An Ecumenical Moment for One
Jul 31, 2009
Russell E. Saltzman
During its August 17–23 national church convention in Minneapolis, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America seems poised to approve same-sex relations and the ordination of pastors in same-sex relationships. The history behind this move, which will be decided by a majority vote, is too tedious to repeat. Just call to mind the similar success of churnings within the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church and you’ll have an adequate understanding of it. Presbyterians and United Methodists have so far held off the radical assaults from the Christian left. But since ELCA Lutherans are now firmly part of the Christian left, few resources exist to turn back this latest attempt.
It isn’t about homosexuality. That in the moment is merely the presenting issue following a long, long line of revisionist propositions that have found a home with the Christian left. The authority of Scripture, the reality of sin, the name of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—all these and other critical expositions on God’s revelation to humanity have been under sustained attack. When these go, well, only sex is left and here we are, about to bless what Scripture, natural law, and common sense itself condemns.
This will not pass without notice, of course. The only question is how much self-inflicted damage will be sustained by a denomination already seriously damaged. The ELCA has steadily lost membership and congregations every year since 1987, the year the ELCA was formed by a merger of three Lutheran bodies. Adoption of the proposed change in standards for ordination and approval of same-sex relationships seems a sure way to accelerate the losses. One of the ELCA’s largest congregations—Community of Joy in Arizona—withdrew from the ELCA a few months ago, anticipating the August convention. Others are just waiting it out.
There are further stirrings going on. A confessional outfit called Lutheran Coalition for Reform (CORE) is planning a congregational convocation in Indianapolis a month after the ELCA self-destructs in Minneapolis. (Self-disclosure moment: I am a member of CORE’s advisory panel.)
But what exactly CORE will do remains murky. Possible reactions range from a wimpy “gee, we wish you hadn’t done that” sort of declaration to formation of yet another Lutheran church body, much as disaffected Episcopalians have done. I say “yet another” because there are already at last count twenty-two Lutheran synodical bodies in North America: The two big ones—the ELCA and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod—and twenty others, most of which could hold their “national” church gatherings comfortably in a New York efficiency apartment and still have space for any news reporters that bothered showing up. There is a sort of sour gloominess at the prospect of organizing still one more micro-church body for Lutherans in America. Somehow I just don’t think this is what the world has been awaiting.
A middle position talked about would be to organize a Lutheran order of pastors and congregations—a ministerium as Lutherans would call it—“in, but not of” the ELCA. This has but limited prospects because it has already been tried. Lutheran Churches in Mission for Christ (now one of the micro-synods) a bit less than a decade ago attempted to create a dual-membership arrangement for congregations. The ELCA responded by removing them from the congregational roster. This didn’t get much press mostly because the congregations being removed had no real objection, there were few of them to begin with, and because Lutheran congregations own their own property, everyone avoided unseemly judicial brouhahas that have marked Episcopal expulsions. Besides, the media believe Episcopal scuffles are ever so much sexier than anything contrived by a bunch of Lake Woebegonians.
Frankly, the creation of one more Lutheran church body in America is a dauntingly depressive possibility. I’m not entirely certain I want anything to do with it . . . unless we’re talking about a ministerium organized to open dialogue on becoming a Roman Catholic affiliate, congregations, pastors, the whole caboodle, eventually seeking full communion with the bishop of Rome. If Rome cooperates, this ought to be pretty easy. Just think of us as inactive members seeking reinstatement. In my congregation, an officially inactive member is welcomed back to full fellowship by making a contribution and receiving Holy Communion, and sometimes we’ve been known to even skip the contribution part. Couldn’t the Church of Rome handle that? There might be a few subsidiary issues to settle, but get us inside first and everything else becomes manageable. What is needed here is a brave archbishop or two, together taking cognizance of what is about to happen to the ELCA, and stepping forward as potential shepherds. Can’t really call it stealing sheep if the previous shepherd has run off, can you?
No, I’m not being facetious. Not altogether. The original intent of the sixteenth century Reformers wasn’t to start a new church but to be a witness for evangelical reform within the one church. Our Lutheran confessional documents—notably the Augsburg Confession of 1530—forcefully argues that nothing Lutherans taught was contrary to the faith of the church catholic, nor even contrary to that faith held by the Church of Rome. As it has happened, much to our Lutheran chagrin, late twentieth century Rome itself become a better witness to an evangelical gospel than early twenty-first century Lutherans have proved capable of being. And for all the radical Lutheran polemic coming after Augsburg—you know, about the pope being the latest anti-Christ sitting on the throne of the whore of Babylon—truth is, these days, I get far less trouble from the bishop of Rome than I get from my own bishop.
Some time in the mid-1980s Richard John Neuhaus told me—with no little optimism, I might add—that fifty Lutheran pastors and their congregations seeking fellowship with Rome would become an ecumenical moment. After he himself became Roman Catholic following formation of the ELCA he lowered the number to a more modest twenty-five. Facing the August convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and its inevitable aftermath, I’m wondering, how about one?
Russell E. Saltzman is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri.
Comments:
7.31.2009 | 6:00am
TW says:
I am a confirmed ELCA Lutheran who has become disaffected & am on my own path to Rome. Father Neuhaus was right in his conversion letter. At some point, the splintered church factions need to reexamine why they are currently "distinct" from the Church & what they really stand for. Archimedes said ,"Give me a place to stand & I will move the Earth." Where does the modern Lutheran church stand? If the most publicized stance is a democratic vote on the status of homosexuality, then I fear that the Lutheran church has left me as I am beginning to leave the Lutheran church...
7.31.2009 | 7:28am
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
Leaving for Rome is the solution? Huh?
Let's see, there are still Lutherans in this country who reject the ordination of woman as anti-apostolic and anti-catholic, contrary to the faith once given to the saints, who think killing people while they are still in their mother's womb is murder, and who also still subscribe wholeheartedly to the Lutheran Confessions, who, despite their particular Lutheran church affiliation still with to be, and remain, Lutheran.
I'm surprised Pastor Saltzman regard "Pope-ing" to be an option even worth considering, but then again more than a few Lutherans have drunk the Roman kool-aid.
I'll be at that gathering in Indy, Russ. Bringing along a few old Lutheran books and things. See you there?
