Author Topic: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"  (Read 17281 times)

BeornBjornson

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #105 on: October 25, 2007, 11:34:33 AM »
It was I who stated that I would not set foot upon the CTS campus(es) again.  Let me be clear, for my own sake if not for the sake of others, that this is my personal sentiment and not a call for "no one else" to ever set foot upon the CTS campus, nor is it a blanket rejection of those who attended either CTS or love the places.  But yes, I feel wronged and betrayed by the reaction of the Seminary's leadership that first invited then rescinded that invitation then implied that somehow the Society to which I belong was deceptive and disrepectful for worshipping upon their territory.  Who exactly is the Society of the Holy Trinity?  It is all of us who have signed the Rule, who have bound ourselves to each other.  To call the Society liars is to call me a liar.  To say that the Society was not respectful of the LCMS is to say that I behaved so.  It is bad enough that some would invoke the ancient heresy of Gnosticism in regards to the Society (hence myself), but it is far worse to have the Seminary's president not rise to the defense of those whom he invited into "his" house.  We abided under the Seminary's request that women not preach in the Chapel.  We used the LSB in all our services.  To my knowledge, all present were reverential in Kramer Chapel and upon the grounds.  But yes, we are a mixed minsterium, I was welcomed to commune at a Eucharist sponosored by an LCMS pastor and congregation in an LCMS space.  But that is the very nature of the STS, it was never hidden or lied to about by anyone.

So if my presence causes such offense, I will act proactively to avoid causing further scandal.  Not only that, I will remember the treatment that my brothers and sisters and I have experienced and will not seek to re-enter that mess again.  I promise, I will not hold a grudge.  I do not hate or despise CTS-FW, I do thank them for their hospitality while we were there.  I thanked, in person, the refectory staff and the housekeeping staff for a very pleasant stay.  But a grave sin against hospitality has been committed and that also needs to be recognized.  Fortuneately, there is always the possibility for reconciliation.  But a whole lot of damage has been done.

And yes, I will freely admit that I too am all too prone to sin, especially in times of anger.  If I have spoken intemperately (and I'm sure I have), then I beg pardon and forgiveness from my brothers and sisters and I seek due admonition as such. 

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS


Well said Jerry.  Thanks also to Pr. Hannah for his words.  I speak only for myself as a member of STS but I do not think any the less of our brothers and sisters in LCMS (for whom I have high regard and admiration) because of the rudeness and incivility of a few.  [And by the by, Peter, I bear witness to Erma's graciousness elsewhere in both public and private environments.] I also regret and condemn the coercion and persecution of those who do not support the ordination of women.   

I support the ordination of women on Biblical and historical grounds as “may” rubric and not a “must” rubric (I don’t find the “justice” argument compelling in any case).   I acknowledge the grounds on which I hold my position are open to dispute and discussion and debate.  I have greatly appreciated Pr. Engelbrecht’s and Pr. Yakimow’s et al analysis and discussion—and regret not having the time at present to pursue this in the detail and depth it deserves.  My mind is certainly not closed on this issue. 

As on many issues, I keep in mind that finite sinner that I am, I could well be wrong on just about everything.  I welcome correction on the basis of Scripture and sound reason.  I do not think either the grounds or the reasoning by which I have reached and hold the position I do on the ordination of women to be Gnostic.  I argue from no secret knowledge or even some new knowledge or revelation, no appeal to some intrinsic intuition of my heart, not even an appeal to some Platonic universal or form, not even an appeal to on-going revelation of “Spirit” to trump the Scriptures.   

That I have other irons in the fire right now of higher priority in regard to my church body, the ELCA, means I do not have the time now to engage in the give and take analysis and discussion the subject requires (though I appreciate and follow what EE and Scott and others write on the subject, even against my own position).  It doesn’t mean I think the issue unimportant—but there really are places and agendas in my church where Gnosticism has indeed reared its ancient head and needs to be challenged and beaten back. 

