WELS/LCMS merger

[NordicLutheran]

Could someone explain to me the differences between the WELS and LCMS and why they are divided. If they are both confessional don't you think the minor differences could be resolved? Because when the Elca finally explodes they're probably gonna turn to the LCMS or WELS and it would be great if they were united. LOL

[Protoevangel]

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2149

Q. What are the main differences between the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)?


A. From the LCMS perspective, the three main theological differences between the LCMS and the WELS are the following:

1) The biblical understanding of fellowship.
The WELS holds to what is called the "unit concept" of fellowship, which places virtually all joint expressions of the Christian faith on the same level. In an official statement made in 1960 the WELS states, "Church fellowship should therefore be treated as a unit concept, covering every joint expression, manifestation, and demonstration of a common faith" (Doctrinal Statements of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 1970, pp. 51-52). The LCMS, however, has historically not understood or practiced church fellowship in this way. Our Synod, for example, has made a distinction between altar and pulpit fellowship (for which full doctrinal agreement is required) and other manifestations of Christian fellowship, such as prayer fellowship (which do not necessarily require full doctrinal agreement). Disagreements on this issue led the Wisconsin to break fellowship with the LCMS in 1961.

2) The doctrine of the ministry.
With respect to the doctrine of the ministry, since the days of C. F. W. Walther our Synod has held that the office of the public ministry (the pastoral office) according to the Scriptures is the one divinely established office in the church, while the church possesses the freedom to create other offices, by human institution, from time to time to assist in the carrying out of the functions of the pastoral ministry. The WELS' Theses on Church and Ministry, however, expressly deny that the pastoral ministry is specifically instituted by the Lord in contrast to other forms of public ministry (see Doctrinal Statements, pp. 9-11; cf. the Commission on Theology and Church Relations' 1981 report on The Ministry: Office, Procedures, and Nomenclature.

3) The role of women in the church. While both the LCMS and the WELS strongly oppose the ordination of women to the pastoral office on Scriptural grounds, the LCMS has concluded that the Scriptures do not forbid woman suffrage in the church. The WELS opposes woman suffrage in the church as contrary to the Scriptures.

[NordicLutheran]

Those are a lot of strong conflicts. No wonder the LCMS doesn't want to merge.

[DaRev]

Those are a lot of strong conflicts. No wonder the LCMS doesn't want to merge.

There would have to be some major changes on both sides before even full fellowship would again be possible, let alone a merger.

I truly wish that the LCMS could once again engage in a working relationship with the WELS/ELS instead of the ELCA.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I agree. WELS is more akin to the confessional side of our synod (LCMS).

[C.F.W. Walther]

The Wisconsin Synod terminated fellowship with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod in 1961 because of differences in the doctrine and practice of church fellowship. Over the years the Missouri Synod had departed from the doctrine and practice of fellowship long held by the members of the Synodical Conference in which the Wisconsin Synod and the Missouri Synod shared confessional fellowship.

The Wisconsin Synod teaches that agreement on all the teachings of Scripture is necessary for all forms of fellowship. The Missouri Synod teaches that full agreement is necessary only for altar and pulpit fellowship. Wisconsin teaches that the same scriptural principles apply to all forms of church or religious fellowship. All joint prayer is an expression of fellowship. Missouri teaches that there can be joint prayer that is not an act of fellowship. In practice Missouri also indicates that full agreement is not necessary for worship at occasional joint Christian celebrations, Reformation services, convocations, rallies. Some Missouri pastors allow "ecumenical wedding services" at which pastors or priests outside their fellowship may participate.

Wisconsin practices "close" or "closed" communion, inviting to our altars only those who are members of congregations in our fellowship. Although Missouri officially teaches "close(d)" communion, many pastors and churches practice "open" communion, allowing joint communion with those not in doctrinal agreement with the Missouri Synod.

There are also differences in the doctrine of the church and ministry between the two synods. Wisconsin teaches that God has not ordained any particular form of the church. The invisible church is present in the local congregation and the synod. Both can be called church in the same sense. Missouri's official teaching seems to be that the local congregation is the only "divinely appointed" form of the church. By contrast the synod is a human arrangement.

