Something I find interesting in real-life interactions

[UberLutheran]

Politically, I'm a liberal Democrat. I'm also a member of the ELCA.

In real life, I have good, working relationships with Republicans and conservatives and we can work together on projects for the common good without letting political differences come between us.

My best friend is a Republican. I'm godparent to his kid. In fact, I was his kid's Confirmation sponsor -- and his kid objected to the volume of material I insisted that he learn. (Tough: if you're going to be a Lutheran, you'd better know, and understand to the point of being able to have an intelligent discussion about the Creeds, Luther's Small Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Sacraments, the means of grace, etc. etc.)

My storm chasing partner is also a conservative Republican. He has a meteorology degree from Texas A&M. I know Texas roads like the back of my hand (I cannot get lost in Texas). We don't get terribly hung up about politics when we're out chasing severe thunderstorms and tornadoes during a PDS (Particularly Dangerous Situation) storm watch.

Likewise, in my day job I work a goodly assortment of people -- atheists, agnostics, Christians of all stripes, non-Christians -- and we all may disagree on things, but we've learned how to disagree, agreeably. I'm rather open about my faith: if you walk into my cube, you'll see a cross, the red Lutheran Worship hymnal, the Book of Common Prayer and a Bible. People know what I happen to believe, and they're OK with it (even to the point where I don't work on Sundays because I observe a Sunday Sabbath); and I accept what they happen to believe.

I also work with, and socialize with Missouri Synod Lutherans. Somehow, someway we manage to work together, set goals and accomplish things together, and enjoy each other's company without tearing each other to bits over this bit or that bit of "correct doctrine" -- in fact, we don't even make a big deal out of it except occasionally to make fun of ourselves and our denominational idiocyncracies.

Which leads me to wonder: why in the HECK can't we do this on a supposedly "Christian" forum?

I find it interesting that many of us are "brave" when it comes to posting on a message board, to the point of posting things we would NEVER say to an actual flesh-and-blood human being, face-to-face. Well: given that we would never say some of the things we post to another person face-to-face, why exactly are we posting these things?

I know of a way we could resolve a lot of the problems on the Lutheran board (and many other CF boards, as well) -- and that would be by first realizing that the person reading our posts is an actual flesh-and-blood human being, created in the image of God, with actual thoughts and feelings and if what we're about to post is something we would find offensive were it directed to us, then don't post it at all. Or put simply: treat others the way we ourselves want to be treated. (It's Scriptural.)

Truth be told: I don't post much in General Political Discussion because the level of INcivility between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives is such that most interactions are at best snide and "nasty-nice"; and at worst bait and e-flames.

I don't post much in the Lutheran forums for much the same reason. People have said some really unkind things to each other (verging on "nasty-nice") in the quest for Absolute Doctrinal Purity -- as though one group has sole access to "the truth" and anyone not subscribing to the beliefs of that group is doomed and damned forever (or even worse, "not properly "Lutheran").

We might also remind ourselves that NO ONE has exclusive access to to what God knows, and that "for now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) and for that reason we might want to grant the same forebearance to others that we expect for ourselves. (Another way of putting that is: "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us" -- and yes, that's Scriptural, too.)

[C.F.W. Walther]

Yea that's what has gotten Christianity in trouble and on the decline in the 20th and 21st century is the attitude of:

"Can't we all just get along"

Ask Luther is he was out to make friends.

[jcj3803]

I had to laugh at this a bit. I've had things "said" to me on secular boards that, had we been face to face, I would have knocked the other person on their... backside. And my first pastor would tell people straight up that they were going to Hell if you ever questioned or disagreed with what he said. I personally was kicked out of Sunday School once for questioning WELS doctrine. When I was older, the same pastor suggested I consider seminary, so maybe I was redeemable?

I think you'll find (and this is my generalization, based on my experiences) that moderates and "seekers" do not post much in any kind of forum as the forums tend to become dominated by those who can "yell the loudest".

[UberLutheran]

Yea that's what has gotten Christianity in trouble and on the decline in the 20th and 21st century is the attitude of:

"Can't we all just get along"

Ask Luther is he was out to make friends.

Did you actually read my post, in entirety? :confused:

I didn't think so. :sigh:

[UberLutheran]

I had to laugh at this a bit. I've had things "said" to me on secular boards that, had we been face to face, I would have knocked the other person on their... backside. And my first pastor would tell people straight up that they were going to Hell if you ever questioned or disagreed with what he said. I personally was kicked out of Sunday School once for questioning WELS doctrine. When I was older, the same pastor suggested I consider seminary, so maybe I was redeemable?

