No doubts about converting from LCMS

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Then you could have asked me to elaborate, instead of attempting to speak for me.

I never, ever minimize sacraments, as the post you initially responded to at least implied. More directly, I would not, could not be a member of virtually any other protestant community specifically because of sacraments. I would be Catholic or Orthodox first.

From the extreme brevity and vagueness of your response I concluded that you were not interested in providing a more complete explanation of your views. As for your views of the Sacraments, I appreciate them as far as they go.

The two paragraphs are connected. To say that Tillich was a “protestant theologian” is at best vague.

If you want to satisfy yourself as to Tillich’s qualifications, it would take you a couple of minutes to do so.

There are lots of theologians from protestant communions that do not speak for other protestants communions.

Ok, so who, specifically speaks for Protestantism as a whole? If not Tillich then who? It seems to me that when I make comments about Protestantism in general, the next thing I know, somebody posts something about the Lutheran Confessions, AS IF they speak for Protestantism as a whole.

Additionally, when it comes to sacraments, Lutherans are indeed set apart, with the exception of Anglicans.

Indeed ALL Protestants are ‘set aside’, Lutherans and Anglicans included. ALL have reduced the number of Sacraments from 7 to some much smaller number. Some down to three, some to two, and of course some to zero. ALL Protestant’s, including Lutherans, have cast aside Sacraments.

Now, if Tillich wanted to speak out on the disturbing trends of his communion, that’s fine. I already know the disturbing trends in mine, however, without his help. And since the question you asked is about the sacraments, other protestants are irrelevant to the question.

I completely fail to understand how the comments of a Protestant Theologian about the Protestants and the Sacraments can be seen as irrelevant in a conversation about Protestants and the Sacraments. I do though understand how you don’t like what he said.

Not that I’ve seen a plethora of positive comments from you anyway, but then I guess our conversing is over.

As you wish – but I doubt it.

It is our confessional document. Not surprised that you don’t consider them a valid Christian doctrine. You are aware that Cardinal Ratzinger pondered the idea of Augsburg being considered a catholic document.

I am shocked that you would bring up Augsburg. Would you like to revisit the comments made by Marius, Holborn, Schweibert, and Carroll about how the Augsburg Confession was basically an attempt to deceive and to cover over the differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism? Those quotes can be posted again if you like. Furthermore, I have to wonder whether your representation of Ratizinger’s quote is ‘accurate’, or if is more like the ‘fact’ that the Confessions do not speak of anything but the ‘office’ of the papacy.

So let me understand; you want to discuss what separates us, but you do not want to discuss what the confessions say about what separates us.

What separates us Jon IS YOUR CONFESSIONS. Do you honestly believe that the RCC and the LCMS can reach FULL COMMUNION without a substantial and formal ‘revision’ of the FC, or at least those portions which are so blatantly anti-Catholic? We HAVE discussed those portions of the FC and I don’t think that many people were satisfied with your representation of them in that it went directly against the clear sense of the text. In addition, it seems that your attitude is in opposition to your ordained leadership in the form of Preus and Fisk.

Balderdash, and you know it. I referenced his Small and Large Catechism, but… oh, that’s right, you don’t want to discuss that. Anything Luther except what we consider part of our teaching.

“Balderdash” – Is that like “Horsefeathers” with a snobby British accent? Please don’t tell me you don’t like it when I tell you what you think or believe and then INACCURATELY tell me what I know or don’t know, especially when you are wrong.! I stand by what I said 100%, and like everything else I say, am more than willing to amplify with actual substance that backs up my point of view.

Read what Melanchthon wrote. It explains the numbering of the sacraments, and how we consider them.

That is the second time in a row you have avoided the question, which is again:

“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”

To be continued

 

[Topper17]

To Jon part 2

Jon, I would suggest that there is no answer you can provide which does not seriously damage your position and THAT is why you won’t answer it.

So, how has Luther “authority” affected Catholic teaching on the sacraments? You seem to be so concerned about his authority. His “authority” or lack thereof has had no impact on Catholic teaching that I am aware of. And the things he said that we teach you don’t want to discuss.

That was not the point at all. Luther is in large part responsible for our doctrinal division and for the disunity of Western Christianity, not to mention the even worse disunity within Protestantism. He weakened Christianity for all time, but he DID NOT succeed in changing even ONE doctrine of the Church which Christ founded on earth for us ALL.

Again, if you want to discuss questions of “supreme importance”, then you must being willing to discuss, with mutual respect, and not bash. Lutherans are not held to Luther, but to our confessions, whether you like them or not. To discuss will require I use them. If you can’t do that, then, as I said, our discussing is done.