Let's see, there are still Lutherans in this country who reject the ordination of woman as anti-apostolic and anti-catholic, contrary to the faith once given to the saints, who think killing people while they are still in their mother's womb is murder, and who also still subscribe wholeheartedly to the Lutheran Confessions, who, despite their particular Lutheran church affiliation still with to be, and remain, Lutheran.
I'm surprised Pastor Saltzman regard "Pope-ing" to be an option even worth considering, but then again more than a few Lutherans have drunk the Roman kool-aid.
I'll be at that gathering in Indy, Russ. Bringing along a few old Lutheran books and things. See you there?
7.31.2009 | 7:32am
linda wolpert smith says:
Scriptural basis for unity of all followers of Christ - members of Christ's body - is clear. I experienced the pain of our disunity while studying the Bible with a large group of well-educated, devout believers in Texas. When again and again - in lectures reflecting extensive knowledge of the text - the "Word" was used to refer to the book, I had to supress saying, "JESUS is the Word - he can be encountered at Mass, here and now, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar". I was there as a guest and it was only right that I endure the pain of separation silently. But I continue to endure it and would truly, personally rejoice at every family reunion that may take place through God's grace.
7.31.2009 | 8:16am
Michael Horvath says:
It is ny understaing that historically, the Protestant reformers position was that it was scripture alone that was the basis of their faith, and that the individual and not any hierarchy was the interpetres of scripture.
In fact, I believe that Henry, in his usurping Petrine authority, was concerned that Protestantism was a danger to his own authority, if the individual could determine their own moral compass.
Is it not ironic now, that hierarchies within these splintered denominations are now imposing their interpretations of scripture on their congregants.
In fact, I believe that Henry, in his usurping Petrine authority, was concerned that Protestantism was a danger to his own authority, if the individual could determine their own moral compass.
Is it not ironic now, that hierarchies within these splintered denominations are now imposing their interpretations of scripture on their congregants.
7.31.2009 | 9:36am
Doug Newman says:
Rev. Saltzman, being a catholic-minded Lutheran I can sympathize with your frustration. I grew up in one of those micro-Lutheran bodies and now am a member of a Missouri Synod church, holding my breath at some of the Biblicism around me (instead of the liberalism of the ELCA). It's a trade I can live with, though not enthusiastically. It's an interesting comment about the ecumenical moment of 25 Lutheran congregations, or even "one" pastor, effectively abandoned by your Synod. I often think along the same lines. I think personally for me, it's because I cannot relate to, as Father Neuhaus used to write about, that becoming Catholic helped him be a better Lutheran (please excuse the relative accuracy of the paraphrase - I'm a business person not a professional academic!). No, it seems to me the Catholic Church would want, forgive the Star Trek reference, a Borg-like conversion, stripping away everything I would have held dear about my history. It's hard to swallow that in the church I might return to, my people's entire history of the last 500 years is one of, not to put too fine a word on it, heresy. There will never be (realistically) a recognized Lutheran saint, though I'm sure in heaven Rev. Bonheoffer and many others in their earthly mission to the Kingdom are well thought of. It's because of this that I believe Rome is not as catholic yet as she can become, and why I believe God allows His Spirit to work effectively still through our ecclesial communities: Rome still today needs our witness, even more so the weakness of our situation, as brothers and sisters alive together in a certain unity, and a disunity.
(Well, I better get back to trying to make a company go...where's my TARP money????)
Doug Newman
New York
(Well, I better get back to trying to make a company go...where's my TARP money????)
Doug Newman
New York
7.31.2009 | 9:58am
Chris says:
It's a curious commonplace among disaffected Protestants, of any variety: whenever a denomination has split into 'liberal' and 'conservative' camps, those few who labor in the 'liberal' camp, all the while naively assuming they could maintain basic Christian doctrines, eventually get upset when their 'liberal' church follows their liberalism to its logical end and goes heterodox. What's curious is how few of these disillusioned people wind up going back to the 'conservative' wing of their fractured denomination and how many of them wind up seeing Rome as the only option. Where does the modern Lutheran church stand? I'm not a Lutheran, but it seems to me that true Lutheranism stands where it always stood and the Book of Concord lays out those beliefs quite nicely. The ELCA, like all other liberal denominations, stands for precious little, and arguably, never has. The key doctrines that divide Rome from the rest of Christendom haven't changed, despite all appearances; might not a Lutheran remain a Lutheran? I know of at least one Lutheran group that still maintains adherence to classic Lutheranism; follow the Rev. McCain's link above for more information.
7.31.2009 | 11:09am
Mark H. says:
"The history behind this move, which will be decided by a majority vote, is too tedious to repeat."
Yes. The surprising ways in which Luther's concept of the priesthood of all believers continues to bring about the inclusion of ever-greater number of believers probably do seem tedious to those who don't want to consider that God's hand might be behind these events.
Yes. The surprising ways in which Luther's concept of the priesthood of all believers continues to bring about the inclusion of ever-greater number of believers probably do seem tedious to those who don't want to consider that God's hand might be behind these events.
7.31.2009 | 11:13am
Gail F says:
Mr. Newman wrote: "No, it seems to me the Catholic Church would want, forgive the Star Trek reference, a Borg-like conversion, stripping away everything I would have held dear about my history. It's hard to swallow that in the church I might return to, my people's entire history of the last 500 years is one of, not to put too fine a word on it, heresy. There will never be (realistically) a recognized Lutheran saint, though I'm sure in heaven Rev. Bonheoffer and many others in their earthly mission to the Kingdom are well thought of."
Perhaps you should find out what the Catholic Church really would require, rather than guessing. Although I think you might be correct about the heresy part, at least for the next few decades. Lutherans did leave the Church, so there is no reason to believe that the Catholic heirarchy would ever say they didn't, especially considering that so many of the reasons the Lutherans left have long been corrected. Personally, I think that a case for Bonhoeffer and others might be made decades from now, if a significant number of Lutherans returned to the Church and so historically Lutherans could be considered a temporarily separated body, and the whole thing could be considered without all the emotion that is inevitable now. The Catholic Church thinks in centuries, so it could happen. I sympathize with your love for Lutheranism's past, but it doesn't seem that too many Lutherans of the present love it as you do, and what about the future Lutherans, assuming there are any?
I do not mean to be glib. These are heart-wrenching events and decisions. But as a Catholic looking at Lutherans from the outside, I just don't see any "there" there. I have some dear relatives who are Episcopalians, and they are either ignoring The Epsicopal Church and concentrating on their local parish, or they are joining ever-smaller "traditionalist" groups. That makes them happy temporarily, but it's not a sustainable response.
Perhaps you should find out what the Catholic Church really would require, rather than guessing. Although I think you might be correct about the heresy part, at least for the next few decades. Lutherans did leave the Church, so there is no reason to believe that the Catholic heirarchy would ever say they didn't, especially considering that so many of the reasons the Lutherans left have long been corrected. Personally, I think that a case for Bonhoeffer and others might be made decades from now, if a significant number of Lutherans returned to the Church and so historically Lutherans could be considered a temporarily separated body, and the whole thing could be considered without all the emotion that is inevitable now. The Catholic Church thinks in centuries, so it could happen. I sympathize with your love for Lutheranism's past, but it doesn't seem that too many Lutherans of the present love it as you do, and what about the future Lutherans, assuming there are any?
I do not mean to be glib. These are heart-wrenching events and decisions. But as a Catholic looking at Lutherans from the outside, I just don't see any "there" there. I have some dear relatives who are Episcopalians, and they are either ignoring The Epsicopal Church and concentrating on their local parish, or they are joining ever-smaller "traditionalist" groups. That makes them happy temporarily, but it's not a sustainable response.
7.31.2009 | 11:40am
PCJ, sts says:
Well said, brother Russ. You articulate what my definite discernment has been for at least 4 years. Seems to me that the Reformation project has run it's course and is now thoroughly spent. The ELCA is now thoroghly liberal protestant, but I don't believe the Holy Spirit wants us to be conservative protestants either. The truth path is to simply be faithful Catholics!
7.31.2009 | 11:50am
Roberto Bencivenga says:
I am not sure what Doug Newman is referring to when describing the Catholic Church's attitude as Borg-like. I would suggest a careful review of what the Church (the Vatican, if you prefer) actually does and has done recently in relation to brothers and sisters in Christ coming back home.
Will the Church accept or condone positions contrary to its teaching? Of course not, but neither does any protestant denomination, or why would they keep splitting? Will she consider specific allowances like what Rev. Saltzman is suggesting? She has done so before is doing it now and there is no reason it should not be done in the future.
Would you rather spend your life planning ever new splits and political battles, or learning the great depths of the true Faith? The choice is yours and I pray that God may assist you all in making the right one.
Will the Church accept or condone positions contrary to its teaching? Of course not, but neither does any protestant denomination, or why would they keep splitting? Will she consider specific allowances like what Rev. Saltzman is suggesting? She has done so before is doing it now and there is no reason it should not be done in the future.
Would you rather spend your life planning ever new splits and political battles, or learning the great depths of the true Faith? The choice is yours and I pray that God may assist you all in making the right one.
7.31.2009 | 12:22pm
Devin Rose says:
To Doug Newman and Rev. McCain,
Pope Benedict several years ago, speaking on ecumenism, said:
"This unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not! It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in disciplines."
I take that to mean that, all that is good in Lutheranism is not lost nor thrown out if and when you enter full communion with the Catholic Church, but rather those good things are kept. What unity means, however, is unity of doctrine: We cannot claim to be unified and yet believe mutually exclusive things about baptism, marriage, the Eucharist, what the Church is, etc. because either one belief is true or the other is (or none are in which case we are both in trouble).
More analysis here: http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2005/09/papa-ratzi-on-ecumenism-of-return.html
Pope Benedict several years ago, speaking on ecumenism, said:
"This unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not! It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in disciplines."
I take that to mean that, all that is good in Lutheranism is not lost nor thrown out if and when you enter full communion with the Catholic Church, but rather those good things are kept. What unity means, however, is unity of doctrine: We cannot claim to be unified and yet believe mutually exclusive things about baptism, marriage, the Eucharist, what the Church is, etc. because either one belief is true or the other is (or none are in which case we are both in trouble).
More analysis here: http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2005/09/papa-ratzi-on-ecumenism-of-return.html
7.31.2009 | 2:52pm
Doug Newman says:
Devin - well said by Pope Benedict. Were that the total experience of the Roman church embraced such teaching. But today, in my opinion, it does not. It's exactly because - as Gail F implies - that such recognition as someone like a Bonhoeffer would need decades or centuries to be recognized (if it could ever happen at all) - that I do not believe the actual experience of the Roman Catholic church in her catholicity matches yet the soaring rhetoric of Pope Benedict. And that I still see a need to the church catholic of a witness to catholicity within and outside of Roman walls.
As for the unity of doctine that Devin speaks of: what are those things completely settled and unified? First Things is full of theological debates concerning issues not settled - i.e. the descent into hell and its meaning; the possibility of a zero population hell. And it also brings to discussion that the supposedly settled doctrinal anathemas of the 16th century can be brought into new light and debate, hence the JDDJ. I am 100% for your sentiments that the church catholic should be definatively on the side of orthodoxy. My perspective I suspect is different on where the totality of that catholicity and orthodoxy lies, and what my (very small) role seems to be in bringing those hallmarks to purity in the church catholic.
Robert, I believe I am a member as you of the one faith, know the one Lord, and have experienced the one baptism. The catholicity we share is sure. Still, I'm not so sure there is such a clear right choice, but that's for reasons discussed above.
Thanks all for your comments back to me! God bless.
Doug
As for the unity of doctine that Devin speaks of: what are those things completely settled and unified? First Things is full of theological debates concerning issues not settled - i.e. the descent into hell and its meaning; the possibility of a zero population hell. And it also brings to discussion that the supposedly settled doctrinal anathemas of the 16th century can be brought into new light and debate, hence the JDDJ. I am 100% for your sentiments that the church catholic should be definatively on the side of orthodoxy. My perspective I suspect is different on where the totality of that catholicity and orthodoxy lies, and what my (very small) role seems to be in bringing those hallmarks to purity in the church catholic.
Robert, I believe I am a member as you of the one faith, know the one Lord, and have experienced the one baptism. The catholicity we share is sure. Still, I'm not so sure there is such a clear right choice, but that's for reasons discussed above.
Thanks all for your comments back to me! God bless.
Doug
7.31.2009 | 3:31pm
Riley Kinney says:
I have come to the decision to join Roman Catholicism and leave the LC-MS. Any desire to become an ELCA member died years ago. An honest reading of Karl Adam's "Roots of the Reformation", some Chesterton and other relevant works, not to leave out much prayer did it for me.
7.31.2009 | 3:37pm
Kyle says:
You know, I would really like to join a Lutheran church in full communion with Rome. I would really, really, really like to do that. There is only one true Church; when we refuse communion with each other, then we tear the body of Chirst asunder, leaving His bleeding limbs on the ground. His blood cries out to the Lord even now! How can we resist it?
7.31.2009 | 5:01pm
Roberto Bencivenga says:
I am still confused by Doug Newman's position, since he seems to misunderstand or contradict what the Catholic Church is actually about.
Regarding Bonhoeffer, his not being in full communion with the Church makes his canonization impossible, so if that is what Doug is waiting for, it will not likely happen in the near future. BUT...
But not because the Church believes that he is not in Heaven! Rather because his ecclesiological beliefs prevent the Church NOW from DECLARING that he is in Heaven. There is a big difference there that I suspect Doug is not considering properly. My understanding is that in the eyes of the Church, he may still be in Purgatory (ah yes, the old canard), but his status as a man of great faith, as an example for all Christians and a great theologian is well recognized in Catholic circles, nor has the Church denied that (correct me if I am wrong).
My point continues to be that rather than continuing the splintering of Lutheran groups, it may be more profitable to deepen our understanding of the Magisterium and enter into the lively debates that do occur among Catholics as well as Christians in general.
Regarding Bonhoeffer, his not being in full communion with the Church makes his canonization impossible, so if that is what Doug is waiting for, it will not likely happen in the near future. BUT...
But not because the Church believes that he is not in Heaven! Rather because his ecclesiological beliefs prevent the Church NOW from DECLARING that he is in Heaven. There is a big difference there that I suspect Doug is not considering properly. My understanding is that in the eyes of the Church, he may still be in Purgatory (ah yes, the old canard), but his status as a man of great faith, as an example for all Christians and a great theologian is well recognized in Catholic circles, nor has the Church denied that (correct me if I am wrong).
My point continues to be that rather than continuing the splintering of Lutheran groups, it may be more profitable to deepen our understanding of the Magisterium and enter into the lively debates that do occur among Catholics as well as Christians in general.
7.31.2009 | 7:48pm
Bob G says:
What a poignant time we're in: 500 years of Protestant passion, invective and sacrifice coming to an end with a whimper!
One feels so empathetic for a Doug Newman. Perhaps, though, he might consider that many Lutherans and others who preceded him into the Catholic Church started with the same fears, and discovered to their surprise that they were unnecessary.
My compassion for the foundering Protestants is heightened by my own lifetime-Catholic experience that our own Church is not entirely healthy. But at least it's functioning and has hope.
Again, think how bad the situation must be (especially secular society, once so strongly Protestant) if Protestants are becoming ready to go into the Catholic Church. Things are really bad out there!
One feels so empathetic for a Doug Newman. Perhaps, though, he might consider that many Lutherans and others who preceded him into the Catholic Church started with the same fears, and discovered to their surprise that they were unnecessary.
My compassion for the foundering Protestants is heightened by my own lifetime-Catholic experience that our own Church is not entirely healthy. But at least it's functioning and has hope.
Again, think how bad the situation must be (especially secular society, once so strongly Protestant) if Protestants are becoming ready to go into the Catholic Church. Things are really bad out there!
7.31.2009 | 8:31pm
Bill Harnist says:
WHY DO THE LUTTHERANS HAVE TO FORM ANOTHERY "SYNOD," OR ORGANIZATION? WHY DON'T THOSE CHURCHES JUST GO INDEPENDENT?
7.31.2009 | 11:31pm
Perry Barinowski says:
I wonder why so many of those mainline denomination members seeing things going the way they are don't consider other options, such as Souther Baptist, Presbyterian Church in America or non-denominational? To run to Rome is to return to heresy, to stay where they are isn't much different. I know I will not tolerate staying in a place where truth is so little revered. A wonderful spiritual home could await if we all hold a little less tightly to those denominational, but not truth-critical distinctives.
8.1.2009 | 1:48am
JCS says:
Doug,
Your resistance to a "Borg-like conversion" is natural, but that's not what happens, at least not in my experience. I'm a convert to Catholicism from various Protestantisms; I've attended church regularly with Methodists, Lutherans (one of those micro-synods), and Baptists. I've discovered that there's a readjustment that goes on, (and on and on), where the good patches from my non-Catholic heritage become woven into my present Catholic experience and the bad bits are left behind. It's a purification, leaving the gold while abandoning the dross, but it's more than that; this gold is itself shaped into something better that is to be joined with and into the Church.
For instance, the great non-sequitors in my life occurred during the first time I attended Mass. I leafed through the hymnal and discovered that "A Mighty Fortress is Our God", by Martin Luther, was placed at the very front of the Catholic hymnal. This hymn, that was probably written with God considered to be a defense against the Catholic Church, is now sung at Catholic Masses.
Yes my example is a small point, and yes, even if there is a full and complete reconciliation between Protestant and Catholic Churches, there will always be tension between Catholic orthodoxy and various Protestant thinkers. It can't completely be eliminated. There's still friction between Catholicism and Church fathers such as Tertullian and Origen, who, despite their errors, are still considered Church fathers. St. Augustine never completely abandoned some of the ideas of the neo-Platonists; in fact, he credits them in part with leading him to Christ, but only up to a point. They couldn't bring him completely to the place where, "his heart found rest."
"Time is short, and eternity is long." - John Henry Newman. All the best Doug.
Your resistance to a "Borg-like conversion" is natural, but that's not what happens, at least not in my experience. I'm a convert to Catholicism from various Protestantisms; I've attended church regularly with Methodists, Lutherans (one of those micro-synods), and Baptists. I've discovered that there's a readjustment that goes on, (and on and on), where the good patches from my non-Catholic heritage become woven into my present Catholic experience and the bad bits are left behind. It's a purification, leaving the gold while abandoning the dross, but it's more than that; this gold is itself shaped into something better that is to be joined with and into the Church.
For instance, the great non-sequitors in my life occurred during the first time I attended Mass. I leafed through the hymnal and discovered that "A Mighty Fortress is Our God", by Martin Luther, was placed at the very front of the Catholic hymnal. This hymn, that was probably written with God considered to be a defense against the Catholic Church, is now sung at Catholic Masses.
Yes my example is a small point, and yes, even if there is a full and complete reconciliation between Protestant and Catholic Churches, there will always be tension between Catholic orthodoxy and various Protestant thinkers. It can't completely be eliminated. There's still friction between Catholicism and Church fathers such as Tertullian and Origen, who, despite their errors, are still considered Church fathers. St. Augustine never completely abandoned some of the ideas of the neo-Platonists; in fact, he credits them in part with leading him to Christ, but only up to a point. They couldn't bring him completely to the place where, "his heart found rest."
"Time is short, and eternity is long." - John Henry Newman. All the best Doug.
8.1.2009 | 3:04pm
Francis Beckwith says:
I jumped into the Tiber and swam it. The water's fine. :-)
More seriously, however, let me recommend the essay written by my friend, Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, "A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism." You may find it helpful. You can find it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11214897/A-Lutherans-Case-for-Catholicism
More seriously, however, let me recommend the essay written by my friend, Robert Koons, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, "A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism." You may find it helpful. You can find it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11214897/A-Lutherans-Case-for-Catholicism
8.1.2009 | 10:11pm
Steve says:
For Bill Harnist
Why do Lutherans need a synod or other sort of organization?
We're German. Structure makes us comfortable. Paperwork too.
Why do Lutherans need a synod or other sort of organization?
We're German. Structure makes us comfortable. Paperwork too.
8.1.2009 | 10:48pm
Gail F says:
Perry: I don't know the answer to your question, but I suspect it's that people from mainline churches still maintain an idea that the Catholic Church is wrong and they are right. When their denomination does something they cannot agree with, they wonder if the Catholic Church was right after all -- not which of the many denominations might be more right than theirs. I think that if a church is "truth-central," one should be able to find it by various marks: universality, for instance, and a continuous history from the time of the apostles. Denominational churches cannot claim these things, and non-denominational churches don't care about them.
Lutherans, as far as I understand it, particularly see themselves as being the true Church in this way -- but it's increasingly hard to justify this in light of the many changes Lutherans are making from their own traditions, much less from the Catholic ones.
Lutherans, as far as I understand it, particularly see themselves as being the true Church in this way -- but it's increasingly hard to justify this in light of the many changes Lutherans are making from their own traditions, much less from the Catholic ones.
8.2.2009 | 8:01am
Russell E. Saltzman says:
Gail R suggests: "I think that if a church is 'truth-central,' one should be able to find it by various marks: universality, for instance, and a continuous history from the time of the apostles. . . .Lutherans, as far as I understand it, particularly see themselves as being the true Church in this way. . . ."
Yes. Lutherans do regard themselves as being the true church. But as a wag pointed out, we don't believe we are the only ones who have it.
Yes. Lutherans do regard themselves as being the true church. But as a wag pointed out, we don't believe we are the only ones who have it.
8.2.2009 | 5:54pm
Matt says:
One more relatively official response to the comment about Catholic ecumenism as Borg-like:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030227_ecumenical-theology_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20030227_ecumenical-theology_en.html
8.2.2009 | 8:56pm
Rev. Timothy Winterstein says:
"Lutherans did leave the Church, so there is no reason to believe that the Catholic heirarchy would ever say they didn't, especially considering that so many of the reasons the Lutherans left have long been corrected."
I find this an interesting comment. If Lutherans left the Church, as opposed to Rome leaving the Church, then why has Rome come around to the Lutheran position on those things?
Even though I, with Pr. Saltzman, have more respect for many of my separated Roman brothers and sisters than for nominal Lutherans, I question whether any of the substantive differences have truly been corrected by the Roman Church. Until Rome removes the Tridentine anathemas, it is out of the question to "return" to Rome. Any Lutheran weighing Roman Catholicism should read the first volume of Chemnitz' Examen first. I would caution Roman Catholics against reading it.
I contend that it is exactly where "Lutherans" have given up the Lutheran confessional position that they have sunk into the quagmire of Left-wing activism and Scriptural relativism.
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
I find this an interesting comment. If Lutherans left the Church, as opposed to Rome leaving the Church, then why has Rome come around to the Lutheran position on those things?
Even though I, with Pr. Saltzman, have more respect for many of my separated Roman brothers and sisters than for nominal Lutherans, I question whether any of the substantive differences have truly been corrected by the Roman Church. Until Rome removes the Tridentine anathemas, it is out of the question to "return" to Rome. Any Lutheran weighing Roman Catholicism should read the first volume of Chemnitz' Examen first. I would caution Roman Catholics against reading it.
I contend that it is exactly where "Lutherans" have given up the Lutheran confessional position that they have sunk into the quagmire of Left-wing activism and Scriptural relativism.
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
8.2.2009 | 9:59pm
Mark says:
Well, yah, it's true that our Luteran churches are gettin' a little gray, and, ya know, the children's sermon doesn't have a lot of those little ones any more.
And that reminds me. Did you hear that Ole died? Yah, he did. The newspaper called and asked Lena what she wanted in the obituary. She said, "You can put 'Ole died.'" The reporter said, "That's all? But you get the first five words for free!" "Oh," she said, "in that case you can put 'Ole died. Boat for sale.'"
And we got a church or two up around here you can buy with that boat!
And that reminds me. Did you hear that Ole died? Yah, he did. The newspaper called and asked Lena what she wanted in the obituary. She said, "You can put 'Ole died.'" The reporter said, "That's all? But you get the first five words for free!" "Oh," she said, "in that case you can put 'Ole died. Boat for sale.'"
And we got a church or two up around here you can buy with that boat!
8.3.2009 | 12:26am
patricksarsfield says:
This is bizarre:
"I find this an interesting comment. If Lutherans left the Church, as opposed to Rome leaving the Church, then why has Rome come around to the Lutheran position on those things? " (from T. Winterstein)
The reality is that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church in the First Century AD. Thus, it was around a millennium and more before Martin Luther was a gleam in his old man's eye and it has continued to be in existence. Then along came Martin. After a fearful night in a thunderstorm, he became a monk; didn't like his commitment and searched for a way out. Sola fide was his answer to the question: how do I get out of this? The Reformation followed. Now, the inevitable contradictions of Lutherandom are catching up with ELCA and some Lutherans are so embarrassed by what ELCA is about to wrought that they are contemplating a return to the Catholic Church.
Welcome back and start thinking about this stuff a bit more clearly. If Sola Scriptura means anything, it means that Christ did not throw out His Church in the 16th Century and plant a new one upon the rock of Martin. Can't find that in any Bible. Not even AFTER Martin started adding words like "sola" and tossing out an inconvenient book as an "epistle of straw."
"I find this an interesting comment. If Lutherans left the Church, as opposed to Rome leaving the Church, then why has Rome come around to the Lutheran position on those things? " (from T. Winterstein)
The reality is that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church in the First Century AD. Thus, it was around a millennium and more before Martin Luther was a gleam in his old man's eye and it has continued to be in existence. Then along came Martin. After a fearful night in a thunderstorm, he became a monk; didn't like his commitment and searched for a way out. Sola fide was his answer to the question: how do I get out of this? The Reformation followed. Now, the inevitable contradictions of Lutherandom are catching up with ELCA and some Lutherans are so embarrassed by what ELCA is about to wrought that they are contemplating a return to the Catholic Church.
Welcome back and start thinking about this stuff a bit more clearly. If Sola Scriptura means anything, it means that Christ did not throw out His Church in the 16th Century and plant a new one upon the rock of Martin. Can't find that in any Bible. Not even AFTER Martin started adding words like "sola" and tossing out an inconvenient book as an "epistle of straw."
8.3.2009 | 12:30am
Robberson says:
Why do the editors of First Things continually post stories that appear, at least to me, to encourage "stirring up" of emotions. I mean, really, as a leader of discussions WITHIN the Church why not focus on articles that create "solidarity". Don't know about others but I personally need hope, fellowship, peace, love and ways to strengthen my faith. All these "back and forth's" leave me quite empty. Bottom line is, folks will "bicker" on and on attempting to prove their position while wasting precious time in our REAL purpose i.e "preaching the gospel" to all mankind. Hopefully I won't get any arguments about the fact that Jesus told us to do that. Maybe it would help if the editors published articles about John 3:16. On the other hand maybe I'm just ignorant and word "jousting" is what Jesus really meant.
8.3.2009 | 10:53am
Rev. Timothy Winterstein says:
"The reality is that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church in the First Century AD. Thus, it was around a millennium and more before Martin Luther was a gleam in his old man's eye and it has continued to be in existence. Then along came Martin."
You miss my point. If one is unable to consider the Church catholic as anything but the Roman one, then my question might be bizarre. I do not believe that the monk Martin started a new church (as you might gather, since I'm still Lutheran and I still love the "ancient and purer" Fathers, as Chemnitz put it). Rather, the Western trunk of the Church catholic split in the sixteenth century. The question is whether Rome or Wittenberg followed the Gospel. Nor do true Lutherans believe every word that proceeds from the mouth of Martin. If we follow Luther, it's because he spoke the truth of the Scriptures. If Lutherans were a reforming "movement" within the Church catholic, it was Trent that anathematized the Lutheran confession and irrevocably split the Western Church. Until Trent, there were numerous ecumenical discussions attempting to prevent any permanent split. Hence, I hold not that Lutherans have a responsibility to find their back to Rome, but that Rome has a responsibility to find its way back to the Scriptures. (And I think they've made a good start!)
BTW, I'm Missouri, not ELCA, so I have only an indirect interest in the Churchwide Assembly.
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
You miss my point. If one is unable to consider the Church catholic as anything but the Roman one, then my question might be bizarre. I do not believe that the monk Martin started a new church (as you might gather, since I'm still Lutheran and I still love the "ancient and purer" Fathers, as Chemnitz put it). Rather, the Western trunk of the Church catholic split in the sixteenth century. The question is whether Rome or Wittenberg followed the Gospel. Nor do true Lutherans believe every word that proceeds from the mouth of Martin. If we follow Luther, it's because he spoke the truth of the Scriptures. If Lutherans were a reforming "movement" within the Church catholic, it was Trent that anathematized the Lutheran confession and irrevocably split the Western Church. Until Trent, there were numerous ecumenical discussions attempting to prevent any permanent split. Hence, I hold not that Lutherans have a responsibility to find their back to Rome, but that Rome has a responsibility to find its way back to the Scriptures. (And I think they've made a good start!)
BTW, I'm Missouri, not ELCA, so I have only an indirect interest in the Churchwide Assembly.
Pr. Timothy Winterstein
8.3.2009 | 3:09pm
ND says:
Hmmm. . . it seems that Catholics have responded to Chemnitz. The excerpts that I have read of his writing are not convincing, though I admit to having read only a few excerpts.
Dave Armstrong responds to Chemnitz extensively (go to http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ and search for Chemnitz).
My own reading of protestant translations of the Fathers does not correspond with what I understand to be Chemnitz's views.
Rev. Timothy Winterstein, if you would like to discuss any of these issues, I am happy to: KBDh02@yahoo.com. Also, maybe you should check out the blog:
www.calledtocommunion.com
The subtitle of the blog is: reformation meets rome. It is run by a large number of formerly reformed protestants who are now Catholics. I think they would respectfully offer you some information that would suggest that Chemnitz' claim that the early Church was Lutheran and that Trent caused the Catholics to split from the true Church is not quite reliable.
Rev. Saltzman, I wish you the best. Beckwith's recommendation of www.calledtocommunion.com may be useful for you as well. Most of all, know that you have many people praying for you.
Dave Armstrong responds to Chemnitz extensively (go to http://socrates58.blogspot.com/ and search for Chemnitz).
My own reading of protestant translations of the Fathers does not correspond with what I understand to be Chemnitz's views.
Rev. Timothy Winterstein, if you would like to discuss any of these issues, I am happy to: KBDh02@yahoo.com. Also, maybe you should check out the blog:
www.calledtocommunion.com
The subtitle of the blog is: reformation meets rome. It is run by a large number of formerly reformed protestants who are now Catholics. I think they would respectfully offer you some information that would suggest that Chemnitz' claim that the early Church was Lutheran and that Trent caused the Catholics to split from the true Church is not quite reliable.
Rev. Saltzman, I wish you the best. Beckwith's recommendation of www.calledtocommunion.com may be useful for you as well. Most of all, know that you have many people praying for you.
