A Small Untangling
June 23, 2011
Russell E. Saltzman
For some four weeks now I’ve been traveling to Gothenburg, Nebraska, to conduct worship services for a mission church that split off from a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The mission church—newly named Trinity Lutheran—has aspirations of becoming a congregation of the North American Lutheran Church and, so it seems, I am the only NALC pastor available within three hundred eighty-three miles, one way. My two-thousand-year old Mazda is taking a beating for the glory of the Lord and I would guess it is only the Lord’s glory holding it together. I drive up on Saturday morning; meet with committees in the afternoon, conduct worship Sunday morning, do more meetings afterward, then journey back to Kansas City. 
My job is pretty simple. I am to get them up and organized to the point where they are able to call a full time pastor. It is a grueling yet an exhilarating experience.
These are a group of folks, upwards of one hundred thirty by the time things shake out completely, who have left their home congregation. They leave behind not a few friendships and in some cases relatives, and an almost sixty-year-old parish of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The “left behind” congregation was formed in the 1950’s by two much older congregations that decided they could do more together than apart. Now things again are coming apart.
What became a new church in fact began two years ago with a men’s Bible study. This group had been meeting every Wednesday morning for perhaps twenty years; just some guys gathered over biscuits and gravy with open Bibles. A lot of their study, I gather, focused on word studies, tracing “covenant,” for instance, or “salvation” or the like through Scripture—harmless enough.
Then in 2009 the ELCA decided that gay sexual relations were no longer biblically forbidden, and set about ordaining homosexuals to the pastorate, provided their partnerships were monogamous, lifelong, mutually enriching and all that. The ELCA did not endorse gay marriage, but that logically will follow. In any event, the ELCA declared biblical sin un-sin. That woke the Bible study guys up. That happens a lot. For many average members the ELCA in and of itself is somewhat remote. What it does or does not do isn’t nearly as important as what their local congregation may or may not do. But the sexuality question, well, that gave rise to serious investigation. The Bible study shifted away from the Bible to what the ELCA was doing with, if not to, the Bible.
When they sought wider discussion in their congregation, the effort was slapped down. The church council voted to “dissolve” the men’s Bible study; several of the group were adjudged “persistent trouble-makers” by the council and received formal letters of admonition. When they did succeed in bringing ELCA affiliation up for a vote, it failed—as anticipated. That was on one Sunday. By the next Sunday they had located worship space, a musician, hymnals, and me.
This sort of untangling is a scene sadly replicated in many ELCA congregations across the country. One thing leads to another thing and pretty soon there are a lot of very unhappy ELCA Lutherans in the existing congregation. Talking with my new parishioners reveals it isn’t any one thing that led to their dissatisfaction with the ELCA.
The ELCA has offered people a smorgasbord of issues to pick from. It isn’t just gay sex or gay ordination, or maybe it isn’t any of that at all but something else entirely. For one member it is this, for another that, and for yet another perhaps it is the whole thing taken together that has propelled them out. All of the issues in the ELCA, though, are summarized as first, a drift from biblical principles and, second, a loss of Lutheran confessional identity.
Something changed with Lutherans following the creation of the ELCA, and nobody can quite put their finger on how it happened or exactly when. But most I have talked with use but one word to describe their departure: relief.
For the record I do not believe the ELCA has become heretical. I do believe it has fallen into “grave error” in teaching. I well understand why many will not leave, even if they do not agree with ELCA teaching. The bonds of history, kinship, memory, and, yes, even conviction opposite my own, are legitimately powerful. And there are those who feel persuaded to remain in the ELCA in a continued witness for reform. I cannot think, though, they will have an easy time. Orthodox Lutheran pastors are likely to become more and more suspect and find it harder locating calls. Congregations remaining ELCA have and will experience membership loss, not always in dramatic splits but in a gradual drift of membership.
The departure of orthodox members, lay leaders, and pastors will leave the remaining orthodox in a weakened and vulnerable spot. Schism is an unpleasant business, even though Protestants seem to do a lot of it; Catholics too, time to time, if I remember my history. Nonetheless, I never thought I’d be a part of one and an appeal to conscience justifying it must be taken in humility; who is to say the NALC is on the right side of history? As St. Paul put it to the Corinthian church, “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” That won’t get decided any time soon. But what the NALC offers to me, now, is a genuinely Lutheran confessional view of the authenticity of Scripture. “The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,” the constitution puts it, “[are] the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith and life, ‘according to which all doctrines should and must be judged.’ (Formula of Concord, Epitome, Part I)” How well we do it is a judgment that awaits.
Meanwhile, part of me wants to gloat over the ELCA; part wants to weep. But a larger part says, what’s a Mazda or even two for the chance to help launch something bigger than myself?
Russell E. Saltzman is the development pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Gothenburg, Nebraska. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
Comments:
6.23.2011 | 8:05am
Joe DeVet says:
Where DOES one find a reliable Magesterium these days?
6.23.2011 | 8:21am
Joel Gerlach says:
Pastor Saltzmann writes, "For the record I do not believe the ELCA has become heretical. I do believe it has fallen into “grave error” . . . " What is the difference between a church that declares" biblical sin un-sin" and a heretical church? If the ELCA persisrts in grave error, in spite of frequent and continuing admonition, how is it not heretical?
