire denominations and millions of believers as "Judas."
I respond: So? What does that have to do with anything?
Charles continues: You do.
I respond: Actually, a RC Cardinal and Archbishop did, referencing the night and Judas in connection with Catholics for Choice. Take it up with him. And if you're so concerned about what my famed uncle would have said on the topic, I think everyone who knows anything about him can all agree that he would have gladly seconded the Archbishop's words.
Charles continues: And, although I know it is small and symbolic, you are costing ALPB my contributions and vocal support.
I respond: Fair enough. I notice you still hang out here a lot though.