ELCA Elects First (Out) Homosexual Bishop, meanings and consequences.

Started by George Erdner, May 31, 2013, 11:28:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

revreiff

Actually, I am quite taken with Charles' artful use of the term "horse poop" as it sums but beautifully, and in only two words, what the ELCA and its leadership have become.

Coach-Rev

Quote from: DCharlton on June 08, 2013, 12:09:16 PM
Quote from: The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS on June 08, 2013, 09:51:04 AM
I tried (with others) very hard to engage in discussion and discernment within our synod.  We were simply shut down.  The same story can be told by others in several other synods.  And every time such things were reported or described here, you have called us liars.

Charles has made it clear that we are to take the word of the as yet unnamed bishop of a Midwestern synod or the unnamed member of a synod counci over the first hand account given by Pastor Steven Tibbets.


And I would add: verified by others who were also there and witnessed it, myself included.

Charles_Austin

Now here is the real lie.
   The lie is that I dismiss all accounts of mistreatment, harrassment, demeaning, etc. etc. of the "traditionalists." I do not do that.
   I have no doubt that some of those who oppose the decisions of 2009 have been hammered by some of those who do. I have no doubt that some bishops might be reluctant to have some out-spoken "traditionalists" in their synod.
   What I reject, and what I have said for a l-o-n-g time is that every time someone who considers themselves a "traditionalist" gets passed over for a call, receives a cold shoulder from a bishop or synod, or incurs unwarranted wrath from colleagues that it is solely, only, and primarily because they are "traditionalist." There just might be other reasons.
   And I have said: If the "traditionalist" is swimming upstream or against the tide of attitudes, policies and programs of one's synod, the "traditionalist" just might find it rough going. That, folks, is the cost of conviction. You want it to be easy? Nope. Acting on your convictions when they go against the grain of others can be tough and it can be costly. It's the price you pay. A lot of us have lived with that in the past; and you have to live with it now.
   And I have said: A lot depends upon how the "traditionalist" acts on their convictions. If it is a torrent of bad-mouthing the bishop or synod; if it is blackmail by use of mission support; if it is threats and imprecations day after day; one just might expect that there will be hostility in return.
    The real lie is that I don't think the "traditionalists" are not sometimes unfairly put-upon. The bigger mythology is that it is always because of their "traditionalist" views.


cssml

Quote from: Charles_Austin on June 09, 2013, 07:35:51 AM
   And I have said: A lot depends upon how the "traditionalist" acts on their convictions. If it is a torrent of bad-mouthing the bishop or synod; if it is blackmail by use of mission support; if it is threats and imprecations day after day...

I happen to agree much with the part in bold.  BTW, if you run out of material, you can find some good new stuff here:  http://ergofabulous.org/luther/

DCharlton

Quote from: Charles_Austin on June 09, 2013, 07:35:51 AM
Now here is the real lie.
   The lie is that I dismiss all accounts of mistreatment, harrassment, demeaning, etc. etc. of the "traditionalists." I do not do that.
   I have no doubt that some of those who oppose the decisions of 2009 have been hammered by some of those who do. I have no doubt that some bishops might be reluctant to have some out-spoken "traditionalists" in their synod.
   What I reject, and what I have said for a l-o-n-g time is that every time someone who considers themselves a "traditionalist" gets passed over for a call, receives a cold shoulder from a bishop or synod, or incurs unwarranted wrath from colleagues that it is solely, only, and primarily because they are "traditionalist." There just might be other reasons.
   And I have said: If the "traditionalist" is swimming upstream or against the tide of attitudes, policies and programs of one's synod, the "traditionalist" just might find it rough going. That, folks, is the cost of conviction. You want it to be easy? Nope. Acting on your convictions when they go against the grain of others can be tough and it can be costly. It's the price you pay. A lot of us have lived with that in the past; and you have to live with it now.
   And I have said: A lot depends upon how the "traditionalist" acts on their convictions. If it is a torrent of bad-mouthing the bishop or synod; if it is blackmail by use of mission support; if it is threats and imprecations day after day; one just might expect that there will be hostility in return.
    The real lie is that I don't think the "traditionalists" are not sometimes unfairly put-upon. The bigger mythology is that it is always because of their "traditionalist" views.

In denying that you call people like Pr Tibbets liars, you call him a liar.  That is in itself a good demonstration of how quick you are to call someone a liar.