Your Confessions bear the imprint of Martin Luther, including his hatred for the Catholic Church and Her teachings. They include the exact same terminology that Luther used to denigrate the Church and turn the uneducated common people of his time against the Church.

Jon, you may have respect for the Catholic Church and I appreciate that, but your denomination does not share your attitude AT ALL. Your attempts to portray your denomination as being as ‘ecumenical’ as you are have fallen flat, and as you have noted, not just with me. Since you wrote your post we have ‘received information’ thanks to Betsy. We now know that your Protestant denomination will not allow it’s pastors to pray with other Christians and in fact, other Lutherans. Astonishing! Two months ago I would have thought that that story was a joke. I am glad that I do not suffer from that bit of naiveté anymore, and in fact, at this point, would not be shocked by anything originating from the LCMS. At this point we all have to admit that the LCMS is easily more intolerant of other Christian communions than any Protestant denomination.

At least now I better understand that ‘ecumenical’ story of LCMS President Harrison sitting next to some Cardinal of the Church at some Congressional Hearing or whatever it was. THEY WERE NOT PRAYING TOGETHER.

The story of Rev. Bob Morris is in fact, so shocking (and telling) that it deserves to be posted here on this thread so that everyone gets an opportunity to read it without having to follow a link.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[steido01]

We now know that your Protestant denomination will not allow it’s pastors to pray with other Christians and in fact, other Lutherans.

You continue to blatantly lie about Lutheranism. Please stop. I’ve not met another poster full of such venom.

Did you read my previous posts? Prayer =/= Worship, and the LCMS recognizes as much. We can pray with other Christians. We cannot fully participate in worship with them. For example: we should not take your communion, and you should not take ours (our communions both teach this). We do not participate in worship-style events that could be construed or interpreted as condoning an heterodox/heathen belief - that is what is means to avoid syncretism and unionism. Can you please try to understand that?

That is why we can participate in things like this: blogs.lcms.org/2008/lcms-leaders-attend-ecumenical-meeting-with-pope

 

[MaryT777]

Jon,
While I admire your response about why to discuss what separates us from the RCC, your efforts may be futile however.

The insistence to discuss Luther’s authority is purely based on their belief that there needs to be a man of authority. If they were to read Luther’s writings and our confessions putting scripture first they would not be overwhelmingly: concerned with the authority of Luther.

The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger considered the Augsburg might be Catholic is telling. I believe the magesterium since Vatican II has been worried about the positions of the church in the past. We can only pray that from the top down they come to see the superior authority of scripture that shapes doctrine.

I disagree that the insistence to discuss Luther’s authority is purely based on the Catholic belief that there needs to be a man of authority but rather the obvious fact there IS a man
authority named Luther and you just insist that he is not as such albeit the Church is named after him, the catechisms are named after him etc.

I disagree that the Church is concerned about positions of the past. I believe the Catholic Church stands by its position that Luther was a heretic to this day.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Stiedo, This is your favorite ‘sock puppet’. Do you remember how that ‘exchange’ turned out?

You continue to blatantly lie about Lutheranism. Please stop. I’ve not met another poster full of such venom.

Did you read my previous posts? Prayer =/= Worship, and the LCMS recognizes as much. We can pray with other Christians. We cannot fully participate in worship with them. For example: we should not take your communion, and you should not take ours (our communions both teach this). We do not participate in worship-style events that could be construed or interpreted as condoning an heterodox/heathen belief - that is what is means to avoid syncretism and unionism. Can you please try to understand that?

That is why we can participate in things like this: blogs.lcms.org/2008/lcms-leaders-attend-ecumenical-meeting-with-pope

You seriously need to get your facts correct once in a while. I take being called a blatant liar very seriously, seriously enough to respond with appropriate action.

I said that: “We now know that your Protestant denomination will not allow it’s pastors to pray with other Christians and in fact, other Lutherans.”

Your Response was extremely rude, factually inaccurate, intended to be offensive, and by the way, actionable.

You said: “You continue to blatantly lie about Lutheranism.”

So what are the facts about the case in point, the one which you apparently know nothing about, and yet feel authorized to make a VERY SERIOUS CHARGE?

From the article about Rob Morris, the author says about the LCMS that:

“The church consititution bars clergy from praying with representatives from other religions, including some other Lutheran groups, for fear of giving the appearance that theological differences about salvation ad other doctrines aren’t significant.”

That pretty much clears it up. An absolutely minimial amount of work would have saved you from making a very serious and very false and very actionable accusation. Accusing someone of a blatent lie is an EXTREMELY serious charge. It should be noted that Luther called people liars ALL THE TIME, and you know how he knew for a fact that they were lying intentionally? They disagreed with him on matters of Scriptural interpretation. After all, Scripture is SO CLEAR that nobody could misunderstand it can they?

