Professor Hinlicky states virtually everything I believe, in a matter far better than I could have.

It is good (if late) that he addresses Bishop Hanson's "disavowal of partisanship." I do not claim to know Bp Hanson's mind, but from the first time I saw him interviewed on local Indianapolis TV, during the hooliganism that passed for the 2001 CWA, there was no doubt, to me, where he stood: the ELCA MUST be altered to accommodate the wishes of Lutherans Concerned, Peter Rogness, Anita Hill, etc., but it wasn't going to be done right away. There would be a "study," in my mind to placate the traditionalists within the denomination. One of the saddest things I heard said at this time about the "study" was that "we have to see if the Gospel goes beyond the Bible (which is oxymoronic)." I'm not sure who said that.

Perhaps I'm cynical, but Bp Hanson's stance of "neutrality" was so disingenuous that I would have a difficult time believing him if he told me the sky was blue.

The "study" was done with a stacked deck. The vast majority of those involved were very pro-homosexuality.

I've related how my wife and I were virtually dismissed from our then-ELCA congregation because of our stance against this, and how we ended up in the LCMS for eight years. However, we've kept up on what has happened in the ELCA.

I have observed these telling signs (if there are more, feel free to add):

Prolonging the end result of the "study" many times and doggedly avoiding a straight up-and-down vote by the people of this church. I've used the Quebec/Canada comparison before, and again I use it. Quebec has held three official referenda on secession, all of which have failed, the 1995 one narrowly. Successive Parti Quebecois governments have played the "wait to see which way the wind blows" game, so that when they think conditions are "right" for a clear majority on secession, they'll hold another referendum (or "neverendum" as English Canadians have come to call them). Lutherans Concerned, Goodsoil, etc. are doing the same thing, wearing down the membership of this church with all the talk-it-to-death "studying" until many are just throwing up their hands and saying "enough!" Some have gone to the LCMS, others to splinter groups like LCMC, some to Rome, and some to Eastern Orthodoxy, among others. This is exactly what LC are hoping for - the fewer traditionalists left in the ELCA, the fewer votes in favour of the traditionalist position.

Releasing a hymnal that has many excellent qualities, but neuters God the Father (read the Psalter; it goes even further than the NRSV) and omits the Athanasian Creed (all that talk about "eternal fire" isn't very nice, is it?). Trinity Sunday hasn't been the same without it.

Releasing a Study Bible (which I'm currently working my way through) that, again, has many commendable qualities but continues to neuter God the Father, doggedly avoids any negative commentary on homosexuality, and has an interpretation of Matthew 28 that would be better off in a Unitarian-Universalist setting.

Tolerates open heresy and paganism - see www.herchurch.org

Urges "restraint" against disciplining those who violate Visions and Expectations, which, by the way, is STILL the current standard of the ELCA.

If I've left out any, feel free to add.

Professor Hinlicky, I would be very surprised if you receive a reply from Bishop Hanson.

I believe the ELCA, as we have known it, will cease to exist. Maybe that's a good thing...maybe something new can be built out of the wreckage.

The unity of the one holy catholic and apostolic church is indeed the gift of the Holy Spirit. The church as the creature of the Spirit can be nothing other than united just as the Spirit is united with the Father and the Son. This church, however, this one holy catholic and apostolic church, is the communion of saints, the congregation of believers. It is on no way coterminus with the ELCA. The appeal to unity as a God-given gift is only sound and appropriate in reference to what we have confessed in our movement as the church in the proper sense, i.e., the Hidden Church. The ELCA is but a manifestation and expression of the Visible Church, and, in itself, is merely a visibile church. The predication to the Visible Church that which may be properly predicated only to the Hidden Church is a grave error and runs counter our Confessions.

A call for unity in the ELCA can be made but not on the grounds that it has been made. A call for unity could be made on the basis of efficiency in the ministry or on the basis of sanctification in the narrow sense, but such calls are penultimate and contingent upon the proper purpose for the existence of the Visible Church, i.e., the maintenance of a medium and presentation of the means for the subsistence of the Hidden Church. Such is determined by the right preaching/teaching of [the Law and] the Gospel, right administration of the Sacraments, and the gathering of a community that might hear, receive, and believe.

A confessionally sound call for unity has not been issued. In fact, the call for unity is flawed at its root. This flaw, however, has been consistently present in the ELCA since the days of the CNLC. The rhetoric of unity we have used in the ELCA has conflated the Visible and Hidden Church, ascribing to the work of humans the work of God.

While several arguments for the amicable and orderly dissolution of the ELCA may be based upon the failure of the ELCA to properly discharge the duties of a Visible Church, it is this fundamental error in preserving the confessional distinction between the Visible and the Hidden Church that concerns me the most. Has it come time to dispose of Hezekiah's brazen serpent?

Hinlicky wrote:

"Why should I trade my baptismal unity in Christ with Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, ... in order to stay in an American Protestant denomination which increasingly asks me to support things I conscientiously judge to be heterodox, indeed, at variance with baptismal faith itself in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?"

Dr. Hinlicky, does this statement mean that you are in agreement with all the practices of Catholics and Evangelicals, including, for example, praying to Mary and interpreting scripture so that it becomes a health-and-wealth gospel?

Kurt,

I truly hope you do not mean to ask Paul Hinlicky what you have asked. When Scripture says, "one baptism" you contradict Scripture by suggesting that we do not have a baptismal unity with our fellow Christians, which is what he was referring to. Baptismal unity is not the same as pulpit and altar fellowship. The latter recognizes differences in teaching and practice but does not suggest that because of these differences we cannot therefore recognize our separated brethren as the brothers and sisters in Christ that they indeed are by virtue of our shared baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And in the case of the "praying to Mary" portion of your question, I hope your implied charge of idolatry against Roman Catholics reflects a mere lack understanding and study and not anti-Catholic bigotry - because in fact, speaking for themselves, the Roman Catholic Church denies "worshpping" Mary but rather suggests that if we believe Jesus who says God our Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and therefore he is God not of the dead but of the living; and that if it is ok to ask your earthly brother or sister in Christ to pray for you to God; then by logic it should be ok to ask those of our brothers and sisters in the Church Triumphant to pray for us as well - which is what Roman Catholics truly believe "prayer" to Mary is about - asking her to pray for our needs. Calling it "prayer" to Mary is not in any way an act of worship of Mary, but rather recalls the old English usage of the word "pray" in the sense, for example, of coming before the court magistrate and saying, "I pray thee my Lord (referring to the judge not as God but as head of the court)if it pleases thee, to hear my case and grant me justice."

Mr. Son of WMC (or whatever your name is):

Read my post again. I did not say "worship Mary". I said "pray to Mary". Your characterization averring that "worship" is what I meant is out of bounds.

I notice that you did not comment on the Evangelical question. Like the Mary issue, it's another issue of practice not shared by all churches. The question could be expanded to ask: Do you believe that you can sow a (financial) seed and then expect multifold bounty in return? Do we have a baptismal relationship with the churches which do that and exploit the poor and uninformed?

Clearly, my purpose in using these examples from Catholicism and Evangelicalism is to show that any claim to "oneness" must accept differences in both interpretation and practice. Another example is that some Catholics embrace the notion that repetitive and redundant prayers assert a stronger case for forgiveness because of their repetition (Have you seen Sister Angelica on the Catholic network?), yet Lutherans do not follow that practice. Just as you have sought to explain the difference involving the fact that Catholics pray to Mary and Lutherans do not, yet the two "denominations" exist ecumenically in one baptism, those differences establish that variations in practice can exist within the "one baptism" definition. So, to assert your "one baptism" definition means that the variations must be exempted.

Kurt,

Please forgive me for being over sensitive. Uusually when that example comes up its in the context of a charge of idolatry, said or implied - that said I had no right to assume as you said.

However, I don't understand your question to Paul Hinlicky given what you wrote to me. He didn't suggest that oneness in Baptism means accepting everything in every other denomination. What he did suggest was that in this singular instance, to accept the policy changes that are being put forward by the Sexuality Task Force would be more than creating one more "variation" but in fact would be a breach of the highest magnitude given that it seeks to call what is sin not to be so any longer which imperils the salvation of those who buy into that - which would make ecumenical relationships extremely difficult and reconcilliation nearly impossible. These, given the prayer of Jesus in John 17 cannot be scrapped in favor of the change the task force advocates. It goes beyond heresy into the territory of apostasy.

So, based on your view, it seems that some significant differences are all right while other significant differences are not. Let's see what Hinlicky himself has to say about this issue.

Kurt,

The quotation that you excerpted from Paul Hinlicky's article is what he is saying about the points I'm making in this line. I can't for the life of me make sense of your argumentation. Regardless of the distinctions in other types of differences, both sides in the Catholic-Protestant debates agree on Grace alone - so that the differences fall into the category of each side claiming the other to adhere to heresy. The differences between sides within the ELCA debate deal with the proposed changes of the Sexuality Task Force and they have at their core the argument over what is and isn't sin. To deny what has been the ancient Church teaching on this is to disagree whether or not such grace is necessary in a given situation which therefore from the side of those against the changes looks like a rejection of the need for God's grace (with regard to this specific sin) by the side that favors the changes. This no longer justifies the sinner, but now attempts to justify sin. That is not heresy, that is apostasy and therefore cuts off the ecumenical relationships Paul Hinlicky is speaking of in favor of a policy change that is sure to spell the demise of the ELCA. Now the fact that you do not agree with this is evident, but that is what he is arguing. I couldn't agree more.

Son of WMC,

I understand the point you're trying to make, and I have a response, but I want to hear from Hinlicky first, not only regarding the issue involving Mary, but also the Evangelical matter.

Allbeit a side-issue here (I do appreciate Rev. Hinlicky writing Bishop Hanson), I must reply to "Son of WMC" regarding Mariolatry. If one is not praying to Mary as praying to God, but merely asking her for favors, how does one hope to contact her. I checked my list of contacts on my cell phone, and she's not listed. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present. Mary was/is none of these. Blessed Mary was blessed by God, chosen to be the mother of our incarnate Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing Biblical about the Roman doctrine that she was assumed into heaven. As I will be unimployed in three days (due to a lay-off--the economy), shall I speak to Mary as though she were next to me, requesting favors from her? She died many centuries ago ("All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." "The penalty for sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord", "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoiceth in God MY SAVIOR (emphasis mine)." At my grandmother's funeral, decades ago, I could have tried speaking to her physical body as it laid in the coffin. There would be no reply. Why should one expect Mary, mother of Jesus, to make reply when she is just as dead as my grandmother. Scripture says "the dead in Christ shall rise first." To my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet. So the Roman church can deny worshipping Mary all they want to--are they not ascribing divine attributes to a mortal, expecting Mary will miraculously hear them, and do they assume she will be more loving than Jesus in granting favors, by supposedly asking the Father for favors which evidently wouldn't be granted apart from her priviliged intersession? This is giving her some divide attributes, is it not? There is nothing in Holy Scripture about Mary being born without sin. And even if the educated "Catholic" knows he/she is not praying/worshipping Mary, what about Romanists elsewhere in the world, who in poverty combine native religions with the teachings of the R.C. faith. All practice is not in synch. with the Vatican. -Just some food for thought.

Rik,

Thank you for your even-handedness.

As to your points on the "Mariolatry" question. You make too many to deal with all at once. Sticking with the "prayer to Mary" question: Are you suggesting that souls do not go to heaven after death? If they do, then what do you do with Rev. 6:9-11? Not only do the souls there listed see what goes on on earth (and presumably hear as well) but they also petition the Lord. Rev. 8:3 speaks of the prayers of "all the saints" so the souls in heaven as well as on earth are praying to God since there is no distinction made. The ancient church believed the Church Triumphant to intercede on behalf of the Church Militant. So what is the problem. No divine attributes are necessary here for me to ask the intercession of a saint in heaven. And it isn't that God wouldn't grant the request without Mary's intervention or anyone elses. But if you go by that logic, then you better not be asking anyone else on earth to be praying for you, otherwise you contradict your logic here. I can't find chapter and verse right now, but Scripture does say that God hears the prayers of the righteous. The souls in heaven must be righteous or they wouldn't be in heaven as nothing unrighteous can dwell there. So the point of asking saints to pray is that in spite of my own unworthiness to be heard, we know that the saints in heaven cannot go unheard. That doesn't mean that God doesn't hear my prayers, its merely a sign of humility and also of reliance upon the body of Christ and not merely upon myself to petition to God. If such greater reliance is wrong, then the prayers of the church done corporately need to be eliminated from worship services.

I can barely wait for Hinlicky to weigh in on this one.

Kurt, if you go back to the critique of the LSTC statement part 5, you will notice that after reading your response posted on your personal website, Hinlicky said that he will no longer respond to any of you posts. So, unfortunately, I don't think that you will receive a response from him.

Regarding Hinlicky's non-response:

It's certainly his choice regarding whether or not to respond. Based on these new issues that have been raised (in response to his letter to Bishop Hanson), I can see why he doesn't.

"...I can see why he doesn't." Well, let's see. How about the character assasination job you did on him in your endless piece at your website. Or your claim that he "attacked" the LSTC professors when in reality he critiqued their recent statement. If I were on the receiving end of that, I'm sure I would have no interest in responding to the author of such nonsense myself. But that is just my opinion.

My "character assassination" of Hinlicky ???

He called for the LSTC faculty to "repent", which means he is judging them of having committed sin. All I did was disagree, and nowhere in my commentary will you find that kind of pejorative and judgmental language regarding the things that God should decide.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,..." II Timothy 3:16. When you know what the Scriptures say, and you know others have turned from the truth of Scripture, what is so terrible about calling others to repentance? If this is done in Christian love, out of concern for their souls and the ones they teach, I would see this call of repentance as the right thing at the right time. Professor Hinlicky, myself, yourself, and the person reading this posting right now cannot look into their hearts and judge whether they are headed towards hell, or not. In that sense, nobody is judging anyone--we leave that to God. However, we are called to use discernment. If I am giving of my time, talents and treasures to the Lord, and His church, and I find out that a teaching institution that had been set up to teach Christian theology is no longer teaching Christian theology but Another Gospel, I will not support it financially or in any other way. It is commendable, IMO, that he called them to repentance. Oh that it would have affect, as it was in Jonah's day in Ninevah. If you have nothing to repent about, then don't worry if someone calls you to repentance. Search the Scriptures, and be sure you are right with God. But if you are in need of repentance, put your pride on the shelf, and thank God that someone cared enough about you to wake you up and call you to repentance. If a pastor steals money from the youth group, would you call that pastor to repentance? If a pastor molests children, would you call that pastor to repentance. If a pastor uses racial slurs, demeaning those who look or act differently, would you call him to repentance? Then why wouldn't you call one to repentance who has twisted the words of Scripture, and have replaced the one true Gospel of Jesus Christ with a pseudo-gospel of activism and inclusiveness which ignores the Law of God. If you read your New Testament closely you will find many places where we are told to not turn a blind eye toward heresy. Check it out for yourself.

Rik,

Well said!

In this particular case, the people whom Hinlicky was using as his objects of "needing to repent" were faculty members of a respected ELCA seminary who basically have academic and intellectual disagreements with him. They are not gutter trash who have never repented on matters where repentence is appropriate. They do not implement a governmental torture policy. They do not go to war on information known to be false. They made a case for a specific position involving interpretation of scripture and tradition.