Nevertheless, you give us several paragraphs worth of reasons you doubt the credibility of the reports you receive.  What I pointed out was the irony of you in turn asking us to believe something because unnamed sources told you so.  I'm sure many of us will be able to find reasons to doubt the credibility of your sources.
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Charles_Austin

See upstream, Pastor Charlton. Those sources will be named in good time, when my editors have done their job and we have finished the articles that will be printed.
But if you read the newspapers, you will find that it is not at all unusual to use unnamed sources. The reporter and his or her editors know who they are, but there may be reasons of protocol or continued access to information that they are not named. It is more important to have the information out there for readers than it is to have everyone know exactly whence it came.
You do not have to believe me when I say that some bishops say - reluctantly, at times - that they are not sorry certain congregations and individuals have left.  But I'll say it anyway.

DCharlton

Quote from: Charles_Austin on June 09, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
See upstream, Pastor Charlton. Those sources will be named in good time, when my editors have done their job and we have finished the articles that will be printed.
But if you read the newspapers, you will find that it is not at all unusual to use unnamed sources. The reporter and his or her editors know who they are, but there may be reasons of protocol or continued access to information that they are not named. It is more important to have the information out there for readers than it is to have everyone know exactly whence it came.
You do not have to believe me when I say that some bishops say - reluctantly, at times - that they are not sorry certain congregations and individuals have left.  But I'll say it anyway.

The thing is, I do believe you.  I don't automatically assume that your sources lack credibility.  In spite of the fact that you and your sources are clearly biased, I have reason to believe some of what you say.  On the other hand, I believe Pastors Tibbets and Cottingham.  I don't automatically assume that they lack credibility, although they also have a bias.

That's we're we differ.  I find them to be as credible as your unnamed sources.  No more.  No less.
David Charlton  

Was Algul Siento a divinity school?

Steven Tibbetts

#262
Quote from: Charles_Austin on June 09, 2013, 07:35:51 AM

   What I reject, and what I have said for a l-o-n-g time is that every time someone who considers themselves a "traditionalist" gets passed over for a call, receives a cold shoulder from a bishop or synod, or incurs unwarranted wrath from colleagues that it is solely, only, and primarily because they are "traditionalist."

This would be an Austinian red herring. This is different from a Stoffregenian red herring (this might be why our moderators have turned off the "insert image" feature), but it is expected to be as useful in avoiding engagement on things that matter.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

Pilgrim

Tim simply posts this note to Charles: Hate to break the news to you but this forum is NOT a newspaper and your posts are not subject to an editor. In here you are a Pastor. Speak plainly, with some theological substance, substantive positions and rationale and dispense with the reporter hat and your "un-named sources" (deep throat for pity's sake?). You have venues available where that is appropriate. Thank you.
Pr. Tim Christ, STS

Charles_Austin

Sorry, Pastor Christ, but I am frequently told that in the views of people here, I am not their pastor (and this is true); that I am not a good pastor (and that decision is thankfully not up to them); that I am not worthy of being a pastor (and who is?); so that is not my role here.
But you are right; neither is this a newspaper and what I do here is not journalism. So my references to what people have told me are as valid as the whinings of those who claim that the entire structure of the ELCA or one of its synods has focused on them because they are "traditionalists."


LutherMan

Quote from: Charles_Austin on June 09, 2013, 10:19:21 PM
So my references to what people have told me are as valid as the whinings of those who claim that the entire structure of the ELCA or one of its synods has focused on them because they are "traditionalists."
Wow.  What a very nasty and mean spirited statement...
Your silly smiley avatar makes you look evil.

Charles_Austin

Craig, Pastor Cottingham et al., maybe you could set aside your obsessions with how you think I should phrase my answers and questions. I simply do not understand the mania from a few of you people who go ballistic at my comments.
Disagree if you wish. Ignore if you wish. But can we stop this odd obsession?
I am one person commenting here. I have no more or no less clout than anyone else who comments; maybe actually less because I am in the minority.
You go all jumping-jack ape-snot over what I say; and then I get accused of derailing the discussion. Move on.


George Erdner


Charles_Austin

One pastor or lay person says:
   "Bishop, I think this church has made a wrong decision, and I hope we change it. I shall pray and work to change it. Meanwhile I will seek ways to maintain my integrity and loyalty to this church even though I really think we are very wrong about this decision. I'll try to keep my congregation informed and active, even though I know some of them won't be happy either."

Another pastor or lay person says:
   "Bishop, a cabal of ideological fanatics, led by a small group of gay activists, and supported by craven bureaucrats in Chicago, have caused this church to leave Lutheranism and depart from the true faith. They have manipulated synod and national assemblies and are now, like some jack-booted oppressors, forcing their views on everyone whether we like it or not. You won't be getting my mission support; and if my congregation wants to leave, they will find a way to do so."
   Which response - both of which we have heard, even in this small forum - do you think best helps the faith and unity of the church?
   How would you expect pastoral colleagues, a synod council or a bishop to respond to either of those statements?

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk