Proposed Resolutions: Committee 3, Theology and Church Relations (by Pr. Charles Henrickson)

We’re moving through the eight floor committees with their 106 proposed resolutions in “Today’s Business.” Here are the resolutions being proposed by Floor Committee 3, Theology and Church Relations:

3. THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

3-01: To Commend ILC and Task Force Statements as Responses to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions

Responds to the ELCA actions condoning homosexuality. Upholds our biblical position that homosexuality is sinful. Looks OK to vote for.

3-02: To Support Confessional Lutheranism at Home and Abroad

This resolution deals with the “fallout” from the ELCA decisions, by encouraging those who take a biblical stand on the matter. Seems OK for the most part.

3-03: Cooperation in Externals with Theological Integrity

This will undoubtedly be a controversial resolution. The question is, basically, whether we can or should cooperate with the ELCA at all anymore, even in “externals.” To me, it would depend on what the “cooperation in externals” would entail, how “theological integrity” would be put into practice, and how those things would be determined. I’m not sure yet how I’ll vote; I’ll have to think about it some more. But, frankly, I don’t see much point of doing anything with the ELCA on an official level.

3-04: To Amend Bylaw 3.9.6.2.2 re Altar and Pulpit Fellowship with Small, Formative, or Emerging Confessional Churches

This resolution would let the synod president declare altar and pulpit fellowship with other church bodies. And how is it determined which church bodies are “small, formative, or emerging”? This is too much power to the president. Such fellowship decisions could wait till the next synodical convention (another argument for not spacing conventions four years apart). I am against this resolution.

3-05: To Request a Thorough Response to the ELCA Social Statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust

I have no strong objection to this resolution, but haven’t we responded enough to the ELCA actions?

3-06: To Commend The Creator’s Tapestry

I’m not ready to support this resolution. Like 99% of the delegates, I have not read “The Creator’s Tapestry,” and on a controversial subject like “Man-Woman Relationships in the Church,” I’m not ready to commend what I haven’t read. If the resolution were amended to “To Encourage People to Read and Provide Feedback on ‘The Creator’s Tapestry,’” that would be a different matter.

3-07: To Prepare New Studies on Biblical Interpretation

This resolution looks fine. Studies for the laity on “How to Read the Bible,” addressing current trends–these could be helpful.

3-08: To Encourage Collaboration Between the CTCR and Seminary Faculties

To give the seminary faculties a greater role in providing theological guidance for the church–this is a good thing.

3-09: To Decline Overture 3-16

Why is this declining of an overture not put in the following resolution, which declines overtures? Seems odd. Ov. 3-16 (CW, p. 170) is “To Request Partner Church Withdrawal from LWF.” The question is whether LWF membership in itself necessarily involves “fellowship.” To my knowledge, it does not. I don’t know what to do with this resolution.

3-10: To Respectfully Decline Overtures

Nothing jumps out here as being urgent to pass.

Next: Committee 4, Administration and Finance.


Comments

Proposed Resolutions: Committee 3, Theology and Church Relations (by Pr. Charles Henrickson) — 40 Comments

  1. Charles states:
    3-09: To Decline Overture 3-16

    Why is this declining of an overture not put in the following resolution, which declines overtures? Seems odd. Ov. 3-16 (CW, p. 170) is “To Request Partner Church Withdrawal from LWF.” The question is whether LWF membership in itself necessarily involves “fellowship.” To my knowledge, it does not. I don’t know what to do with this resolution.

    Charles, others more knowledgable than me, may be able to answer for sure, but I am fairly confident that membership in LWF is by them considered to be an altar and pulpit fellowship.

  2. 3-05: The only proper response to unrepentant sodomites claiming to be “church” is marking and avoiding them.

    The days for “study” are over. It is simply a merely a euphemism for “delay”.

    Robert C. Baker

  3. Res 3-03. Do you think any co-operation with the ELCA on any level will not entail, at some degree, Unionism and Syncretism, of some sort?

    If not, anymore, an Orthodox Lutheran Church as the Lcms declared the ELCA to be, how can not this take place and involve integrity in matters theological and it’s practice.

    It is a case of ioe ipso and ipso facto.

    3-06, The Creators Tapestry, the new CTCR document dealing with what is male and female etc, does not deal with, thoroughly, the Order of Creation and it’s subsequent practice in marriage and the Office of the ministry.

  4. LWF decided a few years back that it could declare all its members in fellowship with one another. Many (most?) have disagreed.

    In 3rd world countries, having a major organization to link to means a lot, especially for political protection. Thus few such Lutheran church bodies wish to disassociate entirely from LWF. They are however quite willing to publicaly disagree with decisions of the LWF; make the statement that they are not in fellowship with other churches by virtue of their membership in LWF. Also most of them do worry as much about formal fellowship declaration as we do.

  5. tolonaro: In 3rd world countries, having a major organization to link to means a lot, especially for political protection. Thus few such Lutheran church bodies wish to disassociate entirely from LWF. They are however quite willing to publicaly disagree with decisions of the LWF; make the statement that they are not in fellowship with other churches by virtue of their membership in LWF.

    That is my understanding also, that LWF membership does not necessarily mean “fellowship.”

  6. 3-02: It’s the 3rd Resolved that stinks:

    That the LCMS commend groups such as Word Alone, Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), Lutheran CORE, and others for their courage and faithfulness in maintaining their confessional identity by opposing the ELCA’s recent decision; and be it further,

    This makes the resolution’s title, “To Support Confessional Lutheranism at Home and Abroad,” an utter deception. This Resolved seeks to commend E_CA breakaway groups that still are heterodox in that they continue to falsely call and ordain females as pastors.

  7. @Carl Vehse #5

    You have identified the part that gave me pause, and for the reason you cite. But the resolution does specify, “by opposing the ELCA’s recent decision,” and so to THAT extent, I could go along with it. But you’re right: In other respects, some of those groups do NOT display “courage and faithfulness in maintaining their confessional identity.”

  8. The problem I have with 3-09 is that it lays out beautifully why we CAN ask our partner churches to consider withdrawal from LWF, then cites that as the reason we should decline this overture to ask just such a thing. We can speak to our partner churches in love about the fellowships and partnerships they into, and because we can do this, we should keep our mouths shut and not say a word. It just doesn’t follow in my mind. The rationale presented in the resolution would be the perfect rationale for ADOPTING the overture, not declining it.

  9. Our DP told us recently that he’s had several inquiries from E_CA congregations who are interested in the LCMS, but the issue of women’s ordination is always a sticking point, and most go elsewhere. Only a couple are “still talking.” with us. So far, none have requested fellowship with us.

    j

  10. Given the deception in Resolution 3-02, one wonders whether there will be a de facto “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy for admitting breakaway (but still heterodox) E_CA congregations and pastors into the LCMS.

  11. @Carl Vehse #9
    Carl,,
    I can see no reason why your thought would not become a reality. Many of the men who went to seminex were later brought back into the LCMS. I have met several of them and if they are examples then I don’t think the theology of seminex was left at the door of re-entry into the LCMS! Why would it be any different with those who are from the ELCA who firmly believe in women being pastors. Most of the laity in the local ELCA congregations [and I have spoken to a lot since they are not large congregations] have great problems with the homosexual marriage thing, but not with homosexuals in general as far as them being pastors. Most are ready to leave the ELCA over the homosexual marriage but have no problem with continuing with women pastors. Again, having seen this, I have no doubt that those splinter groups of the ELCA will maintain the core of their philosophy [not theology] and keep everything except the homosexual marriages.

  12. “3-03: Cooperation in Externals with Theological Integrity

    This will undoubtedly be a controversial resolution. The question is, basically, whether we can or should cooperate with the ELCA at all anymore, even in “externals.” To me, it would depend on what the “cooperation in externals” would entail, how “theological integrity” would be put into practice, and how those things would be determined. I’m not sure yet how I’ll vote; I’ll have to think about it some more. But, frankly, I don’t see much point of doing anything with the ELCA on an official level.”

    Based on where the ELCA is now, why would we treat the ELCA any differently than Southern Baptists in cooperation in externals?

  13. 3-01: To Commend ILC and Task Force Statements as Responses to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions

    So we can commend these statements from a heterodox church body, but we can’t commend Issues Etc because they aren’t an RSO? Doesn’t make sense to me.

  14. In regards to 3-06. Pastor Hendrickson, if you or any other delegate oppose women in the pulpit, then this is a must read. It may not “seem” worth the read, but it is a stealthy force w/in LCMS.

    To commend this, is to “commend” the idea of women in the Divine Office. I seem to remember a post here at BJS about this. (rather sanctimonious reply by someone to myself) and this subject. This commending to this group, defies & denies Sola Scriptura. Not only in the Ordination of women, but also twistes Scripture in it’s wake.

    Being of said gender, I see the errors, to bending to sexual freedom, feministic glory, and it’s direct contridiction to Scripture. This should be voted down, with great fervor and the discourse of the document,

    The Creator’s Tapestry
    Scriptural Perspectives
    on Man-Woman Relationships
    in Marriage and the Church

    When the full title of this document is displayed, it states it’s agenda.
    Yet again, another Resolution without description & information.

    This must be a must read for Houston. Ignorance can only be pled once, and since we had a post that lead to a thread, ignorance can no longer be plead here.

  15. This is a serious issue. We have two issues on the floor in Houston, that pertain to making the option available to disaffected ELCA congregations. The ELCA involvement question is contained in 3-01 and ironically the door is opened to those who have female Pastor’s in
    3-06, in commending The Creator’s Tapestry document.

    The sticking point, w/the ELCA is women ordained, but if both pass, you open the door to accept both, & set a precident in the LCMS. The Pope did this late last year, with the Church of England.

    See the Daily Mail article-11/10/2009-international British paper.

    “Pope Allows married Anglicans to become Catholic priests in bid to tempt to defect.”

    Precident follows, farther & faster than we think. Someone is on the ball in the resolution area, reading International papers (like I do daily), and sees an open option to accept disaffected ELCA congregations & previously ordained women in the Divine Office w/in the ELCA. Shrewd, very, very sherwd. Effective looking at 3-01 & 3-06, but still…very shrewd.

    Look these up, and you’ll see the agenda. Tell me again why no one has read or connected these?!

  16. Interesting that we have resolution 3-04… yet no mention our new “granddaughter” church: Iglesia Luterana Sínodo de Nicaragua (which became a separate Synod from the LCC just after our last convention). Does anyone know if there has been any attempt to establish fellowship with this tiny confessional Lutheran Church body?

  17. So two resolutions that if passed support women pastors. I could see voting yes without people knowing what it means.

  18. Rev. Roger D. Sterle :
    Charles, others more knowledgable than me, may be able to answer for sure, but I am fairly confident that membership in LWF is by them considered to be an altar and pulpit fellowship.

    I am certainly not more knowledgeable than you, but the LWF constitution section III, paragraph 1 reads as follows:

    The Lutheran World Federation is a communion of churches which confess the triune God, agree in the proclamation of the Word of God and are united in pulpit and altar fellowship.

    Of the 32 church bodies that the LCMS is in fellowship with, 10 are members of the LWF and 1 is an associate member. The fellowship language was adopted in 1984, not exactly a recent development. Three of the church bodies joined after 1984, and thus agreed to the fellowship language as a condition of membership. Associate members have voice, but not vote, and do not agree to the fellowship section.

    We should absolutely request them to the leave the LWF, or at least switch to associate membership.

  19. Regarding Resolution 3-09.

    Right after Today’s Business came out I sent an e-mail to the Chair of Floor Committee 3 & asked why Overture 3-16 was not included with the other declined overtures. He (Rev. Dr. Jon Diefenthaler) said the Committee felt it would be helpful to the delegates to see the statements quoted in Resolution 3-09.

    Following is the overture (3-16) that is being rejected:

    To Request Partner Church Withdrawal from LWF

    Whereas, The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) has issued a statement that it is in basic agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification; and

    Whereas, Many of the Lutheran members of the LWF, the Roman Catholics, and the Pope insist that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians can be saved without faith in Christ and do not believe that Christianity is the only saving faith; and

    Whereas, The LWF is open to churches that support abortion and homosexual and lesbian clergypersons; and

    Whereas, The Pope still insists that Rome affirms all of the decrees of the Council of Trent; and

    Whereas, Some churches in fellowship with the LCMS are members of the LWF; therefore be it

    Resolved, That the 2010 LCMS convention request that all churches in fellowship with the LCMS withdraw from the LWF.

    Trinity
    New Haven, MO

    Looks to me like a good overture that should not be rejected.

    Ginny Valleau

  20. Michael,
    Do look into the articles & refernces listed. We never just assume, if there is merit, find it, read it, & weigh it. Take everything and compare against Scripture in context as written.
    Always the best way to do so.

  21. Ginny,
    Are you aware of the connection between LWF and the UN? At the UN, UN directives and law trump anything else. Being an NGO is a dicey thing. I don’t disagree, but I would weigh & research ramifications before I voted.

  22. Dutch :
    Ginny,
    Are you aware of the connection between LWF and the UN? At the UN, UN directives and law trump anything else. Being an NGO is a dicey thing. I don’t disagree, but I would weigh & research ramifications before I voted.

