Anglican-Lutheran dialogue

We’ve been having our own Anglican-Lutheran dialogues on this blog.  It so happens that today a more formal discussion is taking place on a much higher level:

Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana will be the site for the third installment of dialogue between the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), October 27–28. The focus for this meeting will be Contemporary Issues Facing the Church in North America.

An open forum will take place Thursday, October 27 at 7:00 p.m. in Sihler Auditorium on the seminary campus at 6600 N. Clinton Street, Fort Wayne. There is no charge for the forum and the public is encouraged to attend. Those unable to attend the forum will be able to watch it live via the internet by going to www.ctsfw.edu and clicking on the Watch Live! link.

Scheduled to speak at the forum are Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, LCMS President, and Rev. Dr. Jonathan Riches, Associate Professor of Liturgics, Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. “As the rapidly changing American culture confronts the church, it is important that dialogue between groups that seek to uphold the historic Christian faith occur,” commented Dr. Lawrence Rast Jr., CTS President. “We are delighted to host President Matthew Harrison and Dr. Jonathan Riches to share their perspectives as leaders, especially concerning how the church may make its faithful witness on the new millennium.”

via Concordia Theological Seminary – Seminary News – ACNA LCMS Dialogue.

If any of you are at Ft. Wayne and attend the sessions, we’d appreciate a report.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • kerner

    Well, one aspect of this gives me some hope that the dialogue might be fruitful. And by “fruitful” I don’t mean necessarily resulting in pulpit fellowship or anything like that. I just mean that we may develop a mutual respect and be able to co-operate on some efforts of common concern to Christians in North America.

    One problem Lutherans (especially Lutheran clergy, it seems to me) have is the perception that we and others have: that Lutheranism is basically an ethnic or regional religious body. I’m not saying it’s true, so please, everybody, don’t deluge me with counterexamples. But you know what I mean. Lutheran clergy, especially, want to stress that Lutherans are not just the protestant church for Germans and Scandinavians. We are part of the “Church catholic”, and we have the true “catholic” doctrine. It was Rome that made a wrong turn and left the truth behind, not us.

    So, ever since I got into Lutheran blogs I’ve run across Lutheran clergy leaving Lutheranism to become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox priests. And the attraction is usually the same: they like being back in what they perceive as the historic, apostolic Church passed down from from age to age. They don’t get that feeling from a denomination named after a German monk and a midwestern state.

    But denominations like the RCC and the EOC don’t treat Lutherans as equals in our dialogues. It’s always the same. They are the historic apostolic Church, passed down from age to age; but we are some minor sect of “separated bretheran” who have been on the wrong side of a schism for all these centuries and whose goal should be to “come home” to the fold.

    Frankly, I consider that sort of thing to be propaganda designed to keep people in line, less concerned with truth and doctrine, more concerned with unity and continuity. And, being a Lutheran, I believe that “the Church” exists wherever two or more people gather around the Word and sacraments, and no particular organization has, or should claim to have, a monopoly on that.

    But my point is that, unlike the RCC and the EOC, the Anglicans have never excommunicated Lutherans en masse. Nor have we ever stamped out of their fold in a huff. So maybe, just matbe, whatever dialogue we have will not be tainted by condescension from Anglicans or by “catholic” envy from the Lutherans. If we approach each other like brothers trying to find points of commonality, maybe we can work together on some things without compromising our principles. At least, I hope so.

  • kerner

    Well, one aspect of this gives me some hope that the dialogue might be fruitful. And by “fruitful” I don’t mean necessarily resulting in pulpit fellowship or anything like that. I just mean that we may develop a mutual respect and be able to co-operate on some efforts of common concern to Christians in North America.

