WELS/LCMS merger

[DaRev]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Actually in the LCMS (and I assume in WELS/ELS) a man does not take it upon himself to be a pastor. He may be led in that direction, even going to the seminary. But the process of interviewing with his pastor, then later at the seminary, under the tutelage of the field work supervisor, vicarage supervisor, and finally interviews with seminary professors prior to placement insure that there is more than just a personal desire to be a pastor. And finally a congregation has to extend a call that God uses to place him into pastoral service. I had several classmates who thought they were called to be pastors, stayed at seminary for 1-3 years, but eventually left because it was determined that they were not fit for the ministry (and observing them closely in some cases, every decision by the seminary was appropriate).

[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"][/FONT]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"]When I entered seminary, there were 141 of us in the MDiv program. Two years later, there were 101 of us that received vicarage calls. Two years after that there were (I believe) 92 of us who graduated, received the MDiv and were certified for ordination and received a call. It;s a very thorough process that not everyone makes it through. I'm not sure how many in the laity are aware of this.[/FONT]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"][/FONT]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"]

So there are two aspects to be called as a pastor: first, the internal call to serve (which includes preparation), and second, the external call from the congregation.

[/FONT]

And both of which originate with the Holy Spirit.

 

[QuiltAngel]

By the definition Confess gives of a confessional, that describes me too. Thanks for the definition.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

As one of numerous pro-Confessional St. Louis alums, I take exception to your remark here. I suggest that you do a little homework before making such erroneous blanket statements like this again.

I just don't understand your defensive reaction to anything anyone seems to say..especially when it is not even directed at YOU. LCMS is polarized into two positions that anyone can see is a St. Louis sem vs. Ft. Wayne sem. St. Louis sem supports Kieshnick. Right or wrong? Ft. Wayne does not? Right or wrong? As a pro-Confessional, you should be taking exception, but not at me, but over the lamentable condition of LCMS. So instead of telling me to do more "homework" in a reactionary tone, just give us then "how you see it."

As a fellow St. Louis alum,
Cosmic

 

[DaRev]

I just don't understand your defensive reaction to anything anyone seems to say..especially when it is not even directed at YOU.

Your comments seem to be in reaction to posts that I have made. Anyone here would take that as a response to them.

LCMS is polarized into two positions that anyone can see is a St. Louis sem vs. Ft. Wayne sem.

This is only the case for those who come form the Fort Wayne sem. The "little brother" still needs to grow up.

St. Louis sem supports Kieshnick. Right or wrong?

Wrong. I'm from the St. Louis sem.
Perhaps that's why you assume that I support the current leadership?

FYI, our congregational nominees for synod Pres. and VP's contain no incumbants.

Ft. Wayne does not? Right or wrong?

I assume 'right', even though Keischnick is an alumnus of CTS.

As a pro-Confessional, you should be taking exception, but not at me, but over the lamentable condition of LCMS.

I do take offense over the condition of the synod. I fear for it's survival. But sometimes I must admit that I feel it would be better to split it now instead of it being ripped apart, as I feel is inevitible.

I also take exception of your tone and your assertions about me, none of which is true.

So instead of telling me to do more "homework" in a reactionary tone, just give us then "how you see it."

Lose the insults, the sarcasm, and the condescending tone, and maybe we could have intelligent conversations. But don't pretend to know who or what I support or believe. You know nothing about me other than my alma mater.

As a fellow St. Louis alum,

What year?

 

[BigNorsk]

What do you guys think? I have seen ELCA congregations dissolve as well as liberal LCMS congregations dissolve. None of them went to more confessional Lutheran congregations or Synods. They went to the Episc., Moravians, Penecostals etc.

I used to be on a discussion list for the LCMC. None of them would ever consider any of the more confessional Lutherans mainly due to the female pastor issue.

What do you think? Hypothetically, if the ELCA "blew-up", would there be a big increase in membership in the more confessional churches?

No, I don't think it would happen. About the only thing most ELCA members could really tell you about confessional churches is that ELCA members aren't really welcome. And there is no way for synod officials to reach out to them and establish relationships with ELCA congregations without being accussed of and probably found guilty of unionism. So there is almost no bridge building that is possible to aid their transition. They simply have to come to full and complete confessional agreement all on their own. It's not going to happen.

Don't feel bad, they aren't going to come to the Lutheran Brethren either. Though there could be a few, and we aren't so afraid of unionism so we can iteract before full agreement is reached so maybe. I know some of the ALC congregations are possibilities. Especially those of Free Lutheran background, though I would think they would probably go with the Free Lutherans if they felt forced to decide.

I know in my hometown, there was a splinter group that left the two ELCA congregations due to one of the things that happened. They didn't go to the LCMS church across town, they formed their own, and struggled along until they disbanded and most returned to their former congregations just in time for the apostolic succession to be established for the ministers. That time there was no serious consideration of leaving.