Wisconsin teaches that the pastor of a local congregation is only one form of the divinely instituted public ministry. Other forms are teachers, professors, called administrators, etc. The specific form is determined by the church's call. Missouri seems to teach that the only divinely instituted form of the public ministry is that of pastor of a local congregation. All other positions are auxiliary to this. However, there appears to be a number of different teachings on the church and ministry in the Missouri Synod.

Because Scripture assigns the headship role to men and a helping role to women, only men serve in offices and roles that involve an exercise of authority over other men. Missouri does not allow women to serve as pastors but allows women to serve in a number of areas which involve the exercise of authority over men.

A continuing problem in the Missouri Synod seems to be an unwillingness or inability to exercise doctrinal discipline with those who teach and practice contrary to Scripture or the public doctrine of the Missouri Synod.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=62&cuItem_itemID=7722

[NordicLutheran]

So much for ecumenism and women well....being anything else than slaves. That must be why the wels is such a small denomination and I wouldn't say that the wels is anymore confessional than the lcms.

[Protoevangel]

So much for ecumenism and women well....being anything else than slaves.
This is an incredibly unfair statement regarding our brothers and sisters in the WELS.

Instead of slamming WELS in such a divisive manner, perhaps you could start a thread to discuss our relative understandings of the Scriptural roles of men and women in the Church. I am sure our resident WELS members would be willing to enter into a civilized and charitable discussiion with you, if you are indeed interested.

[Jim47]

This is an incredibly unfair statement regarding our brothers and sisters in the WELS.

Instead of slamming WELS in such a divisive manner, perhaps you could start a thread to discuss our relative understandings of the Scriptural roles of men and women in the Church. I am sure our resident WELS members would be willing to enter into a civilized and charitable discussiion with you, if you are indeed interested.


Its O'k Dan. I've grown used to it and I'm sure he doen't have a full understand of the whys. I am just starting a study of fellowship practices with my Pastor and the board of elders. Fellowship practices is the number one cause of concern with us, because we are always getting the long face and we too long to have fellowship with LCMS and others.

The book we are studing is "Church Fellowship" by John Brug. This will likley take us monthes because we go over every detail and many scriptures.

If anyone is interested in seeing what the WELS has to say about this please follow this link below. Peace to all, I do call you all brothers and sisters even though I can not fellowship with you, because I know you are all members if The Holy Christian Church :holy:

There 314 responces here, most reguarding this subject
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?61

[NordicLutheran]

Sorry for offending you Danhead, but from what I read that's how I felt at the time. Now that I think about it, it was a very rude comment and I'm sorry. Hopefully some day we can combine. A good name would be the lels.:)

[C.F.W. Walther]

Its O'k Dan. I've grown used to it and I'm sure he doen't have a full understand of the whys. I am just starting a study of fellowship practices with my Pastor and the board of elders. Fellowship practices is the number one cause of concern with us, because we are always getting the long face and we too long to have fellowship with LCMS and others.

The book we are studing is "Church Fellowship" by John Brug. This will likley take us monthes because we go over every detail and many scriptures.

If anyone is interested in seeing what the WELS has to say about this please follow this link below. Peace to all, I do call you all brothers and sisters even though I can not fellowship with you, because I know you are all members if The Holy Christian Church :holy:

There 314 responces here, most reguarding this subject
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?61

Hey Jim :) The link doesn't produce anything except a blank page with a search engine so I just typed in "fellowship". Came up with a bunch of goodies. Ever since the LCMS debacle I've been leaning towards WELS but the church bodies are few and far between and since I'm thinking about moving to Utah in a year they will probably be non existent. I'll have to start one of my own :)

[Jim47]

Hey Jim :) The link doesn't produce anything except a blank page with a search engine so I just typed in "fellowship". Came up with a bunch of goodies. Ever since the LCMS debacle I've been leaning towards WELS but the church bodies are few and far between and since I'm thinking about moving to Utah in a year they will probably be non existent. I'll have to start one of my own :)


Sorry about that. I don't know how to pretest my links, but what I did was ope their Q&A forum and then searched with the words "Unit concept". There is a bunch of them.