I think you'll find (and this is my generalization, based on my experiences) that moderates and "seekers" do not post much in any kind of forum as the forums tend to become dominated by those who can "yell the loudest".

Guess what happens when one is in a room where everybody is yelling the loudest?

Nobody can hear each other.

Personally (since I'm a classically-trained musician and I need my hearing), I leave those kinds of rooms for quieter places where people can actually hear what they're discussing with each other.

[QuiltAngel]

One of the problems with forums is that we do not see and hear the person, we have words in black and white. We don't know if they are serious, joking, tongue in cheek, saying things to get others to think, etc. Also, annonymity factors in here. People are more likely to say what they want to say because no one really knows us. We can be whoever we want to be and that may be different than who we are when with our familly and friends in person. When we are with others in person, we can be guarded as we know what causes friction so we stay away from those things.

It would be wonderful if we could all get along, but that is not how we humans are *sigh* What I have a hard time understanding is why we blame the other side all the time. Each party in a disagreement needs to accept responsibility for their part and quit playing the blame game.

[Edial]

...
My storm chasing partner is also a conservative Republican. He has a meteorology degree from Texas A&M. I know Texas roads like the back of my hand (I cannot get lost in Texas). We don't get terribly hung up about politics when we're out chasing severe thunderstorms and tornadoes during a PDS (Particularly Dangerous Situation) storm watch.
Storm chasing? You guys chase storms? :)

Would you tell me a story concerning one of these chases?

Thanks, :)
Ed

[seajoy]

I don't post much in the Lutheran forums for much the same reason. People have said some really unkind things to each other (verging on "nasty-nice") in the quest for Absolute Doctrinal Purity -- as though one group has sole access to "the truth" and anyone not subscribing to the beliefs of that group is doomed and damned forever (or even worse, "not properly "Lutheran").


I found most of your post to be really quite nice, except this paragraph. Why did you feel the need to say that? It felt like a major 'dig' to me.

Anyway, I have wonderful ELCA friends as well (as you have conservative ones). They were the first people I called when I needed an emergent ride to the hospital this past Oct.

I think QuiltAngel has hit it right on the head...you can say, do, or be what ever you want to on a forum. But we must all remember, there is One who is watching us all, and knows everything about us. It is He we need to be concerned about. Let His Word be our Guide.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Did you actually read my post, in entirety? :confused:

I didn't think so. :sigh:I did.

Tha's why I responded in that fashion.

[QuiltAngel]

But we must all remember, there is One who is watching us all, and knows everything about us. It is He we need to be concerned about. Let His Word be our Guide.

So true. Thanks Seajoy. We need to remember this in all of our conversations, both in cyber land and real life.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Even though God is love He is also a God of Righteous anger, two edged swords and a divider of familes................

[porterross]

My storm chasing partner is also a conservative Republican. He has a meteorology degree from Texas A&M.[

Whoop!
Tell your buddy "Howdy" for me. :thumbsup:


Likewise, in my day job I work a goodly assortment of people -- atheists, agnostics, Christians of all stripes, non-Christians -- and we all may disagree on things, but we've learned how to disagree, agreeably. I'm rather open about my faith: if you walk into my cube, you'll see a cross, the red Lutheran Worship hymnal, the Book of Common Prayer and a Bible. People know what I happen to believe, and they're OK with it (even to the point where I don't work on Sundays because I observe a Sunday Sabbath); and I accept what they happen to believe.

I also work with, and socialize with Missouri Synod Lutherans. Somehow, someway we manage to work together, set goals and accomplish things together, and enjoy each other's company without tearing each other to bits over this bit or that bit of "correct doctrine" -- in fact, we don't even make a big deal out of it except occasionally to make fun of ourselves and our denominational idiocyncracies.
Which leads me to wonder: why in the HECK can't we do this on a supposedly "Christian" forum?

I'd bet that most of us have to interact with a similar range of folks in our daily lives, but we also don't go out of our way to meet with them to discuss theology, do we?
The dynamics of those interactions and ours here are completely different. This area of CF has a specific purpose, which is to discuss our doctrinal views which are drastically different on many levels. We know this coming into the forum, do we not?
Because we are here specifically to discuss these differences, there is little necessity for much else, but civility at the very least should be expected in all posts. You're right about that.