No doubt or more tentatively, perhaps, there are those in the ELCA as in its predecessor bodies whose theological justifications and arguments for the ordination of women were or are tinged by Gnostic tendencies.  But it is a smear against many orthodox-traditional ELCA pastors and laity to simply dismiss our support for the ordination of women as Gnosticism.  While the parallel has been raised between the ordination of women and that of those engaged in homosexual activity, I think it is a non sequiter when Scripture (rather than the appeal to justice) is brought to bear.  At a later date (when I’m free of the present press of organizational reform work with Lutheran CORE—recognizing that the pressing demands and needs of my parish are never likely to subside) I would be glad to pursue that with EE or Scott or even Matthew and others.  I think it also worth some historical and theological investigation in regard to the appeal to catholic tradition to the degree that the tradition is undergirded by an adoption/extension of the Levitical priesthood and/or Christological re-presentation understanding of the office of pastor that may well be inimical with Lutheran confessional theology.  That’s a dense mouthful (or sentence-full) I know—and I would love to get at unpacking or deconstructing it with the aid of my orthodox-traditional brethren on both sides of the women’s ordination divide.  But you're either going to have to wait quite a while or get to it without me.

Pr. Ken Kimball, STS
Lutheran CORE 

ghp

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #106 on: October 25, 2007, 11:37:37 AM »
All of our previous General Retreats and almost all of our local retreats are and have been held at Roman Catholic facilities. The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the legitimacy of ELCA ordained ministry. Neither does it believe it proper to ordain women. In that respect they are exactly like the LCMS. Never has the STS experienced a shred of negativity in Roman Catholic facilities. We thought that would be the case at Ft. Wayne. It wasn't. It was what it was. And we're going back to Catholic facilities. Their tolerance is dependable.
I believe it was last year that the archbishop of Canterbury was in Rome and received permission from the Vatican to celebrate the Eucharist at the high altar of a Roman basilica (of course not St. Peter or St. John Lateran, but you can't throw a stone and not hit a basilica in the Eternal City).  There was blogosphere carping from the usual traditionalist suspects, surely reinforced by some sniping Curial types, about old arguments (invalidity of Anglican orders, Protestant Mass, etc)--but it seems quite obvious that this wasn't going to happen in the diocese of the bishop of Rome without his consent, and he's not exactly a liberal on issues of syncretism and unionism.

Sterling Spatz

Well, to keep a consistent thread running through this...

When the STS celebrated at a Roman Catholic locale, there were no Roman Catholic Priests participating in the service, right? If there were, then that might've been problematic (much like Roman participants in the Archibishop of Canterbury's celebration might've been problematic in the approval of his request to the Vatican...).

Thus, there are two issue here:  1) CTSFW's allowing a unionistic service to take place. In and of itself, it's quite possible that it's a reasonably debatable question. Where it gets stickier is 2) The participation of LCMS rostered clergy in the unionistic service. Does the presence of LCMS members of STS change the equation? Quite possibly (fwiw, I think it does), insofar as CTSFW now has to worry about/consider the impact of allowing its facilities to be used for something that, by definition, it is training/forming men to shun (i.e., unionism in any/all its forms).

Given the context of these two issues taken together, then it probably is for the best that STS not use LCMS facilities. Better to avoid any/all appearance of impropriety & all that, knamean?

-ghp

ghp

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #107 on: October 25, 2007, 11:51:48 AM »
   Speaking only for myself, I never assume that a Roman Catholic priest, LCMS pastor, or Southern Baptist minister approves of women's ordination just because one of them uses my title of "Pastor" when addressing me or introducing me.  I just assume that they are polite.

     For that matter, I always assume that in any grouping of people, (ELCA, LCMS, etc.) that there are people who don't approve of the ordination of women.  I try to be polite and respectful, but at the same time present myself honestly. 

     Carry on, gentlemen.

Pastor Erma Wolf,STS
And if we ever met in person, I personally would have no problem introducing you to someone as "Pastor Wolf" precisely because that would be the normal and accepted form of address unless we were at a conference called specifically to consider the question of whether women could be pastors, in which case everyone would understand the difficulty. But I know many people who would not call you "Pastor Wolf" but would cast about for another word and perhaps end up sounding rude or confrontational, and my point was these people aren't necessarily rude; they're looking for the right word from a (perfectly valid) viewpoint within which "pastor" can only apply to a man, just like "father".

[snip] Yet there is no such code for this much smaller issue of women's ordination, and that is what people are looking to establish. They want to be polite and repspectful to you, but they do want to be misunderstood (by you or anyone else) as acknowledging that pastors can be women. You don't take them to mean that, but others might. Is there a way for a woman pastor to graciously not demand her full pastoral title from someone who doesn't believe in it, without then considering that person impolite? I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just saying that considering everyone impolite who doesn't want to use "pastor" is not the answer either.

What we are (or at least I am) seeing is that this might just be an intractable issue, for which compromise cannot be found.