I have more to say to you tomorrow on a matter almost identical to this one. That one is also serious and actionable.

Goodnight Stiedo

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Mary,

I am not familiar with the “911 fiasco with Benke”. Could you provide a summary. It sounds like a fiasco.

God Bless You Mary

Topper, my copy and paste feature won’t work currently. I found a great succinct and one paragraph description that “matches” what the LCMS pastor told me here.
It’s under David Benke: Wikipedia. Maybe you could copy and paste it here for us(That way if it’s incorrect the LCMS posters can let us know.

Jeust google David Benke Wikipedia. It’s under the section of Events following
September 11 attacks.

It appears it’s difficult to put the written thoughts on unionism and syncretism into practice without confusion and extreme disagreement even among LCMS Pastors and even the LCMS President(s) in critical prayer needed situations like 911 or more recently Sandy Hook.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

You continue to blatantly lie about Lutheranism. Please stop. I’ve not met another poster full of such venom.

Did you read my previous posts? Prayer =/= Worship, and the LCMS recognizes as much. We can pray with other Christians. We cannot fully participate in worship with them. For example: we should not take your communion, and you should not take ours (our communions both teach this). We do not participate in worship-style events that could be construed or interpreted as condoning an heterodox/heathen belief - that is what is means to avoid syncretism and unionism. Can you please try to understand that?

That is why we can participate in things like this: blogs.lcms.org/2008/lcms-leaders-attend-ecumenical-meeting-with-pope

Let’s stop the personal attacks on posters and stick with the post.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Then you could have asked me to elaborate, instead of attempting to speak for me.

I never, ever minimize sacraments, as the post you initially responded to at least implied. More directly, I would not, could not be a member of virtually any other protestant community specifically because of sacraments. I would be Catholic or Orthodox first.

From the extreme brevity and vagueness of your response I concluded that you were not interested in providing a more complete explanation of your views. As for your views of the Sacraments, I appreciate them as far as they go.

The two paragraphs are connected. To say that Tillich was a “protestant theologian” is at best vague.

If you want to satisfy yourself as to Tillich’s qualifications, it would take you a couple of minutes to do so.

There are lots of theologians from protestant communions that do not speak for other protestants communions.

Ok, so who, specifically speaks for Protestantism as a whole? If not Tillich then who? It seems to me that when I make comments about Protestantism in general, the next thing I know, somebody posts something about the Lutheran Confessions, AS IF they speak for Protestantism as a whole.

Additionally, when it comes to sacraments, Lutherans are indeed set apart, with the exception of Anglicans.

Indeed ALL Protestants are ‘set aside’, Lutherans and Anglicans included. ALL have reduced the number of Sacraments from 7 to some much smaller number. Some down to three, some to two, and of course some to zero. ALL Protestant’s, including Lutherans, have cast aside Sacraments.

Now, if Tillich wanted to speak out on the disturbing trends of his communion, that’s fine. I already know the disturbing trends in mine, however, without his help. And since the question you asked is about the sacraments, other protestants are irrelevant to the question.

I completely fail to understand how the comments of a Protestant Theologian about the Protestants and the Sacraments can be seen as irrelevant in a conversation about Protestants and the Sacraments. I do though understand how you don’t like what he said.

Not that I’ve seen a plethora of positive comments from you anyway, but then I guess our conversing is over.

As you wish – but I doubt it.

It is our confessional document. Not surprised that you don’t consider them a valid Christian doctrine. You are aware that Cardinal Ratzinger pondered the idea of Augsburg being considered a catholic document.

I am shocked that you would bring up Augsburg. Would you like to revisit the comments made by Marius, Holborn, Schweibert, and Carroll about how the Augsburg Confession was basically an attempt to deceive and to cover over the differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism? Those quotes can be posted again if you like. Furthermore, I have to wonder whether your representation of Ratizinger’s quote is ‘accurate’, or if is more like the ‘fact’ that the Confessions do not speak of anything but the ‘office’ of the papacy.

So let me understand; you want to discuss what separates us, but you do not want to discuss what the confessions say about what separates us.

What separates us Jon IS YOUR CONFESSIONS. Do you honestly believe that the RCC and the LCMS can reach FULL COMMUNION without a substantial and formal ‘revision’ of the FC, or at least those portions which are so blatantly anti-Catholic? We HAVE discussed those portions of the FC and I don’t think that many people were satisfied with your representation of them in that it went directly against the clear sense of the text. In addition, it seems that your attitude is in opposition to your ordained leadership in the form of Preus and Fisk.

Balderdash, and you know it. I referenced his Small and Large Catechism, but… oh, that’s right, you don’t want to discuss that. Anything Luther except what we consider part of our teaching.

“Balderdaah” – Is that like “Horsefeathers” with a British accent? Please don’t tell me you don’t like it when I tell you what you think or believe and then INACCURATELY tell me what I believe! I stand by what I said 100%, and like everything else I say, am more than willing to amplify with actual substance that backs up my point of view.

Read what Melanchthon wrote. It explains the numbering of the sacraments, and how we consider them.

That is the second time in a row you have avoided the question, which is again:

“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”

To Be Continued

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

Then you could have asked me to elaborate, instead of attempting to speak for me.

I never, ever minimize sacraments, as the post you initially responded to at least implied. More directly, I would not, could not be a member of virtually any other protestant community specifically because of sacraments. I would be Catholic or Orthodox first.

From the extreme brevity and vagueness of your response I concluded that you were not interested in providing a more complete explanation of your views. As for your views of the Sacraments, I appreciate them as far as they go.

The two paragraphs are connected. To say that Tillich was a “protestant theologian” is at best vague.

If you want to satisfy yourself as to Tillich’s qualifications, it would take you a couple of minutes to do so.

There are lots of theologians from protestant communions that do not speak for other protestants communions.

Ok, so who, specifically speaks for Protestantism as a whole? If not Tillich then who? It seems to me that when I make comments about Protestantism in general, the next thing I know, somebody posts something about the Lutheran Confessions, AS IF they speak for Protestantism as a whole.

Additionally, when it comes to sacraments, Lutherans are indeed set apart, with the exception of Anglicans.

Indeed ALL Protestants are ‘set aside’, Lutherans and Anglicans included. ALL have reduced the number of Sacraments from 7 to some much smaller number. Some down to three, some to two, and of course some to zero. ALL Protestant’s, including Lutherans, have cast aside Sacraments.

Now, if Tillich wanted to speak out on the disturbing trends of his communion, that’s fine. I already know the disturbing trends in mine, however, without his help. And since the question you asked is about the sacraments, other protestants are irrelevant to the question.

I completely fail to understand how the comments of a Protestant Theologian about the Protestants and the Sacraments can be seen as irrelevant in a conversation about Protestants and the Sacraments. I do though understand how you don’t like what he said.

Not that I’ve seen a plethora of positive comments from you anyway, but then I guess our conversing is over.

As you wish – but I doubt it.

It is our confessional document. Not surprised that you don’t consider them a valid Christian doctrine. You are aware that Cardinal Ratzinger pondered the idea of Augsburg being considered a catholic document.

I am shocked that you would bring up Augsburg. Would you like to revisit the comments made by Marius, Holborn, Schweibert, and Carroll about how the Augsburg Confession was basically an attempt to deceive and to cover over the differences between Catholicism and Lutheranism? Those quotes can be posted again if you like. Furthermore, I have to wonder whether your representation of Ratizinger’s quote is ‘accurate’, or if is more like the ‘fact’ that the Confessions do not speak of anything but the ‘office’ of the papacy.

So let me understand; you want to discuss what separates us, but you do not want to discuss what the confessions say about what separates us.

What separates us Jon IS YOUR CONFESSIONS. Do you honestly believe that the RCC and the LCMS can reach FULL COMMUNION without a substantial and formal ‘revision’ of the FC, or at least those portions which are so blatantly anti-Catholic? We HAVE discussed those portions of the FC and I don’t think that many people were satisfied with your representation of them in that it went directly against the clear sense of the text. In addition, it seems that your attitude is in opposition to your ordained leadership in the form of Preus and Fisk.

Balderdash, and you know it. I referenced his Small and Large Catechism, but… oh, that’s right, you don’t want to discuss that. Anything Luther except what we consider part of our teaching.

“Balderdaah” – Is that like “Horsefeathers” with a British accent? Please don’t tell me you don’t like it when I tell you what you think or believe and then INACCURATELY tell me what I believe! I stand by what I said 100%, and like everything else I say, am more than willing to amplify with actual substance that backs up my point of view.

Read what Melanchthon wrote. It explains the numbering of the sacraments, and how we consider them.

That is the second time in a row you have avoided the question, which is again:

“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”

To Be Continued

 

[Topper17]

Part two to Jon,

Jon, I would suggest that there is no answer you can provide to that question which does not seriously damage your position and THAT is why you won’t answer it.

If you thought there was you would be happy to provide it.

