Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: In Communion with Rome? Message-ID: Date: 21 Oct 90 05:53:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 56 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu David Wagner writes: >As long as we're making corrections, let me note that 'the lutherans' >here should be 'some lutherans'. Agreed; the agreements cover only the ELCA. >In the WELS we believe that you have either full fellowship on the basis >of full doctrinal agreement, or none at all. The idea of a 'level of >communion' makes no sense to us. If this seems cold and unloving to some, >that is to be regretted. Doctrinal purity is all well and good, if it be so pure. AND if all agree to it. I dispute the reality of both the purity and the agreement. >However it is more important to us to witness to the truth taught in the >Bible, than to show false, deceitful, and misleading love by giving outward >approval of someone's error. That is not what Jesus taught. Also, I dispute the notion that intercommunion *necessarily* means approval. Anglican churches, as a rule, invite ALL baptized to partake of communion, regardless of denomination (within limits, but they are extremely wide). This represents no apporval at all other than that of the validity of baptism-- and if Wisconsin and Missouri care to dissent to this on the basis of doctrinal differences, they have just declared their own baptisms invalid: after all, their chain of baptisms passes through Rome, as with the other protestants. Even the agreement between the PECUSA and the ELCA represents only limited approval. By anglicans standards, ECLA ordinations are not "valid" because Lutheran "bishops" do not really fulfill the proper functions (not to mention apostolic succession). In spite of this "error", we have communion with them. The intransigence of certain bodies is not necessary. It is a policy decision. Likewise, Anglican freedom is also a policy decision. Frankly, I'll take charity over certainty, if only because the latter is a phantom. >By these quotes I hope to have demonstrated (briefly) that according to >the Scriptures, fellowship requires full doctrinal agreement. In addition, >this is a very Lutheran doctrine. Well, I disagree with your interpretation. In the anglican churches we make a distinction between essential points and lesser points, a distinction which I do not see ruled out by any of the scriptures cited. Indeed, the kind of universal language implied by the Concord is conspicuously lacking from the biblical passages. And (should anyone doubt it it) I am not particularly impressed by the Lutheran character of such intransigence. Rome and Constantinople are similarly intransigent (at least officially). -- C. Wingate + "Our God to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn above this world's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, endures, and shall endure."