Now the partners have prepared a common statement on Holy Scripture. Here you can read the common confession that forms this important step in the ongoing consultation between the Lutheran Church—Canada (LCC), The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). The joint statement on Holy Scripture is called “God’s Word Forever Shall Abide: A Guiding Statement on the Character and Proper Use of the Sacred Scriptures” and it is available for your review here.
The introduction to the document states:
We confess that the Bible is God’s written Word as part and parcel of our deepest confession — that Jesus Christ is the very Son of God, God incarnate, “very God of very God” and the Savior and Redeemer of all humankind. We confess that the Bible is God’s Word because its entire message is focused on Jesus Christ and His saving work. He is the heart and center of Scripture and the key to its true meaning.
The statement concludes:
We rejoice in our consensus in these truths. We pray that our shared understanding will be a sure and solid foundation for us to address future conversations and discussions, both in matters of agreement and areas where we do not share a common teaching or practice.
The statement is not long, 11 pages or so, and it is incumbent upon all of us who stand for the unchanging Word of God and who desire to see this faith flourish to read this statement and consider it well. I commend the participants for their work so far. They include the Rev. Dr. Albert Collver III (LCMS), the Rev. Dr. Joel Lehenbauer (LCMS), the Rev. Larry Vogel (LCMS), the Rev. John Pless (LCMS), the Rev. Robert Bugbee (LCC president), the Rev. John Bradosky (NALC bishop), the Rev. Mark Chavez (NALC), the Rev. Dr. Jim Nestingen (NALC), the Rev. Paull Spring (NALC) and the Rev. Dr. David Wendel (NALC).
6 comments:
It's called "selective fellowship" or "levels of fellowship", and such a heterodox position has long been rejected by the Missouri Synod as a form of unionism. That is until the leaders in the Purple Palace starting producing (in some cases secret) agreements with the heterodox church bodies like NALC, EECMY, LCN, ECAC-CR, or ACNA, none of whom have ever given an iota of the slightest hint they might someday think about rejecting ordained pastrixes.
I'm just having a hard time keeping up with the acronyms, let alone common language. ;-)
Really, the NALC and LCC are going to change their views on historical criticism? That would be something to see.
The LCMS/LCC/NALC Guiding Statement does not mention "historical criticism" anywhere.
The Statement's only use of "historical" is to describe:
• experiences
• dimension
• phenomenon
• research
• documents
• study
• narrative
• interpretation
• context
• words
So, Mr. Strickert, where is the word fellowship in all of this? Did I ever use it? Is it ever mentioned in the common statement? And where are levels of fellowship ever spoken of or mentioned here?
Did anyone suggest that this was a definitive statement? It is a first step. That is what I reported. It is a good first step. That is my judgment. I believe that good first steps are key to accomplishing real consensus. I am happy with this first step and believe that more steps to come will continue the progress. And if not, what have we lost? And what did we all agree to say about Scripture -- something bad? No, something good and positive.
The Latvians changed their mind on the ordination of women. Churches can address historical criticism. Even folks who deal in this world have raised concerns about the presumptions of HC and its outcome. Have you read Brevard Childs? I am not ready to give up on this conversation just because they did not say everything they could in the first dialog.
So, Mr. Strickert, where is the word fellowship in all of this? Did I ever use it? Is it ever mentioned in the common statement? And where are levels of fellowship ever spoken of or mentioned here?
No one claimed you used the word, "fellowship," or that the "Guiding Statement" used the word. As for mentioning "levels of fellowship" here, that was me, and it's a description of what has resulted from ecumencial spin-the-bottle games that the LCMS has been playing with some of the church bodies I mentioned.
Did anyone suggest that this was a definitive statement?
No one has even suggested that anyone suggested that this was a definitive (norma normans; norma normata) statement. What you did state was:
"Some have insisted that this kind of debate should not happen until the issue of the ordination of women is resolved but I believe that this kind of statement is the needful groundwork that may indeed lead to a resolution of that significant impediment to a final step of full altar and pulpit fellowship."
The problem with this LCMS/NALC Guiding Statement is the same kind of problem that was seen with the JDDJ statement between the LWF and the Roman Church. The parties agreed to the same words, but the words had different Lutheran and Roman meanings.
I say this because IF the NALC actually held a Lutheran understanding of the Guiding Statement, over the five years these dialogs/discussions/debates/get-togethers have gone on it would have realized that the NALC doctrine of the ministry which permitted pastrixes is heterodox.
But the NALC hasn't—not even a smidgen of an iota of a hint—because the NALC really doesn't hold a quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions and is no more "Lutheran" than Mormons are "Christian." The NALC holds only a quatenus subscription to the BOC (which probably even could be said of the Mormons). And it is hypocritical for leaders of the Missouri Synod to sign a document that foists the notion that the NALC is a Lutheran church body and holds the same BOC confessional understanding of the character and proper use of sacred Scriptures.
Given their origin, the NALC appears as being simply XXXA-lite, rejecting only the XXXA's ordination of active homosexuals and perhaps some associated (political) tendencies.
And that seems to be the magic words nowadays that will gain a church organization entry into the ecumencal spin-the-bottle game with the Missouri Synod—public opposition to homosexual "marriage" and to ordaining active homosexual pastors or pastrixes. Every other church organization is categorized as, to use the CTCR's phrase, "embodying apostasy."
The Latvians changed their mind on the ordination of women.
How the LCMS tapdanced its A&P fellowship with the Latvians was previously explained on the Pastoral Meandering blog.
Post a Comment