Here is the mumbling that brought me here: The UN just voted that all should place a moratorium on the death penalty.
Here are the arguments:
1. It undermines human rights.
Whose? The guilty. Last I checked the guilty lose rights. That is part of punishment.
2. It is a questionable deterrent.
It may not be able to be proven a deterrent to others in statistics, but to the person executed, it is a deterrent. No person executed has ever committed the same crime.
3. Some innocent people have died.
And so since some are imprisoned wrongly, we stop having jails?
Phil,
It is very easy, especially for me, to say whenever I hear of anyone committing a heinous act against the weak and the innocent (especially multiple ones) to say “give ’em the chair!” However, I am now fervently anti-death penalty. I will respond first to your responses to the arguments.
Supposition: The guilty lose rights. True, but why should the loss be in terms of their own life.
Suposition # 2: It is a deterrent since the perpetrator will no longer have leave to do so again. That is true, but when we speak of deterrent we speak of whether the death penalty is enforced enough to make people think about whether they should commit a crime again. How many criminals actually think, “If I do this, I may be caught and executed.” They don’t because it is an ineffective deterrent, but the reason why is mainly because of all the legal maneuvers conducted behind the scenes.
Supposition # 3: We can’t get everything right, but 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. When we are dealing with life, if we are to be a culture of life, should we not take every precaution to insure that its sanctity is preserved even with the slightest doubt?
I am anti-death penalty, Phil. For practical reasons, I am against it because it is ineffectively put into practice to acutally function as a deterrent for others. But for ethical, moral and Orthodox reasons, I cannot support it.
In the prayer of St. BAsil the Great which I pray before receiving the Eucharist and which is also said at Confession and Absolution, we are reminded that “God does not desire the death of the sinner, but that he should return and live.” And what should they live for? A life of repentance! Is that not how John the Forerunner and Christ both began their ministries on earth? With the rallying cry of “Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”
Will the serial rapist/murderer/whatever actually embrace the life of repentance? Who is to say? He may or may not. BUt with all the saints who were great sinners and now sit by the throne of God praising Him with the Heavenly Hosts, is it really too much to ask that all be given the chance to live the life of repentance and be reconciled to not only the society they wronged, but also to God? I don’t think so.
I was tempted to take this route in the beginning, but now I am forced to by your comments. Your argumentation is a perfect example of how a false systematic can override simple exegesis.
The false systematic: Since God wants all to repent and be saved, as much time as possible should be given to accomplish that intended goal.
The Easy Exegesis: The Law of God given to Israel not only allowed capital punishment, but required it. Clearly in the new testament, the government retains the right to use the sword to punish.
If God’s desire for all to be saved required the postponement of capital punishment, would not he have included that in the law he wrote or the scriptures he inspired. Of course he would have. Therefore, the argument falls.
Phil,
Who wrote the following: “when our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ‘Repent’, he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. This word cannot be understood as referring ot the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy. yet it does not mean inner repentance; such inner repentance is worhtless unless it produces various outward mortifications of the flesh.”
Who wrote this? Some EO monk, RC pope? No, Martin Luther. These are the first three of the 95 theses.
Your simple exegesis fails because you fail to look beyond the letter of the law and embrace the spirit. Whereas the old law was written on stone, the new is written on our hearts (Augustine, De Spiritu et littera). Such a narrow exegesis essentially condemns every sinner to death without repentance, without the chance to be called back and healed by our Lord and Saviour through the Church.
Your post confirms that Lutheranism has largely abandoned teaching its communicants to live lives of repentance. For we may as well do nothing and let ourselves be condemned.
Chris-
You insult me. I know who wrote those words. The false systematic is not that God desires all to live a life of repentance. With this I agree. The false systematic is that that requires us to keep people alive to give them more and more chances to do this. And the scriptures consistently show that this is false. God does end life abruptly in many many cases as punishment. If I am missing the spirit of the law, apparently God did as well. My exegesis simply allows the death penalty. Being condemned to die does not equate to being condemned to hell, sometimes it may work faith as one consider their mortality. God’s grace does not require a certain amount of time to work. If one is elect, we will be saved because he will in his life repent and be baptized, thus receiving the saving grace of God. I have no idea the logic that produces you last statement, “Your post confirms that Lutheranism has largely abandoned teaching its communicants to live lives of repentance.” What in my post suggests this?