Good luck on your move. I was to Utah once back in 1984 passing through on a vacation. We were pulling a liitle pop up camper with a Chevy Blazer with a very little V-6. I remmeber one hill I had it floored in 2nd hear and couldn't make her go any faster. Lots of vertical terrain out there. :thumbsup:

[NordicLutheran]

After thinking about it the wels/lcms are extremely close. Do you honestly think that we could go back in fellowship with them? Or are these issues bigger than they appear to me?

[Protoevangel]

Sorry for offending you Danhead, but from what I read that's how I felt at the time. Now that I think about it, it was a very rude comment and I'm sorry. Hopefully some day we can combine. A good name would be the lels.:)
Hey bro. No problem from my end. I'm not WELS, and the only people I know who are, are from here and Lutherquest (besides some from a congregation I visited a few weeks ago.)

What made me speak up is the fact that as much as I disagree with some of the conclusions the WELS come to, I have followed their logic on these issues, and find them to be Scriptural, Confessional, and above all, loving.

Do I think there could be fellowship again? The LCMS would have to eliminate some of it's more tenacious liberal factions, among other things. I am not sure all of the changes that the WELS would require from the LCMS would be good. But I would prefer the LCMS to pursue fellowship with the WELS rather than flirting with the ELCA, as they are doing.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Hey bro. No problem from my end. I'm not WELS, and the only people I know who are, are from here and Lutherquest (besides some from a congregation I visited a few weeks ago.)

What made me speak up is the fact that as much as I disagree with some of the conclusions the WELS come to, I have followed their logic on these issues, and find them to be Scriptural, Confessional, and above all, loving.

Do I think there could be fellowship again? The LCMS would have to eliminate some of it's more tenacious liberal factions, among other things. I am not sure all of the changes that the WELS would require from the LCMS would be good. But I would prefer the LCMS to pursue fellowship with the WELS rather than flirting with the ELCA, as they are doing.

Ditto. I would rather see fellowhip with WELS and also TAALC and ELS. Actually I don't see any differance between the three. Wonder if there is any. Mayby Jim can answer that.





:scratch:

[DaRev]

Ditto. I would rather see fellowhip with WELS and also TAALC and ELS. Actually I don't see any differance between the three. Wonder if there is any. Mayby Jim can answer that.

The TAALC is actually much closer to the LCMS concerning fellowship than to the WELS/ELS. Otherwise, they would have never relocated their Seminary to the CTS Fort Wayne campus... nor would Fort Wayne have allowed it. I believe that further talk of fellowship with TAALC may very well be on the agenda at the next Synodical Convention.


DaRev

[NordicLutheran]

How many liberal factions do we have? I hope they're the minority. Is our president liberal?

[Ravenonthecross]

I'm inquiring about Wels lutheran church. since i'm not a lutheran, i'm asking as to how big this synod is. wels, has wisconsin in it's name, so i think it's safe of me to say it's based in wisconsin, but how widespread is it? I'm curious as to if there are any near by me. i don't know how regional synods are/aren't, being as i'm nonlutheran. would you think there'd be any in western pennsylvania/eastern ohio area?

[C.F.W. Walther]

I'm inquiring about Wels lutheran church. since i'm not a lutheran, i'm asking as to how big this synod is. wels, has wisconsin in it's name, so i think it's safe of me to say it's based in wisconsin, but how widespread is it? I'm curious as to if there are any near by me. i don't know how regional synods are/aren't, being as i'm nonlutheran. would you think there'd be any in western pennsylvania/eastern ohio area?

WELS home page and church locator.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?

[JFox1]

I'm with the LCMS and my church doesn't believe in open Communion. The pastor told me specifically that some of the members of the congregation have family members who attend ELCA and he wants to keep ELCA out because he doesn't like their practices.

[dinkime]

I know that where I live (in the heart of LCMS country) and being a WELS member, I see quite a few differences. The BIGGIE that I see often and that I have dicussed with others of both synods is the fact that while LCMS preaches certain aspects of fellowship (i.e. closed communion) they do not always act on this. Some churches may practice closed communion, while the one down the road does not. Some may practice closed communion with one pastor, but not the other, or with a new one.

Since LCMS and WELS do agree on so much, I would hope that certain things (like practicing what you preach) could be resolved so we could be in fellowship with each other.

[tschenks]

I would hope that certain things (like practicing what you preach) could be resolved so we could be in fellowship with each other.

