News:


Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - TravisW

#61
I can't make much sense out of a new F-M ELCA startup.  You can't throw a stick here without hitting an ELCA church.
#62
Your Turn / Re: The "Conscience-Bound-Belief" Rule
March 30, 2011, 07:58:40 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 30, 2011, 06:37:10 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on March 30, 2011, 05:40:33 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 30, 2011, 05:32:35 PM
Quote from: Pilgrim on March 30, 2011, 12:25:39 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on March 30, 2011, 11:23:22 AM
Also note that the bishops did not find sufficient scriptural evidence to prohibit pastors from officiating at same-gender ceremonies in their statement -- and there were a few pastors who were doing that when they discussed it.

Brian: Please read, re-read and re-read Marshall's post. Honestly, when you have such difficulty with plain English and simple logic, is it any wonder that your "exe-eise-gesis" is often questioned?  ???

There is the motto, for every complex problem there's a simple solution -- and it's wrong.

The church can no longer assume the same things as they did back in 1990. Foremost, it cannot assume that same-gendered people cannot be married.


Nor can it assume that having sexual relations with children or barnyard animals might not some day become socially acceptable in secular society. That doesn't (or shouldn't) change the church's position on those sorts of acts of sin.

True, but should society change it's views, it will require the church to better argue its position.

That's my point. Perhaps the church didn't need any supporting evidence (scripture or otherwise) to prohibit homosexual clergy from engaging in sexual relationships back in 1989-90. We live in a different world today.

Perhaps the church didn't need any supporting evidence (scripture or otherwise) to override the sexuality requirements in V&E and institute a poorly considered "bound conscience" rule, but that was 2009.  We live in a different world today.
#64
Your Turn / Re: Unusual wedding ceremonies
March 24, 2011, 09:39:05 PM
Quote from: Richard Johnson on March 24, 2011, 05:27:38 PM
I once performed a wedding at the local McDonald's, but I'd rather not talk about it. :-X

I'm surprised that they didn't have Mayor McCheese preside.
#65
Your Turn / Re: Unusual wedding ceremonies
March 24, 2011, 02:18:16 PM
My wife and I were married by Bow Falls, near Banff Alberta.  During the course of our ceremony, a group of whitewater rafters floated by.  A chorus of voices started shouting "Run, run!!!  There's still time!!!!" 
#66
Your Turn / Re: What Did Not Happen at the 2009 CWA
March 19, 2011, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: Marshall_Hahn on March 19, 2011, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Charles_Austin on March 19, 2011, 05:48:58 AM
People keep asking "why didn't they include this? Why didn't they include that? Why wasn't this argument used?" And outside of doing textual and redaction criticism on the documents, or contacting everyone who had any hand in writing the documents (and they would not all agree) -  the answer is: "WE DON'T KNOW."
The majority voted in favor of the changes because they concluded - AND WE DON'T KNOW EVERY REASON WHY EVERY PERSON VOTED - that the changes should be made.

Once more, Pastor Austin, you fail to grasp the point that Dr. Taylor is making.  The problem is not trying to ascertain the thinking of the voters and why they voted the way that they did.  Clearly, many of them voted the way they did, judging from some of the speeches given from the floor of the assembly, because they thought the whole question was whether we like gay people or not.  No, the problem is trying to make sense of what the ELCA has approved as a teaching statement of the church, and the justification for the changes in ministry policy that has been approved.  The implication in the 11 points he raises is that there is no coherent justification from Scripture PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED.  It is those documents which define the church's teaching and position, not some speculation about the thinking of the people who voted.  Now, you have stated that this justification is to be found somewhere in the conversations of the last 15 - 20 years.  If so, those arguments should have been presented, or at least referenced, in the documents approved.  They were not.  And it is ONLY those documents which are officially adopted by the church - not something somebody said somewhere at sometime in the past.  If that is the justification for these actions, then the ELCA has changed from a confessional church to an "X-File" church - the answer is "out there, somewhere", just trust us, it's there.