So, how has Luther “authority” affected Catholic teaching on the sacraments? You seem to be so concerned about his authority. His “authority” or lack thereof has had no impact on Catholic teaching that I am aware of. And the things he said that we teach you don’t want to discuss.

That was not the point at all. Luther is in large part responsible for our doctrinal division and for the disunity of Western Christianity, not to mention the even worse disunity within Protestantism. He weakened Christianity for all time, but he DID NOT succeed in changing even ONE doctrine of the Church which Christ founded on earth for us ALL.

Again, if you want to discuss questions of “supreme importance”, then you must being willing to discuss, with mutual respect, and not bash. Lutherans are not held to Luther, but to our confessions, whether you like them or not. To discuss will require I use them. If you can’t do that, then, as I said, our discussing is done.

Your Confessions bear the imprint of Martin Luther, including his hatred for the Catholic Church and Her teachings. They include the exact same terminology that Luther used to denigrate the Church and turn the uneducated common people of his time against the Church.

Jon, you may have respect for the Catholic Church and I appreciate that, but your denomination does not share your attitude AT ALL. Your attempts to portray your denomination as being as ‘ecumenical’ as you are have fallen flat, and as you have noted, not just with me. Since you wrote your post we have ‘received information’ thanks to Betsy. In that we now know that your Protestant denomination will not allow it’s pastors to pray with other Christians and in fact, other Lutherans. Astonishing! Two months ago I would have thought that that story was a joke. I am glad that I do not suffer from that bit of naiveté anymore, and in fact, at this point, would not be shocked by anything originating from the LCMS.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[GraceofGod31]

It makes no sense to me that some LCMS Posters note we should pray for unity when their own synod prohibits praying in public for Unity with someone of another Christian denomination even other Lutherans in the above link. Not only that the 911 fiasco with Benke. That said the comment there was that there were non Christians present.

That said I am back to my original ?

Could the LCMS President pray publicly with the Pope for unity?
Yes or no will suffice.
Mary.

Mary what you fail to understand is that the LCMS do. That is exactly one of the things that separates them from us(the WELS and ELS). We do not share in any form of fellowhip with anyone outside our communion!

 

[Peter_J]

It makes no sense to me that some LCMS Posters note we should pray for unity when their own synod prohibits praying in public for Unity with someone of another Christian denomination even other Lutherans in the above link.

Hi. I’ve been a mostly silent observer of this thread (if you don’t count the sound of head-scratching) but I have to ask, does this ^^ imply that those Easten Orthodox who don’t pray with Roman Catholics (which is quite a lot of them) don’t really pray for Christian unity?

 

[GraceofGod31]

“How do you defend Luther’s ‘authority’ to change EVEN ONE Catholic Sacrament, let alone some number between 7 and 4?”

To Be Continued

Topper,
Luther was able to see Scripture giving authority to three of what the RCC calls sacraments. Let us take marriage for example where does God dispense grace through the rite Of marriage? Is no one outside the RCC or Christianity blessed by their marriages?

We Lutherans take it on God’s Word that specific grace in Christian marriage is found when the man and woman become one flesh and stay connected to the Word and remember they are baptized into Christs death, and are connected to his body the church with all those who believe and receive the true body and blood of our Lord at his table. Marriage holds no grace outside of being connected that way. Or do you believe the marriage ceremony of the pagans equally connects them to God’s grace?

These are my words, but the 4 that the RCC maintains as sacraments that we don’t recognize as such are rights that may provide graces by being connected to Scripture, Baptism, Holy Communion, and Confession and Absolution.

 

[MaryT777]

Mary what you fail to understand is that the LCMS do. That is exactly one of the things that separates them from us(the WELS and ELS). We do not share in any form of fellowhip with anyone outside our communion!

I’m aware of the fellowship issue. I’m speaking to PUBLIC PRAYER.

Why is there this confusion among your leaders when this is appropriate in the issues such as 911 and Sandy Hook? The 911 situation was unbelievable with a Pastor getting permission then reprimanded, the Lutheran Hour pastor’s situation etc.

Why is it so difficult for your leaders to understand that their participation was against
Synod policy on unionism and syncretism.

 

[steido01]

I’m aware of the fellowship issue. I’m speaking to PUBLIC PRAYER.

Why is there this confusion among your leaders when this is appropriate in the issues such as 911 and Sandy Hook? The 911 situation was unbelievable with a Pastor getting permission then reprimanded, the Lutheran Hour pastor’s situation etc.

Why is it so difficult for your leaders to understand that their participation was against
Synod policy on unionism and syncretism.

Mary, there is more than meets the eye in each of these situations. These require a little more understanding than what appears on the surface.

