The comparisons are fair enough,,,, as far as they go.
It's telling that under the one does and one doesn't would be things such as: One feeds the hungry and one doesn't. One feeds the naked and one doesn't. One visits the imprisioned and one doesn't. One enbraces and includes the outcast and one doesn't,,,, One is an active peacemaker and one isn't,, ,,,,,, the list can go on, but the contrast is clear. There needs be a both/and, not a either or.
I think you would find that we are rather agreed that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, and embrace the outcast. On such areas the Synod would show a remarkable solidarity of agreement. There is a reason that LCMS World Relief is where the Synod parishes and members continue to give money and why local efforts aimed at care of the poor and needy prosper. The areas where are divided are the ones Pr. Brockman listed.
Presumably their errors were pointed out to them in private, and then in the presence of two or three witnesses. It would appear then that all that remains is to tell it to the church? Is it a matter of the courage of one’s own convictions?
On the other hand, must we agree that there is, in fact, a climate of distrust, because a few people think so? I did not know there was until I read the letter. Are these practices really so widespread? Except for the matter of “open Communion,” which I will not touch with a ten-foot pole, I can think of specific instances when a pastor could make the decision to allow them. Yes, even the couple living together. In the U.S. a church wedding has civil consequences that can make life together impossible (i.e. loss of a pension). But then again, not being a pastor, I don’t have that problem. May I go to the ELCA funeral of a friend without committing a sin?
Finally, I may be naïve, but I suspect that in most marriages trust is simply a given. It only needs to be built and maintained if someone has broken the trust. Otherwise, working at it all the time is just a wee bit suspicious.
1. "The church", assuming lcms inc. (which is not in fact "the church" but the bureaucracy is supposed to be exercising church discipline) is well aware of it and encourages what is by Lutheran standards, wrongdoing.
2. What far country did you recently hail from! Trust and the lack of it in the church have been discussed almost everywhere for some years now. (Maybe longer in Texas; we have reason.)
3. Trust doesn't need to be "worked at" until it's been broken. When it's been broken repeatedly, in church or in a marriage, the pieces get harder to fit together and the result is not quite what the original was meant to be.
You may certainly attend the elca funeral, since you are in no danger of sharing the chancel... or do I need to qualify that, these days? (Re other points: it's as well you are laity. But don't get in the Pastor's way if his view of what is needful differs.)
The comparisons are fair enough,,,, as far as they go.
ReplyDeleteIt's telling that under the one does and one doesn't would be things such as:
One feeds the hungry and one doesn't.
One feeds the naked and one doesn't.
One visits the imprisioned and one doesn't.
One enbraces and includes the outcast and one doesn't,,,,
One is an active peacemaker and one isn't,,
,,,,,, the list can go on, but the contrast is clear.
There needs be a both/and, not a either or.
I think you would find that we are rather agreed that we should feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned, and embrace the outcast. On such areas the Synod would show a remarkable solidarity of agreement. There is a reason that LCMS World Relief is where the Synod parishes and members continue to give money and why local efforts aimed at care of the poor and needy prosper. The areas where are divided are the ones Pr. Brockman listed.
ReplyDeletePresumably their errors were pointed out to them in private, and then in the presence of two or three witnesses. It would appear then that all that remains is to tell it to the church? Is it a matter of the courage of one’s own convictions?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, must we agree that there is, in fact, a climate of distrust, because a few people think so? I did not know there was until I read the letter. Are these practices really so widespread? Except for the matter of “open Communion,” which I will not touch with a ten-foot pole, I can think of specific instances when a pastor could make the decision to allow them. Yes, even the couple living together. In the U.S. a church wedding has civil consequences that can make life together impossible (i.e. loss of a pension). But then again, not being a pastor, I don’t have that problem. May I go to the ELCA funeral of a friend without committing a sin?
Finally, I may be naïve, but I suspect that in most marriages trust is simply a given. It only needs to be built and maintained if someone has broken the trust. Otherwise, working at it all the time is just a wee bit suspicious.
Peace and Joy,
George A. Marquart
1. "The church", assuming lcms inc. (which is not in fact "the church" but the bureaucracy is supposed to be exercising church discipline) is well aware of it and encourages what is by Lutheran standards, wrongdoing.
ReplyDelete2. What far country did you recently hail from! Trust and the lack of it in the church have been discussed almost everywhere for some years now. (Maybe longer in Texas; we have reason.)
3. Trust doesn't need to be "worked at" until it's been broken. When it's been broken repeatedly, in church or in a marriage, the pieces get harder to fit together and the result is not quite what the original was meant to be.
You may certainly attend the elca funeral, since you are in no danger of sharing the chancel... or do I need to qualify that, these days?
(Re other points: it's as well you are laity. But don't get in the Pastor's way if his view of what is needful differs.)
Helen