"Politeness" offends "truth" & "truth" offends "politeness".

And both sides dig in ever deeper.

And I don't know how to get around it.

I have, do, and will continue to struggle with what to call women who have become what they (and others) believe to be pastors. I believe it to be Biblically, confessionally, and traditionally in error. I hesitate to call them pastors because I think it dangerous not just for me (or rather the laity) but also for the woman who has incorrectly moved to occupy the office instituted by Christ.

Even so, this seemingly intractable disagreement grieves me...

-ghp

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19810
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #108 on: October 25, 2007, 12:28:09 PM »

Peter,
It was I who stated that I would not set foot upon the CTS campus(es) again.  Let me be clear, for my own sake if not for the sake of others, that this is my personal sentiment and not a call for "no one else" to ever set foot upon the CTS campus, nor is it a blanket rejection of those who attended either CTS or love the places.  But yes, I feel wronged and betrayed by the reaction of the Seminary's leadership that first invited then rescinded that invitation then implied that somehow the Society to which I belong was deceptive and disrepectful for worshipping upon their territory.  Who exactly is the Society of the Holy Trinity?  It is all of us who have signed the Rule, who have bound ourselves to each other.  To call the Society liars is to call me a liar.  To say that the Society was not respectful of the LCMS is to say that I behaved so.  It is bad enough that some would invoke the ancient heresy of Gnosticism in regards to the Society (hence myself), but it is far worse to have the Seminary's president not rise to the defense of those whom he invited into "his" house.  We abided under the Seminary's request that women not preach in the Chapel.  We used the LSB in all our services.  To my knowledge, all present were reverential in Kramer Chapel and upon the grounds.  But yes, we are a mixed minsterium, I was welcomed to commune at a Eucharist sponosored by an LCMS pastor and congregation in an LCMS space.  But that is the very nature of the STS, it was never hidden or lied to about by anyone.

So if my presence causes such offense, I will act proactively to avoid causing further scandal.  Not only that, I will remember the treatment that my brothers and sisters and I have experienced and will not seek to re-enter that mess again.  I promise, I will not hold a grudge.  I do not hate or despise CTS-FW, I do thank them for their hospitality while we were there.  I thanked, in person, the refectory staff and the housekeeping staff for a very pleasant stay.  But a grave sin against hospitality has been committed and that also needs to be recognized.  Fortuneately, there is always the possibility for reconciliation.  But a whole lot of damage has been done.

And yes, I will freely admit that I too am all too prone to sin, especially in times of anger.  If I have spoken intemperately (and I'm sure I have), then I beg pardon and forgiveness from my brothers and sisters and I seek due admonition as such.  

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

Jerry, I don't think you've spoken out of line or intemperately, nor do I want to chime in with my opinion on whether what you're doing is necessarily wrong or right. I think I'd feel the same way if I were you. The connection I was trying to make was that you have strong feelings toward a situation and you have it in your power to do something symbolic to express those feelings. You're not intending to criticize every individual who graduated from or might otherwise love CTS, so people should not take it that way, and speaking for myself, I don't take it that way. The same principle, it seems to me, applies to people who are battle-scarred over the issue of women's ordination and remain opposed to women's ordination. They remember the treatment (and betrayals of promises) their brothers and sisters received from the state churches or their own churches regarding the struggle over women/s ordination. They have been gravely sinned against. They need some symbolic way of expressing themselves when the issue comes up that won't be taken as personal criticism or rudeness by women pastors. You are free not to go to CTS. That "works" as a symbolic action. These pastors are free, I suppose, never to be in the same room with a woman pastor, but that might not "work" logistically and in any event deliberately avoiding them might in and of itself be taken as rude and hyper-sectarian. So, they're stuck. Suppose you found yourself somehow obligated to go to CTS for something. You'd do it. You'd be polite about it. But you'd want it somehow known that you don't agree with or accept how this turned out. People would be understanding of your struggle to be polite and act like it is no big deal to be back at CTS. Yet for some reason some people, it seems to me anyway, are not understanding or sympathetic at all when it comes to the struggle some other people have to be polite and act like it is no big deal to interact with women pastors. They get called unkind and sectarian, when they are not trying to be unkind, and when it is obvious to them that the churches that ordain women are the ones who have done the sectarian thing. 

revjagow

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Proverbs 9:8-9
    • View Profile
    • Article 7
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #109 on: October 25, 2007, 12:40:06 PM »

