Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"

[Richard Johnson]

This is the kind of sensationalism  Rev. Jack Cascione & the LQ'ers seem to thrive on. 

 "Luther Quest" Accused Of Unionism For "Calling" Rolf Preus "Chaplain"
 
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/700/730.htm

Is it a sin to be rolling on the floor laughing about this? To be babbling things about "hoisted in one's own petard"? Or are such questions of a serious enough nature that I need to bring them to Chaplain Preus--no, wait, that might be unionism. Can we appoint a chaplain here? Please? 

[peter_speckhard]

This is the kind of sensationalism  Rev. Jack Cascione & the LQ'ers seem to thrive on. 

 "Luther Quest" Accused Of Unionism For "Calling" Rolf Preus "Chaplain"
 
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/700/730.htm

Heehehee. I just linked to it and there is nothing they can do about it!  Just for fun we should see if Herchurch.org will post a link to LQ, thereby putting them in eternal cyber-fellowship with each other.

[ptmccain]

So, how about those Red Sox?

[grabau14]

revjagow:  just being an outside observer to all this hubub, I'm a bit confused.  Aside from the heated and wild comments over at LutherQuest, where is the scandal?  Did STS get the impression that their retreat caused a scandal among Ft. Wayne students and faculty?   


From what I heard from the friends that I have in Fort Wayne, the presence of women in clericals and cassocks did offend some of the students.  The funny thing is that CTS issued a informal edict for the students to stop wearing cassocks because they did not want to create the impression of a Romanizing Seminary (especially when LWML ladies were there) so now you have women wearing collars and cassocks for a few days and some of the more astute students who were aware of the informal edict cried hypocrisy amongst other things.

Rev'd. Matthew J.  Uttenreither  SSP

[Charles_Austin]

I can probably cite eight or nine examples over the past year when I know that LC-MS pastors 1) prayed with non Lutheran pastors, 3) communed with ELCA pastors, 4) communed with non-Lutheran pastors, or 5) chortled over some "controversies" in their Synod. So... how much trouble can I get them in if I rat them out and what do you think I should charge them for not doing so?




(disclaimer: the above comment is whimsy, not sarcasm; humor, not bashing.)

[pr dtp]

I am trying to understand, why it is wrong for those on LQ to mock and complain about the ideas/theology/practice of those they classify as liberal, but it is perfectly fine for those that are liberal to mock and complain about the ideas/theology/practice of those there.

It seems like the Roman god Janus is still worshipped at both extremes?

[Charles_Austin]

It has nothing to do with one's orientation, as I see it. I find it moderately amusing that - if what folks said here is true - a cadre of people who are not LC-MS or who have left the LC-MS or who are in a church that broke fellowship with the LC-MS decades ago apparently have their former LC-MS knickers in a twist over what goes on in the LC-MS.

As I noted in another discussion: it's as if I left Argentina, took Canadian citizenship, and then spent an extraordinary amount of time jabbing at the situation in Argentina, when I should be spending my time learning French and how to tell one prairie province from another. Or complaining that there are no good tango parlors in Saskatoon.

[John Dornheim]

I can probably cite eight or nine examples over the past year when I know that LC-MS pastors 1) prayed with non Lutheran pastors, 3) communed with ELCA pastors, 4) communed with non-Lutheran pastors, or 5) chortled over some "controversies" in their Synod. So... how much trouble can I get them in if I rat them out and what do you think I should charge them for not doing so?




(disclaimer: the above comment is whimsy, not sarcasm; humor, not bashing.)

I guess the question which I would have is "What will you do with the reward?"

John Dornheim

[Dave Benke]

Catching up after a pretty amazingly hectic week here in the Big Apple.  Pretty interesting set of reactions and responses to my bringing up the name-calling issue with regards to ordained women!  One of the old saws through the LCMS shenanigans and wars of a generation ago in the mutual hyper-politicizing and condemnations was the very Old Testament-lich, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored." 

I have not personally attended an actual ox-goring.  I have, however, experienced with many others a generation of hyper-politicized backbiting, skewering, trash-talking and name-calling in my own denomination.  And I have heard just now carefully the expressions from those highly offended by the close proximity of the two words "woman" and "pastor" as well as those who are highly offended by the refusal to call a person by the title her denomination uses of her.   I would offer that the appropriate thing to do on either side of the issue is to utilize the principles of Philippians 2.  In particular, "in humility consider others better than yourselves," and "do everything without.....arguing."  This isn't at its depth about "politeness" or versions of "truth," it's about Christ-like living in community and about Christ-like behavior in the world.  As Paul points out so poignantly (my alternate version) - "you can't shine like a star while you're slinging mud."

Too often we give ourselves the Lutheran EZ pass to bad behavior - look at the language Luther sometimes used in banging away at his opponents and theological adversaries.  Well, maybe in looking at that language we might give Luther an A in theology and an F in behavior based on Scripture.

Dave Benke

[Rev. BT Ball]

Too often we give ourselves the Lutheran EZ pass to bad behavior - look at the language Luther sometimes used in banging away at his opponents and theological adversaries.  Well, maybe in looking at that language we might give Luther an A in theology and an F in behavior based on Scripture.

Dave Benke

Perhaps, but we have an example of rough speech in the scriptures from none other than the Blessed Apostle,   letting the Galatians know that he wished that those of the circumcision go the, um, whole way. Gal. 5:12 

I am sure you would agree that the truth of the law hurts and more than that kills.  There is nothing worse that being called a sinner, but that is what we not only are called, but what we are by nature and because of this manifest all kinds of sins.  Does anyone like to have the law of God preached at them?  Of course not, but it is the duty of the church to call sinners to repentance.   Jesus said so, Luke 24:47.  Christ-like living in community also entails this, right?  Is it not at times a great expression of love to call a beloved brother or sister to repent that their sins might be forgiven? 

Ben Ball
ps I'm not advocating being a jerk by the way

[peter_speckhard]

One difference between Luther for Lutheran and St. Paul for Christians in general is that they spoke with some degree of recognized authority. Sometimes it seems that people don't recognize that calling a brother to repentance is almost impossible to do humbly, because you have to in some sense claim the right to judge his actions. That right is indeed there, but is a very delicate thing to invoke. The Drill Instructor can correct my soldiering skills harshly, and though I might not like it, I'll stand corrected. But a fellow private needs to be pretty careful about correcting my soldiering unless I ask him for help or unless he is one big private.

While it is true that the loving thing to do can often be calling an erring brother to repentance, I don't always trust that love is the real motivation among people who can't, it seems, go fifteen minutes without being gravely scandalized by their brothers' sins. MLK said something like "Whom you would change you must first love. And they must know you love them." Whatever you may think of MLK, I think those words are true. And the second part of that equation is what is generally missing. If I don't take for granted that my brother had good reasons for doing whatever seemingly scandalous thing he did, then I can't expect him to take it for granted that I have good reasons for doing the scandalous (to him at least) thing I'm doing by calling him to repentance. I might be motivated by pride or resentment. I might just be ornery. I might be one of those spiritual wolves who feeds on their brother's humiliation and penitence the way vampires feed on their blood. Or I might be a genuinely loving brother. But that latter has to not merely be claimed, but understood and accepted by both sides before brotherly admonishment can go anywhere. That's why St. Paul goes to such lengths to make the point that he has gone to the mat repeatedly for these congregations, that they are his very pride and joy, that he is their spiritual father who loves them-- without those statements (and the actual floggings and imprisonments and tireless efforts that make those claims universally recognizable as the truth) St. Paul's sarcastic put-downs and harsh treatment would just be the blustering of a desperately pompous man.

[Dave Benke]

Absolutely yes to both your points, Ben, with a proviso.  Yes to the need to call to repentance as part of the ministry of the Gospel.  Yes to not being a jerk when being involved in the ministry of the Gospel.  Wasn't it Harry Emerson Fosdick who took the prophetic words of Jesus, Paul and the OT prophets and said the idea was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable?  And the words used may have some harshness to them - "whited sepulchres" apparently raised a hackle or two.  However,
a) your idea of what needs repenting may differ from mine and we may both believe we have biblical warrant for our position.   So there's a need for ongoing dialog over serious amounts of time among the communion of saints.  Take "That They May Be One."   I and many others including George Wollenburg felt in its initial form it was first of all schismatic because it asked for signatories and was billed as a signatory document, therefore calling people to divide up over whether they were true blue enough to call that their statement of faith when it had not been adopted by anyone as such in a prior way - ergo, schismatic.  But more to the point, I didn't find the theology adequate.  It was calling people including me out to give up something that wasn't biblically warranted.  Later down the line, the CTCR evidenced the same.  Hopefully by now, the more schismatic sign-up and divide aspects have been removed from play.  I'm not current on the use of the document.  But hopefully in the maximum way, by now we recognize the need for ongoing dialog when people are calling other people to repentance, lest it is an unevangelical, therefore inapproriately prophetic call

b) to the use of rough language - name-calling to me is really just not at all what Peter had in mind when he said, in the early Christian era, "always be ready to give evidence of the Hope that lies within you, doing so with gentleness and respect."  Certainly he's reporting on a way to interact within the secular arena.  So is Paul in Philippians where he states "conduct yourselves as citizens in a manner worthy of the Gospel." (1:27)  However, again, why would we not want to conduct ourselves MORE in that manner within our own faith community?  And why would any Christian want to shy AWAY from Philippians 2 and dive into the mud?

Dave Benke

[Rev. BT Ball]

Pete and Dr. Benke-

Thanks for responding.  Within in the Holy Church there are different things done out of love that are necessary to be done.  So we have a pastor exhorting a member of the congregation who has fallen into sin; he does so by the authority of his office, with gentleness and patience.  A fellow Christian calls a brother or sister to repentance within a particular community of faith following our Lord's instruction of Mt. 18.  These occurances are part and parcel of the Christian church.