Phil,
You wrote: “God does end life abruptly in many many cases as punishment.” You wrote this in response to God ending lives and not giving people chances to repent more. The key word is God. And here we are talking about capital punishment which is the world of men. God does this and that is His alone. Why encroach upon this and insist upon the use of capital punishment?
The interesting thing I read about in your posts is the phrase “my exegesis.” Phil, the holy fathers have weighed in on this issue any number of times. And now you dare to suggest that your exegesis trumps nearly 2000 years of Church teaching?
As for my last statement, I stand by it wholeheartedly. Lutheranism has become so enamored with guilt and punishment that repentance is left at the door waiting for an invitation to come back in.
Chris, surely you know and still believe that primarily God works through means. And while God did occasionally end someone’s life directly, surely far more deaths occurred through the hands of men according to the law God had given. When we act in accord with his revealed word, we are not encroaching upon God’s sovereignty, but rather yielding to it.
And where is your proof that my exegesis is out of line with the fathers? In seems to me that the opposite is true:
A Quote:
“Throughout the centuries the Church has, broadly speaking, defended the right of the state to impose capital punishment for certain heinous crimes. Among the Church fathers one finds varying perspectives on the death penalty though a general recognition of the state’s responsibility in implementing capital justice. Tertullian (late second century) and Lactantius (late third century) affirmed that, in the case of murder, divine law consistently required a life for a life. Theodosius II (mid-fifth century), who called for the Council of Ephesus (431) in the hope of settling the Nestorian controversy, enacted a legal code specifying capital crimes. While Augustine among others acknowledged the role of the state in mediating capital sanctions, various councils from the seventh century (Eleventh Council of Toledo) to the thirteenth (Fourth Lateran Council) followed the lead of Leo the Great (fifth century) in seeking to forbid clerics from engagement in matters of capital justice. The patristic and medieval periods in the main suggest the Church’s tacit recognition of capital punishment.”
In any case, at the very least, the teaching of the church for last 2000 years is not as consistent as orthodoxy claims.
Phil,
Come now. Individual Holy fathers have disagreed throughout Christian history. The consensus of the Holy Fathers though has remained a bedrock of consistency and clarification in the midst of heresy. The precedents you quote (which is from where?) are far from convincing especially since this is argumentum ex silentio, the worst kind of argument to back anything. You are saying the Church fathers did not condemn the emperors or what not in expressed words and thus capital punishment was OK. That is the worst of logical fallacies.
The Orthodox see the infliction of the death penalty and the killing of children in the womb in the same light. They are not to be tolerated and we should work to end both of these monstrositites. Individuals may have stood in contrast to the consensus but the consensus remains.
Chris-
While you jest at my quote, you have nowhere produced anything nearing a bedrock of consistency on this issue throughout the Fathers. You have simply bowed to Orthodoxy, with no proof of the church’s historic teaching on this matter. I cannot do the same when the scriptures, the true bedrock, so consistently allow for the Death Penalty.
Phil and Chris,
This has been very intriguing to watch and read. Without betraying my own view on the death penalty….here has been my observation so far. It seems you both have failed to provide any SCRIPTURAL evidence for your own positions. You perhaps have hinted at, or alluded to scripture but yet there has been a lack of direct scriptural interaction.
How do we deal with actual texts that seem to support capital punishment and how do we fuse that together and understand those verses in the context of what it means to live kingdom lives and live in the kingdom of God in the here and now, which some seem to believe should give us pause on automatic support for the death penalty?
Could this be an issue in which godly Christ-followers are bound to disagree? And could that be okay? I guess what i have seen here is a great topic that has turned into a downward spiral devoid of generosity even in the midst of legitimate disagreement.
Tom,
I originally posted this under mumblings and not meditations for a specific reason, I was simply stating my opinion of the current secular rationale for banning the death penalty, which I find rather weak.
That said, I do believe Christian people can disagree on whether we should use the death penalty in our particular society, state, whatever. They can argue about whether it serves the purpose it is aimed at serving.