"Based on these new issues that have been raised (in response to his letter to Bishop Hanson), I can see why he doesn't."

No you can't, but that you think so might be a clue as to why he won't. I don't know Dr. Hinlicky's stance on your "new issues," but I am pretty sure that in his mind they might not be on the same level as the one's he raises concerning our ecumenical relationships and the possible changes that could happen this August. Actually, if you knew anything about Dr. Hinlicky's writing, you would know that he does have issues with the Roman Catholic Church that keep him from moving across the divid. Quit assuming that you have him trapped and actually deal with what he writes, then, who knows, it might actually be worth a response.

I don't assume I have him trapped. I merely quoted from his letter to the Bishop and asked for an explanation. It's a legitimate issue, and I'm still waiting.

Now I have experienced why he won't answer you. As I said before "you can't see why." That you think the issues you raise are valid objections to his argument is the problem. Those issues are not on the same playing field. Your thought that these are necessarily logical objections to what he wrote doesn't work and from what others have written, confuses them too. My guess is that Dr. Hinlicky has better things to do than answer side points that have nothing to do with his argument and so now I will move on to better things.

So, you're moving on to "better things."

I'm sorry you think that a lowly Christian like myself has pulled Hinlicky (and you) into the gutter with these very practical and relevant issues. Perhaps the real problem here is that of the implied elitism which accompanies such a judgemental attitude about those of us who also express our sincere beliefs.

Did I say that you were lowly? No! Did I say that you were pulling anyone into the gutter? No! I did say that your arguments did not follow from what you quoted in the open letter. It is interesting that you have done with my words what you did with Dr. Hinlicky's writing for the last few weeks. You move from what he writes to conclusions that do not necessarily follow (i.e. baptismal unity being broken by the ELCA making decisions that are contrary to Scripture, the Church's consistent teaching through time and Luther Confessions to the assumption that these decisions are similar to to praying to Mary or propsperity gospel). In fact I found myself saying some nasty things that I didn't say as did Dr. Hinlicky (being judgmental toward LSTC faculty).

I don't know you, so it would be hard for me to judge you. I do say that your posts here often do not make sense logically and I am not the only one who has said that. As for elitism, I have never been accused of such a thing, but I think I will revel in the "judgment" for a while as something novel. Dr. Hinlicky, I can assure you is not an elitist and you owe him and apology for saying that he is. He is a person of strong faith and deep devotion to the church. He expects people to take him at his word and not read into what he writes or says. So do I, by the way, so your last post is defamatory, since it does not say what I said or meant.

I did not judge your sincere beliefs, nor do I have any desire to do so. On the other hand, beliefs, no matter how sincere, cannot trump the Scriptures, the consistent Church teaching, and for the ELCA the teaching of the Lutheran Confessions. "Sincere beliefs" -- whether yours or mine -- cannot trump what the Christian faith has taught; if I argued that my sincere faith could do so did for that matter, then I would be what Luther called an "enthusiast." I will not interpret tht as your intention here. Dr. Hinlicky is not free to say or believe whatever he wants, he submits to the authority of the Scriptures and Confessions and expects others to do so. One may disagree with him, but they must actually argue with what he has said, not what they want to make him say. He would hol me to the same standard and tell me when I appear to fall short, I would not accuse him of being judgmental, but would have to show him through Scripture and sound reason, why I would say what I say. Maybe you and I are just a kettle and a pot going back and forth, but I will not stand by and read what are ad hominem attacks on Dr. Hinlicky by anyone, such as being and elitist. Enough of this. Now, I must go to confession.

You wrote:

"Dr. Hinlicky, I can assure you is not an elitist and you owe him and apology for saying that he is. He is a person of strong faith and deep devotion to the church. He expects people to take him at his word and not read into what he writes or says".

First of all, I didn't say "elitism" ipso facto. I said, "implied elitism", which is much softer. And secondly, the description of him being someone who "expects people to take him at his word and not read into what he writes or says," is an on-point description of the LSTC faculty members whose opinions have been stretched into making them victims.

I haven't imputed into Hinlicky's meanings, and I haven't judged him. I've merely disagreed. Relative to any questions I've raised (especially in these recent rounds), I have cited specific statements he has made.

Before I wrote my "Commentary" to Hinlicky's Five Part series about the LSTC faculty, I asked a respected Lutheran theologian whether the LSTC faculty would respond, and I was told that a formal response was unlikely. I asked why and was told that mainstream Lutherans typically view the reactions of Lutheran Forum contributors as an acrimonious hornet's nest when engaged, especially in light of its cross connections with Lutheran Core, Word Alone, and the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. I had a hard time believing that (giving people who consider themselves traditionalist Christians the benefit of the doubt, and especially inasmuch as I consider myself to be a traditional Lutheran of Word and Sacrament). Nonetheless, I decided to write the Commentary anyway. Even if I had believed what I was told, it wouldn't have stopped me from writing it, but I must say I have been very surprised at the tone of the discussion in this venue.

"Calling it 'prayer' to Mary is not in any way an act of worship of Mary, but rather recalls the old English usage of the word "pray" in the sense, for example, of coming before the court magistrate and saying, 'I pray thee my Lord (referring to the judge not as God but as head of the court)if it pleases thee, to hear my case and grant me justice.'"

Oh, but it is an act of worship, as it is ascribing god-like abilities to a dead human being, to be able to somehow miraculously hear supplications from people around the globe (and to be able to translate and understand these supplications). A focus is also encouraged to direct requests to Mary as opposed to going to our Father through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I am aware of the confessional Lutheran stance regarding the division between the hidden and the visible church. However it seems to me that such a division is proving itself more and more fruitless and dare I say false. When Jesus prays his high priestly prayer in John 17, he makes no distinction between hidden and visible regarding the necessity of the unity of the church vis-a-vis its aid in furthering the mission of spreading the gospel and helping the world to learn and believe that the Father has indeed sent the Son into the world and so on. In fact reading 17:23 has Jesus praying that believers be "completely one" or "perfectly one" which one would rightly assume refers to a unity in all things visible and invisible. That also includes doctrine as noted by Paul Hinlicky in Galatians. The schisms of institutions and hearts have been devastating and until ELCA Lutherans and Protestants in general wake up and realize this, things will only continue to get worse. The evidence I lay before you is that in spite of recent ecumenical mergers among Lutherans, the decision this summer will likely undo any of the positive of those mergers; and since the "Reformation" the number of protesting denominations has only increased and not decreased. This in turn has led to what we are now experiencing in the declines in membership. The only thing keeping the decline from being more precipitous is the fact that Protestant denominations in the U.S. are not of the state church model, where participation in church life is absolutely dismal and thus the sharing of the gospel is practically non-existent. The movement of Protestantism is and has been slowly moving in the direction of either universalism or in the direction of nothingness by virtue of trying to be in unity with the culture. This is not a reform but a devolution from the gospel and a fairly obvious visible confession that reconciling with the Roman Catholic Church has become a thing of the past that is no longer desired.

Jesus did indeed pray for unity in John, but it seems more likely that this was an eschatological hope than something which could be realized in organizational structures this side of the eschaton. We might prefigure eschatological unity in our organizational structures, but such prefigurement can only ever be a lesser type of the archetypical church in the perfection of its telos.

It also stands to reason that Jesus' prayer did not establish some particular organizational unity. It is commonly held that the church of the apostolic age did not have an organizational unity that looks anything like incorporated denominationalism. These incorporated structures are human artifice. Their value should be judged on that basis and not according to a misapplication of the Johannine witness. Utility is the criterion. If organizational unity advances the utility of these visible churches vis-a-vis their proper duties, well and good. What we observe now is the sapping of utility as we attempt to maintain a unity of polity which bears less and less resemblance to the unity of the gospel ministry.

The Reformers rearticulated the venerable distinction between the Hidden and the Visible Church because the conflation of the two had led to problems in the life of the Church or Rome which were in turn subverting the right teaching and preaching of the Faith. The distinction is a salutary one. It's proper application in our current situation might help us preserve and strengthen mission and ministry even while we struggle with events in our particular Visible Church.

Matthew,

You said, "Jesus did indeed pray for unity in John, but it seems more likely that this was an eschatological hope than something which could be realized in organizational structures this side of the eschaton." What do you base this supposition that his prayer refered only to an eschatological hope? The fact that the unity would serve to enhance the witness to the gospel would tell me that it wasn't merely eschatological, but in the here and now.

Son of WMC appears to be right on this point, as evidenced by St. John 17:20-23 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us SO THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE SENT ME. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity TO LET THE WORLD KNOW THAT YOU SENT ME AND HAVE LOVED THEM EVEN AS YOU HAVE LOVED ME. (emphasis mine)" (NIV). See also v. 26. This is clearly not merely eschatological, as the emphasis on the importance of unity is for the purpose of witness to unbelievers. If it is not until after the eschaton, then it will be too late for that witness to accomplish what God would have it accomplish.

I concede the point that unity serves witness (not just to individuals but also to the world as the antithesis of the Kingdom).

Perfect unity, however, is and can only ever be an eschatological reality. Consequently, we can only takl about an approximate unity which, we can hope, reflects something of that future glory. Is this unity, however, to be equated with the organic unity of the ELCA or any other particular visible church. For very practical reasons, the has never been organic unity in toto. The ancient church bishoprics were autocephalous. Their unity was not one of organizational structures. Their unity was one of love and faith. When necessary, synods and councils were called to resolve matters of faith and practice.

What the presiding bishop has called for is not a unity in faith and practice. He has asked for a unity in polity. Unity in polity is not necessary for unity in faith and practice. Furthermore, unity in polity might be a hindrance to unity in love. Maybe we should consider the Genesis account of Abraham and Lot as an alternative Biblical narrative. At present, we are spending excessive time, energy, and money maintaining a unity of polity while the churchwide expression cuts funding for seminaries and colleges and freezes support for campus ministries. Perhaps, if we stopped trying to maintain this ill-founded experiment in Lutheran unity, we might be able (through two or more judicatories) get back to the work of the visible church.

Matthew,

You state, "Perfect unity, however, is and can only ever be an eschatological reality." This may seem correct according to human logic, but Jesus doesn't make this distinction in his prayer. The purpose of the unity he prays for is strictly regarding serving witness which is pre-eschaton. Granted the perfection carries into the eschaton, but that is not what he is praying for, otherwise his prayer would be pointless, given that that is sure to happen as Jesus well knows. All things are possible for God. All things are possible for the Holy Spirit working through fallible human beings, thus we have Scripture which perfectly communicates the will of God. Furthermore the argument that the ancient bishoprics were completely autocephalous ignores the letter of First Clement where the Bishop of Rome, Clement, is writing, correcting the church in Corinth. It also ignores the correctives of Ignatius of Antioch to several churches while simultaneously praising the church in Rome for having no errors in doctrine or discipline and holding the primacy of the community of love. Can you refute this?

Son of WMC:
I would like to ask you what your intentions are for posting on Lutheran Forum. Is it your goal to convert Lutherans to Roman Catholicism? Considering the postings of yours I've seen in the past, I would not be surprized if that were your goal.

Someone in one of these posts (if not on this blog, than an earlier one) stated that we should admit that "the ELCA was a failed attempt..." I've spent some time trying to find the quote & the source, but I have limited time, like most of us. While I do not seek to adress that quote, I get the impression that you, Son of WMC, believe that Lutheranism is a "failed attempt." Am I correct? Have you ever read the Augsburg Confession? The Roman Confutation? The Apology to the Augsburg Confession? What is your response? Do you reject all of Luther's 95 thesis, and see this as an opportune time to try to sway people to the Church of Rome? I hope I am reading you wrong. I can understand your disdain for the problems within Lutheranism at this time, and their sources. Do you see anything good in classic Lutheranism, or are we just a bunch of "seperated brethren" in your book? I'm sorry, but I have to ask. I sometimes wonder why someone adamant about Roman Catholicism would want to hang out at Lutheran Forum all the time. Have you a response?

Sorry--the quote referred to the ELCA as "a failed experiment..." I should have proofed before submitting. Sorry.

Rik,

I have been a Lutheran for 42 years, and currently serve in the ELCA as a pastor. I've also been on a journey for over 10 years trying to understand the conversion of a mentor of mine to Rome. I have read all of the documents you cite. I have also read many more that you haven't. I am heavily leaning to converting myself after finding what I have found. I guess this is a last ditch effort to see if anyone here can persuade me that I am wrong to lean in the direction I do. So far, either I find poor disjointed arguments, like those of Kurt, or I generally find agreement with what I say. My local colleagues continually moan and groan about what is happening at Higgins Road and with the churchwide assembly coming up - but eventually fall back in exegetical studies on Sunday texts to compalain about Romanism. Yet I never hear persuasive arguments about why the doctrine of Rome is wrong, especially given what I've read in the Apostolic Fathers and other church fathers, and given what I've seen and read about the Catholic Church in modern times. Abuses come and go, but internal reforms continue to take care of those. But there are passages of Scripture that don't make any sense except in the Catholic system. I've got a best friend in Wisconsin who has one of his retired pastors trying to convince me my thinking is all wrong, and that just isn't doing it either. If I am way off, and I am willing to admit that that could be a possibility, then somebody has to show me where persuasively. All the old charges against Rome that have been leveled are against a stereotype that doesn't exist or assume things about Roman teaching that are patently untrue. Finally we must ask, who gave Luther the authority to deny and discard teachings many of which go back to the time of Augustine or earlier in a developed form? Do you have any answers? On the other hand, if my leaning is correct, then shouldn't we all be persuaded?

I apologize for not figuring out sooner that you would view my posts as "poor, disjointed arguments." Had I known more about your viewpoints and perspective, it wouldn't have surprised.

What does surprise me is that you have chosen to remain anonymous in this forum. If you were to come out of the closet, so to speak, it would give your opinions more credibility because they wouldn't be zooming from out of the darkness from an unknown source.

You state: "If I am way off, and I am willing to admit that that could be a possibility, then somebody has to show me where persuasively." Rather than write a detailed analysis of the history of doctrine, I simply would ask you to sit for an hour or so watching Sister Angelica on EWTN as she rotely and morosely leads the young girls through iteration after iteration of sequential Hail Marys, then moves over to the counter from which she sells the icons. These examples are not stereotypes from out of the past. They happen daily.

Kurt,

I am keeping my anonymity because I don't need to have my family put at risk in my discerment process. My credibility comes from the coherence of my arguments and the evidence I supply in support of them. Not from who I am, known or unknown.

I have watched EWTN and you would do well to watch much more of it than these isolated items you cite. You have no understanding of the rosary nor would it seem do you care to hear the Catholic point of view on it. The same goes for the icons. Contempt pours forth swiftly from your postings here much like a river that pours into the ocean. So I am not going to waste time typing explanations to you here. If someone else who genuinely wants to engage me on those topics chooses to do so, I would see it as a worthwhile expenditure of my time.

I can't follow your "at risk" statement in the context of this forum, but I don't know the circumstances. I hope it works out for you.