    One problem Lutherans (especially Lutheran clergy, it seems to me) have is the perception that we and others have: that Lutheranism is basically an ethnic or regional religious body. I’m not saying it’s true, so please, everybody, don’t deluge me with counterexamples. But you know what I mean. Lutheran clergy, especially, want to stress that Lutherans are not just the protestant church for Germans and Scandinavians. We are part of the “Church catholic”, and we have the true “catholic” doctrine. It was Rome that made a wrong turn and left the truth behind, not us.

    So, ever since I got into Lutheran blogs I’ve run across Lutheran clergy leaving Lutheranism to become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox priests. And the attraction is usually the same: they like being back in what they perceive as the historic, apostolic Church passed down from from age to age. They don’t get that feeling from a denomination named after a German monk and a midwestern state.

    But denominations like the RCC and the EOC don’t treat Lutherans as equals in our dialogues. It’s always the same. They are the historic apostolic Church, passed down from age to age; but we are some minor sect of “separated bretheran” who have been on the wrong side of a schism for all these centuries and whose goal should be to “come home” to the fold.

    Frankly, I consider that sort of thing to be propaganda designed to keep people in line, less concerned with truth and doctrine, more concerned with unity and continuity. And, being a Lutheran, I believe that “the Church” exists wherever two or more people gather around the Word and sacraments, and no particular organization has, or should claim to have, a monopoly on that.

    But my point is that, unlike the RCC and the EOC, the Anglicans have never excommunicated Lutherans en masse. Nor have we ever stamped out of their fold in a huff. So maybe, just matbe, whatever dialogue we have will not be tainted by condescension from Anglicans or by “catholic” envy from the Lutherans. If we approach each other like brothers trying to find points of commonality, maybe we can work together on some things without compromising our principles. At least, I hope so.

  • SKPeterson

    One issue that separates us, besides the thorny issues of theology, is ecclesiology. This is largely an American phenomenon, but the Anglicans (and RC and EO churches) hold to apostolic succession. In fact, they hold so steadfastly to apostolic succession that they’ve been willing to jettison the teachings of the apostles in order to preserve it. In fact, it is this insistence upon apostolic succession and the lack of Lutheran cohesiveness and coherence on its status that often results in an automatic dismissal of Lutherans as “separate but equal.”

  • SKPeterson

    One issue that separates us, besides the thorny issues of theology, is ecclesiology. This is largely an American phenomenon, but the Anglicans (and RC and EO churches) hold to apostolic succession. In fact, they hold so steadfastly to apostolic succession that they’ve been willing to jettison the teachings of the apostles in order to preserve it. In fact, it is this insistence upon apostolic succession and the lack of Lutheran cohesiveness and coherence on its status that often results in an automatic dismissal of Lutherans as “separate but equal.”

  • SKPeterson

    I just noticed I double “in fact”ed.

  • SKPeterson

    I just noticed I double “in fact”ed.

  • trotk

    SK – Two questions.

    Where exactly do we “hold so steadfastly to apostolic succession that they’ve been willing to jettison the teachings of the apostles in order to preserve it?”

    And the ‘automatic dismissal of Lutherans as “separate but equal”’ – I am curious, not defensive here: Which Anglicans are automatically dismissing Lutherans?

  • trotk

    SK – Two questions.

    Where exactly do we “hold so steadfastly to apostolic succession that they’ve been willing to jettison the teachings of the apostles in order to preserve it?”

    And the ‘automatic dismissal of Lutherans as “separate but equal”’ – I am curious, not defensive here: Which Anglicans are automatically dismissing Lutherans?

  • Tom in NJ

    I used to be in the REC, the ACNA group that is involved in these discussions. While they practice succession, their official statements say that it is not the only valid form of polity.

    These discusssion can be useful for mutual understanding and cooperation in externals.

  • Tom in NJ

    I used to be in the REC, the ACNA group that is involved in these discussions. While they practice succession, their official statements say that it is not the only valid form of polity.

    These discusssion can be useful for mutual understanding and cooperation in externals.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Not exactly a dialog of equals though, is it?

    I mean, on the one hand you have the elected leader of 2 million Lutherans, and on the other hand, you have an associate professor from a seminary affiliated with a denomination of maybe 15,000 people.

    I guess I was expecting something different when you mentioned “formal discussions”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Not exactly a dialog of equals though, is it?

    I mean, on the one hand you have the elected leader of 2 million Lutherans, and on the other hand, you have an associate professor from a seminary affiliated with a denomination of maybe 15,000 people.

    I guess I was expecting something different when you mentioned “formal discussions”.

  • Gary

    Todd, as usual, a very valid observation.

  • Gary

    Todd, as usual, a very valid observation.

  • fws

    trotk @ 4

    I am glad u are here with us Steve. You are going to help us learn how to talk more kindly to others who are not Lutheran and keep us more honest in the process in how we use our words.

    no slam at all to SK. I have used similar wording in the past.

  • fws

    trotk @ 4

    I am glad u are here with us Steve. You are going to help us learn how to talk more kindly to others who are not Lutheran and keep us more honest in the process in how we use our words.

    no slam at all to SK. I have used similar wording in the past.

  • fws

    I, for one, would LOVE to see these two men have a lively discussion on women’s ordination. I am pretty sure there is no divergence on the Holy Liturgy.

    The only other issue I can think of that fits the description of what they would discuss is the topic of Homosexuality. I am praying that President H has abandoned the idea that Scholastic Thomist Natural Law Theories are the solution for this particular issue. I wonder if this will come up in the discussion.

  • fws

    I, for one, would LOVE to see these two men have a lively discussion on women’s ordination. I am pretty sure there is no divergence on the Holy Liturgy.

    The only other issue I can think of that fits the description of what they would discuss is the topic of Homosexuality. I am praying that President H has abandoned the idea that Scholastic Thomist Natural Law Theories are the solution for this particular issue. I wonder if this will come up in the discussion.

  • SKPeterson

    trotk – I was referring more to the RC and EOC positions, especially vis-a-vis my “separate but equal” comment, rather than Anglican but, witness the altar and pulpit fellowship agreements between the ECUSA and the ELCA a decade ago. The ECUSA insisted upon apostolic succession, almost to the exclusion of any other point of theological agreement. This was mirrored in the Porvoo declaration (which provided the cover for the ELCA) between the Scandinavian churches and the Anglican Communion.

    Now, to the extent that the ACNA holds different viewpoints from the ECUSA, I’m very interested to know. I’m agnostic on apostolic succession, but I do think that conversations between LCMS and ACNA on theological issues and external cooperation are a positive development.

  • SKPeterson

    trotk – I was referring more to the RC and EOC positions, especially vis-a-vis my “separate but equal” comment, rather than Anglican but, witness the altar and pulpit fellowship agreements between the ECUSA and the ELCA a decade ago. The ECUSA insisted upon apostolic succession, almost to the exclusion of any other point of theological agreement. This was mirrored in the Porvoo declaration (which provided the cover for the ELCA) between the Scandinavian churches and the Anglican Communion.

    Now, to the extent that the ACNA holds different viewpoints from the ECUSA, I’m very interested to know. I’m agnostic on apostolic succession, but I do think that conversations between LCMS and ACNA on theological issues and external cooperation are a positive development.

  • fws

    “As the rapidly changing American culture confronts the church,…….

    [this dialog is to share perspectives ] especially concerning how the church may make its faithful witness on the new millennium.”

    This sounds like it will be a discussion about how to preach.. er.. witness the Law to a society that is “confronting” that Law. There is no need for that. Why not?

    1) The Law always accuses. We are powerless to ignore it that means
    2) The Law is written in the Reason of ALL men by God, even those without Bibles, and …
    3) The Law simply will not go away. It will hound the conscience just as in the story of the Lawless Lawgiver hounded by a conscience widowed from love (Luke 18). And this story make it clear that the Law will have it’s way even upon those who refuse to obey the first or second Table of the Law!

