Mainline liberal Protestants look for a new name

It isn’t just [some] Southern Baptists–or [some] Missouri Synod Lutherans–who are looking for a new name.  So are mainline liberal Protestants.   From Amy Frykholm:

In a recent interview with the Century, historian David Hollinger talks about his preference for the phrase “ecumenical Protestants” to describe non-evangelical mid-20th-century American Protestants, instead of the more frequently used terms “liberal” and “mainline.”

“Ecumenical” refers to a specific, vital and largely defining impulse within the groups I am describing. It also provides a more specific and appropriate contrast to evangelical. The term evangelical comes into currency in the mid-century to refer to a combination of fundamentalists and Holiness, Pentecostals and others; ecumenical refers to the consolidation of the ecumenical point of view in the big conferences of 1942 and 1945.

I appreciated this shift in vocabulary because I have long disliked both the terms “liberal” and “mainline” to refer to whatever-kind-of-Protestant it is that I am.

“Mainline” emerged as a label in the early part of the twentieth-century to distinguish a certain kind of Protestant from a fundamentalist. Some have speculated that the name comes from the Philadelphia Main Line, a suburban rail line that passed by one denominational church after another. But its two parts, “main” and “line” are both utterly unhelpful in describing the people, theology, social commitments or religious identities contained under that category today.

If anything, so-called mainline Protestants are less “main” and less “line” than they’ve ever been.

“Liberal” likewise is useless. At our particular moment, it is primarily a political term. While it can apply to theology and abstractly to philosophy, that isn’t its main rhetorical purpose now, and it lumps people from a broad spectrum under a term that is awkward and uncomfortable for most of them. Many people in this category would not consider themselves “liberal” in theology, but they might in politics. Or they might be liberal in theology, but decidedly not so in politics. Or they might claim neither or both, or have no idea why it matters.

But “ecumenical” has its problems too. For one thing, is ecumenism still the defining impulse of the group of Christians in questions? What’s more, the word may no longer helpfully distinguish us from evangelicals, who are a whole lot more ecumenical than they used to be.

It isn’t that we must have a term that everyone can agree on, one that suits us all perfectly. But it would be nice to have something, as Hollinger says, that “refers to a specific, vital and largely defining impulse.” We know—at least I think we do—who we are talking about. Why can’t we put a name to it or to ourselves? Is it because of an identity crisis? An awkward transition toward a less central cultural role?

Evangelicals are just as “ecumenical” in the sense of accepting different churches as these other guys.  And isn’t defining today’s churches by their attendance at a conference in 1945 rather retrograde?  I’m not sure what’s wrong with “liberal” as a descriptor for those denominations that aren’t constrained by Biblical authority, that think the beliefs of the church should change to conform to the dominant culture, or, rather, the dominant cultural and intellectual elite.  While it’s true that many people who are conservative theologically are liberal politically, I’m not aware of anyone who is liberal theologically who isn’t also liberal politically.  But help these folks out.  What is a good name for them?  What is their “identity” today?

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.

  • Spaulding

    Churches of the Social Gospel and Universal Salvation.

  • Spaulding

    Churches of the Social Gospel and Universal Salvation.

  • Michael B.

    “I’m not sure what’s wrong with “liberal” as a descriptor for those denominations that aren’t constrained by Biblical authority, that think the beliefs of the church should change to conform to the dominant culture, or, rather, the dominant cultural and intellectual elite. ”

    Virtually all churches redefine themselves with the new times and dominant thinking. For example, there was a time where getting divorced could get you kicked of a church, but divorce and remarriage is accepted by almost all churches. As one extremely conservative pastor put it: “Mainline and liberal churches boldly run away from Biblical teachings. Most conservative churches are like a timid, younger sister who follows her liberal older brother a few steps behind.”

  • Michael B.

    “I’m not sure what’s wrong with “liberal” as a descriptor for those denominations that aren’t constrained by Biblical authority, that think the beliefs of the church should change to conform to the dominant culture, or, rather, the dominant cultural and intellectual elite. ”

    Virtually all churches redefine themselves with the new times and dominant thinking. For example, there was a time where getting divorced could get you kicked of a church, but divorce and remarriage is accepted by almost all churches. As one extremely conservative pastor put it: “Mainline and liberal churches boldly run away from Biblical teachings. Most conservative churches are like a timid, younger sister who follows her liberal older brother a few steps behind.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Mainline and liberal churches boldly run away from Biblical teachings. Most conservative churches are like a timid, younger sister who follows her liberal older brother a few steps behind.”

    Uh oh, this prompted an off topic thought. What about people who are in the church, maybe even a liberal one, who are actually believers who pick up the Bible and turn to like super reactionary and want to go back to how it was in the 3rd century? I mean people who are like maybe the Duggars or those who go to the Eastern Orthodox? It seems like they are trying to find something. They may start out with Joel Osteen or Bill Hybels, but they move on to some really conservative place.

    The churches may be moving in one direction but the members are moving in various directions including the opposite direction.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Mainline and liberal churches boldly run away from Biblical teachings. Most conservative churches are like a timid, younger sister who follows her liberal older brother a few steps behind.”

    Uh oh, this prompted an off topic thought. What about people who are in the church, maybe even a liberal one, who are actually believers who pick up the Bible and turn to like super reactionary and want to go back to how it was in the 3rd century? I mean people who are like maybe the Duggars or those who go to the Eastern Orthodox? It seems like they are trying to find something. They may start out with Joel Osteen or Bill Hybels, but they move on to some really conservative place.

    The churches may be moving in one direction but the members are moving in various directions including the opposite direction.

  • Tom Hering

    Reading Frykholm’s article, the concern seems to be for something more important than an appropriate name. Now that it’s clear they were always on the winning side of cultural trends in America, how do liberal/mainline Protestants regain their long-past position as the leading voice of Christianity in America (winning it back from 20th century Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism)? As a theologically conservative Lutheran, I don’t find the prospect any more appealing than the current reality, but it’s the question the article deals with. So maybe Triumphant or Triumphaliberal Christianity? Then the discussion could focus on what constitutes true Christian triumph, and whether Christianity and cultural triumph are even compatible. (Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture could be a starting point. I’ve always liked his description of the Social Gospel as “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” :-D )

  • Tom Hering

    Reading Frykholm’s article, the concern seems to be for something more important than an appropriate name. Now that it’s clear they were always on the winning side of cultural trends in America, how do liberal/mainline Protestants regain their long-past position as the leading voice of Christianity in America (winning it back from 20th century Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism)? As a theologically conservative Lutheran, I don’t find the prospect any more appealing than the current reality, but it’s the question the article deals with. So maybe Triumphant or Triumphaliberal Christianity? Then the discussion could focus on what constitutes true Christian triumph, and whether Christianity and cultural triumph are even compatible. (Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture could be a starting point. I’ve always liked his description of the Social Gospel as “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” :-D )

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    So maybe Triumphant or Triumphaliberal Christianity?

    Am I understanding this correctly? Is this some kind of pun?

    The Church Triumphant are those who have passed on, aka dead. So, it is sort of like calling themselves dead, right? But with a weird theological twist maybe? Is that what you are saying? If it is, that is pretty hilarious would really be ironic.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    So maybe Triumphant or Triumphaliberal Christianity?

    Am I understanding this correctly? Is this some kind of pun?

    The Church Triumphant are those who have passed on, aka dead. So, it is sort of like calling themselves dead, right? But with a weird theological twist maybe? Is that what you are saying? If it is, that is pretty hilarious would really be ironic.

  • Tom Hering

    sg @ 5. Nope. Just thinking of “triumph” and “triumphalism” in the sense of liberal/mainline Protestantism being on the winning side of 20th century cultural trends (which are still operative). It’s a worldly triumphalism, and the irony is found in theological liberalism’s opposition to the idea that Christianity is superior to other religions. It’s not, they say. Except when it comes to the superiority of liberal cultural values as expressions of “true” Christianity.

  • Tom Hering

    sg @ 5. Nope. Just thinking of “triumph” and “triumphalism” in the sense of liberal/mainline Protestantism being on the winning side of 20th century cultural trends (which are still operative). It’s a worldly triumphalism, and the irony is found in theological liberalism’s opposition to the idea that Christianity is superior to other religions. It’s not, they say. Except when it comes to the superiority of liberal cultural values as expressions of “true” Christianity.

  • SKPeterson

    Good point Tom. The use of the categories “traditional” or “non-traditional” don’t really work. Traditional in what? Many of the mainline liberals like the ELCA or ECUSA are very traditional in terms of liturgical form, but not so much in terms of theology or doctrine. At the same time, “traditional” doctrine churches like the LCMS are rife with non-traditional liturgical forms of worship. What we are trying to do is apply two descriptive terms along some sort of ideological line stretching from Point A ultra-liberal Unitarianism to Point B ultra-conservative Independent Baptist along which churches, confessions and denominations can be neatly placed. However, what is really needed to adequately even begin to describe churches, confessions and denominations is some sort of four-part classification table with categories being set up with Doctrine on the X- axis and Liturgical Form on the Y-axis, with sub-categories of Traditional and Non-Traditional for both Doctrine and Liturgical Form. Something like the Political Compass – http://www.politicalcompass.org/test but for modern Christianity.

  • SKPeterson

    Good point Tom. The use of the categories “traditional” or “non-traditional” don’t really work. Traditional in what? Many of the mainline liberals like the ELCA or ECUSA are very traditional in terms of liturgical form, but not so much in terms of theology or doctrine. At the same time, “traditional” doctrine churches like the LCMS are rife with non-traditional liturgical forms of worship. What we are trying to do is apply two descriptive terms along some sort of ideological line stretching from Point A ultra-liberal Unitarianism to Point B ultra-conservative Independent Baptist along which churches, confessions and denominations can be neatly placed. However, what is really needed to adequately even begin to describe churches, confessions and denominations is some sort of four-part classification table with categories being set up with Doctrine on the X- axis and Liturgical Form on the Y-axis, with sub-categories of Traditional and Non-Traditional for both Doctrine and Liturgical Form. Something like the Political Compass – http://www.politicalcompass.org/test but for modern Christianity.

  • Tom Hering

    Ha! A Christianity compass would be a fun thing to play with. I’m guessing a lot of us would be surprised by the result we’d get.

  • Tom Hering

    Ha! A Christianity compass would be a fun thing to play with. I’m guessing a lot of us would be surprised by the result we’d get.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    How about CINOs (Christians in name only)?

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    How about CINOs (Christians in name only)?

  • Carl Vehse

    J. Dean @9, in the Evangelical Lutheran Church they are called “ELCA.”

  • Carl Vehse

    J. Dean @9, in the Evangelical Lutheran Church they are called “ELCA.”

  • SKPeterson

    So, as Carl notes, you couldn’t neatly place “Lutherans” in one place either on a line, but you could on a compass. You could distinguish say between the official points of ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELS, TAALC, NALC, LCMC and AFLC, and then take a look at the various congregations. What you should see is that the various congregations of each Lutheran flavor cluster around the “official” points. Of course the kicker for Lutherans is the term ‘adiaphora’ which is now not just recognizing that the Saxons do this, the Swedes do that and the Estonians something else within the liturgy, but that we now have the freedom to jettison whatever we please and we can excuse it by claiming it is an indifferent matter. Certainly perplexing and verging on the “egopapism” noted in today’s other thread. We then have the differences between ECUSA and ACNA, the differences between PCUSA, PCA, OPC, and CPC, and then on down to the various and sundry methobapticostal irruptions.

  • SKPeterson

    So, as Carl notes, you couldn’t neatly place “Lutherans” in one place either on a line, but you could on a compass. You could distinguish say between the official points of ELCA, LCMS, WELS, ELS, TAALC, NALC, LCMC and AFLC, and then take a look at the various congregations. What you should see is that the various congregations of each Lutheran flavor cluster around the “official” points. Of course the kicker for Lutherans is the term ‘adiaphora’ which is now not just recognizing that the Saxons do this, the Swedes do that and the Estonians something else within the liturgy, but that we now have the freedom to jettison whatever we please and we can excuse it by claiming it is an indifferent matter. Certainly perplexing and verging on the “egopapism” noted in today’s other thread. We then have the differences between ECUSA and ACNA, the differences between PCUSA, PCA, OPC, and CPC, and then on down to the various and sundry methobapticostal irruptions.