It was I who stated that I would not set foot upon the CTS campus(es) again.  Let me be clear, for my own sake if not for the sake of others, that this is my personal sentiment and not a call for "no one else" to ever set foot upon the CTS campus, nor is it a blanket rejection of those who attended either CTS or love the places.  But yes, I feel wronged and betrayed by the reaction of the Seminary's leadership that first invited then rescinded that invitation then implied that somehow the Society to which I belong was deceptive and disrepectful for worshipping upon their territory.  Who exactly is the Society of the Holy Trinity?  It is all of us who have signed the Rule, who have bound ourselves to each other.  To call the Society liars is to call me a liar.  To say that the Society was not respectful of the LCMS is to say that I behaved so.  It is bad enough that some would invoke the ancient heresy of Gnosticism in regards to the Society (hence myself), but it is far worse to have the Seminary's president not rise to the defense of those whom he invited into "his" house.  We abided under the Seminary's request that women not preach in the Chapel.  We used the LSB in all our services.  To my knowledge, all present were reverential in Kramer Chapel and upon the grounds.  But yes, we are a mixed minsterium, I was welcomed to commune at a Eucharist sponosored by an LCMS pastor and congregation in an LCMS space.  But that is the very nature of the STS, it was never hidden or lied to about by anyone.

So if my presence causes such offense, I will act proactively to avoid causing further scandal.  Not only that, I will remember the treatment that my brothers and sisters and I have experienced and will not seek to re-enter that mess again.  I promise, I will not hold a grudge.  I do not hate or despise CTS-FW, I do thank them for their hospitality while we were there.  I thanked, in person, the refectory staff and the housekeeping staff for a very pleasant stay.  But a grave sin against hospitality has been committed and that also needs to be recognized.  Fortuneately, there is always the possibility for reconciliation.  But a whole lot of damage has been done.


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?   

IMNSHO, any group that can cause that much stir among the far left of the ELCA and the far right of the LCMS must be doing something right!  You are right Jerry, it is good to know where you stand, and from what I can see - you are standing in the right place.
Soli Deo Gloria!

pr dtp

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #110 on: October 25, 2007, 12:49:16 PM »


What we are (or at least I am) seeing is that this might just be an intractable issue, for which compromise cannot be found.

"Politeness" offends "truth" & "truth" offends "politeness".

And both sides dig in ever deeper.

And I don't know how to get around it.

I have, do, and will continue to struggle with what to call women who have become what they (and others) believe to be pastors. I believe it to be Biblically, confessionally, and traditionally in error. I hesitate to call them pastors because I think it dangerous not just for me (or rather the laity) but also for the woman who has incorrectly moved to occupy the office instituted by Christ.

Even so, this seemingly intractable disagreement grieves me...

-ghp

Glen,

I understand the dilemna, and agree, it is a struggle.

Similarly, I have trouble with calling Roman Catholic priests "Father", or those that are ordained after a 4-6 course of instruction in a non-denom, pastor (amazing how many "pastors" a calvary chapel has, its almost as if completeing a new membership class grants you that status!.)
I was a hospice chaplain for about 5 years, prior to entering the LCMS.   Because I was not to "evangelize", unless asked (and often they did) I had to spend time on the phone with "religious workers" of many different types, including non-Chrisitians (side note - funny how most of them don't have time for the dying - as if it is contagious)

In doing so, I never used my own titles (pastor and chaplain - I was near a military base) for those I would consider heterodox, or outside the faith. If they used the same titles and were "ordained", I simply used the secular understanding of the title "Rev." or called them by the first name.  It was respectfully used, but it also drew a fairly dramatic line - that we are different.  I understand in our practice, Reverend/Rev is not a spoken title.  But it is in many others, and when working with governement officials in many places.

Something to consider at least...


Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #111 on: October 25, 2007, 12:55:31 PM »
For what it's worth, when Presiding Bishop James Crumley met with Pope John Paul II, which he did on at least three occasions, the address was initially "Your Holiness," and the formal presentation usually also referred to the pope as the "bishop of Rome." In meetings with curial cardinals and archbishops, the diplomatic title of "your eminence" was often employed, though there were cardinals with whom we were on a first-name basis, at least in private. (The current pontiff was not one of those, BTW)

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3638
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #112 on: October 25, 2007, 01:11:23 PM »
Well, to keep a consistent thread running through this...

