Change Names of Lutheran Sub subs

[LutherNut]

Jay,

The reason I had for suggesting a change in the subforums of TC-L is because people like Danhead who have a Quia subscription would come to that forum and feel free to post without as much censorship because he is still considered ELCA. Just because some people are in the ELCA does not mean that they all have the same subscription to the confessions. I was trying to get away from synodical affiliation and get more to "what do you really believe?"

Subscription does that. If we need to we could call one "Because" subscription and the other "Insofaras" subscription. I don't want to be guilty of "pastorspeak" when I haven't even got the credentials.

Do the confessions speak of ordination of women or same-sex unions or gay clergy? One would hope that a full subscription to the confessions would also mean a full subscription to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

I don't really think dividing the subforums by confessional subscription is going to get to the heart of these issues. If any change is made, it should probably be along the lines of Scriptural authority and inerrancy. Like "Lutherans-The Bible IS the Word of God" and "Lutherans-The Bible CONTAINS the Word of God" (which actually fits the division as it is right now). Someone from the ELCA who claims a Quia subscription, but doesn't hold to the inerrancy of Scripture is not in agreement with one who holds a Quia subscription and also holds to the inerrancy of Scripture. Perhaps we should have sub-sub forums within the sub forums: "Quia-Scripture is inerrant", "Quia-Scripture is not inerrant", "Quantenus-Scripture is inerrant" and "Quantenus-Scripture is not inerrant."

I think the choice should be whether to keep the sub-forums (as they are) or the get rid of them altogether.

 

[ctobola]

Why not let each group decide what it wants to be called?

The distinctions between Lutheran groups is not a simple matter of "they believe A and we think A is wrong." ("A or !A" for you logic/computer geeks out there.)

[Okay, if you're extremely biased and can't see anyone else's perspective then you might see it that way.]

The real distinction lies in what each group VALUES. For the WELS and LCMS, a holding a particular view of Scripture and the Confessions is important -- it is valuable to them.

For us "lefties," [whatever that means] issues like outreach, social concern and community are important to our expression of the Lutheran faith.

Are those two primary values opposites? No, nor are they mutually exclusive.

So the problem is that ANY label we choose is based on one set of values and not the others.

Along a similar vein, would you ever refer to refer to blacks as "not-as-white people"? No way. That assumes that white is the baseline or norm, and that people should be labelled by how close they come to that norm.

In Christ,

-Cloy

 

[Protoevangel]

Why not let each group decide what it wants to be called?

The distinctions between Lutheran groups is not a simple matter of "they believe A and we think A is wrong." ("A or !A" for you logic/computer geeks out there.)

[Okay, if you're extremely biased and can't see anyone else's perspective then you might see it that way.]

The real distinction lies in what each group VALUES. For the WELS and LCMS, a holding a particular view of Scripture and the Confessions is important -- it is valuable to them.

For us "lefties," [whatever that means] issues like outreach, social concern and community are important to our expression of the Lutheran faith.

Are those two primary values opposites? No, nor are they mutually exclusive.

So the problem is that ANY label we choose is based on one set of values and not the others.

Along a similar vein, would you ever refer to refer to blacks as "not-as-white people"? No way. That assumes that white is the baseline or norm, and that people should be labelled by how close they come to that norm.

In Christ,

-Cloy

Long time no talk Cloy,

The only way I disagree with you is in that your post assumes that WELS and LCMS do NOT hold issues like outreach, social concern and community as important. Indeed they do, but they are not focussed on to the exclusion of correct Doctrine. If you disagree, then it is on you to prove your assertion that WELS and LCMS do not hold these as valuable.

And just cut it out with the "whatever that means" sillyness. Anyone who has read any of your posts knows you are way to smart for that one to be a stumper. You are the Linguistic Scholar, aren't you?

Edit:
To get back to my point. This leaves us with what really does seperate the groups. Is it a general conservativism/liberalism? Yes, to an extent, but not exclusively. More to the point, it would be how we see the nature and authority of Scripture, and the Confessions. Since the Confessions naturally assume the inerrancy of Scripture (yea, just try to debate me on that one), the simplist, most accurate differentiation between the two "groups" could be summarized as confessionalism. It is not a value judgement on who is better than the other, but a statement of what the groups hold as authoratative.

How about Confessional / Ecumenical, or something similar?
/Edit

If you are genuinly confused as to the meaning of "liberal", in relation to Christianlty, then perhaps this can be of some general assistance:

Liberal Christianity, progressive Christianity—or liberalism within a modern Christian context—is a movement within Christianity that is often characterized by the following features:

* internal diversity of opinion
* an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible with a corresponding willingness to question supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)
* the rejection of biblical literalism and the inerrancy of the Bible
* the freedom to construct one's own personal view of God
* broader views on salvation than those held by conservative Christians, including universalist beliefs
* an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community, often applied in recent years to racial minorities, women and homosexuals
* a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
* a willingness to combine theology with modern scientific theories

 

[IowaLutheran]

Perhaps we should have sub-sub forums within the sub forums: "Quia-Scripture is inerrant", "Quia-Scripture is not inerrant", "Quantenus-Scripture is inerrant" and "Quantenus-Scripture is not inerrant."