  • SKPeterson

    J. Dean @ 9 – You mean the Congregationalists or the Mormons or the JW’s?

  • SKPeterson

    J. Dean @ 9 – You mean the Congregationalists or the Mormons or the JW’s?

  • Dan Kempin

    Perhaps American denominations would benefit from clarifying in their name the source of authority for their teaching. Thus you could have “scripture only” lutherans and “church body” lutherans, who consider a resolution of the church body to be binding. (This might even provide clarity a priori for the attitude of the church body. The LCMS does not derive doctrine from the authority of the church body . . . but sometimes we act like it.)

    Likewise you could identify papal authority, clerical authority, egopapism, (I love that phrase), cultural relevance and non-binding denominations. (Say, “non-binding” may be the phrase that the liberal/mainline bunch is looking for. If so, I want credit.)

    What do you think: The Scripture Alone Lutheran Church as a new name for the Missouri Synod. “Lutheran,” I hope, would denote our doctrine, but the basis of authority would be right in the title.

    We could then return to calling the papists papists, and then could freely use the word “catholic” in the creed again. We could call the ELCA the “Majority Vote Lutherans,” and while it might cause offense, it would at least clarify the primary obstacle to our fellowship. (We could also accept the attitude correction with humility when our Wisconsin Synod brothers threaten to call us the same.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Perhaps American denominations would benefit from clarifying in their name the source of authority for their teaching. Thus you could have “scripture only” lutherans and “church body” lutherans, who consider a resolution of the church body to be binding. (This might even provide clarity a priori for the attitude of the church body. The LCMS does not derive doctrine from the authority of the church body . . . but sometimes we act like it.)

    Likewise you could identify papal authority, clerical authority, egopapism, (I love that phrase), cultural relevance and non-binding denominations. (Say, “non-binding” may be the phrase that the liberal/mainline bunch is looking for. If so, I want credit.)

    What do you think: The Scripture Alone Lutheran Church as a new name for the Missouri Synod. “Lutheran,” I hope, would denote our doctrine, but the basis of authority would be right in the title.

    We could then return to calling the papists papists, and then could freely use the word “catholic” in the creed again. We could call the ELCA the “Majority Vote Lutherans,” and while it might cause offense, it would at least clarify the primary obstacle to our fellowship. (We could also accept the attitude correction with humility when our Wisconsin Synod brothers threaten to call us the same.)

  • Jon

    How about The Progressive Revisionist Enthusiasticals?

  • Jon

    How about The Progressive Revisionist Enthusiasticals?

  • Jon

    Dan @13,

    Or how about Sola Lutheran Synod–or would that be too conceited?

    Actually, I would rather be known as Evangelical Catholic Synod. Really make their heads spin!

  • Jon

    Dan @13,

    Or how about Sola Lutheran Synod–or would that be too conceited?

    Actually, I would rather be known as Evangelical Catholic Synod. Really make their heads spin!

  • L. H. Kevil

    Jon with post #15,

    Yes, Evangelical Catholic Synod, excellent name. My pastor says bluntly, “Lutherans are not protestant.” The problem is that “catholic” has been subverted by Roman Catholics, just as “liberal” now means the opposite of what it used to mean. Assertion of our catholicity, i.e. our following the historic Christian faith going back to Jesus, taking back the label of “catholic” in its true universal sense, is critical. And we are the truly evangelicals. The word “synod” then describes the polity of our denomination. So excellent moniker.

  • L. H. Kevil

    Jon with post #15,

    Yes, Evangelical Catholic Synod, excellent name. My pastor says bluntly, “Lutherans are not protestant.” The problem is that “catholic” has been subverted by Roman Catholics, just as “liberal” now means the opposite of what it used to mean. Assertion of our catholicity, i.e. our following the historic Christian faith going back to Jesus, taking back the label of “catholic” in its true universal sense, is critical. And we are the truly evangelicals. The word “synod” then describes the polity of our denomination. So excellent moniker.

  • rebecca w

    I am an obsessive “Blog of Veith” reader. I don’t often comment. (Y’all are too smart for me.) However, it’s posts like this that keep me coming back for more. ..

    The only thing I wish for is a “subscribe to updates be email” option.

  • rebecca w

    I am an obsessive “Blog of Veith” reader. I don’t often comment. (Y’all are too smart for me.) However, it’s posts like this that keep me coming back for more. ..

    The only thing I wish for is a “subscribe to updates be email” option.

  • SKPeterson

    rebecca @ 17 – Comment boldly.

  • SKPeterson

    rebecca @ 17 – Comment boldly.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Concordia Catholic Church for us.

    Triumphal Church for the liberals.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Concordia Catholic Church for us.

    Triumphal Church for the liberals.

  • Dan Kempin

    I was somewhat serious in my earlier comment. It is important to know not only what a church proclaims, but by what authority do they proclaim it? Is it the scripture? A pope? A prophet? The resolution of a church assembly? Current academia? This is critical information and it would be nice, frankly, if organizations would tell this up front in their name.

    Now I’ll spend the rest of the day watching so that I can avoid being trampled in the enthusiastic rush to put this into practice . . .

  • Dan Kempin

    I was somewhat serious in my earlier comment. It is important to know not only what a church proclaims, but by what authority do they proclaim it? Is it the scripture? A pope? A prophet? The resolution of a church assembly? Current academia? This is critical information and it would be nice, frankly, if organizations would tell this up front in their name.

    Now I’ll spend the rest of the day watching so that I can avoid being trampled in the enthusiastic rush to put this into practice . . .

  • DonS

    I don’t really care what they call themselves, as long as they make it clear that they reject Scripture, so that others clearly know who they are and what they preach.

    sg @ 3: You said

    What about people who are in the church, maybe even a liberal one, who are actually believers who pick up the Bible and turn to like super reactionary and want to go back to how it was in the 3rd century? I mean people who are like maybe the Duggars or those who go to the Eastern Orthodox? It seems like they are trying to find something.

    Why the heck did you throw the Duggars in there? That is the very last family I would think of as seeking. Whether or not you agree with their lifestyle (I think it’s great), you can have no doubt that they have their convictions and they live them.

    Just curious.

  • DonS

    I don’t really care what they call themselves, as long as they make it clear that they reject Scripture, so that others clearly know who they are and what they preach.

    sg @ 3: You said

    What about people who are in the church, maybe even a liberal one, who are actually believers who pick up the Bible and turn to like super reactionary and want to go back to how it was in the 3rd century? I mean people who are like maybe the Duggars or those who go to the Eastern Orthodox? It seems like they are trying to find something.

    Why the heck did you throw the Duggars in there? That is the very last family I would think of as seeking. Whether or not you agree with their lifestyle (I think it’s great), you can have no doubt that they have their convictions and they live them.

    Just curious.

  • Jon

    Dan @ 20,

    I knew your proposal for Scripture Alone was serious, but I think if we were to take that compass heading then the other 3 Sola’s should also get a mention in the name, Grace, Faith, Christ. Hence, just shorten it to Sola Lutheran Synod.

    I like the “huh?” factor in a new name. Makes people curious, what’s that mean? It makes us have to explain it to them–we believe that people are saved by God’s grace alone, through faith alone–in Jesus Christ alone, on the basis of Holy Scripture alone.

    But I also like sg’s proposal @19, so I’ll vote for Concordia Evangelical Catholic Christian Synod for us. There’s a lot to explain in that one too.

    However, for them, I think “Triumphal” Church sounds too much like “The Church Triumphant” and I wouldn’t want those two getting mixed up. Unless sg meant that as tongue-n’cheek, as in the “dead” church.

  • Jon

    Dan @ 20,

    I knew your proposal for Scripture Alone was serious, but I think if we were to take that compass heading then the other 3 Sola’s should also get a mention in the name, Grace, Faith, Christ. Hence, just shorten it to Sola Lutheran Synod.

    I like the “huh?” factor in a new name. Makes people curious, what’s that mean? It makes us have to explain it to them–we believe that people are saved by God’s grace alone, through faith alone–in Jesus Christ alone, on the basis of Holy Scripture alone.

    But I also like sg’s proposal @19, so I’ll vote for Concordia Evangelical Catholic Christian Synod for us. There’s a lot to explain in that one too.

    However, for them, I think “Triumphal” Church sounds too much like “The Church Triumphant” and I wouldn’t want those two getting mixed up. Unless sg meant that as tongue-n’cheek, as in the “dead” church.

  • SKPeterson

    Why not Church of the Four Solas? That would actually be a nice name for a congregation, methinks.

  • SKPeterson

    Why not Church of the Four Solas? That would actually be a nice name for a congregation, methinks.

  • Norman Teigen

    On another place on the Internet someone asked if we ELS people were lemmings. We seem to follow Missouri and Wisconsin when it is convenient for us, so we could be renamed ELLS, the Evangelical Lutheran Lemming Synod.

    Norman Teigen, Layman
    Evangelical Lutheran Synod

  • Norman Teigen

    On another place on the Internet someone asked if we ELS people were lemmings. We seem to follow Missouri and Wisconsin when it is convenient for us, so we could be renamed ELLS, the Evangelical Lutheran Lemming Synod.

    Norman Teigen, Layman
    Evangelical Lutheran Synod

  • Jon

    SKP@23

    Yeah but, “Church of the Four Solas” might get confused with the “Four-Square Gospel Church,” which claims to also be a “Bible alone” church but they ironically deny the clear Word regarding, among other things, the sacraments.

  • Jon

    SKP@23

    Yeah but, “Church of the Four Solas” might get confused with the “Four-Square Gospel Church,” which claims to also be a “Bible alone” church but they ironically deny the clear Word regarding, among other things, the sacraments.

  • Jon

    Norman @24,

    O Bid our sad divisions cease! What would we name us?

  • Jon

    Norman @24,

    O Bid our sad divisions cease! What would we name us?

  • Grace

    sg, @19

    Your suggestion: “Concordia Catholic Church for us.”

    Strange suggestion since “Concordia” is the Roman goddess of harmony- and then the Book of Concord has the same name.

    In essence it would be the Roman goddess of the Catholic Church, hidden under the name of “Concordia Catholic Church”

    Jon @22

    WROTE: “But I also like sg’s proposal @19, so I’ll vote for Concordia Evangelical Catholic Christian Synod for us. There’s a lot to explain in that one too.”

    Yes there is “a lot to explain in that one too”

  • Grace

    sg, @19

    Your suggestion: “Concordia Catholic Church for us.”

    Strange suggestion since “Concordia” is the Roman goddess of harmony- and then the Book of Concord has the same name.

    In essence it would be the Roman goddess of the Catholic Church, hidden under the name of “Concordia Catholic Church”

    Jon @22

    WROTE: “But I also like sg’s proposal @19, so I’ll vote for Concordia Evangelical Catholic Christian Synod for us. There’s a lot to explain in that one too.”

    Yes there is “a lot to explain in that one too”

  • Dan Kempin

    Jon, Sk, sg, Kevil,

    I think a church name with “sola” or “catholic” or “concordia” would be confusing and require explanation. Why would we want to be unclear in our name?

    “Scripture Alone” would at least provide the framework for argument. You can’t debate to resolution if I appeal to scripture and you appeal to the pope. Besides, the other three solas are dependent upon sola scriptura. How do you know it is Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone? Scripture. Alone.

    Grace, #27,

    That was awesome.

  • Dan Kempin

    Jon, Sk, sg, Kevil,

    I think a church name with “sola” or “catholic” or “concordia” would be confusing and require explanation. Why would we want to be unclear in our name?

    “Scripture Alone” would at least provide the framework for argument. You can’t debate to resolution if I appeal to scripture and you appeal to the pope. Besides, the other three solas are dependent upon sola scriptura. How do you know it is Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone? Scripture. Alone.

    Grace, #27,

    That was awesome.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @27

    Anyone else think people will think of the Roman goddess?

    If so, how about just

    Concord Catholic Church

    I like concordia because the seminaries, colleges and publishing house all use that name. That way, all the names would agree. :D

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @27

    Anyone else think people will think of the Roman goddess?

    If so, how about just

    Concord Catholic Church

    I like concordia because the seminaries, colleges and publishing house all use that name. That way, all the names would agree. :D

  • Grace

    Check it out from Wikipedia

    “In ancient Roman religion, Concordia is the goddess of agreement, understanding, and marital harmony. Her Greek equivalent is Harmonia.”

    The cult of Concordia Augusta (“Majestic Harmony”) was of special importance to the imperial household. Dedicatory inscriptions to her, on behalf of emperors and members of the imperial family, were common”

    In Greek mythology, Harmonia (Ancient Greek: Ἁρμονία) is the immortal goddess of harmony and concord. Her Roman counterpart is Concordia, and her Greek opposite is Eris, whose Roman counterpart is Discordia.

