I've had this page open for forever. A month or more. I was trying to write about my current struggle, but the words just were not coming. It is saved, perhaps i will use it at a later date.
Let me just say, i'm really having trouble with the concept of God in our world. I'm coming to more strongly believe that "fairness" - at least the way as it is conceived by humans - is entirely a human construct not one from God. At least, that is how it looks. I think that our construct of "fair" is entirely foreign to God and not part of his nature at all.
Now, somehow i do think it is hardwired in us to be "fair" because even small children grasp and hold the idea. If you give a couple of kids 4 years old each a piece of pie, but one piece is noticeably bigger, tell me that the one won't yell, "That's not FAIR!" Probably even younger than 4.
Yet, over and over i see in the Bible that God does what he will, regardless of our concept of "fair."
That's all i've got to say about it right now.
_____________________________
We were at "the other" Lutheran Church this weekend. We saw another couple from our original church, E and S, but i knew that they had not been attending there for a long, long time. More than a year.
These folks are actually neighbors of ours, about 3 houses away, but i never see them outside so i've never really approached them. Their son T (who is about 15-16) walks thru the neighborhood and says hello to us when we are out.
What i learned was this: They went thru a family crisis a couple of years ago. They weren't able to attend for a while because of this and no one from the church ever contacted them. No one. Not once.
S and E were very hurt. I feel very badly for them. I also feel responsible to some degree of not trying to make more of an effort, although they don't see it that way. We had only been attending for a short while when they stopped coming.
But more. T was going thru catechism with Pastor G. G preached from the pulpit at least once "that you cannot be a Christian AND a vegetarian." Yep, he said that. I took him to task for it. I was quite upset with this rigid view. Of course, it is HIS view, but when he preaches he never says, "In my opinion . . . " He preaches as if what he was saying (his opinion) is gospel.
However, it has further consequences than my being upset. The SON had just become vegetarian and heard G say this. Evidently they discussed it and T chose not to continue with catechism and refused to attend there any longer. His mama says he has gotten into paganism.
Now, i do believe that if that is where he wanted to go, if he was drawn to paganism, he probably would have ended up there. But if nothing else, G gave him a push.
And more, another couple that attended erratically, T and K, had issues as well. I guess they were having some marital problems and T was seeking counsel from G. At some point G told T that his marriage was over and he needed to divorce K. K was quite put out with G over this and they stopped attending much at all. (BTW, G is not the first pastor that i've heard of saying something like this. It may even be good advice on a rare occasion, but i don't believe a pastor should ever be pushing a congregant in this direction!)
From my understanding, this was several years ago. They are still married. K is having some fairly severe medical problems. I think they moved away. What is hard for me to grasp is that they attended at all ever again! If G had told Duane something like that, you can be sure i would never step foot in the church again.
And, i've a confession. In both of these cases, i rather stood in judgment of these folks who rarely attended church. I had no business doing this, and i knew it. But i know that i still felt a bit smug and superior knowing i was in church weekly when they "couldn't be bothered" to make it.
I won't say this in my defense, for there is no excuse, but G encouraged such thought. He often preached in church that "If we really loved the Lord . . . " the church would be filled, or we would be in those pews every week, or some such thing. He frequently preached things that would encourage the congregation to feel superior to other folks, whether other members or other churches.
This disturbed me a lot. I didn't like it when he preached this. I disagreed with it. I saw it as manipulative. It even made me feel guilty and (at that time anyway) we were there every week. Why was i feeling condemned for something of which i was not guilty? It was because of the manipulation. It was when he began preaching such things that i began to be quite uncomfortable with that church. (I took this up with G once, too. About the manipulation and use of guilt. He budged not at all on this issue. His take was that if someone feels guilty about something of which he preaches, then the arrow hit the mark and they ARE guilty and need to repent. Um, not so much, thank you. I am NOT guilty on this point.)
This does not excuse my attitude at all. I repent and ask forgiveness because even as i was doing this i knew it was wrong. But (not "but" about my behavior, i am responsible), it wasn't clear to me that even tho i disagreed with G on this, my thought processes were lining up with his when i felt self righteous on issues of which i had no right to feel superior. Speaking with these folks made it clear to me that i'd been offensively smug (privately, i never shared this even with Duane) when it was not justified and wrong for me to do so.
I'm coming more and more to see how dangerous G's church has become. And i continue to be sad about it, but i am healing. Time and distance does help heal.
41
Showing posts with label issues with the church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issues with the church. Show all posts
11 November 2010
07 August 2010
Conversation
Our dear friend JT was here for a while yesterday. He lives a couple of hours away. He came up to help Duane take down the tree that is half gone & needs to come down. They didn't do it, they decided they need equipment (rented) like a lift to work the top of the tree separately. Without that, there would be a good chance that taking down the tree would also take down our front upstairs deck.
So we got to visit.
He was raised Catholic (like Duane) & his wife Protestant (like me). They have been searching for a church. He feels drawn back toward the Catholic church, but is having real issues with it. He spoke to the priest in the parish where they live. He would have so much to have to do before he could return to the Catholic church. His wife had been married before & so she would have to go thru annulment on her previous marriage & they would have to be remarried in the Catholic church. The priest told JT that he would "confess him" but "Only face to face. I have to see your eyes to be sure you are sincere" ! ! !
His wife is confused by the veneration of Mary & praying to the saints.
It seems to me that it is human tendency - & this comes thru so clearly in churches - that we say "This is good" or that or this or whatever, & we slap a coat of varnish on it & call it done. But that is NOT how life is, nor do i believe it to be what God intends for the Christian life to be.
If we have a truly living faith we can't slap varnish on it, or allow it to become petrified, & claim, "This is what God wants of me in my life." Or worse, "This is what God wants of all Christians."
This is not an exact analogy, but think of a tree & the way it grows. It is not usually symmetrical. It is influenced by the availability of water, & how the wind blows. Now, we can make all the trees look alike. Southern California especially is well known for extreme pruning. Often a tree is difficult if not impossible to distinguish the species from the shape of it because the pruning causes it to look nothing like a naturally-grown tree. I do believe that God does allow for some pruning in our lives. But if we followed the pruning of man (the church), we would all be identical, perfectly symmetrical, show trees. I do not believe that is what God would call us to be.
It is stated in the Bible that we are all different members of the body with different jobs to do. But sometimes i think that the different churches are all trying to force us into a mold where we will be identical members.
The Catholic church has a long, long history (& much of it very ugly) & what has happened over time, i think, is that the different things they have "added" have become petrified.
I had a piece of petrified wood as a child. Wood turned to stone thru mineralization. It was fascinating. But even if it had still been part of the tree, it was no longer living. I think that often the church is in danger of falling prey to this.
Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians that he wished the unmarried to remain so, but he did not command it. But by the 4th century, the Church made it a requirement that ordained priests be single. They took what Paul suggested & petrified it into law. By doing so, they condemned some people. Some people may have felt that they were called to priesthood, but not to celibacy. To require this of them meant that they had to force themselves into a mold that God had not required.
The Catholic church has done the same with dogmas of Mary & of the transubstantiation (bread & wine becoming body & blood). What is more, because of the belief around this second dogma, for many years the laity did not receive wine in communion. I've heard two reasons for this: One, wine may have been difficult to obtain in some climates. Two, there was the fear that the laity would spill the "holy blood of Christ." This largely is changed again, & most communicants receive both bread & wine. But if the reason was the second one, again, man has petrified something & made it so "holy" that it i out of reach for the majority of folks.
Now, i'm picking on the Catholic church here, largely because these examples are easy for me to lay out & because that church has the longest history. But essentially all denominational churches have done something similar. When they state, "These are the important things to us" they are in a sense petrifying their stance. This isn't all bad. It is good to say, "This is what i believe."
But there are other churches that take this elsewhere. The Southern Baptist convention, when i was in college (about 1992?) split because there was a branch of the church that was putting much emphasis on what would be a social gospel - that of trying to help people eat & have shelter. The staunchly conservative part of the church wasn't concerned about this - they felt the $$ should go toward more missionaries & building programs. (This, i am sure is a very biased & simplified version of that split.) But what really hit me when i was reading about this at the time, was that soon after that split the Southern Baptist convention was in danger of having another split, this time over the ratifying that a Southern Baptist had to believe in a 24 hour day, 7 day creation. Legalism. Rigidity. No room left for any question or doubt. No room left for humanity.
It seems to me that the Council of Nicaea did all this work for us in 325 with the Nicene Creed:
I guess i will never understand why we need a doctrine beyond this. Many doctrines revolve around things like what will happen, exactly, in "the End Times" & did Noah really take 2 of each of the animals on the Ark, & is Mary sinless (so that she would be an appropriate vessel to mother our Lord).
My question, does it really matter? Won't God work this out to his glory & we will know what we need to know in his presence? Why should we fight about it now?
Much is being said currently about Anne Rice distancing herself from Christianity. I often would like to do that myself. There is so much done in the name of Christ which i truly dislike. I'm very much outside of what is called "Christian culture" & i didn't actually know that Anne Rice had professed Christianity until this began hitting the blogs. All i knew was that she'd written vampire books that i've never read.
The best i've read on this subject so far is Matt from The Church of No People:
More is written there, but this is the part i really like & that convicted me. Much as i'd like to walk away from the title "Christian" it isn't an option. He also said in this post, somewhere, that the term "Christian" was a pejorative when it first began to be used. It still is, of course, but i tend to think that we've changed the reason it is an insult, & not for the better.
He also wrote the post, "Christians of a Dying Breed" that was good & started much interesting debate in the comments.
Then there is this vid: Reasons Why People Don't Go to Church
I'm not promoting this last one. I'm afraid to say i had hoped better things of it. Maybe i'm missing something, but it seemed to be a very shallow rendering of why some people are no longer part of a church. There are reasons, good reasons, serious reasons why even older Christians no longer feel the church to be filling a need or even being relevant to their lives. We are struggling with some of those very reasons.
I do feel that for me the answer is to no longer look to fill my needs so much as to find a place where i can work. Frankly, i've lived much of my life in depression & depression is little more than looking inward. God has healed so much of that & i believe it is time for me to look outward & try to do more. Have been working on that for a few years now. However, that is something i find difficult & it rather backfired on us at the Lutheran church for the whole reason we joined that church was so that we could serve.
37
So we got to visit.
He was raised Catholic (like Duane) & his wife Protestant (like me). They have been searching for a church. He feels drawn back toward the Catholic church, but is having real issues with it. He spoke to the priest in the parish where they live. He would have so much to have to do before he could return to the Catholic church. His wife had been married before & so she would have to go thru annulment on her previous marriage & they would have to be remarried in the Catholic church. The priest told JT that he would "confess him" but "Only face to face. I have to see your eyes to be sure you are sincere" ! ! !
His wife is confused by the veneration of Mary & praying to the saints.
It seems to me that it is human tendency - & this comes thru so clearly in churches - that we say "This is good" or that or this or whatever, & we slap a coat of varnish on it & call it done. But that is NOT how life is, nor do i believe it to be what God intends for the Christian life to be.
If we have a truly living faith we can't slap varnish on it, or allow it to become petrified, & claim, "This is what God wants of me in my life." Or worse, "This is what God wants of all Christians."
This is not an exact analogy, but think of a tree & the way it grows. It is not usually symmetrical. It is influenced by the availability of water, & how the wind blows. Now, we can make all the trees look alike. Southern California especially is well known for extreme pruning. Often a tree is difficult if not impossible to distinguish the species from the shape of it because the pruning causes it to look nothing like a naturally-grown tree. I do believe that God does allow for some pruning in our lives. But if we followed the pruning of man (the church), we would all be identical, perfectly symmetrical, show trees. I do not believe that is what God would call us to be.
It is stated in the Bible that we are all different members of the body with different jobs to do. But sometimes i think that the different churches are all trying to force us into a mold where we will be identical members.
The Catholic church has a long, long history (& much of it very ugly) & what has happened over time, i think, is that the different things they have "added" have become petrified.
I had a piece of petrified wood as a child. Wood turned to stone thru mineralization. It was fascinating. But even if it had still been part of the tree, it was no longer living. I think that often the church is in danger of falling prey to this.
Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians that he wished the unmarried to remain so, but he did not command it. But by the 4th century, the Church made it a requirement that ordained priests be single. They took what Paul suggested & petrified it into law. By doing so, they condemned some people. Some people may have felt that they were called to priesthood, but not to celibacy. To require this of them meant that they had to force themselves into a mold that God had not required.
The Catholic church has done the same with dogmas of Mary & of the transubstantiation (bread & wine becoming body & blood). What is more, because of the belief around this second dogma, for many years the laity did not receive wine in communion. I've heard two reasons for this: One, wine may have been difficult to obtain in some climates. Two, there was the fear that the laity would spill the "holy blood of Christ." This largely is changed again, & most communicants receive both bread & wine. But if the reason was the second one, again, man has petrified something & made it so "holy" that it i out of reach for the majority of folks.
Now, i'm picking on the Catholic church here, largely because these examples are easy for me to lay out & because that church has the longest history. But essentially all denominational churches have done something similar. When they state, "These are the important things to us" they are in a sense petrifying their stance. This isn't all bad. It is good to say, "This is what i believe."
But there are other churches that take this elsewhere. The Southern Baptist convention, when i was in college (about 1992?) split because there was a branch of the church that was putting much emphasis on what would be a social gospel - that of trying to help people eat & have shelter. The staunchly conservative part of the church wasn't concerned about this - they felt the $$ should go toward more missionaries & building programs. (This, i am sure is a very biased & simplified version of that split.) But what really hit me when i was reading about this at the time, was that soon after that split the Southern Baptist convention was in danger of having another split, this time over the ratifying that a Southern Baptist had to believe in a 24 hour day, 7 day creation. Legalism. Rigidity. No room left for any question or doubt. No room left for humanity.
It seems to me that the Council of Nicaea did all this work for us in 325 with the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
I guess i will never understand why we need a doctrine beyond this. Many doctrines revolve around things like what will happen, exactly, in "the End Times" & did Noah really take 2 of each of the animals on the Ark, & is Mary sinless (so that she would be an appropriate vessel to mother our Lord).
My question, does it really matter? Won't God work this out to his glory & we will know what we need to know in his presence? Why should we fight about it now?
Much is being said currently about Anne Rice distancing herself from Christianity. I often would like to do that myself. There is so much done in the name of Christ which i truly dislike. I'm very much outside of what is called "Christian culture" & i didn't actually know that Anne Rice had professed Christianity until this began hitting the blogs. All i knew was that she'd written vampire books that i've never read.
The best i've read on this subject so far is Matt from The Church of No People:
. . . So as much as I’d like to follow Anne and quit Christianity, while conveniently retaining my faith, I can’t. (And really, neither can Anne.) Christ died for people who annoy the living hell out of me, and it does me no good to dwell on how much some people annoy me. Christ even died for people who would use him for personal gain, and I have nothing to say about it. I hate saying that. But I don’t get to say who Jesus has saved, and I don’t get to stop calling myself a Christian. . . Really, almost all of the pastors and Christians who irritate me are the ones getting all the attention. They are the ones teaching false gospels and protesting funerals, and generally being hateful, and maybe they represent an incredibly small minority of us, and it just gets blown up bigger than it is. I think I’m annoyed the most at Christians because my faith is the most important thing in my life. If it takes such a small number to create the problem, maybe there’s enough of us, the other Christians, to be the solution. . .
More is written there, but this is the part i really like & that convicted me. Much as i'd like to walk away from the title "Christian" it isn't an option. He also said in this post, somewhere, that the term "Christian" was a pejorative when it first began to be used. It still is, of course, but i tend to think that we've changed the reason it is an insult, & not for the better.
He also wrote the post, "Christians of a Dying Breed" that was good & started much interesting debate in the comments.
Then there is this vid: Reasons Why People Don't Go to Church
I'm not promoting this last one. I'm afraid to say i had hoped better things of it. Maybe i'm missing something, but it seemed to be a very shallow rendering of why some people are no longer part of a church. There are reasons, good reasons, serious reasons why even older Christians no longer feel the church to be filling a need or even being relevant to their lives. We are struggling with some of those very reasons.
