|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
This blog sponsored by:
The views represented on this blog are not necessarily those of Higher Things, nor does Higher Things necessarily endorse them.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 3:05am by Sandra Ostapowich
|
|
In my previous article, I attempted to clarify some issues regarding the
argument a few of us have with the Lutheran Carnival as it is presently
run. I did not and still do not understand the animosity and level of
personal attack I, and others even moreso, have received in what could be a
perfectly civil discussion, offering constructive criticism (remember, we have
been complimentary of the Lutheran Carnival concept, just with a couple of
tweaks in its operation).
Intolerant Elle,
one of the founders of the Lutheran Carnival, submitted her own post to the
latest Carnival explaining why it is set up that individuals must submit their
own work, rather than someone else nominating or submitting their blog articles
for the Carnival:
Requiring the author to submit his own post confirms what only the author can himself confirm -- his confessional Lutheran status. By submitting a post, a blogger is, in essence, making a confession and no one can do that for anyone
else...There is no special honor in being included except that it means a blogger's confession isn't obviously contradicted by his posts.
Ok. Fair enough. Let's look at this
week's submissions and see what confessions everyone is making for
themselves by their posts.
For the most part, the Lutheran Carnival posts were substantive and in line
with Lutheran doctrine and practice.
But then there were a few I was surprised about.
Kathy,
at Yokefellow Small Groups, blogs:
In Yokefellow small groups, we advance the idea that God exists and He cares about each person. Because He cares about each person we should too. Many people who come to a Yokefellow group are in a civil war inside of themselves. Perhaps they see that they need God or feel that they want to know God. But the old man is so alive and struggling. Anguish is the result. Is this rebellion something they have to live through, or could better teaching help them come through the war to surrender? I don't know. My own surrender has taken years and continues each day.
This post was just plain concerning to me in general, lots of red flags went
up as I read a lot of things contrary to Lutheran doctrine, with a disappointing
lack of the Gospel in the entire article. This post confirms the author's
confessional Lutheran status? Really? I'm sure next week's
submission will alleviate my concerns.
And instead of addressing the issue as was done at Cross+Wise (who appears to
have understood Bloghardt's point very well), acknowledging
the struggle between sinner and saint so integral to good Lutheran theology,
Aardvark continued to spread the strange idea of "sanctified
pride", defending the sinner against the Law expressed by Bloghardt's
introspection and constructive criticism of the Lutheran Carnival
self-submission and promotion process. Aardvark begins an interesting
argument, but surprisingly seems to miss the significance of concupiscence in
it. Aardy says that his pride in his submitted Carnival posts is
"sanctified" somehow because of all the Gospel proclaimed in Carnival
posts. Maybe my readers can help me find the Gospel proclaimed in Aardy's submission
to the most recent Carnival.
The "argument" against Bloghardt has continued to degrade in its
personal attacks, some of which the Lutheran Carnival was apparently happy to
publicize far and wide. It's one thing for the author of Long Thoughts of a Confessional Lutheran
to post a satirical
article about someone on his own blog, full of nothing but completely
fabricated information on the basis of a disparaging strawman one person made
against another person, or even to find the satire amusing and link to it on
your blog. It's quite another to post it as part of a larger directory of
articles or Carnival. Is this the sort of thing that the Lutheran Carnival
is going to promote, and considers this confirmation of the author's
confessional Lutheran status?
Note: I find it extremely interesting that the Carnival refuses to post
submissions that are not made personally by the author, because self-submission
"confirms his desire to be a part of the Lutheran Carnival," but has
no qualms about publishing multiple derisive posts ABOUT someone, by name, who
has stated that he does not desire to be part of the Carnival and ironically the
reasons he does not wish to participate in it are the impetus for others
dragging his name into it anyway.
Edited on: August 31st, 2005 3:19 am
|
Posted On: August 31st, 2005 at 9:33am by David Brazeal [ + ]
|
I don't really think this whole debate over "sanctified pride" is useful any longer. Both sides rightly understand the issues, but are using terms that offend the other side. Semantic issues can be important, but in this case, I think it's just furthering a division that need not exist. We all understand concupiscence; we all understand original sin; we all understand the saint/sinner dichotomy. But Aardvark takes offense at Bloghardt's suggestion that self-submission is more likely to cause sinful pride; and Bloghardt takes offense at Aardvark's suggestion that "pride" need not be self-directed. Can self-submission lead to sinful pride? Yes. Can pride be something other than self-directed? Yes. The bulk of the disagreement seems to be based on inferences (drawn by both sides) about what the other is saying. If we would all stop inferring beyond the narrow points made above, I think we'd be better off.