    The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum. Other temples and shrines in Rome dedicated to Concordia were largely geographically related to the main temple, and included (in date order):”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_(mythology)

  • Grace

    Check it out from Wikipedia

    “In ancient Roman religion, Concordia is the goddess of agreement, understanding, and marital harmony. Her Greek equivalent is Harmonia.”

    The cult of Concordia Augusta (“Majestic Harmony”) was of special importance to the imperial household. Dedicatory inscriptions to her, on behalf of emperors and members of the imperial family, were common”

    In Greek mythology, Harmonia (Ancient Greek: Ἁρμονία) is the immortal goddess of harmony and concord. Her Roman counterpart is Concordia, and her Greek opposite is Eris, whose Roman counterpart is Discordia.

    The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum. Other temples and shrines in Rome dedicated to Concordia were largely geographically related to the main temple, and included (in date order):”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_(mythology)

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yes, Grace. And Veritas was the Roman goddess of truth and Pax was the Roman goddess of peace.

    Check it out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities

    There are dozens and dozens of minor Roman deities.

    But is that what generally comes to mind when people see those words?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yes, Grace. And Veritas was the Roman goddess of truth and Pax was the Roman goddess of peace.

    Check it out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities

    There are dozens and dozens of minor Roman deities.

    But is that what generally comes to mind when people see those words?

  • Grace

    sg @ 31

    But is that what generally comes to mind when people see those words?

    You might be surprised.

    It appears you didn’t know the meaning of Concordia as it relates to a pagan goddess of ancient Rome – right back to “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum.”

    If you did – I find it more than strange that you would want to re-name your church “Concordia Catholic Church for us.” per your post @ 19.

  • Grace

    sg @ 31

    But is that what generally comes to mind when people see those words?

    You might be surprised.

    It appears you didn’t know the meaning of Concordia as it relates to a pagan goddess of ancient Rome – right back to “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum.”

    If you did – I find it more than strange that you would want to re-name your church “Concordia Catholic Church for us.” per your post @ 19.

  • Grace

    sg @ 31

    “There are dozens and dozens of minor Roman deities.

    But is that what generally comes to mind when people see those words?

    There could be hundreds, but there is no conceivable excuse for using one of their names for a church, unless of course you don’t care.

    Strange!

  • Grace

    sg @ 31

    “There are dozens and dozens of minor Roman deities.

    But is that what generally comes to mind when people see those words?

    There could be hundreds, but there is no conceivable excuse for using one of their names for a church, unless of course you don’t care.

    Strange!

  • David M

    They should just call themselve the PCCA: “Post-Confessional Churches of America”

    I wonder if the real problem here is that the mainline churches currently have a brand without a product (so to speak). They can change the name, but that isn’t going to solve the problem of churches which have now distiguishable doctrines from the Rotary Club. (No offense to you Rotarians)

  • David M

    They should just call themselve the PCCA: “Post-Confessional Churches of America”

    I wonder if the real problem here is that the mainline churches currently have a brand without a product (so to speak). They can change the name, but that isn’t going to solve the problem of churches which have now distiguishable doctrines from the Rotary Club. (No offense to you Rotarians)

  • David M

    Erp…that should read “…churches which have no distinguishable doctrines…”

    All apologies.

  • David M

    Erp…that should read “…churches which have no distinguishable doctrines…”

    All apologies.

  • reg

    I think the term “nominal Christians” fits mainline/liberal churches best, as contrasted with “confessing Christians” for the reformed, “spirit Christians” for the penties and “guns, ammo and baptism Christians” for you Lutherans. ;-)

  • reg

    I think the term “nominal Christians” fits mainline/liberal churches best, as contrasted with “confessing Christians” for the reformed, “spirit Christians” for the penties and “guns, ammo and baptism Christians” for you Lutherans. ;-)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I cannot help myself: Grace’s comments above are, well, wow!

    So, Grace, don’t you ever attend Wodin’s Day prayer meetings? And you worship on a Sunday, ergo, you worship the sun god, Ra.

    I hate to think what you do on Freyja’s Day. Especially when you consider that it is followed by Saturnalia…..

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I cannot help myself: Grace’s comments above are, well, wow!

    So, Grace, don’t you ever attend Wodin’s Day prayer meetings? And you worship on a Sunday, ergo, you worship the sun god, Ra.

    I hate to think what you do on Freyja’s Day. Especially when you consider that it is followed by Saturnalia…..

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@32), Wikipedia will only take you so far. You might try learning a little Latin (or, for that matter, a little English, since we adopted the word more or less wholesale) to learn why (1) the goddess was named that, and (2) why Lutherans also happen to like the term.

    Or, you know, you could do that thing Evangelicals love to do where they imply evil connections to innocent things, based on their own ignorance. Your call.

    Meanwhile, I’ll play your game, just for laughs.

    Hey, everyone, check it out: did you know that the word “chapel” comes from Medieval Latin cappella, from diminutive of Late Latin cappa cloak; from the cloak of St. Martin of Tours preserved as a sacred relic in a chapel built for that purpose?

    I find it more than strange that any denomination (like, I don’t know, Calvary Chapel) would name its church after a Catholic form of idol worship. Strange!

    There, Grace. Did I play right?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@32), Wikipedia will only take you so far. You might try learning a little Latin (or, for that matter, a little English, since we adopted the word more or less wholesale) to learn why (1) the goddess was named that, and (2) why Lutherans also happen to like the term.

    Or, you know, you could do that thing Evangelicals love to do where they imply evil connections to innocent things, based on their own ignorance. Your call.

    Meanwhile, I’ll play your game, just for laughs.

    Hey, everyone, check it out: did you know that the word “chapel” comes from Medieval Latin cappella, from diminutive of Late Latin cappa cloak; from the cloak of St. Martin of Tours preserved as a sacred relic in a chapel built for that purpose?

    I find it more than strange that any denomination (like, I don’t know, Calvary Chapel) would name its church after a Catholic form of idol worship. Strange!

    There, Grace. Did I play right?

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You’re reaching on this one. POOR toDD

  • Grace

    tODD,

    You’re reaching on this one. POOR toDD

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I learned it by watching you, Grace (@39). I learned it by watching you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I learned it by watching you, Grace (@39). I learned it by watching you.

  • Med Student

    Just so you all know, the real reason I didn’t attend one of the Concordia Universities for undergrad like all my siblings did was because I knew they must have been secretly worshiping the roman goddess of harmony. Why else would they be named that? And that Concordia Lutheran Church I visited once seemed normal, but who knows what they really do when strangers aren’t around!?

  • Med Student

    Just so you all know, the real reason I didn’t attend one of the Concordia Universities for undergrad like all my siblings did was because I knew they must have been secretly worshiping the roman goddess of harmony. Why else would they be named that? And that Concordia Lutheran Church I visited once seemed normal, but who knows what they really do when strangers aren’t around!?

  • Grace

    I’m honored that you follow me around. Too bad you have nothing better to do.

  • Grace

    I’m honored that you follow me around. Too bad you have nothing better to do.

  • Dennis E. McFadden

    Who cares?
    As long as the mainline is now the sideline rushing headlong toward the flatline, what difference does it make what they call themselves?

    I was ordained as a mainline Baptist 34 years ago, took part in the separation of our judicatory from the national body for reasons of scriptural authority 6-7 years ago, and am now an enthusiastic Reformational Christian of LCMS persuasion and member of a vibrant LCMS congregation in God’s country (Fort Wayne).

    If the mainline really wants a new denominator, how about the Old Testament one, “Ichabod”?

  • Dennis E. McFadden

    Who cares?
    As long as the mainline is now the sideline rushing headlong toward the flatline, what difference does it make what they call themselves?

    I was ordained as a mainline Baptist 34 years ago, took part in the separation of our judicatory from the national body for reasons of scriptural authority 6-7 years ago, and am now an enthusiastic Reformational Christian of LCMS persuasion and member of a vibrant LCMS congregation in God’s country (Fort Wayne).

    If the mainline really wants a new denominator, how about the Old Testament one, “Ichabod”?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, back to the topic, we could just refer to them all as Democratic Churches.

    This would not only help you understand their theology (it’s whatever is being adhered to at the moment by the Democratic Party), but would also likely help — a la Dan’s point (@13) — identify the source of their doctrine (i.e., democracy).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, back to the topic, we could just refer to them all as Democratic Churches.

    This would not only help you understand their theology (it’s whatever is being adhered to at the moment by the Democratic Party), but would also likely help — a la Dan’s point (@13) — identify the source of their doctrine (i.e., democracy).

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sorry Grace, not Ra, but Sol (referring to my comment @ 37).

    And Grace, I doubt Todd is following you. but we all tend to watch what you write, for the same reason people watch car crashes, disaster movies etc. I guess one could call it cyber rubber-necking.

    And btw, how do you explain your devotion to all those long-forgotten pagan deities? And what do you do on Freyja’s/Frig’s day? Again referring to my comment @ 37.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Sorry Grace, not Ra, but Sol (referring to my comment @ 37).

    And Grace, I doubt Todd is following you. but we all tend to watch what you write, for the same reason people watch car crashes, disaster movies etc. I guess one could call it cyber rubber-necking.

    And btw, how do you explain your devotion to all those long-forgotten pagan deities? And what do you do on Freyja’s/Frig’s day? Again referring to my comment @ 37.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Well,

    I am guessing Grace and only Grace thought of the very obscure goddess, Concordia.

    Did anyone else think, Concordia would be confused with Concordia?

    Veritas press is a publisher of Christian educational materials. Don’t people really think first of denotation like truth rather than the Roman goddess of truth?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Well,

    I am guessing Grace and only Grace thought of the very obscure goddess, Concordia.

    Did anyone else think, Concordia would be confused with Concordia?

    Veritas press is a publisher of Christian educational materials. Don’t people really think first of denotation like truth rather than the Roman goddess of truth?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Why the heck did you throw the Duggars in there? That is the very last family I would think of as seeking. Whether or not you agree with their lifestyle (I think it’s great), you can have no doubt that they have their convictions and they live them.

    Yeah, that is what I meant. Think of sincere people like them. What if they grew up in some wacky Episcopal congregation, but decided to actually study the Bible sometime and started to doubt the teaching of their church and then decided to leave because they really believe and don’t feel they have real fellowship with the wacky Episcopal church. Now where sincere Bible believers may end up is something else. I wouldn’t expect every one to a person to end up LCMS.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Why the heck did you throw the Duggars in there? That is the very last family I would think of as seeking. Whether or not you agree with their lifestyle (I think it’s great), you can have no doubt that they have their convictions and they live them.

    Yeah, that is what I meant. Think of sincere people like them. What if they grew up in some wacky Episcopal congregation, but decided to actually study the Bible sometime and started to doubt the teaching of their church and then decided to leave because they really believe and don’t feel they have real fellowship with the wacky Episcopal church. Now where sincere Bible believers may end up is something else. I wouldn’t expect every one to a person to end up LCMS.

  • Grace

    sg @ 46

    YOU WROTE: “I am guessing Grace and only Grace thought of the very obscure goddess, Concordia. “

    Yes you did guess, and a poor guess it is. It’s not “obscure” unless you know nothing about the goddess of Concordia, and then of course it’s obscure. You’re a hoot sg.

  • Grace

    sg @ 46

    YOU WROTE: “I am guessing Grace and only Grace thought of the very obscure goddess, Concordia. “

    Yes you did guess, and a poor guess it is. It’s not “obscure” unless you know nothing about the goddess of Concordia, and then of course it’s obscure. You’re a hoot sg.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, Grace everyone who has any brains knows all about the Roman goddess, Concordia. She is a household name. Yeah, right.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Yeah, Grace everyone who has any brains knows all about the Roman goddess, Concordia. She is a household name. Yeah, right.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    When you type in roman goddess, google gives some suggestions.

    Corcordia doesn’t even come up in the top 10. Most people couldn’t even tell you the top ten, let alone the bottom 50. Sheesh.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    When you type in roman goddess, google gives some suggestions.

    Corcordia doesn’t even come up in the top 10. Most people couldn’t even tell you the top ten, let alone the bottom 50. Sheesh.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Poor you, if you don’t know, then it’s determined, no one else knows as well. That’s brilliant! :razz:

  • Grace

    sg,

    Poor you, if you don’t know, then it’s determined, no one else knows as well. That’s brilliant! :razz:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@48), please stop following SG around. Don’t you have something better to do?

    Besides, I’d bet good money you didn’t know anything about the goddess Concordia until you looked up the word yourself on Wikipedia. And hey, if you’ve got sleuthing skills like that, maybe you could put them to work learning the underlying Latin? Maybe?

