Ship of Fools: Lutheran Ecuminicalism

Thread: Lutheran Ecuminicalism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025073

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

It seems that a Lutheran minister who took part in a multi faith service about Sandy Hook has been made to apologize for having done so.

quote:
Earlier this month, the president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Pastor Matthew Harrison, wrote a letter to church members saying he had requested an apology from Morris for his participation in "joint worship with other religions."

Gosh. Way to turn a feel good moment into a "I don't want to join a church with jerks like that" moment.

Can't even attend a worship service with other faiths? What are they afraid of?

Wait, I know:

quote:
"There is sometimes a real tension between wanting to bear witness to Christ and at the same time avoiding situations which may give the impression that our differences with respect to who God is, who Jesus is, how he deals with us, and how we get to heaven, really don't matter in the end," Harrison wrote.

Of course. It should have been obvious to me from the beginning. Seeing a minister with a clerical collar is just not enough to distinguish him from a Muslim cleric. Or, is it *********, ECUSA, or even the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America?

But, by neddie dingo the president rubbed that straying minister's nose in it. He will never give the impression the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod tolerates *********s again.

Shit heads.

[ 13. February 2013, 00:03: Message buggered about with by: comet ]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

I wonder what Matthew Harrison thinks Jesus would have done under similar circumstances.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Wow.

Even the church I left wouldn't have done this. Wonder who Harrison's boss is?

Apparently not the proverbial Jewish carpenter.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I so don't miss the Missouri Synod.

Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on :

My former pastor attended a Missouri Synod church in his youth. On a visit to his childhood home, he went to a service there, and was refused communion because he was by that time a pastor in the ELCA.

Lutheran friends often pronounce the words "Missouri Synod" with a curl of the upper lip--as though they'd picked up a whiff of something nasty, as it might be, a passing skunk. Now you know why.

Why attending a prayer service with members of other faiths--or even just with members of other Christian churches (because LCMS would frown on that too)--should be considered "taking Christian freedom too far" is incomprehensible.

Oh, and I believe that the LCMS was one of the few church bodies that supported the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:

Lutheran friends often pronounce the words "Missouri Synod" with a curl of the upper lip--as though they'd picked up a whiff of something nasty, as it might be, a passing skunk. Now you know why.

Having grown up in LCMS I have always pronounced it Lutheran Church Misery Synod. There were a couple of us in our high school youth group that brought a friend who was Baptist along with us to a group meeting and the pastor spent the entire meeting telling him he was going to hell. That was the beginning of the end for me. I am no longer Lutheran, but I'm pleased to say my mother's LCMS church doesn't pay attention to this particular rule.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:

quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:

Lutheran friends often pronounce the words "Missouri Synod" with a curl of the upper lip--as though they'd picked up a whiff of something nasty, as it might be, a passing skunk. Now you know why.

Having grown up in LCMS I have always pronounced it Lutheran Church Misery Synod. There were a couple of us in our high school youth group that brought a friend who was Baptist along with us to a group meeting and the pastor spent the entire meeting telling him he was going to hell.

I thought that was the LCMS modus operandum re all persons, in all places and at all times. Anyhow, the baptists I know (in the UK) wouldn't worry one jot.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Egeria:

quote:
Oh, and I believe that the LCMS was one of the few church bodies that supported the invasion of Iraq.

In the late eighties I taught at a LMS school and perforce was confirmed in the church. I don't know about the denomination as a whole, but the church I attended had a very moving service when Desert Storm broke out, where we prayed for all people in harm's way in the conflict and which treated war as a human failure. I also was impressed in that church because there was very little judgmentalism although it was a very sola scriptura church. As a whole the pastor and church felt we all fell short, and we didn't need to look beyond our own noses to find sins that needed forgiveness.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Seems to me that disciplining a priest that participates in non-Christian worship is strictly a family affair. How did this become front page news?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It's this kind of thread that makes me think I ought to scuttle back down into steerage where I belong, with the rest of the third class MO Synod rats. Look, I'm not pleased to see my church body making an ass of itself in public, but really--skunk? curled lips? Can anything good come out of Missouri?

People (and I'm not talking to you Lyda*Rose or you, Zach82, God bless you), your own CofE, ELCA, RC, etc. etc. etc. also make asses of themselves in major ways on a regular basis. Yet I don't see the same degree of unrelenting negativity in the threads about those cases, and I do my personal best not to take cheap potshots at the exposed ass cheeks of churches y'all hold near and dear. Really, it gets old. OLD.

Okay, enough of that shit. I'm going to get purgatorial now and bore the tits off you, in the faint hope that some of you might want to know just what was driving this whole should-have-been-a-non-story.

First, as to what happened this month:

You have what appears to me to be a fairly young pastor, of the best intentions, in a hellishly stressful situation, who has probably lost children from his congregation and who definitely is ministering to families who have. Under this circumstance he is thrust into the national spotlight and forced to walk a tightrope. Poor guy.