When the STS celebrated at a Roman Catholic locale, there were no Roman Catholic Priests participating in the service, right? If there were, then that might've been problematic (much like Roman participants in the Archibishop of Canterbury's celebration might've been problematic in the approval of his request to the Vatican...).
I don't have a source handy, but I believe mid-level Roman clergy did attend this service.  Participate?  No, as they are not in communion as either body defines it.  (Perhaps they were present to make sure none of the valuables went missing. ;))   I do know (having watched the webcast) that at the recent LWF anniversary Eucharist in a Swedish cathedral, celebrated by a female bishop, that Cardinal Kasper processed with other clergy (I believe in the appropriate choir dress not just a cassock, but I'm not 100% on that) and sat in the chancel with other dignitaries at least up until giving his greetings on behalf of the pope.  Not sure if he remained for the consecration.  LWF president Bishop Hanson was in the first pew of the nave in black business suit and Roman collar.  I'll let others speculate on a Missouri reaction to similar circumstance.

Quote from: Glen Piper
Thus, there are two issue here:  1) CTSFW's allowing a unionistic service to take place. In and of itself, it's quite possible that it's a reasonably debatable question. Where it gets stickier is 2) The participation of LCMS rostered clergy in the unionistic service. Does the presence of LCMS members of STS change the equation? Quite possibly (fwiw, I think it does), insofar as CTSFW now has to worry about/consider the impact of allowing its facilities to be used for something that, by definition, it is training/forming men to shun (i.e., unionism in any/all its forms).

Given the context of these two issues taken together, then it probably is for the best that STS not use LCMS facilities. Better to avoid any/all appearance of impropriety & all that, knamean?
Being an ELCA lay person, this is not my "fight" (although I'm thankful STS exists, in part because it is a pan-Lutheran entity), but I'd agree with the reaction that it is for the best that STS not use LCMS facilities.  Everything I know about this I've read here and the LQ thread, but the original point stands that STS was granted permission by the appropriate authorities.  Everyone had to be aware at what can happen at STS retreats where the Eucharist is celebrated.  So the questions remains, concerning the outrage, is it:
(1)  because Missouri pastors MIGHT be communing with others whose church LCMS is not in fellowship, including female pastors, or
(2)  that it happened specifically on a Missouri campus

The former should be no secret to anyone (and would seem to fall within pastoral discretion), so why does it matter about the latter?  Isn't (1) the bigger problem? STS has always been upfront about the difficulty of this issue.  And just to recap, as I have read it here described, it was a Missouri pastor presiding (and ONLY Missouri) at the altar.  It was not an ELCA pastor presiding on Missouri turf, as the archbishop of Canterbury did in Rome.  Hence my original comparison.

Sterling Spatz
« Last Edit: October 25, 2007, 01:45:40 PM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

revjagow

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Proverbs 9:8-9
    • View Profile
    • Article 7
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #113 on: October 25, 2007, 01:18:45 PM »
   Speaking only for myself, I never assume that a Roman Catholic priest, LCMS pastor, or Southern Baptist minister approves of women's ordination just because one of them uses my title of "Pastor" when addressing me or introducing me.  I just assume that they are polite.

     For that matter, I always assume that in any grouping of people, (ELCA, LCMS, etc.) that there are people who don't approve of the ordination of women.  I try to be polite and respectful, but at the same time present myself honestly. 

     Carry on, gentlemen.

Pastor Erma Wolf,STS
And if we ever met in person, I personally would have no problem introducing you to someone as "Pastor Wolf" precisely because that would be the normal and accepted form of address unless we were at a conference called specifically to consider the question of whether women could be pastors, in which case everyone would understand the difficulty. But I know many people who would not call you "Pastor Wolf" but would cast about for another word and perhaps end up sounding rude or confrontational, and my point was these people aren't necessarily rude; they're looking for the right word from a (perfectly valid) viewpoint within which "pastor" can only apply to a man, just like "father".

