News:


Main Menu

Highlighting the Walkout

Started by PrTim15, February 19, 2024, 10:58:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dan Fienen

Quote from: John Mundinger on February 22, 2024, 06:36:20 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 21, 2024, 06:18:16 PMI don't mean to be rude when I say that I do not regard the ELCA as a Lutheran church body. Most LCMS pastors I know agree.

I'm not surprised to hear you say that.  Regardless, the evangelicals with whom the LCMS collaborated in the crafting of their understanding of inerrancy weren't Lutheran.  If LCMS can collaborate with them they should likewise be able to collaborate with ELCA in matters that do not involve pulpit-altar fellowship.
Over the course of my ministry I have collaborated with pastors from many different churches, including the ELCA. I've usually participated in the local ministerial association, served as a part of their volunteer police chaplain corps along with Methodists, ELCA, and I'm not really sure what. 

In my current parish I do not, so far as I know, collaborate with any ELCA, not even in our monthly food distribution program where I collaborate with RCC, Methodist, extensively with the pastor and people from a local Covenant Church. The reason that I no longer collaborate with ELCA is that none have volunteered and there is not an ELCA church in my county. Otherwise I would have no problem.

I do not and have not practiced alter and pulpit fellowship with other denominations.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

RDPreus

At every congregation I served, our congregation collaborated with other congregations in the community to provide food and other assistance to those in need.  At the local nursing home, I took my turn preaching along with the other pastors.  I was involved in various pro-life organizations and was happy to cooperate with those who belonged to denominations with which we were not in fellowship.  We who hold to the traditional LCMS position against unionism do not do so out of contempt for others, but out of devotion to the truth.

Charles Austin

So you reserve your contempt for those you declare non-Lutheran?
Iowa-born. Long-time in NY/New Jersey, former LWF staff in Geneva.
ELCA PASTOR, ordained 1967. Former journalist. Retired in Minneapolis. Often critical of the ELCA, but more often a defender of its mission. Ignoring the not-so-subtle rude insults which often appear here.

RDPreus

Quote from: Charles Austin on February 22, 2024, 01:56:27 PMSo you reserve your contempt for those you declare non-Lutheran?

I disagree with you, Rev. Austin.  I don't hold you in contempt.

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Charles Austin on February 22, 2024, 01:56:27 PMSo you reserve your contempt for those you declare non-Lutheran?
Charles. RDPreus has not declared contempt for anyone. It is you who have decided that he is contemptuous. In the past, I have called some of your interactions with me and others as showing contempt. You have disputed that characterization. Are we to take it that you have abrogated to yourself the position of sole arbiter of what is and what is not contempt on this forum?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

RF

Testing the waters again, he is. ...Yoda

Charles Austin

Done here. My suspicions partly confirmed. Sad about that. Hopeful in other ways.
Iowa-born. Long-time in NY/New Jersey, former LWF staff in Geneva.
ELCA PASTOR, ordained 1967. Former journalist. Retired in Minneapolis. Often critical of the ELCA, but more often a defender of its mission. Ignoring the not-so-subtle rude insults which often appear here.

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

I believe the ELCA contains Lutherans the way a cradle or blanket contains an infant.

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: RDPreus on February 22, 2024, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: John Mundinger on February 22, 2024, 06:36:20 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on February 21, 2024, 06:18:16 PMI don't mean to be rude when I say that I do not regard the ELCA as a Lutheran church body. Most LCMS pastors I know agree.

I'm not surprised to hear you say that.  Regardless, the evangelicals with whom the LCMS collaborated in the crafting of their understanding of inerrancy weren't Lutheran.  If LCMS can collaborate with them they should likewise be able to collaborate with ELCA in matters that do not involve pulpit-altar fellowship.

There certainly are areas where we can collaborate.  The problem is that when we collaborate with the Baptists, we're not claiming to be Baptist and they're not claiming to be Lutheran.  However, if we collaborate with the ELCA, are we acknowledging them as Lutherans?  We cannot acknowledge them as Lutherans when we don't regard them as Lutherans.
And yet, the ELCA acknowledges the LCMS and WELS and others as Lutheran. We state in our constitutions that we "accept the Unaltered Augsburg Confession as a true witness to the Gospel, acknowledging as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession."

I believe that the actions of some of our bishops against the nascent NALC were contrary to this confession of our faith.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

John Mundinger

Quote from: Dan Fienen on February 22, 2024, 01:01:08 PMOver the course of my ministry I have collaborated with pastors from many different churches, including the ELCA. I've usually participated in the local ministerial association, served as a part of their volunteer police chaplain corps along with Methodists, ELCA, and I'm not really sure what.

I am gratified to hear that, Pr. Fienen.  Thank you.  I wish that kind of collaboration were taking place at the Synod/Churchwide level.
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

Brian Stoffregen

For some articles on the "walkout" written at the time, by Ed Schroeder, Bob Bertram, and Art Beckman, see
https://crossings.org/table-talk/

There is also the offer of a free booklet written by Ed Schroeder, Seminex Remembered.