I do feel that for me the answer is to no longer look to fill my needs so much as to find a place where i can work. Frankly, i've lived much of my life in depression & depression is little more than looking inward. God has healed so much of that & i believe it is time for me to look outward & try to do more. Have been working on that for a few years now. However, that is something i find difficult & it rather backfired on us at the Lutheran church for the whole reason we joined that church was so that we could serve.
37
22 July 2010
More Gossip
Okay, i just have so much more to say about the Lutheran church where we just resigned our membership.
We have recently been hung up on all the negatives, all the weirdness, all the bad from that church. In fact, when i've told people what was said & why i was upset, the question i often get is, "He said what? Why are you still going there?"
I know i've said some of this before, but it needs to be said again. This is why we went there & continued for so long.
When we first visited the church, it was clear to us that G loves Jesus very much. He was passionate about living for God. He was very concerned that people hold to a Biblical authority & not just whatever they feel at the moment. He was very concerned that we not "water down" the Word of God to fit our current culture.
The church wasn't just friendly, it was loving & warm. There was a depth of concern for the members that i've rarely seen in other churches.
Week after week people would be asking about us, & we rarely if ever felt it was a routine inquiry. We felt the folks sincerely cared, as we did too. When someone was missing it was felt by all.
When one of our members lost his home, the church council rallied in a very loving manner, even more so to be sure to spare the member's feelings as much as possible. When the economic downturn happened, we began collecting food weekly. That church does not have the staff or ability to distribute what was brought in, so it was taken to another church that does a routine distribution. However, every week it was said that if anyone in the congregation was in need, that they should avail themselves of the collected food before it was taken elsewhere. Eventually one of the council members suggested that the people who might need it might be too embarrassed to take it for themselves, so the announcement was changed to "If you or anyone you know are in need, please utilize the food brought in. If you know your neighbor is struggling to buy groceries, then please feel free to take food for them."
That church routinely sends flowers to folks who are ill. Not just those in hospital, & not just when they first get sick. There are some who have long term illness & the church remembers them not just at the outset. It was their sending flowers to me that let us know that we had a problem because of their perception of why we were not there.
Every week that church went beyond coffee & donuts to a small brunch-type meal (that meant a lot of work for the women). They very much desired everyone to stay for this fellowship. Also, 3-4 times a year the church would have a potluck meal at the fellowship time. Easter & a Christmas tree trimming were the large ones, but they usually had one or two others as well. This church desired to fellowship with members & visitors.
Every year they have a 3 day Vacation Bible School for the children. I know that is typical in most churches, but most churches have younger women & mamas & often teens to implement the program. I believe the average age of woman attending the Lutheran Church is probably about 62 (& that is a low average because of me & maybe 2 others others). Most of the women doing a VBS are 70 or older.
G, the pastor, was able to be very compassionate to those in grief or stress. He deeply desired to comfort those who were hurting.
We prefer a liturgical church & that form of worship. This church has liturgy, tho not the exact liturgy to which we are accustomed. Liturgy fills a need in me that i have not found in other forms of worship.
Also, & this cannot be overlooked, being part of a church that the doctrine does not fit where we are at sharpened us. Toward the end of our being there, nearly every week we spent our drive to OC discussing what had been said, whether we thought it Biblical or not, & whether we felt he was taking verses out of context. This, far more than a Bible study where everyone agrees on all points, helped us to grow more than anything else i can imagine.
So, while we struggle with the harshness & the things we see so glaringly wrong, i do want to keep all the good in mind. These are the reasons we stayed so long, & these are the reasons it is difficult to leave.
36
We have recently been hung up on all the negatives, all the weirdness, all the bad from that church. In fact, when i've told people what was said & why i was upset, the question i often get is, "He said what? Why are you still going there?"
I know i've said some of this before, but it needs to be said again. This is why we went there & continued for so long.
When we first visited the church, it was clear to us that G loves Jesus very much. He was passionate about living for God. He was very concerned that people hold to a Biblical authority & not just whatever they feel at the moment. He was very concerned that we not "water down" the Word of God to fit our current culture.
The church wasn't just friendly, it was loving & warm. There was a depth of concern for the members that i've rarely seen in other churches.
Week after week people would be asking about us, & we rarely if ever felt it was a routine inquiry. We felt the folks sincerely cared, as we did too. When someone was missing it was felt by all.
When one of our members lost his home, the church council rallied in a very loving manner, even more so to be sure to spare the member's feelings as much as possible. When the economic downturn happened, we began collecting food weekly. That church does not have the staff or ability to distribute what was brought in, so it was taken to another church that does a routine distribution. However, every week it was said that if anyone in the congregation was in need, that they should avail themselves of the collected food before it was taken elsewhere. Eventually one of the council members suggested that the people who might need it might be too embarrassed to take it for themselves, so the announcement was changed to "If you or anyone you know are in need, please utilize the food brought in. If you know your neighbor is struggling to buy groceries, then please feel free to take food for them."
That church routinely sends flowers to folks who are ill. Not just those in hospital, & not just when they first get sick. There are some who have long term illness & the church remembers them not just at the outset. It was their sending flowers to me that let us know that we had a problem because of their perception of why we were not there.
Every week that church went beyond coffee & donuts to a small brunch-type meal (that meant a lot of work for the women). They very much desired everyone to stay for this fellowship. Also, 3-4 times a year the church would have a potluck meal at the fellowship time. Easter & a Christmas tree trimming were the large ones, but they usually had one or two others as well. This church desired to fellowship with members & visitors.
Every year they have a 3 day Vacation Bible School for the children. I know that is typical in most churches, but most churches have younger women & mamas & often teens to implement the program. I believe the average age of woman attending the Lutheran Church is probably about 62 (& that is a low average because of me & maybe 2 others others). Most of the women doing a VBS are 70 or older.
G, the pastor, was able to be very compassionate to those in grief or stress. He deeply desired to comfort those who were hurting.
We prefer a liturgical church & that form of worship. This church has liturgy, tho not the exact liturgy to which we are accustomed. Liturgy fills a need in me that i have not found in other forms of worship.
Also, & this cannot be overlooked, being part of a church that the doctrine does not fit where we are at sharpened us. Toward the end of our being there, nearly every week we spent our drive to OC discussing what had been said, whether we thought it Biblical or not, & whether we felt he was taking verses out of context. This, far more than a Bible study where everyone agrees on all points, helped us to grow more than anything else i can imagine.
So, while we struggle with the harshness & the things we see so glaringly wrong, i do want to keep all the good in mind. These are the reasons we stayed so long, & these are the reasons it is difficult to leave.
36
20 July 2010
Thinking trivial things
Gossip: 1. idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others 2. light, familiar talk or writing 3. (gossiper) a person given to tattling or idle talk 4. (British) godparent 5. (Archaic) a friend, esp. a woman
babble, chitchat, defamation, hearsay, idle talk, malicious talk, meddling, rumor, scandal, scuttlebutt, slander, small talk, busybody, gossipmonger, snoop, talebearer, tattler
(The last definition - 5 - makes sense as i've often read in older books like Dickens about the "old gossips" indicating women probably engaged in idle talk, but it makes sense that the word would take its current meaning if the women were given to idle talk when friends got together.)
I'm still really struggling to "let go." It probably will be a while for me as we are people who have been very involved in church, it has occupied much of our thought & lives, & letting go of that won't be an easy thing. But it has occurred to me that to say much more about it is gossip. I have lots of theories & things to say, but they are not profitable.
I ran into a dear friend yesterday when i was in town. Elke came here from Germany as a child, so she is very Lutheran. However, she said that she's stopped going to church. The pamphlet i copied in a previous post was passed out at church. It made her angry. She said "That's not what church is about!" And, "He (G) doesn't have the right to do that!" Except, of course, he does. He is implementing some old rules that most of the LCMS churches no longer follow (Elke says that when she went thru confirmation she was encouraged to visit other churches to learn about how other churches choose to do things). But those old rules are still on the books & G has chosen to enforce them (in our opinion, in order to strengthen his rule & set fear in parishioners, but that may be my lack of charity speaking).
I told Elke that Duane & i want to start a Bible Study & she's interested. So that's good. However, she is also a busy person, frequently on the go. So, while she'd love to come & participate, i don't think commitment would be a part of it for her. Still, it is a good place to begin. (Although i have to admit that i hate the idea of starting something & having it peter out.)
We sang this on Sunday. I've always liked this song. It is repeating in my head, but i don't find it irritating as repeated music often tends to be. I really, really liked the music on Sunday. They sang some very easy to sing hymns & also a couple of praise songs. They had MUSIC in that church with a choir & all. I'm not running down "praise bands." I used to love staying for the music at St. James when the praise band led. (They called those of us who stayed from the more traditional service that had been held earlier, MOs - music only, 'cause we left when the music was done.)
But nothing that we've seen in church hopping has the heart in it like the St. James folks had. I'd forgotten how much i loved singing in a church that really knows music until we visited the Methodist church on Sunday. It also was incorporated into the service, not a "preliminary to the preaching" as is so often done in Protestant churches these days.
Somehow the way churches have developed/evolved where they have all the music at the beginning & then a long, long sermon seems to have lost heart, for me. Maybe it is just that i don't know most of the praise music they are singing now. But it also seems to have lost a lot of the "flow" that services used to have. The Baptist church Duane likes is really foreign to me. They don't even have a closing hymn. The pastor kind of says, "Bless you this week," after his prayer & we're done. Now, i'm not running down this form of service. It works for a lot of people (or they don't know what they're missing), but it doesn't work so well for me.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on things that have happened in the past couple of days.
35
babble, chitchat, defamation, hearsay, idle talk, malicious talk, meddling, rumor, scandal, scuttlebutt, slander, small talk, busybody, gossipmonger, snoop, talebearer, tattler
(The last definition - 5 - makes sense as i've often read in older books like Dickens about the "old gossips" indicating women probably engaged in idle talk, but it makes sense that the word would take its current meaning if the women were given to idle talk when friends got together.)
I'm still really struggling to "let go." It probably will be a while for me as we are people who have been very involved in church, it has occupied much of our thought & lives, & letting go of that won't be an easy thing. But it has occurred to me that to say much more about it is gossip. I have lots of theories & things to say, but they are not profitable.
I ran into a dear friend yesterday when i was in town. Elke came here from Germany as a child, so she is very Lutheran. However, she said that she's stopped going to church. The pamphlet i copied in a previous post was passed out at church. It made her angry. She said "That's not what church is about!" And, "He (G) doesn't have the right to do that!" Except, of course, he does. He is implementing some old rules that most of the LCMS churches no longer follow (Elke says that when she went thru confirmation she was encouraged to visit other churches to learn about how other churches choose to do things). But those old rules are still on the books & G has chosen to enforce them (in our opinion, in order to strengthen his rule & set fear in parishioners, but that may be my lack of charity speaking).
I told Elke that Duane & i want to start a Bible Study & she's interested. So that's good. However, she is also a busy person, frequently on the go. So, while she'd love to come & participate, i don't think commitment would be a part of it for her. Still, it is a good place to begin. (Although i have to admit that i hate the idea of starting something & having it peter out.)
Shine Jesus Shine
Lord, the light of your love is shining
In the midst of the darkness, shining
Jesus, light of the world, shine upon us
Set us free by the truth you now bring us
Shine on me, shine on me
Shine Jesus shine
Fill this land with the Father's glory
Blaze Spirit blaze
Set our hearts on fire
Flow river flow
Flood the nations with grace & mercy
Send forth your word Lord
And let there be light
Lord i come to your awesome presence
From the shadows into your radiance
By the blood i may enter your brightness
Search me, try me, consume all my darkness
Shine on me, shine on me.
As we gaze on your kindly brightness
So our faces display your likeness
Ever changing from glory to glory
Mirrored here may our lives tell your story
Shine on me, shine on me
Cliff Richard (? not sure about the credit, he may just have been the artist who preformed this; i also saw Graham Kendrick credited)
We sang this on Sunday. I've always liked this song. It is repeating in my head, but i don't find it irritating as repeated music often tends to be. I really, really liked the music on Sunday. They sang some very easy to sing hymns & also a couple of praise songs. They had MUSIC in that church with a choir & all. I'm not running down "praise bands." I used to love staying for the music at St. James when the praise band led. (They called those of us who stayed from the more traditional service that had been held earlier, MOs - music only, 'cause we left when the music was done.)
But nothing that we've seen in church hopping has the heart in it like the St. James folks had. I'd forgotten how much i loved singing in a church that really knows music until we visited the Methodist church on Sunday. It also was incorporated into the service, not a "preliminary to the preaching" as is so often done in Protestant churches these days.
Somehow the way churches have developed/evolved where they have all the music at the beginning & then a long, long sermon seems to have lost heart, for me. Maybe it is just that i don't know most of the praise music they are singing now. But it also seems to have lost a lot of the "flow" that services used to have. The Baptist church Duane likes is really foreign to me. They don't even have a closing hymn. The pastor kind of says, "Bless you this week," after his prayer & we're done. Now, i'm not running down this form of service. It works for a lot of people (or they don't know what they're missing), but it doesn't work so well for me.
Anyway, just a few thoughts on things that have happened in the past couple of days.
35
16 July 2010
Finale
This is the letter we will most likely be sending out later today:
I'm looking forward to moving on & putting this behind me. I know that i tend to obsess about things & have a hard time letting go. It takes me a while to move on. We want our names off that membership list ASAP for as long as we are listed as "members" we are under their authority, sanction, & discipline & they can claim we are working at "disaffection." Speaking to another member freely would be seen as an attempt to sabotage the church. I want simply to not have that hanging over me.
Duane had me edit this quite a bit. I had it simpler, but he wanted to make sure that this letter is clear - we are apologizing for messing up the title/address used, NOT for the contents of the previous letters. He also had me add the "We're sad that any member . . . " line/paragraph. We had to think about it a lot in order to do that, for we didn't want to look like we were taking parting shots at them (tho of course we're honest to admit between us that is exactly what we WANT to do).
Looking forward to new adventures! And may they be a little less "interesting" than this one turned out to be.
I'm probably not done with writing about LCMS background, however. I find that the history of that church is, i believe, poisonous. I'm leaning toward rejecting most organized church doctrine. The believers in the early church did not have big, fancy buildings, detailed dogma, or the other trappings we've come to see as "church." They got together, studied what scripture they had, praised & worshiped God, & celebrated together.
I've long said that i believe the statements of the Nicene creed & don't think we should be adding more. The idea that believing in a 7-24 hour creation, or whether Jesus will return "pre- mid- or post- tribulation" or any other "set in stone" belief churches have set out has anything to do with a real walk with God is ludicrous to me. Also, i was taught in school, many years ago, that we look at the base of what the different churches teach. If they are based on the very basics of what is accepted as Christianity, that the rest of the things they add on the foundation are merely window dressing. (Although, the history of LCMS is that if you do not believe exactly as they do in every particular, then you are "in error." I hate such rigidity.) Of course, that was before the homosexuality issue was so at the fore. Also, many churches still bear the name of Christ, & may even say the creeds, but what they believe & teach doesn't really align with that.
Thoughts for another day.
33
16 July 2010
The Reverend G (Last Name)
Elders of the Church
Congregation members
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Dear Pastor (Last Name), the Elders of SITP, and Church Body -
We sincerely apologize for the appearance of disrespect in our recent letters when we neglected to properly use the title of “Pastor.” We intended no disrespect whatsoever. Neither of us was raised in a church where the title “Pastor” was used as a formal address, so the appearance of disrespect due to the lack of this title was in no way intentional. Please forgive this oversight on our part.
We are sad that any member of the congregation would be treated in the manner which we have experienced in this situation.
In light of the letter sent and the pamphlet presented on LCMS's stand on “close communion,” as well as other issues within the SITP body, it is very apparent to us that SITP is not where we feel the Lord would have us worship. Please know that we appreciate the Pastor, the elders, the council, and the members of the congregation, and love you all very much. Our time at SITP has helped us to grow and has stretched us and strengthened our faith. We thank you and you will remain in our prayers.
We formally request that our names be removed from your membership rolls.
Sincerely & with the Love of Christ,
Mr. and Mrs. Duane D
cc: the elders
I'm looking forward to moving on & putting this behind me. I know that i tend to obsess about things & have a hard time letting go. It takes me a while to move on. We want our names off that membership list ASAP for as long as we are listed as "members" we are under their authority, sanction, & discipline & they can claim we are working at "disaffection." Speaking to another member freely would be seen as an attempt to sabotage the church. I want simply to not have that hanging over me.
Duane had me edit this quite a bit. I had it simpler, but he wanted to make sure that this letter is clear - we are apologizing for messing up the title/address used, NOT for the contents of the previous letters. He also had me add the "We're sad that any member . . . " line/paragraph. We had to think about it a lot in order to do that, for we didn't want to look like we were taking parting shots at them (tho of course we're honest to admit between us that is exactly what we WANT to do).
Looking forward to new adventures! And may they be a little less "interesting" than this one turned out to be.
I'm probably not done with writing about LCMS background, however. I find that the history of that church is, i believe, poisonous. I'm leaning toward rejecting most organized church doctrine. The believers in the early church did not have big, fancy buildings, detailed dogma, or the other trappings we've come to see as "church." They got together, studied what scripture they had, praised & worshiped God, & celebrated together.
I've long said that i believe the statements of the Nicene creed & don't think we should be adding more. The idea that believing in a 7-24 hour creation, or whether Jesus will return "pre- mid- or post- tribulation" or any other "set in stone" belief churches have set out has anything to do with a real walk with God is ludicrous to me. Also, i was taught in school, many years ago, that we look at the base of what the different churches teach. If they are based on the very basics of what is accepted as Christianity, that the rest of the things they add on the foundation are merely window dressing. (Although, the history of LCMS is that if you do not believe exactly as they do in every particular, then you are "in error." I hate such rigidity.) Of course, that was before the homosexuality issue was so at the fore. Also, many churches still bear the name of Christ, & may even say the creeds, but what they believe & teach doesn't really align with that.
Thoughts for another day.
33
13 July 2010
More info
Duane & i were talking again yesterday about the church issue. He had been tired Sunday PM & took a long nap, so he didn't sleep much Sunday night. Monday AM very early (about 2.30) he got up & wrote another letter.
While i was leaning toward a brief response to the letter, his was long & detailed. But very good. Also, i tend toward more formal language in a letter of that sort. It was obvious to me that the second letter came from him & not me.
But in talking this over, i said to Duane, "My gut reaction ever since the letter arrived is that you should call R (the elder who sent the letter) & speak to him directly." Duane thought that a good idea & almost immediately picked up the phone. I did slow him down & asked him, "What is our motivation for this? What are we hoping to accomplish by this?"
Duane felt that largely his motivation is that this does not happen again. We both agree that we are strong in our faith & able to handle this (yes, of course, with God's help), but that someone newer/weaker in faith might not. He wants to be sure this isn't repeated.
So Duane called, & was on the phone with R for more than an hour & a half.
Much was said, probably more than i know, for Duane was outside (having trouble with reception on his phone). I can't begin to hit all the things Duane has mentioned, but here are the highlights.
The reason we were disrespectful "to the dignity of the Pastoral office"? Because we did not address G as "Pastor." ! ! !
Nothing we said gained much response. It was leaving out the title. I will admit, honestly, that i decided not to send the letter to "The Reverend G ____." However, i've never thought of the word "pastor" as a proper title. Evidently the elders went on & on about our disrespect in not using that title/word.
Duane said that had we simply sent another letter trying even more to explain, nothing would have been done, for they were all caught up in our disrespect & not seeing anything more.
Duane also had to have such a long conversation because he kept having to diffuse the defensiveness toward their position. But he is very good at this. He kept - not being defensive - but "on the defensive" by working very hard at not fighting, not hitting back, not going on the offensive. He said, over & over, about the respect/disrespect issue, "That was my mistake. I prayed over the content of the letter & missed the address." When Duane would say something like, "Well that's your job as an elder," R would respond, "Don't tell me my job! I know what my job is!" Duane would have to say, "You're right! I don't know your job. I was assuming."
Eventually it worked. R let lose of most of the defensiveness although it popped up from time to time, still. R admitted that he was "voted down" - for what exactly we're not sure - but the idea came across that he wanted to have us in & discuss this to try to find out what was behind it. Instead, he was instructed to send us the letter.
The reason the letter was so garbled? R tried to keep notes at the meeting on the salient points he was told to cover & the resulting mess was simply typed directly from his notes. That takes a bit of air out of our sails about the "disrespect" we felt was sent to us in that letter, because to say that in a general letter now will simply make him look, um, stupid.
Anyway, Duane shared how that we were hurt that G simply told *me* in a phone call that he'd heard the gossip that we were attending other churches, was that true? When i confirmed it, he said we could no longer take communion there. Nothing was said about how to resolve this issues, therefore, it became permanent at that point. Also, no one asked if we had taken communion elsewhere. R said that that wasn't right & that they "didn't meant to hurt us."
At some point R said that his daughter (who is in her late 30s?) had seen us at another church.
Duane asked him, "Has she been told that she can't take communion at SITP then?"
"Um, no."
"Well, if she saw us at another church, i assume she was at another church."
(Yeah, but that's different.)
What the up & down of this became was that we were considered "leadership" & therefore G decided to make an example of us. The whole congregation was given that pamphlet i posted previously. (And had we received it at an earlier time, we would have revoked our membership long ago.)
Duane was blunt with R. Told him that the church has not been practicing "close communion" even if they claim it. He said that it is either one or another. He called it "entrapment" if you practice "close communion" but invite anyone in the congregation to participate. (R has a background in law enforcement & Duane frequently deliberately used terms he would relate to). The intent of the pamphlet is that only members of LCMS or churches that they "recognize" are free to take communion. All churches that are not "recognized" are considered in error & LCMS considers it extremely offensive if not outright sin to participate in communion with such folks. Ok, my sister from the ECLA Lutheran church has taken communion - in direct contradiction to the LCMS standard. Also my Catholic in-laws & my Baptist parents. Probably a few others as well. Because we never knew. And, R told Duane that because we were "leadership" we were held to "a higher standard than the congregation. And when you break a law, even if you didn't know about that law, you are still responsible for the consequences."
But R recognized exactly what Duane was saying in that you can't invite anyone to communion & then still call it "close." Not that it's going to make a difference for us.
Duane also pointed out that "Pastor" frequently uses unsubstantiated urban myths in his sermons, but doesn't check them out. We have at least 3 times now found that things he claims to have been true have no basis in fact (& often are outright fabrications - tho not created by G). But he presents them as fact & often as if they are Biblical.
Duane got nowhere with the charges of "unscriptural teaching." He was told, "You need to bring that up with Pastor. That is a matter between you & him." ! ! !
In other words, no one is going to hold him accountable for these things.
It was clear to Duane in many ways that G is simply leading them by their noses & telling them what to think & how to respond.
However, he was able to say all the things he felt important to be said. He feels that something like this will not be handled in the same manner in the future. And that maybe he planted a few seeds for listening to being headed in the wrong direction. Maybe. He also told R that we feel something is wrong with G, that we see clear signs of depression & fear. (The beginning of the conversation between Duane & i before the call to R was "Do you think G has a brain tumor? His behavior has been so erratic & bizarre.") Duane had to spell out the ways we have seen/experienced G's depression, fear, & irrational responses.
R had a tendency to say, "Yes, Pastor tends to get excited & say things that might not be exactly right. He's human too." And, the expected, "He is so educated & intelligent. He must know what he's talking about, even if he gets a bit over-excited."
Anyway, we've said what needed to be said, planted what seeds we can, done as much as we can. Maybe it will make a difference.
From this point we will probably just send a simple letter apologizing for the "offense" of leaving out the title "pastor" & asking our names be removed from the membership list. Not much else for us to do. (I think that G is doing a "wag the dog" response in that their focus was on the lack of the title "Pastor" when our charges was that he has begun teaching things which are not unscriptural. However, maybe i'm just lacking in charity there.)
I'm glad that Duane called. It went a long way toward smoothing things over. We feel as good as we can about this. I definitely agree with Kathi's comment that it is sad how churches hurt people. And i'm definitely questioning the wisdom about having/belonging to an "organized church." I'll probably revisit that at a later time.
Several times during this conversation (i was not listening or even close by, but from time to time i would hear some of it as i was doing other things) i thanked God for my dear, Godly husband, head of our household, & willing to take this bull by the horns.