    So what is the Church’s witness to be? It is only this:

    The Church exists to witness to the Person and Work of Christ for the world.

    But to witness to that it is true that the Church also needs to witness to the Law of God. But!

    Not just any Law!

    It is to witness to a Law that Moses could not know. It is found in the Decalog but this Law was veiled to Moses.

    This is the Law that says that even though we might outwardly keep the entire Law, our hearts still condemn us because we don’t keep the Law with our entire heart. We keep the Law because the Law, with both sweet carrot and punishing stick, extorts Goodness and Mercy out of us. So this Law is aimed especially at those who outwardly are the most moral people! Got that?

    So I am praying that since this appears to be a discussion about the Law, that it will be that Law that informs us that the most righteous are the moral equivalent of a used Tampon.

    I hope that this is not an exercise in “witnessing to the Law of Romans 2:15 that God has already revealed Divinely in the Reason of ALL men, even pagan men.

    Or even better, it would be great to have the focus be entirely on how to witness to the Holy Gospel , which alone can overcome sin in a way that Moses never could!

  • fws

    “As the rapidly changing American culture confronts the church,…….

    [this dialog is to share perspectives ] especially concerning how the church may make its faithful witness on the new millennium.”

    This sounds like it will be a discussion about how to preach.. er.. witness the Law to a society that is “confronting” that Law. There is no need for that. Why not?

    1) The Law always accuses. We are powerless to ignore it that means
    2) The Law is written in the Reason of ALL men by God, even those without Bibles, and …
    3) The Law simply will not go away. It will hound the conscience just as in the story of the Lawless Lawgiver hounded by a conscience widowed from love (Luke 18). And this story make it clear that the Law will have it’s way even upon those who refuse to obey the first or second Table of the Law!

    So what is the Church’s witness to be? It is only this:

    The Church exists to witness to the Person and Work of Christ for the world.

    But to witness to that it is true that the Church also needs to witness to the Law of God. But!

    Not just any Law!

    It is to witness to a Law that Moses could not know. It is found in the Decalog but this Law was veiled to Moses.

    This is the Law that says that even though we might outwardly keep the entire Law, our hearts still condemn us because we don’t keep the Law with our entire heart. We keep the Law because the Law, with both sweet carrot and punishing stick, extorts Goodness and Mercy out of us. So this Law is aimed especially at those who outwardly are the most moral people! Got that?

    So I am praying that since this appears to be a discussion about the Law, that it will be that Law that informs us that the most righteous are the moral equivalent of a used Tampon.

    I hope that this is not an exercise in “witnessing to the Law of Romans 2:15 that God has already revealed Divinely in the Reason of ALL men, even pagan men.

    Or even better, it would be great to have the focus be entirely on how to witness to the Holy Gospel , which alone can overcome sin in a way that Moses never could!

  • trotk

    SK -

    I wasn’t offended, but I was curious about the idea of apostolic succession being more important than any other piece of doctrine and something that drove the Anglican church to heresy.
    In my experience with ACNA, apostolic succession is subscribed to, but it is on a lower level than scripture, the creeds, and the liturgy.

  • trotk

    SK -

    I wasn’t offended, but I was curious about the idea of apostolic succession being more important than any other piece of doctrine and something that drove the Anglican church to heresy.
    In my experience with ACNA, apostolic succession is subscribed to, but it is on a lower level than scripture, the creeds, and the liturgy.

  • trotk

    Frank -

    I appreciate your desire for gentle dialogue. My frustration a couple weeks ago was the product of too much time trying to make one point, and SK’s statement here didn’t bother me. I just had never seen was he was referring to.

  • trotk

    Frank -

    I appreciate your desire for gentle dialogue. My frustration a couple weeks ago was the product of too much time trying to make one point, and SK’s statement here didn’t bother me. I just had never seen was he was referring to.