8.3.2009 | 4:40pm
patricksarsfield says:
TW,
This is very UNbiblical:
"You miss my point. If one is unable to consider the Church catholic as anything but the Roman one, then my question might be bizarre. I do not believe that the monk Martin started a new church (as you might gather, since I'm still Lutheran and I still love the "ancient and purer" Fathers, as Chemnitz put it). Rather, the Western trunk of the Church catholic split in the sixteenth century. The question is whether Rome or Wittenberg followed the Gospel. Nor do true Lutherans believe every word that proceeds from the mouth of Martin. If we follow Luther, it's because he spoke the truth of the Scriptures."
"Wittenberg" had no more authority to pronounce on the orthodox Gospel than the various Antiochene factions in the First Century Church did when Paul and Barnabas brought the intra-Antioch circumcision dispute to the Central Church authority convened at Jerusalem (at the time) for a decision. The biblical way for disputes to be resolved in the Christian Church was illustrated in the resolution of that dispute. Even an apostle like Paul knew he could not pronounce authoritatively for the Church, so he and his elder brother in the Faith, Barnabas, brought the dispute to the Council. Then, Peter, who had fled from Jerusalem when he broke out of jail and came back despite the risk of being caught, pronounced the judgment that the Council then adopted. Even that ultimate Judaizer, James, who had sent his faction to Antioch, backed down once Peter spoke authoritatively. That is the real "biblical" governance method for the Church. Martin could argue all he wanted to with people sent from Rome, but his voice was not an authoritative one. He may have been "Wittenberg" but he was not the Catholic Church.
This is very UNbiblical:
"You miss my point. If one is unable to consider the Church catholic as anything but the Roman one, then my question might be bizarre. I do not believe that the monk Martin started a new church (as you might gather, since I'm still Lutheran and I still love the "ancient and purer" Fathers, as Chemnitz put it). Rather, the Western trunk of the Church catholic split in the sixteenth century. The question is whether Rome or Wittenberg followed the Gospel. Nor do true Lutherans believe every word that proceeds from the mouth of Martin. If we follow Luther, it's because he spoke the truth of the Scriptures."
"Wittenberg" had no more authority to pronounce on the orthodox Gospel than the various Antiochene factions in the First Century Church did when Paul and Barnabas brought the intra-Antioch circumcision dispute to the Central Church authority convened at Jerusalem (at the time) for a decision. The biblical way for disputes to be resolved in the Christian Church was illustrated in the resolution of that dispute. Even an apostle like Paul knew he could not pronounce authoritatively for the Church, so he and his elder brother in the Faith, Barnabas, brought the dispute to the Council. Then, Peter, who had fled from Jerusalem when he broke out of jail and came back despite the risk of being caught, pronounced the judgment that the Council then adopted. Even that ultimate Judaizer, James, who had sent his faction to Antioch, backed down once Peter spoke authoritatively. That is the real "biblical" governance method for the Church. Martin could argue all he wanted to with people sent from Rome, but his voice was not an authoritative one. He may have been "Wittenberg" but he was not the Catholic Church.
8.3.2009 | 6:13pm
Ken says:
My compliments to Mr. Saltzman on an important article.
I was baptized as a Missouri Synod Lutheran and spent 55 years in Missouri Synod and ELCA congregations in and around Chicago. Four years ago, I had a spiritual experience that led me to convert to Roman Catholicism, which happens to be the faith of my wife and four children. So I am familiar both with Lutheran congregations and their operations and with one Catholic parish the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois.
Unlike the other persons making comments on Mr. Saltzman's article, I'm not a cleric or a theologian, although I have profound respect for both. Consider my comment as coming from a ground level former Lutheran who is continuting to come to Christ through the grace of God and by the offices of the Roman Catholic church.
My principal comment is this: it would not be a good idea to permit Lutheran persons to convert to Roman Catholicism on a wholesale basis. In the Luther an church, one is justified by faith. Period. And that is the great idea of the church and one that resonates with the believers. In the Catholic church, on the other hand, one is justified by faith but one is also expected to demonstrate faith and live faith through work. In practice, I have found there is a huge difference between the willingness of Catholic parishoners to volunteer and work and the corresponding willingness of Lutheran parishoners. By the way, I'm principally comparing three Lutheran churches in the same community with one Catholic parish which is hugely dysfunctional in terms of leadership.
Put in a friendly way, some of these Lutherans have taken the free gift of grace and not understood that it may be free but it isn't cheap, as has been said elsewhere.
No, if the Lutherans want to convert, let's welcome them with open arms, but they will benefit from a typical RCIA six to nine month educational process. You would be surprised at some of the very non-Christian things Lutherans have to say about the Catholic church, and some of these folks need more than a group blessing.
I was baptized as a Missouri Synod Lutheran and spent 55 years in Missouri Synod and ELCA congregations in and around Chicago. Four years ago, I had a spiritual experience that led me to convert to Roman Catholicism, which happens to be the faith of my wife and four children. So I am familiar both with Lutheran congregations and their operations and with one Catholic parish the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois.
Unlike the other persons making comments on Mr. Saltzman's article, I'm not a cleric or a theologian, although I have profound respect for both. Consider my comment as coming from a ground level former Lutheran who is continuting to come to Christ through the grace of God and by the offices of the Roman Catholic church.
My principal comment is this: it would not be a good idea to permit Lutheran persons to convert to Roman Catholicism on a wholesale basis. In the Luther an church, one is justified by faith. Period. And that is the great idea of the church and one that resonates with the believers. In the Catholic church, on the other hand, one is justified by faith but one is also expected to demonstrate faith and live faith through work. In practice, I have found there is a huge difference between the willingness of Catholic parishoners to volunteer and work and the corresponding willingness of Lutheran parishoners. By the way, I'm principally comparing three Lutheran churches in the same community with one Catholic parish which is hugely dysfunctional in terms of leadership.
Put in a friendly way, some of these Lutherans have taken the free gift of grace and not understood that it may be free but it isn't cheap, as has been said elsewhere.
No, if the Lutherans want to convert, let's welcome them with open arms, but they will benefit from a typical RCIA six to nine month educational process. You would be surprised at some of the very non-Christian things Lutherans have to say about the Catholic church, and some of these folks need more than a group blessing.
8.5.2009 | 10:19am
Adam Koontz says:
The apostle of God said, "We hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (Romans 3:28). This is maintained and clearly taught in America only by such churches as the LCMS and the WELS. Despite their numerous individual and collective sins, they still faithfully confess and teach, "Men...are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith..." (Augsburg Confession IV) This is not an advertisement for my own church body or any other confessional Lutheran synod. It is a reminder that any Christian, let alone any Lutheran, must remember why "Jesus Christ came into this world," that is, "to save sinners." His work, not ours, truly justifies in the sight of God when his Gospel is preached to us in Word and Sacrament because his Word does not return to him void (Isaiah 55) and his Gospel is the power of salvation for all who believe. This teaching of the justification of sinners by God for Christ's sake is all the Lutheran Church has ever taught because it is simply what Christians must believe, teach, and confess. If this teaching is uninteresting or unconvincing to someone, then he should not be a Lutheran. If it is indeed the summation of God's love in Christ that sinners who believe in Jesus should not perish but have everlasting life, then one must be a Lutheran because this pure Gospel is preserved by God's grace alone in the Lutheran Church. If Pr. Saltzman's church body denies the Scriptures, then he should seek another Lutheran church body, realizing that it is chock full of sinners, but if he seeks an un-Lutheran communion, he must forsake the pure teaching of the justification of sinners in God's sight solely for the sake of Christ's perfect life, death, and resurrection from the dead.
8.5.2009 | 4:37pm
patricksarsfield says:
Adam Koontz writes:
"The apostle of God said, "We hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (Romans 3:28). This is maintained and clearly taught in America only by such churches as the LCMS and the WELS. "
This is just another variant on Luther's discredited formulation of "Faith Alone." The apostle of God, James, wrote 1500 years before Luther tried to change the gospel to fit his desire to break his vows:
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " James 2:24.
This is also a part of the gospel of Christ and Luther so hated it that he tried to excise the Book of James from the corpus of the Bible, arguing in his deceiver's way that James's was an "epistle of straw." The church founded by Christ in the First Century AD--that is, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church--proclaims the full gospel of God, including James's clear formulation that it is NOT by faith alone that we are justified.
"The apostle of God said, "We hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (Romans 3:28). This is maintained and clearly taught in America only by such churches as the LCMS and the WELS. "
This is just another variant on Luther's discredited formulation of "Faith Alone." The apostle of God, James, wrote 1500 years before Luther tried to change the gospel to fit his desire to break his vows:
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " James 2:24.
This is also a part of the gospel of Christ and Luther so hated it that he tried to excise the Book of James from the corpus of the Bible, arguing in his deceiver's way that James's was an "epistle of straw." The church founded by Christ in the First Century AD--that is, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church--proclaims the full gospel of God, including James's clear formulation that it is NOT by faith alone that we are justified.
8.14.2009 | 11:18am
Another View says:
>>>Let's see, there are still Lutherans in this country who reject the ordination of woman as anti-apostolic and anti-catholic, contrary to the faith once given to the saints, who think killing people while they are still in their mother's womb is murder, and who also still subscribe wholeheartedly to the Lutheran Confessions, who, despite their particular Lutheran church affiliation still with to be, and remain, Lutheran.
8.17.2009 | 1:21am
Boaz says:
If you believe justification by grace alone, through faith alone, revealed by Scripture alone, then Trent closes the Roman church to you.
If ELCA congregations are willing to set aside their insistence on women's ordination, open communion, and open dialogue on abortion, then the congregation is probably already in agreement with the LCMS Lutherans.
An aside, I love all the "Catholic Answers" responses in the comments. We've got Dave Armstrong, James as a straw gospel, and Koon's confused attempt to reconcile faith alone with Trent. Awesome. Just to clear a few things, Luther is not a saint, faith without works is dead (but works are impossible until we have faith and are justified), and Lutherans accept the Canon because the best evidence shows the Canon to be the authentic teaching of the Apostles, not because some authoritative body needed to approve of it.
If ELCA congregations are willing to set aside their insistence on women's ordination, open communion, and open dialogue on abortion, then the congregation is probably already in agreement with the LCMS Lutherans.
An aside, I love all the "Catholic Answers" responses in the comments. We've got Dave Armstrong, James as a straw gospel, and Koon's confused attempt to reconcile faith alone with Trent. Awesome. Just to clear a few things, Luther is not a saint, faith without works is dead (but works are impossible until we have faith and are justified), and Lutherans accept the Canon because the best evidence shows the Canon to be the authentic teaching of the Apostles, not because some authoritative body needed to approve of it.
10.17.2009 | 8:10pm
TST says:
To TW: Good luck! The issue I'm facing is that while I did convert to Roman Catholicism and formally went through RCIA, I cannot forget my Lutheran roots. I've heard there are entire Lutheran congregations out there that converted to Catholicism -- does anyone know of any in New York (Long Island)?
To Mark: Brilliant comment! Loved the Lake Wobegon approach. Sadly, I did notice how fewer and fewer young people attended the Lutheran churches I belonged to (almost as gray as a Sons of Norway lodge meeting, but not quite.
Re: Wholesale conversion. I talked to a priest at my parish in St. Agnes, NY (head of the diocese and home to 5,000 parishioners), and he know of no plans for Rome to approach the Lutherans en masse. His point was valid: To whom would Rome speak? Even the ELC is fractured about this latest issue -- for me the tipping point was when I found it that the ELC allowed woman pastors to use parishoner funds to obtain abortions. When will splintering stop? Enough is enough. The priest (actually monsignor) also suggested there was a "no poaching" policy between the churces. I was disappointed to hear there was no formal dialogue.
To Mark: Brilliant comment! Loved the Lake Wobegon approach. Sadly, I did notice how fewer and fewer young people attended the Lutheran churches I belonged to (almost as gray as a Sons of Norway lodge meeting, but not quite.
Re: Wholesale conversion. I talked to a priest at my parish in St. Agnes, NY (head of the diocese and home to 5,000 parishioners), and he know of no plans for Rome to approach the Lutherans en masse. His point was valid: To whom would Rome speak? Even the ELC is fractured about this latest issue -- for me the tipping point was when I found it that the ELC allowed woman pastors to use parishoner funds to obtain abortions. When will splintering stop? Enough is enough. The priest (actually monsignor) also suggested there was a "no poaching" policy between the churces. I was disappointed to hear there was no formal dialogue.