There is no “confusion;” our clergy know where the line is between an acceptable ecumenical “prayer service” and an unacceptable joint-worship service (or a service that appears to be worship-like). The goal is always to offer clear Gospel without the appearance of unionism or syncretism. With that goal in mind, our leaders consider how it is appropriate to pray together with other Christians.

The difficulty in Sandy Hook, as I understand it, was that the ‘Prayer Service’ turned out to be more than just a prayer service - it appeared to be worshiplike. When Pastor Morris agreed to participate, it was with the understanding that no other religious clergy would be robed or vested, and that he would offer prayer only to the One, True God. The plan was agreed to by his District President (bishop), Pastor Yeadon. Then secular President Obama decided to attend and the rug got pulled out on what was actually scheduled to take place - instead of a small prayer service, it became a huge political headline event and the other religions’ clergy decided to robe and vest (check the pictures!). That means it no longer looks like a prayer service, but appears to be a worship service. So poor pastor Morris was stuck in the unenviable position of needing to make a terrible decision at the last minute: appear unionistic through participation, or missing a chance to share the Gospel to a grieving people (which could not happen if he backed out). To his credit, his words were clearly and unabashedly Lutheran, but he did participate. LCMS powers that be (President Harrison and President Yeadon) understood his situation and accepted his apology for participating, in the hopes that the matter would quickly dissolve (As President Harrison noted in the links above, if any readers bothered to read…). Instead, the press took the sensational headline “Conservative church body condemns pastor for praying with grieving people” and the rest… well, Roman Catholics know very well how the smear-the-Christians-public-image game works.

 

[MaryT777]

Mary, there is more than meets the eye in each of these situations. These require a little more understanding than what appears on the surface.

There is no “confusion;” our clergy know where the line is between an acceptable ecumenical “prayer service” and an unacceptable joint-worship service (or a service that appears to be worship-like). The goal is always to offer clear Gospel without the appearance of unionism or syncretism. With that goal in mind, our leaders consider how it is appropriate to pray together with other Christians.

The difficulty in Sandy Hook, as I understand it, was that the ‘Prayer Service’ turned out to be more than just a prayer service - it appeared to be worshiplike. When Pastor Morris agreed to participate, it was with the understanding that no other religious clergy would be robed or vested, and that he would offer prayer only to the One, True God. The plan was agreed to by his District President (bishop), Pastor Yeadon. Then secular President Obama decided to attend and the rug got pulled out on what was actually scheduled to take place - instead of a small prayer service, it became a huge political headline event and the other religions’ clergy decided to robe and vest (check the pictures!). That means it no longer looks like a prayer service, but appears to be a worship service. So poor pastor Morris was stuck in the unenviable position of needing to make a terrible decision at the last minute: appear unionistic through participation, or missing a chance to share the Gospel to a grieving people (which could not happen if he backed out). To his credit, his words were clearly and unabashedly Lutheran, but he did participate. LCMS powers that be (President Harrison and President Yeadon) understood his situation and accepted his apology for participating, in the hopes that the matter would quickly dissolve (As President Harrison noted in the links above, if any readers bothered to read…). Instead, the press took the sensational headline “Conservative church body condemns pastor for praying with grieving people” and the rest… well, Roman Catholics know very well how the smear-the-Christians-public-image game works.

Are you saying if a Clergy is Robed and Vested in any way then the LCMS Pastor
cannot participate?

Not only that, the Sandy Hook Pastor could have said now he could not participate even at the LAST MINUTE to be true to the confessions. That is what true faith asks us to do.
I wonder if some of the leaders are not so confident in the Confessional teachings of avoiding unionism and syncretism as viable now.

I stand by the position the LCMS is unwilling to back out of situations like Sandy Hook
and 911 because they are FEARFUL of the backlash from doing so and the impression it leaves in the minds of people. It hurts “Church Growth” in a BIG way.

Mary.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Betsy,

Thanks again for the link. Very revealing! :tsktsk:

Ahem… nypost.com/2013/02/08/lutheran-pastor-apologizes-for-attending-sandy-hook-interfaith-vigil/

This kind of thing makes the LCMS look extremely insular, IMHO.

Given that this thread is about converting from the LCMS, it seems appropriate to post the whole of the article that Betsy linked us to. The article was written in the NY Post. I could not make this stuff up because I don’t have that good an imagination. This article is though, very telling in regards to the tolerance of the LCMS for other faiths, including other Lutherans. It would seem that the comments by the past President of the LCMS at the end of this article sum up the situation far better than I could.
.
Lutheran pastor apologizes for attending Sandy Hook interfaith vigil

By Post Staff Report

February 8, 2013 | 3:05pm

A conservative Lutheran group has reprimanded a Newtown, Conn., pastor for participating in an interfaith vigil after the Sandy Hook massacre.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod said the Rev. Rob Morris of Christ the King Lutheran Church inadvertently gave the impression he condoned joint worship by offering the benediction at a Dec. 16 event with other religious leaders for the elementary school shooting victims.