    Dutch,

    I may be reading it wrong, but it appeared Ginny was thinking that overture 3-16 should not be rejected. However, I see your point about the 3-09 being rejected and agree.

  23. @Ginny Valleau #20
    Hi Ginny,

    I think if you will look at who presented the overture you may find one reason for its placement as well as its rejection. Trinity, New Haven, as you know, is the church of Herman Otten. They have had more overtures rejected than any single other congregation or entity in the synod. They usually put out rather good overtures but they are also usually rejected.

  24. @Dutch #14

    [[ statements made here retracted in comment # 36 ]]

    Dutch, help me out here regarding 3-06.

    I just read the pdf and it clearly states that only men can be ordained as pastors. Your only reference to the document is its full title: “The Creator’s Tapestry: Scriptural Perspectives on Man-Woman Relationships in Marriage and the Church” Surely you aren’t implying that women have no relationship with the church?

    Having read the CTCR pdf, there was some “reading between the lines” of scripture that I was uncomfortable with. And as the web site of the same name indicated, the latter portion of the document dealing with the secular roles seemed hurried, unclear, and unsupported.

    I only did a quick read of the “Creator’s Tapestry” web page but it appears that it is not at all in agreement with the conclusions of the “Creator’s Tapestry” CTCR report. I don’t believe the web group would be satisfied with any conclusion other than supporting women pastors.

    What in particular concerns you about the CTCR report? Do you see some hidden slippery slope that I missed?

    Thanks for your help!

  25. Res 3-03. Would we consider co-opertion in externals with the non-Luthran partner churches of the ELCA, with whom they commune? From their Churchwide Assembly, we know that the ELCA no longer truly believes in SOLA SCRIPTURA. Since they are no longer even Lutheran, why would we be o-operating with them, even in externals? I might feel different in regards to NALC (Lutheran CORE), but if we continue any fellowship with the structure of the post-August ELCA, are warnings and alerts to them mean nothing. By their actions they pulled away from us, as they pulled away from many of their members as well.

    If the LCMS will continue co-operation in externals with the ELCA, we might as well do the same with the Universalist Unitarian ‘church’ as well.

  26. Mary :
    3-01: To Commend ILC and Task Force Statements as Responses to the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly Actions
    So we can commend these statements from a heterodox church body, but we can’t commend Issues Etc because they aren’t an RSO? Doesn’t make sense to me.

    Mary,

    I am unclear as to which “heterodox church body” you refer.

    This resolution commends statements from the International Lutheran Council, an organization of 34 Lutheran church bodies throughout the world which includes the LCMS. I believe that all 33 other bodies are in altar and pulpit fellowship with the LCMS. It also commends statements from a LCMS Task Force. Are you saying that the LCMS is a heterodox church body? Are you saying that one or more of the 33 other national church bodies with whom the LCMS is in altar and pulpit fellowship are heterodox? Or (as I have often done) have you gotten lost in the maze of initials and abbreviations and mistaken the ILC for another entity that is heterodox?

    The statements pretty well condemn the ELCA actions while affirming that we ought to reach out with the love of God through the Gospel of Christ to those who recognize the sin of homosexuality in their lives. Is there something in the statements to be commended that is lacking or in error?

  27. Kelly,
    Sorry it took so long to reply. The reason I see this should be voted down,

    a)what it does not say. It does not state “no” to women’s ordination. It lukewarmly dances around the subject of specific roles, defined by Scripture first and our Doctrines. Most is spoken in generalities, pertaining to marriage and very generally, the Church.

    b) The report, does state that because of the “rapidly changing enviorment of the contemporary world” discussion must continue. Why exactly if Scripture Itself & our Doctrines are clear? No, is an answer, not popular or liked, but is still a necassary answer.

    On page 57 & 58, of the report, speaks volumes. Women’s Ordination, is still an on going & open discussion. To commend the report will cause it to continue to be.

    Women are designed & excell (by His Hand) in the support & supporting roles of the Church, but not in leadership roles that smudge the lines that Scripture makes clear.

  28. Charles Henrickson :

    tolonaro: In 3rd world countries, having a major organization to link to means a lot, especially for political protection. Thus few such Lutheran church bodies wish to disassociate entirely from LWF. They are however quite willing to publicaly disagree with decisions of the LWF; make the statement that they are not in fellowship with other churches by virtue of their membership in LWF.

    That is my understanding also, that LWF membership does not necessarily mean “fellowship.”

    Charlie, this is just not correct at all.