Truth is it's a tough world for a lone congregation, and things like seminary, and materials, and so on bind congregations to their synod probably more strongly than doctrine. You might see a lot of unhappy looking Lutherans at a lot of the happenings, but what happens is they go on, and they build alliances within the larger synod and so it's almost like multiple churches in the same synod, all bound by the common resources if not the common confession.

Anyway, that's how I see it. I wouldn't hold my breath for a rapid influx of members from the ELCA or any other synod.

Marv

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

Your comments seem to be in reaction to posts that I have made. Anyone here would take that as a response to them.

Since the post in question contained the quote I responded to, YOU were not in the picture. So you're WRONG.

This is only the case for those who come form the Fort Wayne sem. The "little brother" still needs to grow up.

Now who is "condenscending"?

Wrong. I'm from the St. Louis sem.
Perhaps that's why you assume that I support the current leadership?

Your suggestion for my need of "homework" would be more consistent with the K camp. And DaRev. How was I to know?

FYI, our congregational nominees for synod Pres. and VP's contain no incumbants.

This speaks for the SYNOD?

I assume 'right', even though Keischnick is an alumnus of CTS.

I do take offense over the condition of the synod. I fear for it's survival. But sometimes I must admit that I feel it would be better to split it now instead of it being ripped apart, as I feel is inevitible.

You drove your buggy to finaly....AGREE? Here I thought you were taking such great "exception"!

I also take exception of your tone and your assertions about me, none of which is true.

And that is why...you agreed with me? You are curious.

Lose the insults, the sarcasm, and the condescending tone, and maybe we could have intelligent conversations. But don't pretend to know who or what I support or believe. You know nothing about me other than my alma mater.

You remind me of Friday for some reason. "The facts ma'am. Just the facts." Maybe you could just stick to them next time without making every single thing about YOU, brotha!

What year?

DaRev, you have the last word. No further response is necessary. It is amazing how much we agree on issues, and you have had the opportunity to be a brother and have chosen instead to wrangle over "non-issues". Take off the collar. Go have a beer. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

Cosmic

 

[DaRev]

DaRev, you have the last word. No further response is necessary. It is amazing how much we agree on issues, and you have had the opportunity to be a brother and have chosen instead to wrangle over "non-issues". Take off the collar. Go have a beer. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

Cosmic

I really don't know what your problem is or where you get off using the tone and attitude you do here toward me. You're not going to get very far around here like that.

Until you grow up a little and can have a normal, civil conversation, I have nothing more to say to you. You have made assertions about me that are absolutely not true, and then made very condescending remarks at my expense.

And I noticed that you refused to answer the "what year" question.

This subforum exists to get away from this type of nonsense. If it continues, I'll need to involve the staff again.


And I will have that beer.

 

[Confess]

MY FAVORITE!!!

 

[porterross]

I notice that bottle is EMPTY, Confess.

Atta girl.

 

[seajoy]

All I see around here lately is fightin' and drinkin'.
I think I'll head on to bed. Even the Conservative bar isn't much for refuge today.

 

[porterross]

You know how men get when they drink. Maybe we need to switch to champagne and hope it makes them as silly as it makes me.

 

[seajoy]

You are so cute porter . Let's hope for a better day tomorrow.

 

[Confess]

I notice that bottle is EMPTY, Confess.

Atta girl.

*Hic-up*

 

[QuiltAngel]

No champagne for me, gives me a headache. Although I am learning about other beers, wonder how hard they are to find.

 

[Jim47]

No champagne for me, gives me a headache. Although I am learning about other beers, wonder how hard they are to find.

The only time I have ever really drank champagne was in 1984 when we went to Vegas. All the casions had free hand outs. I had some but really didn't care for it that much, beer tastes much better to me, or good burbon whiskey. I think its been over a week since I had a beer, maybe tonight

 

[porterross]

I was thinking the same thing, Jim. There are 2 Shiners in my fridge that have been in the way since Christmas, so what choice do I have? I can't let them get warm again. That would be beer abuse!

 

[Jim47]

I was thinking the same thing, Jim. There are 2 Shiners in my fridge that have been in the way since Christmas, so what choice do I have? I can't let them get warm again. That would be beer abuse!

We sure couldn't let thet happen Heh? Soon as I finish my cranberry juice I'm gonna have one

 

[WildStrawberry]

Am I really Lutheran if I don't like beer?

Or coffee?

I do like potluck...does that make up for my shocking display of non-Lutheranism?



Kae

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Us non coffee, non-beer drinkers are 500 years past having to do penance so we're lucky. Thanks Martin

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Am I really Lutheran if I don't like beer?

Or coffee?

I do like potluck...does that make up for my shocking display of non-Lutheranism?



Kae

I'm fairly new to Lutheranism, and I was interested in historic/conservative/traditional Anglicanism, too. But I LOVE coffee (addicted to it, actually) and don't like tea. I like beer but hate gin. So....