6.23.2011 | 10:53am
Alessandra says:
When they sought wider discussion in their congregation, the effort was slapped down. The church council voted to “dissolve” the men’s Bible study; several of the group were adjudged “persistent trouble-makers” by the council and received formal letters of admonition.
=======
I was dumbfounded when I read this.
And I totally agree with Joel. If only more people stood up for what is right like you did. And there may be a positive consequence from all of this. I have concluded for some time now that churches need to take on a more active role in addressing dysfunctional and harmful sexuality behaviors. This means educating their members beyond morality at a more complex level. When there is little difference between what ELCA preaches and what comes out of the mouth of Lady Gaga, you would think people would have reason to pause, but no.
This is why I reflect on enormously on such developments in society: why do we have people who have the least information and knowledge about how a human being develops their sexuality psychology try to dictate what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable to society?
How nice if it were actually the people who are the most knowledgeable about the developmental and societal causes of such disoriented sexuality psychologies that would present us with more of their knowledge and conduct a much more widespread public education program, including the ways that therapists can and do help those people with such profiles.
Not only do we now have liberally indoctrinated Christians twisting the Bible in every which way to find a way to deny what’s plainly written (what part of ‘abomination’ is not clearly spelled out?), when they run away from doctrine, they have nowhere to go, because they are obviously lacking so much knowledge in the social sciences as well.
The best of luck with your new Church.
I also found it encouraging how Bryant Wright stood firm on the issue recently: A coalition of homosexual leaders and their allies met for more than 30 minutes Tuesday with Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright, with the leaders demanding an apology from the SBC and Wright refusing to budge, saying that Scripture is clear on the issue.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/so-baptist-head-offers-no-apology-on-homosexuality-stance-51243/
=======
I was dumbfounded when I read this.
And I totally agree with Joel. If only more people stood up for what is right like you did. And there may be a positive consequence from all of this. I have concluded for some time now that churches need to take on a more active role in addressing dysfunctional and harmful sexuality behaviors. This means educating their members beyond morality at a more complex level. When there is little difference between what ELCA preaches and what comes out of the mouth of Lady Gaga, you would think people would have reason to pause, but no.
This is why I reflect on enormously on such developments in society: why do we have people who have the least information and knowledge about how a human being develops their sexuality psychology try to dictate what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable to society?
How nice if it were actually the people who are the most knowledgeable about the developmental and societal causes of such disoriented sexuality psychologies that would present us with more of their knowledge and conduct a much more widespread public education program, including the ways that therapists can and do help those people with such profiles.
Not only do we now have liberally indoctrinated Christians twisting the Bible in every which way to find a way to deny what’s plainly written (what part of ‘abomination’ is not clearly spelled out?), when they run away from doctrine, they have nowhere to go, because they are obviously lacking so much knowledge in the social sciences as well.
The best of luck with your new Church.
I also found it encouraging how Bryant Wright stood firm on the issue recently: A coalition of homosexual leaders and their allies met for more than 30 minutes Tuesday with Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright, with the leaders demanding an apology from the SBC and Wright refusing to budge, saying that Scripture is clear on the issue.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/so-baptist-head-offers-no-apology-on-homosexuality-stance-51243/
6.23.2011 | 11:06am
pdq says:
I'd like to also ask Joel's question. I'd think that a church that is heretical is precisely one that falls into grave error in teaching faith and morals.
Surely Mr. Saltzmann is using a particular definition of "heresy" that isn't the norm in my circles. A future witty article from him on this subject would be appreciated.
Surely Mr. Saltzmann is using a particular definition of "heresy" that isn't the norm in my circles. A future witty article from him on this subject would be appreciated.
6.23.2011 | 11:07am
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
My friend Russ Saltzmann is doing a wonderful thing. I must however disagree with his comment that the ELCA is not heretical, but rather a church that has fallen into grave error.
I guess one could quibble a bit by suggesting that grave error is heresy or it is not really too grave or that much of an error. But that would be too easy.
I think the fact that the ELCA, as a national church body, has entirely redefined what it is to be man and woman by embracing homosexuality amongst its clergy, has forsaken the orthodox catholic faith through a messy series of "full communion" agreements with heretical churches liked the United Church of Christ, to name but one, is clear and convincing proof that the ELCA is in fact now a church caught up in what is nothing less than rank heresy.
Apostasy would be another appropriate word.
Simply put, a Christian church that mouths the words of the church's ancient ecumenical creeds, but at the same time embraces and encourages wholesale redefinition of what they actually mean and winks an eye at those who outright deny them throughout its official structures and educational institutions is a heretical church body.
I guess one could quibble a bit by suggesting that grave error is heresy or it is not really too grave or that much of an error. But that would be too easy.
I think the fact that the ELCA, as a national church body, has entirely redefined what it is to be man and woman by embracing homosexuality amongst its clergy, has forsaken the orthodox catholic faith through a messy series of "full communion" agreements with heretical churches liked the United Church of Christ, to name but one, is clear and convincing proof that the ELCA is in fact now a church caught up in what is nothing less than rank heresy.
Apostasy would be another appropriate word.
Simply put, a Christian church that mouths the words of the church's ancient ecumenical creeds, but at the same time embraces and encourages wholesale redefinition of what they actually mean and winks an eye at those who outright deny them throughout its official structures and educational institutions is a heretical church body.
6.23.2011 | 12:03pm
Glen says:
I identify with Pastor Saltzman's comment that"...part of me wants to gloat...part wants to weep." I probably fall more on the weep side of this schism. Not too many years ago in my lifetime the old LCA and ALC and others, came together to form one large Lutheran body. That new and larger ELCA could now successfully address the big tasks and produce big results that really made a difference in the world. Lutheran World Relief is one aspect of this that comes to mind. When we have disasters in the USA and the world, Lutheran World relief steps in to help out with funds and materials and manpower. Every cent of every dollar that is contrubuted to help in a specific disaster gets to the people that need it. Not many charities or denominations can say that. As the ELCA diminishes in size and funding it is inevitable that Lutheran World Relief will also diminish in its effectiveness. It saddens me to see that happen. Yet, it also saddens me to see the ELCA's drift away from the solid foundation that the Bible and our core Lutheran beliefs.
6.23.2011 | 12:23pm
GlennB says:
The ELCA's embracing of homosexuality as a non-sin is a reflection of its abandonment of orthodox doctrine on matters of Christology, soteriology and the like. The ethical element is merely a symptom of the decay of the doctrinal element. I'm stunned that Rev. Salzmann does not believe that the ELCA, thru its leadership has become at least heretical if not outright apostate.
As many have written.....it would be great to have Rev. Salzmann explain how it is that he believes the ELCA leadership to be still in the orthodox camp.
As many have written.....it would be great to have Rev. Salzmann explain how it is that he believes the ELCA leadership to be still in the orthodox camp.
6.23.2011 | 12:32pm
patricksarsfield says:
So much for Christ's prayer for unity.
Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp, it is said) had a far better answer when he wrote (some 1831 years ago in Adversus Haereses 3:3:2):
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. "
Oh yeah, I forgot, Luther disregarded that because he insisted on the word "alone" despite the clear teaching of James 2:24 (""), which was written even earlier than Adversus Haereses.
Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp, it is said) had a far better answer when he wrote (some 1831 years ago in Adversus Haereses 3:3:2):
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. "
Oh yeah, I forgot, Luther disregarded that because he insisted on the word "alone" despite the clear teaching of James 2:24 (""), which was written even earlier than Adversus Haereses.
6.23.2011 | 1:53pm
Russell E Saltzman says:
To reply on the "grave error" vs. heretical:
Heresy as I understand it is rejection of clear established dogma (forgetting in the moment we all have "doctrines" we'd like promoted to the big time status of "dogma"). Heresy, I would argue, verges to abandonment of the three ecumenical creeds, for instance. The ELCA has not done that. Interpretation of those creeds and the Scriptures upon which they are based instead does rise to a "grave teaching error," plenty serious in and of itself. But if not heresy, what the ELCA has fallen into, as I've written elsewhere, is "a different gospel," used in the same sense as St. Paul used it to the Galatians. The ELCA represents the reverse side of that Galatian coin. Instead of a Galatian punctilious observance of law for salvation, the ELCA has said in the first place there is no law.
Heresy as I understand it is rejection of clear established dogma (forgetting in the moment we all have "doctrines" we'd like promoted to the big time status of "dogma"). Heresy, I would argue, verges to abandonment of the three ecumenical creeds, for instance. The ELCA has not done that. Interpretation of those creeds and the Scriptures upon which they are based instead does rise to a "grave teaching error," plenty serious in and of itself. But if not heresy, what the ELCA has fallen into, as I've written elsewhere, is "a different gospel," used in the same sense as St. Paul used it to the Galatians. The ELCA represents the reverse side of that Galatian coin. Instead of a Galatian punctilious observance of law for salvation, the ELCA has said in the first place there is no law.
6.23.2011 | 3:19pm
patricksarsfield says:
Reverend Saltzman begs the question when he writes:
"Heresy as I understand it is rejection of clear established dogma....Heresy, I would argue, verges to abandonment of the three ecumenical creeds, for instance. "
Whose "clear established dogma"? Or to put it another, perhaps more illuminating, way: "Who died and left the writers of the ecumenical creeds in charge of dogma?" Authority? Then the next question becomes: what did the writers of the ecumenical creeds (or what do their successors) say about gay sexual relations?
"Heresy as I understand it is rejection of clear established dogma....Heresy, I would argue, verges to abandonment of the three ecumenical creeds, for instance. "
Whose "clear established dogma"? Or to put it another, perhaps more illuminating, way: "Who died and left the writers of the ecumenical creeds in charge of dogma?" Authority? Then the next question becomes: what did the writers of the ecumenical creeds (or what do their successors) say about gay sexual relations?
6.23.2011 | 3:42pm
Helen Kidde says:
I find it so sad that in the 21st century. with all our apparent knowledge and sophistication and with the lessons of Chritianity dating right from the time of Our Lord, there are still so many sincerely Christian people who will judge a person on a part of their being, rather than having regard to the whole person.
Do we really have that right? Would Our Lord 'approve' of such a judgment on one of His flock?
The definition of words like "heresy" is fine for scholars but all Christianity is about people not words. We use words to enable us to communicate with our fellow human beings but our Faith surely cannot be confined by words that humans have invented?
Let us bring to mind John 8.7
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Helen
Do we really have that right? Would Our Lord 'approve' of such a judgment on one of His flock?
The definition of words like "heresy" is fine for scholars but all Christianity is about people not words. We use words to enable us to communicate with our fellow human beings but our Faith surely cannot be confined by words that humans have invented?
Let us bring to mind John 8.7
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Helen
6.23.2011 | 4:44pm
patricksarsfield says:
Helen Kidde writes:
"The definition of words like "heresy" is fine for scholars but all Christianity is about people not words. We use words to enable us to communicate with our fellow human beings but our Faith surely cannot be confined by words that humans have invented?"
So much for the inspiration of Leviticus and Romans in the apparent opinion of Ms. Kidde.
And then there is her final paragraph: "Let us bring to mind John 8.7 "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.""
No one is looking to throw stones at anyone, but when a church is asked about the morality of "gay sexual relations," it should give an answer consistent with Scripture and the long-standing Tradition of the Church.
"The definition of words like "heresy" is fine for scholars but all Christianity is about people not words. We use words to enable us to communicate with our fellow human beings but our Faith surely cannot be confined by words that humans have invented?"
So much for the inspiration of Leviticus and Romans in the apparent opinion of Ms. Kidde.
And then there is her final paragraph: "Let us bring to mind John 8.7 "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.""
No one is looking to throw stones at anyone, but when a church is asked about the morality of "gay sexual relations," it should give an answer consistent with Scripture and the long-standing Tradition of the Church.
6.23.2011 | 6:28pm
baixar músicas says:
The ELCA has not done that. Interpretation of those creeds and the Scriptures upon which they are based instead does rise to a "grave teaching error," plenty serious in and of itself. But if not heresy, what the ELCA has fallen into, as I've written elsewhere, is "a different gospel," used in the same sense as St. Paul used it to the Galatians.
6.23.2011 | 7:52pm
Anthony Sacramone says:
I admire Reverend Saltzman's attempt to fight the good fight in ELCA, and can understand perfectly why he felt the need to move on. I wonder, however, if NALC is the answer. Does it permit women's ordination? If so, wouldn't other Lutherans, those in the LCMS and WELS, for example, also view it as not heretical but guilty of grave teaching error? Does not this departure from the traditional understanding of authority within the church open it up not just to criticism but potential splits among its members?
Just asking, not accusing...
Just asking, not accusing...
6.23.2011 | 9:45pm
Frank says:
Helen Kidde,
I don't understand your comment. I don't understand where you think someone is "judging a person on a part of their being." Nor do I understand your reference to John 8:7. Is it throwing stones to name a sin? Is it throwing stones to say that gossiping is wrong? Is it throwing stones to say that oppression or discrimination is wrong? Is it not the responsibility of the church to proclaim both law and gospel? Would it not be irresponsible (dare I say even heresy) to declare right what God has declared wrong?
I don't understand your comment. I don't understand where you think someone is "judging a person on a part of their being." Nor do I understand your reference to John 8:7. Is it throwing stones to name a sin? Is it throwing stones to say that gossiping is wrong? Is it throwing stones to say that oppression or discrimination is wrong? Is it not the responsibility of the church to proclaim both law and gospel? Would it not be irresponsible (dare I say even heresy) to declare right what God has declared wrong?
6.24.2011 | 6:44am
edmond says:
I thank you for thsi article. As one who has been in the center of community controversy and disputes particularly the issue of norms vs. church teaching. At this point of my servanthood the term unity has taken a special meaning for me. In the past there was this effort to keep the community together for the sake of unity, however, unity cannot be the end all and be all of a church if church teaching is watered down for the sake of accommodating practices that are a product of a group's discernment process. Where community norms become punitive against a member of the community even if under the mainstream church being late for a prayer meeting or mass is not punishable, is a distinct example. I believe that prayer groups need to always be watchful that they do not begin to legislate 'ultra vires' in lieu of the mother church. Yet some of these 'legislation finds itself approved at the vatican.
6.24.2011 | 10:51am
Gail Finke says:
Russell: I have found your pieces to be interesting and thoughtful, and always thought-provoking. As a Catholic, I have also found them puzzling. While some people who comment on blogs tend to be blunt -- and I apologize for my Catholic brethren who simply demand to be told why you don't stop fooling with all this Protestant nonsense -- others of us, I suspect, are more polite but think the same thing. As a Catholic I can't understand these schisms and less-than-schisms over heresy or less-than-heresy. I don't understand the different Lutheran groups, for one thing, and I don't understand why anyone would choose one (or perhaps one set of allied groups) as the "real" Lutheran church while there are others claiming to be the same thing and no one, apparently, with the authority to settle who is right. I don't understand picking one while also saying, " justifying it must be taken in humility; who is to say the NALC is on the right side of history?" If there is no one to say, then why bother at all? I don't ask this to be annoying, but because I truly do not understand your collective mindset and I would actually like to understand it. Reading your essays helps me to understand a little.
Helen: You are mistaking being naive for being loving. Your post is incoherent; you don't really specify what you are upset about other than "judging." Christ never asked to to suspend judgment of actions or words -- in fact, he pretty much demanded that we judge the Pharisees and separate their words (when right) from their deeds and attitudes (when wrong). Often, loving people means telling them when they do wrong and saving them from hurting themselves, like the well-known bit about "not knowing that fire burns won't help you if you stick your hand in it." When people we love (and we are commanded to love everyone) do something that is going to hurt them, our job is to keep them from hurting themselves is we can, and to help heal the hurt if we can't. But it's not to send them back into the fire.
Helen: You are mistaking being naive for being loving. Your post is incoherent; you don't really specify what you are upset about other than "judging." Christ never asked to to suspend judgment of actions or words -- in fact, he pretty much demanded that we judge the Pharisees and separate their words (when right) from their deeds and attitudes (when wrong). Often, loving people means telling them when they do wrong and saving them from hurting themselves, like the well-known bit about "not knowing that fire burns won't help you if you stick your hand in it." When people we love (and we are commanded to love everyone) do something that is going to hurt them, our job is to keep them from hurting themselves is we can, and to help heal the hurt if we can't. But it's not to send them back into the fire.
6.24.2011 | 8:15pm
Ayodele Alao says:
I must also find the distinction being made by Rev. Saltzmann between "heresy" and "grave error" a very puzzling one in the context of adherence to scriptural authority. The truth is that no church falls into heresy overnight, it's always a gradual process of compromise after compromise. The decision by ELCA to fully and openly subscribe to the homosexual agenda is only the last logical and inescapable step in that process. To deny the heretical nature of this decision by asserting that the church has not abandoned the three ecumenical creeds is simply untenable and false. Maintaining lip service to the creeds while ordaining practicing homosexuals as clergy is clearly a ruse to maintain an appearance of orthodoxy while denying its very foundations. In Psalm 11:3, the question is asked: If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Right thinking Christians cannot possibly fathom the mindset of those "wise" men who sit in church councils and legislate departure from express scriptural tenets. Why bother with the Bible at all, if it is not the basis upon which Church doctrines and practice are founded?
6.25.2011 | 10:29am
TeeJay says:
I have stated in the past on my blog that the ELCA holds an apostate theology concerning law and gospel, and the orders of creation, by ignoring Jesus words concerning marriage.., "From the beginning God made them male and female." However, this conversation about heresy and apostate church expression, combined with the questioning concerning creedal fidelity, also brings me to wonder about the Evangelical Lutheran Worship (ELW) offering. The ELW seems to have "left out" the highly developed theology of the Athanasian Creed. Is this creed not acceptable to an ELCA now entrenched in heretical stance? Was a statement within the creed onerous to an apostate ELCA revisionist scriptural interpretation? Being a creedal church which uses these ancient tools to explain God to the world around us, shouldn't the NALC consider what is not said by the ELCA?
6.26.2011 | 9:49pm
Ruth says:
Sadly I left my home church of over 50 years when my church family would not consider leaving the ELCA. What made my decision easier was the outrageous worship at Ebenezer/herchurch Lutheran in San Francisco. How can a congregation that has strayed so far be part of a synod that is not heretical?
6.27.2011 | 12:15pm
Rev. Paul T. McCain says:
Friend Russ:
You write: "Heresy, I would argue, verges to abandonment of the three ecumenical creeds, for instance. The ELCA has not done that."
In what does "abandonment" consist? Would a church only be deemed heretical if it were to somewhere adopt a resolution, "Where officially abandon the three ecumenical creeds."
I know of no heresy or heretic in history, or only very, very few who would ever have conceded that they are abandoning the Christian faith; rather, as in the case of Arius, he claimed the high ground of being the faithful one in the long years of dispute over the doctrine of Christ, and ditto so many other heretics that followed.
The sad reality is that the ELCA has, de facto, abandoned the historic Christian faith by "reimaginging" every point of the Creeds, welcoming, embracing and encouraging public denials of the points of the Creed, including of course the resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth.
The latest decisions of the ELCA signal what is truly nothing less than apostasy from the catholic faith....
Not that any of this matters, I guess, for your personal situation, but I think we should really be willing to call a thing what it is. Their is an ever decreasing amount of "Lutheran" and "Christian" that can be recognized in the ELCA.
Very tragic.
You write: "Heresy, I would argue, verges to abandonment of the three ecumenical creeds, for instance. The ELCA has not done that."
In what does "abandonment" consist? Would a church only be deemed heretical if it were to somewhere adopt a resolution, "Where officially abandon the three ecumenical creeds."
I know of no heresy or heretic in history, or only very, very few who would ever have conceded that they are abandoning the Christian faith; rather, as in the case of Arius, he claimed the high ground of being the faithful one in the long years of dispute over the doctrine of Christ, and ditto so many other heretics that followed.
The sad reality is that the ELCA has, de facto, abandoned the historic Christian faith by "reimaginging" every point of the Creeds, welcoming, embracing and encouraging public denials of the points of the Creed, including of course the resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth.
The latest decisions of the ELCA signal what is truly nothing less than apostasy from the catholic faith....
Not that any of this matters, I guess, for your personal situation, but I think we should really be willing to call a thing what it is. Their is an ever decreasing amount of "Lutheran" and "Christian" that can be recognized in the ELCA.
Very tragic.
6.28.2011 | 1:31am
Kirk Peters says:
Gail,
The Roman Church has had plenty of Schisms, heresies, etc in the past, and contintues to have them.
The Roman Church has had plenty of Schisms, heresies, etc in the past, and contintues to have them.
6.28.2011 | 8:34am
patricksarsfield says:
In response to Gail's point that Cathlics cannot understand the acceptance in Protestantism of the schisms that beset Protestantdom, Kirk Peters writes:
"The Roman Church has had plenty of Schisms, heresies, etc in the past, and contintues to have them."
What a defense of teh divisions in Protestantism: "Because others have broken away from the Church Christ founded, it's okay that Protestantism is this agglomeration of internecine wars resulting in scads of new denominations, which throw around charges of heresy at one another but none of which can point to foundation by Jesus Christ."
In fact, the only way out of this spaghetti of competing claims of which church is the Church of Christ is through knowledge of History. Christ's Church is not whatever Church a particular person thinks most meets the gospel of Christ as that person reads Scriptures because different people will come to different conclusions on that question. In truth, Christ did not found a multiplicity of churches.
So: which church did Chris found? (Answer: The Church called Catholic since no later than 107 AD when Ignatius referred to it as the Catholic Church). When? (Answer: in the First Century (See Acts 2)) Was it visible? (Answer: Absolutely, as the entirety of the Book of Acts shows) Did it have centralized authority throughout the world? (Answer: Yes, as the Circumcision controversy's centralized resolution at the Council of Jerusalem shows (Acts 15)). Did Peter head that up? (Answer: Yes, as his visible leadership of the Church up until his flight from Herod's jail shows and as his leadership at the Council of Jerusalem (despite the fact he was on the lam from Herod) shows).
So: which Protestant Church can meet those marks? (Answer: None, they were all founded by men in the Sixteenth Century or later).
"The Roman Church has had plenty of Schisms, heresies, etc in the past, and contintues to have them."
What a defense of teh divisions in Protestantism: "Because others have broken away from the Church Christ founded, it's okay that Protestantism is this agglomeration of internecine wars resulting in scads of new denominations, which throw around charges of heresy at one another but none of which can point to foundation by Jesus Christ."
In fact, the only way out of this spaghetti of competing claims of which church is the Church of Christ is through knowledge of History. Christ's Church is not whatever Church a particular person thinks most meets the gospel of Christ as that person reads Scriptures because different people will come to different conclusions on that question. In truth, Christ did not found a multiplicity of churches.
So: which church did Chris found? (Answer: The Church called Catholic since no later than 107 AD when Ignatius referred to it as the Catholic Church). When? (Answer: in the First Century (See Acts 2)) Was it visible? (Answer: Absolutely, as the entirety of the Book of Acts shows) Did it have centralized authority throughout the world? (Answer: Yes, as the Circumcision controversy's centralized resolution at the Council of Jerusalem shows (Acts 15)). Did Peter head that up? (Answer: Yes, as his visible leadership of the Church up until his flight from Herod's jail shows and as his leadership at the Council of Jerusalem (despite the fact he was on the lam from Herod) shows).
So: which Protestant Church can meet those marks? (Answer: None, they were all founded by men in the Sixteenth Century or later).
6.28.2011 | 1:19pm
Peg says:
patricksarsfield: where do you put the Orthodox Church in your identification of the church founded by Christ? I am not asking just to be contrary or contentious (I am a Roman Catholic, and content to be so), but I think that many members of the eastern churches make similar claims. They ARE ancient, and I think that their liturgy contains older elements than does ours. I believe this is one reason why Pope John Paul II thought it more likely that we could re-establish unity with the Orthodox church rather than with any of the Reformation churches.
6.30.2011 | 2:01am
patricksarsfield says:
Peg asks where I put the Orthodox Church in the identification of the Church founded by Christ. I put it in that Church founded by Christ, although presently in schism.
After the 1054 AD split, the Eastern and Westerrn "lungs" of the Church had been able to reunite on two occasions (1274 and 1439), but as time has gone on (and the Orthodox Church has followed the centrifugal tendency of all churches that insist upon "autochthony" based on current political boundaries) that unity has not lasted and now discussions with Constantinopolitan patriarch alone likely could not bring about reunification of all Orthodoxy.
The 1439 Reunion broke down in 1453 when Constantinople, the home of the primus inter pares Patriarch and of the Emperor who was deemed to be Isopostolos (the equal of the Apostles) fell to the Ottoman Turks. Thereafter, the Patriarchate (sometimes referred to as the Phanar (like the Vatican, more or less)) fell into the hundreds of years long Tourkokratia (Control by the Turks). Recent protests by the Patriarch suggest that that Turkocracy may not have ended with the fall of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago.
After the 1054 AD split, the Eastern and Westerrn "lungs" of the Church had been able to reunite on two occasions (1274 and 1439), but as time has gone on (and the Orthodox Church has followed the centrifugal tendency of all churches that insist upon "autochthony" based on current political boundaries) that unity has not lasted and now discussions with Constantinopolitan patriarch alone likely could not bring about reunification of all Orthodoxy.
The 1439 Reunion broke down in 1453 when Constantinople, the home of the primus inter pares Patriarch and of the Emperor who was deemed to be Isopostolos (the equal of the Apostles) fell to the Ottoman Turks. Thereafter, the Patriarchate (sometimes referred to as the Phanar (like the Vatican, more or less)) fell into the hundreds of years long Tourkokratia (Control by the Turks). Recent protests by the Patriarch suggest that that Turkocracy may not have ended with the fall of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago.
7.5.2011 | 1:43pm
Helen Kidde says:
There's been some debate about not casting stones at people but that speaking out against 'sin' is the duty of Christians, which I agree with.
But I suspect that what is classed as 'sin' is sometimes arriveded at using selected passages from the Bible as authority to justify what has already been decided beforehand. 'Sentence first, verdict later'!
But nowhere does the Bible specifically mention homosexuality by name and it is the interpretation by humans of some selected texts that are cited as confirming that Our Lord regards gay people as sinners.
But we are all sinners and the few gay people that I know are no more and no less sinners than the ordinary 'straight' members of our Community, which is the Community of the Human Race.
In practical terms, I believe that there are two types of 'sin' - one which involves a victim who has every right to speak out against any sin that has been committed against him or her as have that person's elected or appointed representatives; the other is a 'sin' against an individual's own moral code of conduct which must be a personal matter for himself or herself and it is not for others to take the high moral ground and condemn the person. Provided there are no victiims or any infringement of the Law, just being gay doesn't automatically equate to being a sinner.
Whilst the Scriptures are immensely important, they are words written many centuries ago by people who were much less scholarly than those who seek to interpret them in the 21st Century. And those words have been translated from their original form and then re-translated and revised etc still further over the centuries.
My point is that I am sure that Our Lord is not confined by narrow interpretations of Religious texts and that His Love is such that He does not reject people because of one aspect of their whole being.
I truly believe that Our Lord loves ALL his children even when we commit sins, as we all do.
Helen
But I suspect that what is classed as 'sin' is sometimes arriveded at using selected passages from the Bible as authority to justify what has already been decided beforehand. 'Sentence first, verdict later'!
But nowhere does the Bible specifically mention homosexuality by name and it is the interpretation by humans of some selected texts that are cited as confirming that Our Lord regards gay people as sinners.
But we are all sinners and the few gay people that I know are no more and no less sinners than the ordinary 'straight' members of our Community, which is the Community of the Human Race.
In practical terms, I believe that there are two types of 'sin' - one which involves a victim who has every right to speak out against any sin that has been committed against him or her as have that person's elected or appointed representatives; the other is a 'sin' against an individual's own moral code of conduct which must be a personal matter for himself or herself and it is not for others to take the high moral ground and condemn the person. Provided there are no victiims or any infringement of the Law, just being gay doesn't automatically equate to being a sinner.
Whilst the Scriptures are immensely important, they are words written many centuries ago by people who were much less scholarly than those who seek to interpret them in the 21st Century. And those words have been translated from their original form and then re-translated and revised etc still further over the centuries.
My point is that I am sure that Our Lord is not confined by narrow interpretations of Religious texts and that His Love is such that He does not reject people because of one aspect of their whole being.
I truly believe that Our Lord loves ALL his children even when we commit sins, as we all do.
Helen
7.6.2011 | 6:41pm
Stanley Roethemeyer says:
I am one of "those" in Gothenburg who appreciate persons like those of Russel Saltzman, who endure and drive the extra mile on principles and tenents for Christ, the Scripture and to assist the "shepardless"
I left the ELCA American Lutheran Church in Gothenburg, NE, resigning my membership in September 2009. I was on the council and obviously was asked to step down. The church had been my refuge and sanctuary and a large of my life was not only worshiping but teaching Sunday, serving on commitees, buffing the floor, and I was the unoffical coffee maker. The point was and is I felt and still feel a hugh loss and a betrayal by the ELCA. I heard it said I didn't leave the ELCA the ELCA left me. Understand, Gothenburg, is a small community of about 4000 + . The congretation I left behind are friends, neighbors. (still are) Some I deal with professionally. I do not harbor ill towards to those who have chosen to stay with the ELCA for what ever reason. However, one such know, as it is a small community that Christians are strange while most are friendly some will cross street, duck to the next aisle, leave the check out counter, or avoid you in other ways. I have had no contact with the pastor or the pma in the church all be it for a chance meeting at work or a resturant. What amazing to me; if the case for the ELCA's tenents and social statement are so true why has not the pastor or pma ever called me or stopped by just to test the waters. Never, a knock on the door, a short phone call or email, just silence and more silence. I a would not change my mind because I adhere to the scriptures and maybe because I was raised Missouri Synod moreever, never has the ELCA come forth with creditable evidence to support a different intrepretation of scriptures. The other point is the ELCA does not want an open dicussion of what is true and there in lies a troublesome point. No blessings from the ELCA just leave.
I left the ELCA American Lutheran Church in Gothenburg, NE, resigning my membership in September 2009. I was on the council and obviously was asked to step down. The church had been my refuge and sanctuary and a large of my life was not only worshiping but teaching Sunday, serving on commitees, buffing the floor, and I was the unoffical coffee maker. The point was and is I felt and still feel a hugh loss and a betrayal by the ELCA. I heard it said I didn't leave the ELCA the ELCA left me. Understand, Gothenburg, is a small community of about 4000 + . The congretation I left behind are friends, neighbors. (still are) Some I deal with professionally. I do not harbor ill towards to those who have chosen to stay with the ELCA for what ever reason. However, one such know, as it is a small community that Christians are strange while most are friendly some will cross street, duck to the next aisle, leave the check out counter, or avoid you in other ways. I have had no contact with the pastor or the pma in the church all be it for a chance meeting at work or a resturant. What amazing to me; if the case for the ELCA's tenents and social statement are so true why has not the pastor or pma ever called me or stopped by just to test the waters. Never, a knock on the door, a short phone call or email, just silence and more silence. I a would not change my mind because I adhere to the scriptures and maybe because I was raised Missouri Synod moreever, never has the ELCA come forth with creditable evidence to support a different intrepretation of scriptures. The other point is the ELCA does not want an open dicussion of what is true and there in lies a troublesome point. No blessings from the ELCA just leave.
7.6.2011 | 7:12pm
Stanley Roethemeyer says:
Helen
Understandably you speak of homosexuality, not being mentioned by name and that being a homosexual is not neccesarily a sin. Isn't this the straw that broke the proverbial camels back? Sin, what defines it beside the bible? Man certainly would not. Actions speak from the heart. We are all born in sin and sin by thought, word and deed. The Catholics speak of venial and carnal sin, little sin big sin. The crux is in the definition and I think the scriptures make it more then clear what is sin. I am sure you can find the scriptures that define sin moreover the human body was not designed for such perversions.
All sin and fall short yes Helen but before you can repent of sin one must understand what is sinful and what is not. The ELCA has established themselves alone authority to redefine what is sinful and what is not!!!!
My understanding is that homosexuals are welcomed into the body of Christ any no less then say a hidden sin of a person addicted to porngraphy. Is it that an addiction to porngraphy would be sinful however, acting on homosexual urges would not be?
Tell me also how can heterosexuals living together in a "committed be any different then a committed homosexual relationship. In my day unmarried couples (heterosexuals) were absolutely in bold black and white "living in Sin" Then you say well it is because they can not be married legality except the few states that fallen to liberalistic worldly demands. The slope drops steeply into the abyss from here.
I would refer to 1 Corinthians 1 : 18 .
Understandably you speak of homosexuality, not being mentioned by name and that being a homosexual is not neccesarily a sin. Isn't this the straw that broke the proverbial camels back? Sin, what defines it beside the bible? Man certainly would not. Actions speak from the heart. We are all born in sin and sin by thought, word and deed. The Catholics speak of venial and carnal sin, little sin big sin. The crux is in the definition and I think the scriptures make it more then clear what is sin. I am sure you can find the scriptures that define sin moreover the human body was not designed for such perversions.
All sin and fall short yes Helen but before you can repent of sin one must understand what is sinful and what is not. The ELCA has established themselves alone authority to redefine what is sinful and what is not!!!!
My understanding is that homosexuals are welcomed into the body of Christ any no less then say a hidden sin of a person addicted to porngraphy. Is it that an addiction to porngraphy would be sinful however, acting on homosexual urges would not be?
Tell me also how can heterosexuals living together in a "committed be any different then a committed homosexual relationship. In my day unmarried couples (heterosexuals) were absolutely in bold black and white "living in Sin" Then you say well it is because they can not be married legality except the few states that fallen to liberalistic worldly demands. The slope drops steeply into the abyss from here.
I would refer to 1 Corinthians 1 : 18 .
7.16.2011 | 8:35am
Jazmine Marchizano says:
"The definition of words like "heresy" is fine for scholars but all Christianity is about people not words. We use words to enable us to communicate with our fellow human beings but our Faith surely cannot be confined by words that humans have invented?" The definition of words like "heresy" is fine for scholars but all Christianity is about people not words. We use words to enable us to communicate with our fellow human beings but our Faith surely cannot be confined by words that humans have invented?
8.2.2011 | 9:27pm
Kim says:
One speaks of silence with church pastors, elders, pma etc...it speaks just as loud in other situations than the debate of homosexuality. Ultimately we are responsible for our own walk and faith. We have only one true God to whom our eyes must be focused on. People will fail us time and time again. Jesus is all the acceptance we need. As hurtful as people will be, we need to keep our eyes focused on Him.