The last two zoom Table Talks were about that time with people who were involved in it. (I wasn't able to participate, nor have I watched the recordings which are available.)
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

Mbecker

#101
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 22, 2024, 10:03:52 AMBut you do agree, Matt, that they were teaching the historical critical method?

If by "they" you mean bibical scholars and other professors of theology at LCMS colleges and seminaries after the mid-1940s, you are correct. As I mentioned, when the synod celebrated its centennial, the convention that year voted to spend a large sum of money to support the publication of a major historical-critical resource, BAG (later abbreviated BDAG). From the 1940s onward (perhaps even earlier), seminary students, LCMS pastors, and LCMS professors of theology learned historical-critical methods in LCMS institutions, and those individuals benefited from historical-critical resources. I learned about such resources myself when I was a student at 801 ('84-'88), and made use of them then as well as subsequently. Hoerber made use of those resources in NT studies, just as Hummel did in his OT courses. (Hummel helped to introduced these modern methods to Concordia students in the early '50s.)

Were there matters of disagreement? Absolutely. The Scharlemann affair is a good example. Hummel left Concordia for LSTC, where he could work a little more freely in his area. Habel's work on the genres of the Genesis stories in Gen 1-3 is another example.

By the early 1960s it was clear that the Synod would need to address the limited usefulness of "the historical-critical method," given that those tools could be used destructively (e.g., as they have been, imo, within the ideology of historicism). Thus, the Synod went on record in 1967 and 1969 supporting the use of historical-critical tools of biblical scholarship within certain prescribed limits. The presuppositions and aims that one brings to the exegetical/hermeneutical task are crucial, e.g., using those historical-critical tools in service to the gospel and not in rigid obedience to Troeltsch's three principles.

Matt Becker

John Mundinger

Quote from: Mbecker on February 23, 2024, 05:16:00 PMI learned about such resources myself when I was a student at 801 ('84-'88), and made use of them then as well as subsequently. Hoerber made use of those resources in NT studies, just as Hummel did in his OT courses. (Hummel helped to introduced these modern methods to Concordia students in the early '50s.)

Is it then correct to think of "historical-grammatical" as just a politically correct way to talk about "historical-critical"?
Lifelong Evangelical Lutheran layman

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.  St. Augustine

John_Hannah

Quote from: John Mundinger on February 23, 2024, 05:30:48 PM
Quote from: Mbecker on February 23, 2024, 05:16:00 PMI learned about such resources myself when I was a student at 801 ('84-'88), and made use of them then as well as subsequently. Hoerber made use of those resources in NT studies, just as Hummel did in his OT courses. (Hummel helped to introduced these modern methods to Concordia students in the early '50s.)

Is it then correct to think of "historical-grammatical" as just a politically correct way to talk about "historical-critical"?

I think so. "Grammatical-historical" was an invention of Scharleman after he switched "sides."

Peace, JOHN
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

John_Hannah

Quote from: Mbecker on February 23, 2024, 05:16:00 PM
Quote from: Rev. Edward Engelbrecht on February 22, 2024, 10:03:52 AMBut you do agree, Matt, that they were teaching the historical critical method?

If by "they" you mean bibical scholars and other professors of theology at LCMS colleges and seminaries after the mid-1940s, you are correct. As I mentioned, when the synod celebrated its centennial, the convention that year voted to spend a large sum of money to support the publication of a major historical-critical resource, BAG (later abbreviated BDAG). From the 1940s onward (perhaps even earlier), seminary students, LCMS pastors, and LCMS professors of theology learned historical-critical methods in LCMS institutions, and those individuals benefited from historical-critical resources. I learned about such resources myself when I was a student at 801 ('84-'88), and made use of them then as well as subsequently. Hoerber made use of those resources in NT studies, just as Hummel did in his OT courses. (Hummel helped to introduced these modern methods to Concordia students in the early '50s.)

Were there matters of disagreement? Absolutely. The Scharlemann affair is a good example. Hummel left Concordia for LSTC, where he could work a little more freely in his area. Habel's work on the genres of the Genesis stories in Gen 1-3 is another example.

By the early 1960s it was clear that the Synod would need to address the limited usefulness of "the historical-critical method," given that those tools could be used destructively (e.g., as they have been, imo, within the ideology of historicism). Thus, the Synod went on record in 1967 and 1969 supporting the use of historical-critical tools of biblical scholarship within certain prescribed limits. The presuppositions and aims that one brings to the exegetical/hermeneutical task are crucial, e.g., using those historical-critical tools in service to the gospel and not in rigid obedience to Troeltsch's three principles.

Matt Becker

The "D" in BDAG belongs to Fred Danker. That's Fred (No Room in the Brotherhood) Danker. I estimate that 99% of SEMINEX opponents use his historical-critical work regularly.🥹
Pr. JOHN HANNAH, STS

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk