Ask a Lutheran anything ...

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. And I'll answer however I choose.

So what are you setting me up for? Or is this question itself just another joke?

...anything?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Enough with the foreshadowing already, just ask it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Enough with the foreshadowing already, just ask it.

Patience...patients.

 

[Resha Caner]

...anything?

Until the question changes, my answer is in post #20.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Until the question changes, my answer is in post #20.

So...to be sure...anything?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So...to be sure...anything?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This girl gets it...

(I think)

 

[Resha Caner]

This girl gets it...

I doubt she was the only one. I debated how many level's deep I wanted to go with Poe's Law, but quickly tired of the game.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I doubt she was the only one. I debated how many level's deep I wanted to go with Poe's Law, but quickly tired of the game.

Alright alright...serious question then...

Is there anything interesting going on in Lutheranism these days...like Czernobog worship or something?

 

[Resha Caner]

Is there anything interesting going on in Lutheranism these days...like Czernobog worship or something?

I don't know what would be interesting to you. Confessional Lutherans see the role of the Church as very simple. So, we often find ourselves repeating that:

Does the church do this?
No. Our mission is simple.
Does the church do that?
No. Our mission is simple.

As a church we don't often get involved in politics, don't promote social gospel kinds of stuff, don't press to "advance" theology. Our mission is simple.

So, there's probably not much in the way of headline grabbers to interest you, though our President (Matthew Harrison) recently testified before Congress about the birth control provisions in ObamaCare.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know what would be interesting to you. Confessional Lutherans see the role of the Church as very simple. So, we often find ourselves repeating that:

Does the church do this?
No. Our mission is simple.
Does the church do that?
No. Our mission is simple.

As a church we don't often get involved in politics, don't promote social gospel kinds of stuff, don't press to "advance" theology. Our mission is simple.

So, there's probably not much in the way of headline grabbers to interest you, though our President (Matthew Harrison) recently testified before Congress about the birth control provisions in ObamaCare.

Weeeeee....

 

[FireDragon76]

Rejection of episcopacy, and congregational polity, is only true of some Lutherans. Scandinavian Lutherans retained the order of bishop following the medieval model. The largest Lutheran denomination in the US, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, does have bishops, and recently comitted to adopting apostolic succession of bishops, in conformity with the Episcopalian Church. The ELCA and most Lutheran national churches are also not exclusively confessional, most have a broad view of the nature of the Christian faith and attempt to accommodate a wide spectrum of theological opinions within orthodoxy.

It's my understanding the congregationalism in certain Lutheran regions came from 1) the medieval consensus around holy orders and apostolic succession- not all agreed that bishops were necessary for apostolic authority 2) a lack of bishops that supported the Lutheran cause, and not, specifically, from a rejection of bishops for the good order of the Church

 

[Resha Caner]

Rejection of episcopacy, and congregational polity, is only true of some Lutherans.

I noted that I was only speaking about Confessional Lutheranism, and maybe I should have added "in the U.S.". Specifically, I attend an LCMS church. IMO the ELCA is only culturally Lutheran. Anyone can paint a label on a sign. It's what one teaches that shows what one is.

In terms of church governance, I'm not personally stuck on a hierarchical vs. a congregational style. I think congregational styles are more favored in the U.S. simply because so many people put democracy on a pedestal - not necessarily a good thing. What Lutherans specifically object to is the idea of Christ's Vicar - that God institutes Church power in an individual other than Christ (the Word).

You could reference Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

 

[Paradoxum]

It's called Luther's rose: Luther rose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohh, okay.

I come from the Confessional branch of Lutherans, so I'll only address those beliefs. We are called Confessional because we still hold to (confess) the Book of Concord as the proper exposition (interpretation) of the Bible. The Book of Concord is what Luther and his followers put together to explain what they saw as the necessary reforms of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

You don't think it's dodgy to have yet another book that one can't question? If that is so.

So, in that regard, you could say the unique thing about Lutherans is that we never intended to leave the RCC (while other reformers openly advocated for a break). Concord was simply a petition to the pope to reform the church, but since Luther was excommunicated as a result, they were forced to worship outside the RCC.

Okay then.

The Lutheran view, therefore (though I'm sure my RCC brothers would disagree) is that all we have done is remove what the RCC had added and changed over the years. In that regard, we are very similar to the RCC and maybe even more similar to the Orthodox Church. You will find many former Lutherans in the Orthodox Church and many former Orthodox in Lutheran churches. Some of the key differences are that we don't venerate Mary or pray to the Saints. Neither do we have an episcopal structure (pope, bishops, etc.) Rather, we have a congregational structure.

I don't really know anything about the Orthodox Church, so that doesn't help me.

In terms of Calvinism and Arminianism, you could say we fall in between the two. We believe only God can call someone to faith, but we believe that call can be rejected - no double predestination or once-saved-always-saved.

That's better than Calvinism.

Can you see why someone like me might find it confusing though? I was a committed Christian, but I lost faith because I thought there wasn't enough evidence... not because I purposely rejected something I knew was God.

I wouldn't say the sacraments (the Eucharist and Baptism) are "magical". Rather, they are two of the physical means by which God calls people to faith. People are always asking "blind faith" and "supernatural" questions ... How can you know God if there is no evidence? How can God interact with us if he's not physical? Stuff like that. The sacraments are 2 ways he physically interacts with us. There are others such as the Word and prayer. [edit] Oops. I goofed the first time and wrote "I would say the sacraments are magical" rather than "wouldn't".

Well, I agree that the bread, wine, and water interact with us... but I'd be suspicious (even as a Christian) saying that the water touching us is God touching us.

So, we believe the water causes a change in a person when they are baptized.

I used to believe that someone can become a Christian before being baptised, and one can be baptised in the Holy Spirit before being baptised in water. So I don't know what this change is in water baptism.

And, similarly, we believe the bread and wine cause a change in a person - that Christ is physically present. Unlike the RCC we don't believe the bread and wine are body and blood, but rather that Christ is physically present during the sacrament.

Physically present? Can you see him standing next to you? Not spiritually present?

As such, by taking the bread and wine we are "participating" in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16). So, it's not that the Eucharist is cannibalism - that we're munching on someone's body - but that we're allowing the present Christ to physically change us. It's why we take St. Paul's warning so seriously (1 Corinthians 11:29).

I don't know what that means though? What does 'participating in the body of Christ' mean, if put in non-mysterious terms?

If Christ physically changes you, what does that mean? Decreasing fat content?

 

[Resha Caner]

You don't think it's dodgy to have yet another book that one can't question? If that is so.

A reasonable question - something I myself thought at one point. The difference is that Concord is not claimed to be infallible. It could be wrong. It's just that no one has offered a better Biblical interpretation.

I would say it's analogous to the cherished scientific method so often discussed here. You're not going to claim science is absolute truth, but it's the best theory you've got and you'll stick to it until something better comes along. Well but you do have alternatives ... Lee Smolin's quantum loop theory vs. string theory. One side chooses one. Another side chooses the other. Both sides admit they could be wrong ... but they don't really think they are wrong.

That's where Concord sits WRT theology in the Lutheran world view.

I don't really know anything about the Orthodox Church, so that doesn't help me.

Then check it out. I've heard your dislike of the RCC, so maybe you'll like the Orthodox instead.

Can you see why someone like me might find it confusing though? I was a committed Christian, but I lost faith because I thought there wasn't enough evidence... not because I purposely rejected something I knew was God.

Sometimes it's about trust rather than evidence ... even in science. On this forum I have asked: Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference.

Well, I agree that the bread, wine, and water interact with us... but I'd be suspicious (even as a Christian) saying that the water touching us is God touching us.

The water is the means, not God himself just as the bread and wine are the means and not God himself. Am I speaking to you? Directly? Not really. The Internet is the physical means I'm using to speak to you. I physically type. You physically read. The path is physical end to end. Sometimes we are even both "present" - you reading almost at the moment I type it.

I used to believe that someone can become a Christian before being baptised, and one can be baptised in the Holy Spirit before being baptised in water. So I don't know what this change is in water baptism.

Someone can have faith without baptism. Baptism is a gift that gives faith, but it is not a requirement. Further, the Spirit can interact with people - even people who have not been baptized. But baptism of the Spirit is an abused term.

If Christ physically changes you, what does that mean? Decreasing fat content?

Were you in the conversation where we were equating the Biblical concept of the soul with the concept of self? They're not necessarily exactly the same, but the ideas are very similar. Do you think anything about your "self" (your soul) is immaterial? I don't (spirit is a different matter). So, when someone moves from unbelief to belief, wouldn't that be the result of some physical change in brain chemistry?

You're probably going to ask more questions about this, but I'll warn you that from here on out the answers are likely to be just my opinion - not Lutheran theology.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sometimes it's about trust rather than evidence ... even in science. On this forum I have asked: Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference.

That's an interesting point. You do realize.there is a huge difference in trusting the claims of some scientist and the claims of the bible, don't you?

The obvious difference is the strings attached to the claims of the bible. If some CERN scientist makes some claims about the results of some experiment, he isn't going to say that I have to change anything about the way I live if I accept those claims. Conversely, if I accept the claims of the bible...there are tons of strings attached to the way I should live and act.

You can probably imagine that if a scientist were to make a claim that would affect the way I live (say for example, that I shouldn't vaccinate my children) suddenly I would want to investigate that claim as much as possible. I'd want to look at all the science behind it to the greatest extent I possibly can. That's just one change in my life...whether or not to vaccinate a child. The bible, however, wants to tell me all sorts of things from how I treat people, who I can marry, how I spend my time, how I treat my wife, etc etc etc. The sad part is...I'll never be able to investigate it anymore than I have. I've read it, there's no experiments to perform, no results to measure. I can listen to other interpretations, but that won't mean a whole lot unless I decide to choose which interpretation to believe based upon what suits me at the time (which seems hypocritical).

So maybe I'll never perform experiments with a supercollider, it affects my life none. It doesn't ask anything of me. Whether I believe the results or not, it matters almost none. What's more is since it asks nothing of me, I need not question the motives of those making the claims. The bible asks a great deal of me, so I must question the truth of it's claims and the motives of those making them.

Now, you could say that simple belief in a god, without christianity or any religion attached doesn't ask anything of me, or require any change in my life...so why not believe that? The obvious answer is, why believe it in the first place? Without any evidence...there's no reason.

 

[znr]

Now if you were SDA and had posed this question, fun fun. Oh well. Know what I mean?

 

[znr]

Is the way the bible tells people to treat each other that off putting?

That's an interesting point. You do realize.there is a huge difference in trusting the claims of some scientist and the claims of the bible, don't you?

The obvious difference is the strings attached to the claims of the bible. If some CERN scientist makes some claims about the results of some experiment, he isn't going to say that I have to change anything about the way I live if I accept those claims. Conversely, if I accept the claims of the bible...there are tons of strings attached to the way I should live and act.

You can probably imagine that if a scientist were to make a claim that would affect the way I live (say for example, that I shouldn't vaccinate my children) suddenly I would want to investigate that claim as much as possible. I'd want to look at all the science behind it to the greatest extent I possibly can. That's just one change in my life...whether or not to vaccinate a child. The bible, however, wants to tell me all sorts of things from how I treat people, who I can marry, how I spend my time, how I treat my wife, etc etc etc. The sad part is...I'll never be able to investigate it anymore than I have. I've read it, there's no experiments to perform, no results to measure. I can listen to other interpretations, but that won't mean a whole lot unless I decide to choose which interpretation to believe based upon what suits me at the time (which seems hypocritical).

So maybe I'll never perform experiments with a supercollider, it affects my life none. It doesn't ask anything of me. Whether I believe the results or not, it matters almost none. What's more is since it asks nothing of me, I need not question the motives of those making the claims. The bible asks a great deal of me, so I must question the truth of it's claims and the motives of those making them.

Now, you could say that simple belief in a god, without christianity or any religion attached doesn't ask anything of me, or require any change in my life...so why not believe that? The obvious answer is, why believe it in the first place? Without any evidence...there's no reason.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is the way the bible tells people to treat each other that off putting?

I could go on...

I'd want Resha's permission though, it's his thread and topic.

 

[znr]

Right. I don't want to hijack. Good point - my bad. I bet you could go on and on. I can too. It would have been fun.

I could go on...

I'd want Resha's permission though, it's his thread and topic.