The church constitution bars clergy from praying with representatives from other religions, including some other Lutheran groups, for fear of giving the appearance that theological differences about salvation and other doctrines aren’t significant.

The vigil included Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Baha’i leaders. President Barack Obama and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy attended.

In a statement posted Feb. 1 on a denominational blog, the Missouri Synod president, the Rev. Matthew Harrison, said Morris took “specific and commendable” steps to avoid violating the church’s constitution: Morris requested an announcement before the event that participating clergy were not endorsing each other’s views, and he read from Scripture.

However, Harrison concluded that the event was joint worship since other clergy wore their vestments and the vigil included prayers and religious readings.

“There is sometimes a real tension between wanting to bear witness to Christ and at the same time avoiding situations which may give the impression that our differences with respect to who God is, who Jesus is, how he deals with us and how we get to heaven, really don’t matter in the end,” Harrison wrote.

Morris does not believe he engaged in joint worship, but has apologized, Harrison said.

“I accept his apology,” Harrison wrote, and made what he called an earnest request that no one file a complaint against Morris under the denomination’s disciplinary system.

Harrison declined to comment further Thursday. But Vicki Biggs, a spokeswoman for the denomination, said, “We are proud of the work Pastor Morris has done in Newtown and how he has served the community in so many ways.”

In his own statement, Morris underscored the steps he took to avoid any appearance he was supporting other doctrines.

“To those who believe that I have endorsed false teaching, I assure you that was not my intent, and I give you my unreserved apologies,” he wrote. “I did not believe my participation to be an act of joint worship, but one of mercy and care to a community shocked and grieving an unspeakably horrific event. However, I recognize others in our church consider it to constitute joint worship and I understand why.”

The denomination has been struggling for years with this rule, which is currently under a broad review. The church constitution requires congregants to renounce “unionism and syncretism of every description.” A Missouri Synod pastor, the Rev. David Benke, was suspended for a time after participating in a Yankee Stadium interfaith service soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that was held in Yankee Stadium. About two dozen pastors and a few congregations had complained about Benke’s involvement.

The Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, the former Missouri Synod president who had defended Benke, has also spoken out in support of Morris. Kieschnick wrote on his blog that Morris was “responding in a pastoral way to people in need of healing and hope.” Outsiders watching this dispute will “shake their heads in disgust and dismay. For them, the image of our church becomes one of isolationism, sectarianism and legalism,” Kieschnick said.

The 2.3 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, based in the St. Louis area, is separate from the larger, liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, based in Chicago.

God Bless You Betsy, Topper (the definition of an 'outsider)

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Betsy,

Thanks again for the link. Very revealing! :tsktsk:

Given that this thread is about converting from the LCMS, it seems appropriate to post the whole of the article that Betsy linked us to. The article was written in the NY Post. I could not make this stuff up because I don’t have that good an imagination. This article is though, very telling in regards to the tolerance of the LCMS for other faiths, including other Lutherans. It would seem that the comments by the past President of the LCMS at the end of this article sum up the situation far better than I could.
.
Lutheran pastor apologizes for attending Sandy Hook interfaith vigil

By Post Staff Report

February 8, 2013 | 3:05pm

A conservative Lutheran group has reprimanded a Newtown, Conn., pastor for participating in an interfaith vigil after the Sandy Hook massacre.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod said the Rev. Rob Morris of Christ the King Lutheran Church inadvertently gave the impression he condoned joint worship by offering the benediction at a Dec. 16 event with other religious leaders for the elementary school shooting victims.

The church constitution bars clergy from praying with representatives from other religions, including some other Lutheran groups, for fear of giving the appearance that theological differences about salvation and other doctrines aren’t significant.

The vigil included Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Baha’i leaders. President Barack Obama and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy attended.

In a statement posted Feb. 1 on a denominational blog, the Missouri Synod president, the Rev. Matthew Harrison, said Morris took “specific and commendable” steps to avoid violating the church’s constitution: Morris requested an announcement before the event that participating clergy were not endorsing each other’s views, and he read from Scripture.

However, Harrison concluded that the event was joint worship since other clergy wore their vestments and the vigil included prayers and religious readings.