We might also remind ourselves that NO ONE has exclusive access to to what God knows, and that "for now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) and for that reason we might want to grant the same forebearance to others that we expect for ourselves. (Another way of putting that is: "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us" -- and yes, that's Scriptural, too.)

Agreed, but you have to realize that for my part, social, theological and political liberalism makes me very uncomfortable and there are aspects of it that I find unpalatable. I also realize the flip-side of that is that you see such attitudes as close-mindedness.

Truth is, neither of us is likely to change the others mind, which leads us to the matter of any the point of having a joint forum. We disagree on some very basic and very important issues, so why keep butting heads?


Peace

[ProfessorMom]

...I also work with, and socialize with Missouri Synod Lutherans. Somehow, someway we manage to work together, set goals and accomplish things together, and enjoy each other's company without tearing each other to bits over this bit or that bit of "correct doctrine" -- in fact, we don't even make a big deal out of it except occasionally to make fun of ourselves and our denominational idiocyncracies.

Which leads me to wonder: why in the HECK can't we do this on a supposedly "Christian" forum?

I find it interesting that many of us are "brave" when it comes to posting on a message board, to the point of posting things we would NEVER say to an actual flesh-and-blood human being, face-to-face. Well: given that we would never say some of the things we post to another person face-to-face, why exactly are we posting these things?...

I think you bring up some good and interesting points. I was thinking about this last night. I wondered (this is tongue-in-cheek) whether we Christians are cannibals, since it seems we so often love to eat our own. It occurred to me that while the Internet is an excellent tool through which we may reach many more people than we might on a daily basis to share ideas, and learn from one another, it's just so easy to forget the power of our own tongue; that power through the keyboard, our written words, are just as powerful as our spoken words, at times much more.

Since our faces are hidden, and the next poster likely doesn't really know us in person, we can claim two things, at least. We can, first of all, rifle off anything we wish, whether it be an ever so subtle cut, or an outright blow. The Internet uses the word "flaming" to point out insulting remarks, but the Bible tells us the tongue is like a sword that cuts deep. Second, sitting behind a computer in our homes or our offices, we can often claim the other "Doesn't know me at all," yet we've certainly shown a side of ourselves when we use our keyboards as our tongue.

Building ourselves up is one thing, but all too often, especially over the Internet, we might forget we needn't tear another apart, bit by bit. I don't need to cut you to shreds in order to tell you that Jesus is my Savior, or that I think some of what you believe to be in error. We talk about the responsibility we have to preach the truth, and I think that's correct, but sometimes we forget the love part. We forget to add the compassion towards each other.

Sometimes in our zeal I think our words become coarse, at times rude, and we don't show truth with love, but harsh, cold piety.

I read somewhere, I don't have the reference handy, that the problem with Christianity is Theology gets in the way! (not saying I think that is true, but I did find it funny). Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to list some of the verses relating to the tongue.

"In reference to your former manner of life, lay aside the old self...be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth...Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice." Ephesians 4:22-31

"I will guard my ways, that I may not sin with my tongue; I will guard my mouth as with a muzzle." (Psalm 39:1)

"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt." Not pepper! Colossians 4:6

Psalm 15 asks, "Lord, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart."

And in verse 3, "He does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend."

Most of us learned this offertory as little children
Psalm 51:10-12 cries
"Create in me a clean heart, O God;
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from thy presence;
and take not thy holy spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation;
and uphold me with thy free spirit."

And then in verse 15, "O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise."

Paul says, "sound in speech which is beyond reproach." Titus 2:8

Is our speech always with grace, seasoned with salt?

Psalm 12:3 says, "May the Lord cut off all flattering lips, the tongue that speaks great things."

Proverbs 10:19 says, "When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise"

Isn't it interesting the Bible tells us of many kinds of tongues:
a flattering tongue Psalm 5:9
a proud tongue Psalm 12:3; 73:9
a lying tongue Psalm 109:2; Prov. 6:17
a deceitful tongue Psalm 120:2
a perverted tongue Prov. 10:31; 17:20
a soothing tongue Prov. 15:4
a healing tongue Prov. 12:18
a destructive tongue Prov. 17:4
a mischievous and wicked tongue Psalm 10:7
a soft tongue Prov. 25:15
a backbiting tongue Prov. 25:23

Just my thoughts.

[Confess]

Face to face has more consequences then forums life.

At work you must deal with work relations in a way that make work tolerable. Same with the other areas in your life. Also, you have the expressions of people which tell you when you have touched a sore spot with an individual. Here we have no idea.

But you do bring up an interesting point. I have been on discussion boards for many years. And everytime I am there with ELCA folks, they get upset with me.

I never understood why they always got so upset. I mean, I don't suppose that any denomination has all their people teaching exactly what we believe. Certainly the LCMS doesn't and more-so the ELCA doesn't. The WELS doesn't and neither does the ELS.

So why is it off limits to speak what you see as faults within ONLY the ELCA? Does the ELCA not have faults? Surely the other confessional Lutheran denominations have faults, albeit, not as glaring.

Maybe I shouldn't post this, it might insight anger. If this thread closes due to this inquiry, then I certainly apologize. Hopefully others will respond with honest answers and not feel upset.

Hopefully :)

[BelindaP]

It is possible that it could be the tone that you use when addressing them. I'm thinking about when you mentioned that you left the ECLA for the truth. While it could be a true statment from your perspective, it is insulting to every member of the ECLA, who genuinely believe their views encompass the truth. If you use similarly loaded terminology when debating with them, it probably offends them greatly.

[Confess]

It is possible that it could be the tone that you use when addressing them. I'm thinking about when you mentioned that you left the ECLA for the truth. While it could be a true statment from your perspective, it is insulting to every member of the ECLA, who genuinely believe their views encompass the truth. If you use similarly loaded terminology when debating with them, it probably offends them greatly.
I see what you are saying. If that were always the case then I would agree. But when I said I left the ELCA for the truth, I said it after dealing with many harsh reactions from those in the ELCA while still a brand new newbie. A newbie should have been cut a little bit of a break at the least.

In short. As long as the ELCA members continue to act so poorly, my tone will probably get worse and worse. Not that I want it to get like that. I mean, I don't carry a grudge, I have had one person try to do what is right, but everyone else just acts like I am some sort of evil person just because I am confessional.

While I am sure they love their denomination, if someone has the wrong idea of what is going on, why not just prove them wrong instead of getting upset?

[BelindaP]

I agree that one should prove a person wrong rather than flaming them and talking about them behind their back. As the ECLA has gotten more liberal, they are starting to succumb to some of the ills of the other mainstream churches in America.

I know that it's hard to overlook it when they decide to be petty. However, it's probably a good idea to listen to Paul's counsel on the subject. Treat with kindness those who persecute you. It will heap coals upon their heads.

[UberLutheran]

That's just a fact of life. Just about all of the ELCAs, LCMS, WELS, Episcopalians, United Methodists, PC-USA, PCA, Baptists of every stripe, Assembly of God, even the Church of Christ folks I've ever known have something within their denomination or official statement of beliefs which irks them.

It doesn't mean we hate our denominations.

It doesn't even mean we dislike our denominations. (Overall, the ELCA is the best "fit" of any denomination to which I've ever belonged.)

It means we're people, not robots who simply perform what they are programmed to do.

Do I dislike LC-MS folks? No: we actually get along quite well. I have some disagreements with the doctrines of the LC-MS, so while I really relate to the broad concept of Lutheranism, I have another place where I can go. C'est la vie. (I don't even dislike the LC-MS: I just know I can't commune there, and since Communion is the most important spiritual act of the entire week for me, I either find an ELCA church or an Episcopal church if I'm visiting somewhere.)

I really think we make too much of our differences. The difference between the ELCA and the LC-MS is not as radical as the difference between Lutheranism and the Southern Baptist Convention; or Lutheranism and Pentecostalism; or Lutheranism and Tridentine Catholicism. I'm not comfortable in Baptist services -- Baptists are certainly as "saved" as Lutherans or Methodists, but without the four Scripture readings and Communion as an integral part of the service, I don't feel like I've properly "worshiped" when I attend a Baptist service. I've talked to Baptists (as in, my family of origin) who feel exactly the same way about Lutheran services.

Part of the problem is the medium. Even if we're adept at expressing ourselves very well and very eloquently -- there are only so many bolds, italics, underlines and smilies that one can use and even that doesn't capture the full "flavor" of what it is we're trying to say.

Did Martin Luther "make nice" when he was taking on the Roman Catholic Church, particularly the institution of the Pope? No -- Martin Luther also married a Catholic nun and we do have a Lutheran version of the Rosary. Most of us aren't actively at war with our Catholic neighbors and relatives. Most of us have learned the art of civility; and if we can't agree, at least we've learned to disagree, agreeably.