Give us all their names so we'll tell our pastor and lay delegate to tell our two circuit delegates to tell the next national convention of 1,200+ people (who only meet every three years) to kick them all out of the synod for us.

My own LCMS church is just fine -- traditional, liturgical, confessional and close(d) communion. But really, how many times in my life am I going to attend a worship service of another congregation within the LCMS besides my own?

I read on another website that most WELS congregations are full of LCMS people who can't find a nearby LCMS church. We have WELS people at our LCMS church who joined because they wanted to attend a Lutheran church close to where they live to worship with an actual congregation, rather than have a WELS pastor bring the Lord's Supper to them from some town on the other side of the state which is what their WELS pastors wanted them to do.

They might as well both STILL be in fellowship.

[SPALATIN]

I know that where I live (in the heart of LCMS country) and being a WELS member, I see quite a few differences. The BIGGIE that I see often and that I have dicussed with others of both synods is the fact that while LCMS preaches certain aspects of fellowship (i.e. closed communion) they do not always act on this. Some churches may practice closed communion, while the one down the road does not. Some may practice closed communion with one pastor, but not the other, or with a new one.

Since LCMS and WELS do agree on so much, I would hope that certain things (like practicing what you preach) could be resolved so we could be in fellowship with each other.

There is so much more to the WELS and LCMS not being in communion than you have even grazed here. Before you go trying to analyze this you should read more history so that you have a better grasp of why the WELS and LCMS do not commune.

[dinkime]

There is so much more to the WELS and LCMS not being in communion than you have even grazed here. Before you go trying to analyze this you should read more history so that you have a better grasp of why the WELS and LCMS do not commune.


i have read SEVERAL books, papers, etc about this...i have written papers in college regarding differences in the various Lutheran churches...

i was pointing out what I SEE and KNOW is happening everyday within a few miles of the LCMS offices...they claim to have closed communion, but all of their pastors do NOT practice this...

[tschenks]

One problem is that when our newly-ordained, correctly-trained, more-conservative-than-before Pastors try to restore closed communion (among other things), these liberal congregations treat them like hirelings and vote to remove them from office. Then the Synod does nothing because it is more concerned about keeping numbers than it is about disciplining congregations.

I may not sound very loving or patient in saying this but the Synod should have started kicking congregations out decades ago for not walking the correct path. Now, all they talk about is the independence and "uniqueness" of each congregation.

[dn341866]

It seems to me that LCMS could break off again when the new president got elected to LCMS alot of LCMS churches broke off I wish that the more Liberal churches would just join ELCA but I see a break In LCMS in the near future

[filosofer]

One problem is that when our newly-ordained, correctly-trained, more-conservative-than-before Pastors try to restore closed communion (among other things), these liberal congregations treat them like hirelings and vote to remove them from office. Then the Synod does nothing because it is more concerned about keeping numbers than it is about disciplining congregations.

I may not sound very loving or patient in saying this but the Synod should have started kicking congregations out decades ago for not walking the correct path. Now, all they talk about is the independence and "uniqueness" of each congregation.


Yes, that is one problem. However, I have also seen these "newly-ordained, correctly-trained, more-conservative-than-before Pastors" come in and try to force congregations to change overnight. Instead of ministry to and for the congregation these pastors speak and act as if they know it all and they will "straighten out this mess right now". I have seen that attitude/action destroy congregations. Sadly some DPs in the past "solved the problem" by moving them on to another congregation ... to repeat the same patern.

Does correction need to take place in congregations? Absolutely!! I will be the first to admit that. But the goal isn't a 3 month turn around to become "super-confessional". The goal is to teach, guide, correct, nurture, and feed the sheep so that they "grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ", and bring honor to God in the process.

We pray for faithful pastors who have a heart that reflects God's heart of compassion. We pray for congregations that have not grown in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, that they might become like the Bereans, and might faithfully hold to the truth of God's Word and fulfill their God-given responsibilities.

In Christ's love,
filo

[TheCosmicGospel]

It seems to me that LCMS could break off again when the new president got elected to LCMS alot of LCMS churches broke off I wish that the more Liberal churches would just join ELCA but I see a break In LCMS in the near future

LCMS is already split. It is just time before the "glue" fails. There is no more room for moderates in LCMS. It is either one extreme or the other. You are either from the High Church camp from Ft. Wayne or the supporters of the K club of St. Louis. It's sad.

I served in LCMS ministry for 20 years. I have the lashes on my back to prove it. The truth about WELS is this. They would never, never merge with LCMS. LCMS has too many theological camps. Notice even the conservatives leaving ELCA are not joining with LCMS.

Let history tell the tale. But the writing seems to be on the wall.

Peace and Joy,
Cosmic

[DaRev]

You are either from the High Church camp from Ft. Wayne or the supporters of the K club of St. Louis. It's sad.

As one of numerous pro-Confessional St. Louis alums, I take exception to your remark here. I suggest that you do a little homework before making such erroneous blanket statements like this again.

[TheCosmicGospel]

I don't know what homeowrk you might suggest would be helpful. I was in a circuit for four years where those lines were clearly drawn. There was no room for moderates. I wish it were not so. But that is what I saw and felt and lived. Your take is your take. But I hardly see St. Louis as a moderate stronghold. If it was, how did K get in? There just seems to be no middle ground in Missouri. It is one extreme or the other. Oh sure, no one is going to claim being "un-confessional". It is just that our confessional stances are not shaping our political future as can be seen by the current leadership, which I suppose you support. Just being confessional and supporting K is just one of those things that happens over and over as I have seen.

Shed your light among us. We are here to learn.

Peace and Joy.
Cosmic

[jcj3803]

A good name would be the lels.:)

Lutheran Evangelical Lutheran Synod?

Well, people would certainly know it was Lutheran. ;)

[jcj3803]

LCMS is already split. It is just time before the "glue" fails. [...] The truth about WELS is this. They would never, never merge with LCMS. LCMS has too many theological camps. [...]

Let history tell the tale. But the writing seems to be on the wall.

Peace and Joy,
Cosmic

Wow. I was raised WELS, but living in Illinois the only church at a reasonable distance was LCMS. We received a new pastor who tore the congregation in two b/c of his management style and personality, not doctrine. Half stayed, half went ELCA. I went UMC.

I miss the Lutheran liturgy and the doctrine of true presence and have been thinking about joining an ELCA church.

Reading about "ELCA exploding" and now this is very disquieting. I guess that explains why ELCA and LCMS have both been losing members in the thousands while the non-denominational MegaChurches keep growing?

[Studeclunker]

I have enough trouble spelling in english let alone german, still, I'll try this...

Did you know, the original name of our church didn't even include luther's?;) It was Kirke Evangelica (kair-kah Ee-van-gell-ee-ka) or 'Evangelical Church'. Those of you from Germany (or here) or who actually speak the language, please feel free to correct me. Luther flatly refused to allow his name to be attached to the church.

How do you folks get those wonderful directors for the quotes????


Originally Posted by TheCosmicGospel http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=31709382#post31709382)
LCMS is already split. It is just time before the "glue" fails. [...] The truth about WELS is this. They would never, never merge with LCMS. LCMS has too many theological camps. [...]

Let history tell the tale. But the writing seems to be on the wall.

Peace and Joy,
Cosmic


Oh my, this just breaks my heart again.:cry: Perhaps the best thing to do would be to disolve the LCMS and allow the congregations to choose to which Lutheran (if any) branch they wish to cleve. If there is such a division and diversity in LCMS then a merger will just cause more blood letting, no matter which they choose.

As for me? I'd rather cross that bridge when I come to it (dragged, pushed and forced across).:sigh: :(


The Lutheran Church is fractured, it's broken. I don't know if there is ever going to be a healing. It may be impossible.

Lord, my faith is weak. Help my faith. Help me to be an example of your love. Where there is strife, let me sow peace. Where there is hate, let me sow love. And where there is division, let there be a healing and unity. Thank you for the fathers of our church. For Martin Luther, Francis of Asisi, Paul and all the other men and also women that you have placed to edify and strengthen us. Amen.

[Confess]

Could someone explain to me the differences between the WELS and LCMS and why they are divided. If they are both confessional don't you think the minor differences could be resolved? Because when the Elca finally explodes they're probably gonna turn to the LCMS or WELS and it would be great if they were united. LOL
What do you guys think? I have seen ELCA congregations dissolve as well as liberal LCMS congregations dissolve. None of them went to more confessional Lutheran congregations or Synods. They went to the Episc., Moravians, Penecostals etc.