  • http://blog.captainthin.net/ Captain Thin

    It’s a pity that the news release neglects the fact that Lutheran Church – Canada is also involved in these discussions (see this 2010 article in The Canadian Lutheran for a brief report on the first dialogue).

    I have an article forthcoming in The Canadian Lutheran which discusses, in part, the purpose of the LCMS/LCC dialogue with ACNA in greater detail (the article’s larger focus is on biblical authority in general and the difficulties facing congregations who make their stand on Scriptures vis-à-vis the theological liberality of certain mainline Protestant denominations).

  • http://blog.captainthin.net/ Captain Thin

    It’s a pity that the news release neglects the fact that Lutheran Church – Canada is also involved in these discussions (see this 2010 article in The Canadian Lutheran for a brief report on the first dialogue).

    I have an article forthcoming in The Canadian Lutheran which discusses, in part, the purpose of the LCMS/LCC dialogue with ACNA in greater detail (the article’s larger focus is on biblical authority in general and the difficulties facing congregations who make their stand on Scriptures vis-à-vis the theological liberality of certain mainline Protestant denominations).

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Had Lunch with an Anglican Priest this afternoon. Found a lot of common ground, and enjoyed the conversation. But he is in the Anglican Mission Church, and not the ACNA, so what I am finding is that Anglicans and Lutherans not only hold a high regard for the liturgy in common, but also a penchant for alphabet soup.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Had Lunch with an Anglican Priest this afternoon. Found a lot of common ground, and enjoyed the conversation. But he is in the Anglican Mission Church, and not the ACNA, so what I am finding is that Anglicans and Lutherans not only hold a high regard for the liturgy in common, but also a penchant for alphabet soup.

  • fws

    trotk @ 13

    I am glad to hear that. I would love this place to be a community that is a model for being able to seriously disagree and at the same time be respectful.

    I think alot of Lutherans here are sorta baffled why someone like you who are more Lutheran than alot of Lutherans chose to stay in the Anglican Church. I get why I think. Lots of reasons.

    I think you men and women can be influential in ways and with other groups that we Lutherans in the Lutheran Churches are not as effective at influencing. I am glad you guys are around.

    Hang in there Steve.

  • fws

    trotk @ 13

    I am glad to hear that. I would love this place to be a community that is a model for being able to seriously disagree and at the same time be respectful.

    I think alot of Lutherans here are sorta baffled why someone like you who are more Lutheran than alot of Lutherans chose to stay in the Anglican Church. I get why I think. Lots of reasons.

    I think you men and women can be influential in ways and with other groups that we Lutherans in the Lutheran Churches are not as effective at influencing. I am glad you guys are around.

    Hang in there Steve.

  • WebMonk

    http://www.wmltblog.org/2011/10/acna%E2%80%93lcms-dialogue-iii/

    Just a bit more info.

    tODD’s comment got me thinking, and the more I thought about it the odder it seemed to me. On the LCMS (and LCC) side there are a bunch of leadership “heavyweights”, such as the president and a bunch of directors. On the ACNA side, a body of about 100,000, there were several professors and one bishop.

    Anyone have any theories about why the disparity?

    It seems to me that the LCMS is meeting with a group that is less than a 20-th their membership size, and yet are sending in their highest ranking people whereas the much smaller party is sending mostly academic representatives.

    Is there some reason that this meeting was a lot more important for the LCMS than it was for the ACNA? Or are the academics on the ACNA side of much greater organizational influence than I realize?

    One side seems to be treating this as a major denominational conference. The other seems to be viewing it as a joint speakers conference.

    Am I imagining things that aren’t there, or are there very different views of this event?

  • WebMonk

    http://www.wmltblog.org/2011/10/acna%E2%80%93lcms-dialogue-iii/

    Just a bit more info.

    tODD’s comment got me thinking, and the more I thought about it the odder it seemed to me. On the LCMS (and LCC) side there are a bunch of leadership “heavyweights”, such as the president and a bunch of directors. On the ACNA side, a body of about 100,000, there were several professors and one bishop.