However, I think it completely wrong to claim that the Jesus way outlaws such action by a society. As far as verses, I assume one from the Old Testament law will suffice as an example, although I could list many:
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Here we should note that the death penalty is carried out for the salvation of others, that evil would be purged from them. Chris’ argument falsely assumed that only the salvation of the criminal is at stake. That is way too small of a perspective. Sometimes the death of the sinner is carried out for the salvation of the elect.
From the New Testament:
Romans 13:3-4 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Swords are not used for making sushi.
So like I said I will discuss with any Christian, or anyone really, whether the death penalty is an effective measure in our society and age. But I will not yield to a Christian who seeks to say that the Jesus way requires abandoning the death penalty. This is false teaching.
Phil,
Thanks for you comments, they were helpful. Before I respond in full, when you say that: “this is false teaching” in your last sentence…what do you exactly mean? False=heretical. False=wrong (heterodox in this particual discussion of captial punishment)?
I mean to say that saying that living the Christ-like life forbids the death penalty is simply not true and should not be said by a follower of Christ.
Phil,
Thanks. I would ask a couple of questions. First, I am not saying I am opposed to the death penalty (of course, I am not saying I am for it either 🙂 ) when you write: “saying the Christ-like life forbids the death penalty is simply not true and should not be said by a christ-follower” by’s whose interpretation is it ‘simply not true’? Your studies and prayer and thoughts have lead you to believe it is okay, while an equally committed follower of Jesus would believe that it is not right. They may equally have a claim to say your position isn’t a biblical one and should not be said.
If though you are saying that it shouldn’t be said as true apart from an understanding of the nature and type of issue we are talking about (ie – realizing it’s not a core issue and that while i may have my opinion based on reading, studying, reflecting on scripture, church history, the writings of others…i still may be wrong)….i would agree with you.
Maybe I should say it this way: i could say that my opinion is right about the death penalty, but generosity would realize that it isn’t a core issue and I may be wrong.
Tom,
This is the problem with the idea of “core issues” in my mind. If while the scriptures clearly allowed the death penalty and even required it, we say that it must be outlawed, we have shown that we are allowing something other than the bible to form our opinions.
If prayer and reflection lead us to a different conclusion that the one the scriptures attest to, we have been talking to the wrong person.
And if we do this on one issue, why not all of the others? Why believe that salvation come only through Jesus Christ when it seems rather exclusive and un-God like to do so. Soon the core issues fall just like the others.
While I have provided scriptural references, the argument against seems to be some broad idea that the God I think about is not like that. And that is always the first step is forming God in our image rather than his own revelation.
Phil,
I understand your concern and this is obviously one of the differences between your great tradition and my own.
First there is a huge difference between salvation found in and through the person of Jesus only (for us, a core issue) and whether the death penalty should still be in place or not (for us, not a core issue). You seem to be making a huge leap by saying that if one thinks the death penalty is a non-core issue then they are in real danger of giving away the whole game.
So do you allow something other to form your opinion when you don’t allow for adulterers to be killed (and btw, remember Jesus statement about lusting being the same as adultery), or for those who engage in pre-martial sex – this was the thrust of the Deut. passage you quoted. Are you allowing something other than scripture to form your opinion when you don’t allow for kids who mouth off to their parents to be killed?
I understand your concern, but one just can’t say, “look, the death penalty is found here and here and here, so therefore it is for today as well”. It may very well be applicable for today…but obviously not in the way, totally, that we find it in the Old or New Testament scriptures. One has to look at context and the totality of scripture and interpret scripture.
No one comes to scripture with a blank slate. We all allow something(s) to form our minds and opinions when it comes to scripture. When I come to scripture, yes it needs to be my ultimate and final guide, but I come to it with an understanding and forming of 1000’s of previous sermons I have heard preached, books I have read, commentaries that I have studied, people that I have talked to…..all of which have been informed themselves by someone or something else. The emerging church has this point right – none of us are perspective, value or culturally free when we come to and understand scripture. That isn’t necessarily bad (though it can be) just something we need to be aware of as we engage others.
Again, someone may accuse you having a different opinion than what scripture teaches and if, in my mind, we can’t separate issues between core and non-core than we just get into demonizing the other side – which doesn’t do the body of Christ any good.
Here is how I view the body of Christ:
All who believe in Jesus Christ are parts of the body and will be saved so long as they remain in that body as they are kept alive by the blood of Jesus.
However, some parts of the body are diseased with false teaching. Pointing out their errors is not demonizing them, but rather diagnosing them in the hope of healing.
I know this view seems drastic in our postmodern day and age, but it is what the church has done since its inception. Even in the later scriptures, the church is already diagnosing parts of its body as sick, and some deadly so.
I know that we all come with different backgrounds to the scripture, but I do not believe that that means that we musty simply give up on discerning what the scriptures teach on what you call the “non-core” issues.
I know Tom that you have no intention of leaving behind the core issues in allowing freedom on the non-core issues, but history shows that church body after church body have starting trying to allow freedom in some areas only to be caught up in the flow so powerfully that they cannot stop there. And I believe this all goes back to scripture and how we view it. When we begin to ignore scriptures because they offend us, we soon are left not knowing what to believe at all.
As far as the other laws containing the death penalty in the Old Testament, I have two answers. First, that law was given to Israel for living in the promised land, so it does not apply in a one for one way to us today. However, it still serves as an expression of the mind of God, and proves that such action is not in contradiction to his desire for all to be saved. Once again, we do now have to kill fornicators or disobedient children, like we do not have to practice the death penalty since those laws were not given to us for this time, but we cannot say that allowing those practices would be inconsistent with the ways of God.
Phil,
Thanks. Again, I am not saying I am opposed, or unopposed, to the death penalty. But rather how we form our opinions, construct our arguments, and communicate ourselves. The latter having, perhaps, more weight in any conversation with people then the best defense of a certain position. Irregardless of whether that position is right or wrong.
I take from your last post that any position that is different than yours (and I don’t know if this is ‘the’ opinion of the LCMS or not) is, “false, in error and in need of healing.” And I take it that when you write, “church body after church body trying to allow freedom…” you are including, potentially, anyone in that list that doesn’t align itself with LCMS doctrine and polity. You, perhaps, did not mean these things but this is how it has come across in your last reply especially.
But as I have stated before, there are many godly men and women who read the same scriptures as you and me and come away with a totally different reading and understanding of capital punishment than you, or perhaps I, do (and yes, some are offended by things in the Bible and that isn’t a reason to change things – but my guess is that most informed Christ-followers who take an anti-death penalty position aren’t taking that position just because they are simply offended by what scripture says in regard to capital punishment in various places). And they would look at you and say you are teaching something that is diseased and in need of healing when you promote and accept the death penalty as legitimate. However, you are thinking you are right and they are wrong. And they are thinking they are right and you are wrong.
If you have told people, concerning an issue in which there seems to be good, valid, biblical reasons and arguments on both sides that what they hold to on that issue is not what you hold to and therefore what they believe is “wrong, diseased, in error, and in need of healing” what has been accomplished?
I think of Jesus blindsiding people, who truly were in need of healing (and not just physical), with love. In such a way that he still got to the root problems but didn’t leave people beaten and bruised but rather pursued by the relentless tenderness of himself.
I have no problems with you being pro-death penalty, or with Chris being anti-death penalty….but i struggle when words and phrases are so easily thrown out that don’t aide in beneficial dialogue. I could be right in what I say, wrong in how I say it and turn someone off from further conversation because of how I communicated.
I know my post is a little off topic, i guess I was just sharing something that was in my heart – and that I have been wrestling with all day, as we have talked back and forth :). If I have come across too forceful or without care and generosity I am truly sorry. Part of this uneasiness is just my personality, part of it is, based on some of your replies in other topics, this is how you work things out in your mind – and so it is at those points where I need to be okay with a certain type of communication that I may be uncomfortable with.
Anway, there are my thoughts. Not by the quality by any means, but by the quantity they have to be worth at least a quarter.
Tom-
You say that there is no benefit is calling other Christians diseased. I would answer that if they are diseased there is great benefit to it. If i have a disease, I sure hope someone diagnoses it for me, especially if he/she calls himself my brother or sister. Please don’t “love” me enough to never tell me the truth.
I do believe that the doctrinal positions of th LCMS are right. (I should make clear that we do not have a position on every topic, and admit there are many issues which the scriptures do not address) That is why I remain a member of this church and why I continue in my ordination vows which said as much. I know that postmodern likes to suggest that right and wrong are just one person’s view of reality. I do not agree. I do not think that God has called us to just not worry about thing that Christians do not agree on. I believe he has called us to struggle with the spirit to discern the truth, and then hold to it fast.
I have heard for years, that speaking tactfully and carefully would bring true unity to the church. I have been told that the ecumenical movement would bring healing through dialogue. But it seems to me all this has done is stopped us from talking about anything we disagree on. Not to pick on you, but why will you not reveal your stance on this issue? Doesn’t true dialogue require you to do so, rather than just addressing with the larger issues of postmodern interpretation. It seem to me every ecumenical gathering I have been at is a big exercise is everyone avoiding talking about what they believe so as to have happy lunch breaks or something.
Tom, if we decide that we will not call another position wrong or diseased simply because there are a large group of believers who hold to that position, we have lost everything. Roman catholics and protestants believe different thing about how one is saved, and so that falls. Many theologians and laity with them, including some of those at the most prestigious religious school in the country deny the virgin birth, the resurrection, so that all would be gone. And Paul say if the ressurection is gone, our faith is all a sham.
Tom, just because people who claim to be or are truly Christians hold to a position and try to claim some biblical or spiritual basis for it, does not mean that I should not question their conclusions. I do not believe that the scriptures are that unclear. The church used to largely have a consensus belief, but then we gave up seeking one, and heresy became renamed reinterpretation.
I hope that I do not come off too cold, or that you disown me as a friend (for I value your friendship immensely) for being who I am, which is perhaps more “staunch” (not the right word but) that you thought me to be, but I want to remain honest about how I feel. Hope to hear back from you soon.
I wanted to add one thing: The point by the way is not to be LCMS, but it is to have the confession which those of us in the LCMS have. What I mean, is I could care less what your church says on the doors, but I care much about what you teach inside them.
Phil,
First, let me say that I too value your friendship deeply. Not only your friendship but your thoughts and wisdom. Never would I disown you as a friend.
If I may, let me respond to a number of things in your reply (in no particular order – so I hope it’s not too hard to follow) I too agree that if we see a brother or sister in error…not to point that out would be unhealthy at best and wrong at worst. My concern, though, is on what issues are we doing that? And how are we coming across when we may have to finally address someone?
I understand why you aren’t thrilled with the whole core vs. non-core issues, but, for me, why I embrace it is because it forces me to approach each issue individually rather than just a blanket type approach. In other words, I don’t think in terms of: man, they don’t think like me on this non-essential issue so they must be diseased and it’s my job to tell them such. But, again, this is the tradition that I am used to and so it is natural for me to think in essential vs. non-essential categories and respond accordingly. Therefore, I believe capital punishment to be a very important issue but a non-essential one. And so while I might tell someone they are wrong in their view of capital punishment if it differs from mine – but always keep in focus that it is a non-essential issue first. And second, I’m not sure scripture is all that clear on whether it should be supported by christ-followers today. So important, but non-essential and seemingly unclear. For myself, I would loosely hold that my understanding of scripture in this area is “rightâ€.
I also think that you have a right to question other christ-followers conclusions whose position is different than your own on a given issue – I have done this with various things – but, again, this is where my approach of having non core vs. core issues comes into play. I don’t think, with the death penalty, that a faith shattering/Scripture denying issue is at stake because I am not convinced that Scripture is all that clear on the death penalty. To me if someone believes the death penalty is not for today – I may say they are wrong based on how I have studied Scripture, but I wouldn’t say they are diseased. It is an area, to me, where we just have to agree to disagree.
Some things in scripture i don’t think we will ever have total clarity about. Like you, it doesn’t/shouldn’t prevent us from wrestling through unclear things to see if clarity can appear – but I am okay with allowing somethings to be unclear thus providing different viewpoints.
I am not concerned with the ecumenical movement – but rather how we communicate the truths we believe in or the ideas we hold to. Again, the examples you bring up (salvation, resurrection, etc.)…I have no problem with. I believe Scripture is very clear on those issues, and they are ultimately essential. Death Penalty? I’m no so sure on either idea (clear or essential).
I won’t touch the postmodern thing right now :). Another post.
