Comments for Territorial Bloggings

Comment on SP & SVP Nominations by billcrum

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:46:51 +0000

Add St. James down here in Lafayette among the congregations passing the same slate.

Comment on Gathering the Force in Dearborn (2 of 2) by The Brothers of John the Steadfast » Gathering the Force in Dearborn (2 of 2), by Glen Piper

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:23:35 +0000

[...] Note: This is from Glen Piper’s blog Territorial Bloggings. Glen is a delegate to the LCMS convention in 2010, so he attended the Regional Gathering in [...]

Comment on Gathering the Force in Dearborn (1 of 2) by ghp

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:49:26 +0000

1) I do believe that it’s not only permissible, it’s the normal/acceptable/approved way. When a standing SP gets voted out, he still runs the rest of the convention. E.g., when Bohlmann lost in 1992, he still ran things & held the gavel, not Barry.

2) This is true, I believe. IIRC, there was mention of the Nom. Comm. needing to be ready & standing by, just in case certain things get passed…

Comment on Gathering the Force in Dearborn (1 of 2) by imabaldyii

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:30:05 +0000

> 2) At the Convention next July, the order of business will see us take care of BRTFSSG/Structure & Governance (FC8) issues *BEFORE* we tackle the business of electing officers. (I’m not sure just what that means, yet, but I’ve got a gut feeling that it will probably end up meaning something…) <

1. For sure it means that Pres. Kieschnick will be the presiding officer to control the process. Is this even permissable according to our bylaws?

2. It could mean certain structural changes would be adopted that affect what offices are even up for election.

Comment on Troubled (in a good way) Musings by tkiihn

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 03:22:40 +0000

Thanks! I’ll have to be more alert to this area of doctrine in my church and synod. I tend to just show up too often!

Comment on Troubled (in a good way) Musings by ghp

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:26:39 +0000

Well, in a nutshell (and I’m very open to correction/clarification, ’cause this isn’t going to be very nuanced…), the Wisconsin/Wauwatausan view of the OHM is one in which the various functions of the Office can be “chopped-up” and parceled out as need be amongst various folks. It is from this understanding that they (IIRC) ordain/consecrate/install Sunday School teachers, viewing their authority as deriving from the Pastoral Office, rather than from the 4th Commandment/Parental Office (as we do in Missouri). Hence, why I tag the WELS-ian view as “functionalist”.

Also, AFAIK, the ELS is actually more Waltherian in their official understanding of the OHM, in that the distinctive duties & responsibilities vocationally given to the Pastoral Office cannot be so easily/blithely “chopped-up” and parceled out; rather, they uniquely belong to the holders of that Office – i.e., Pastors. So, I don’t think too many Missourians would say that they disagree with the ELS on this, but they would say that they disagree with WELS.

I don’t think that this difference in view necessarily rises to the level of preventing full Fellowship. Neither, it would seem, do ELS & WELS…

Comment on Troubled (in a good way) Musings by tkiihn

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:27:00 +0000

“I don’t think that the WELS-ian, more “functionalist” view of the OHM is correct. On paper, at least, I think that the Missourian/Waltherian understanding of the OHM is correct. This is why (I think) I’m looking to church history at the three-fold office, rather than to the functionalist view of the OHM, for help.”

I really don’t know what this means. I mean, I understand that LCMS confessional lutherans like to say they disagree with the ELS on that issue, but I really don’t understand the scriptural references behind it. I’ll have to Google OHM, unless you feel up to a good summary.

Comment on Troubled (in a good way) Musings by ghp

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:57:53 +0000

Thanks for the input & kind words, Rose. It always helps to hear those!

I do want to (quickly) clarify two points.

First: I’m not meaning to denigrate at all the vocation of faithful laity in volunteering as a way to keep a congregation running, and move forward the mission of a congregation. Perish the thought! Rather, my thoughts are going towards those things that aren’t really given to the volunteer (as we know it) laity vocationally. And I’m certainly not looking to raise myself up in any way (like I said, I just want to do things correctly…). This, then leads to the…

Second: I don’t think that the WELS-ian, more “functionalist” view of the OHM is correct. On paper, at least, I think that the Missourian/Waltherian understanding of the OHM is correct. This is why (I think) I’m looking to church history at the three-fold office, rather than to the functionalist view of the OHM, for help.

Comment on Troubled (in a good way) Musings by Rose Suchak LadderCo

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:56:53 +0000

“… idea of that“third-fold” — the Historic Diaconate. While most folks only think of it in terms of Deaconesses, there is also a place, it would seem, for men to be Deacons (and not just in the volunteer sense that we think of these days with boards of elders/deacons).”

My synod has neither deacons or deaconesses. Instead, you already are a great example of an elder – someone with a heart for his church and keeps involved. No title could make you more effective. Of course, its good to be open to the possibility that God is calling you. But until you know for sure, I would just remind you that you have already been fulfilling very well several other equally important callings!

Comment on Just like NA beer… by ghp

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:11:57 +0000

I just lived there for 6 months (‘87-’88), and when I came back I couldn’t drink *regular* American beer! ;^) I still crave a litre of Paulaner Dunkel ever so often…