Marshall Hahn  

This is exactly it.  The Social Statement is notable for the incredible lack of material backing up much of anything in it.  There are a few footnotes, and that's nice, but it brings to mind the "Jump to Conclusions Mat" from the movie Office Space.  It's very thin when it comes to building any sort of basis for some of the points presented, but mostly when it comes to homosexuality.  This Social Statement does literally nothing to provide any sort of backing to validate so-called "revisionist" claims about homosexual behavior no longer being verboten.  There's no argument from Scripture, the Confessions, Tradition, Science, Reason, back issues of National Geographic, or the Encyclopedia Britannica.

If we look back on the history of Lutheranism, we can easily see that "because I said so" is a very ineffective answer.
#67
Your Turn / Re: CoWo, What's Wrong with It?
January 31, 2011, 11:24:30 PM
Quote from: George Erdner on January 26, 2011, 01:48:02 PM
ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Here we go again!!!!!!!!!!

You Missouri guys seem to be as obsessed with this as the ELCA folks are with "the issue" which was raised at the ELCA's 2009 CWA.

So once again, all of the music snobs will kvetch about modern sounding music. I will make my obligatory point about there being a big difference between throwing out the entire liturgy and with preserving the traditional liturgy, but using newer tunes and more modern instrumentation. Then someone else will make the point that some contemporary worship songs don't mention God, Jesus, or faith enough to suit them. Then someone else will point out that after an entire sermon about the concept of a Christian being "Born Again", only an idiot would fail to grasp that a song called "Born Again" was about the subject of the sermon, even if God and Jesus weren't mentioned enough in the song.

Then the usual suspects will post the usual links to the absolute worst examples of the use of Contemporary Christian Music that exist on YouTube as some sort of "proof" that all Contemporary Christian Music is the work of the devil. Then there will be some response links to good CCM videos on YouTube, but the music snobs will sneer at them.

Then we'll digress into arguing over using a pipe organ or an electronic organ, with the organ snobs insisting that any organ that uses chips or transistors is the devil's work, and if it was good enough for Bach, then that's the only acceptable instrument to use.

We won't see the contemporary worship music faction argue over whether a Stratocaster with single coils is better than a Les Paul with humbuckers, which is a shame, as I think that sort of digression would be fun. Nor will we see the contemporary worship music faction argue over Korg versus Roland keyboards.

I'll bet we could do this entire thread with nothing but links to each of our own earlier posts on this subject.



Simply put, the Stratocaster is designed better from a durability/repair/consistency standpoint.  The Les Paul can sound good (many do, some sound awful), but Gibson refuses to fix inherent durability problems, such as the eternally weak headstock and the crap-o-matic Kluson "vintage" tuners.  Oh, they fixed it in the 70's with a volute and Grover tuner, but current Gibson management cares so little about actual guitar players that they went back to the 50's design.  Stupid. 

I guess it's obvious that, as a former guitar repair guy, I have a bone to pick with Gibson. 

As far as how this relates to Contemporary Worship, I guess my main issue comes down to aesthetics.  Is the musical style throwing the entire liturgy off-course?  Granted, that can easily happen with older music as well, so that isn't necessarily inherent in the music.

My main issue with Contemporary Worship (the aforementioned aesthetic problem) tends to center around the tunes and the way the music mixes with the service.  I've been part of a CoWo band before, and a few things stuck out to me:

1.  I hate being in front.  It feels more like you're a performer than like you're a worshipper.
2.  Guitar solos.  There's no real purpose in a guitar solo in a church service (I'm talking about a sort of improvised "rock-style" guitar solo, not a guitar playing a melody line or the like).  This is coming from a guy who has played brazillions of guitar solos.
3.  Musical style.  I once likened Contemporary Worship music to the music from a Cable One commercial, or a million bank commercials from the 1980s. 

Now, I have seen contemporary music done incredibly well.  But, the main question I have is whether it's worth doing if you can't do it very well and there is something else that you CAN do well.  Most churches around here have some mix of traditional and contemporary worship, and a majority have the people who can pull off traditional worship pretty well.  So if you do traditional well, and contemporary not very well, why do the not-so-good one?  Of course, that sword cuts both ways.  If you can do co-wo well, and a lousy job at traditional, then I suppose it raises the same question.

Finally, I will fully admit that I really don't like the musical style of contemporary worship songs.  They don't rock enough to be good rock, they aren't catchy enough to be good pop...I guess to me it's kind of the musical equivalent to eating a microwaved T-bone steak.  Sure, it's technically steak...I guess...but I just don't get the appeal. 
#68
Your Turn / Re: Three years with the new hymnals
January 19, 2011, 10:44:17 PM
This is probably a bit old, but I still get a kick out of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlyvLzIcTBc

I think the intro tune is actually an Aldo Nova song...
#69
Quote from: SKPeterson on January 13, 2011, 07:52:53 PM
As a total aside and contribution to thread drift - Are all the Preus's related?  Seems to me like they are brothers, cousins, sons, nephews, etc. and are intimately wrapped up in the course of American Lutheranism from ~1940 to the present day.  Is this the case? Has anyone done a biographical study of the family and their interrelationships, quarrels, theologies, denominational affiliations and everything else?  Seems like a great topic for historical theological research to me.

I believe they're all descended from Herman Amberg Preus, who was a big figure in the development of the Norwegian Synod.

/drift
#70
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 14, 2011, 05:06:57 PM
Quote from: Nicholas Amsdorf on January 13, 2011, 10:13:48 PM
You are ducking the question, Brian.

What "doctrines" [your word] are you referring to? Be specific.

The only doctrines that the early Church codified were: Gentiles did not have to be baptized...

???
#71
Your Turn / Re: ALPB Forum Shooting Sports Fans
January 14, 2011, 02:05:34 AM
All I have anymore is a 1909 Model 10 Remington shotgun.  Had a Model 94 30-30 Winchester, 30-40 Krag, .303 Enfield...and forget if there was anything else.  There isn't much to shoot in Moorhead, MN. I do, however, plan on dispatching some clay pigeons in the near future.
#72
Your Turn / Re: Interpreting the Bible Lutheranly
January 10, 2011, 11:15:08 AM
Quote from: Charles_Austin on January 10, 2011, 11:01:28 AM
Paul T. McCain writes (re the conveniently stereotyped hermeneutics):
The two approaches represent, at a formal and confessional level, two very different religions. The gulf between traditional Christianity and liberal modernism is a wide and a vast chasm.

I muse:
That's one opinion. From one person in the LCMS. Do others in that church body sign on to this? Is the ELCA a "different religion"? Is it no longer Christian? Paul T. McCain makes this charge again and again. Does he speak for the LCMS? For others here? Is the LCMS "traditional Christianity" and that which Paul T. McCain calls "liberal modernism," namely the ELCA, the Episcopal Church and  (well, you know the list) not Christianity at all?
I'd accept private notes from those wary of taking issue with Paul T. McCain in public.

Charles, he wasn't directly contrasting the LCMS and ELCA.  It's evident that what he wrote was in reference to two different schools of thought within the ELCA.  
#73
Your Turn / Re: Interpreting the Bible Lutheranly
January 09, 2011, 03:35:35 PM
"Traditioning" and "Lutheranly"   ::)

Please, don't use words that hurt. 
#74
Quote from: Dan Fienen on January 09, 2011, 08:41:44 AM
Can we take it as a given that some do not like PB Hanson and that like other mere mortals he has his limitations?  Having on occasion had to respond to situations I know that there have been times when I was inspired to say just the right thing, and at times have said something muddled that did not hit the nail on the head.  What he wrote may not be a model of heartfelt clarity, and it may not have been as timely as perhaps it could have been.  None the less, he said some good things, refrained from shoving his foot into his mouth or even hinted at blaming the victims or even Israel (as a few in the Arab community tried to do).  Great job?  Maybe not.  Adequate?  At least.

Dan

I agree.  I'll admit to being pretty critical of a lot of PB Hanson's open letters, but while this one isn't exactly knocking my socks off at least it's not awful.
#75
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on January 05, 2011, 07:19:38 PM
Quote from: TravisW on January 05, 2011, 07:18:22 PM
And what about the deceiver who mimics the voice of the mother and tells the 12-year-old to drive to the store? 

Children know their mother's voice -- like sheep knowing the voice of the shepherd -- and are unwilling to listen to another.

Apparently, John the Evangelist was more paranoid than you are when he wrote the 2nd Epistle.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk