The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

[AngelusSax]

Alcoholism as a metaphor and point of reference for system rigidity (which is different from saying alcoholism is actually causing people to "believe the Bible" or "be really rigid" or whatever)... I never would have thought of that.

There is a nice point to gleam from that. It is often the "you better not do this or you'll burn in hell" types, or the "if you do this we have to kick you out" types that do whatever "this" is as much as, if not moreso than, anyone else.

Not always the case, of course, and I would hope no one would think that it is. But it is nice to see someone point out that often, the reason people point at everyone else for all their sins is that they're trying to deflect attention away from their own sins. Too bad it very often works (as far as the attention of mere people is considered).

 

[Willy]

Not every member of an alcoholic family is an alcholic, but alcoholism affects every member. According to systems theory some members of an alchoholic family may be enablers, scapegoats, etc. Alcoholic families tend to be closed and rigid.

Alcoholism can also affect systems larger than families. And again, it doesn't mean that every member of the system is an alcoholic, but it does mean that every member of the system is affected by the alcoholism. I knew of a camp that was run by an alcoholic. It was run with a rigid sense of control, mostly to compensate for the fact that the administrator felt his life to be out of control. When the administrator resigned, the dysfunction of the system was revealed. The camp closed. Understand this: the administrator was the alcoholic. His alcoholism affected the entire system. That does not mean that the campers were alcoholics. That does not mean that the staff were alcoholics. It does mean that the system was pervaded by its leaders alcoholism.

I have no idea whether the LC-MS is truly an alcoholic system. I have no idea whether there is alcoholism in its leadership. But I think that Willy makes an interesting point, which is that in its rigidity and closedness, the LC-MS shows some of the same characteristics of an alcoholic system.

By the way, this has nothing to with biblical inerrancy, the historicity of Adam and Eve or any other matter of doctrine. It has to do with the rigidity with which doctrines are held.

Thank you for getting it. I think when we begin to "get" some of this stuff we will be well on our way toward being more whole. Our systems will be more whole. It seems to me that until the Roman Catholic church begins to understand that there is a systemic problem ( a problems defnintely connected to alcoholism and sexual repression) it will have a hard time getting healthier. And I don't say this with evil desires in mind for the RC church. It is to say that our problems are not ony personal; they are systemic. I think Paul grasped that when he spoke of "powers and principalities."

 

[AngelusSax]

Unfortunately, Willy, not everyone has eyes to see or hears to hear, or hearts to understand.

It really is a shame. I'm not even sure I got it exactly as you meant, but at least I didn't think you were calling all "true believers(tm)" "alcoholic perverts".

 

[Edial]

Unfortunately, Willy, not everyone has eyes to see or hears to hear, or hearts to understand.

It really is a shame. I'm not even sure I got it exactly as you meant, but at least I didn't think you were calling all "true believers(tm)" "alcoholic perverts".

Well, since I cannot put Willy in the context of a prophet, I certainly do not feel embarassed not to see certain "subliminal" statements.

Yet I see this ...

"Church bodies, it seems to me, can be involved in the same deflection. "Let's make sure that everybody believes that Adam and Eve were real historical people. Let's make them tow the line." Then maybe they would not have to deal with the dysfunction that is driving the rigidity. By the way, I don't think that any system (the ELCA or the Missouri Synod or any other) is exempt from these systemic realities. Obviously some are healthier than others. And some are definitely sicker than others."

... the rigidity that is defined by someone believing into the literal Adam and Eve.
And later on, there is a definition that there are "healthier systemic realities" and "sicker" ones.

I am certain you do not mean to say that Willy means that the literal Adam and Eve teaching church bodies are the healthier ones.

Ed

 

[AngelusSax]

I am certain you do not mean to say that Willy means that the literal Adam and Eve teaching church bodies are the healthier ones.

Maybe he doesn't. His point was "since we have problem X, let's darn sure people believe point y, so that problem x will not be looked at so closely".

You don't have to look at someone like an OT prophet in order to think.

The point wasn't about the literalness of Adam and Eve being the "bad rigidity." RIGIDITY ITSELF was the problem.
The statement would be just as true and mean the exact same thing if it read:

Church bodies, it seems to me, can be involved in the same deflection. "Let's make sure that everybody believes that homosexuality is good and David was himself gay. Let's make them tow the line." Then maybe they would not have to deal with the dysfunction that is driving the rigidity.

I realize that would have been more comfortable for many on here, because then they could still focus on the side-issue, in that instance being homosexuality and any supposed gayness of David, instead of the real issue, which was the rigidity used to cover some type of badness behind the scenes on the part of someone who is behind said scenes.

 

[Willy]

Well, since I cannot put Willy in the context of a prophet, I certainly do not feel embarassed not to see certain "subliminal" statements.

Yet I see this ...

"Church bodies, it seems to me, can be involved in the same deflection. "Let's make sure that everybody believes that Adam and Eve were real historical people. Let's make them tow the line." Then maybe they would not have to deal with the dysfunction that is driving the rigidity. By the way, I don't think that any system (the ELCA or the Missouri Synod or any other) is exempt from these systemic realities. Obviously some are healthier than others. And some are definitely sicker than others."

... the rigidity that is defined by someone believing into the literal Adam and Eve.
And later on, there is a definition that there are "healthier systemic realities" and "sicker" ones.

I am certain you do not mean to say that Willy means that the literal Adam and Eve teaching church bodies are the healthier ones.

Ed

Honestly, and you are not going to like this, but from my perspective Adam and Eve as not literal persons is just a matter of fact. My point is that we can use issues like this from preventing us from dealing with the real issues. And Adam and Eve's historicity is not the real issue. But I have to admit that the real issues can be found within the Adam and Eve story. This narrative is so profound, so capable of taking us to the matters that matter. But we would rather avoid those issues by focusing on A and E's historicity, which to me is a real deflection.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

This is the singularly the most ridiculous discussion I have ever seen anywhere.

I'm too confused to even be able to agree with DaRev

 

[Edial]

Honestly, and you are not going to like this, but from my perspective Adam and Eve as not literal persons is just a matter of fact. My point is that we can use issues like this from preventing us from dealing with the real issues. And Adam and Eve's historicity is not the real issue. But I have to admit that the real issues can be found within the Adam and Eve story. This narrative is so profound, so capable of taking us to the matters that matter. But we would rather avoid those issues by focusing on A and E's historicity, which to me is a real deflection.

Oh, but I know you do not believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve. It is not a secret.

You said this.

"Church bodies, it seems to me, can be involved in the same deflection. "Let's make sure that everybody believes that Adam and Eve were real historical people. Let's make them tow the line." Then maybe they would not have to deal with the dysfunction that is driving the rigidity. By the way, I don't think that any system (the ELCA or the Missouri Synod or any other) is exempt from these systemic realities. Obviously some are healthier than others. And some are definitely sicker than others."

...and I cleared up to point out that you said that the rigidity that you are referring to is defined by someone who believes in the literal Adam and Eve.

And later on in your quote, there is a definition that there are "healthier systemic realities" and "sicker" ones.

And from you text it appears to be certain you do not mean that the literal Adam and Eve teaching church bodies are the healthier ones.

Am I incorrect?

 

[Edial]

Maybe he doesn't. His point was "since we have problem X, let's darn sure people believe point y, so that problem x will not be looked at so closely".

You don't have to look at someone like an OT prophet in order to think.

The point wasn't about the literalness of Adam and Eve being the "bad rigidity." RIGIDITY ITSELF was the problem.
The statement would be just as true and mean the exact same thing if it read:

Church bodies, it seems to me, can be involved in the same deflection. "Let's make sure that everybody believes that homosexuality is good and David was himself gay. Let's make them tow the line." Then maybe they would not have to deal with the dysfunction that is driving the rigidity.

I realize that would have been more comfortable for many on here, because then they could still focus on the side-issue, in that instance being homosexuality and any supposed gayness of David, instead of the real issue, which was the rigidity used to cover some type of badness behind the scenes on the part of someone who is behind said scenes.

Why don't you just look again at what the quote said and tell me.
Which church body the text appears to present as the sicker one?
The one that believes that historicity of Adam and Eve is true or the one that believes it is not?

 

[JoeCatch]

I didn't take Willy's point to be that church bodies whose members believe in a literal Adam and Eve were, by definition, rigid. I took his point to be that insistence on conformity with regard to such beliefs is symptomatic of a systemic problem. So you can substitute for literal A&E any issue you like that could be used as a litmus test issue. The point isn't about the unhealthiness of believing in literal A&E; it's about the unhealthiness of the compulsion to apply litmus tests. Literal A&E was just one example that Will chose to illustrate his point. But if there's still any lack of clarity regarding what Willy actually meant, I ask him to clear it up for us.

Willy, I liked the connection you drew between systems & ideologies and powers & principalities. I've been giving a lot of thought lately to the question of what the modern mind ought to make of references to such in scripture. I have a hard time taking seriously the literalness of accounts describing beings such as angels, demons, serpents in the garden, etc. So I have a great deal of affinity for a view such as yours, that sees these description as a deep metaphor about the nature and history of our actual world and what we see playing itself out and unfolding in it, rather than a literal account of some other world separate from our own. And when we come to understand these accounts and descriptions as such, we recognize that there is a deep spiritual truth to these stories that simply cannot be encapsulated by affirming their literalness. Your connecting systems to powers & principalities is an idea that makes a great deal of sense and links up well with my own experience, so thanks for that tidbit.

I'm not personally close enough to what's going on in the LCMS right now to be in a position to evaluate the link you draw between its problems and alcoholism & sexual dysfunction. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether you were simply using those two systemic problems as analogies for what's going on in the LCMS based on the similarity of the symptoms that all such symptoms exhibit, or if your claim was actually that a pervasiveness (to one degree or another) of alcoholism and sexual dysfunction in the actual lives of of members of the LCMS is the direct cause of the church body's systemic problems (the latter interpretation being the one on which I have no basis on which to say whether you're right or wrong). But I do think you offer a plausible alternative to the view that struggles and problems within a church body (and here I mean any church body because we in the ELCA clearly have struggles and problems of our own, as well) are primarily or essentially doctrinal disagreements. Even setting aside the disagreements on the issues over which such struggles and problems arise, that's clearly a very different way to understand the root and nature of the problem (hence the reason that which way one answers such questions doesn't necessarily get to the real heart of what's at stake in such struggles). There is wisdom in what you have written; thank you for sharing it with us.

 

[AngelusSax]

Why don't you just look again at what the quote said and tell me.
Which church body the text appears to present as the sicker one?
The one that believes that historicity of Adam and Eve is true or the one that believes it is not?

It appears to be the literal Adam and Eve one. But the point is not about the literal Adam and Eve one, and only becomes so if one wants to lambast him over some simple disagreement. I had to read the statement twice to get the point.

One does not need to regard anything that is not an OT prophecy as a one-time-read-and-got-it, unless one wants to make a mistake so one can erroneously claim some form of higher ground, whether theologically or morally.

 

[Willy]

I didn't take Willy's point to be that church bodies whose members believe in a literal Adam and Eve were, by definition, rigid. I took his point to be that insistence on conformity with regard to such beliefs is symptomatic of a systemic problem. So you can substitute for literal A&E any issue you like that could be used as a litmus test issue. The point isn't about the unhealthiness of believing in literal A&E; it's about the unhealthiness of the compulsion to apply litmus tests. Literal A&E was just one example that Will chose to illustrate his point. But if there's still any lack of clarity regarding what Willy actually meant, I ask him to clear it up for us.

Willy, I liked the connection you drew between systems & ideologies and powers & principalities. I've been giving a lot of thought lately to the question of what the modern mind ought to make of references to such in scripture. I have a hard time taking seriously the literalness of accounts describing beings such as angels, demons, serpents in the garden, etc. So I have a great deal of affinity for a view such as yours, that sees these description as a deep metaphor about the nature and history of our actual world and what we see playing itself out and unfolding in it, rather than a literal account of some other world separate from our own. And when we come to understand these accounts and descriptions as such, we recognize that there is a deep spiritual truth to these stories that simply cannot be encapsulated by affirming their literalness. Your connecting systems to powers & principalities is an idea that makes a great deal of sense and links up well with my own experience, so thanks for that tidbit.

I'm not personally close enough to what's going on in the LCMS right now to be in a position to evaluate the link you draw between its problems and alcoholism & sexual dysfunction. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether you were simply using those two systemic problems as analogies for what's going on in the LCMS based on the similarity of the symptoms that all such symptoms exhibit, or if your claim was actually that a pervasiveness (to one degree or another) of alcoholism and sexual dysfunction in the actual lives of of members of the LCMS is the direct cause of the church body's systemic problems (the latter interpretation being the one on which I have no basis on which to say whether you're right or wrong). But I do think you offer a plausible alternative to the view that struggles and problems within a church body (and here I mean any church body because we in the ELCA clearly have struggles and problems of our own, as well) are primarily or essentially doctrinal disagreements. Even setting aside the disagreements on the issues over which such struggles and problems arise, that's clearly a very different way to understand the root and nature of the problem (hence the reason that which way one answers such questions doesn't necessarily get to the real heart of what's at stake in such struggles). There is wisdom in what you have written; thank you for sharing it with us.

Wow! Thanks for some great comments. Part of what got me thinking about this was my experience at seminary where I encountered some of the best theological mind that the church has known. These were folks who fled the MS in the seventies. It was interesting to me that these folks had fled the rigidity of the MS, but their approach to theology and church life maintained a rigidity. They couldn't get outside of it. (Some of that may have been a German ethnic issue, I realize.) And I noted that alcoholism was certainly an issue for some of those folks. And then, later in my life when I came to the church that I serve now I encountered some folks in this ELCA church who were just flabbergasted that this pastor could believe that the story of Jonah was not an historical one. Many of these folks were former MS people or became MS after I arrived. It was interesting to discover, after these folks left our church, that many of them were struggling with alcohol issues. It became clear to me at that point that discusions about Jonah were a way of avoiding the real issues in their lives. This rigid little theological system was a way of avoiding the truth about their lives. Maintain a rigid theological world and then you don't have to deal with the reality of phenomenal brokenness. For me, the modern MS church has sometimes acted like an alcoholic family, which has made me wonder if the current predominate version of Missouri Synodism might not have been shaped by ssome leaders who were struggling with alcoholism. I don't know this. But I wonder.

 

[Edial]

Wow! Thanks for some great comments. Part of what got me thinking about this was my experience at seminary where I encountered some of the best theological mind that the church has known. These were folks who fled the MS in the seventies. It was interesting to me that these folks had fled the rigidity of the MS, but their approach to theology and church life maintained a rigidity. They couldn't get outside of it. (Some of that may have been a German ethnic issue, I realize.) And I noted that alcoholism was certainly an issue for some of those folks. And then, later in my life when I came to the church that I serve now I encountered some folks in this ELCA church who were just flabbergasted that this pastor could believe that the story of Jonah was not an historical one. Many of these folks were former MS people or became MS after I arrived. It was interesting to discover, after these folks left our church, that many of them were struggling with alcohol issues. It became clear to me at that point that discusions about Jonah were a way of avoiding the real issues in their lives. This rigid little theological system was a way of avoiding the truth about their lives. Maintain a rigid theological world and then you don't have to deal with the reality of phenomenal brokenness. For me, the modern MS church has sometimes acted like an alcoholic family, which has made me wonder if the current predominate version of Missouri Synodism might not have been shaped by ssome leaders who were struggling with alcoholism. I don't know this. But I wonder.

Thank you for clarifying this.

A follow up ...

Do you believe that there are quite healthy people that believe the facticity of Biblical accounts of Adam and Eve, and so forth, simply because the Bible referred to them as real people? No other reason?

 

[DaRev]

Wow! Thanks for some great comments. Part of what got me thinking about this was my experience at seminary where I encountered some of the best theological mind that the church has known. These were folks who fled the MS in the seventies. It was interesting to me that these folks had fled the rigidity of the MS, but their approach to theology and church life maintained a rigidity. They couldn't get outside of it. (Some of that may have been a German ethnic issue, I realize.) And I noted that alcoholism was certainly an issue for some of those folks. And then, later in my life when I came to the church that I serve now I encountered some folks in this ELCA church who were just flabbergasted that this pastor could believe that the story of Jonah was not an historical one. Many of these folks were former MS people or became MS after I arrived. It was interesting to discover, after these folks left our church, that many of them were struggling with alcohol issues. It became clear to me at that point that discusions about Jonah were a way of avoiding the real issues in their lives. This rigid little theological system was a way of avoiding the truth about their lives. Maintain a rigid theological world and then you don't have to deal with the reality of phenomenal brokenness. For me, the modern MS church has sometimes acted like an alcoholic family, which has made me wonder if the current predominate version of Missouri Synodism might not have been shaped by ssome leaders who were struggling with alcoholism. I don't know this. But I wonder.

You are a real piece of work.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

You are a real piece of work.

No debating...