    The LWF website clearly states:

    The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) is a global communion of Christian churches in the Lutheran tradition. Founded in 1947 in Lund, Sweden, the LWF now has 140 member churches in 79 countries all over the world representing over 70 million Christians.

    Source: http://www.lutheranworld.org/lwf/

    What do they mean by this?

    LWF member churches confess the triune God, agree in the proclamation of the Word of God, and are united in pulpit and altar fellowship.

    Source: http://www.lutheranworld.org/lwf/index.php/who-we-are/faith

    Any LWF member that declares itself “not in fellowship” and just keeps going on as a member in order to have money, governmental approval, or whatever, is not playing honestly either with the LWF or the rest of the world. There is no reason why those that you Missourians are in fellowship with couldn’t simply join the ILC and call it good; they do not have to be joined to the LWF. For example: The Lutheran Church in Lanka (which is not in fellowship with the LCMS) gets along just without being a member of the LWF, while The Lanka Lutheran Church (which is in fellowship with the LCMS) is an LWF member.

    If Missouri would like to enhance its credibility around the world, it will reject this resolution to decline and will resurrect the the one it is seeking to disown.

    EJG

  29. @Dutch #28

    a) p34-37 seems to cover women’s ordination pretty well.

    b) The point dealing with the “rapidly changing environment of the contemporary world” and the need for ongoing discussion is raised in a different section dealing with the roles in the contemporary world [outside the church]. I would consider the discussion regarding roles in the church from the prior section closed [as much as any discussion could be closed].

    Regarding p57&58. This is a reprinting of the 1995 convention resolution which defines the objective for the report. There is no changing this.

    I believe you and I are on the same page regarding roles in the church. One question: If we fail to pass this resolution, does the 1995 resolution then remain unfulfilled and require the CTCR to continue to work on the report?

  30. @Kelly #30

    Also look on page 45 of the Creator’s Tapestry.

    “…our church has affirmed the calling of women teachers, deaconesses, professors, and missionaries. We have endorsed such organizations as the Lutheran Women’s Missionary League and the Women’s Leadership Institute. We have affirmed the freedom of congregations to grant women’s suffrage and have opened to women various lay leadership positions in congregations, districts, and Synod.”

    Who affirmed calling women as missionaries? Who endorsed the Women’s Leadership Institute? The CTCR? Isn’t this something for the Synod in Convention (based on God’s Word)?

    Who “affirmed the freedom of congregations to grant women’s suffrage…” Before one of the past LCMS Conventions, women’s suffrage was wrong. Did God’s Word change?

    Ginny Valleau

  31. @Kelly #30
    Dutch,

    Perhaps there is a problem in p44-45 “Disrespect toward individual identity” What is the stance on women lecturing on theological issues? Stuff like liturgical readings (which you’ve experienced) aren’t covered at all.

    BTW, I’ll grant you that the final section on the “roles in the contemporary world” does return to roles in the church.

    Perhaps we should seek more clarification.

    Comments?

  32. Kelly,
    That’s a great question, but I have no answer. The waters are very muddy on this subject.
    Between 3-08a being passed in 2004 & the answer given by the CTCR in 2006 regarding those who dissented, we now allow women to hold “humanly instituted” offices. That includes Elder. I think that is wrong & so is this report.

    CTCR reports have been done on this for decades, but here we are in 2010. A stand once & for all would be needed & it isn’t in this report. The door is open and it’s needs to be shut & locked.

  33. @Ginny Valleau #31

    Ginny,

    Good point. This bothered me as well when I read through the first time. Based upon Dutch’s comments I was focused on the ordination question.

    So are all these other roles unresolved as well? Apparently so. What a mess!

    Kelly

  34. Re: Res. 3-06. Time is short, but I refer y’all to Ken Schurb’s brilliant “Service of Women…” in the Sept. issue of CHI Quarterly. Our webmeister will supply a link to a spreadsheet based on an earlier version of Schurb’s piece but it clearly shows the disturbing trend towards women’s ordination that has been going on. Dutch (#33 above) also speaks to this. I say k’bosh this resolution.

    Johannes

    [ moderator: This can be found at //steadfastlutherans.org/pdf/WOMENSUMMARY_V1.1.pdf ]

  35. @Johannes #35

    My, my, my. What a fallen world we live in. The progression shown is distressing. I agree, the CTCR statement is not clear (and off track) and the resolution should be voted down.

    One other comment. I need to retract my initial statement from #25 on the position of the web group. It’s presumptuous. Apologies.