THAT'S what I'm getting at. YES: as ELCA and LCMS and WELS, we're going to have our disagreements over this and that bit of doctrine. In the broader picture, we are all Lutherans who are justified by grace, through faith. We all worship the same Jesus Christ. I think it would behoove us to focus on those two facts in our interactions with each other, and subordinate the doctrinal differences in our respective denominations to those two essential facts.

[Edial]

Even though God is love He is also a God of Righteous anger, two edged swords and a divider of familes................
However, we are reprimanded that in our anger we should be careful not to sin.

Thanks,
Ed

[UberLutheran]

I found most of your post to be really quite nice, except this paragraph. Why did you feel the need to say that? It felt like a major 'dig' to me.

Lutherans do it. Catholics do it. Almost every single group in Christian Forums/Christians Only/Congregation does it. Some of the other groups make us look like Caspar Milquetoast! My primary frame of reference is Lutheran, since I'm a Lutheran -- but trust me, there are ELCA folks who engage in that kind of behavior, and it absolutely irritates me no end!


I think QuiltAngel has hit it right on the head...you can say, do, or be what ever you want to on a forum. But we must all remember, there is One who is watching us all, and knows everything about us. It is He we need to be concerned about. Let His Word be our Guide.

:amen:

[Confess]

THAT'S what I'm getting at. YES: as ELCA and LCMS and WELS, we're going to have our disagreements over this and that bit of doctrine. In the broader picture, we are all Lutherans who are justified by grace, through faith. We all worship the same Jesus Christ. I think it would behoove us to focus on those two facts in our interactions with each other, and subordinate the doctrinal differences in our respective denominations to those two essential facts.

I agree up to this point. (I also don't know anything about a Lutheran Rosary, but that is beside the point.)

I think that for many this is where the rub maybe.

I have talked to an independant Baptist who believed in more Lutheran doctrine then the ELCA. With all due respect, the differences have gone so far and so wide that maybe we are not all Lutherans.

This point maybe a big reason why the confessionals and liberals cannot talk to each other. These differences maybe just so great that it is like talking to a foreign denomination that holds to some Lutheran name.

Everytime I have inserted my thoughts in order to try and figure out what makes the ELCA "Lutheran", I have never been received with a respectful, calm answer.

Just how many changes can you make within a denomination before it looses the name that made it so distict?

Again, I am not saying this to inflame others to anger. These are just honest observations.

[BelindaP]

What do you see as the minimum requirements to be called Lutheran?

Note: This is not to debate, so nobody else jump in here. I'm just gathering information.

[seajoy]

Note: This is not to debate, so nobody else jump in here.
But what if I'm almost ready to bite my tongue off? :)

[BelindaP]

Think of it as a test of spiritual strength. ;)

[seajoy]

Think of it as a test of spiritual strength. ;)
I think 'test' is my middle name! :doh:

[Edial]

Face to face has more consequences then forums life.

At work you must deal with work relations in a way that make work tolerable. Same with the other areas in your life. Also, you have the expressions of people which tell you when you have touched a sore spot with an individual. Here we have no idea.

But you do bring up an interesting point. I have been on discussion boards for many years. And everytime I am there with ELCA folks, they get upset with me.

I never understood why they always got so upset. I mean, I don't suppose that any denomination has all their people teaching exactly what we believe. Certainly the LCMS doesn't and more-so the ELCA doesn't. The WELS doesn't and neither does the ELS.

So why is it off limits to speak what you see as faults within ONLY the ELCA? Does the ELCA not have faults? Surely the other confessional Lutheran denominations have faults, albeit, not as glaring.

Maybe I shouldn't post this, it might insight anger. If this thread closes due to this inquiry, then I certainly apologize. Hopefully others will respond with honest answers and not feel upset.

Hopefully :)
Good post.

I am ELCA and ELCA has faults.
And I agree that they are "more glaring".

You also mentioned that the conservatives have faults and that is a healthy statement.

It is the negative attitude that usually sparks the "flames".

I addressed a number of "faults" of the conservative groups at the main forum.
And we had threads and threads of discussions.

Once a post is reread more than once for possible "flames" and then is posted, a conversation would develop that could get heated at times, but never bad.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Edial]

But what if I'm almost ready to bite my tongue off? :)
Have one of these ...
http://files.myopera.com/Mathilda/albums/40588/beer.jpg

[seajoy]

Ed...no wonder you aren't a Baptist anymore. :doh:

(sorry to interupt this thread...proceed...)