Thank you all for listening & walking thru this with us, your comments & support. We are not "hurting." We are sad. No more, i think. This hasn't harmed us. I can't speak for the other folks in that church.
32
While i was leaning toward a brief response to the letter, his was long & detailed. But very good. Also, i tend toward more formal language in a letter of that sort. It was obvious to me that the second letter came from him & not me.
But in talking this over, i said to Duane, "My gut reaction ever since the letter arrived is that you should call R (the elder who sent the letter) & speak to him directly." Duane thought that a good idea & almost immediately picked up the phone. I did slow him down & asked him, "What is our motivation for this? What are we hoping to accomplish by this?"
Duane felt that largely his motivation is that this does not happen again. We both agree that we are strong in our faith & able to handle this (yes, of course, with God's help), but that someone newer/weaker in faith might not. He wants to be sure this isn't repeated.
So Duane called, & was on the phone with R for more than an hour & a half.
Much was said, probably more than i know, for Duane was outside (having trouble with reception on his phone). I can't begin to hit all the things Duane has mentioned, but here are the highlights.
The reason we were disrespectful "to the dignity of the Pastoral office"? Because we did not address G as "Pastor." ! ! !
Nothing we said gained much response. It was leaving out the title. I will admit, honestly, that i decided not to send the letter to "The Reverend G ____." However, i've never thought of the word "pastor" as a proper title. Evidently the elders went on & on about our disrespect in not using that title/word.
Duane said that had we simply sent another letter trying even more to explain, nothing would have been done, for they were all caught up in our disrespect & not seeing anything more.
Duane also had to have such a long conversation because he kept having to diffuse the defensiveness toward their position. But he is very good at this. He kept - not being defensive - but "on the defensive" by working very hard at not fighting, not hitting back, not going on the offensive. He said, over & over, about the respect/disrespect issue, "That was my mistake. I prayed over the content of the letter & missed the address." When Duane would say something like, "Well that's your job as an elder," R would respond, "Don't tell me my job! I know what my job is!" Duane would have to say, "You're right! I don't know your job. I was assuming."
Eventually it worked. R let lose of most of the defensiveness although it popped up from time to time, still. R admitted that he was "voted down" - for what exactly we're not sure - but the idea came across that he wanted to have us in & discuss this to try to find out what was behind it. Instead, he was instructed to send us the letter.
The reason the letter was so garbled? R tried to keep notes at the meeting on the salient points he was told to cover & the resulting mess was simply typed directly from his notes. That takes a bit of air out of our sails about the "disrespect" we felt was sent to us in that letter, because to say that in a general letter now will simply make him look, um, stupid.
Anyway, Duane shared how that we were hurt that G simply told *me* in a phone call that he'd heard the gossip that we were attending other churches, was that true? When i confirmed it, he said we could no longer take communion there. Nothing was said about how to resolve this issues, therefore, it became permanent at that point. Also, no one asked if we had taken communion elsewhere. R said that that wasn't right & that they "didn't meant to hurt us."
At some point R said that his daughter (who is in her late 30s?) had seen us at another church.
Duane asked him, "Has she been told that she can't take communion at SITP then?"
"Um, no."
"Well, if she saw us at another church, i assume she was at another church."
(Yeah, but that's different.)
What the up & down of this became was that we were considered "leadership" & therefore G decided to make an example of us. The whole congregation was given that pamphlet i posted previously. (And had we received it at an earlier time, we would have revoked our membership long ago.)
Duane was blunt with R. Told him that the church has not been practicing "close communion" even if they claim it. He said that it is either one or another. He called it "entrapment" if you practice "close communion" but invite anyone in the congregation to participate. (R has a background in law enforcement & Duane frequently deliberately used terms he would relate to). The intent of the pamphlet is that only members of LCMS or churches that they "recognize" are free to take communion. All churches that are not "recognized" are considered in error & LCMS considers it extremely offensive if not outright sin to participate in communion with such folks. Ok, my sister from the ECLA Lutheran church has taken communion - in direct contradiction to the LCMS standard. Also my Catholic in-laws & my Baptist parents. Probably a few others as well. Because we never knew. And, R told Duane that because we were "leadership" we were held to "a higher standard than the congregation. And when you break a law, even if you didn't know about that law, you are still responsible for the consequences."
But R recognized exactly what Duane was saying in that you can't invite anyone to communion & then still call it "close." Not that it's going to make a difference for us.
Duane also pointed out that "Pastor" frequently uses unsubstantiated urban myths in his sermons, but doesn't check them out. We have at least 3 times now found that things he claims to have been true have no basis in fact (& often are outright fabrications - tho not created by G). But he presents them as fact & often as if they are Biblical.
Duane got nowhere with the charges of "unscriptural teaching." He was told, "You need to bring that up with Pastor. That is a matter between you & him." ! ! !
In other words, no one is going to hold him accountable for these things.
It was clear to Duane in many ways that G is simply leading them by their noses & telling them what to think & how to respond.
However, he was able to say all the things he felt important to be said. He feels that something like this will not be handled in the same manner in the future. And that maybe he planted a few seeds for listening to being headed in the wrong direction. Maybe. He also told R that we feel something is wrong with G, that we see clear signs of depression & fear. (The beginning of the conversation between Duane & i before the call to R was "Do you think G has a brain tumor? His behavior has been so erratic & bizarre.") Duane had to spell out the ways we have seen/experienced G's depression, fear, & irrational responses.
R had a tendency to say, "Yes, Pastor tends to get excited & say things that might not be exactly right. He's human too." And, the expected, "He is so educated & intelligent. He must know what he's talking about, even if he gets a bit over-excited."
Anyway, we've said what needed to be said, planted what seeds we can, done as much as we can. Maybe it will make a difference.
From this point we will probably just send a simple letter apologizing for the "offense" of leaving out the title "pastor" & asking our names be removed from the membership list. Not much else for us to do. (I think that G is doing a "wag the dog" response in that their focus was on the lack of the title "Pastor" when our charges was that he has begun teaching things which are not unscriptural. However, maybe i'm just lacking in charity there.)
I'm glad that Duane called. It went a long way toward smoothing things over. We feel as good as we can about this. I definitely agree with Kathi's comment that it is sad how churches hurt people. And i'm definitely questioning the wisdom about having/belonging to an "organized church." I'll probably revisit that at a later time.
Several times during this conversation (i was not listening or even close by, but from time to time i would hear some of it as i was doing other things) i thanked God for my dear, Godly husband, head of our household, & willing to take this bull by the horns.
Thank you all for listening & walking thru this with us, your comments & support. We are not "hurting." We are sad. No more, i think. This hasn't harmed us. I can't speak for the other folks in that church.
32
11 July 2010
Yada, yada
Duane & i talked quite late into the night last night about the letter & pamphlet sent to us. I'm not sure what we are going to do. Probably the simplest & most expedient way to deal with this is to simply request that our names be removed from the membership list. There is so much we want to say, but i think it is obvious that these folks can't hear it.
Duane & i are both very sad. Not so much for us. As i've said before, we both feel that we have learned so much & grown so much thru this. But we are so very sad for the people we care about.
The incomprehensible letter (undated/unsigned) makes it clear that the elders either 1. Did not read our letters (Gene called & "explained" to them what we had said & how we were so disrespectful) or 2. They did not grasp what we were saying. Or a combination of the two.
There is no way to say this without sounding rude, but we don't have a lot of confidence in the intelligence of most of the elders to grasp what we were saying. The response letter makes it clear they may not have the capacity to understand. Regardless, the elders are the ones responsible to be sure the church stays on track.
I am offended that they think our letter indicates disrespect "to the dignity of the Pastoral office." We put a lot of time, effort, editing, & prayer into that letter, striving NOT to show disrespect. At this point we can't help but have disrespect for both the pastor & the elders, but we are striving not to be disrespectful. We have re-read what we wrote & feel that no disrespect was tendered. I'm also offended by the remarks about dissension, as that is the very thing we have worked very hard not to create.
But i'm really much more concerned by the pamphlet sent. I so wish that had been given us before we ever joined that church. In it embodies many of the attitudes with which i've struggled in this church. Jessica wrote in a previous comment she hears, "haughtiness, arrogance, self-righteousness, pride and pushing people away." and those are the very attitudes which have so greatly disturbed me for some time. I never recognized them as sanctioned by the actual church doctrine, however.
Part of the pamphlet was quoting the first president of the LCMS, C.F.W. Walther, who lived 1811-1887. According to Wikipedia, he was "vigorously opposed to non-Lutheran denominations in America." He wrote this passage, "Even one who confesses the Real Presence cannot ordinarily, except in the case of death, be admitted if he is and wants to remain, not a member of our orthodox church, but rather a Roman Catholic, Reformed, so-called Evangelical or Unionist, Methodist, Baptist, in short, a member of an erring fellowship." which i found very offensive.
The pamphlet makes it very clear that the LCMS church practices "close communion" but SITP DID NOT as they opened communion in each & every bulletin. That created a lot of confusion for us. It also creates a somewhat "secret society" because we have a number of folks who attend multiple churches & still take communion at SITP. So it comes down to, "Did we have to seek 'permission' from the pastor in order to visit other churches? And how on earth were we suppose to know that?"
I've been studying Lutheran doctrine for the past day or so, & what i've found has made me very, very uncomfortable. I guess i should have done this long ago, but as the risen Christ was being preached, i thought the doctrine not so very important. I was wrong, very wrong. I'm finding it hard to imagine that i'll ever feel comfortable "belonging" to a church again.
The things i find disturbing in Lutheran doctrine did not originate with Luther, however. What i've read of him indicates that he came to not even believe in a priesthood, but that each of us shares in the priesthood. Also what i read indicates that very soon after he began trying to pastor in a healthier way there were folks wanting to take his beliefs/theories/theology, etc. & create the doctrine which has so enslaved people today.
I remember from long ago, i used to HATE Calvin. But in college while studying the different evolutions of doctrines, i learned that what i hated was Calvinism & what the doctrine had become. In both the cases of Calvin & Luther, they sincerely desired for the people to live free & to not have fears about life & relationship to God. But we also learned that within 2 generations their teaching had evolved into doctrine which enslaved the people, robbing them of the very freedoms that both Calvin & Luther had sought to insure.
We seem to have run up against the very worst of Lutheranism without realizing it. I'm sad. Frankly, as i've said before, this church carries some very strong hallmarks of a cult. I don't think it has crossed over to that status, but it is a near thing, in my opinion. They do preach Christ died, buried, risen. But much of the preaching does not bring the freedoms i believe Jesus came to give us.
I have currently drafted a fairly simple letter to the church requesting our names be removed from their membership rolls. However, i did say some things in the letter that we may choose not to say. We may simplify it even further. But for now i think we'll just let it sit for a week or two. It took them over a month to respond to our request for clarification. We don't have to jump on this.
Anyway, just my recent thoughts on the matter.
31
Duane & i are both very sad. Not so much for us. As i've said before, we both feel that we have learned so much & grown so much thru this. But we are so very sad for the people we care about.
The incomprehensible letter (undated/unsigned) makes it clear that the elders either 1. Did not read our letters (Gene called & "explained" to them what we had said & how we were so disrespectful) or 2. They did not grasp what we were saying. Or a combination of the two.
There is no way to say this without sounding rude, but we don't have a lot of confidence in the intelligence of most of the elders to grasp what we were saying. The response letter makes it clear they may not have the capacity to understand. Regardless, the elders are the ones responsible to be sure the church stays on track.
I am offended that they think our letter indicates disrespect "to the dignity of the Pastoral office." We put a lot of time, effort, editing, & prayer into that letter, striving NOT to show disrespect. At this point we can't help but have disrespect for both the pastor & the elders, but we are striving not to be disrespectful. We have re-read what we wrote & feel that no disrespect was tendered. I'm also offended by the remarks about dissension, as that is the very thing we have worked very hard not to create.
But i'm really much more concerned by the pamphlet sent. I so wish that had been given us before we ever joined that church. In it embodies many of the attitudes with which i've struggled in this church. Jessica wrote in a previous comment she hears, "haughtiness, arrogance, self-righteousness, pride and pushing people away." and those are the very attitudes which have so greatly disturbed me for some time. I never recognized them as sanctioned by the actual church doctrine, however.
Part of the pamphlet was quoting the first president of the LCMS, C.F.W. Walther, who lived 1811-1887. According to Wikipedia, he was "vigorously opposed to non-Lutheran denominations in America." He wrote this passage, "Even one who confesses the Real Presence cannot ordinarily, except in the case of death, be admitted if he is and wants to remain, not a member of our orthodox church, but rather a Roman Catholic, Reformed, so-called Evangelical or Unionist, Methodist, Baptist, in short, a member of an erring fellowship." which i found very offensive.
The pamphlet makes it very clear that the LCMS church practices "close communion" but SITP DID NOT as they opened communion in each & every bulletin. That created a lot of confusion for us. It also creates a somewhat "secret society" because we have a number of folks who attend multiple churches & still take communion at SITP. So it comes down to, "Did we have to seek 'permission' from the pastor in order to visit other churches? And how on earth were we suppose to know that?"
I've been studying Lutheran doctrine for the past day or so, & what i've found has made me very, very uncomfortable. I guess i should have done this long ago, but as the risen Christ was being preached, i thought the doctrine not so very important. I was wrong, very wrong. I'm finding it hard to imagine that i'll ever feel comfortable "belonging" to a church again.
The things i find disturbing in Lutheran doctrine did not originate with Luther, however. What i've read of him indicates that he came to not even believe in a priesthood, but that each of us shares in the priesthood. Also what i read indicates that very soon after he began trying to pastor in a healthier way there were folks wanting to take his beliefs/theories/theology, etc. & create the doctrine which has so enslaved people today.
I remember from long ago, i used to HATE Calvin. But in college while studying the different evolutions of doctrines, i learned that what i hated was Calvinism & what the doctrine had become. In both the cases of Calvin & Luther, they sincerely desired for the people to live free & to not have fears about life & relationship to God. But we also learned that within 2 generations their teaching had evolved into doctrine which enslaved the people, robbing them of the very freedoms that both Calvin & Luther had sought to insure.
We seem to have run up against the very worst of Lutheranism without realizing it. I'm sad. Frankly, as i've said before, this church carries some very strong hallmarks of a cult. I don't think it has crossed over to that status, but it is a near thing, in my opinion. They do preach Christ died, buried, risen. But much of the preaching does not bring the freedoms i believe Jesus came to give us.
I have currently drafted a fairly simple letter to the church requesting our names be removed from their membership rolls. However, i did say some things in the letter that we may choose not to say. We may simplify it even further. But for now i think we'll just let it sit for a week or two. It took them over a month to respond to our request for clarification. We don't have to jump on this.
Anyway, just my recent thoughts on the matter.
31
For Those who are Interested, con't
Back on 9 June, i posted "For Those who are Interested" the letters we sent to the pastor, G, & the church elders.
Today Duane received a letter addressed to him from one of the elders. With the exception that i'm abbreviating the name of the church at the end, this is the exact letter sent (including spelling, errors & typos). This letter had no date & was unsigned. It is as follows:
The article enclosed reads as follows (& if you don't want to read this whole, long thing i will try to do a brief recap at the bottom):
I have done my best to faithfully copy the original letter, both in spelling and punctuation.
In brief, it says that any church that does not believe exactly as the Lutheran Missouri Synod does is in error. It says that to take communion with someone in error is to fellowship with evil (beliefs) & contrary to the word of God as the LCMS understands it.
One of the people quoted is the first president of LCMS, who lived 1811-1887. He was "vigorously opposed to all non-Lutheran theologies." Wikipedia.
Remember, the SITP Lutheran church printed in its bulletin every week the invitation to communion to all Christians “who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament.” It does not specify baptism, confirmation, membership of an LCMS church, what the "understanding of the sacrament" involves, or any other requirement. It states only that if someone has questions about this requirement, they should ask an elder.
This is all i'm going to say for today. I'm sure i'll have much more to say, but i will stop here.
30
Today Duane received a letter addressed to him from one of the elders. With the exception that i'm abbreviating the name of the church at the end, this is the exact letter sent (including spelling, errors & typos). This letter had no date & was unsigned. It is as follows:
Dear Duane Dickerson,
We are asking you to resubmit your request in a manner that shows respect to the dignity of the Pastoral office.