Second, you have a synodical president who knows damn well that the last synodical president almost lost his position as a result of supporting a very similar situation after 9/11. Who is also very much aware that the LCMS took major damage to its reputation as a result of the long drawn out clusterfuck that was the investigation, counter investigation, charges and counter charges, shit. In this current situation, what do you expect? Harrison obviously wants to prevent a repeat of that clusterfuck (with attendant damage to everybody and everything involved) and incidentally safeguard his own position. So his aim is going to be to shut the whole mess down ASAP with as little fanfare as possible. And if he's any decent human being at all, without exposing the young pastor to the ongoing attention of the lunatic wolves that exist in every denomination, mine included, and who would happily take his leg off if the situation is prolonged.

Why the situation is so fraught? Well, because of the 9/11 mess, which involved a much more high profile disaster and a much more high profile pastor (a district president). The echoes from that mess haven't died away yet.

And THAT (9/11) situation was so fraught, not because we are natural-born assholes, but because the aftershocks of the 1970s doctrine wars are ongoing to this day--and they were fought precisely over the question of how far one can stretch doctrinal differences in order to preserve Christian unity. That struggle nearly destroyed the church.

And THAT (1970s) situation was so fraught because the bloody MO Synod was BUILT on immigrants who fled Germany et al to avoid government forced "unionism" with churches of a different doctrinal confession. So the concern for keeping doctrine clear and avoiding even the appearance of unionism/syncretism has been THE bedrock issue for MO Synod from its foundation. We're going back what? Nearly 200 years here?

So throughout our history, same bloody issue, repeated time and time and time again. And this among people who cared so passionately about doctrinal unity that they were prepared to immigrate, some of them even to die, to preserve it. Among people who today still live in families divided between two or three Lutheran synods (and have very interesting holiday dinners, I imagine). Among people who remember nearly losing their church to the same issue cropped up once again, and are shit scared that this time everything will slide straight to hell and this time they won't be able to stop it.

Now you may mock us, and patronize us, and tell us to get the fuck over ourselves. But what we're dealing with is in some ways comparable to a denomination wide case of post traumatic stress disorder, and people having flashbacks don't always act as sensibly as they oughter. And you may now resume normal Hell coverage.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
this whole should-have-been-a-non-story.

This story is that the LCMS has disciplined one of its clergy for committing the grave sin of praying with other Christians.

It should have been a non-story?

You've lost me somewhere with that. And it would have been nice to have seen an expression of sympathy for the poor young man who committed this grave sin, no doubt because he believed that other CHristians were -- if not as good as LCMS christians -- at least acceptable prayer partners.

Now I'm not saying that there wasn't history. Nor am I willing to suggest that the LCMS is necessarily worse than other denominations. But based on what I read, and what friends of mine say who used to be LCMS and got out as soon as they could, I have to say that you and your husband appear to be a lonely outpost of sanity in the LCMS. The sooner you recognize this, the better, IMO.

John

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And perhaps you would do me the courtesy of supposing that I and my husband might be slightly better acquainted with the rank and file majority of the MO Synod than yourself? We've only been in it for 35 years.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

The fact remains that the man was made to apologize for praying in the company of people of other faiths, as if Jesus Christ himself would frown on that. Just about all brands of Christianity get their chance at making the whole faith look bad. Right now it's the Missouri Synod's turn.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
So the concern for keeping doctrine clear and avoiding even the appearance of unionism/syncretism has been THE bedrock issue for MO Synod from its foundation. We're going back what? Nearly 200 years here?

A therapist would gently suggest it was time to move on.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Eh. LC, I could say that I was still traumatized by my Missouri Synod 6th grade teacher telling me in front of the class that even if I got baptized I was still going to Hell because it should have been done while I was still an infant. But I wasn't even traumatized then. I just chalked it up to him and his church being full of shit. As Luther himself might have said.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The fact remains that the man was made to apologize for praying in the company of people of other faiths ...

If I were him I'd vote with my feet toot sweet.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

People (and I'm not talking to you Lyda*Rose or you, Zach82, God bless you), your own CofE, ELCA, RC, etc. etc. etc. also make asses of themselves in major ways on a regular basis. Yet I don't see the same degree of unrelenting negativity in the threads about those cases, and I do my personal best not to take cheap potshots at the exposed ass cheeks of churches y'all hold near and dear. Really, it gets old. OLD.

First, let me say I respect the ministry of both you and your husband, especially with all the crap you've put up with from the very church you defend and serve. Secondly, you shouldn't feel so picked on LC. Just about every denomination gets flambeed here when it does hateful or stupid stuff - and just about every member of those denominations claims they're the only ones who get the treatment. Just open about any thread on the RCC or Baptists or CoE.

Why should non Christians be interested in what we have to offer when events like the one mentioned the OP happen? Everyone knows ecumenical services don't mean everyone agrees with each other doctrinally. The fact that the Synod president almost lost his job after the 9/11 deal in a messy, hate filled investigatory process where more concern was paid to preserving the LCMS belief that they alone hold the keys to the kingdom and the current one appears to be more afraid for his job then supporting praying with other Christians (it's not taking communion, ffs) tells me I made the right choice in leaving. This is the same idiocy I saw on an individual level watching my pastor repeatedly state my friend was going to hell simply because he was a Baptist. I'm just happy my mother's church changed and that others I know of have as well, even if the LCMS as a whole is still stuck in fear of the past.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

LC, I admire you and your compassion. My denomination, United Methodist, has done - and does - some shitty things. We excluded other races for a while. My grandfather nearly quit being a Methodist minister over that one when I was a toddler. He stayed in and helped bring about inclusiveness by staying in and making his voice heard.