I have read a great deal of Catholic theology, including the subject of the Rosary, and I just don't see how it triggers grace in contrast to Lutheranism--I suppose in the same way that Luther couldn't see it either. I don't dispute that Catholicism works for the people who need it, for whatever reason that they might need it.

Yes, I believe I can refute. You properly lift up important Patristic writings and then improperly read into them a level of organizational unity (i.e., unity of polity) that can't be found. Letters of mutual affection, praise, and respect (also letters of rebuke) are not equivalent to command and control. The chorepiscopoi were, by the time of Nicea, under the direct supervision of metropolitans, but, among bishops of higher rank, it was a fraternal bond that held them together not a polity. Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Cyril, etc. should be read in this light rather than trying to back read later cetralization into them. The proof of the lack of a structured polity is evidenced by the call of the Council of Nicea and, ultimately, by the practice of mutual anathematization. The Patristic epistles cited have the force of moral suasion--and, in this, they are beautiful examples of the majesterium at its best--but they don't have the power to depose.

As for human logic being incapable of conceiving what God might work, I can only agree with you. It is neither good nor safe to declare God incapable of doing something--other than denying himself--and all the logical extensions of that point as outlined in the Summa, I suppose. On the other hand, human fantasy isn't such a good idea. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians is pretty clear about this time prior to the eschaton. Things are in part. They will be made whole, but that time is not yet. Luther: "This life is not godliness, but growth in godliness; not health, but healing; not being, but becoming; not rest, but exercise. We are not now what we shall be, but we are on the way; the process is not yet finished, but it has begun; this is not the goal, but it is road; at present all does not gleam and glitter, but everything is being purified." I think he gets it right. On one side, folks have made the mistake of thinking that there is no progress this side of the eschaton. There most certainly is because the Holy Spirit is at work in us, conforming us to the will and image of God. On the other side, folks have made the mistake of thinking that the eschaton has already arrived; Paul didn't have much good to say about realized eschatology.

I want the visible church to imitate the eschatological hope, but I also want it to do so with a touch of humility. Part of that humility is not claiming for itself more than should be claimed. In the presiding bishop's call for unity, his rhetoric, as I have argued, confuses and conflates the categories. The ELCA is not the Body of Christ--nor is any other human ecclesiastical polity--though I do believe, confess, and hope that the Body of Christ subsists in the ELCA just as I believe, confess, and hope that the Body of Christ subsists wherever the Means of Grace (or notae ecclesia) are found regardless of name (denomination) or organizational structures.

Yes, I am using very strictly the relevant articles of the Augstana, Apology, SA, etc.. If one wants to debate the truth of these articles, I'm all for it--in the proper venue--there is a certain academic pleasure in getting into the "quia" v. "quatenus" controversy. For the puposes of this blog (and discussion), however, the validity of the confessional formulations does not have to be defended. The prsiding bishop made particular statements. He did so within the context of an ELCA conversation. Since the ELCA subscribes to these confessional formulations (in Chapter II, no less, of its own constitution), the confessional formulations may be legitimately employed in any critique. I submit that the presiding bishop and anyone else misapplying or applying alternative formulations as premises for arguments related to unity in the ELCA should first seek to amend the constitution and bylaws. If, however, our conversation is not about the ELCA--which I think it is, though, if I am wrong about that, I gladly retract--then each participant is free to turn to whatever ecclesiologies seem most reasonable in his/her own judgment.

--writing much too late at night after a brutally long day...please forgive spelling, grammar, etc..

Matthew,

You said, "You properly lift up important Patristic writings and then improperly read into them a level of organizational unity (i.e., unity of polity) that can't be found. Letters of mutual affection, praise, and respect (also letters of rebuke) are not equivalent to command and control."

Granted, the development of polity in the early Church isn't what it is today, however there is plenty of "command and control" in the letters of Clement and Ignatius. I submit the following:

I Clement 42:1-2, 4-5 "The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God and the Apostles are from Christ. Both accordingly, came in proper order by the will of God...Preaching, accordingly, throughout the country and the cities, they appointed their first fruits, after testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should believe. And this they did without innovation, since many years ago things had been written concerning bishops and deacons."

I Clement 44:1-4 "Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jeuss Christ, that there would be contention over the bishop's office. So for this cause, having recieved complete foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned men, and afterwards gave them a permanent character, so that, as they died, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. Those therefore, who were appointed by the Apostles or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who ministered blamelessly to the flock of Christ in humility, peaceably and nobly, being commended for many years by all -- these men we consider are not justly deposed from their ministry. It will be no small sin for us, if we depose from the episcopacy men who have blamelessly and in holiness offered up sacrifice."

I Clement 47:6-7 "It is disgraceful, beloved, very disgraceful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, to hear that the stable and ancient Church of the Corinthians, on account of one or two persons, should revolt against its presbyters. And this report has come not only to us, but also to those who dissent from us. The result is that blasphemies are brought upon the name of the Lord through your folly, and danger acrues for yourselves."

I Clement 48: 1, 4 "Let us quickly remove this, then, and let us fall down before the Lord and supplicate Him with tears that He may become merciful and be reconciled to us, and restore us to the honored and holy practice of brotherly love...All are blessed who enter by this gate and pursue their way in holiness and justice, performing all things without disorder."

I Clement 49:5 "Charity knows no schism, does not rebel, does all things in concord...Without charity nothing is pleasing to God."

I Clement 57:1-2 "You, therefore, who laid the foundation of rebellion, submit to the presbyters, and accept chastisement for repentance, bending the knees of your heart. Learn to be submissive, laying aside the boastful and proud self-confidence of your tongue, for it is better for you to be found 'little ones,' but honorable within the flock of Christ, than to seem to be pre-eminent, but to be cast out from His hope. (This quote in particular is a very clear example of command and control!)

I Clement 59:1 "But if some shall disobey the words which have been spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small transgression and danger."

I Clement 63:2-3 "For you will afford us joy and gladness if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and get rid of the wicked passion of jealousy, according to the plea for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter. We have sent trustworthy and prudent men, who have lived among us irreproachably from youth to old age; and they will be witnesses between you and us."

Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians 2, 5-6 "...And so it is right for you to glorify Jesus Christ in every way, who has given you glory so that you may be made perfect in a single obedience to your bishop and the priests and be made holy in every way...Let us be careful, therefore, not to oppose the bishop, so that we may be obedient to God...whoever is sent by the Master to run His house, we ought to receive him as we wold receive the Master himself. It is obvious, therefore, that we ought to regard the bishop as we would the Lord Himself."

Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians 6-7 - "...so I exhort you to be careful to do all things in the harmony of God, the bishop having the primacy after the model of God and the priests after the model of the council of the Apostles, and the deacons...having entrusted to them the ministry of Jesus Christ...Just as the Lord, being one with the Father, did nothing, either in His own person or through the Apostles, without the Father, so you should do nothing without the bishop and the council of priests..."

Ignatius of Antioch to the Trallians 2-3 - "For it seems to me that, when you are obedient to the bishop as you would be to Jesus Christ, you are living, not in a human way, but according to Jesus Christ...You must continue, then, to do nothing apart from the bishop. Be obedient, too, to the priests as to the apostles of Jesus christ...In the same way all should respect the deacons as they would Jesus Christ, just as they respect the bishop as representing the Father and the priests as the council of God and the college of the Apostles...Apart from these there is nothing that can be called a Church."

Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, the introduction and 3 - "Ignatius Theophorus to the Church on which the majesty of the most high Father and of Jesus Chrst, His only Son, has had mercy; to the Church beloved and enlightened by the faith and charity of Jesus Christ, our God, through the will of Him who has willed all things that exist--the Church in the place of the country of the Romans which holds the primacy. I salute you in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. You are a Church worthy of God, worthy of honor, felicitation and praise, worthy of attaining to God, a Church without blemish, which holds the primacy of the community of love, obedient to Christ's law, bearing the Father's name. To you who are united, outwardly and inwardly, in the whole of His commandment and filled with grace, in union with God and with every alien stain filtered away, I wish every innocent joy in Jesus Christ, our God...Never have you envied anyone. You have been others' teachers." (Not only is the Church in Rome identified with the primacy, but Ignatius says, "You have been other's teachers." This role the Church in Rome had singularly among all the churches - and if it had not been welcome, we would have documentation to that effect.)

Ignatius of Antioch to the Philadelphians 3 - "For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop. And those, too, will belong to God who have retuned, repentant, to the unity of the Church so as to live in accordance with Jesus Christ. Make no mistake, brethren. No one who follows another into schism inherits the kingdom of God. No one who follows heretical doctrine is on the side of the passion."

Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans 8 - "Apart from the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God."

And that is just the tip of the iceberg from two of the Apostolic Fathers who learned at the feet of the Apostles. Irenaus, in his work "Against Heresies" gives a full list of the successors to Peter as Bishop of Rome, which Eusebius, the author of the "History of the Church" quotes verbatim lending to it credibility and affirming the singular importance of this particular succession of Bishops.

Without a doubt, a unity of polity was already well under way and developing. Then look at Scripture. Peter is first in all the lists of the Apostles. Jesus singularly gives to him the keys to the kingdom of heaven (a delegation of authority similar to Isaiah 22:22). And as I write in a paper offering more detail to this list, "Now if this seems like too much of a stretch, why then... is Peter by far and away the one who most often speaks up on behalf of the Apostle’s when Jesus addresses the whole group? Why is Peter the one who begins the proceedings to seek a replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts chapter one following the ascension of Christ back to Heaven? Why is Peter the one to defend the 120 or so who receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in Acts, chapter two? Why does Jesus indicate he has prayed specifically for Peter alone in regard to his future thrice repeated denial when he says in Luke 22:31-32, “Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers,” (a post crucifixion reference to Peter’s leadership among the Apostles)? And why does Jesus in a post Resurrection appearance in John 21:15-19 three times address Peter specifically as to whether or not Peter loves Jesus and loves him more than “these” (presumably referring to the other Apostles)? In this last case the interpretation has been generally limited by Protestant interpreters to restoring Peter from his three time denial of Jesus. But there is more going on here. For not only this, but Jesus also gives Peter specifically the calling to “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep,” followed by a prediction of what kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Why are none of the other Apostles addressed singularly in the aforementioned ways by Jesus, even in part? Why don’t the other Apostles share equally in doing as Peter does or in being addressed by Jesus as Peter is in so many of the instances outlined above if Jesus didn’t mean for Peter to be the chief overseer among them? One objection I’ve heard to this comes from Galatians 2:1-10. Within this passage the Apostle Paul is quoted in relation to the “acknowledged leaders” (referring to Peter and the Apostles) in verse six that, “…those leaders contributed nothing to me.” Somehow this has been interpreted by some, along with the fact that 14 years had passed from the time of Paul’s conversion before this important meeting took place, that this meant that Paul did not and would not recognize any sort of prime leadership position either with Peter or with the Apostles collectively. But this ignores verse two which says, “I (Paul) went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.” Further ignored is what Paul writes in verses 7-9 where he says, “…when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised…and when James and Cephas (again Cephas is another name for Peter) and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship…” So Paul submits to a revelation from God to go to the acknowledged leaders and acknowledges himself that James, Peter, and John are pillars of the Church. Furthermore, Paul singles out Peter for his calling to the circumcised. Another passage sheds further light on Paul’s esteem of Peter. In I Corinthians 9 Paul is defending his rights and the rights of his partner Barnabas to the people of the church in Corinth. So in verses four and five Paul says, “Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” Here Peter (Cephas) is singled out specifically, even though he is certainly one of the Apostles. Why single him out unless he has an elevated position of oversight among them? So indeed, Paul does recognize the mantle of leadership with Peter and the Apostles, even if it isn’t in the evolved form we see the Papacy and the councils of Bishops today."

I don't believe I am improperly attributing anything to texts that do not offer such attributes on their own as evidence of a polity shunning schism, a polity supporting the magisterium, a polity with recognized leaders,and a polity with a chief overseer in the seat of the Bishop of Rome. We may have an honest disagreement here, and that is fine. But I would like to see evidence that contradicts what I offer here, and not merely a pronouncement that says I am reading stuff into the Apostolic Fathers that isn't there.

Matthew,

I beg your forgiveness of my poor spelling in the heading of the previous post that should read "early church polity".

First, been away on vacation. Second, no need to apologise for spelling; this sort of interface doesn't lend itself to easy proof reading and correction. Third, I'm very well acquainted with the Patricstic texts that you have offered up. I schlogged through the original Greek of the entire Ignatian correspondence about a decade ago. BTW, if you haven't read Schodel's Hermeneia commentary on Ignatius of Antioch, I really do recommend it--not because it supports my arguement or anything like that...just because it is a masterful work. Since you have an interest in Ignatius, I think that you would enjoy it. I've got my own theory that Ignatius was turned over to the authorities by elements within his own church--can't prove it, of course...pure speculation...but that's another story.... Gotta admit that I didn't work through the Clement in the Greek. Had to draw some parameters on that project.

Anyway, there is, indeed, a clear call for a command and control structure within the bishopric in the sources. One of the background papers for the Lutheran-RC dialouges--can't remember which one off the top of my head, but my guess is IV (Eucharist and Ministry)--argued that there was a difference between the Ignatian and Clementine epistles: the Clementine epistle was indicative of a Petrine ecclesiology, so the article argued, while the Ignatian corpus was indicative of a Johannine ecclesiology. The former, according to the article, emphasized vertical command-obedience authority as the instrument for maintaining unity withint the bishopric while the latter emphasized the bond of love as the instrument for maintaining unity within the bishopric. It's been years since I looked at that article. I'm going to have to go back and reread it. Now I'm curious to know weather it was a Lutheran or a Roman Catholic who wrote it. I'm not sure that I buy the argument. So, thanks for jogging my memory and forcing me back to my library.

So, within the bishopric, unity of polity is clearly expected. Indeed, the bishop is elected (by whatever means the local bishopric employs) and, in turn, the bishop (in unity with the presbyters [and deacons], according to Ignatius) administers the affairs of the bishopric.

Between bishoprics (especially metropolitan bishoprics), I'm still not seeing that same sort of polity--certainly not prior to Nicea Canon IV. I do see (in not just sources you have mentioned but in others as well) mutual reflection, affirmation, and admonition.

Does the record of the early church support Papal headship of the church? Well, I wasn't expecting the discussion to end up here. :) I started this thread as an intra-Lutheran (specifically, intra-ELCA) discussion within the framework of accepted ELCA confessional norms and constitutional polity. As such, I don't think that I really nead to respond to that question; I think that we all know where the confessions come down on that--and I even agree with Melanchthon's "placet sed" regarding acknowledgement of Papal headship if it is asserted as a matter of human right and not divine right--so, I am friendlier to the question than you might suspect. Anyway, the Eastern Church certainly hasn't cottened to Papal supremacy, and they are reading the same Patristic sources we are.

Returning to where all this began...can the ELCA dissolve into multiple judicatories without violating the Lutheran confessional claims about the una sancta? Yes, nothing presented thus far challenges the specifically Lutheran categories. We've been having a very interesting and stimulating conversation about Partistic sources and catholic tradition, but the Lutheran interpretation of that tradition sets the parameters for the discussion within the ELCA. My contention about the conflation of Lutheran categories by the presding bishop (and others) is just that: a contention about Lutheran categories.