    Or is it just that you have a comprehensive knowledge of all the world’s minor pagan deities, and you keep a mental list of all their names, going around warning people not to use them or anything like them, because, you know, evil.

    I’d say that your comments read like a Jack Chick tract, Grace, except I don’t read Jack Chick tracts. Know why? Because “chick” refers to a young chicken, which is a sign of fertility used by pagans when they worshiped their goddesses. It also refers to the satanic concept of feminism, as in the term “chick flick”. FYI.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@48), please stop following SG around. Don’t you have something better to do?

    Besides, I’d bet good money you didn’t know anything about the goddess Concordia until you looked up the word yourself on Wikipedia. And hey, if you’ve got sleuthing skills like that, maybe you could put them to work learning the underlying Latin? Maybe?

    Or is it just that you have a comprehensive knowledge of all the world’s minor pagan deities, and you keep a mental list of all their names, going around warning people not to use them or anything like them, because, you know, evil.

    I’d say that your comments read like a Jack Chick tract, Grace, except I don’t read Jack Chick tracts. Know why? Because “chick” refers to a young chicken, which is a sign of fertility used by pagans when they worshiped their goddesses. It also refers to the satanic concept of feminism, as in the term “chick flick”. FYI.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, SG, you really shouldn’t pay attention to Grace? Know why? Encyclopædia Britannica tells you why:

    Grace, Greek Charis, plural Charites, Latin Gratia, in Greek religion, one of a group of goddesses of fertility.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, SG, you really shouldn’t pay attention to Grace? Know why? Encyclopædia Britannica tells you why:

    Grace, Greek Charis, plural Charites, Latin Gratia, in Greek religion, one of a group of goddesses of fertility.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    What are/is “Jack Chick tracts” ? – you must know, and have tracked it down, I have no idea what it is, nor do I care. LOL

  • Grace

    tODD,

    What are/is “Jack Chick tracts” ? – you must know, and have tracked it down, I have no idea what it is, nor do I care. LOL

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Certain discussions here really make me appreciate the thoughtful intelligent conversations that my 14 year old engages in with his baseball friends.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Certain discussions here really make me appreciate the thoughtful intelligent conversations that my 14 year old engages in with his baseball friends.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 53 I should’ve taken Latin. :D

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 53 I should’ve taken Latin. :D

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@54), so you’re capable of looking up obscure Roman goddesses and insinuating … something … about them here, but when it comes to looking up Jack Chick, you suddenly are unable to Google or use Wikipedia? Have you tried restarting your computer?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@54), so you’re capable of looking up obscure Roman goddesses and insinuating … something … about them here, but when it comes to looking up Jack Chick, you suddenly are unable to Google or use Wikipedia? Have you tried restarting your computer?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    sg @ 55 – :) :) :)

    But sometimes we are just being silly for the fun of it. At least the ones that realize when they are being silly, that have developed some self-awareness ;)

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    sg @ 55 – :) :) :)

    But sometimes we are just being silly for the fun of it. At least the ones that realize when they are being silly, that have developed some self-awareness ;)

  • Steve P.

    I use “mainstream” Protestantism, or “the historical mainstream of ” Protestantism, specifically, in part, to exclude mainline liberal Protestantism. I guess I’m probably often misunderstood when I do that.

  • Steve P.

    I use “mainstream” Protestantism, or “the historical mainstream of ” Protestantism, specifically, in part, to exclude mainline liberal Protestantism. I guess I’m probably often misunderstood when I do that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 57 Hilarious

    Have you tried restarting your computer?

    I really did laugh out loud on that one!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 57 Hilarious

    Have you tried restarting your computer?

    I really did laugh out loud on that one!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Poor you, if you don’t know, then it’s determined, no one else knows as well.

    I didn’t say no one knows. I said it wasn’t common knowledge because it isn’t. Those who do know that Concordia was a Roman goddess are probably educated and discerning enough to know that a Christian church isn’t named for a Roman goddess. I may not agree with the Mars Hill church’s teaching, but I know that they didn’t name the church after the god, Mars. Rather it refers to the Hill where Paul discussed religion with philosophers. So, the implication is that the church engages in theological and philosophical discussion. It does not imply they venerate Mars, the pagan deity.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Poor you, if you don’t know, then it’s determined, no one else knows as well.

    I didn’t say no one knows. I said it wasn’t common knowledge because it isn’t. Those who do know that Concordia was a Roman goddess are probably educated and discerning enough to know that a Christian church isn’t named for a Roman goddess. I may not agree with the Mars Hill church’s teaching, but I know that they didn’t name the church after the god, Mars. Rather it refers to the Hill where Paul discussed religion with philosophers. So, the implication is that the church engages in theological and philosophical discussion. It does not imply they venerate Mars, the pagan deity.

  • Grace

    tODD @53

    “Grace, Greek Charis, plural Charites, Latin Gratia, in Greek religion, one of a group of goddesses of fertility.”

    This is the first place within the Bible that grace is found, it predates Latin and Greek.

    But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Genesis 6:8

    grace Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
    chen – khane

    graciousness, i.e. subjective (kindness, favor) or objective (beauty):–favour, grace(-ious), pleasant, precious, (well-)favoured.

  • Grace

    tODD @53

    “Grace, Greek Charis, plural Charites, Latin Gratia, in Greek religion, one of a group of goddesses of fertility.”

    This is the first place within the Bible that grace is found, it predates Latin and Greek.

    But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. Genesis 6:8

    grace Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
    chen – khane

    graciousness, i.e. subjective (kindness, favor) or objective (beauty):–favour, grace(-ious), pleasant, precious, (well-)favoured.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    grace Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
    chen – khane

    So what?

    The Greek word doesn’t derive from the Hebrew. But the English word does derive from the Latin, just like Concordia does.

    graciousness, i.e. subjective (kindness, favor) or objective (beauty):–favour, grace(-ious), pleasant, precious, (well-)favoured.

    Well, we won’t be holding our breath waiting for a display of that.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    grace Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
    chen – khane

    So what?

    The Greek word doesn’t derive from the Hebrew. But the English word does derive from the Latin, just like Concordia does.

    graciousness, i.e. subjective (kindness, favor) or objective (beauty):–favour, grace(-ious), pleasant, precious, (well-)favoured.

    Well, we won’t be holding our breath waiting for a display of that.

  • Joanne

    The Missouri Synod of Evangeical Lutheran Congregations (what we are now, MS-ELC). (The LC-MS maintains that the corporate (synod level) entity is NOT church, this name (MS-ELC) recognizes that and encourges understanding of this point.)

    Evangelical: Never use or accept the use of the word evangelcal to refer to neo-pentecostals or those who mawk them. Lutherans (and Unionist Lutherans) have owned this term for 500 years. Always complain when it is used to mean religious enthusiats and their emotionisms. Generally refer to them as neo-pentecostal, or enthusiasts. These are the correct terms for the most enthusiastic sects. i.e., The Church of God in Christ is an enthusiastic sect.

    If it is not a catholic church, it is a sect. If it is not a tradition of the catholic church, it is almost certainly an innovation of the sects, a sectarian innovation. When discussing the church, learn to consider the word “innovation” to be almost the same as the word heretical.

    An innovation in the church must be vetted for years and years, so that all catholics can march together with it, or at least accept the innovation as NOT sectarian or divisive in nature. This will be discussed to death in committees, and then brought before a church council to determine whether this innovation is acceptable for use in a catholic church and will not push us even further apart from our brother catholics (ordaining for parish ministry women and gays, and marrying same-sex couples) and further alienate our catholic bretheren.

    To avoid being called Lutheran and being too closely associated with Germany, most of the Slavic Lutheran churches in central and eastern Europe have the name “Church of the Augsburg Confession.” Which of course is precisicely what we are, almost. International groups of Lutherans are slowly encouraging these churches to change their name to some kind of Ev. Lutheran name.

    To name ourselves, as believers, after only one person, is to announce to the whole world that we are NOT a catholic church which could never be the result of one Christian. To name ourselves as beievers after only one church document, is to announce to the world that we are not a catholic church. i.e., We are Chalcedonian Christians.

    Like several others here I think that Evangelical Catholic is the most correct term for us and would have over the centuries avoided so much misunderstanding in the Evangelical Church. And it would be a name for which no other groups would want to content with us.

    That does not mean that we are not Protestants. Lutherans are the Protestants who were the protestors at the Diet of Spyer, II, in 1529. They wrote the protest and presented it to Duke Ferdinand (there in place of his brother Charles V) to protest the rescinding of the reigious rights and liberties they had gained at previous Reichstags. However, two Zwinglian cities, St. Gall in Switzerland and Strassburg in Elsass also signed onto the Lutheran protest statement making it a Lutheran/Zwinglian protest.

    Therefore, only Lutherans and Zwinglians can properly refer to themselves as protesters at the Reichstag of Spyer II. All other church groups, who were not there (mostly because they didn’t exist yet) and did not sign the protest document, are not entitled to use the term Protestant. But, should the Lutherans and Zwinglians continue to use a derisive name because of a judicial action taken in 1529 and has no meaning beyond that.

    Certainly not. We will determine our name and what we will call ourselves, and the world be damned. We, to this point have been poor at controling and winning the word war. While Lutheran might also mean a Protestor from 1529, a Baptist is not a Protestant, he is an Arminian. He may call himself a Protestant Baptist, but he not a Protestant, he is a member of a non-catholic sect. And now we’re getting it right.

    And if I were to say that the proper name for our church is the Evangelical Catholic Church, or the Missouri Synod of Evangelical Catholic Churches, you’ve got it now, just exactly what we are, wether you love it or hate it. Those of you who would like to innovate the church into the Missouri Synod of Enthusiasm Sectarian Churches, have at it. The church and its name and what it practices are up for grabs.

    If you’ve got a nifty innovation, like removing all images from the church, or like prohibiting polyphonic music during services, or giving the old altar a good heave-ho out the back door, just see one of our innovation specialists at almost every congregatioin in Lutheran Christendom.

    If, on the other hand, you’re happy that our catholic church has maintained many practices in common with other catholics and you would like to reintroduce Lutheran catholic practices that the triumpn of Rationalism/Pietism threw out of the church between 1700 to 1800, you will be called a repristinator, but do not let yourself be called an innovator. There was a long period of Lutheran orthodoxy with orthopraxy (Leipzig kept it till the 1780s). The reason that the Saxons came to Missouri (in the 1830s) was to restablish that orthodoxy and orthopraxy. (Leipzig is in Saxony, is it not?)

    Innovation they had had up to their ears in the State Church of Saxony. Orthodoxy in doctrine and practice was what they hoped they could do in a free country. (PS, mistakes were made.)

  • Joanne

    The Missouri Synod of Evangeical Lutheran Congregations (what we are now, MS-ELC). (The LC-MS maintains that the corporate (synod level) entity is NOT church, this name (MS-ELC) recognizes that and encourges understanding of this point.)

    Evangelical: Never use or accept the use of the word evangelcal to refer to neo-pentecostals or those who mawk them. Lutherans (and Unionist Lutherans) have owned this term for 500 years. Always complain when it is used to mean religious enthusiats and their emotionisms. Generally refer to them as neo-pentecostal, or enthusiasts. These are the correct terms for the most enthusiastic sects. i.e., The Church of God in Christ is an enthusiastic sect.

    If it is not a catholic church, it is a sect. If it is not a tradition of the catholic church, it is almost certainly an innovation of the sects, a sectarian innovation. When discussing the church, learn to consider the word “innovation” to be almost the same as the word heretical.

    An innovation in the church must be vetted for years and years, so that all catholics can march together with it, or at least accept the innovation as NOT sectarian or divisive in nature. This will be discussed to death in committees, and then brought before a church council to determine whether this innovation is acceptable for use in a catholic church and will not push us even further apart from our brother catholics (ordaining for parish ministry women and gays, and marrying same-sex couples) and further alienate our catholic bretheren.

    To avoid being called Lutheran and being too closely associated with Germany, most of the Slavic Lutheran churches in central and eastern Europe have the name “Church of the Augsburg Confession.” Which of course is precisicely what we are, almost. International groups of Lutherans are slowly encouraging these churches to change their name to some kind of Ev. Lutheran name.

    To name ourselves, as believers, after only one person, is to announce to the whole world that we are NOT a catholic church which could never be the result of one Christian. To name ourselves as beievers after only one church document, is to announce to the world that we are not a catholic church. i.e., We are Chalcedonian Christians.