Until the process of the finish of you submission you are barred from the communion table and membership activities. Note this is not because of your feelings of being excommunicated, you are not being excommunicated. It's because of L.C.M.S., position on closed communion { see the enclosed article}.
You are welcome to attend our worship and fellowship, however if in our opinion you are causing any form of dissention among the Body of Christ you will be asked to leave and not be allowed to return.
Thank you,
The Elder's of SITP Lutheran Church.
The article enclosed reads as follows (& if you don't want to read this whole, long thing i will try to do a brief recap at the bottom):
What About . . .
Fellowship in the Lord's Supper
Fellowship in the Lord's Supper is the basis for the practice of "close" or "closed" communion." (The phrases "close communion" and "closed communion" refer to one and the same practice). This pamphlet will help you appreciate, understand and explain to others the practice of close communion.
What does God teach in His Word?
"Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (cf. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:14-20; 1 cor. 11:17-29).
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (Acts 2:42).
"Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:26-29).
What does the Lutheran church believe about the Lord's Supper?
The Lutheran church believes, teaches and confesses that the Lord's Supper is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to drink. We hold that the bread and the wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ and that these are given and received into the mouths of all who commune. Those who believe the promise: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins," receive forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. This promise, along with the bodily eating and drinking, is the main thing in the Sacrament.
The Lutheran church rejects and condemns incorrect understandings of the Lord's Supper, such as the view that the sacrifice of the Mass delivers man from his sins, or that the substance of the consecrated bread and wine is actually changed into the body and blood of Christ. We also reject and condemn the view that in the Lord's Supper the true body and blood of Christ is not received by the mouth of the communicants, under the bread and wine, but is received only spiritually in the heart by faith, or that the bread and wine are only symbols of the far-distant body ad blood of our Lord.
How is the Lord's Supper an expression of church fellowship?
While the Lord's Supper is always a personal matter, it is never a private matter. That is an important truth that is often overlooked. Those who commune at the same altar are thereby declaring publically that they are united in the doctrine of the Apostles (Acts 2:42). Therefore, fellowship in the Supper is church fellowship. This is what is taught by Holy Scripture in 1 Cor. 10 and 11. Here is how one our church's teachers explained this truth.
"As there is but one bread, one loaf, from which we eat, so we who are eating of this loaf are one body. The eating of one and the same loaf of bread unifies us to one body. Our participation in the Lord's Supper is a public profession on our part that we are not only in fellowship with Christ, but that we also are in fellowship with those with whom we commune at the Lord's Table. We all eat the same bread, the body of Christ. Through that act we indicate that we belong together. All of us Christians who in the Lord's Supper eat the body of Christ and drink His blood present ourselves as one spiritual family. What we eat and drink together, Christ's body and blood, ties us together more closely than the bonds of blood. We declare ourselves to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Upon this Bible passage do e base the saying 'Altar Fellowship is Church Fellowship.'
"This passage in Corinthians strikes a crushing blow at unionism. To admit those who believe differently to our Communion, and so to our church fellowship, is a contradiction in itself. For those who approach the same altar together profess to be one -- one in all points of Christian doctrine and practice -- while in reality they disagree. It would be shameful hypocrisy on our part if we would have those who actually profess a different faith than we do join us at the Lord's Altar" (Stoeckhardt, 1 Corinthians, p. 60-61).
Another teacher of our church had this to say about why the Lord's Supper is an expression of church fellowship:
"The Holy Supper is one of the marks, one of the banners of the church, on of the seals of the church doctrine and faith (Rom. 4:11, see 1 Cor. 10:21; Ex. 12:48). In whichever church one receives the Holy Supper, one is confessing that church and its doctrine. There cannot be a more inward, brotherly fellowship than that into which one enters with those in whose fellowship he receives the holy Supper . . . Even one who confesses the Real Presence cannot ordinarily, except in the case of death, be admitted if he is and wants to remain, not a member of our orthodox church, but rather a Roman Catholic, Reformed, so-called Evangelical or Unionist, Methodist, Baptist, in short, a member of an erring fellowship. For the Sacrament, as it is a seal of faith, is also the banner of the fellowship in which it is administered" (Walther, Pastoral Theology, p. 110-111, 149).
What is the Lutheran church's motive for practicing close communion?
Our Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations offers the following helpful explanation of why we practice close communion:
"Close communion seeks to prevent a profession of confessional unity in faith where there is, in fact, disunity and disagreement. It would be neither faithful to the 'scriptural requirements for admission to Holy Communion (1 Cor. 11:27ff; cf. 10:16-17) nor helpful to fallen humanity if the Christian Church welcomes to its altars those who deny or question clear Scriptural teachings.
"The reasons for the practice of close Communion are often misunderstood by Christians who have been accustomed to an 'open Communion' policy. In a tract titled, Why Close Communion? the rationale for the practice of close communion is explained in this way:
'So it is not that a Lutheran congregation wants to bar fellow-saints from the blessings of the Eucharist when they practice Close Communion. It is not that they want to be separatistic, or set themselves up as judges of other men. The practice of Close Communion is prompted by love and is born of the heartfelt conviction, on the basis of Scripture alone, that we must follow Christ's command. This means refusing the Lord's Supper to those whose belief is not known to us. It is not showing love to allow a person to do something harmful, even though he may think it is for his own good. It also means if they are members of a Christian body which departs from the full truth of the Scripture in some of its doctrines, that we must not minimize the evil of this false teaching by opening our fellowship to any and all Christians who err in the faith' [Deffner, Why Close Communion?, p.14].
"In Keeping with the principle that the celebration and reception of the Lord's Supper is a confession of the unity of the faith, while at the same time recognizing that there will be instances when sensitive pastoral care needs to be exercised the Synod has established an official practice requiring, 'that pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, except in situations of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods that are now in fellowship with us. By following this practice whereby only those individuals who are members of the Synod or of a church body with which the Synod is in altar and pulpit fellowship are ordinarily communed, pastors and congregations preserve the integrity of their witness to the Gospel of Christ as it is revealed in the Scriptures and confessed in the Lutheran confessional writings.'"
"The Office of the Keys is less than faithfully exercised when admission to the Sacrament is granted to all who come to the alter regardless of their faith and congregational and/or denominational affiliation. The practice of open Communion renders it difficult, if not impossible, for church discipline to be exercised in a way that honors the ministrations being carried out by those to whom the responsibility of spiritual care for a member of God's flock has been entrusted: (Heb. 13:17; cf. John 20:22-23; Acts 20:27-28; 1 Cor. 4:1-2. Theology and Practice of the Lord's Supper, pp. 21-23).
Conclusion
On the basis of God's Holy Word, our Lutheran church continues to practice the ancient, Biblical and confessional practice of close communion as an opportunity to give joyful witness to our unity in the true faith. We practice close communion with the belief that this is what the Lord would have us to do as we faithfully administer His body and blood in His holy Sacrament.
Close communion is not a practice unique to The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod. It is also practiced by the majority of Christians in the world who are members of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions.
Hopefully, this brief explanation will help you, or someone else, understand that our love for our Lord and His Sacrament, and our love for the individual, is the reason why we practice close communion.
--Dr. A.L. Barry
President
The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod
I have done my best to faithfully copy the original letter, both in spelling and punctuation.
In brief, it says that any church that does not believe exactly as the Lutheran Missouri Synod does is in error. It says that to take communion with someone in error is to fellowship with evil (beliefs) & contrary to the word of God as the LCMS understands it.
One of the people quoted is the first president of LCMS, who lived 1811-1887. He was "vigorously opposed to all non-Lutheran theologies." Wikipedia.
Remember, the SITP Lutheran church printed in its bulletin every week the invitation to communion to all Christians “who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament.” It does not specify baptism, confirmation, membership of an LCMS church, what the "understanding of the sacrament" involves, or any other requirement. It states only that if someone has questions about this requirement, they should ask an elder.
This is all i'm going to say for today. I'm sure i'll have much more to say, but i will stop here.
30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Kathryn
- Wife, wanted to be a mama - not going to happen, massage therapist, child of God. I can be emailed at: 4Kat2009@gmail.com