We currently will not let homosexuals be ordained. I have given serious consideration to quitting over that one. Yet, I stay in and hope to have my voice heard along with many others to bring about that change.

Boy Scouts is currently giving consideration to pulling itself kicking and screaming out of the 18th century and allowing homosexuals in. My voice is being heard as loudly and clearly as I can make it heard on that issue.

So, I am not attacking you when I opine that your church has its collective head up its collective ass over allowing its ministers to pray with other denominations.

As to your church's history of persecution being a factor in this issue, I get it. It is not overwhelming. Lots of religious groups have been persecuted in the past. Lots more will undoubtedly be persecuted in the future. I am willing to bet that not one living member of the Missouri Synod was an actual victim of that persecution.

If everyone in your church was like you, I imagine you would have to double or triple the number of churches you currently have. Church attendance in general is declining. Mainstream churches are losing to feel good community churches and Sunday mornings at Starbucks with the paper.

Appearing in public gatherings showing compassion for those who are suffering cannot hurt the public's perception of the denomination. The minister who did it being made to apologize for having done so and the drivel put out by the guy who made him apologize is likely to get your denomination crossed off potential church lists by anyone looking for a new church.

By all means be loyal to your denomination. And by all means work to make it more like you and less like Matthew Harrison.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

If that article is to be believed, the service included non-Christians as well. I have every sympathy for that pastor, but I don't see that Christians have a civic duty to participate in interfaith services.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Zach, he may not have had a duty to do so. He surely ought not to have been punished for doing so.

Are you really saying you would not appear at a prayer service for innocent victims if non Christians were going to do some of the praying? How about if a Rabbi was to do some of the praying? Is it just Muslims? Sikhs? Hindus? Buddhists? Scientologists?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

You are angry because a pastor was made to apologize to his fellows for violating part of his own denomination's rules? That sounds like a rather silly thing get heated over to me. It would make more sense to be offended if one felt that he actually had a duty to his community to participate in this service, and he was being punished for doing his duty.

I probably would show up in those particular circumstances. But interfaith services are a grey area, so far as I am concerned, and usually I avoid them. I don't think the LCMS is guilty for drawing a line, but for drawing the line in slightly the wrong place.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The president of this church organization should have shut the hell up. If there was something to say about it, it should have occurred quietly, privately, and only at some future date should it have been public. It is more than poor public relations, it is putting a principle ahead of people, which is always wrong. The president of this church is not a very good pastor and the church organization looks a little more cult like as a result.

Advice - get some public relations training, and try to order your priorities properly.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Coming from a background where intransigence based on stuff that happened in 1690 is not unknown, I'm aware of how history becomes intrinsic to identity.

However, my observation is that the products are fear of change and hostility to the 'others' who are somehow going to deprive you of that identity. While, at the same time, the reasons for being the thing you defend are destroyed: the means become the end.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
People (and I'm not talking to you Lyda*Rose or you, Zach82, God bless you), your own CofE, ELCA, RC, etc. etc. etc. also make asses of themselves in major ways on a regular basis. Yet I don't see the same degree of unrelenting negativity in the threads about those cases, and I do my personal best not to take cheap potshots at the exposed ass cheeks of churches y'all hold near and dear. Really, it gets old. OLD.

Just my take. But I've always thought that the CofE was chief whipping boy on the Ship, with the con-evos and - occasionally - the RCC occasionally vying for second place.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The fact is that amongst a lot of American liberal Christians the LC-MS has simply a bad reputation. They can, I suppose, console themselves that the reputation of the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans is even worse, and for arguably good reason: they equate Scouting with Free Masonry and prohibit it amongst their members.

That said, I have known at least one very open-minded LC-MS pastor of a church at which my partner was for a time organist (he may only have been substituting - can't remember now, as it's been almost 30 years ago). This LC-MS pastor permitted us to receive Holy Communion, though he knew our background was TEC/ELCA (well, ELCA hadn't yet been created, but it was at that time three separate progressive Lutheran ecclesial bodies)and I'm sure he knew we were gay and partners. He clarified (perhaps just his own stance)it was "close communion" rather than "closed communion" and that they didn't exclude other Christians from communion but if one were to want to commune on an on-going basis in the parish,that one would be expected to actually become a member.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The LCMS is not chief whipping boy here, most likely because there are so few of us on board. All I'm saying is that when we do get our turn to bend over, the sheer degree of unmitigated hatred and disgust turns my stomach. At least when you're having a go at the RC or the CofE etc. there's a concurrent attempt to recognize some good in the group you're kicking the shit out of. Perhaps it's only that there are actual defenders of those groups aboard Ship who insist on a more balanced view. As far as I know, I'm the only MO Synod fool active here, and I try to avoid the "I hate you, you hate me, we're a fucked up family" threads. So maybe it's my fault.

Now getting down to matters of fact. Is it illegal, immoral, or what the hell wrong for an LCMS Christian to pray with other Christians? No. I have been in interChristian prayer groups and nobody bats an eye. There would be concern expressed if I were to join a Muslim/Hindu/Christian prayer group, yes; but interChristian stuff is within the family, within the faith. And if it's social service (as opposed to prayer), we'll work with basically anybody of any faith, Christian or not.

The two lines we ask our pastors NOT to cross over are as follows.

A. indiscriminate intercommunion services with other Christians with whom we haven't yet worked out substantial doctrinal disagreements. This is precisely because we see joint communion as a statement of doctrinal unity, and so jumping the gun on this one basically means we're lying. If there are in fact still substantial doctrinal differences between us and the church down the street, people have a right to know that instead of being led up the garden path.

B. Pastors, especially in public, ought not to behave in any way that is likely to lead ordinary folk watching to say, "Eh, Flossie, you see that? Those Lutherans believe exactly the same stuff we do here in our [fill in the Christian denomination], they just like to wear dresses/sing Bach/eat Jello salad, and that's the only difference between us. Haven't I always said so? Lutheran, Pentecostal, RC, Baptist, meh, they're all the same, aren't they?"

So what kind of public actions are we talking about? One is ordinary run-of-the-mill pulpit swapping with the other denomination down the street. That's out of bounds (though social ministry, prayer, joint hunger projects etc. are not).

Another would be participating in something that is clearly a worship service (as opposed to a secular civic event), which is being run by a committee of Christian (or not!) leaders from a wide variety of viewpoints, may of them contradictory to each other, all of whom are free to do their bit of the service in any way they please--and then the Lutheran pastor ends up chiming in as just one more of the interdenominational worship team. Can't do it. His official presence and action is basically like cosigning whatever the other worship leaders do, even if it turns out to be diametrically opposed to what Lutheranism considers bedrock truth. And it's not like anyone's going to give the Lutheran pastor veto power of what the other leaders say, is it? Or even tell him ahead of time how they expect to handle their chunk? So he finds himself in the invidious position of having to say a public "Amen" to stuff which may be wonderful, may be meh, or may be pure and utter crap--but he won't know until it comes out of their mouths. At which point there's no way for him to withdraw from the joint service without creating a nasty, nasty stink. Much better to avoid the situation in the first place.

We had just this situation arise last year on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Gospel (well, in Protestant form anyway!) coming to Vietnam. All the Vietnamese Christian groups in town wanted to celebrate together (well, we did too) but the Lutherans (that's us) were the only ones with a large enough building to accommodate several hundred people for the better part of six hours. So we volunteered. We became the host congregation, and the Pentecostals, the Christian & Missionary Alliance folk, and I don't remember who else showed up to party and have this deadly dull succession of speeches and slides and you know the kind of thing people do on anniversaries? So far so good. It was a lovely day.

But...

We knew the other Christian leaders in town at that time, and we knew that there was no power on earth that would prevent them from turning a party with historical presentations into a huge joint interChristian worship service. (Quite a few of our then-colleagues really liked to hear their own voices--we're talking 30 minute prayers and 2 hour sermons here, one after another after another). Knowing what would inevitably happen, we took measures to cover our own asses so nobody would haul US up into the middle of the morphed worship service and expect us to preach etc. In short, I took over child minding, and Mr Lamb made himself responsible for kitchen cleaning, toilet repairs, closet unlocking, and trash removal. I'm sure not a soul noticed we weren't up on the stage--much more important to go unplug a toilet, you know? And fewer people willing to do it. The result was that all of our guests went home in great happiness and joy, having been made to feel thoroughly welcome--and we avoided a sticky wicket. We are on very good terms with all those people.

So what about our poor guy in Sandy Hook, what could he have done? Well, if he had been just a bit older and considerably less stressed (ha), he could have donated their church hall as a site and participated that way. Or he could have asked his congregation to handle nursery services (creche) for that night as a service to everybody else. He could have been out in the parkinglot directing traffic. He could have asked his church if they'd handle refreshments afterward as a kindness to those attending. None of those forms of participation would have led to anybody batting an eye. As long as the pastoral office and its particular functions are out of the picture, nobody would care at all.

But it takes a lot of living and a creative, cynical mind to come up with ideas like that. I don't blame the man at all, poor guy. It's not like they train you at seminary what to do in the aftermath of unimaginable horror.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Okay, the personal experience thing--look, I loathe and despise that anybody, much less a Lutheran pastor or teacher, should be asshole enough to directly contradict Lutheran Christian teaching and say something as stupid as "You're going to hell because you weren't infant baptized," or get all legalistic on somebody's ass to the point that the Good News seems nothing but bad news. But you get your bad eggs in every Christian group. That doesn't invalidate the whole Christian group, does it? Because if it does, I've got my own stories to tell about a Pentecostal leader (apparently I'm the antichrist, who knew?), a UMC pastor who broke the very word of Scripture in order to insult my brother-in-law, and a Baptist youth minister who broke his promise and put me to public shame. But it wouldn't be fair of me to tar the Pentecostals, UMC or Baptists as a group because I ran into some seriously fucked up individuals. (Oh, and for what it's worth, we did NOT support the war in Iraq. our current president is the most political one we've had in donkey's ages. Old school Lutherans in general shy away from politics, considering that God's kingdom of the lefthand, and therefore not appropriate stuff for the church (God's kingdom of the right hand) to be meddling in. The anti-abortion stuff is about as far as we ever intrude into the public square, and then it's by means of marches etc. Which I can't think are particularly effective or harmful either.)

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Lamb Chopped

Just be glad you are not Reformed!

Jengie

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Perhaps I am not around on the board enough to know about other attacks on the Missouri Synod. Frankly, I had never heard of them before. Had I known you felt like your church was a whipping boy here I would not have raised the topic LC.

That being said, we will just have to agree to disagree about the public appearance thing.

I still have a great deal of admiration for you as a person.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Lamb Chopped,

To the extent that it matters, I have a great deal of sympathy for your position/that of your denomination. More to the point, thank you for laying that out in such a clear, reasoned, and complete way. Posts like that go a long way toward raising the level of discourse around here. Thank you.

In Hell, no less!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

LC, the criticism from my perspective is isolated to the president, who ill timed his comments and action. This could have been handled so, so much better, at a different time, and with proper sensitivity to the issues. I didn't realize you were of the Missouri Synod; I've met a few folks over time who adhere to it, and all were authentic and genuine. No more quarrel there than, as you suggest, and I would affirm, from any other group. We are all broken up into denominations unfortunately....

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, I agree with you, it could have been better handled. It's not the occasional posting out of LCMS faults that bugs me, those are visible from here to outer space. It's the unrelenting negativity that finally sent me over the edge. There are a helluva lot more people like me and Mr. Lamb than there are like (fill in villain of the moment), it's just we get no air time, we're too busy digging wells in Africa and raising funds to stop malaria. Oh, and running inner city schools. You know, like normal people--like you all?

(And by the way, WELS folks ain't so bad either. We tend to figure they starch their underwear, but they put up with us MO liberal heretics nobly and with grace,and save the eye rolling for when we're not present. Seriously, none of us are cultish--I've never met a Lutheran-flavored cult. The occasional whackjob on his own doesn't count IMHO.)

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, I agree with you, it could have been better handled. It's not the occasional posting out of LCMS faults that bugs me, those are visible from here to outer space. It's the unrelenting negativity that finally sent me over the edge. There are a helluva lot more people like me and Mr. Lamb than there are like (fill in villain of the moment), it's just we get no air time, we're too busy digging wells in Africa and raising funds to stop malaria. Oh, and running inner city schools. You know, like normal people--like you all?

(And by the way, WELS folks ain't so bad either. We tend to figure they starch their underwear, but they put up with us MO liberal heretics nobly and with grace,and save the eye rolling for when we're not present. Seriously, none of us are cultish--I've never met a Lutheran-flavored cult. The occasional whackjob on his own doesn't count IMHO.)

Sadly, there aren't enough like you and Mr. Lamb as long as there are too many of the other kind. I know both types. The problem is that unless we speak up when the villains act is they are tolerated within the church and serve as a deterrent to non believers looking to become part of the Church at large.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

A few years ago when Robert Putnam and David Campbell did a large survey and study of American religious views (results published in "American Grace"), one of the things they discovered is that a very large percentage of Americans believed that good people of other religions would go to heaven. This included btw 86% of LCMS members surveyed.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
This included btw 86% of LCMS members surveyed.

Most of the people in my home parish thought the 9/11 public prayer censure was complete codswallop.But the members don't really have much of a say.

[ 10. February 2013, 06:10: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

FWIW:

I grew up in a non-denom, fundamentalist church. Some folks were uncomfortable visiting other types of churches, even Evangelical and Baptist.

I think many folks at the church would've thought that praying with Catholics might be spiritually dangerous. And then there's praying with folks of non-Christian faiths...or atheists...or agnostics...
[Hot and Hormonal]

The Chick comic book tracts were making the rounds then. People at my church didn't necessarily agree with every detail. But there was one ("Number of the Beast"?) that showed members of the World Council of Churches as apostates, happily getting drunk and plotting plots. (Don't remember if that was supposed to be before or after the Rapture--after, I think.) That scene got vocal agreement.

All that having been said, we didn't have to deal with 9/11, school shooting sprees, or massive natural disasters. That might have been enough to get differing people to pray together. They, of course, would've been praying for the salvation of the other attendees--and possibly witnessing. And probably praying for protection from oppression by evil forces--which, of course, would be at work, trying to get them to stumble into wrong beliefs.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And perhaps you would do me the courtesy of supposing that I and my husband might be slightly better acquainted with the rank and file majority of the MO Synod than yourself? We've only been in it for 35 years.

As I recall from many threads, it doesn't seem to have treated you well either. Is there a specific reason why you martyr yourself to that particular denomination ?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't martyr myself to this or any other denomination. In my opinion, all denominations without exception are fuckups. And based on stories I've heard from every part of the Christian church, I have no reason to believe that moving anywhere else would change things for the better in the slightest. So why bother?

I stay here for the sake of Jesus Christ, who is the only non-fuckup I know, and because this happens to be where he's stationed me at this time in life. If he calls me away elsewhere, well then, we'll deal with that. But it's not happened yet.

Besides, this is where the people I've learned to love are. They are now my family--the Vietnamese mostly, but some of the Americans as well. If they're dysfunctional, well, do you know any families that aren't? And would my leaving do anything to make things better for the people I desert?