“There is sometimes a real tension between wanting to bear witness to Christ and at the same time avoiding situations which may give the impression that our differences with respect to who God is, who Jesus is, how he deals with us and how we get to heaven, really don’t matter in the end,” Harrison wrote.

Morris does not believe he engaged in joint worship, but has apologized, Harrison said.

“I accept his apology,” Harrison wrote, and made what he called an earnest request that no one file a complaint against Morris under the denomination’s disciplinary system.

Harrison declined to comment further Thursday. But Vicki Biggs, a spokeswoman for the denomination, said, “We are proud of the work Pastor Morris has done in Newtown and how he has served the community in so many ways.”

In his own statement, Morris underscored the steps he took to avoid any appearance he was supporting other doctrines.

“To those who believe that I have endorsed false teaching, I assure you that was not my intent, and I give you my unreserved apologies,” he wrote. “I did not believe my participation to be an act of joint worship, but one of mercy and care to a community shocked and grieving an unspeakably horrific event. However, I recognize others in our church consider it to constitute joint worship and I understand why.”

The denomination has been struggling for years with this rule, which is currently under a broad review. The church constitution requires congregants to renounce “unionism and syncretism of every description.” A Missouri Synod pastor, the Rev. David Benke, was suspended for a time after participating in a Yankee Stadium interfaith service soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that was held in Yankee Stadium. About two dozen pastors and a few congregations had complained about Benke’s involvement.

The Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, the former Missouri Synod president who had defended Benke, has also spoken out in support of Morris. Kieschnick wrote on his blog that Morris was “responding in a pastoral way to people in need of healing and hope.” Outsiders watching this dispute will “shake their heads in disgust and dismay. For them, the image of our church becomes one of isolationism, sectarianism and legalism,” Kieschnick said.

The 2.3 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, based in the St. Louis area, is separate from the larger, liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, based in Chicago.

God Bless You Betsy, Topper (the definition of an 'outsider)

I don’t see how anyone LCMS cannot read this article and if it is correct see how the lCMS leadership fails in even understanding their own rules regarding unionism and syncretism.

After Harrison speaks, the Pastor says he does not BELIEVE he did participate in
Worship. But he apologized anyway. Then Harrison begs it seems quite frankly for no one to bring “disciplinary action” against him.

Geez.
Mary.

 

[steido01]

Are you saying if a Clergy is Robed and Vested in any way then the LCMS Pastor cannot participate?

It’s not so simple as that, but it is usually a contributing factor. When one thinks of a priest or pastor in full robe and vestment, it is typically in the context of worship - not simple prayer. The public also makes this connection. This is why it is important to avoid anything that could appear as “joint-worship” - it makes it look like we are worshiping together when, in reality, we are not. Mourn together, pray together, but we cannot worship together and should not appear to do so. That would be disingenuous and harmful.

Not only that, the Sandy Hook Pastor could have said now he could not participate even at the LAST MINUTE to be true to the confessions. That is what true faith asks us to do.

Sure. And I think that’s part of why he was asked to apologize; he took part in something that he should not have - even if it was not supposed to be like that when he agreed to take part. In his view in that moment, the greater good was the necessity to share the Gospel. I can’t fault him there, and neither did the Synod. Re-read the three men’s unified statement above.

I wonder if some of the leaders are not so confident in the Confessional teachings of avoiding unionism and syncretism as viable now.

When principles are in tension, it does not mean we need discard one or the other. For instance, in the United States we have freedom of speech and freedom of privacy. What happens when people want to exercise their freedom of speech outside of, say, an abortion clinic where someone else wants to exercise their freedom of privacy? Where two principles conflict, there is a gray area. Participation in a prayer service is one such area, so while I respect those who refuse to take part altogether in order to avoid the conflict (WELS. ELS), I think the tension can be mediated with careful deliberation. This is what the leaders of the LCMS attempted to carefully do.

I stand by the position the LCMS is unwilling to back out of situations like Sandy Hook and 911 because they are FEARFUL of the backlash from doing so and the impression it leaves in the minds of people.

Mary, now I’m confused. Earlier, you seemed upset that the LCMS doesn’t pray nice with others, and now you’re upset with us for trying to do so. I don’t know what to tell you, other than the truth: we pray together when it is appropriate.

 

[steido01]

After Harrison speaks, the Pastor says he does not BELIEVE he did participate in Worship. But he apologized anyway. Then Harrison begs it seems quite frankly for no one to bring “disciplinary action” against him.

Geez.

Again, Mary, it is not participating in Worship, but appearing to. We need to bear witness, but that witness must be to Truth.

People seem worked up about this online, but I assure you the heads are much cooler in the LCMS. It seems 90+% of the people offended aren’t even Lutheran.