I used to be on a discussion list for the LCMC. None of them would ever consider any of the more confessional Lutherans mainly due to the female pastor issue.

What do you think? Hypothetically, if the ELCA "blew-up", would there be a big increase in membership in the more confessional churches?

[seajoy]

knee jerk Missouri mule
:eek:
Peace and Joy.
:scratch:

[QuiltAngel]

Evangelische Kirche is how it is in German. I just had to drop in with this.

[Studeclunker]

But reacting like a knee jerk Missouri mule serves no one here.


Ow!!:eek:

Now, now, children. Let's play nice.:doh: :sigh:




Evangelische Kirche is how it is in German. I just had to drop in with this.


Yeah, I didn't think I had it right. Thanks!!:wave: Even though my spelling was... abysmal, it still came out close. Like I said. Cant spell in english either(LOL)! :D

[DaRev]

I don't know what homeowrk you might suggest would be helpful. I was in a circuit for four years where those lines were clearly drawn. There was no room for moderates. I wish it were not so. But that is what I saw and felt and lived. Your take is your take. But I hardly see St. Louis as a moderate stronghold. If it was, how did K get in? There just seems to be no middle ground in Missouri. It is one extreme or the other. Oh sure, no one is going to claim being "un-confessional". It is just that our confessional stances are not shaping our political future as can be seen by the current leadership, which I suppose you support. Just being confessional and supporting K is just one of those things that happens over and over as I have seen.

Shed your light among us. We are here to learn. But reacting like a knee jerk Missouri mule serves no one here.



You know nothing about me at all. You have a lot of nerve to make such remarks.

[Studeclunker]

But I hardly see St. Louis as a moderate stronghold. If it was, how did K get in?

Um, I hate to sound ignorant, (I know, too late) who or what is K? If he's discussing the synod president, I have to agree. :scratch: Tact please, (like I should talk?) tact please.

[QuiltAngel]

Um, I thought this thread was about WELS and LCMS and if they would ever merge. My thought is they would not. As has been said, there are just enough differences that neither are willing to move on.

Personally, I would prefer to see us talking with WELS than ELCA.

Oh, I find there are plenty of moderates in the LCMS. They may lean toward conservative, but there are many there.

[DaRev]

Um, I thought this thread was about WELS and LCMS and if they would ever merge. My thought is they would not. As has been said, there are just enough differences that neither are willing to move on.

Personally, I would prefer to see us talking with WELS than ELCA.

Oh, I find there are plenty of moderates in the LCMS. They may lean toward conservative, but there are many there.

Actually, in the LCMS, the term "moderate" refers to the more liberal thinking side. The terms "conservative" and "confessional" refer to the more conservative side. President Keischnick is considered a "moderate." Personally, I would prefer more "confessional" leadership in the Synod. Perhaps then more dialogue would be possible with the WELS, whom I, too, would rather see us talking with, rather than the ELCA.

[QuiltAngel]

Thanks for the correction. Guess I have been out of the loop as far as these terms lately. I know that I have heard them but guess have not paid too much attention. How would you define confessional and conservative? Guess I need to figure out where I fall on the spectrum again as well as those around me. Yet, a previous post stated that there were only liberal and conservatives out there in his experience, but I find there are many that fall in between.

I know I have been busy with life and not paying too much attention to the politics of the church. That in itself is not a real bad thing, but I should get myself up to date shouldn't I? Especially with convention this summer. I do know who I don't support for Synodical President.

[Studeclunker]

President Keischnick is considered a "moderate."


Ah, then K = Keischnick? I really hate netspeak. When people start with the inane abbreviations dense people, like me, are left with, "Huh?":scratch: :confused:

I agree with both of you, I'd much rather be closer to WELS than ELCA. I almost joined WELS. Probably should have...:sigh:

[porterross]

There is one Lutheran church here and it is LCMS, but I often feel that things are too loose and that the strong-willed members have too much influence on our pastor. He's too nice and tries to be too accommodating sometimes, but then he is in the DELTO program and seems to be too much at their mercy. It's an interesting dynamic and a bit chaotic at times from my perspective.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Um, I thought this thread was about WELS and LCMS and if they would ever merge. My thought is they would not. As has been said, there are just enough differences that neither are willing to move on.