  36. Kelly,
    Naivety & presumption are different things. You did nothing wrong, you didn’t know. It’s why many delegates & many simple members come to BJS. All they know, is something isn’t right. They ask & receive no clear answer, so they look & compare to Scripture. It’s what we are taught & instructed to do. Sadly many do, don’t like the answer & begin to look for loop-holes & cracked open doors. There are too many already, that should be shut. Sola Scriptura or not. Easy breezy decision, but just to some.

    It isn’t true, what we know, can hurt us. And, at times, it can be a serious wound indeed. It’s why BJS is here for us. The waters in this are very murky, and it’s tough for even those who were delegates in year’s past. Scripture is crystal on this, but 3-06 is here in 2010 &
    3-08a was passed in 2004, anyway, much to the dissent of many. This question will not be settled nor be closed until a difinitive and final answer is given. Pushing off, what Scripture, God’s Inerrant Word states, is futile. He said what He said, we do what HE says. ‘Nough said.

  37. “3-04: To Amend Bylaw 3.9.6.2.2 re Altar and Pulpit Fellowship with Small, Formative, or Emerging Confessional Churches

    This resolution would let the synod president declare altar and pulpit fellowship with other church bodies. And how is it determined which church bodies are “small, formative, or emerging”? This is too much power to the president…” I agree wholeheartedly!

    “3-05: To Request a Thorough Response to the ELCA Social Statement Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust

    I have no strong objection to this resolution, but haven’t we responded enough to the ELCA actions?” I don’t think so.

    My commentary: While Missouri has stated its position, the issue isn’t going to simply go away in society. At this time it looks as though some of the groups leaving the ELCA may avoid some of the errors of the 2009 ELCA, but possibly open on other errors. Some such theologians refer to homosexuality as merely a ‘disorder’ and not a sin (in a life-long, committed monogamous relationship). Other Lutherans (other than LCMS) look to the LCMS as being a bulwark of sound doctrinal Lutheran Theology. If we had a document which responded to the ELCA document which chronicled their demise by rejecting Scripture, where international Lutherans, regardless of stripes, could compare this ELCA document and our commentary on where they went wrong, it could help us and Lutherans everywhere. Perhaps it could help other church bodies as well, who are discussing such issues. It could help our own laity better understand just how large the gulf between the LCMS and the 2010 ELCA has become, and why! This also affects how we respond to questions such as working with the ELCA in externals. We know the ELCA’s decisions were wrong. Do we understand why? The ELCA Constitution claims the authority of Holy Scripture, yet a vote by 66.6% of their Churchwide Assembly (convention) voted to over-ride the clear teaching of the Word of God, thus rejecting Sola Scriptura as their sole source for doctrine. Removing this Sola takes the “L” out of the ELCA. Should we have shared schools (pan-Lutheran, including ELCA and LCMS) and other shared work and groups with a church-body which is no longer Lutheran (regardless of what they choose to call themselves) and rejects Biblical instruction and correction (President Kieschnick and others from their international partner churches warned them and pleaded with them, even before they made their formal decision–not to mention that wind-storm that inverted the cross on their church). Why should the ELCA have any status with the LCMS beyond how we recognise other liberal Protestant organizations? They chose to cross the line beyond being mere “erring brethren”, and they chose false doctrine and conforming to the patterns of this world despite all expressed concerns, wise councils and warnings. They divorced themselves from the church catholic, going against 2000 years of church tradition (although that in itself means nothing compared to Scripture Alone!). I, for one, am anxious to read a CTCR response responding to what was included in their statement, as well as what was notably absent (mainly, Holy Scripture).

  38. I’m not ready to support “3-06: To Commend The Creator’s Tapestry,” either. In studying pg 16 “The woman’s response goes beyond God’s Word and will…” implies sin before the Fall to me and I would like the opportunity for clarification. What is the hurry and what could the unintended consequences be?

  39. Couple quick comments–which aren’t likely to be seen, anyway, given the timing.
    1. 3-01. Why the use of the word “genital”? That seemed strange to me. This is probably a minor issue, but we sinners like loopholes, and this might create one.
    2. 8-22 adn 23 actually puts into place the *mechanism* for changing our doctrine/practice regarding women’s ordination, for example. It *assumes* that our doctrine might well change. To be sure, it seems to try to make it hard for that to happen–“we need to be ‘united’ in our decision to change our doctrine–but it sets a precedent!
    I know this is commenting on FC 8 stuff–wrong FC, but you do see how there is a subtle shift taking place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.