...or name-calling.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Wow! Thanks for some great comments. Part of what got me thinking about this was my experience at seminary where I encountered some of the best theological mind that the church has known. These were folks who fled the MS in the seventies. It was interesting to me that these folks had fled the rigidity of the MS, but their approach to theology and church life maintained a rigidity. They couldn't get outside of it. (Some of that may have been a German ethnic issue, I realize.) And I noted that alcoholism was certainly an issue for some of those folks. And then, later in my life when I came to the church that I serve now I encountered some folks in this ELCA church who were just flabbergasted that this pastor could believe that the story of Jonah was not an historical one. Many of these folks were former MS people or became MS after I arrived. It was interesting to discover, after these folks left our church, that many of them were struggling with alcohol issues. It became clear to me at that point that discusions about Jonah were a way of avoiding the real issues in their lives. This rigid little theological system was a way of avoiding the truth about their lives. Maintain a rigid theological world and then you don't have to deal with the reality of phenomenal brokenness. For me, the modern MS church has sometimes acted like an alcoholic family, which has made me wonder if the current predominate version of Missouri Synodism might not have been shaped by ssome leaders who were struggling with alcoholism. I don't know this. But I wonder.

wow. Umm...I think you are oversimplifying the complexity of various people's situations and the current situation within the LCMS. Remember first that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, which seems to be a conclusion that you have drawn with this. Remember also that there are many factors and variables that cause divisions in conclusions on characters/events of the Bible. Along with hermaneutics (historical-critical vs. literal) some take it simply as a matter of faith, others would conclude some of these accounts in the bible based on archeological evidence (or a lack of contrary evidence), some believe it because it they see some things as an absolute must from a theological perspective (like for example, Adam and Eve must be real because if they weren't where did original sin come from, or moreover, how can we say it exists if we deny the very story that tells of its existence. Denying this event causes a major issue with mainstream Christian theology). And simply look at what you are saying, that people who look at theology rigidly in the LCMS (or were former LCMS and now rigid in the ELCA) are probably suffering from alchoholism. I mean, DaRev for example, I would probably say fits under your category of rigid (forgive me if you would say otherwise DaRev), but that does not necessarily make him an alchoholic, but yet indirectly you sortof just made that assertion. Though I am ELCA, in many ways I suppose I am rigid, but I do not think that I suffer from alchoholism. I'm not saying that you never encountered people who were both rigid and alchoholics, I am saying that one, they are not necessarily rigid because they are alchoholics, and two, even if that is why they are rigid, that does not mean that others who are rigid are because they are alchoholics. I guess that I would find that to be a dangerous claim that on a large scale probably lacks validity.
Peace be with you.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Doulos, I think you are mistaking Willy's point. He is not saying that rigid individuals are alcoholics. He is saying that rigidity is a characteristic of alcoholic systems.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Doulos, I think you are mistaking Willy's point. He is not saying that rigid individuals are alcoholics. He is saying that rigidity is a characteristic of alcoholic systems.

you could be right, but I am pointing out his theory/statement that the current status of LCMS rigidity is a consequence of Alchoholism, and how he is using correlation to draw causation when he says:

"It became clear to me at that point that discusions about Jonah were a way of avoiding the real issues in their lives. This rigid little theological system was a way of avoiding the truth about their lives. Maintain a rigid theological world and then you don't have to deal with the reality of phenomenal brokenness. For me, the modern MS church has sometimes acted like an alcoholic family, which has made me wonder if the current predominate version of Missouri Synodism might not have been shaped by ssome leaders who were struggling with alcoholism."

If he is not drawing causation from correlation here, and not making conclusions about the synod as a whole, I suppose I am mistaken, but I do think that it is not unreasonable to draw that conclusion from this post...no? After all, he says that the reason for the debating and sterness is to cover up alchoholism. Which sounds like it suggests that had they not been alchoholic, they would not be caught up in theological rigidity (causation). But anyways...
Peace be with you.

 

[Willy]

Doulos, I think you are mistaking Willy's point. He is not saying that rigid individuals are alcoholics. He is saying that rigidity is a characteristic of alcoholic systems.

yes, that is what I am saying and am wondering if the LCMS may not reflect the characteristics of an alcoholic system. I don't know that. I'm just wondering. It's the kind of thing that I've wondered a lot, even though this is probably the first time I've been bold enough to say it. I am in no way suggesting that Da Rev is an alcoholic. I don't even know the poor guy. I would never make that claim.

 

[Willy]

You are a real piece of work.

Thank you, or should I say as we do in worship "And also with you!" Just kidding. i know you are not used to the way I think, but that's okay. Maybe we have things to learn from each other.