Even if it were possible to reconcile with the RCC, would that mean that Protestants and/or ELCA Lutherans would have to accept Catholic teaching on birth control?

Kurt,

Of all the issues one could bring up, it would seem to me one of the easiest to accept would be the RCC teaching on contraception.

1. It's availability promotes promiscuous behavior.
2. The promotion in promiscuous behavior increases the risk of catching STD's, and even condoms are not a guarantee in this realm.
3. Contraception isn't without failure, and so those who use it intending to prevent pregnancies and later wind up getting pregnant, more often than not turn to abortion, which is downright murder.
4. And those who argue for the use of contraception within the bonds of marriage cannot offer a means by which this can be eforced, nor do they appreciate how contraception is a means by which within the bonds of marriage the husband and wife are prevented from giving all of themselves to each other and are saying by implication that the gift of life God offers is "a problem" instead of a blessing.

Yes more needs to be done to educate people in third world countries regarding abstinence and also to help alleviate dire poverty - but handing out contraceptives isn't the answer.

I'm not trying to argue the contraception issue. I'm only trying to cite it as one of many discrepancies in theology and in practice. If one side doesn't concede, there can be no unity, so a lack of unity already doesn't exist, which means that a difference of opinion on the homosexuality issue won't destroy it. One can't destroy that which doesn't exist.

Kurt,

Do you mean to tell me you see no real difference between heresy and apostasy? Apostasy is what the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses engage in. Do you see any ecumenical discussions going on with them by any Christian denominations? That's what will happen to the ELCA if the current ecumenical partners who would reject as apostasy the Task Force recommendations are snubbed by the ELCA approves them. If you can't see that distinction then there is no further point in dialoging with you. Of course ecumenical partners who have dialogue will have to concede to each other on certain points, otherwise there can be no reconcilliation - that's a given. What you are saying is such reconcilliation is impossible then. That would turn a blind eye to the agreement on the doctrine of justification back in 1999. That would suggest that Luther and Zwingli's talks were pointless from the start, when in fact they nearly had everything nailed down until the subject of the Eucharist came up. Intransigence does happen but it is not a fait-accompli. Remember the Holy Spirit?

You wrote:

"Apostasy is what the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses engage in. Do you see any ecumenical discussions going on with them by any Christian denominations? That's what will happen to the ELCA if the current ecumenical partners who would reject as apostasy the Task Force recommendations are snubbed by the ELCA approves them."

That's a very bold statement about the ecumenical partners for whom you're speaking. You might want to reconsider it in light of how it affects your own credibility.


And further, you wrote:

"If you can't see that distinction then there is no further point in dialoging with you."

Heads up here! I'm VERY CLEAR on the difference between heresy and apostasy. To even suggest that such subjective interpretations of scriptural content as involve this ELCA homosexuality issue reflect apostasy is evidence of the radical nature of the strict-constructionist bias. To accuse the supporters of the Task Force
recommendations (of which I am one) of apostasy assumes a level of self-appointed elitism which makes an issue-centered discussion very difficult.

But, of course, Hinlicky won't discuss it, which leaves pejoratively taking aim at me as the only redoubt for his supporters who shield him.

Kurt,

Well if what I'm am saying is bold, so be it. You don't seem to understand the seriousness of the issue at all. When you call what is sin, not to be sin, you automatically create a situation where those who accept this teaching reject the grace of God necessary for repentance and forgiveness regarding this specific sin. To reject God's grace is to reject God. Sin divides us from God, you surely know that. Thus this is quite clearly a matter of apostasy. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but that is clearly what it is. I see we are done dialoging because there is nothing further for us to dialogue about.

Before you decide that "it is quite clearly a matter of apostasy," kindly read David Fredrickson's article on Romans 1:18-27 at
http://www.inclusivenet.com/uploads/newsletters/2006-Summer.pdf -- beginning at about the middle of page one. If you have no further interest in discussing the matter, that is your choice, but for your own edification, I would suggest that you read the article.

Kurt,

I had David Fredrickson as a professor in seminary. I know his arguments. They are more coherent than yours, but not any more persuasive.

You know, WMC, I've been around a long time and have done a great deal of writing, preaching and speaking in my lifetime, and NEVER ONCE prior to the post you just made has anyone characterized my communication as being less than coherent, which would thus make the incoherent. Note, from dictionary.com online:

in⋅co⋅her⋅ent  /ˌɪnkoʊˈhɪərənt, -ˈhɛr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-koh-heer-uhnt, -her-] Show IPA
Use incoherent in a Sentence
–adjective 1. without logical or meaningful connection; disjointed; rambling: an incoherent sentence.
2. characterized by such thought or language, as a person: incoherent with rage.
3. not coherent or cohering: an incoherent mixture.
4. lacking physical cohesion; loose: incoherent dust.
5. lacking unity or harmony of elements: an incoherent public.
6. lacking congruity of parts; uncoordinated.

Best wishes for the future of your faith, whatever that might be.

Paul,

Thank you for this letter to Bishop Hanson. I suspect the answer or non-answer you get will not be a change from the past. In a forum I once attended where he made a presentation on this and related issues, I had the opportunity to ask him how can the ELCA even speak for God or rather claim to be a mouthpiece God uses to speak when unlike the prophets of old who were clear and consistent with God's teaching in their prophetic speaking, the ELCA either contradicts long held teaching or says it has no consensus (which betrays that it isn't listening to God but rather putting its proverbial finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing).

Specifically in answer to the question of changing policies on the ordaining of persons practicing same gender relationships and the blessing of same-gender unions, within the context of the above, the Bishop's answer was that this question was not one that affected the question of one's salvation! I almost fell over. Given the passion on both sides, surely either those advocating change are guilty of calling what is sin not to be, or those opposing change are guilty as charged with homophobia, bigotry, trying to make the gospel into a new law, and whatever else comes flying. As you say, the theology is so twisted by the Bishop and the proponents of change that it appears (though I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume this is not intentional) that they will say almost anything to justify this movement which will surely result in schism either on an official level within the ELCA or in seeing droves of people heading for the exits and as you wrote schism with the broader catholic community.

Agree or not, to me this is the latest fruit of the so-called "Protestant Reformation". People on all sides say the Bible is their authority, but then use it as they will. No book, not even the Holy Scriptures, can fend for itself. As God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, and the Church he established was incarnate through the Apostles and the other believers present at Pentecost, so too, the Church today must be incarnate and have a polity that is incarnate carrying the duly given authority that Jesus gave to the Apostles to not only proclaim the gospel, but also to defend it from heresy. The ELCA has the facade of this polity, but it doesn't have this in substance nor does any of Protestantism. Thus we are in the mess we are in.

Son of WMC: You wrote: "People on all sides say the Bible is their authority, but then use it as they will. No book, not even the Holy Scriptures, can fend for itself." God through St. Luke wrote: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Lk 21:33)" When a group of individuals call themselves a "church" and are faithful to the authority of God speaking through the Bible, where the Word is rightly proclaimed and the Sacraments rightly administered, there is church. Where a group of individuals call themselves a "church" and they refuse to accept the teachings of Holy Scripture, and they constantly seek to reinterpret it to make it more palatable to their liking, and more pliable for their purposes, to suit their lifestyle, they may have the appearance and trappings of a church, but they are hardly the church Christ instituted. Beware of wolves in sheeps' clothing. But wherever the Word is proclaimed, there will be some true believers, because God's Word is efficacious, and will accomplish all that He intends it to accomplish. God's Word will not return void. May those who hold to His truth--no matter how unpopular it is--continue to do so: Believers, please look up Luke 21:34-36. May those who have turned from God's truth humbly repent, and return as a prodigal to the Father, not with demands, but with open ears and a humble spirit. I do not seek to judge anyone. If it applies, turn to your Savior, who paid for all your sins with His most precious blood. Do not reject His great mercy. "Watch and pray..." (v. 36).
Before one casts stones at Chicago, be aware that there are errors in Rome, the Eastern churches, and elsewhere as well. Unite in the very Word of God. Let any other unity flow from that. He is our Kurios. We are His doulous. Let us never try to confuse or reverse the two.

Rik,

So all denominations in your estimation have doctrinal error? Then Jesus' promise that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church is the broken link in the chain of his perfection, in which case we have no savior. There has got to be one that is all right in this regard or there is no truth to the words of Jesus that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. These things must be reconciled or else we turn Scripture into a pick and choose smorgasboard, which by the way is what the proponents of the Sexual Task Force changes are doing.

Rik,

I forgot to take issue with your quotation of Scripture about the words of God never passing away. Of course they will not pass away, because at least one denomination will have all of its doctrine true including maintaining the fullness of the Word of God (you do realize that the Catholic Bible has 7 more Old Testament books, books that were in the Septuagint that the Bible of most Jews including Jesus in his day used. (The Hebrews that removed these books did so in 100 or so AD because they were too "Christian" and then Luther chooses to go by their cannon in the 1,500's when for the previous 1,000 years there had been absolutely no credible challenges to the cannon as it stood). Jesus delegated his authority in Matthew 28 for a reason. It was to have a magisterial structure through which the Holy Spirit would work so that indeed his words would never pass away and that therefore the gates of hell would never rob the earth of his complete Word. Though many have tried like Marcion to chop it up, or like the Jehovah's witnesses to corrupt it so as to make it conform to their own false teachings, the fullness of the Word of God persists because of the work of God through the magisterium he set up. Why even the ELCA has seen corruptions in Scripture as the politically correct crowd keeps changing things so people won't be offended and thus the new ELCA worship book has the option of not using the correct name of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Eventually what is now offered as option will soon become standard practice. That's how these things get in the door.

Sadly, the ELCA took the first step down the road to apostasy when we declared ourselves(irrevocably) to be in full communion with the Episcopal Church. A cynic such as myself would argue that this was the beginning of a very long process intended to produce the hoped-for outcome -- ordination and marriage of of gays -- in the ELCA.

The proposals to be voted upon in August do not suggest unity at even a surface level. The 'King Solomon' solution of allowing individual bishops to ordain candidates as they see fit will produce a deeply divided church, and further politicize the office of bishop. The call to refrain from disciplining those who are at odds with church doctrine and practice signals that we have already seen the end, inasmuch as one of the marks of the True Church is, in fact, internal discipline!

You speak truth. However, I would modify your statement about entering into full communion with the Episcopal Church. I think the die was really cast when we entered into full communion with the no-restrictions United Church of Christ.

My former LCMS pastor, a great guy, had several pastor colleagues who had colloquialised from the ELCA to the LCMS many years ago when all this first started happening, most were a lot of old German ALC guys who DID believe in the authority of Scripture. Almost to a man, these men told him that they could tell as far back as the '87-'88 merger that the ELCA would eventually self-implode, because it had no solid doctrinal foundations.

And, now, 20 years later, what is happening?

Thanks for your feedback. I tend to think of the full communion issue as one, but, yes, the UCC merger was the true bellwether.

Your further comment about those who believe in the authority of scripture goes to the heart of the matter. We are being asked to be "bound" to one another's consciences -- NOT the Gospel! While this seems reasonable on its face, faith is not reasonable. The Christian faith is about hearing and believing the word of God.

In the words of 'Pogo' (comic strip by the late Walt Kelly), "We have met the enemy, and they am us."

God’s work our hands. The ELCA and its lack of leadership are making it difficult for us to do God’s work. We relocated to a rural community on the fringes of the “Bible Belt.” Over the past several months we befriended a family which has no church background. Their eleven year old son has been regularly attending church with us. It is a special blessing to hear him read every word of the liturgy, hear his young voice sign every hymn, and answer his many questions. This is the “Bible Belt” and every other hill has its own “Bible Believing Church,” and Lutheran Churches are few and far between. We are being watched closely and our every move is being securitized by the neighborhood, because we are snatching “unsaved souls” from their grasp. The boy wants to be baptized and become the first Lutheran in his family. To his parents Lutheranism is a completely different religion and I have to assure them it is the proper way to go and teaches according to scripture. Not only do we have the ELCA at stake, but we have at least one young boy and his family’s future at stake. If I can keep their trust I am close to having the whole family in an ELCA churc. I might not be able to convince them the ELCA and its leadership is true to the Gospel, because of the bad press. At stake is our ability to do God’s work and reach people with His word.

Thank you, Ron, for putting it all into perspective! But how will local people trust your church when it is known for being a 'big tent' for a large mass of people who disagree with one another, heading in various directions simultaneously? Romans 16:17 ESV says, " 17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them." If you have been taught sound doctrine (teaching), I ask why you choose inclusivity over what the above Bible passage teaches? How can we pretend we are united with those we Biblically are not in unity with--namely those who cause divisions by teaching Another Gospel instead of the one true Gospel? How I wish you were a menber of a congregation and church body known for standing firm on the Word of God, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura. We make a staatement of what we believe, teach and confess simply by what church we are affiliated with. If it is not too late, work for God-pleasing change. If it is too late, make it a priority to find a lifeboat. Don't be too proud to accept help that is available to you. God can work in mysterious ways. Proverbs 3:5,6. Domine dirige nos.

Ron:

It's not the ELCA. Nor is it the Roman Church, the Baptist Church, the LCMS, nor any other.

We are saved by grace through faith. End of story. Everything else is window dressing.

IMHO, part of the problem is claiming that OUR franchise is the ONE TRUE franchise.

The thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't a Lutheran! He was saved by FAITH, and nothing more. He didn't receive the sacrament in the 'right' way, he didn't work his way to heaven. FAITH, plain and simple.

I was raised in the Baptist church and am a Lutheran by choice. To me, the 'brand name'is far less important than faithfulness to the word of God.

My wife and I lived in the Bible belt, so I empathize with your struggle.

Gregory,

You said, "IMHO, part of the problem is claiming that OUR franchise is the ONE TRUE franchise." If there is not any "one true franchise" then what possiblity is there for knowing I am following Christ. Did he not establish his Church? Did he not give it authority? Did he not promise the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth? Did he not promise it would last forever? By your statement above Jesus broke his promises and therefore can be no savior. Your statement offers no comfort to me at all.

Gregory,

The quotation of the event where the thief is told by Jesus he will be with him today in paradise is not merely an act of trusting faith, it also includes repentance. True repentance is a gift, but nonetheless a gift that can be used or rejected. The thief knew he was a sinner and admitted as much. Jesus knew his heart. Both faith and repentance are acts of the will, enabled by God's grace 100%. That's what it means to have an incarnational faith. That thief did not have the kind of faith that justified what he did as ok. Not only is that faith not faith, it is bereft of the most basic grace-filled, grace enabled work, that of repentance.

Ron,

You said we are saved by grace through faith and everything else is window dressing. Certainly Martin Luther didn't believe that. The grace is given through means, Word and Sacrament and how they come to be, are administered, and are received is surely not window dressing. Otherwise there is no need for a church and we can all be anonymous Christians. Where is the cross in that?

The above reply should have been to Gregory.

Perhaps I oversimplified in my attempt to make a point. I do not mean to offend, and do empathize with Ron's struggle to be an effective witness in these very frustrating times.Of course there is a need for the church, and the bible is clear on this.

My point was simply that Jesus did not say, " I (and the ELCA) am the way, the truth, and the life."

We are born imperfect into an imperfect world. We all need salvation. That salvation is, in reductio, faith in Chris Jesus.



Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Gregory,

No apology necessary. I do think a deeper level of thinking through these issues is called for, though. My point is we cannot reduce all of this down to least common denominator theology. Faith in Christ even means different things to different denominational traditions. Some are Antinomian, some are Semi-Pelagian, some are sola fide but can see James' point that faith without works is dead, and some are faith + works (the latter meaning all good works are 100% grace filled, grace initiated, credited to the glory of God). Not only this but saving faith does not happen in a vaccuum. Thus my earlier argument regarding the Church and the means of grace. (And there are widely varying understandings of what those terms mean as you well know).

You are right in saying that Jesus did not say "I and the ELCA are the way, the truth and the life." And Ron's valid struggle comes at this point when those in the Bible Belt who find the ELCA foreign will point fingers and teachings and practices of the ELCA and say, "There's no way Jesus would support that," which in turn hinders the mission of the ELCA where he lives and causes ears to turn deaf when the valid teachings of the ELCA are offered regarding things such as Baptism, that the gospel isn't about personal prosperity, that the Eucharist isn't mere symbol, and so on.

Here is where truth matters, truth in all areas. Here is where Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth matters. There has got to be a Church Jesus established where all truth resides or else we are just a bunch of infighting Christians whose witness to the world is, "If we can't agree, how can you even believe what we're offering?"

It's a difficult problem Ron faces and I have all sympathy for his situation as well as for the ELCA in general. I just think, after much research and soul searching, that the Reformation, while well intended to address abuses of Luther's day, wound up throwing out the baby with the bath water in far too many instances, and thus we have 30,00+ Protestant denominations all of which are dysfunctional in offical teaching and practice in some way shape or form. This goes beyond the sins of men. This is an affront to the promise that Jesus made that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. That promise should hold for the Church Jesus established no matter the sins of its Bishops, pastors, or laity. Otherwise doubt is cast as to whether Jesus can really be a savior whom we can trust.

Gregory,
You have written, "We are saved by grace through faith. End of story. Everything else is window dressing.

The thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't a Lutheran! He was saved by FAITH, and nothing more. He didn't receive the sacrament in the 'right' way, he didn't work his way to heaven."

Yes, we are saved by Grace through Faith, end of story. Then God zaps us up into Heaven, right? Not usually. After being saved by God, we grow in our knowledge of God and of the Scriptures. We associate with brothers and sisters in Christ. We learn from them. In time, they learn from us. God makes faith grow, and we are the hands he may choose for His work. Is this "window dressing": growing in the faith, building up other believers, and reaching the lost with the Good News in word and deed? Obviously it doesn't cause our salvation. We've addressed that already. But it is more than mere "window dressing." Is it important that the Word be proclaimed and preached rightly? Just look at the pickle the ELCA is in right now, and you have your answer. Does it matter that the Sacraments are administered rightly? Shall we bind men's consciences by saying they were not baptized with enough water, or that the mode (sprinkling vs. immersion) was wrong? The water and the Word. It is the Word through which God causes it to have effect. What if we want to replace the names of the Trinity with something newer, more innovative. Do we have freedom to do that? Replace the water with rose petals in Baptism. Do we have the freedom to do that? Replace the bread and wine with potato chips and Coca-Cola (TM)? Do we have the freedom to do that? Turn the Lord's Supper into a joint meal where everyone brings their own food, and those with means pig out, while others are hungry. Do we have the freedom to do this? Is all this mere "window dressing?"

"IMHO, part of the problem is claiming that OUR franchise is the ONE TRUE franchise."

IMHO, I cannot do joint church work with those who do not believe I am a Christian (because I was baptized as an infant; because I was not immersed; because they assume I am not predestined to be among the elect; because I am not connected to Rome; etc.), and neither can I do joint church work with those who proclaim a gospel other than the one true Gospel. It is not about bragging "my church is better than your church", but rather, working with those who believe and practice in accordance with what the Bible teaches, as you understand it. If you believe that what Lutherans teach is in accordance with what is taught in the Word of God, then by all means, be a Lutheran Christian, and let the Holy Spirit work through you as you do His work with your hands--not to earn salvation--but out of thankfulness for the great price Jesus paid for your and my sins. If you do not believe that Lutheranism is in agreement with the Word of God, then it would be silly (IMO) for you to be a Lutheran. "Brand name," as you call it, does not guarentee faithfulness to God. There are people who call themselves Lutheran, who believe what Lutheranism teaches about God, man, God's plan of salvation, etc. and there are others who call themselves "Lutheran" and don't. Perhaps their parents or grandparents were Lutheran. Perhaps they have German or Scandinavian ancestry and assume Lutheranism comes with the genes. You can call a Unitarian Universalist a "Lutheran" but that doesn't make him one. Yes, we are Christians first and foremost, but let us do the work God has given us to do with our brothers and sisters, those with whom we share a unity of belief. I cannot go door to door with a JW. A mormon wouldn't want me doing missions as I believe Joseph Smith to be a false-prophet. There is nothing wrong with searching for a church that stands up for the truth of God's Word. But let us be humble, and not block out the rest of the world. Let us reflect the love of Christ into a dark world, and let us be a catalyst for godly change.

Well said.

One side of the church is faithful,
united with the church across the generations,
catholic,
biblical,
orthodox,
honest,
confessional,
nonpartisan,
with a correct understanding of Law and Gospel
as it applies to the Issue.

The other side of the church is
heterodox,
manipulative,
deceptive,
partisan,
disingenuous,
polarizing,
antinomian,
institutionally centered,
non-biblical,
non-confessional,
unable to discern "plain meaning,"
heretical,
lobby influenced,
bridge burning,
outright stupid,
who completely misunderstand Christ
and the center of our unity.

My despair is because I'm in the latter group, according to the standard set forth in these posts. I will not speak for other members of the heretic team. I fail to measure up. You win. I lose. Congratulations. I now see that you are better off without the non-submissive wrestlers like me.

Perhaps I have become too jaded and cynical in my later years. Reading Bp. Hanson's letter, I wonder if his ode to church unity is not a subtle way of suggesting that, should the sexuality statement and ministry proposals be adopted at CWA, those (orthodox)pastors and laity who do not support the will of the CWA, who may even leave to other Lutheran churches or to Rome, are schismatics and opponents of church unity? What an interesting twist that would be: that those who, for the sake of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, cannot support the sexual revisionist proposals because they are contrary to orthodox teaching, are characterized as acting against church unity.

Mark me as jaded and cynical too, then.

If those of us who disagree with Lutherans Concerned, Goodsoil, etc. are "schismatic," then I'm in with that too.

However, it was not us who introduced this "study," nor gave approval for pagan, neo-Wiccanism like www.herchurch.org, which I guess is supposed to be part of the "big tent."

That's interesting ... I re-read both recommendations made by the ELCA Task Force and I can't find neo-Wiccanism or paganism referenced anywhere. I also read everything on the herchurch.org website, and I can't find those terms endorsed there either.

That's quite the pejorative mischaracterization.

Kurt,

Obviously the Task Force recommendations do not include the things you cite, nonetheless, the lack of discipline in the ELCA and the "local option" promoted by the Task Force recommendations serves to allow those very things to happen. Lutheran Forum and Forum Letter have well documented their going on and that fact cannot be denied. The recommendations are merely symptomatic of a larger problem within the ELCA, a problem that Paul Hinlicky has identified clearly, the problem that the gospel that used to be prevalent (the gospel of repent and believe in the good news of salvation through the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ) has given way to a different gospel (the gospel of justice and freedom to do what you want, no matter what it is, if you can rationalize your way to justifying it - regardless if the Church taught against such a thing unanimously for nearly two millenia - because we can simply say that the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing, never mind that that charges the Holy Spirit with being self-contradictory). That so-called freedom unchecked by church discipline is what has allowed the things David cites to go on and grow in occurence and which will ultimately lead to the implosion of the ELCA and a judgement day for those promoting such "freedom" to be a rude awakening.

Kurt, if you know anything about Wicca, "womynism," "feminist theology," etc. you would see the analogues on herchurch.org quite clearly, even though the actual term "Wiccan" may not be used.

Some years ago, I knew a practicing Wiccan quite well (she was a friend of mine's girlfriend). She was openly bisexual and practiced "goddess worship." Look up "skyclad" sometime.

The signs are very clear on herchurch.org:

Honour the Ancient Mother
Goddess Rosary
Connecting with the Goddess
Re-image the Divine by reclaiming Her presence in "thealogy" (sic)
Mother, Shaddai, Sophia, Womb, Midwife, Shekinah, She Who Is...empowered by the risen Christ-Sophia

And check out these "prayers":

Our Mother who is within us
we celebrate your many names.
Your wisdom come.
Your will be done,
unfolding from the depths within us.
Each day you give us all that we need.
You remind us of our limits
and we let go.
You support us in our power
and we act with courage.
For you are the dwelling place within us
the empowerment around us
and the celebration among us
now and for ever. Amen

God/dess of struggle and blessing, we thank you that you are so willing to meet us in love here and now, as you meet our mothers and fathers, partners and lovers, siblings and children, friends and strangers on their faith journeys, as you entered our human life in Jesus Christ-Sophia. Help us open our hearts to you in our time of remembrance and celebration that we may grow in light and love toward you and all people through the gentle wind of your Spirit.

We praise our God of many names;
Our Great Creatress we proclaim;
Our Mother, Goddess, Friend and Guide
Walks with us always by our side.

The Living Water in us flows,
The Bread of Life helps us to grow;
The Christ-Sophia will abide
Where minds and hearts are open wide.

Our Sister Brother Spirit calls
With words of peace to break the walls;
The Holy Spirit, Heavenly Dove
Will fill us with abundant Love.

If you want to call that a "pejorative mischaracterisation," have at it. I call it idolatry. They can call it what they want, but they are at best misled and at worst lying to call it Christianity, or Lutheranism.

The "pastor" closes with:

-Blessed Be!
Stacy Boorn, Pastor

"Blessed Be" is a very common greeting and "blessing" used by Wiccans.

So, "Blessing be" is not Christian. Does that mean that "The force be with you" makes all Christians Trekkies? And I didn't realize that the argument here is over God's gender.

I suppose you noticed that the prayer refers to God as having "many names" -- sort of like the several references to our monotheistic deity in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. So far, Ebenezer Lutheran Church practice has been attacked based on words within a liturgical emphasis which do not deny God the creator, the Christ, nor the Spirit. Simply put, there are some aspects of contemporary worship and liturgy which don't speak to my own religious experience or tradition (nor to yours), but if it speaks to some who wouldn't otherwise hear it, and if it remains within the Trinitarian framework (no matter what names are used), we should perhaps take a second look before condemning it as Wiccan or neo-Wiccan.

First of all, I am a Trekkie of long-standing. Unless you were purposefully being ironic, "may the force be with you is 'Star Wars', not 'Star Trek'." OK, that bit of nitpicking over...

To me, the name of God is what I learnt in Confirmation, and what I have believed since then:

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, as we confess in the three Creeds (unlike the ELW, I still hold to the Athanasian Creed), and as named in Scripture.

I thoroughly oppose the feminisation of God, as Ebenezer has done. I find the dogged deletion of the male pronoun for God, as ELW and the study notes in the new Lutheran Study Bible do, quite unnecessary. Paraphrased example: God so loved the world that God sent God's only Son (or Child) to take humanity's punishment because God loves humanity so much and God does not want humanity to spend eternity without God.

Yes, I'm aware, as a German-speaker, which does have a neuter pronoun, that English does not. But there is no, repeat NO, Scriptural basis, or basis in the Lutheran Confessions, for what Ebenezer has done. And if renaming the Father as "Goddess" is not a denial of God the Father, I don't know what is.

As I said, years ago I knew a practicing Wiccan quite well. Much of what I read on Ebenezer's website is straight out of her books, invocations and "prayers."

As far as speaking to those who would otherwise not hear it, I believe it to be more damaging for the unchurched, seekers, etc. to hear syncretistic neopaganism dressed up in very tenuously Christian clothing.

The point I am making by showing this is how much non-Christian doctrine we have come to "tolerate" in the ELCA, which is symptomatic of much wider problems we have, including this stacked sexuality "study." The only other church bodies I can think of who would allow this would be the UCC and maybe some Episcopalians.

Look, I'm not defending Ebenezer's liturgy per se. I simply was trying to point out how bias works referable to general perceptions. I don't agree with the feminization of God, but I think the ramifications for masculine dominance and what at Ebenezer is an obvious reaction to Paul's view of women becomes a complex issue for those who are sensitive to gender bias or those women who have been victimized by it. Clearly, neither you nor I have walked in those shoes. Even the symbols or jargon of a Wiccan-implied context doesn't mean the invocation of witchcraft unless specifically spelled out. No, I don't like it either because of our traditional understanding of a masculine God. Remember, however, that John A.T. Robinson (I know--an Episcopalian) woke a lot of people up about practical theology when he wrote Honest to God and pointing out how suspect it is to view "him" as the old man in the sky. I have as much trouble about the questioning of what is in someone's heart (as per Ebenezer) as I do in understanding why many LCMS churches won't allow open communion.

Agreed - couldn't have said it better myself.

Tim, I don't see why you are "despairing," just based on the posts here.

In an operational sense, your "group" has controlled the "debate" for the past eight years and is likely to do so at CWA.

Who has called you "stupid?" I'm not. But I do have very profound disagreements with your "group," which seems not to care if the ELCA dissolves, just as long as you get Visions and Expectations overturned.

Old son, the rest of us "wrestle" with Scriptural issues just as much as you do. Why? Because we are all sinners, and we see that reflected in Law and Gospel.

We "wrestled" over returning to ELCA after eight years in the LCMS. We mostly did so because we were isolated from other Christians, tired of needing pastoral approval for any sort of gathering with other Christians, and tired of the unspoken assumption that "Christian = Republican."

I think when the dust clears at CWA you'll find it's your "group" that has "won."

This may well be our "Seminex moment."

Tim,

Not only is your side winning in the ELCA, but your despair would suggest that there is no such thing as truth, but that all is relative. Either that or to stand up for truth is equated with condemnation of the one whose argumentation is false. I condemn no one, lest I should be condemned. God help me not to condemn anyone. But if I am not allowed to call falsehood falsehood, to call heresy heresy, and to call apostasy apostasy, then there is no defending anything and we are back to universalism or least common denominator nothingness. That is not the Church Jesus established.

Plus, by what I've learnt through mediation, this has been by no means a "fair fight" (and, yes, a "fight" it is).

Lutherans Concerned and Goodsoil are far better financed than WordAlone or Lutheran CORE, and they have the added power of having important figures in the ELCA like Herbert Chilstrom, Peter Rogness and, yes, Mark Hanson, on their side.

The deck was stacked from day one in favour of the pro-revisionist side: ultrafeminist theologians and scientists, and of course the "hearts and minds" factor by featuring gay people who have suffered "spiritual abuse" at the hands of the nasty ELCA, by not letting them have their rightful place in the clergy. They conveniently "forget" that NO-ONE has a right to ordination.

I saw and heard very little in opposition.

Also, being in full communion with the Episcopal Church, headed by a like-minded Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, and the elevation of Gene Robinson to the bishopric (basically flipping off the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion) had its influence, definitely. Then there is our full communion with the United Church of Christ and its "God is still speaking," campaign.