    Anyone have any theories about why the disparity?

    It seems to me that the LCMS is meeting with a group that is less than a 20-th their membership size, and yet are sending in their highest ranking people whereas the much smaller party is sending mostly academic representatives.

    Is there some reason that this meeting was a lot more important for the LCMS than it was for the ACNA? Or are the academics on the ACNA side of much greater organizational influence than I realize?

    One side seems to be treating this as a major denominational conference. The other seems to be viewing it as a joint speakers conference.

    Am I imagining things that aren’t there, or are there very different views of this event?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    I imagine that riches was representing his bishop last night, harrison is just a much more hands on kind of man when it comes to these things, and quite the acedemic in his own right.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    I imagine that riches was representing his bishop last night, harrison is just a much more hands on kind of man when it comes to these things, and quite the acedemic in his own right.

  • Craig

    There are several of you on this blog who I really appreciate because of your thoughtfulness and insight. So here is my question: Am I way off base when I get upset with our LCMS leaders meeting with other denominations? We have our confessions and they have theirs. We should never compromise our doctrine and these meetings are a total waste of time and can only weaken our confessional convictions by harmonizing with others. Now when you have a pastor like Bror who on his own time meets with an Anglican to discuss theology that is a great thing. Pick ‘em off one at a time. But our denominational leadership should not be in a formal meeting with any other denomination….no matter how much they “appreciate” Luther. I also feel that these meetings are a real insult to our Lutheran fathers who wrote these confessions and were willing to have their heads removed rather than comprise their writings. Oh yes there is brother Philip who was ecumenical and that nearly destroyed the Lutheran church. Thank God that Chemnitz was not out meeting with Calvin to discuss on their points of agreement. My point is that denominational leadership should be about serving the local perish by providing education for pastors and providing unity though encouraging common Divine Service practices. They are not serving the local perish by these meetings rather they are making themselves feel important and they are selfserving. Am I wrong?

  • Craig

    There are several of you on this blog who I really appreciate because of your thoughtfulness and insight. So here is my question: Am I way off base when I get upset with our LCMS leaders meeting with other denominations? We have our confessions and they have theirs. We should never compromise our doctrine and these meetings are a total waste of time and can only weaken our confessional convictions by harmonizing with others. Now when you have a pastor like Bror who on his own time meets with an Anglican to discuss theology that is a great thing. Pick ‘em off one at a time. But our denominational leadership should not be in a formal meeting with any other denomination….no matter how much they “appreciate” Luther. I also feel that these meetings are a real insult to our Lutheran fathers who wrote these confessions and were willing to have their heads removed rather than comprise their writings. Oh yes there is brother Philip who was ecumenical and that nearly destroyed the Lutheran church. Thank God that Chemnitz was not out meeting with Calvin to discuss on their points of agreement. My point is that denominational leadership should be about serving the local perish by providing education for pastors and providing unity though encouraging common Divine Service practices. They are not serving the local perish by these meetings rather they are making themselves feel important and they are selfserving. Am I wrong?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Phillip, Luther met with Zwingli,, and for his part chmenits met with reformed off and on too. We must always be willing to work towards unity, and that is not “un confessional”n but at the heart of our confessions. We cannot comprmise our confessions when we meet with heterodox churches, but at the same time it would be a compromise of our confessions not to dialogue with those willing to dialogue. Especially in times of turmoil, you find people a bit more willing to reecamine their own confessions and so forth. Whole cults have in the past been converted by such dialogues! Now I’d be worried if it was kieschnik, that guy just wouldn’t be able to manage himself in such a conversation, but when its harrison, I hold out hope.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Phillip, Luther met with Zwingli,, and for his part chmenits met with reformed off and on too. We must always be willing to work towards unity, and that is not “un confessional”n but at the heart of our confessions. We cannot comprmise our confessions when we meet with heterodox churches, but at the same time it would be a compromise of our confessions not to dialogue with those willing to dialogue. Especially in times of turmoil, you find people a bit more willing to reecamine their own confessions and so forth. Whole cults have in the past been converted by such dialogues! Now I’d be worried if it was kieschnik, that guy just wouldn’t be able to manage himself in such a conversation, but when its harrison, I hold out hope.