[Confess]

What do you see as the minimum requirements to be called Lutheran?

Note: This is not to debate, so nobody else jump in here. I'm just gathering information.
Excellent question.
Here is a list of doctrinal differences off the top of my head. These differences can be found to contradict the Lutheran confessions:

1. Open communion
2. Female pastors
3. Open unrepentant sin is treated as if it is not a sin (homosexuality is probably the most glaring)
4. Inerrancy of scripture
5. Open fellowship with those who deny Lutheran doctrine
6. Pro-abortion

Those are the biggest ones I can think of concerning doctrine. After these issues there are smaller ones that come as a consiquence of rejecting the bigger doctrines.

So in effect, if I were to say a minimum requirement, I would have to go to the confessions where back in the 1500's so many of the Lutheran fathers stood up and said that all that is contained in this book is what makes us Lutheran.

So the minimum requirements can be found in the BoC.

[BelindaP]

Would it be an equally valid view that being Lutheran is based upon a common tradition? I think that is how many of the ECLA would view it.

Also, being a member of the ECLA does not mean that you agree with everything that the ECLA governance has specified. Just as not everyone who is in the LCMS agrees with every item in the Lutheran confessions.

[porterross]

Have one of these ...
http://files.myopera.com/Mathilda/albums/40588/beer.jpg
Very nice, but you forgot the BEST brand, Ed.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/age_beer.jpg

Carry on.

[Confess]

Would it be an equally valid view that being Lutheran is based upon a common tradition? I think that is how many of the ECLA would view it.

Also, being a member of the ECLA does not mean that you agree with everything that the ECLA governance has specified. Just as not everyone who is in the LCMS agrees with every item in the Lutheran confessions.

There are pastors in the LCMS who do not adhere to all the confession, this is true. I would say that the rub goes more with communion then anything else.

As for "common tradition". The tradition says "Here I stand". If you say otherwise, then you are in effect saying you disagree with that common tradition don't you think? You are saying that Luther and the historic Lutheran tradition were wrong which is why there is such a difference between the one group and the other.

[Edial]

Very nice, but you forgot the BEST brand, Ed.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/age_beer.jpg

Carry on.
Believe it or not, I actually spoke with a bartender once concerning whether Amstel Light is actually "Light".

He kind of looked at me like I'm a newbie. :)

[porterross]

Believe it or not, I actually spoke with a bartender once concerning whether Amstel Light is actually "Light".

He kind of looked at me like I'm a newbie. :)


Well, it ain't dark. ^_^
The only other acceptable beer, IMO is Shiner Bock. :yum:

[Confess]

Well, it ain't dark. ^_^
The only other acceptable beer, IMO is Shiner Bock. :yum:
You knuckleheads!!!! ^_^ :P

[porterross]

You knuckleheads!!!! ^_^ :P

No, we're Lutheran and we like our beer. :thumbsup:

Did you not know that was a requirement? http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/spy.gif (We really need one of these little guys here?)

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/8b/39/fddkBeersBy_NameShiner_Bock-resized200.gif

[C.F.W. Walther]

Would it be an equally valid view that being Lutheran is based upon a common tradition? I think that is how many of the ECLA would view it.

Also, being a member of the ECLA does not mean that you agree with everything that the ECLA governance has specified. Just as not everyone who is in the LCMS agrees with every item in the Lutheran confessions.Common tradition would not be a criteria for acceptance. We have common tradition with the RC but we don't have fellowship with them.

[BelindaP]

But this isn't about fellowship. It's about whether a synod should call themselves Lutheran or not.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Denoms change their name all the time. People that adhere to Calvin's teachings don't call themselves Calvanists on their marque. The same could apply to ELCA. Maybe they can change their name to the Milktoast Pacifier Assoc. Just a thought.

[ProfessorMom]

Interesting perhaps, but I don't think the ELCA is looking for a name change.

[C.F.W. Walther]

A forum name change is not a denom name change.

[Confess]

No, we're Lutheran and we like our beer. :thumbsup:

Did you not know that was a requirement? http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/spy.gif (We really need one of these little guys here?)

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/8b/39/fddkBeersBy_NameShiner_Bock-resized200.gif
Mouse over my CF character and see. :)

[jcj3803]

No, we're Lutheran and we like our beer. :thumbsup:

Did you not know that was a requirement? http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/spy.gif (We really need one of these little guys here?)

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/8b/39/fddkBeersBy_NameShiner_Bock-resized200.gif

Don't forget Jello salad in the church basement. (My age is probably showing with that one...)