We are about to enter into full communion with the United Methodist Church, where I was baptised and confirmed. They have kept the ordinance "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" on the books to the present day. Of course, there have been violations, but many of those violations have been dealt with through church discipline (remember that?), and pastors have had to surrender credentials in a few cases. In the UMC, to surrender credentials basically means you can kiss your pastoral career goodbye. I know of one pastor who had to do that because he was in an adulterous (heterosexual) affair...last I heard, he was working at a quick oil change garage.

Will they leaven us, or will we leaven them?

David,

The leavening question is right on. Can you see how the polity of the ELCA has allowed this catastrophe to occur? Can you see how my argument that a true magisterium would have prevented the devolution in doctrine from occuring? My best friend is a Methodist (who with good intention and poor theological understanding sympathizes with the "justice issue" crowd on the questions causing this whole discussion), and though you correctly site the holding the line for that denomination thus far and the discipline that has been leveled, trust me when I say, it will only be a matter of time before that too will give way. How long I don't know, but it will.
The stricter Protestant denominations like Wisconsin and Missouri may not ever give in to that, but its clear that they have other issues that hinder their mission greatly or they would be much larger denominations today.

Yes, I can see very clearly how ELCA polity has allowed this.

It has become very much an "anything goes" non-system of "governance," with a "leadership" that will not enforce existing standards, because they don't want to "offend" or appear "intolerant." I don't think it was always that way, not to the extent that it is now, anyway.

I'm hoping that the United Methodists will stay faithful. If it weren't for the fact that it's not just me, that I have my wife's views to consider (she doesn't like the junk going on right now any better than I do, but we do like our congregation and both of us are fatigued from changing churches twice in two years), I'd very strongly consider finding a confessional Methodist congregation.

The problem with Missouri and Wisconsin, as I see it, is that they go too far the other way and are too insular. I have never been part of WELS, but I was in the LCMS for eight years. I briefly had a WELS girlfriend, so much of what I know I learnt from her. They do not even allow their members to pray with other Christians, nor allow their clergy to be military chaplains (having been in the Air Force, I don't understand that). LCMS varies a lot more at the congregational level. There are some that are heavily influenced by Herman Otten/"Christian News" (go to www.lutherquest.org) and are still breathing fire over the 9/11 Yankee Stadium incident. Others are more moderate, and have virtually open communion as long as you talk to the pastor first.

But they are both "top-down" in terms of polity, and the ELCA has become an extreme form of congregations doing whatever they jolly well like.

The ELCA appears to be congregational when it serves to advance a political goal -- the Sexuality Task Force being a good example.

Gregory,

Though the ELCA has the facade of a magisterium, the fact is that it is thoroughly congregational. Most, not all, congregations view the pastor as a hirling of the congregation and not necessarily first and foremost accountable to God. Synod assemblies and churchwide assemblies are primarily composed of delegates who do not have much in the way of theological training voting on questions of great theological and doctrinal import. The very question of ordaining persons involved in same gender unions and the blessing of such unions has evoked the task force to say that in the ELCA there is no "consensus", referring to the membership, but silent on what the one vote that truly matters (God) has to say. The Bishops are an "advisory" body that churchwide have no problem ignoring. Churchwide and synodical bishops do not feel free to speak out on doctrinal matters except around the edges where it serves their agenda and after they are retired from being churchwide or synodical bishops. There role is supposed to be one of teaching right doctrine out of the pulpit as well as preaching it in the pulpit. But the former rarely happens, and the latter mostly happens on non-controversial issues. The ELCA has become, and frankly has been since its inception, like the Israelites calling the shots for Aaron because Moses has been delayed in coming down from the mountain - and Aaron has no backbone to stand up to the idolatries of the rank and file.

Wow! I wonder why God doesn't put a stop to it.

Polity, the structures by which we deliberate, decide, and act, can be more or less conducive to the life of the church. While I do think that there are some serious problems with the polity of the ELCA, I don't think that all the blame can be placed there. The "best" polity--whatever that might be--still has human beings as the political actors. Augustana VIII warns us that mixed in with the true saints are the wicked and hypocritical. Sadly, even the true saints are simul justus et peccator. Salutary polities remember those points balancing the economies and diseconomies of polity so that the destructive excesses of human political activity are mitigated. So, what's the human up to this week? How will he or she fail to live a sanctified political life? Hint: some sins are sins of commission, others of omission.

Matthew,

Well if the polity isn't all of the problem what is it? I would submit, the polity isn't merely the form of governance but its intrinsic substance, that of being connected directly to that polity Jesus established through the 12 and their successors. You make the case well that sinners hold these posts. But if that makes any difference in the transmission of the truth of God vis-a-vis the promise of the Holy Spirit leading us into all the truth - then what we are saying is that the power of sin is greater than the power of God. I'm not biting on that whatsoever. God chose to have an incarnational presence through Christ Jesus, to establish an incarnational Church with Christ as head, with believers as the body, and with visible leaders from the time of the Apostles, including a chief visibile leader to whom Jesus singularly gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven and to whom he said, "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you (all 12) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular, for Peter) that your own faith may not fail; and you (singular to Peter), when once you (singular) have turned back, strengthen your brothers." The evidence is patently there for the polity that should be, and that in fact does exist, just not in the ELCA. This proper polity is the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit works to "lead us into all the truth". It cannot be any other way. To suggest the Holy Spirit does it completely through individuals independent of one another doesn't wash with the incredible disunity visible through thousands upon thousands of denominations. I need evidence to contradict what I've offered here to be persuaded this is incorrect. Again I ask, if the polity isn't the problem, what is? Hint: the consistency of doctrine within the Catholic Church as opposed to the back and forth of doctrine within other denominations ought to tell us something here. We need to break out of old assumptions here where they do not serve God's Word. The Confessions are not right in every place. Right preaching and administering of the sacraments is not enough for unity, even within the ELCA as it clearly appears.

My friend, I maintain that any polity, even one divinely ordained, is not immune from the deleterious effects of human sinfullness. Even the Petrine line was subject to the period of the antipopes and a few rascals here and there. Unlike radical Protestants, I believe that even in the midst of such brokenness and within even broken polities, the Holy Spirit will not allow the Gospel to go unpreached but will always sustain the communion of saints. Unlike radicals of a different stripe, I am willing to admit that church institutions are imperfect and await redemption. Polity will provide no panacea so long as sinful humans are the political actors. We need only take our lesson from the Arian controversy or, if you prefer, the Great Schism to restore humility. Nondum considerasti quanti ponderis sit peccatum.

Right preaching and administration of the sacraments will never be enough for the unity of a visible church (ELCA or otherwise). Again, I still confess that the unity of the Hidden Church is built by the Holy Spirit on nothing other than these and its gift of faith through them. Conflate the categories if you wish; I'll stick with the confessions.

Matthew,

So by what means does the Holy Spirit work incarnationally to keep the promise of Jesus to lead us into all the truth. To say he will doesn't give the person in the pew anything by which to discern the movement of the Spirit so as to know he or she isn't being led into a ditch. What say you?

The apostles give us some criteria in their epistles, but they all require some effort on the part of the listener. Sloth does not facilitate discernment. My hunch is--based upon your argumentation up to this point--that you would prefer to put blind and easy trust in a polity or a person. Knowing whereof we are made, I am not willing to put such trust in any polity or person--not even myself. I can err. Pastors can err. Bishops can err. Councils can err--or do we forget that one of the councils said, "homoiousia," and, with that iota of difference, the conciliar fathers awoke the next morning to discover that they were Arians. We see in a merely dimly. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I long for the eschaton. In the meantime--and as Dr. Gritsch enjoyed saying, "The meantime is a mean time"--we do the best we can as finite creatures who, though sanctified by the Holy Spirit, are still prone to wander [Lord, I know it]. So, in this mean time, I ask: Is there charity? Is the faith? Is there hope? Is there the desire to please God from filial fear rather than servile fear? Where this fruit of the Holy Spirit is found, there the Holy Spirit has left evidence of its presence. What more do we want? "I ask no dream, no prophet ecstasies / No sudden rending of the veil of clay / No angel visitant, no op'ning skies / But take the dimness of my heart away." In the final analysis, tounges, ecstatic visions, even popes and councils can be [and often are, I believe] good and gracious gifts of God, instruments through which the Holy Spirit works, but they should never be accepted and embraced without discernment. They will even pass away, and what will remain? Faith, Hope, Charity: the ultimate criteria. Too bad the people in the pews and the pastors in the pulpits dismiss these three eternals so readily, questing instead after that which is easy and transient.

What is troubling about Bishop Hanson's letter is his appeal to ELCA "unity" through Holy Communion and Baptism. . .apart from a unity of faith. Apparently, opposing faith groups can and do receive the same benefits of the forgiveness of "sins", provided they are simply united in the act of communing. To me, it seems that this is a return to a medieval form of "ex opere operato", where the heart's disposition is not only unimportant, but is an obstacle to "unity" in Christ. Does this not constitute an abuse of the sacraments by putting God to a Foolish Test?

Is there a test so "foolish" that God can't pass it?

It's kind of like the old riddle: "Can God create a rock so heavy that even God can't lift it?"

Henry,

Generally I agree with you, except I'm not sure its so much an argument of ex opere operato vis-a-vis the sacraments so much as it is that he figures it doesn't matter if we share the same doctrine - that our unity is strictly based in the fact that we recieve the same sacraments. This is discombobulated in the sense that it is the Gospel that makes the sacraments possible, and without unity in the Gospel, unity in the sacraments is superficial at best and illusory at worst. By baptism, we all recieve adoption as children of God, but the unity ends after we begin to engage in sin that is no longer called sin and feel no need in repenting from that sin. In this case, unity is not only broken with brothers and sisters in Christ but it is also broken with God as you well know. And, as far as Holy Communion goes, I think we now are beginning to see the superficiality of "open Communion" when there is so much disagreement over what the Gospel is between certain denominations and within the ELCA.

I am very sorry to go off discussion here, but feel a need to ask for your prayers. I will try to be brief. Today was my last day at work. I have lost my job do to this local business feeling the brunt of the economic down-turn. My boss wishes he didn't have to make this decision. My wife who works in the social services has had her pay reduced three times in the last month. Please pray for us. I don't know how, but God will provide. I realize that this is small potatoes compared to the matter concerning which Pastor Hinlicky addressed the Presiding Bishop. Thank you for reading this any way. I will not have access to a computer for a while but humbly thank you all for my having been able to be a small part of the discussion. My prayers are with you all, and especially with the ELCA as it heads closer to the Churchwide Assembly. As we contemplate "Our Hands", may those assembled be sure their true focus is on "God's Work" and nothing less--Not what we guess God's work should be, but God's Work (as He has made clear in the Scriptures). No matter what may come to pass, remember always that God is still in control. Ephesians 6:12,13,19. "Tho' devils all the world should fill, All eager to devour us, We tremble not, we fear no ill, They shall not over pow'r us. This world's prince may still Scowl fierce as he will, He can harm us none, He's judged; the deed is done; One little word can fell him." (St. Martin of Eisleben, 1529; Tr. composite; TLH 262 v.3) "Take my hands and let them move At the impulse of Thy love; Take my feet and let them be Swift and beautiful for Thee." (Francis R. Havergal, 1874; TLH 400 v.2). "His Work, Our Hands" Lord, in Your mercy, hear our prayer.

Rik, I live near Detroit. Almost every day I hear of someone losing a job thanks to the auto industry tanking.

A prayer just went up for you and yours.

DP

David Pross, & Son of WMC, THANK YOU. I appreciate your prayers and others who have prayed for us. We know that God will provide, and we thank you for your very timely expression of concern. May God's hand be upon the many others throughout our land and elsewhere where employment is in short supply and needs are great. May God give me focus so I can see His leading and follow my Shepherd's voice. May I strive to serve Him faithfully in times of need as well as in times of plenty, and may we all eat liberally from His Holy Word and reflect Jesus to the world day by day by day.

Rik,

This is not small potatos. This is your life where the rubber meets the road. Though we are barely aquainted, we are brothers in Christ and I am happy to pray for you.

Heavenly Father, you know our needs better than we do ourselves. You see beyond the fog of our troubled moments and know when and where it breaks up and when and where light dawns. Surely you know the needs of Rik and his wife. We here gather in prayer for them and beseech you to give them your peace that will help them weather the storm, even as you provide the means and the way out of their crisis. Show them your mercy through the loving deeds of family and friends, neighbors and co-workers, members of their parish and from the greater community in which they live. Help them to see your hand at work in their lives through the small miracles you perform each and every day so as to remind them that you have not abandoned them. And grant them to stay focused on the cross of Christ, not only so that they do not forget the cost of discipleship, but also so that they remember that no matter how long the suffering or sorrow of this life, it pales in comparison with the eternity of bliss in your holy presence we have to look forward to where there is no pain and suffering, no sorrow or loss, no anxiety or hardship, no sin or death. Grant all this through him whose suffering and death has bestowed upon us new life now and everlasting life to come, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

One way I've tried to approach Rev. Hinlicky's same concerns is Matthew 28: our "mission" (which is so very precious to everyone) is to baptize and teach the observance of Christ's entole. To be united in mission, then, seems to imply unity in Baptism and Doctrine. If we are disunited in doctrine (one church teaching this on homoerotic behavior and the Christian life, another teaching that on it), I don't see how we're united in mission anymore.

Another question, working from AC VII and VIII: the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments are sufficient for church unity. So in Church A, the Supper is administered to people engaged in homoerotic behavior in the conviction that such behavior is good and blessed. In Church B, they are admonished to repent, and if they don't, they are excommunicated. In that situation, there is no longer the question "Are we still one Church?" They just aren't. They are administering the Supper in two radically different ways, on the basis of two radically different confessions concerning Christ's stance towards gays and lesbians.

And the two churches are interpreting Scripture in two radically different ways.

"Church B" is holding to Biblical interpretation as has been practiced for about 2,000 years, and taking into account the words of Paul and our Jewish forebears as well as the words of Christ. Luther placed special emphasis on Paul, which is a reason he had such a problem with James. Keep in mind also that, although Christ never specifically addressed homosexuality (something "Church A" would probably emphasise), whenever He addressed any sort of relationships, they were male-female.

"Church A" is being, at best, very selective hermeneutically, quite probably meaning well in light of your interpretation of Mt 28 and the overall Lutheran emphasis on grace. "Church A" would probably say that what Paul wrote did not address "loving, committed same-sex relationships" and that since Jesus did not address homosexuality at all, it's legalistic to focus on that. However, it is also disregarding the always-contentious balance between Law and Gospel, focussing so much on Gospel that it runs the risk of antinomianism.

I doubt either "A" or "B" would say that homosexuals are outside of God's grace, though "B" would require celibacy.

But this is a "never the twain shall meet" situation of two churches in the same church body, if I read you right, and a disturbing example of the growing disunity in doctrine within the ELCA.