Incidentally, the biggest question I have about the Carnival rules is the requirement that an author maintain a quia subscription to the Book of Concord. It seems to me, if someone's going to make a judgment, the judgment should be based on the post itself--not the internal workings of the author's mind. I mean, if an Anglican who agrees with the Lutheran position on baptism wants to submit an article to the Carnival, why should we care that he disagrees with the Lutheran position on church polity? Likewise, if a confused Lutheran submits a post that erroneously portrays baptism as our response to God's grace, why should that be posted to the Carnival?
|
Posted On: August 31st, 2005 at 3:53pm by Glen Piper [ + ]
|
Nice summary & analysis of the recent goings-on, Madre.
I've been purposefully quiet during the whole debate, mainly because I've been trying to decide on which side I fall. What's made it more difficult is that I respect both the Aardvark and Bloghardt. Most of the time I tend to think that semantics is an easy "out" in terms of minimizing substantive conflict; however, in this case I think that David Brazeal is spot-on in identifying this as truly being a time when substantive agreement/accord is being overshadowed by "mere" semantics. (Besides, his posting, as Madre mentioned, on all this did a fabulous job of bringing things into a clearer focus!)
In the end, though, I think I fall onto Bloghardt's side of the semantic fence. The reason I haven't submitted any postings to the Carnival is that I actually am worried about sinful pride. I fight it enough with blogging in the first place (I have what's probably an unhealthy interest in my hit counter...), and wanting to get folks to visit my blog. I already think that what I do is worthy of viewing, else why would I even write it, right? I worry about shameless self-promotion (not that the Carnival is "shameless", but you know what I mean...) enough already.
I guess I'd prefer a referral-based system to the self-submission system. But, then, that's a feature of blogging itself, isn't it? I write entries about blogs/blog-entries that I like, and maintain a blogroll, folks do the same (hopefully including my blog!). The Carnival is probably just a more efficient way of doing that, at least in theory.
-ghp
|
Posted On: August 31st, 2005 at 4:44pm by Paul
|
Semantics is one thing, and there are certainly enough times when we have disagreements over choice of wording, and perhaps that should be considered, although I think this whole "sanctified pride" business is entirely looney.
Beyond one's own position in the particulars of the phrase "sanctified pride" (or a similar concept), there is no excuse for the level of ad hominem attack directed not only at Madre herself, but also at Rev. Borghardt, all made by those who seem to be directly connected to the Carnival. The comments made by these make me embarassed for the cause of confessional Lutheranism. If you want to dismiss the conflict over "sanctified prdie,"as semantics, fine...though I would likely disagree. But you cannot so easily dismiss the comments equating Rev. Borghardt with male genitals! To try and wave away any differences there based simply on using words and phrases differently is a misdirection.
Madre's point regarding the Lutheran quality of said Carnival also deserves attention. To require a "quia" subscription and yet include such posts (as the one mentioned above) is interesting to see the least.
|
Posted On: August 31st, 2005 at 7:38pm by Glen Piper [ + ]
|
Perhaps my use of "semantics" as a way to summarize David Brazeal's observation was a bit too pithy for my own good. In fact, I think it is actually too facile a summary of his cogent summary. He said it much better than I, and I don't think David's take on it is misdirection.
As for the personal attacks, I am in full agreement with you. While I never actually read what I think were/are the most disturbing of the ad hominems (they were taken offline before I saw them), from what I've surmised, it's clear that they were indefensible. From what I've also seen, thankfully, they've been repented of and forgiven.
-ghp
|
Posted On: August 31st, 2005 at 9:35pm by Elle [ + ]
|
You do have a good point about Kathy's post. I did notice it and did run it by a pastor who gave me advice. I don't want to require perfect theological exposition from laymen and people who are still learning about their confession, but I do regret having allowed that post through. This is a learning process for the hosts and constructive feedback like this is exactly what we need. Thanks.
|
Posted On: September 01st, 2005 at 9:11am by Madre [ + ]
|
I don't think getting the Gospel right is too demanding of a standard to require of laymen - especially ones who are teaching others (even if they are in prison).
|
Posted On: September 01st, 2005 at 9:33am by Matt
|
Elle,
Thanks for your response and your willingless to run questionable blog entries by a pastor. This Lutheran Blog seems to be a new idea or at least a revamped idea that will take some time sorting out. I know that I will remain patient as the kinks are sorted out. I really enjoy this Lutheran Blog Carnival and I hope that it succeeds in letting the often small confessional voice in the Synod be amplified so that all can hear.
Blessings,
Matt
|
Comment on entry entitled "How's About that Carnival...? (An unsolicited and likely unwelcome review)"
You may use BBCode within your posts, a reference is available here.
|
|
|
|