  • Craig

    Thanks for the response Bror! Since becoming Lutheran a few years ago I have found the best, most pure biblical doctrine in the hands of men who are infatuated with the evangelical methods. It seems to me that compromise is in the LCMS DNA. Am I wrong?

  • Craig

    Thanks for the response Bror! Since becoming Lutheran a few years ago I have found the best, most pure biblical doctrine in the hands of men who are infatuated with the evangelical methods. It seems to me that compromise is in the LCMS DNA. Am I wrong?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Craig, I think I know of whom you speak, these men are not “normative” for the lcms. But to explain the problme in detail is not something I can do from my BB. Suffice it to say though, compromise is not what the LCmS is most known for, and definately isn’t something that infects the circles I run in.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com bror erickson

    Craig, I think I know of whom you speak, these men are not “normative” for the lcms. But to explain the problme in detail is not something I can do from my BB. Suffice it to say though, compromise is not what the LCmS is most known for, and definately isn’t something that infects the circles I run in.

  • http://blog.captainthin.net/ Captain Thin

    Todd @6, Gary @7, Web Monk @17 and anyone else wondering why LCMS’ president is in attendance while ACNA’s archbishop is not.

    It’s worth remembering, everyone, that this is the third round of dialogues. It’s not as if Archbishop Duncan wasn’t present for the first event; he was, as this article in the LCMS reporter makes clear. Maybe we’re all being being just a wee bit too cynical, and should simply realize that not every member of both churches can make it to every event. After all, the same report above notes that LCMS’ director of Church Relations had to send a proxy for most of the first event because of his own scheduling conflicts. I would hope ACNA didn’t take that as a slight, nor do I think Lutherans ought to take Archbishop Duncan’s inability to attend the third event as a slight. [And I've no idea who did and didn't make it to the second dialogue back in May.]

  • http://blog.captainthin.net/ Captain Thin

    Todd @6, Gary @7, Web Monk @17 and anyone else wondering why LCMS’ president is in attendance while ACNA’s archbishop is not.

    It’s worth remembering, everyone, that this is the third round of dialogues. It’s not as if Archbishop Duncan wasn’t present for the first event; he was, as this article in the LCMS reporter makes clear. Maybe we’re all being being just a wee bit too cynical, and should simply realize that not every member of both churches can make it to every event. After all, the same report above notes that LCMS’ director of Church Relations had to send a proxy for most of the first event because of his own scheduling conflicts. I would hope ACNA didn’t take that as a slight, nor do I think Lutherans ought to take Archbishop Duncan’s inability to attend the third event as a slight. [And I've no idea who did and didn't make it to the second dialogue back in May.]

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Thin (@23), thanks. I was lazy, and hadn’t really looked into it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Thin (@23), thanks. I was lazy, and hadn’t really looked into it.

  • WebMonk

    Thanks Thin. I will be vaguely interested to see how the talks progress (in who attends the talks) throughout the years, if they keep up. If the talks become productive, they would tend to attract higher level people and more of them over time. On the other hand, they could become regularly scheduled discussions with no results and only people of lesser position would attend. It could even become more important to one side or the other, having the LCMS president regularly attending while the archbishop never attends.

  • WebMonk

    Thanks Thin. I will be vaguely interested to see how the talks progress (in who attends the talks) throughout the years, if they keep up. If the talks become productive, they would tend to attract higher level people and more of them over time. On the other hand, they could become regularly scheduled discussions with no results and only people of lesser position would attend. It could even become more important to one side or the other, having the LCMS president regularly attending while the archbishop never attends.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X