Better just to get on with my work and mutter expletives under my breath as needed.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
This included btw 86% of LCMS members surveyed.
Most of the people in my home parish thought the 9/11 public prayer censure was complete codswallop.But the members don't really have much of a say.

This is why the most recent dust-up got my attention, and possibly why the media grabbed it as well. "Oh look, the LCMS is making an ass of itself again.." They really need someone to instruct their leadership on PR and how to behave in public.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

They need to listen to their congregants, and their own teachings. Sola, sola, sola, right? So if the members of the church can effectively argue for inclusive prayer on Scriptural grounds-- which they can, and do, loudly-- then the Synod leaders need to man the eff up and err on the side of unity.

And I said this kind of stuff while a Good Little Lutheran Girl who shat lutefisk. I was much harder on the Synod when I was part of it, I assure you.

[ 10. February 2013, 20:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I stay here for the sake of Jesus Christ, who is the only non-fuckup I know, and because this happens to be where he's stationed me at this time in life. If he calls me away elsewhere, well then, we'll deal with that. But it's not happened yet.

Besides, this is where the people I've learned to love are. They are now my family--the Vietnamese mostly, but some of the Americans as well. If they're dysfunctional, well, do you know any families that aren't? And would my leaving do anything to make things better for the people I desert?

This is about as reasonable as anything I've heard or read or understood about how we get where we do with churches. It's a bit like home, as stupid as it all is, it's where you have to be, and all other peoples homes are also about the same. And periodically, you get the Real Deal, and understand what you are getting in shadows most of the time.

Well, well put LC!

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Completely agree with Lamb Chopped. I could say very much the same about the CoE - although I feel deeply tempted to walk away from that at times.

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

I agree with the decision made. I've always detested multi-faith services because they trivialize differences between religions. And participation by Christian clerics in such adds legitimacy to false religion.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Lots of apologies going around. The President of the LCMS apologies for the way the reprimand and pastor's apology was handled.

Missouri Synod President Apologizes for Newtown Interfaith ‘Debacle’

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

And a good quote from the President reflecting the different views expressed on this thread:

quote:
There are strong differences of opinion on this issue within the Missouri Synod, and that is because we all take our commitments to the Bible and to serving the neighbor very seriously. One view is that by standing side-by-side with non-Christian clergy in public religious events, we give the impression that Christ is just one path among many. Others view participation as an opportunity to share Christ and to truly love a hurting community, which may not happen if we are not participating. We struggle with the tension between these two views.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

That makes a divided church over 9/11 and Newtown and makes clear the Synod President is in deep trouble no matter what he does. Hopefully the Missouri Synod as a whole will take a closer look at this issue as a whole and as well judge events on an individual basis. The Synod's condemnation added to the hurt of Newtown, which I give the Synod President for acknowledging and apologizing for.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I agree with the decision made. I've always detested multi-faith services because they trivialize differences between religions. And participation by Christian clerics in such adds legitimacy to false religion.

Fine, then don't show up. If they do show up, deal with it quietly, like reprimands should be handled.

The best way to avoid "foot-in-mouth" is to keep the mouth firmly shut.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I agree with the decision made. I've always detested multi-faith services because they trivialize differences between religions. And participation by Christian clerics in such adds legitimacy to false religion.

So you're a douchebag, too. Good to know.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Don't say that Spiffy. I daresay that most of us know little or nothing about the tenants of the faith to which we recite a creed. We say we are Methodists, or Presbyterians, or whatever and most of the members of those congregations could not tell you more than the most basic tenants of that particular denomination if their life depended on it.

If you do not know what you claim to believe, what do you believe?

Have you ever gotten into a discussion about whether or not Christ is create, or uncreate? Is it important? It was pretty darn important at one point in time. If Christ was there with God at the beginning, does that change how you feel about creation?

I see what LC and St. P the P are saying. I still think there was a better way to express that concern than what happened.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

This situation was a very touchy one to begin with. It was clear that a public gathering should be held. However, such public gatherings in America do tend to take on a religious leaning.

The LCMS need not take its attendance as a matter of religious support for anything other than its own beliefs. It was a civic occasion, at which many Americans exercised their right of free speech. By being there, a LCMS pastor is able to witness his faith and offer his prayer. By not being there, it woulds suggest an extreme isolationist tendency. Thankfully, I find most LCMS pastors to be extremely levelheaded, and far less black-and-white.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Have you ever gotten into a discussion about whether or not Christ is create, or uncreate?

Uh, just last week.

I get people tryıng to lead me down That-Ole-Hıstory-Channel-Relıgıon Lane all the tıme. When dealıng wıth dıdn`t-Mary-Mag-screw-Jesus? and wasn`t-Judas-the-most-faıthful-dıscıple?, I fınd ıt pretty handy to escalate thıngs to the create/uncreate level.

What kınd of ıntermedıary do you want when dealıng wıth the Great-Creator God?

Some jumped up Creature? Or, the Real Deal?

quote:
Is it important?

Uh. Yes, I belıeve ıt ıs—choosıng my words carefully—crucıal.

quote:
It was pretty darn important at one point in time.

It stıll ıs, baby. All those Chrıstologıcal and Trınıtarıan heresıes are lıke Zombıes: They just won`t dıe.