Confessional Lutherans should favor subforum titles in our native language instead of Latin.

 

[SPALATIN]

Do the confessions speak of ordination of women or same-sex unions or gay clergy? One would hope that a full subscription to the confessions would also mean a full subscription to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.

I don't really think dividing the subforums by confessional subscription is going to get to the heart of these issues. If any change is made, it should probably be along the lines of Scriptural authority and inerrancy. Like "Lutherans-The Bible IS the Word of God" and "Lutherans-The Bible CONTAINS the Word of God" (which actually fits the division as it is right now). Someone from the ELCA who claims a Quia subscription, but doesn't hold to the inerrancy of Scripture is not in agreement with one who holds a Quia subscription and also holds to the inerrancy of Scripture. Perhaps we should have sub-sub forums within the sub forums: "Quia-Scripture is inerrant", "Quia-Scripture is not inerrant", "Quantenus-Scripture is inerrant" and "Quantenus-Scripture is not inerrant."

I think the choice should be whether to keep the sub-forums (as they are) or the get rid of them altogether.

Quite frankly, I think that most who hold quia subscription would be against women's ordination, gay clergy etc. I am sure that there are many in the ELCA who are quatenus in their subscription to the confessions, but still feel that the ELCA for whatever other reason is where they belong. There are also those in the LCMS who take a quatenus view. The pastor of my congregation may be one of them.

So as far as I can see your argument is losing water fast.

 

[LutherNut]

How about Confessional / Ecumenical, or something similar?

I saw another post in the other thread that suggested "Confessional Lutheran" vs "Ecumenical Lutheran".

Having the word "Confessional" in the name is actually unfair to those who do not view the confessions as authoritive. Even the word "Lutheran" doesn't mean what it used to.

I think the distiction should be "Confessional Lutherans" and "Ecumenical Lutherans" since adherence to the Confessions precludes ecumenism (in the way the ELCA and more liberal sides do) and being ecumenical precludes adhering to the Confessions.

...just curious... what does "Temporarily Banned" mean?

 

[Protoevangel]

I saw another post in the other thread that suggested "Confessional Lutheran" vs "Ecumenical Lutheran".

What can I say, great minds think alike!

...just curious... what does "Temporarily Banned" mean?

Ummmm, banned temporarily? Exiled for a limited time? Unable to return for a season? Prohibited pro tem? Transiently Taboo? Briefly Barred?

 

[BigNorsk]

Rad,

With all due respect...and I do respect your opinion...You've just taken the first step towards liberalism. "Dumbing down" theology is exactly what got Lutheranism to this point in the first place. Using precise words is what keeps theology sharp. Using loose words makes theology sloppy.

Personally, I don't mind explaining things until the cows come home. As long as people are interested in Lutheran Theology, I'm thrilled.

K

And when exactly do the cows come home? Do they always come at the same time? If they always come at the same time, wouldn't it be better to precisely state what that time is? Or do different people's cows come at different times? How many people even have cows, much less a place for them to come home from? What happens when the cows come home? Why does instruction stop? Why is it about the presence of cows that makes religious instruction stop? Are cows linked to religions other than Christianity? Are they so loud as to make conversation impossible? Exactly what religious significance is attached to the phrase "when the cows come home"?

Just curious.

Marv

 

[Protoevangel]

And when exactly do the cows come home? Do they always come at the same time? If they always come at the same time, wouldn't it be better to precisely state what that time is? Or do different people's cows come at different times? How many people even have cows, much less a place for them to come home from? What happens when the cows come home? Why does instruction stop? Why is it about the presence of cows that makes religious instruction stop? Are cows linked to religions other than Christianity? Are they so loud as to make conversation impossible? Exactly what religious significance is attached to the phrase "when the cows come home"?

Just curious.

Marv

Dude, you are so funny!

 

[cableguy]

As much as I dislike indecisiveness, I voted for the last option. Change is needed, but I’m stuck between Quia/Quatenus or just getting rid of the sub-forums all together.

 

[KEPLER]

And when exactly do the cows come home? Do they always come at the same time? If they always come at the same time, wouldn't it be better to precisely state what that time is? Or do different people's cows come at different times? How many people even have cows, much less a place for them to come home from? What happens when the cows come home? Why does instruction stop? Why is it about the presence of cows that makes religious instruction stop? Are cows linked to religions other than Christianity? Are they so loud as to make conversation impossible? Exactly what religious significance is attached to the phrase "when the cows come home"?

Just curious.

Marv

It's all explained in Paul's 3rd letter to the Corinthians....

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Confessional Lutherans should favor subforum titles in our native language instead of Latin.

LOL -------------I love it !

 

[Jim47]

Why not let each group decide what it wants to be called?

The distinctions between Lutheran groups is not a simple matter of "they believe A and we think A is wrong." ("A or !A" for you logic/computer geeks out there.)

[Okay, if you're extremely biased and can't see anyone else's perspective then you might see it that way.]

The real distinction lies in what each group VALUES. For the WELS and LCMS, a holding a particular view of Scripture and the Confessions is important -- it is valuable to them.

For us "lefties," [whatever that means] issues like outreach, social concern and community are important to our expression of the Lutheran faith.

Are those two primary values opposites? No, nor are they mutually exclusive.

So the problem is that ANY label we choose is based on one set of values and not the others.

Along a similar vein, would you ever refer to refer to blacks as "not-as-white people"? No way. That assumes that white is the baseline or norm, and that people should be labelled by how close they come to that norm.

In Christ,

-Cloy

How about if we just name them "Those who hold to God's Word, and "Those who want their own agenda".

I'm sorry but I don't buy your rather sleezy labeling system. In the first place it iis nothing but a man made excuse to ignore what scripture teaches. God would say do the later without for going the former. Once you have set aside The Lord's Word, it is not Him who you are serving, but yourself.

 

[Jim47]

I voted to change the names but not as #2 suggests. I guess I'm guilty of the "Dumbing down" but I happen to like the englis speaking language not latin, greek or german. I personally don't care if the nmaes are changes or not, as I don't see a problme with ELCA members who are confessional Lutherans posting in the confessional forum. A man is not judged by his lable but by his heart. I think a more fitting name for the current LCMS WELS forum would be Confessional Lutherans and let the more liberal folks choose their own name so long as it doesn't reflect the idea that they are confessional.

I would vote to elimiinate the sub forums altogether, but I think there are few people who consider them a safe haven, therefore they are needed.

 

[ctobola]

How about if we just name them "Those who hold to God's Word, and "Those who want their own agenda".

I'm sorry but I don't buy your rather sleezy labeling system. In the first place it iis nothing but a man made excuse to ignore what scripture teaches. God would say do the later without for going the former. Once you have set aside The Lord's Word, it is not Him who you are serving, but yourself.

Quod erat demonstrandum. -Cloy

 

[ctobola]

The only way I disagree with you is in that your post assumes that WELS and LCMS do NOT hold issues like outreach, social concern and community as important. Indeed they do, but they are not focussed on to the exclusion of correct Doctrine. If you disagree, then it is on you to prove your assertion that WELS and LCMS do not hold these as valuable.
...snip...

Dan, you are correct. I should have been more clear. The issue is not whether these items are valued, but that they are valued differently. Even using the "valued more" or "valued less" is too simplistic -- there's lots of context that surrounds each of these concepts that needs to be considered.

It's late. I'll try to reply to the rest later....

-Cloy

 

[BigNorsk]

Since it seems to me confessionals want their's in another language so they can know what it means without others being able to know, how about calling their forum: Ubi Ubi Estne Sububi.

And for us pietists (maybe that should be singular) it could be: Found Jesus

I'm not sure what to call the others, maybe: We'll talk to anyone, even Episcopalians and Catholics.

Marv

 

[ctobola]

Since it seems to me confessionals want their's in another language so they can know what it means without others being able to know, how about calling their forum: Ubi Ubi Estne Sububi.

Wear wear is it underwear?

And for us pietists (maybe that should be singular) it could be: Found Jesus

I'm not sure what to call the others, maybe: We'll talk to anyone, even Episcopalians and Catholics.
Marv

You bring up a good point. Another way to divide things would be by high church / low church. Or maybe high church and pietistic.

Although that recasts things a bit differently. Most of my friends in the Lutheran Brethren tradition are "low church," but are more conservative than the typical ELCA member. It's also problematic because Lutherans in the eastern U.S. tend to be more high church, and those in the Midwest tend to be low church.

In Christ,

-Cloy

 

[SPALATIN]

Wear wear is it underwear?



You bring up a good point. Another way to divide things would be by high church / low church. Or maybe high church and pietistic.

Although that recasts things a bit differently. Most of my friends in the Lutheran Brethren tradition are "low church," but are more conservative than the typical ELCA member. It's also problematic because Lutherans in the eastern U.S. tend to be more high church, and those in the Midwest tend to be low church.

In Christ,

-Cloy

Psssst... The secret is a healthy balance of both.
But don't tell anyone ok?

 

[LutherNut]

Lutherans in the eastern U.S. tend to be more high church, and those in the Midwest tend to be low church.

In the LCMS it's the exact opposite.