[KagomeShuko]

Have one of these ...
http://files.myopera.com/Mathilda/albums/40588/beer.jpg
Ed, I know it says "BEER" in the background, but it LOOKS like it says "BEEP."

My sister and I area having too much fun with this saying, "Beep! It's more than just a breakfast drink." and "Would you like some beep to drink?"

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[Edial]

Ed, I know it says "BEER" in the background, but it LOOKS like it says "BEEP."

My sister and I area having too much fun with this saying, "Beep! It's more than just a breakfast drink." and "Would you like some beep to drink?"

Stein Auf!
Bridget
It does say BEEP ... Hmm.

But reading the rest of your post it appears you and your sister just had few BEEPs too many.

[BelindaP]

:) Fellowship in the fellowship forum. Now, that's more like it.

[PretzelMonger]

But we don't drink. Seriously we are naturally silly.

[BigNorsk]

Excellent question.
Here is a list of doctrinal differences off the top of my head. These differences can be found to contradict the Lutheran confessions:

1. Open communion
2. Female pastors
3. Open unrepentant sin is treated as if it is not a sin (homosexuality is probably the most glaring)
4. Inerrancy of scripture
5. Open fellowship with those who deny Lutheran doctrine
6. Pro-abortion

Those are the biggest ones I can think of concerning doctrine. After these issues there are smaller ones that come as a consiquence of rejecting the bigger doctrines.

So in effect, if I were to say a minimum requirement, I would have to go to the confessions where back in the 1500's so many of the Lutheran fathers stood up and said that all that is contained in this book is what makes us Lutheran.

So the minimum requirements can be found in the BoC.

1. Open Communion. Now technically there are some congregations in most synods that actually do open communion. In all synods, most congregations practice some form of close or closed communion. The thing is on what basis is it practiced.

Those decendants of the neo-Lutheran reform movement, the confessional Lutherans tend to allowe communion only with those in their synod or some additional synods in which they are in communion. Others practice it differently. The basic idea is usually only those who are Christians should be communed. And usually the person should at least be of age to examine themselves, and there is also some tendency to require belief in the sacramental union.

But the basic split really goes back to those who would be looser in their practice basically harken back to the reformation idea of the invisible church made up of all believers.

The practitioners of closed communion basically recognize the church to be the visible church of those congregations or synods in which they are in communion and no other.

So those who are pointed to as practicing open communion are communing basically on the basis of the invisible church, and the closed communion practitioners on the basis of the visible church.

It isn't often brought out openly, but in confessional Lutheranism there is a very strong current of those in communion being the true visible church and all others being outside the church. Though the Confessions say the marks of the Church are the Gospel preached and the Sacraments rightly practiced, in practice, to confessional churches, the Confessions become the mark of the true church.

2. Female pastors. Well, we've had a little discussion going on the homosexual pastor removed for having a sexual partner, and we touched on the passages that pertain here a bit. Just as they cannot be used to impose matrimony as a requirement for ministry, they become somewhat problematic to require maleness. Now the strongest verses are where women are not to have authority over a man. I see no teaching from the larger picture of scripture that really contradicts or qualifies that, though many look to the passage where there is neither male nor female as doing so. In any case, there are clearly ministries where no authority over men is used. I'm not sure that there really is a strong scriptural basis to prevent all women ministers, but I believe the preponderance of the weight is that there certainly should not be one as a head or sole minister in a congregation.

3. Open unrepentant sin not treated as sin. I think there again it is more a case of individual congregations than synods. No synod approves of homosexual partners being in the minstry. Practices of discipline of church members tends to be fairly lax among all synods.

4. Inerrancy of scripture. There is certainly a difference there, though I'm not so sure there is much difference between the synods among the LCMS and ELCA. Certainly ELCA admits the possibility of error in maters other than faith or doctrine. Are you aware that according to the Commitee on Constitutional Matters, congregations may not use such words as inerrant in their constitutions to describe the scriptures? Anyway, I suspect that will change. But for now, it appears that in the LCMS the scriptures are inspired.

My synod went for the verbal and plenary inspirations without error in the whole or in part type of statement, but then we were more influenced by other conservative protestant strains so it's not surprising that we sound a little more evangelical than historically Lutheran in our statement about scripture.