And Erma, though you are gracious (here in this forum and presumably everywhere else) and take into account people's viewpoints, many of the people who might not want to call you "pastor" are not thinking merely of your feelings when they address you, but also of the feelings (as mentioned upstream) of people who are losing their reputations and livelihoods over this issue. It is more than a greeting, it is a public witness. They don't want to betray an ally, so to speak. It would be like President Kieschnick greeting the pope. I don't know exactly how Catholics greet the pope, but I imagine there is a whole agreed-upon code by which non-Catholics can properly greet the pope without acknowledging the validity of his papal claims the way a Catholic would. And I imagine (someone correct me if I'm wrong on this --Irl, I'm looking at you here. Little help?) it is not President Kieschnick greeting the pope the way a Catholic would, but the pope graciously not demanding his full papal titles from someone who doesn't believe in them. They have that code because it is important as a witness-- other LCMS people are watching to see what their president would call the pope. Yet there is no such code for this much smaller issue of women's ordination, and that is what people are looking to establish. They want to be polite and repspectful to you, but they do want to be misunderstood (by you or anyone else) as acknowledging that pastors can be women. You don't take them to mean that, but others might. Is there a way for a woman pastor to graciously not demand her full pastoral title from someone who doesn't believe in it, without then considering that person impolite? I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just saying that considering everyone impolite who doesn't want to use "pastor" is not the answer either.
 

Peter, you are doing a magnificent job trying to explain this, and it must be hard.  Your posts on the topic of engaging women clergy are probably the most detailed I've seen (they take a while to read too, doggone it!). 

I think in the end, it just has to be stated that you call people what they want to be called (within reason of course - the title "messiah" has already been taken).  If the title is "pastor," then pastor.  If the title is "rabbi," then "rabbi."  If it is "Imam," then "Imam."  You ask, "what do you want to be called?"  And then you call 'em that. 

This is clergy etiquette 101.    I get the solidarity with what Christians are suffering overseas.  I get that some have encountered some militancy when it comes to accepting religious views they do not share.  But, in the end, if someone says their title is "pastor," that is what you say.  I'm having a hard time understanding why there is so much bandwidth dedicated to this on this thread.

I think it is hard to just do your clergy thing only within the walls of your own parish.  Church life is pretty one-dimensional if the pastor is not engaging with fellow clergy in the community to advocate for common causes, and to discuss theology and community politics.  I don't think an LCMS clergy person is compromising one bit of doctrine in doing those kinds of things.  How do you know what is happening around your church if you do not attend community events and engage (with politeness) the other religious leaders (including the women)? 

I'll go farther (and probably get into trouble) and say that if you avoid women clergy just because they are women, why would you be surprised if someone called you sexist?   Maybe I'll go further than that, and ask why would you avoid someone who professes to be gay?  Now, I make my opinions on that topic public on this Forum, and yet, I don't feel the need to go up to that pastor and tell him that I disagree with his moral behavior, therefore I cannot call him "pastor" because I don't think he should be one.  Nope.  If he is a pastor in good standing with his church, then I'm calling him "pastor."  And I'm working with him if we can advocate for religious schools, treatment of the homeless, or whatever else we can.  That is not compromise.  It is common courtesy, and it opens many doors for us to share what we believe in a positive way.  But, if you purposefully stay away, then your voice never gets heard.  You are off to the sidelines saying, "they don't want to listen to me," and you will never really know that for sure. 
Soli Deo Gloria!

Pr. Jerry

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #114 on: October 25, 2007, 01:40:03 PM »
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?   

IMNSHO, any group that can cause that much stir among the far left of the ELCA and the far right of the LCMS must be doing something right!  You are right Jerry, it is good to know where you stand, and from what I can see - you are standing in the right place.

I have not looked at the "downstream" posts in this thread, so I beg pardon if somebody else has already done a better job of responding, but...

The "LutherQuest" stuff is only a small part of the picture.  The fact that it has ignited such a hot reception over on that list is, I think, an indication of the deep divide that has developed over the years between the LCMS and other Lutherans on the issues of unionism and the like.  And, by itself, I would probably ignore the LQ stuff and not be nettled about it.  But it is not "in a vacuum," and I cannot view it as such.  First, shortly after the retreat, a similar discsussion ensued on this list, albeit by many of the same voices that are spouting off on LQ.  The same accusations were made about unionism, and I maintain here as I did then that the eucharist was not "unionistic," it did not make any claim (short of the Eucharist) of a unity that does not exist; if anything it was "Lutheran."  We are, by our own definition, an Lutheran ministerium and we were addressed as such by the Preacher and we were invited to the table as such as well.  If someone can enlighten me on how the charge of "unionism" can be sustained without either invalidating the Sacrament, placing me outside the pale of Lutheran teaching, or denying any possible joint ministerium, please tell me.  Otherwise I will assume that the charge of unionism must attack one of these three main points.