Have you talked wıth a Jehovahs Wıtness or Mormon recently?

quote:
I still think there was a better way to express that concern than what happened.

Me, too.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Uh, just last week.

I get people tryıng to lead me down That-Ole-Hıstory-Channel-Relıgıon Lane all the tıme. When dealıng wıth dıdn`t-Mary-Mag-screw-Jesus? and wasn`t-Judas-the-most-faıthful-dıscıple?, I fınd ıt pretty handy to escalate thıngs to the create/uncreate level.

My point was that most people don't talk about religion in any depth. I was not promoting a discussion about anything else.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

What a non-story. It´s their right to decided wether they should take part in prayer and worship with people of other religions or not. Obedience to the 1st commandment is a lot more important then obedience to the current politically correct trends of american liberal churches. Who cares about the LCMS reputation among "liberal christians". "Liberal christians" don´t have a great reputation among the rest of christianity either.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

If the first Commandment has to do with who you hang out with, why did Jesus cozy up to Samaritans and Roman soldiers before he even asked if they repented of their unorthodox or pagan ways?

And if the answer was that Jesus was not praying with them, I believe anyone present at the interfaith event could easily opt out of saying or meditating on prayers outside their faith.

Whose ways are more likely to woo people to the Triune Godhead: Jesus' way of being present to the "unrighteous" or the stand-aloof way of the LCMS?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s their right to decided wether they should take part in prayer and worship with people of other religions or not.

Well, apparently it's NOT the pastor's right to decide, or he wouldn't have been hauled over the coals for deciding to join in, would he?

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Reading this thread is confusing.

This side of the Pond we dont have the Lutherans ( of the Missouri variety) to contend with.

But we do have their side-kicks.

In my patch the local Community Christian Church is adamant about not joining in any Churches Together activities due to the same theologigal prejudices.

Their pastor ( who trained as an Anglican priest) stands aside from their stance yet simply goes along with it for wahtever reason.

Meanwhile we join in Good Friday walks and other ecumenical celebrations without them. Whoever mentioned the term "good riddance?"

Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :

I think Lamb Chopped explained very clearly why this is an issue for the LC-MS. As someone on the ELCA side of the dividing line, my only squabble with the incident is the negative witness that it gives. Sometimes one's absence from such a community gathering speaks more loudly than one's presence. And the fact that the Missouri Synod President has issued a complete and thorough apology for the way he handled this indicates to me that he understands the same thing. When dealing with either ecumenical or interfaith worship, there is always a choice: you can emphasize what separates us from each other, or you can ask what do we actually believe in common. In atttempting to respond spiritually to a tragedy such as Newtown, it may not be the worst thing ever to try and articulate a prayer, however halting the language may be, to the One who knows the precious value of each and every life lost.
As far as this particular case is concerned, and realizing that we are in Hell, perhaps we've only come here to ring the doorbell, so to speak, of the one who lives here all the time, and who must be rejoicing at the seeds of confusion sown.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Does ELCA and LCMS still bicker at each other? I remember that there was a 9-11 service where they came together at least to mourn. From my outside impression, it seems that ELCA view LCMS as a bunch of backward-thinking reactionaries while LCMS views ELCA as a bunch of dangerous liberals.

Meh, the difference between Anglicans and Lutherans as I was told is that Anglicans will tolerate all heresy to avoid schism while Lutherans will tolerate all schism to avoid heresy.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If the first Commandment has to do with who you hang out with, why did Jesus cozy up to Samaritans and Roman soldiers before he even asked if they repented of their unorthodox or pagan ways?

And if the answer was that Jesus was not praying with them, I believe anyone present at the interfaith event could easily opt out of saying or meditating on prayers outside their faith.

Whose ways are more likely to woo people to the Triune Godhead: Jesus' way of being present to the "unrighteous" or the stand-aloof way of the LCMS?

We are not talking about "hanging around with", but participating on a religious service. I doubt Jesus would participate on a religious service with ministers of other religions. If the minister went to the event and "opted-out" during the prayers, you would be throwing even more stones. It´s impossible to please.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s their right to decided wether they should take part in prayer and worship with people of other religions or not.
Well, apparently it's NOT the pastor's right to decide, or he wouldn't have been hauled over the coals for deciding to join in, would he?

When I say "their", I mean = LCMS, the denomination.
What´s the point being part of a denomination if you are not going to abide by their beliefs and rules...

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

The lutheran Church of Ethiopia has officially broken communion with the ELCA and Church Of Sweden, acording to these news: http://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=20867

This is the 2nd biggest lutheran church in the world, and probably the biggest if you count practicing membership (the biggest is Church Of Sweden, tough only a minority of its "members" actually has any relation with the church).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s their right to decided wether they should take part in prayer and worship with people of other religions or not.
Well, apparently it's NOT the pastor's right to decide, or he wouldn't have been hauled over the coals for deciding to join in, would he?
When I say "their", I mean = LCMS, the denomination.
What´s the point being part of a denomination if you are not going to abide by their beliefs and rules...

Dunno. I'll ask Jesus when he gets back from doing things that well-behaved Jews don't approve of.

The big problem with rules, speaking as someone who spends his life writing them, is that you end up with the rule, written in advance, becoming SO important that people want to apply the rule without considering what it's purpose was and whether it makes sense to apply it or enforce it. Especially in exceptional situations.