    Like several others here I think that Evangelical Catholic is the most correct term for us and would have over the centuries avoided so much misunderstanding in the Evangelical Church. And it would be a name for which no other groups would want to content with us.

    That does not mean that we are not Protestants. Lutherans are the Protestants who were the protestors at the Diet of Spyer, II, in 1529. They wrote the protest and presented it to Duke Ferdinand (there in place of his brother Charles V) to protest the rescinding of the reigious rights and liberties they had gained at previous Reichstags. However, two Zwinglian cities, St. Gall in Switzerland and Strassburg in Elsass also signed onto the Lutheran protest statement making it a Lutheran/Zwinglian protest.

    Therefore, only Lutherans and Zwinglians can properly refer to themselves as protesters at the Reichstag of Spyer II. All other church groups, who were not there (mostly because they didn’t exist yet) and did not sign the protest document, are not entitled to use the term Protestant. But, should the Lutherans and Zwinglians continue to use a derisive name because of a judicial action taken in 1529 and has no meaning beyond that.

    Certainly not. We will determine our name and what we will call ourselves, and the world be damned. We, to this point have been poor at controling and winning the word war. While Lutheran might also mean a Protestor from 1529, a Baptist is not a Protestant, he is an Arminian. He may call himself a Protestant Baptist, but he not a Protestant, he is a member of a non-catholic sect. And now we’re getting it right.

    And if I were to say that the proper name for our church is the Evangelical Catholic Church, or the Missouri Synod of Evangelical Catholic Churches, you’ve got it now, just exactly what we are, wether you love it or hate it. Those of you who would like to innovate the church into the Missouri Synod of Enthusiasm Sectarian Churches, have at it. The church and its name and what it practices are up for grabs.

    If you’ve got a nifty innovation, like removing all images from the church, or like prohibiting polyphonic music during services, or giving the old altar a good heave-ho out the back door, just see one of our innovation specialists at almost every congregatioin in Lutheran Christendom.

    If, on the other hand, you’re happy that our catholic church has maintained many practices in common with other catholics and you would like to reintroduce Lutheran catholic practices that the triumpn of Rationalism/Pietism threw out of the church between 1700 to 1800, you will be called a repristinator, but do not let yourself be called an innovator. There was a long period of Lutheran orthodoxy with orthopraxy (Leipzig kept it till the 1780s). The reason that the Saxons came to Missouri (in the 1830s) was to restablish that orthodoxy and orthopraxy. (Leipzig is in Saxony, is it not?)

    Innovation they had had up to their ears in the State Church of Saxony. Orthodoxy in doctrine and practice was what they hoped they could do in a free country. (PS, mistakes were made.)

  • Grace

    sg,

    I was and am interested in the first use of “grace” – not the second, or the Greek, but the first, which is found in the Word of God.

    That is the answer to your sophomoric “so what” -

  • Grace

    sg,

    I was and am interested in the first use of “grace” – not the second, or the Greek, but the first, which is found in the Word of God.

    That is the answer to your sophomoric “so what” -

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Church of the Augsburg Confession.”

    Hey that is a great name. Unambiguous as it refers to the specific document. That is kind of part of what is good about using Concord, because it refers to the documents of the Book of Concord.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Church of the Augsburg Confession.”

    Hey that is a great name. Unambiguous as it refers to the specific document. That is kind of part of what is good about using Concord, because it refers to the documents of the Book of Concord.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 65

    but that isn’t your name.

    Your name is from the Greek. Like the goddesses of fertility. They probably had adjoining brothels, too.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @ 65

    but that isn’t your name.

    Your name is from the Greek. Like the goddesses of fertility. They probably had adjoining brothels, too.

  • Grace

    sg @ 67

    YOU WROTE: Your name is from the Greek. Like the goddesses of fertility. They probably had adjoining brothels, too.”

    No sg, it isn’t – not in our family. Perhaps that is the way your family would characterize the name Grace, but not in ours.

    It’s a shame you need to stoop to such a low as stating “They probably had adjoining brothels, too.”

  • Grace

    sg @ 67

    YOU WROTE: Your name is from the Greek. Like the goddesses of fertility. They probably had adjoining brothels, too.”

    No sg, it isn’t – not in our family. Perhaps that is the way your family would characterize the name Grace, but not in ours.

    It’s a shame you need to stoop to such a low as stating “They probably had adjoining brothels, too.”

  • Tom Hering

    I just got back. What the hell happened here? Oh, I see. I guess I’ll be avoiding Mogen David wine and Welch’s grape jelly, as these products come too close to honoring that Roman goddess with their main ingredient. Neither will I be visiting a certain city in Massachusetts, as they probably have a statue of her somewhere. I’m a little conflicted, though, about visiting San Pedro hill in Cochabamba, Bolivia. What to do, what to do?

  • Tom Hering

    I just got back. What the hell happened here? Oh, I see. I guess I’ll be avoiding Mogen David wine and Welch’s grape jelly, as these products come too close to honoring that Roman goddess with their main ingredient. Neither will I be visiting a certain city in Massachusetts, as they probably have a statue of her somewhere. I’m a little conflicted, though, about visiting San Pedro hill in Cochabamba, Bolivia. What to do, what to do?

  • Stil Too Wild Bill

    Interesting posts. They display why we have divisions.

  • Stil Too Wild Bill

    Interesting posts. They display why we have divisions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    No sg, it isn’t – not in our family. Perhaps that is the way your family would characterize the name Grace, but not in ours.

    You might be surprised!

    It appears you didn’t know the meaning of Grace as it relates to a pagan goddesses of ancient Greece. Just because you didn’t know, doesn’t mean your parents didn’t.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    No sg, it isn’t – not in our family. Perhaps that is the way your family would characterize the name Grace, but not in ours.

    You might be surprised!

    It appears you didn’t know the meaning of Grace as it relates to a pagan goddesses of ancient Greece. Just because you didn’t know, doesn’t mean your parents didn’t.

  • Grace

    sg,

    Your CRUDE remark in post 67, regarding “grace” –

    “They probably had adjoining brothels, too.” – -

    gives you away, there isn’t much to say to someone who posts such garbage.

    Degrading the the word grace, as you’ve done shows little respect for the Grace God gives us. As it was first mentioned in Genesis.

    Our family doesn’t think as you do, nor do they use comments, such you made @67. Perhaps you don’t know any better!

    But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
    Genesis 6:8

  • Grace

    sg,

    Your CRUDE remark in post 67, regarding “grace” –

    “They probably had adjoining brothels, too.” – -

    gives you away, there isn’t much to say to someone who posts such garbage.

    Degrading the the word grace, as you’ve done shows little respect for the Grace God gives us. As it was first mentioned in Genesis.

    Our family doesn’t think as you do, nor do they use comments, such you made @67. Perhaps you don’t know any better!

    But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
    Genesis 6:8

  • Joanne

    I think a number of us knew that Grace was also a Greek/Roman goddess name and were just waiting for someone to confront Gracia with the folly of her reasoning. To animists, and this strikes me as the most ancient of the Greco-Roman religious ideas, every thing is a god and has a name.

    Who is the god of trees, Dryades? Is it the same name for forest? I’ll bet not. When gods die, it is safe to use their names for other things or just the material things the name denoted. In the earliest mosaics of the Christians, those of Jesus always show an image of the river god, just to emphasize that this water is a river and not the ocean, not Okeanos.

    For we know that meat offered to idols is of no consequence, because the idols do not exist. But until everyone knows these idols don’t exist, we can’t use our Christian freedom to use these idols’ names in good ways.

    Idols do not exist and all Christians know this. We cannot use our Christian Freedom to eat the idol’s meat, that no longer exist anymore either since no one is sacrificing to them.

    A caveat: In the eastern Mediterranean, belief in the Evil Eye, in my mind a kind of idol, is very strong, even among Christians. They really and truly fear it and therefore break the 1st commandment. If Grace would take her ancient god, killing energy and destroy the Evil Eye belief of the Mediterranean Christians, she would be doing us all a great service.

    Grace, you have been challenged by God to kill the Evil Eye. God go with you, and may his angels guard and protect you every step of the way. The people will not give it up without a fight.

    Our good friend Apollos sends his greetings.

  • Joanne

    I think a number of us knew that Grace was also a Greek/Roman goddess name and were just waiting for someone to confront Gracia with the folly of her reasoning. To animists, and this strikes me as the most ancient of the Greco-Roman religious ideas, every thing is a god and has a name.

    Who is the god of trees, Dryades? Is it the same name for forest? I’ll bet not. When gods die, it is safe to use their names for other things or just the material things the name denoted. In the earliest mosaics of the Christians, those of Jesus always show an image of the river god, just to emphasize that this water is a river and not the ocean, not Okeanos.

    For we know that meat offered to idols is of no consequence, because the idols do not exist. But until everyone knows these idols don’t exist, we can’t use our Christian freedom to use these idols’ names in good ways.

    Idols do not exist and all Christians know this. We cannot use our Christian Freedom to eat the idol’s meat, that no longer exist anymore either since no one is sacrificing to them.

    A caveat: In the eastern Mediterranean, belief in the Evil Eye, in my mind a kind of idol, is very strong, even among Christians. They really and truly fear it and therefore break the 1st commandment. If Grace would take her ancient god, killing energy and destroy the Evil Eye belief of the Mediterranean Christians, she would be doing us all a great service.

    Grace, you have been challenged by God to kill the Evil Eye. God go with you, and may his angels guard and protect you every step of the way. The people will not give it up without a fight.

    Our good friend Apollos sends his greetings.

  • Grace

    Joanne,

    It appears you have been brought up to believe that “grace” has its origin in Roman/Greek – but it doesn’t it, began with the way God used it in Genesis.

    Grace is used in numerous passages of Scripture – I pity those of you, who distort the true meaning, resorting to something great from our LORD and Savior.

    Concord origin is a pagan goddess of ancient Rome – right back to “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum.”

    There is a big difference between “Grace” and “Concord”- one is the Grace God shows us, the other comes from naming a pagan goddess of Rome, and a Temple to go with it.

  • Grace

    Joanne,

    It appears you have been brought up to believe that “grace” has its origin in Roman/Greek – but it doesn’t it, began with the way God used it in Genesis.

    Grace is used in numerous passages of Scripture – I pity those of you, who distort the true meaning, resorting to something great from our LORD and Savior.

    Concord origin is a pagan goddess of ancient Rome – right back to “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum.”

    There is a big difference between “Grace” and “Concord”- one is the Grace God shows us, the other comes from naming a pagan goddess of Rome, and a Temple to go with it.

  • Jon

    Dan @ 28

    I think a church name with “sola” or “catholic” or “concordia” would be confusing and require explanation. Why would we want to be unclear in our name? “Scripture Alone” would at least provide the framework for argument.

    The irony is, however, lots of church bodies claim to be Bible Authority alone. Just look at Calvary Chapel, for example. Then they deny key doctrines of the church catholic, such as on the sacraments–they say baptism doesn’t save; this isn’t my body/blood given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins, etc.

    If you say just scripture alone, you haven’t by name distinguished yourself from anyother Bible believing church body. In fact, you’ve probably just lumped yourself into the same group of them without someone actually being able to discern from the name what you mean by it.

    Concordia (meaning literally “with our hearts,” Grace) Evangelical Catholic Synod is a great conversation starter. It challenges people, right Grace? It provides a teachable moment.

    If someone asked you what a Concordia Evangelical Catholic Synod was, surely you could come up with an elevator speech to explain it. But, were you to say Scripture Alone Lutheran–I suppose even both an ELCA member or a Cal-Chap could say, “yeah, me, too.”

  • Jon

    Dan @ 28

    I think a church name with “sola” or “catholic” or “concordia” would be confusing and require explanation. Why would we want to be unclear in our name? “Scripture Alone” would at least provide the framework for argument.

    The irony is, however, lots of church bodies claim to be Bible Authority alone. Just look at Calvary Chapel, for example. Then they deny key doctrines of the church catholic, such as on the sacraments–they say baptism doesn’t save; this isn’t my body/blood given/shed for the forgiveness of your sins, etc.

    If you say just scripture alone, you haven’t by name distinguished yourself from anyother Bible believing church body. In fact, you’ve probably just lumped yourself into the same group of them without someone actually being able to discern from the name what you mean by it.

    Concordia (meaning literally “with our hearts,” Grace) Evangelical Catholic Synod is a great conversation starter. It challenges people, right Grace? It provides a teachable moment.