Secondly, these continuing allegations have real impact on those involved.  At least one Pastor's reputation and vocation are being threatened.  The honor of the STS leadership has been impugned by alleging that they lied about the STS's intentions.  The STS members have been accused of acting in a less than salutary manner.  These allegations are bad enough when they come from the proverbial "fringe," but they have also been given substance by the Seminary President.  They are not (never were, IMHO) a "laughing matter."  I would suggest, even if LQ and the like are like a bawdy pub argument, that the Commandments have been grievously treated and need to be reviewed.  And, like I said earlier, this conversation has transcended the border of the LQ site.

Finally, there is a real issue regarding hospitality here.  Perhaps, as some on both the "left" and the "right" have suggested, STS should not use LCMS facilities.  (I wonder how CTS-Saint Louis is going to handle the new WA institute that will opperate on its grounds?)  Perhaps, but as several have noted we were asked to be there.  And even if we weren't "asked," the Seminary agreed to host us.  And suddenly it is being protrayed as somehow they didn't really agree to host us.  Where is the hospitality that was present during the retreat?  Where is the "chessed" so highly prized in the Old Testament?

I'm exhausted by this.  

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
  

Richard Johnson

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • Create in me a clean heart, O God.
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #115 on: October 25, 2007, 01:46:00 PM »
I won't go so far as Jerry in never setting foot again on the campus; I may well visit the bookstore if I'm in Ft. Wayne. ;D

I'm involved in another discussion among STS members concerning this entire affair. Someone made a suggestion, which I think is good: Let's not respond any further. If any public response must be made, it is up to the Senior of the Society. But anything any of us say here is public, and we have already seen that some of the LQ participants are happy to use our comments for their own nefarious ends. So, my sisters and brothers in the Society, let's just stop defending ourselves and discuss it no further. It merely offers the possibility of disrespect of the Society.
The Rev. Richard O. Johnson, STS

Dave_Poedel

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #116 on: October 25, 2007, 02:02:39 PM »
I'm exhausted by this. 

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS 

Me too, Father Jerry, me too....

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 19810
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #117 on: October 25, 2007, 02:11:00 PM »

Peter, you are doing a magnificent job trying to explain this, and it must be hard.  Your posts on the topic of engaging women clergy are probably the most detailed I've seen (they take a while to read too, doggone it!). 

I think in the end, it just has to be stated that you call people what they want to be called (within reason of course - the title "messiah" has already been taken).  If the title is "pastor," then pastor.  If the title is "rabbi," then "rabbi."  If it is "Imam," then "Imam."  You ask, "what do you want to be called?"  And then you call 'em that. 

This is clergy etiquette 101.    I get the solidarity with what Christians are suffering overseas.  I get that some have encountered some militancy when it comes to accepting religious views they do not share.  But, in the end, if someone says their title is "pastor," that is what you say.  I'm having a hard time understanding why there is so much bandwidth dedicated to this on this thread.

I think it is hard to just do your clergy thing only within the walls of your own parish.  Church life is pretty one-dimensional if the pastor is not engaging with fellow clergy in the community to advocate for common causes, and to discuss theology and community politics.  I don't think an LCMS clergy person is compromising one bit of doctrine in doing those kinds of things.  How do you know what is happening around your church if you do not attend community events and engage (with politeness) the other religious leaders (including the women)? 

I'll go farther (and probably get into trouble) and say that if you avoid women clergy just because they are women, why would you be surprised if someone called you sexist?   Maybe I'll go further than that, and ask why would you avoid someone who professes to be gay?  Now, I make my opinions on that topic public on this Forum, and yet, I don't feel the need to go up to that pastor and tell him that I disagree with his moral behavior, therefore I cannot call him "pastor" because I don't think he should be one.  Nope.  If he is a pastor in good standing with his church, then I'm calling him "pastor."  And I'm working with him if we can advocate for religious schools, treatment of the homeless, or whatever else we can.  That is not compromise.  It is common courtesy, and it opens many doors for us to share what we believe in a positive way.  But, if you purposefully stay away, then your voice never gets heard.  You are off to the sidelines saying, "they don't want to listen to me," and you will never really know that for sure. 
Rev. Jagow, I'm with you. I don't personally have a problem with any of this. But I do understand how some people might, and I don't think they always get fair treatment, which is why I take the time to respond in greater detail.

Jim Butler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2059
    • View Profile
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #118 on: October 25, 2007, 03:04:11 PM »
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?   

IMNSHO, any group that can cause that much stir among the far left of the ELCA and the far right of the LCMS must be doing something right!  You are right Jerry, it is good to know where you stand, and from what I can see - you are standing in the right place.