That doesn't even address the stances of our ecumenical partners. I don't know their exact positions, so I'm going to try to sum them up in one-line statements:

Episcopal Church USA: probably diverging at least as much as ELCA

Presbyterian Church USA: very limited, restricted "local option"

Reformed Church in America: "in dialogue" but nowhere near making doctrinal changes

United Church of Christ: anything goes generally, but some congregations aren't in favour

United Methodist Church (soon-to-be): restrictions remain on the books, and violations are dealt with through church discipline, when they are known, but is also "a house divided" on the issue

So, I don't see how any sort of "unity" can be claimed in terms of Biblical interpretation, which, in light of Sola Scriptura, is what it comes down to.

Pastor There-Is-No-Way-I'm-Getting-Into-the-Whole-Kurt-Johnson-WMC-Deal (nice name!) + David:

I wholeheartedly agree with your statements. The only exception being that Sola Scriptura is proven to be failing by your assessments. Tradition and Magisterium are the other necessary legs for the stool to stand, otherwise, as you well note, chaos and disunity reign. Where reform is needed it should be pursued, but it seems the Reformation's chief accomplishment was to open a Pandora's box that cannot now be closed, not because God would not prefer this, but because of hard hearts. If this is wrong, please explain how. I am very serious in trying to get a grip on this and am open to correction.

You wrote:

"Where reform is needed it should be pursued, but it seems the Reformation's chief accomplishment was to open a Pandora's box that cannot now be closed, not because God would not prefer this, but because of hard hearts."

I'm not going to speak for God regarding God's preference, but I don't think many Reformation scholars would agree with Son of WMC's characterization of the Reformation's greatest accomplishment.

Kurt,

I have no doubt that Lutheran or other Protestant scholars of the Reformation might not agree with me. But again, I offer the evidence of 30,000+ Protestant denominations, all of which claim to being led by the Holy Spirit, many or most of which have internal divisions also with each side claiming being lead by the Holy Spirit, and if these divisions are carried far enough, as others in the past have done, they too will lead to further schisms. Furthermore none of the Protestant denominations have stood steadfast in all of the doctrine that they began with (unless they are so new that they haven't had a change for such an evolution to occur) and thus claiming being led by the Holy Spirit, they have eventually found something that doctrinally the Holy Spirit has contradicted himself. The same cannot be said of the Catholic Church - they have been consistent doctrinally. Any "changes" have not overturned previous doctrines, but have further developed them or brought into doctrine things that were generally believed previously but were not lifted to doctrinal status. And in spite of internal movements of clergy and laity opposing certain Catholic teachings, the magisterium has been there to discipline them if they go too far so as to defend the traditional teaching of the Church.

You've certainly described the power of ecclesiastical authoritarianism resulting from medieval people being scared that they are going straight to hell if they don't toe the mark. The Renaissance likely was more responsible than Luther for changing that. Nonetheless, it seems clear that your most comforting future is in the Catholic Church. I urge you to go there as quickly as possible.

Kurt,

The facade of the ELCA has a Presiding Bishop. So does the Episcopal Church, and most if not all other mainline Protestant denominations (in the form of Presidents or under other titles). But why have titular heads if they have no power? Our Presiding Bishop is reduced to working behind the scenes to get his agenda through on the issues at question in this thread. Why doesn't he say publicly what he actually believes? Because he doesn't want to offend anyone? Because he is afraid benevolences will dry up? Because he will be accused of a power play? So then where does the authority reside in the ELCA? With anyone who can get themselves elected to a national assembly (2/3 laity, 1/3 clergy). We have, generally speaking a churchwide assembly made up of mostly untrained people voting on doctrine as though a simple majority can overturn anything it wants anytime it wants. If 50%+1 will vote to deny Jesus Christ as Lord, then that will be what the ELCA believes. What is there to stop it? Believe it or not Jesus gave singular authority to Peter in the form of the keys to the kingdom of heaven (and not in so liberal a fashion - he may bind and loose but he may not overturn the doctrine of the past). Do sinners occupy the seat of the Papacy? All who ever have held that office were sinners in greater or lesser degree. Have some abused power? Yes, all too many unfortunately. But has the official doctrine of the Catholic Church remained that has been formerly taught? Yes, in every case! Thus the charge against the Catholic Church comes often that it is too strict and needs to loosen up! If we were going to say that no one can have the authority as I believve Jesus delegated it to teach and defend the doctrine of the Church, then no one could be a pastor or bishop, much less a pope. The priesthood of all believers as it has been incorectly interpreted essentially makes everyone to be their own pope, deciding for themselves what should and should not be the proper teaching and practice of the Church. That is utter chaos. And that does not in any way uphold Jesus' promise to all believers that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all the truth. How can it when your "truth" is opposite of my "truth". There is no longer truth but only relativism in such a system. There has got to be a standard, a standard that cannot be overturned, that has some sort of mechanism by which it is consistently proclaimed and defended among mortals on earth, or else we are all hopelessly groping in the dark. Without such a system of delegated authority by our Lord Jesus Christ, I can no more be sure than you that either one of us is right when we debate like this. For what can I point to that assures me of who is right? My own wisdom? No. Yours? No. The Holy Spirit? How can I assume the Holy Spirit agrees with either of us? What evidence can I show to discern such a thing? Holy Scripture? Well that is open to interpretation, presumably both right and wrong interpretation. So whose is which? All we do is go in circles on our own. If there wasn't meant to be a delegated system of authority, then why did Jesus set 12 apart and to that group give authority to bind and loose sins and not to all believers? Why does Jesus give the keys to Peter alone? Why does a See in Rome gain pre-eminence in the early centuries of the Church and there be no large factions objecting until very late in the first millenium A.D. when the Orthodox churches complain about the filioque and thus about the authority of the Pope to insert this into the creed? I read something in my devotions lately from Thomas-A-Kempis' "Imitation of Christ" that really puts it all into perspective to me. He wrote in Book 1, chapter 16, verse 3, "We want to have others strictly reprimanded for their offenses, but we will not be reprimanded ourselves. We are inclined to think the other person hass too much liberty, but we oursleves will not put up with any restraint. there must be rules for everyone else, but we must be given free rein. It is seldom that we consider our neighbor equally with ourselves." And I might add, it is all too often that we consider God equal to ourselves and our personal opinions and all too seldom that we consider him far superior to the point that we will willingly submit to him and his ways, including the way he should himself decide to set up the Church and delegate authority, especially if he should do so to sinners whom we see as beneath contempt. You liklely will not see any merit in what I write here, so it is questionable why I write so much for so long at such a late hour, but I feel compelled, both for you and others who may read. God bless you my brother in Christ, even if we can't agree.

At least in the ELCA, the question before the assembly is not whether non-celibate gays and lesbians can be admitted to communion - as I understand the situation, in virtually no ELCA congregation is there serious talk of denying the body and blood of Christ to GLBT people in relationships. Denial of the sacrament on that basis would be an outrage as far as most of the ELCA is concerned (regardless of where a given congregation might stand on the question of whether homosexuality is a sin). I'm open to being corrected on that, but that is my sense.
The issues are same-sex unions and ordination of non-celibate homosexuals in same-sex relationships. Those are separate issues from communion. So, even if the ELCA does not pass these resolutions, I don't see it becoming "Church B."

Rob,

Well, I would offer that indeed the issues causing this discussion and the denial of the reception of Holy Communion are in fact related. If you take Paul at his word that we must examine ourselves prior to receiving the sacrament, and we come to receive it with unrepentant hearts, then we eat and drink the sacrament unto our own condemnation. So to deny the sacrament in the case of persons openly defying age old teaching regarding these issues is not a slap in the face but rather meant to be a favor done to the impenitent, helping them to see their need before God. Now, with the division over this question in the ELCA, the fact of the matter is, in the "local option" congregations where there is majority agreement that the age old teaching is no longer applicable, surely they will allow the reception of the sacrament by those openly practicing such a lifestyle. Other non-local option congregations will likely deny the sacrament to such persons for the reasons I outlined above. Thus indeed you do get A and B churches. Unity is rendered fully if the Task Force recommendations are approved, it seems without a doubt.

Most responsible biblical exegetes whom I have read are quite clear as to what the plain sense referent of Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians 11 is, and it's right there in 19-22: Paul is complaining that the rich are turning the Lord's Supper into another opportunity for the haves to be satiated and the poor to be denied an equal share. THAT is the "unworthy manner" referenced just a few verses later in 27-29.
Any other interpretation is eisogesis, not exegesis.

Which is to say that wielding the Eucharist as a vehicle for excluding those with whom we are in theological disagreement seems, to me at least, to veer closer to what which Paul is condemning than that which is is commending.

From my perspective, Rob, Bishop Hanson's appeal to the Sacrament, and the "Eucharistic Hospitality" interpretation of v. 29 which many adhere to, is simply a clever tactic that has the effect of avoiding self-examination and the true repentance which may follow. The sacrament is being used as a means to create a false unity in order to keep one's opponents silent. Communion thus becomes the ultimate stopper. In this way, the sacrament is abused as the Grace of our Lord is cast like pearls before swine, all in the name of Love. Cause this love means never having to say you're sorry . . . .

Henry,

Well said my friend!

Rob,

Let's read the text carefully (using NRSV).

Verses 11-22 speak of the specific issue Paul is correcting the Corinthians on, the haves and the have nots as you say.

Verses 23-26 include the first Scripture version of the words of Institution (which Paul had handed on to the Corinthians by word of mouth previously) and concludes with the proclamation of the mystery (Christ's death, resurrection, and 2nd coming) as a result of each time Holy Communion is administered.

Verses 27-32 speak in more general terms about the "unworthy manner" and do not limit this to just the haves and have nots issue - the evidence for this is in verse 28, "Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup..." and in verse 31, "But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged." These terms regard approaching the Lord's table with regard to anything that we are unrepentant of and are not limited to one specific sin. Those that read otherwise are doing the eisogesis.

Verses 33-34 return to the issue Paul started with at verse 17. One could argue, as you seem to do that this means that the whole of the passage addresses only the haves/have nots issue here. But the evidence that shows to the contrary is in verse 33. The general instructions towards self examination and judgement provide a foundation for a conclusion regarding this specific situation of the Corinthians, which is made evident by the words in verse 33 "So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another..."
Now you may disagree with this, but show me where and by what evidence this is wrong.

Rob,

You've heard the old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? As a child, I wasn't too thrilled when my mother would insist that I clean my plate (usually including foods that I detested) before I could have desert. At that time I felt it was an unfair power play separating me from something I really wanted, something I felt I deserved, something I felt she had no right to keep from me. But the truth of the matter became more evident to me when I became a parent of three sons - helping me to see she was doing me a favor, trying to help me gain a balanced and nutritious diet. In hindsight I can now appreciate what she did. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to look at this issue from the other perspective and instead of assuming the withholding of communion is a power play seeking to lord it over others for the sake of spite, that instead it could really be a work of spiritual care and concern for the souls of the impenitent.

Ah, the POWER of the power of the keys. There's nothing like one human being telling another what his or her relationship with God ought to be.

My former LCMS pastor once withheld Communion from himself.

He'd had an incident with his son prior to service, and he was so angry that by the time church rolled around, he examined himself and found his anger too impenitent for him to in good conscience receive Communion, so he refrained.

The Office of the Keys works in more ways than one.

Making the decision for oneself as opposed to making the decision for someone else is a HUGE difference.

Your example actually makes the point for those with whom you disagree.

...is part and parcel of the Office of the Keys as described in the SC.

It's not just on the basis of sexuality.

In my first Lutheran congregation (ELCA), the pastor announced before every service that "if you are baptised and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and the wine and are communicant in your home congregation, you are welcome to commune." I served as his communion assistant many times. I remember one time when a young girl from the neighbourhood (it was an inner-city congregation) was visiting for the first time. I didn't know her, so I asked the pastor about communing her. He went to her and asked very gently if she was baptised, and she said no. He told her, again very gently, "not yet, and we'll talk later." He laid his hand on her head and blessed her, which is what the pastor of my current congregation does with those who are not confirmed.

Of course, some would call that "unwelcoming."

Kurt,

See my post above..."Authoritarianism or Properly delegated Authority?"

I'm afraid your cynicism regarding anyone in the Church holding any sort of power reveals your preference for a "Democracy of God" as opposed to the "Kingdom of God". I know this is America, but the two are not one in the same.

Son of WMC,

As pastors, we both know that actions that are meant to be well-intentioned, pastoral, and theologically sound can sometimes ALSO be, unwittingly or not, abuses of power. I have no doubt that those who withhold communion from those that they regard as unrepentant sinners might have the most pastoral of intentions; however, given my stated disagreement with that interpretation of I Corinthians, that does not mean that I find it less problematic.

As these posts have demonstrated, members of this church are in a theological dispute about the extent to which homosexual action is a sin. Faithful Christians are finding themselves on both sides of the issue. To begin denying communion to those with whom we have moral disputes - will pacifists then deny communion to just war theorists? Barthians to Schleiermacheans? Pastors with interest-bearing bank accounts to those who take the Bible's injunctions against usury literally? Surely we can agree that theological disputes like these are no grounds for withholding the Eucharist from those who come to the Lord's table to seek it. I contend that, at this point, the dispute over sexuality is in the same category.

I am a Lutheran by choice and ELCA by lack of choice. In witnessing to the family it is not the simple choice of a Lutheran Church or one of another denomination, it is the Lutheran Church or no church for these children. Lutheranism is right for me, but might not be for everyone and I am sure God doesn’t care. As a lay person I can only relate my observations.
The neighborhood church has about 17 in attendance with a pastor appointed by the congregation; the services have no structure featuring a fear sermon from hell. The Lutheran church offers a liturgy which teaches from beginning to end and a very organized Sunday school.
The boys went to the neighborhood church for bible school. On the first days the children were lined up and asked if they were “SAVED”. On the way home they were crying and very upset because they were told mommy and daddy are going to hell, because they are not Christians and do not attend that church. That was their first experience of church. I was able to use this experience to have the family attend the Lutheran church, which turned out to be a positive experience for the whole family.
Arrangements were made to have the older son baptized August 9th. Someone slipped the father a “Baptist Press” or some paper like that with an article “Lutherans are to Ordain Gays.” That was enough to put everything on hold because of his reaction.
Before relocating to the Bible belt I was church president for 4 years, that church had a stagnant attendance of around 35 each Sunday. We broke off and joined the LCMC, old people came back and new ones showed up. Attendance grew to and average of about 95 per week. We again had a choir and most important the first conformation classes in years. The only different was the name over the door. It appears to me churches that are perceived as keeping to the Gospel are growing while others like the ELCA are floundering.
I hate to see the ELCA follow the UCC in path of its own destruction. A few weeks ago my wife and I attended a UCC church in Eastern Pennsylvania with our friends. It was sad to see the once great church have 23 in attendance with my wife and I in our 60’s being the youngest. They were concerned with cutting the part time pastor’s hours more so they could pay the light bill. The sermon was on faith; this made me wonder what happened to the faith of our fore fathers that build these churches which we are watching slowly die.
The drop in membership of the ELCA should be a warning that like the UCC it is going in the wrong direction and should not drop its standards to cater to a few.