    If someone asked you what a Concordia Evangelical Catholic Synod was, surely you could come up with an elevator speech to explain it. But, were you to say Scripture Alone Lutheran–I suppose even both an ELCA member or a Cal-Chap could say, “yeah, me, too.”

  • formerly just steve

    Most non-denominational evangelical churches could probably get together under an umbrella denomination called the People’s Democratic Church. I know there’s already an Evangelical Free Church but the mainline denominations (PCUSA, ABC, UCC, RCA, etc) can easily get together under a new denomination called the Evangel-free Church.

  • formerly just steve

    Most non-denominational evangelical churches could probably get together under an umbrella denomination called the People’s Democratic Church. I know there’s already an Evangelical Free Church but the mainline denominations (PCUSA, ABC, UCC, RCA, etc) can easily get together under a new denomination called the Evangel-free Church.

  • Jon

    Joanne @ 64

    Now that is an awesome elevator speech on Evangelical Catholic!

  • Jon

    Joanne @ 64

    Now that is an awesome elevator speech on Evangelical Catholic!

  • Tom Hering

    For the LCMS, I propose the Evan-Jell-O-cal Church of Cream of Mushroom Casseroles.

  • Tom Hering

    For the LCMS, I propose the Evan-Jell-O-cal Church of Cream of Mushroom Casseroles.

  • Jon

    Isn’t there a very small chuch body in the U.S. with a name that’s similar to Church of the Augsburg Confession? Google isn’t pulling it up.

    Wouldn’t youneed to include an asterisk after Augsburg “*and other Confessions found in the 1580 Book of Concord”?

  • Jon

    Isn’t there a very small chuch body in the U.S. with a name that’s similar to Church of the Augsburg Confession? Google isn’t pulling it up.

    Wouldn’t youneed to include an asterisk after Augsburg “*and other Confessions found in the 1580 Book of Concord”?

  • Joanne

    One more small idea: The Missouri Synod of Evangelical Catholic Congregations, Concordia District. The Concordia District will be the new name of the English District, and the spearhead of our movement toward orthopraxy. “As the Concordia District grows, churches are spin off into new districts, as in Concordia District, Rocky Mountains. There would be no effect on the old Lutheran Districts until most of the district has moved into a Concordia District. It’s one way to get the most out of the goose with the least amount of hissing.

  • Joanne

    One more small idea: The Missouri Synod of Evangelical Catholic Congregations, Concordia District. The Concordia District will be the new name of the English District, and the spearhead of our movement toward orthopraxy. “As the Concordia District grows, churches are spin off into new districts, as in Concordia District, Rocky Mountains. There would be no effect on the old Lutheran Districts until most of the district has moved into a Concordia District. It’s one way to get the most out of the goose with the least amount of hissing.

  • Jon

    Tom @78

    Nice one, but again, I think others might lay claim to that one, too. We wouldn’t want to confuse anyone or lump ourselves back in with anyone.

  • Jon

    Tom @78

    Nice one, but again, I think others might lay claim to that one, too. We wouldn’t want to confuse anyone or lump ourselves back in with anyone.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oooh Joanne, brilliant. I really like it!!!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Oooh Joanne, brilliant. I really like it!!!

  • Jon

    Joanne @80 , if tying to a single person, or a single confession is bad as you suggested earlier, why tie a name to a single state? Really, what does the state of MO add to the name? Can’t we lose that?

  • Jon

    Joanne @80 , if tying to a single person, or a single confession is bad as you suggested earlier, why tie a name to a single state? Really, what does the state of MO add to the name? Can’t we lose that?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Psst, no one tell Grace that the Bible contains multiple references to Hades — you know, the Greek god of the underworld. And for heaven’s sake, please do not mention to her that even her beloved KJV contains the word “concord” (2 Corinthians 6:15).

    Also, if someone could please give her a little help in both understanding Latin (e.g. what does cor mean), and the fact that the Bible was not written in English, that’d be great, thanks.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Psst, no one tell Grace that the Bible contains multiple references to Hades — you know, the Greek god of the underworld. And for heaven’s sake, please do not mention to her that even her beloved KJV contains the word “concord” (2 Corinthians 6:15).

    Also, if someone could please give her a little help in both understanding Latin (e.g. what does cor mean), and the fact that the Bible was not written in English, that’d be great, thanks.

  • Grace

    POOR, POOR toDD

    Such a childish, sophomoric remark!

    The last time I heard “Psst” was years ago, between some older ladies. :roll:

  • Grace

    POOR, POOR toDD

    Such a childish, sophomoric remark!

    The last time I heard “Psst” was years ago, between some older ladies. :roll:

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace,

    The Gratiae were pagan Roman (originally Greek) “graces,” a set of minor pagan deities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charites

    What were your parents thinking? Anyone who hears your name will immediately be tempted to worship pagan deities! And how could St. Paul and Jesus use such wicked language to refer to God’s favor towards his children?!

    Also, “concord” and “concordia” are rooted in the Latin term “concors,” which means “of the same mind”–or, literally, “hearts together.” These nominative meanings long predate any use of the term “concordia” in pagan worship. “Concordia”–the Latin term–is found in many, many Latin texts that predate Christ, including those of Cicero, Catullus, Virgil, Tacitus, Ovid, and many others in a purely nominative sense, with no relation to any divinity or pagan worship. That is, even to the Latins/Romans, “concordia” wasn’t primarily associated with a pagan goddess. What makes you think, then, that modern Americans would associate the term with pagan deities? Sheesh!

    Where do you get these absurd ideas, Grace?

  • Cincinnatus

    Grace,

    The Gratiae were pagan Roman (originally Greek) “graces,” a set of minor pagan deities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charites

    What were your parents thinking? Anyone who hears your name will immediately be tempted to worship pagan deities! And how could St. Paul and Jesus use such wicked language to refer to God’s favor towards his children?!

    Also, “concord” and “concordia” are rooted in the Latin term “concors,” which means “of the same mind”–or, literally, “hearts together.” These nominative meanings long predate any use of the term “concordia” in pagan worship. “Concordia”–the Latin term–is found in many, many Latin texts that predate Christ, including those of Cicero, Catullus, Virgil, Tacitus, Ovid, and many others in a purely nominative sense, with no relation to any divinity or pagan worship. That is, even to the Latins/Romans, “concordia” wasn’t primarily associated with a pagan goddess. What makes you think, then, that modern Americans would associate the term with pagan deities? Sheesh!

    Where do you get these absurd ideas, Grace?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    For the LCMS, I propose the Evan-Jell-O-cal Church of Cream of Mushroom Casseroles.

    Make that Cream of Chicken and it’s a deal.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    For the LCMS, I propose the Evan-Jell-O-cal Church of Cream of Mushroom Casseroles.

    Make that Cream of Chicken and it’s a deal.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The irony is, however, lots of church bodies claim to be Bible Authority alone.

    And yet don’t stick to much of what is plainly stated. I am not even talking about things that aren’t immediately obvious that early church councils had to discuss.

    So, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are at least honest in saying that they use the authority of church as well as the Bible, whereas the allegedly Bible believing churches claim a sort of sola scriptura without so much human interpretation when of course there is. I would not say that Calvary Chapel is the worst offender in that category of churches.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The irony is, however, lots of church bodies claim to be Bible Authority alone.

    And yet don’t stick to much of what is plainly stated. I am not even talking about things that aren’t immediately obvious that early church councils had to discuss.

    So, the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are at least honest in saying that they use the authority of church as well as the Bible, whereas the allegedly Bible believing churches claim a sort of sola scriptura without so much human interpretation when of course there is. I would not say that Calvary Chapel is the worst offender in that category of churches.

  • Joanne

    Hi Jon at 83,

    All this is hypothetical, of course. I have an idea that a new name should give some indication of its source, so that it’s not entirely new. “Oh, so you’re the old Missouri Synod then.”

    And in looking at the other catholic churches, geographical terms seem to be used more than not. The largest catholic church, the one with over 1 Billion members, actually identifies itself by the name of a city. You’ve got Eastern Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or Anglican (catholic). So, a geographic discriptor in the name is simple done and has been for centuries in most of the catholic churches. Can you think of any catholic church that doesn’t have a geographic designation? Curious thing though isn’t it.

    Why I like Missouri as a catholic church geographic designator: It’s where we defeated the Devil and founded the church against great odds. Many of our early saints are buried there. It’s simply our history. Our enemies know us by that place name, and so do our friends. And, we must never forget why those betrayed Saxons were lured into the wilderness. One reason was the God-like charismatic leader who wanted all the women, something like the Mormons’ experienced but they never cast out their Devil, they still revere him. The Missouri Lutherans cast out their demon and searched Gods word for the right thing to do, to stay and plant a church.

    There’s a lot in the founding of the Missouri Synod that it would be nice to forget, but gives us strength more to remember it. Missouri as a name has been made holy by the work of God in planting and nurturing this church. It has powerful meaning to us and is very recognizable. A place name is easier than a string of theological words to remember. Just is.

    Oh, and the second reason was their own reason, to establish an orthodox in faith and practice Lutheran church in a free country. A mighty fine reason. They became a refuge for those who really believed in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. And, the Missouri Seminary was the site of the Battle for the Bible, which if we had lost, none of us w0uld be having this conversation now.

  • Joanne

    Hi Jon at 83,

    All this is hypothetical, of course. I have an idea that a new name should give some indication of its source, so that it’s not entirely new. “Oh, so you’re the old Missouri Synod then.”

    And in looking at the other catholic churches, geographical terms seem to be used more than not. The largest catholic church, the one with over 1 Billion members, actually identifies itself by the name of a city. You’ve got Eastern Orthodox or Russian Orthodox or Anglican (catholic). So, a geographic discriptor in the name is simple done and has been for centuries in most of the catholic churches. Can you think of any catholic church that doesn’t have a geographic designation? Curious thing though isn’t it.

    Why I like Missouri as a catholic church geographic designator: It’s where we defeated the Devil and founded the church against great odds. Many of our early saints are buried there. It’s simply our history. Our enemies know us by that place name, and so do our friends. And, we must never forget why those betrayed Saxons were lured into the wilderness. One reason was the God-like charismatic leader who wanted all the women, something like the Mormons’ experienced but they never cast out their Devil, they still revere him. The Missouri Lutherans cast out their demon and searched Gods word for the right thing to do, to stay and plant a church.

    There’s a lot in the founding of the Missouri Synod that it would be nice to forget, but gives us strength more to remember it. Missouri as a name has been made holy by the work of God in planting and nurturing this church. It has powerful meaning to us and is very recognizable. A place name is easier than a string of theological words to remember. Just is.

    Oh, and the second reason was their own reason, to establish an orthodox in faith and practice Lutheran church in a free country. A mighty fine reason. They became a refuge for those who really believed in the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. And, the Missouri Seminary was the site of the Battle for the Bible, which if we had lost, none of us w0uld be having this conversation now.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, let me explain it to you in terms you’d understand: You made a ridiculous remark based on the etymology of the word “Concord”, way back, and then insisted on sticking to it, others took your exact argument, and then applied it to other words, including your own name. Nobody is being nasty. They are just trying to show you that your argument is, well, ever so stupid.

    Get off your mile-high horse and learn somw humility. It is, after all, the recommended course of action in Scripture.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, let me explain it to you in terms you’d understand: You made a ridiculous remark based on the etymology of the word “Concord”, way back, and then insisted on sticking to it, others took your exact argument, and then applied it to other words, including your own name. Nobody is being nasty. They are just trying to show you that your argument is, well, ever so stupid.

    Get off your mile-high horse and learn somw humility. It is, after all, the recommended course of action in Scripture.

  • Grace

    KK,

    I doubt there are any terms you deem necessary to learn, no matter how inept you are at comprehension. sg, has the same problem, she however is better at “crunching numbers” as she calls it.

    I understand completely what I posted. sg had a real time of it, posts 31, 46, 49, and 50.. now that’s a ‘google’ moment to remember. LOL

  • Grace

    KK,

    I doubt there are any terms you deem necessary to learn, no matter how inept you are at comprehension. sg, has the same problem, she however is better at “crunching numbers” as she calls it.

    I understand completely what I posted. sg had a real time of it, posts 31, 46, 49, and 50.. now that’s a ‘google’ moment to remember. LOL

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@91):

    KK, I doubt there are any terms you deem necessary to learn, no matter how inept you are at comprehension. sg, has the same problem…

    Yes, Grace, SG has the same problem. As do I. And Cincinnatus. And Jon. And Joanne. And Tom Hering. And Med Student.