What gets people testy is when a public call to repentance is made.  That is, when people step outside of a the local congregation to do a thing in love, something that all Christian charity calls them to do for two reasons; both for the one who has erred and for the good of the sheep of Christ within their particular fellowship.   Where we fall into trouble is as you both stated, who says what is error and what isn't?  This becomes an eccesial problem.  I'm all for dialog as Dr. Benke you state.  I don't think that too much of it actually goes on, I wish more would.  The question about that though is to what end?   The goal cannot be agree to disagree at the end, for that would be conceeding to a false unity.  There is doctrine that has been revealed in the Sacred Scriptures and exposited in the Symbols. 

Then we have the matter of calling those outside of our particular fellowship errorists or false teachers.  The Pauline epistles are full of examples of this.  Following the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions clearly condemn theological positions in error, and they condemn those who hold such positions.  This isn't nice, especially in our day, but it is done so that the Gospel would be clear to all, especially to the sheep.  Being nice can't get in the way of speaking the truth in love, even when speaking the truth hurts and is muddy.  Trivial, silly name calling is bad no matter who is doing it, but calling someone wrong or an errorist is not always a sinful namecalling but is necessary at times for the sake of the Gospel as is evidenced throughout the Lutheran Confessions, just as calling human beings sinners in love is necessary unto repentance.

As to That They May Be One-

 It seems that it has been used lately in an attempt to discredit certain individuals who had been nominated for synodical offices prior to the last convention.  Not much is going on with it other than that as far as I know.

Ben

[Dave Benke]

Sorry for the delay, Ben - not an inactive time for the old pastor/bishop, preaching in FL tomorrow.  Dialog is a pre-eminent option, as we agree.  But the process of dialog, as up-front and personal as possible, is what gives me hope that "goals" can be met.   One of the many griping points from those who dislike the new-ish ecclesiastical supervision modus is that face to face mandate.  But it should be seen as nothing more or less than a wonderful opportunity. Please, make me sit down with you for awhile, maybe even a long while. If nothing else, inside the denominational community at least, what could well result is this little phrase "the benefit of the doubt."  Or, from the documents themselves, what face to face dialog enables is that "charity must prevail." 

While from the perspective you mention the issues may be doctrine, doctrine, doctrine, the way the issue of activities deleterious to the faith community comes down on the ecclesiastical supervision/parish side of the aisle is normally practice, practice, practice.  As we all have inculcated it by now, orthodoxy = orthopraxy.  So the doctrinally orthodox pastor who is so pastor-discretion-free in what is perceived as his high-handed  renderings in the life of the parish that he loses two-thirds of his flock should in the end be judged as not orthodox.  His orthodoxy lacks an evangelical and catholic pastoral spirit, so it falls short of the standard.  And the way to resolve much, even most, of that problem is through dialog at the circuit, the pastor/confessor, and the district level.  Some of that may and probably does feel to the involved pastor as though he's being called an "errorist" when he isn't, because he has hewed to a very pure interpretive line.  But from the perspective of most others, he IS an errorist, an errorist in fundamental pastoral judgment.  Not an insignificant problem that takes patience, time, and a building up of trust.

As to That They May Be One, it's good to hear that it's in quiet mode.  There was much dialog back in the day about the schismatic nature of the sign-up-sheet aspect of a document that had no wider-church authorization and ended up being deemed theologically weak.

As you read Lutheran Forum and other serious Lutheran theological journals, however, it's plain that there's an abundance of variety and lively discourse on issues of importance that are not settled as well as ones that could use some unsettling - that to me is also a sign of health - the mutual consolation of the brethren.

Dave Benke

[grabau14]

Bishop,

I agree that patience, patience, patience is the way to go in catechizing a parish.  Us young pups sometimes learn it the hard way but at the same time, some congregations have been infected with a different spirit.  Case in point, a pastor gives a simple study on Women in the Bible focusing on B.E.V. Mary and the ladies turn it into a inquistions on Missouri's position concerning women's ordination and abortion.  He get's raked over the coals by the ladies when all he was trying to do was teach about Mary as type of the church.   Sometimes "high handed renderings" on the part of a pastor can be nothing more than confesssing the truth and the congregation may not want to hear the truth.  A good friend of mine used to be a circuit counselor, and he was at one parish meeting where the congregation sounded like they were all possessed by the devil, saying all sorts of things against a pastor that were not true.   

Also, being exposed to some of the thought on this forum has been a eye opener.  As one who was quite parochial in his journal reading:  Logia, Gottesdienst, CTS and STL journals , this is quite interesting.  In many ways it has reinforced what CTS and to a lesser degree CURF taught me.

Also, with regards to TTMBO, pastors signed affirmations of JEsus First or for that matter whatever the confession was for RIM, pastors sign a rule to belong to STS or SSP, how is TTMBO any different than those?  Heck some sign the Brief Statement  .   

Rev'd. Matthew J. Uttenreither  SSP