Ron,

You said, "It appears to me churches that are perceived as keeping to the Gospel are growing..." Amen! That's it in a nutshell. So changing the name over the door of the church actually means something if in fact it is keeping to the gospel. By changing the name over the door, the public profession is that we do not support or even enable other congregations to believe that ordaining persons in same gender relationships or blessing such unions, because that is not consistent with the gospel. In the long run, with more research, I would venture to bet that perceptions are not what God is interested in, but truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So if there is more that God is offering than we are willing to accept, then what does that say about us? I greatly sympathize with your desire to evangelize these children and applaud your efforts. The greater issue, that I have been talking to, is that there is a greater smorgasboard of grace available to us from God than even the Lutheran Restaurant seems able to offer. But to discover this, one needs to be willing to say, "God, I will follow wherever you lead, even if you truly lead me where at the moment I can't for the life of me see how you could possibly want me to go there!"

Rob,

The withholding of Communion for mere disputes over moral teaching or theology would not be correct. But what I am talking about here is not in reference to mere disputes. When the Church has a standard of teaching, that is presented as the truth according to God's Word, that is in fact a matter of either faith or morals, then the bishops and pastors of the Church are in fact duty bound to withhold Communion from anyone who is openly and fragrantly disobeying such teachings without intent of repentance. If the Church cannot do that, then there is no consequence to how one lives one's faith in this life that gives the Church the opportunity to warn the offender so as to bring them to repentance and the grace of Christ in absolution and reconcilliation. Pastoral care should first and foremost be a matter of salvation of the soul. If the Church cannot do even this, then there is no point to having the Church, for we can serve up sacraments left and right and they will be to no avail because no one will find a need to be repentant. Unless the law is preached with the gospel, there is no need for the gospel or the sacraments that issue from it, or else there is no benefit from the gospel or the sacraments that issue from it because we ignore the call to repentance at our peril and we eat and drink to our damnation. This isn't a mere matter of disputes over private opinion. It has to do with standard and official Church teaching on faith and morals and the defense of such as well as the pastoral care of souls in relation to these.

Son of WMC,

I appreciate the clarification of your point.

On my theological judgment, however, I find this post concerning the issue of communion to be like many of your others: theologically buttressed by reference to a magisterium that is not only not present in the ELCA, but is I think quite impossible (theologically and practically) under the ELCA's polity. Conversely, it is, as far as I can tell, very much in line with Roman Catholicism's sense of the role (pneumatologically supported) of magisterium in safeguarding doctrinal boundaries.

I have had occasion, in my doctoral work, to immerse myself in quite a range of writings related to Lutherans and other Protestants who have chosen to convert to Rome (including fairly extensive study of Newman, as well as Huetter, Reno, Leonard Klein, Neuhaus, etc.). One of the best quotes that I've come across is from Neuhaus, who stated something along the order of this: "Anyone who has become convinced that the Roman Catholic church is what she claims to be is obligated to convert." He also postulated that those Christians who were not so convinced were either stubborn or had not been exposed to a proper explication of the Roman Catholic faith, the latter being the more charitable presupposition to which he was inclined.

I share this because I have, in the course of my studies, concluded that the Roman Catholic and Lutheran understandings of magisterium are worlds apart, theologically speaking. Trying to plant a magisterium that functions as it does in the Roman communion into the American Lutheran context would be like trying to make a fern grow in concrete: if not impossible, at least requiring a great deal of artifice.

You have talked in other posts about your ongoing discernment in this area. It is of course between you and our Lord as to whether you are at the point of being convinced that the Roman Church is who she claims to be, or whether you even accept Neuhaus' terms there. But I would respectfully suggest that you will find continual frustration in trying to talk of "settled church doctrine" being guarded by the bishops, magisterium-style, in the ELCA. One of those frustrations will be in dealing with theologians like myself, who frame our arguments on the basis of a highly non-magisterial ecclesiology that is (sadly or salutarily) much more in line with current ELCA practice.

Rob,

I appreciate your comments. As I wrote to another among these threads somewhere, I've been trying to see if anyone would credibly try to disuade me of what I am writing. Thus far a few have made poor attempts, most, like yourself have sort of written in a way that gives me to think, "What's the point?" So perhaps to this latter category it matters not whether I convert to Rome or not. I am well aware of what Father Neuhaus said and am inclined to agree with him. As I said, I just wanted to see if any could show me if and where I was wrong in my conclusions. Apparently, if I am led to believe correctly, some would be glad to see me leave the ELCA and others just don't find it that important of a question. Anyway God bless you Rob as you plod on.

How do you deal with the Bishop of Rome claiming to be the Vicar of Christ, standing in His place? Just wondering. Regarding your lack of being convinced, I know some who might be able to help, but it would appear few on Lutheran Forum are ready to give you an answer. I wish my training were further advanced, that I could be of help. Do you consider Luther and his discovery to be one big mistake? Do you see any faults in the Council of Trent?

Rik,

On the "Vicar of Christ" issue, I've written here before. That title is meant to imply the Pope is the duly delegated person on earth to oversee the the Church Jesus established. It doesn't mean he has taken Jesus' place. When Jesus gives the keys to Peter singularly, and when he prays for Peter singularly so that after the crucifixion of Christ he may in turn console the other apostles - all of this points to Peter being the chief overseer, a position that would not cease after Peter's death, otherwise why establish it in the first place. If this is untrue, then what is the sensible interpretation of these passages? Given all of the teachings Luther argued against that with study I do find Scriptural and supported by the Church Fathers, and then add to that the chaos of Protestantism, the absolute lack of desire to work towards reconcilliation with Rome (left open and desired as read in the Lutheran Confessions), and what appears to be a gradual devolution in the faithful teaching of the gospel among Protestant denominiations - what else can I conclude but that it was a huge mistake? Does that mean I don't think there weren't abuses that needed reforming in Luther's day? No. But to me it seems Luther went too far. The Council of Trent set to reform those abuses, but could not and would not overturn the doctrines that were rightly held, so far as I can see. As I said, I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but so far, none has been produced.

Son of WMC,

No one has tried to persude you? Let me at least take a swing at it.

If you decide to swim the Tiber, that is not a catastrophic mistake by any means. You are not abandoning the Faith, merely "transferring" to another tradition within that Faith whose views and practices you think you would find more emotionally edifying and intellectually satisfying. That would be a perfectly legitimate decision. It's not like you had decided to become a Hindu, which probably WOULD cause a lot of consternation on this board.

But a case can be made for staying a Protestant generally and a Lutheran specifically. For all its faults, the Reformation was a wakeup call to the Church, a rediscovery of the central truth of Christianity: our salvation is a free gift from God, purchased at the price of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross. As William James put it, Luther's central insight was this: "We are saved now, if we would but believe it."

When Protestantism is at its best, this principle lays at the heart of everything it does. I know, I know all the rot which has crept in in modern times, the liberalizing tendencies in modern Mainline Protestantism. No one can disagree with you there. Nevertheless, there are faithful corners where are orthodoxy reigns and the Magisterial Reformation is still practiced faithfully. Pockets of the UMC and the PCUSA and the ELCA are still conservative. The LCMS (for all its problems) still proclaims correctly the central tenets of the Faith.

In the Catholic Church, excellent as it is in so many ways, the spirit, the guiding principle is NOT centered on the issue of salvation. The FEEL is different. Salvation is acknowledged there as God's gift, and the Church does believe it. But it is not the great lived truth in Rome, it doesn't pervade the atmosphere on a day to day basis and isn't the coin of the realm.

I actually was raised Catholic and still have a great deal of affection for the Church. But the grip of the Evangelical message attracted me to Protestantism and has kept me there (for the most part) for quite a few years now. And in Lutheranism there exists the best synthesis of the doctrine of grace proclaimed and the maintenance of small c catholic liturgy and sacramental practice.

I always say to myself when Rome puts Article IV of the Augsburg Confession on the inside front cover of its Catechism, then I might seriously consider "going home". At that point, all the spiritual heirs of Luther might feel the same.

Just my "2 cents".

I have never been Roman Catholic. I come from an unchurched background; mother was a lapsed Nazarene and father was raised Old Order Mennonite, left it at 16 and hated it for the rest of his life. I became Methodist because my girlfriend at the time was and I started going to Confirmation with her. I believe the Lord used her.

However, I have a fair bit of experience with Roman Catholics. I grew up almost within sight of the University of Notre Dame. I probably wouldn't have survived Air Force basic training if not for the ministrations of an AF Chaplain who was a Roman Catholic priest. I worked for a brief time at a hospital and another (now retired) priest I knew was there almost every day, making his rounds and going to the chapel to pray for the sick and unchurched.

I have never attended a Catholic Mass, but the ones I have watched broadcast to shut-ins on TV bear very familiar characteristics for one used to liturgical Lutheran and Methodist services.

I came to admire Pope John Paul II very much for not just going with the winds of public opinion and teaching what he believed to be the true faith - even if I didn't agree with everything he said.

I have more of an affinity with Roman Catholics than I do with, for example, fundamental King James Only Baptists.

However, I am and remain a Lutheran. If others feel called by God to "cross the Tiber," Godspeed, but I'm staying in Wittenberg.

Larry,

You said the Lutheran focus is upon the fact that "our salvation is a free gift from God, purchased at the price of Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross". You might have given the impression that that is not Catholic teaching, but you said it was later in your post, just not the central focus. I don't know how long you've been away from the Catholic Church, but my experience of it is that this is the central focus. The charge that the Catholic Church is too "works" oriented fails to see the distinction between self-justification and works of grace that God initiates in us, God enables, and God produces through us. Protestantism has become, by and large antinomian - take it or leave it, since loving my neighbor isn't really necessary (strongly encouraged, yes, but not necessary), and since loving God with all my heart, soul, strength, and mind isn't something God really expects of us. Sure we fall short, but that's no excuse not to try. And when I read Matthew 25:31-46, I'm sorry but I don't see "faith alone" there.
As far as article IV of the Augsburg Confession goes, here is the response of the Catechism of the Catholic Church - and with careful reading, we find they are not in contradiction at all:
1987 - "The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us 'the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ' and through Baptism..."
1988 - "Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself..."
1989 - "The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' (Matt. 4:17) Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. 'Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.' (Council of Trent)"
1990 - "Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals."
1991 - "Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or 'justice') here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted to us."
1992 - "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life..."
1993 - Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: 'When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.' (Council of Trent)"
1994 - "Justification is the most excellent work of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit..."
1995 - "The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the 'inner man,' justification entails the sanctification of his whole being..."
1996 - "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life."
2001 - "The preparation of Man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun..."
2002 - "God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him..."
2003 - "Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church."

Terrific quotes, WMC. And from Catholic sources too. If I read them in a Concordia or Augsburg-published book they would fit right in. Stipulated: the Church in many, many of its official pronouncements has effectively accepted many of the Reformation principles. (Or, alternatively, is reiterating that it never disagreed with them to begin with. Just expressed the same Truths in a different way.)

Only one tiny demurral: is the evangelical consciousness pervasive in the lived life of the average Catholic parish? I say that not to be a wet blanket, but as something that would still cause ME to hesitate to make the jump.

The Catholic tradition has much to offer, and it has attracted many over the centuries. It has beauty and deep richness and it calls many people to it. I am far, far, far from saying "don't go". Something is pulling you there, big time. Could well be God. Very strong possibility.

I myself still care for the Church deeply. I am a friend of Catholicism from afar. I keep up with what's going on in the Church. Read some of the Catholic blogs, especially Amy Welborn, who is excellent. Occasionally I still go to Mass too, when traveling. And Pope Benedict is an incredible man, brilliant and faithful. A beacon in a world of chaos and decline.

All that said, I anticipate remaining a Protestant. Lutheranism at its best still exerts a very strong pull on me. As long as I am Lutheran specifically or a Protestant generally, I never have to worry about whether it's "OK" to believe in unmerited grace. More than being merely "OK", its expected.

God bless you as your discernment continues.

Larry,

I'm not sure what the source of your concern is regarding the "it's ok to believe in unmerited grace" vs. "it's expected". If the quotes above don't satisfy you as to the proper teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue, I'm not sure what will. Popular piety, when its wrong is not to be confused with what the Church officially sanctions. And having the experience of listening and watching to the conservative Catholic media who are the most ardent in support of the Pope and the official teachings of the Church, there is nothing there that I hear that contradicts the quotes above from the official Catechism. You said, "Only one tiny demurral: is the evangelical consciousness pervasive in the lived life of the average Catholic parish?" If that is to be the measuring stick, then the average Catholic parish will match up to the average ELCA parish any day as to not only proper understanding of and reliance upon the grace of God, but also in terms of knowing its need for that grace via the fact that the practice of the confessional is slowly making a comeback after a period in the aftermath of Vatican II where many misinterpreted or misunderstood the point of that council insofar as they took it to mean the protestantizing of many things including the falling by the wayside of the confessional among other things. There are problems to be found in any parish, but I will say one thing. There is no Catholic parish where one must get into a debate as to whether or not Holy Communion will be served on a given Sunday. There is no question but that a Eucharistic prayer will be used honoring the ancient Church practice as well as recognizing that Christ gave thanks before breaking the bread and offering the cup. There is no question, but that upon entering the sanctuary, the people still bend at the knee, cross themselves in rememberance of their baptism and their identity as children of God, and they still sit in silent reverence in the presence of God prior to the start of worship. None of the protestant churches I've ever attended had anywhere near this sense of the transcendance or the presence of the Almighty. It is awe inspiring. And the reverence for the Eucharist, Christ Jesus our Lord come into our midst is uniform everywhere. These basic things have not been lost among the Catholics. For me, I cannot judge the parish or the denomination by the people I see. Sinners will be in every pew regardless. Rather, I must be able to say with confidence that I am a part of what I confess to believe in, namely, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Given what I have learned and discovered, it appears only Rome can lay claim to fully living out this creed. Other denominations have remnants to one degree or another, and some are fast heading into apostasy, but none have the fulness that I see Rome has. Again, if evidence to the contrary could be offered, I am open to being persuaded otherwise. But as of now, its not been shown me.

Son of WMC,

Larry wrote, "Stipulated: the Church in many, many of its official pronouncements has effectively accepted many of the Reformation principles. (Or, alternatively, is reiterating that it never disagreed with them to begin with. Just expressed the same Truths in a different way.)" My next question to you is, how do you respond to the anathemas leveled toward those who trust the Scriptural teaching of Justification of Faith through Grace?

Rik,

Not to be picky, but I think its justification by grace through faith. Anyway, as to the anathemas, if I am not mistaken, with the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification agreed to by both Rome and the ELCA (among other Lutheran bodies) those anathemas were lifted. Personally, I think the polemics of the 16th century never helped anything other than fuel mutual condemnations and simultaneously plug ears and harden hearts on both sides. Nevertheless, we are not dealing with that now. Rome is much more eager for dialogue, and oddly enough, by and large Protestant churches seem less willing unless its with their fellow Protestant churches. To truly estimate where Rome stands and the "climate" of receptivity to ecumenical dialogue, one must read Catholic sources and not merely Protestant sources critical of Rome. The same holds true for their teaching in faith and morals. This is what has opened my eyes to so very much. So much of Lutheranism is dealing with a stereotype of what they believe Catholicism is and does, fed by snippets of media coverage that also doesn't delve into the depths of the why's and the wherefores. It's like Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, "There aren't 100 people in the whole world who truly are against the Catholic Church, but there countless numbers who oppose what they wrongly believe the Catholic Church to be."