    Yes, everyone, it would seem, is inept at comprehension. Except you. Yes, Grace, the problem lies with everyone but you. Just keep telling yourself that. It can’t possibly that your argument is nonsense.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@91):

    KK, I doubt there are any terms you deem necessary to learn, no matter how inept you are at comprehension. sg, has the same problem…

    Yes, Grace, SG has the same problem. As do I. And Cincinnatus. And Jon. And Joanne. And Tom Hering. And Med Student.

    Yes, everyone, it would seem, is inept at comprehension. Except you. Yes, Grace, the problem lies with everyone but you. Just keep telling yourself that. It can’t possibly that your argument is nonsense.

  • Grace

    As I posted @ 30:

    All the complaints, because I posted “Concordia” is a goddess. Dating back to: The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC.

    This information, which is too difficult for most of you to accept, has caused a great deal of anger, and animosity.

    Concordia and Concord are synonymous with Lutheranism, that seems to be the underlying problem, which brings about such anger.

    The facts won’t change because you don’t like what the names stand for, since early paganism.

    I’m surprised that some of you, would not have known these facts regarding “Concordia” a goddess, and “Concord” a Roman Temple, dating back to 367 BC. But alas you didn’t, as the previous posts prove.

    “In ancient Roman religion, Concordia is the goddess of agreement, understanding, and marital harmony. Her Greek equivalent is Harmonia.”

    The cult of Concordia Augusta (“Majestic Harmony”) was of special importance to the imperial household. Dedicatory inscriptions to her, on behalf of emperors and members of the imperial family, were common”

    In Greek mythology, Harmonia (Ancient Greek: Ἁρμονία) is the immortal goddess of harmony and concord. Her Roman counterpart is Concordia, and her Greek opposite is Eris, whose Roman counterpart is Discordia.

    “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum. Other temples and shrines in Rome dedicated to Concordia were largely geographically related to the main temple, and included (in date order):”

  • Grace

    As I posted @ 30:

    All the complaints, because I posted “Concordia” is a goddess. Dating back to: The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC.

    This information, which is too difficult for most of you to accept, has caused a great deal of anger, and animosity.

    Concordia and Concord are synonymous with Lutheranism, that seems to be the underlying problem, which brings about such anger.

    The facts won’t change because you don’t like what the names stand for, since early paganism.

    I’m surprised that some of you, would not have known these facts regarding “Concordia” a goddess, and “Concord” a Roman Temple, dating back to 367 BC. But alas you didn’t, as the previous posts prove.

    “In ancient Roman religion, Concordia is the goddess of agreement, understanding, and marital harmony. Her Greek equivalent is Harmonia.”

    The cult of Concordia Augusta (“Majestic Harmony”) was of special importance to the imperial household. Dedicatory inscriptions to her, on behalf of emperors and members of the imperial family, were common”

    In Greek mythology, Harmonia (Ancient Greek: Ἁρμονία) is the immortal goddess of harmony and concord. Her Roman counterpart is Concordia, and her Greek opposite is Eris, whose Roman counterpart is Discordia.

    “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC by Marcus Furius Camillus, stood on the Roman Forum. Other temples and shrines in Rome dedicated to Concordia were largely geographically related to the main temple, and included (in date order):”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    All the complaints, because I posted “Concordia” is a goddess. Dating back to: The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC.

    The complaint is against the assertion that anyone associates Lutheran churches with the Roman goddess, Concordia. Most people couldn’t make that association because they aren’t even aware that there was such a goddess in Roman mythology.

    This information, which is too difficult for most of you to accept, has caused a great deal of anger, and animosity.

    Nope, we freely acknowledge that there was a pagan deity, Concordia. We reject that anyone associates her with the Lutheran church.

    Concordia and Concord are synonymous with Lutheranism, that seems to be the underlying problem, which brings about such anger.

    Well, the annoyance is with the absurd assertion that Concordia/Concord as used by Lutherans in any way references an obscure Roman deity, rather than referring to the obvious and well known meaning of agreement/harmony. When Lutherans speak of concord, they refer to the agreement of the Book of Concord with the doctrines of scripture.

    The facts won’t change because you don’t like what the names stand for, since early paganism.

    We have no problem with what the names stand for. The words themselves just mean agreement or harmony. We just disagree that people who see the name Concordia on a church will think of the Roman deity.

    You know, the reason that the Romans made an idol of Corcordia, literally the virtue of harmony or agreement, is that there is often genuine value in coming to agreement. Romans were sinful beings like the rest of us and prone to idolatry, so they literally made an idol of the virtue. But I would agree that it is a virtue. Idolizing a virtue is just an example of the sin of worshipping the creation instead of the Creator.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    All the complaints, because I posted “Concordia” is a goddess. Dating back to: The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC.

    The complaint is against the assertion that anyone associates Lutheran churches with the Roman goddess, Concordia. Most people couldn’t make that association because they aren’t even aware that there was such a goddess in Roman mythology.

    This information, which is too difficult for most of you to accept, has caused a great deal of anger, and animosity.

    Nope, we freely acknowledge that there was a pagan deity, Concordia. We reject that anyone associates her with the Lutheran church.

    Concordia and Concord are synonymous with Lutheranism, that seems to be the underlying problem, which brings about such anger.

    Well, the annoyance is with the absurd assertion that Concordia/Concord as used by Lutherans in any way references an obscure Roman deity, rather than referring to the obvious and well known meaning of agreement/harmony. When Lutherans speak of concord, they refer to the agreement of the Book of Concord with the doctrines of scripture.

    The facts won’t change because you don’t like what the names stand for, since early paganism.

    We have no problem with what the names stand for. The words themselves just mean agreement or harmony. We just disagree that people who see the name Concordia on a church will think of the Roman deity.

    You know, the reason that the Romans made an idol of Corcordia, literally the virtue of harmony or agreement, is that there is often genuine value in coming to agreement. Romans were sinful beings like the rest of us and prone to idolatry, so they literally made an idol of the virtue. But I would agree that it is a virtue. Idolizing a virtue is just an example of the sin of worshipping the creation instead of the Creator.

  • Tom Hering

    Personally, I find it vastly entertaining when Grace doubles down on a ridiculous assertion. Having fun should always be as easy as Grace makes it for us.

  • Tom Hering

    Personally, I find it vastly entertaining when Grace doubles down on a ridiculous assertion. Having fun should always be as easy as Grace makes it for us.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, we were making fun of your statement, not because you knew the etymology of the word “concord”, but because you thought it was sinister. We then demonstrated that that same line of reasoning could be usedto many terms and names in English, including your own.

    Actually, you demonstrated really ‘off’ logic, in confusing the origin of the word ‘Grace’, which sg & Cincinnatus pointed out to you, with its TRANSLATED use as an attribute of God.

    So my dear, the lack of comprehension is ENTIRELY on your side. And your silly insistence otherwise makes it funny to the point of being tragic.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Grace, we were making fun of your statement, not because you knew the etymology of the word “concord”, but because you thought it was sinister. We then demonstrated that that same line of reasoning could be usedto many terms and names in English, including your own.

    Actually, you demonstrated really ‘off’ logic, in confusing the origin of the word ‘Grace’, which sg & Cincinnatus pointed out to you, with its TRANSLATED use as an attribute of God.

    So my dear, the lack of comprehension is ENTIRELY on your side. And your silly insistence otherwise makes it funny to the point of being tragic.

  • Jon

    Grace, do you suppose the mega church Mars Hill Church of Seattle ought to change their name on account of their obvious name connection to the pagan god of war?

  • Jon

    Grace, do you suppose the mega church Mars Hill Church of Seattle ought to change their name on account of their obvious name connection to the pagan god of war?

  • Jon

    Joanne, @ 89

    Well, given that explanation, which I can’t really disagree it carries some weight, I just don’t see LC-MS adopting a new name on its own then, do you?

    But how about if there were ever a merger of synods? Obviously then, we’d jettison the old geographic designators, yes?

    As for the RC’s and EO’s, you rarely ever hear them use their official (TM) geographic name. Instead, they are “The Catholic Church,” or “The Orthodox Church,” with emphasis on the “The.

    If it ever came to a merger, (instead of this business of just remaining separate but being in fellowship) I would vote for The Concordia Catholic Evangelical Church.

    No geographic boundaries.

  • Jon

    Joanne, @ 89

    Well, given that explanation, which I can’t really disagree it carries some weight, I just don’t see LC-MS adopting a new name on its own then, do you?

    But how about if there were ever a merger of synods? Obviously then, we’d jettison the old geographic designators, yes?

    As for the RC’s and EO’s, you rarely ever hear them use their official (TM) geographic name. Instead, they are “The Catholic Church,” or “The Orthodox Church,” with emphasis on the “The.

    If it ever came to a merger, (instead of this business of just remaining separate but being in fellowship) I would vote for The Concordia Catholic Evangelical Church.

    No geographic boundaries.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@93), lamentably, you continue to demonstrate to the rest of us why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    It is abundantly evident that you know nothing more on this topic than the Wikipedia article to which you have repeatedly turned (that’s five times now you’ve pasted in the phrase “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC” as if it were some sort of mantra that would convince people of … something).

    It is equally evident that you haven’t the first clue why the Romans named their goddess that, or why anyone else would use that word. To understand that, you’d have to have the most rudimentary knowledge of Latin. You know, Latin, the language used by both ancient Romans and much of the Church throughout its existence?

    But you don’t know Latin, and you can’t even be bothered to do the scantest research on the topic. You misinterpret all the attention you’re getting as a sign that you’ve hit a theological nerve, all the while missing the point that everyone who is responding to you is merely annoyed at your profound ignorance — which might be tolerable on its own, but you have unfortunately combined it with a shocking amount of arrogance, as well. It is a poisonous combination, as nearly every interaction you have on this blog demonstrates.

    But you won’t get my point here, for that same reason. So who knows why I even bother.

    Anyhow, you’re probably still too upset at having discovered, so late in your life, that you’re named after a Greek fertility goddess. I know that’s difficult for you to accept, and it has cause a great deal of anger on your part. But the fact won’t change because you don’t like what your name means, since early paganism.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@93), lamentably, you continue to demonstrate to the rest of us why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    It is abundantly evident that you know nothing more on this topic than the Wikipedia article to which you have repeatedly turned (that’s five times now you’ve pasted in the phrase “The oldest Temple of Concord, built in 367 BC” as if it were some sort of mantra that would convince people of … something).

    It is equally evident that you haven’t the first clue why the Romans named their goddess that, or why anyone else would use that word. To understand that, you’d have to have the most rudimentary knowledge of Latin. You know, Latin, the language used by both ancient Romans and much of the Church throughout its existence?

    But you don’t know Latin, and you can’t even be bothered to do the scantest research on the topic. You misinterpret all the attention you’re getting as a sign that you’ve hit a theological nerve, all the while missing the point that everyone who is responding to you is merely annoyed at your profound ignorance — which might be tolerable on its own, but you have unfortunately combined it with a shocking amount of arrogance, as well. It is a poisonous combination, as nearly every interaction you have on this blog demonstrates.

    But you won’t get my point here, for that same reason. So who knows why I even bother.

    Anyhow, you’re probably still too upset at having discovered, so late in your life, that you’re named after a Greek fertility goddess. I know that’s difficult for you to accept, and it has cause a great deal of anger on your part. But the fact won’t change because you don’t like what your name means, since early paganism.

  • Joanne

    Jon @ 98

    There have been several mergers between the LC-MS and teeny, tiny synods, or parts there of. A small Finnish Synod, The tiny Slovak Synod, The English synod, and a Charismatic group just recently. The first 3 became non-geographic districts with a history of standing on their own. It is yet to be determined with the last group what exactly will happen, because it wasn’t actually a merger was it, but just a pulling of a charimatic wooden horse into the center of Troy. It may either be swallowed whole in about 20 years or spewed out in about 10 years. Depends on just how much “falling out and slaying in the Spirit” Missouri can tolerate. The Charismatic movement in mostly Neo-pentecostalism and their are lots of beliefs that are assumed in it’s practice. But Charismatic Neo-pentecostalism looks the same whether it’s rousing camp songs are accompanied by an old electronic Hammond organ or by a garage band. Our garage band enthusiasts in Missouri couldn’t tell the difference, so we are now unequally yoked to this small group.

    Following my previous line of logic, behaps a policy of push/pull would work much better. A renamed English to Concordia District for the building up of the catholic Lutherans, and a Charismatic District to concentrate the sectarian Lutherans. You push catholic and the pull sectarian. At the very least we’ll have an obvious and easy to understand organization of the Synod.

    And, please notice the words I use to describe this arrangement to emphasize this is no matter of taste and music preference.