Your last reply is intriguing. You say the point is not to be LCMS but to hold the confessions that those in the LCMS hold to. Isn’t that saying the same thing as: one really needs to be LCMS? One can call themselves Baptist, as long as they believe in the confessions of the LCMS. Which in reality they wouldn’t be Baptist but, rather LCMS. So let me throw it back at you: my tradition, the EFCA, are we diseased and in need of healing? You know where we stand on some, in our terms, ‘essential issues’ but we don’t hold to all the confessions of the LCMS. So, what say you? Are we diseased, in need of healing?
Tom,
Sorry it took so long. Perhaps we should lose the language of the metaphor, but since I gave it, I will live in it. What I meant by the you need only believe as LCMS, not be LCMS was that if you call yourself the Millville Bible Church and yet share our confessions, I do not say that you must institutionally align yourself with us. The beliefs, not the institution is the important thing. Likewise one day the LCMS may change their confession at which time I would call them diseased as well and cling the the confessions I believe to be true.
On the second part, I would consider the EFCA “diseased and in need of healing.” That statement is not to question the intention of those in the EFCA, but to diagnose false teaching propagated by the church body. Specifically, its denial of the efficacy of the baptism, absolution in a formal sense, and the Lord’s Supper to deliver the forgivness of God leads me to make this diagnosis. (from the EFCA Website: That water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances to be observed by the Church during the present age. They are, however, not to be regarded as means of salvation. ) Also, and I never noticed this before in the doctrinal statement, but I would also consider holding to the premillenial coming of Christ as “diseased.” (once again from the site: In the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this “Blessed Hope” has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer. ) I believe us to be in the millennium of Christ reign through his church right now.
The fact that I consider the EFCA diseased does not mean that I do not think it is part of the body or that you will not be saved And yet I cannot ignore the teachings that are causing disease in your portion of the body.
Let me ask the question back, is the LCMS diseased?
BTW: Why is it the two most disputed scriptural teachings in the realm of Christianity, the sacraments and the specific of Jesus’ return, are considered essentials and not things in which to practice charity? In the measure is large amount of Christians holding to various positions, surely both should qualify.
Phil,
Thanks for your response. First to the EFCA. Actually, the EFCA has just gone through a long process where they almost removed the “premillennial” stance from our statement – but, unfortunately, that did not happen. However, the “premillennial” stance is one in which the pastors have to adhere to and not the people in the congregation who wish to become members. Plus, the “premillennial” stance is one in which there is much flexibility shown to pastors who wish to pastor in the EFCA but who view it differently. That’s why I was disappointed it was not removed from our doctrinal statement. At least it doesn’t say: Pretrib, right? 🙂
Secondly, to the sacraments. You and I have talked before on this issue. There is much that our tradition can learn from others who view it differently than us. We may not, in the end, agree with their viewpoint but surely there is something to be gained by learning from them. Your tradition teaches us the seriousness and absolute importance of these commands, sometimes my tradition just kind of makes them “nice things” to do, but not really life-changing or filled with power.
I agree whole-heartedly with your last statement. There are things that should be considered essential which are not: such as charity. How we treat the poor, the oppressed, etc. Maybe it is because “believing” the “right” doctrinal things is far easier than actually “fulfilling” what the heart of God is.
Back to your question. First, I would hate to think that what the EFCA holds to is “false teaching.” I think the language is inflammatory and sets the discussion up for opposition rather than a mutual and beneficial dialogue.
Do I think the LCMS is “diseased”? No. Certainly, points of disagreement that I have. You have come to your views on Scripture with much thought, study, prayer, etc. – and I cannot simply discount that, and can learn much by thoughtful interaction with the LCMS. I think we view scripture differently on a few issues and yes, I think that you are wrong on some of those issues – now, perhaps this is all you meant with “diseased, and in need of healing”, but I think the language of “wrong” even though it sets up people’s defenses is less inflammatory and more “charitable.” I am willing to learn and gain insight from people even if I feel they may be wrong on something. If someone is diseased and teaching false things, in my mind, I am not going to have much, if anything, to learn from them.
I know you probably grind your teeth when I say this, but semantics matter. How we say things communicate as much, and even more, than what we say.
As to your first part – about LCMS beliefs, etc. I’m not sure your are saying anything different than: one really must be LCMS. I know you are not talking institutionally – but when you say that one must hold to the confessions of the LCMS – you can have EFCA on the sign, but in spirit, and in reality, you would be LCMS.
Thoughts? Hope this helps.