I have not looked at the "downstream" posts in this thread, so I beg pardon if somebody else has already done a better job of responding, but...

The "LutherQuest" stuff is only a small part of the picture.  The fact that it has ignited such a hot reception over on that list is, I think, an indication of the deep divide that has developed over the years between the LCMS and other Lutherans on the issues of unionism and the like.  And, by itself, I would probably ignore the LQ stuff and not be nettled about it.  But it is not "in a vacuum," and I cannot view it as such.  First, shortly after the retreat, a similar discsussion ensued on this list, albeit by many of the same voices that are spouting off on LQ.  The same accusations were made about unionism, and I maintain here as I did then that the eucharist was not "unionistic," it did not make any claim (short of the Eucharist) of a unity that does not exist; if anything it was "Lutheran."  We are, by our own definition, an Lutheran ministerium and we were addressed as such by the Preacher and we were invited to the table as such as well.  If someone can enlighten me on how the charge of "unionism" can be sustained without either invalidating the Sacrament, placing me outside the pale of Lutheran teaching, or denying any possible joint ministerium, please tell me.  Otherwise I will assume that the charge of unionism must attack one of these three main points.

Secondly, these continuing allegations have real impact on those involved.  At least one Pastor's reputation and vocation are being threatened.  The honor of the STS leadership has been impugned by alleging that they lied about the STS's intentions.  The STS members have been accused of acting in a less than salutary manner.  These allegations are bad enough when they come from the proverbial "fringe," but they have also been given substance by the Seminary President.  They are not (never were, IMHO) a "laughing matter."  I would suggest, even if LQ and the like are like a bawdy pub argument, that the Commandments have been grievously treated and need to be reviewed.  And, like I said earlier, this conversation has transcended the border of the LQ site.

Finally, there is a real issue regarding hospitality here.  Perhaps, as some on both the "left" and the "right" have suggested, STS should not use LCMS facilities.  (I wonder how CTS-Saint Louis is going to handle the new WA institute that will opperate on its grounds?)  Perhaps, but as several have noted we were asked to be there.  And even if we weren't "asked," the Seminary agreed to host us.  And suddenly it is being protrayed as somehow they didn't really agree to host us.  Where is the hospitality that was present during the retreat?  Where is the "chessed" so highly prized in the Old Testament?

I'm exhausted by this.  

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS
  

A few comments, Jerry...

First, please remember that many of those making these comments are not (or at least are no longer) members of the LCMS. Looking at the other ALPB thread on this topic, I can see at least one hot head who resigned from the LCMS. Others on LQ are WELS, ELS, etc. So, you need to ask, "Just who is really objecting to the STS being at CTSFW?" (BTW, many of these same folks also objected to the WA at CSL claiming that we were "training" women pastors. I didn't know that M.A. and Ph.D. courses were considered basic training for pastors; I thought that was M.Div. work. Silly me!)

Second, please give evidence that Dean Wenthe has given substance to the statement that the STS has lied about anything. The only thing I saw on LQ was a post that was from a pastor who heard it from a pastor who talked to Prez Wenthe. If that isn't hearsay, I don't know what is! I don't believe--and I doubt if most people would believe--that the STS lied to the CTS faculty and staff.

Of course, I'm not sure what the problem is anyway. If I'm reading this right, it seems that some are arguing that allowing the STS to meet on the CTSFW campus means that the Fort Wayne faculty and staff are therefore approving of everything said and/or done by the STS at their retreat. That's silly. The founder of LutherQuest, Jack Casicone (who was removed from the LCMS), has  a yearly "Walther Conference." One year, it met on the CSL campus. Did that mean that the CSL faculty and staff agreed with everything everyone in that group said and/or did? Of course not. One presenter at the Walther Conference was from Word Alone. Does that mean that Jack Cascione agrees with everything said by Word Alone? Of course not. It's a silly argument and I think most people in the LCMS would see it that way (remember, many of the gripers have left the LCMS or were never a part of it). As Sam Nafzger once put it to me, "The LCMS does not practice building fellowship." Just because we rent the facilities doesn't mean we agree with everything!

FWIW, I'm personally pleased that the STS met at the Fort Wayne campus and I hope that such meetings might be possible again. I think it is a good thing.

Jim
The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time. -- VP Kamala Harris

LutherMan

  • Guest
Re: Quite a discussion going on at LQ called "Unionism at Fort Wayne Seminary?"
« Reply #119 on: October 25, 2007, 03:23:56 PM »
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