5. Open fellowship for those who deny Lutheran doctrine. Pretty well dealt with in #1. The foundational idea is that the church is made up of all Christians, not all Lutherans. So we operate on the invisible church principle. My synod really doesn't deal with anyone else on a synod or denominational basis since God doesn't work that way either. So if you are a member of the body of Christ, we will do our best to treat you as such, even while we may have strong objections to some of your positions.

6. Pro-abortion. I don't know that I really would characterize any synod that way. I know the ELCA is under fire that their insurance company will pay for abortions. But I really haven't seen any official synod policy from any synod that I would term pro-abortion. I know there are individuals and even congregations that would be hard to classify any other way, but I really haven't seen any synod take a pro-abortion possition. Maybe not a strong against abortion as I would like but not pro-abortion.

The major areas of disagreement really come down to the practice of higher criticism which was throughout Lutheranism until the neo-Lutheran reform movement of the 1800's. Certainly, since their very purpose for existence was to reform the Lutheran church of their day, the neo-Lutherans had strong feelings against what they believe are the mistakes of the higher criticism branches of Lutheranism.

Generally, I personally would agree with those decended from the neo-Lutherans known today as the Confessional Lutherans. I think they made a couple of decisions though that I do not agree with. One is the visible church taking such precedence over the invisible church. The other is to insert the ministry as an office of the church instead of the purpose of the church. Effectively, they created a new heirarchy among Christians, one which cost many during the Reformation their very lives to dismantle. That has caused problems in trying to determine how to work missionaries and seminary professors and such into this office. Anyway, confessionalism is still evolving so we'll see just how many splits and such happen, but I'm not sure it's really going to be that many. Many if not most inside Confessional Lutheranism seem really ready to abandon the idea of being the one true church. So the Communion practices are opening up in practice if not officially yet and so on. The conflict comes as anything "changes" there's always things that can be turned to and quoted against it.

Anyway, I'm going to stop before I have to pay to publish this just realize that things aren't quite as simple as liberal vs conservative.

Marv

[ProfessorMom]

Wow Marv, you're posts are just as great here as they are in that other CF forum where you and I post.

[KagomeShuko]

It does say BEEP ... Hmm.

But reading the rest of your post it appears you and your sister just had few BEEPs too many.
Yeah, my sister and I need no help in being silly at all. We're just naturally that way. I can drink water all day long and still be completely silly.

I can look at certain angles and see the leg that would make it an R, but it mainly looks like a P.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[C.F.W. Walther]

The other is to insert the ministry as an office of the church instead of the purpose of the church. Effectively, they created a new heirarchy among Christians, one which cost many during the Reformation their very lives to dismantle.So what do you consider the office of the church? Elders, bishops or laity? Walter fostered the laity as the holder of keys. What say you?

[BigNorsk]

Well certainly Jesus bestowed the keys on any group of believers.

Outside Confessional Lutherans there are certainly offices, but the emphasis is so different. Ministry is not so much an office as the purpose of the church. It is not so rigid. Certainly ministers are ordained, but ministers are not as separated from the flock.

Look at the fights in Confessional Lutherans just over whether pastor and teachers are two separate offices or if pastor-teacher is the one office. And then the fight if pastor-teacher is one office, if it belongs to both pastors and teachers, or only to the pastor-teacher, with the teachers simply being the helpers of the pastor-teacher. I'm not sure who "won" I can find people confidently asserting any one of the positions is the only correct one.

And Evangelists, don't forget, as has been often done, the evangelists, and how really it appears that if the listing in Ephesians 4:11 is offices in the church, it appears that evangelists are higher than pastors. I honestly don't know any Lutheran church that does that. Most kind of roll evangelist into pastor, and treat missionaries as something else altogether.

And the deacons, a sorely neglected office in many cases. Properly, I would think it would serve at least partly in preparation to be elders. Would be really interesting in a lot of cases to try and pry the daily workings of the congregation out of the hands of the pastor, of course for every pastor like that, there are many who would welcome more help and involvement from their deacons. A couple of years as a deacon at least would do a lot of seminary graduates good, but I'm afraid adding more years on would just result in starvation. It's kind of done now with the vicarage in some places.

See the confessional idea of the office of public ministry seems to me to be a return to the idea that wherever you find the bishop, there you will find the church. Whereas I see it as you find the church where there are believers. The office rests with them and they can call whom they need to call to ministry. For the ministry rests with the church. The commands to the church were not given only to a few office holders.

Marv

[Edial]

Wow Marv, you're posts are just as great here as they are in that other CF forum where you and I post.
Yep. He is good.