[ 18. February 2013, 19:49: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

gorpo:

quote:
If the minister went to the event and "opted-out" during the prayers, you would be throwing even more stones.

Oh, please. [Roll Eyes]

Standing or sitting quietly when someone else is saying their prayers without saying "amen" is not difficult. After 9/11 I went to an interfaith service at the local mosque. The iman, a local rabbi, a priest from the RCC, and other Christian ministers were there. The non-Muslims didn't pray to Allah or in the name of Mohammed. If they were like me, they silently prayed to the Godhead in the way they understood, prayed for healing and understanding and unity as suffering human beings. If you can't understand that, you are just a sad, sad person.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

If I recall from watching the interfaith service, I thought it was heavily geared towards Christianity. Jesus was invoked by the Christian clergy, with nary a protest from the Jewish, Muslim and other clergy.

So, I didn't think Jesus was "ignored." Far from it.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
gorpo:
quote:
If the minister went to the event and "opted-out" during the prayers, you would be throwing even more stones.
Oh, please.

Standing or sitting quietly when someone else is saying their prayers without saying "amen" is not difficult. After 9/11 I went to an interfaith service at the local mosque. The iman, a local rabbi, a priest from the RCC, and other Christian ministers were there. The non-Muslims didn't pray to Allah or in the name of Mohammed. If they were like me, they silently prayed to the Godhead in the way they understood, prayed for healing and understanding and unity as suffering human beings. If you can't understand that, you are just a sad, sad person.

Of course I understand, I do the same thing when there are prayers for Mary in Catholic masses (half my family being Catholic); but I do understand that some denominations don´t want to take part in that type of services. And I just don´t see anything helpful or important at all in this type of activity. Do muslims or jewish families who lost some relatives actually care if a minister of a local protestant church is present in this type of service? Or is it just an opportunity to show up cause you know there are going to be authorities and journalists in the service? Being absent from a religious service obviously don´t mean you simply don´t care about the tragedy. If there are members of the LCMS among those directly affected by the tragedy, surely they will receive attention at their local community, which is much more effective.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Gorpo, you continue to come across as arguing why the local Lutheran minister would have been perfectly justified in not attending. Which is frankly irrelevant given that he did attend. Clearly he wanted to.

It's not denominations that attend services. It's individual people. If you're going to talk about what denominations 'do', you're going to have stop blurring the lines between official policy statements from denominational heirarchies and the actual actions of individual members of denominations.

And yes, sure, there is an issue about whether or not an individual member's actions align with official policy. But you seem to have bypassed that altogether for some theoretical world where "the Missouri Synod" is being attacked for not turning up at the service. "The Missouri Synod" was never in a position to turn up at the service, anymore than "the Republican Party" or "the NRA" or "the First National Bank" was going to turn up at the service.

[ 19. February 2013, 03:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I thought I had already posted this, but it now looks that the Rev. Dr. Harrison, the president of the LCMS, has come out and apologized to Rev. Morris and the people of Newtown for making such a stink about Morris' participation: Harrison's letter of apology

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Well done, Mr Harrison! [Overused]

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Both letters were very good. I liked this line from Mr Harrison's:

quote:
The day I was elected two-and-a-half years ago, I noted that the Synod had kept its perfect record of electing sinners as presidents.

So it is with us all.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It's not denominations that attend services. It's individual people.

I don't think I quite agree with this. If a member of the clergy puts on his "uniform" and stands up at the front and leads prayers or whatever, he is there representing his church. In some churches, his ministry is his Bishop's ministry, although I don't think that's quite the LCMS view.

When people who are not regular churchgoers turn to the church in time of crisis, they almost never stop to think about an individual priest or minister. They seek the comfort of the church they grew up with, or that they pass on the way to work. When people attend this kind of public interfaith service, they absolutely do see the clergy as representing their individual denominations, rather than as individual people.

If you are in military service, there are strict rules about what you can do in uniform - in particular, you are to refrain from any kind of involvement in politics. Put on a shirt and a pair of jeans, and you're free to stand on street corners waving placards.

I think a similar rule applies here. An anonymous priest dressed in mufti and standing in the "audience" can be a member of the community offering his personal support. Put him up the front and identify him as a priest in the X church, and he's there in an official capacity, on behalf of his church.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, you're probably right.

But I still think, in the context of the particular story, it's pretty important to have clear separate concepts of the actions of the individual and the actions of the denomination, and not blur them all together as I think gorpo has done several times.

PS Welcome to the Ship. Hellhosts don't usually go around saying things like "welcome", but then we don't usually get people that provide thoughtful well-written posts so early on.

The rest of you, don't think I've gone soft or anything, okay?!!

[ 19. February 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Do muslims or jewish families who lost some relatives actually care if a minister of a local protestant church is present in this type of service?

Well, actually, yes. Some do. We, most of us, are part of several communities. Ones faith community is only one. Should only be one of the several.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

The rest of you, don't think I've gone soft or anything, okay?!!

aw, you big sweetie, you!
[Axe murder]

Posted by Indifferently (# 17517) on :

We might as well get angry over an RC priest getting the sack for marrying his housemaid. If that pastor has denominational rules to follow, he should follow them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0