    Because, just as you noticed right away at 98 every church uses a “leading” title, or a “forward” title to stake a claim on their part of the Gospel. Is it The Roman (city) Church? The Eastern-Roman Imperial Church? The Tsarist Imperial Church? The Catholic Angelican Calvinist Church? Names most commonly are used to fight for a particular space in your religious brain. Is the Holy Spirit really more active in a Charismatic Church than in a catholic church? Oh, we’re Charismatic; and that means what, you’ve swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all?

    What are you saying when you call a church by it’s own preferred name? Is the Catholic Church the only catholic church, or is Roman (city) really necessary to d istinquish them. Are the Orthodox churches really orthodox and what does it mean when you call them Orthodox; what, that you think they are Orthodox too?

    It’s those word wars or name wars I’ve mentioned that we have lost. We all want to be polite to call a person by any or any former name they wish to be called by. Etiquette demands that we do that. We need to find our own names for those other church. “The Roman [city] Church” ; The Western Latin Church ; The Eastern Greek Church, etc.

    But, like you I don’t see a name change coming in our Synod. It’s not nealy as important as to begin the separating out of the catholic Lutherans from the sectarian Lutherans all jumbled up in our synod. And then spewing out all the luke-warm churches that are only accidentally Lutheran and are with us only out of habit and retirement benefits. St. John gave the luke-warm church the worst treatment, but warned them only to get them to wake up and get hot again (Is St. John telling them to be charismatic?)

    I now have 35 minutes to get to a doctor’s appointment, so I’m off with no editing of this entry. Please forgive me if this makes no sense.

  • Joanne

    Jon @ 98

    There have been several mergers between the LC-MS and teeny, tiny synods, or parts there of. A small Finnish Synod, The tiny Slovak Synod, The English synod, and a Charismatic group just recently. The first 3 became non-geographic districts with a history of standing on their own. It is yet to be determined with the last group what exactly will happen, because it wasn’t actually a merger was it, but just a pulling of a charimatic wooden horse into the center of Troy. It may either be swallowed whole in about 20 years or spewed out in about 10 years. Depends on just how much “falling out and slaying in the Spirit” Missouri can tolerate. The Charismatic movement in mostly Neo-pentecostalism and their are lots of beliefs that are assumed in it’s practice. But Charismatic Neo-pentecostalism looks the same whether it’s rousing camp songs are accompanied by an old electronic Hammond organ or by a garage band. Our garage band enthusiasts in Missouri couldn’t tell the difference, so we are now unequally yoked to this small group.

    Following my previous line of logic, behaps a policy of push/pull would work much better. A renamed English to Concordia District for the building up of the catholic Lutherans, and a Charismatic District to concentrate the sectarian Lutherans. You push catholic and the pull sectarian. At the very least we’ll have an obvious and easy to understand organization of the Synod.

    And, please notice the words I use to describe this arrangement to emphasize this is no matter of taste and music preference.

    Because, just as you noticed right away at 98 every church uses a “leading” title, or a “forward” title to stake a claim on their part of the Gospel. Is it The Roman (city) Church? The Eastern-Roman Imperial Church? The Tsarist Imperial Church? The Catholic Angelican Calvinist Church? Names most commonly are used to fight for a particular space in your religious brain. Is the Holy Spirit really more active in a Charismatic Church than in a catholic church? Oh, we’re Charismatic; and that means what, you’ve swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all?

    What are you saying when you call a church by it’s own preferred name? Is the Catholic Church the only catholic church, or is Roman (city) really necessary to d istinquish them. Are the Orthodox churches really orthodox and what does it mean when you call them Orthodox; what, that you think they are Orthodox too?

    It’s those word wars or name wars I’ve mentioned that we have lost. We all want to be polite to call a person by any or any former name they wish to be called by. Etiquette demands that we do that. We need to find our own names for those other church. “The Roman [city] Church” ; The Western Latin Church ; The Eastern Greek Church, etc.

    But, like you I don’t see a name change coming in our Synod. It’s not nealy as important as to begin the separating out of the catholic Lutherans from the sectarian Lutherans all jumbled up in our synod. And then spewing out all the luke-warm churches that are only accidentally Lutheran and are with us only out of habit and retirement benefits. St. John gave the luke-warm church the worst treatment, but warned them only to get them to wake up and get hot again (Is St. John telling them to be charismatic?)

    I now have 35 minutes to get to a doctor’s appointment, so I’m off with no editing of this entry. Please forgive me if this makes no sense.

  • reg

    Grace,
    Proverbs 18:2A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

  • reg

    Grace,
    Proverbs 18:2A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

  • Grace

    It’s good that you come to understand that passage of Scripture. It will serve you well.

  • Grace

    It’s good that you come to understand that passage of Scripture. It will serve you well.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The Charismatic movement in mostly Neo-pentecostalism and their are lots of beliefs that are assumed in it’s practice.

    So, spewing them out would require an acknowledgment of the inseparable link of doctrine and practice. Hmm. Interesting.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    The Charismatic movement in mostly Neo-pentecostalism and their are lots of beliefs that are assumed in it’s practice.

    So, spewing them out would require an acknowledgment of the inseparable link of doctrine and practice. Hmm. Interesting.

  • Joanne

    The Lutheran Church is The Roman (city) Church that 500 years ago was reformed to conform its doctrines and pactices to the Word of God and especially the Gospel (efangellion). The Word told us that the Gospel (evangelical) was special and the whole purpose of the Bible, the Word was written down to tell us about the work of Jesus Christ in our salvation. The crucifixtion is the work of Christ. Luther referred to his position at Wittenberg as Herr Doctor of the Holy Scriptures.

    The Evangelicals reformed the Renaissance version of the Roman (city) Church. Alexander the VI (Borgia), Julius II (the Warrior) and Leo X (deMedici) are three excelent examples of Renaissance popes. They ruled over the worst the Western Latin church had ever seen from the Papal See. In the late Middle Ages, the fracus surrounding the Avignon Papacy and it’s very messy and time consuming resolution, there were 3 popes at one point, though the modern Roman (city) Church has picked only one as the one to go on the official list.

    Luther came at a time when the papacy really thought it could do anything and get away with it. And, it was the Holy Roman Emperor who was supposed to be the protector of the Roman Papacy, much like the Eastern Roman Emperor had been the protector of the Eastern Patriarchs and Popes.

    God placed Luther smack into the middle of the HRI and in the small possessions of an Elector of the Emperor of the HRI. Favors were traded for votes. Luther was protected by his Elector and not burned at the stake (Hus), nor yet has had his bones dug up and burned (Wycliff). It could still happen one day that Luther and Melancthon’s bones will be disentered and roasted. If this centry is more bloody than the last, if the Athiest form an army or mob, it could happen.

    The Evangelical Catholic Church (The Lutherans as their detractors call them) has a special place in history. This church exists to be everything that the Roman (city) Church correctly is and also should be after its reformation. Everything that was the Western Latin Church (Roman (city) Church), after it’s reformation is now everything that the Evangelical Catholic Church is.

    In one sentence, the Evangelical Catholic Church is the unevil twin of the Roman (city) Church. Was or is our purpose to create a new church, remember innovation is a nasty word in catholic circles. Or was the Evangelical Reformation a matter of washing the windows of the Western Church so the light of Christ and his Word and his Gospel could shine through.

    Now, do we look like the Roman (city) Church, only clean and bright? That was all we were supposed to do. We were not repristinating the 1st or even 2nd century Christian Church, we were reforming the Renaissance Western Latin Church. Is that what we did? When you see an Evangelical Catholic church, does it look like a reformd Roman (city) Church? Or did we get lost, did we wander away from catholicity, have we failed to reform and become instead just another sect. Was it our duty to continue the Reformation of the Roman (city) Church forever, since it has proved fairly reform proof? Have we stopped reforming the church catholic? They, the objects of our reform, would love us to become a sect and spend our energy arguing with other sects.

    That’s what I’m so tired of, the endless arguing with sects whom we are not called to reform and the loss of our focus on reforming the catholic churches. Does the world really need another sect, another church that forgot why it was formed? I don’t think so, but the Holy Spirit founded our church (LC-MS), to what, be another sect, or to continue the reformation of the catholic church.

    I might point out that our doctrines don’t allow us to be a sect. The immigrant Saxons of Perry County, Missouri, thought they were bringing the church of the reformation to America, a reformed catholic church, an Evangelical church. I think they did, and we still do, with some confusion here and there.

    P.S. I know that I’ve annoyed you by using the name Roman (city) Church. I guess I could have said the Roman (city) Catholic Church, they are one of the catholic churches. But, you must always remember that the Church of the Roman Empire sat in Constantinople, the new capital of the Roman Empire. This is the church controlled and protected by the Roman Emperors. The church in Old Rome, especially after 800, was protected by German Warlords. If you don’t clearly keep this in mind, you will never understand the 1st thousand years of the church.

  • Joanne

    The Lutheran Church is The Roman (city) Church that 500 years ago was reformed to conform its doctrines and pactices to the Word of God and especially the Gospel (efangellion). The Word told us that the Gospel (evangelical) was special and the whole purpose of the Bible, the Word was written down to tell us about the work of Jesus Christ in our salvation. The crucifixtion is the work of Christ. Luther referred to his position at Wittenberg as Herr Doctor of the Holy Scriptures.

    The Evangelicals reformed the Renaissance version of the Roman (city) Church. Alexander the VI (Borgia), Julius II (the Warrior) and Leo X (deMedici) are three excelent examples of Renaissance popes. They ruled over the worst the Western Latin church had ever seen from the Papal See. In the late Middle Ages, the fracus surrounding the Avignon Papacy and it’s very messy and time consuming resolution, there were 3 popes at one point, though the modern Roman (city) Church has picked only one as the one to go on the official list.

    Luther came at a time when the papacy really thought it could do anything and get away with it. And, it was the Holy Roman Emperor who was supposed to be the protector of the Roman Papacy, much like the Eastern Roman Emperor had been the protector of the Eastern Patriarchs and Popes.

    God placed Luther smack into the middle of the HRI and in the small possessions of an Elector of the Emperor of the HRI. Favors were traded for votes. Luther was protected by his Elector and not burned at the stake (Hus), nor yet has had his bones dug up and burned (Wycliff). It could still happen one day that Luther and Melancthon’s bones will be disentered and roasted. If this centry is more bloody than the last, if the Athiest form an army or mob, it could happen.

    The Evangelical Catholic Church (The Lutherans as their detractors call them) has a special place in history. This church exists to be everything that the Roman (city) Church correctly is and also should be after its reformation. Everything that was the Western Latin Church (Roman (city) Church), after it’s reformation is now everything that the Evangelical Catholic Church is.

    In one sentence, the Evangelical Catholic Church is the unevil twin of the Roman (city) Church. Was or is our purpose to create a new church, remember innovation is a nasty word in catholic circles. Or was the Evangelical Reformation a matter of washing the windows of the Western Church so the light of Christ and his Word and his Gospel could shine through.

    Now, do we look like the Roman (city) Church, only clean and bright? That was all we were supposed to do. We were not repristinating the 1st or even 2nd century Christian Church, we were reforming the Renaissance Western Latin Church. Is that what we did? When you see an Evangelical Catholic church, does it look like a reformd Roman (city) Church? Or did we get lost, did we wander away from catholicity, have we failed to reform and become instead just another sect. Was it our duty to continue the Reformation of the Roman (city) Church forever, since it has proved fairly reform proof? Have we stopped reforming the church catholic? They, the objects of our reform, would love us to become a sect and spend our energy arguing with other sects.

    That’s what I’m so tired of, the endless arguing with sects whom we are not called to reform and the loss of our focus on reforming the catholic churches. Does the world really need another sect, another church that forgot why it was formed? I don’t think so, but the Holy Spirit founded our church (LC-MS), to what, be another sect, or to continue the reformation of the catholic church.

    I might point out that our doctrines don’t allow us to be a sect. The immigrant Saxons of Perry County, Missouri, thought they were bringing the church of the reformation to America, a reformed catholic church, an Evangelical church. I think they did, and we still do, with some confusion here and there.

    P.S. I know that I’ve annoyed you by using the name Roman (city) Church. I guess I could have said the Roman (city) Catholic Church, they are one of the catholic churches. But, you must always remember that the Church of the Roman Empire sat in Constantinople, the new capital of the Roman Empire. This is the church controlled and protected by the Roman Emperors. The church in Old Rome, especially after 800, was protected by German Warlords. If you don’t clearly keep this in mind, you will never understand the 1st thousand years of the church.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X