Personally, I would prefer to see us talking with WELS than ELCA.

Oh, I find there are plenty of moderates in the LCMS. They may lean toward conservative, but there are many there.What do you consider a moderate? I've seen moderate, conservative, liberal and traditional bantered around so much that the designations are getting blurred.

On another note; within LCMS the different factions are at odds with each other and can't agree on theology. It just depends on who has the biggest support at the time. As in secular society there seems to be more lines being drawn and more polarization. Wider gaps between liberal and conservative. That's the price of democracy; a multi party system.

The LCMS is just feeling the pains of forsaking our Lutheran heritage for more contemporary ideas. 'Course it doesn't help that when Seminex left that our synod forgave some radicals and let them come back to the flock. Now we are paying the price.

The gap gets wider and wider.

[QuiltAngel]

I agree that the terms are getting blurred or changed. I am waiting for DaRev to come back and hear how he defines them as he said above that the moderates lean towards the liberal side.

To me, a moderate is in the middle. Some leaning liberal and some leaning conservative. Apparently, we have more terms to describe those in the middle. That is probably a good thing as it would describe those in the middle better.

I agree that there is polarization, yet I see many more who are somewhere in the middle. Maybe that is because of where I live and have lived.

[DaRev]

I agree that the terms are getting blurred or changed. I am waiting for DaRev to come back and hear how he defines them as he said above that the moderates lean towards the liberal side.

To me, a moderate is in the middle. Some leaning liberal and some leaning conservative. Apparently, we have more terms to describe those in the middle. That is probably a good thing as it would describe those in the middle better.

I agree that there is polarization, yet I see many more who are somewhere in the middle. Maybe that is because of where I live and have lived.

The way the LCMS uses the term "moderate" does not necessarily match its definition. In the Missouri Synod, the term "moderate" denotes someone who is actually more liberal, theologically speaking, when compared to the "confessionals" or "conservatives". And there is a difference in the synod between "confessional" and "conservative."

[QuiltAngel]

And there is a difference in the synod between "confessional" and "conservative."

DaRev, I think I know the difference between confessional and conservative, but would you explain that to me so I am clear. I have not really paid much attention to all this as it seems the pastors around here are pretty close where they stand. We do have one that is extremely conservative.

I find it helpful on forums such as this that terms be defined so that all understand where another is coming from. Can clear up a lot of misunderstandings, IMHO.
Thanks

[filosofer]

One of the problems in the LCMS over the past 20 years is that the referent for "confessional" has changed. Now some claim that to be "confessional" it is not enough to adhere to the BoC as the correct exposition of Scripture; now there are things like "no women voters", no one assists the pastor at any time, no lay readers", absolute adherence to the hymnal order of service, etc., which may be good, but may go beyond the scope of confessional subscription.

In essence the "ultra-confessionalists" begin to draw circles of "Lutheran-law" inclusion that are so small that most true confessional Lutherans would not fit into the circle.

Note, I don't think DaRev (or most others here) fit this ultra-confessional definition.

In Christ's love,
filo

[porterross]

Speaking of lay readers. What disqualifies someone?

Is age an/or gender a factor, IYO?

We have this debate occurring in our congregation and I am curious as to what others here might think.

[DaRev]

One of the problems in the LCMS over the past 20 years is that the referent for "confessional" has changed. Now some claim that to be "confessional" it is not enough to adhere to the BoC as the correct exposition of Scripture; now there are things like "no women voters", no one assists the pastor at any time, no lay readers", absolute adherence to the hymnal order of service, etc., which may be good, but may go beyond the scope of confessional subscription.


And I would define those who fit what you listed above as "conservatives". Those who hold to the extreme of those things would be "ultra-conservatives" or even reactionaries to an extent.

[Confess]

And I would define those who fit what you listed above as "conservatives". Those who hold to the extreme of those things would be "ultra-conservatives" or even reactionaries to an extent.
Hmmm. I consider myself confessional.

I believe that the BoC accurately reflects the Bible. I confess this (hence the name ;))

I do not confess conservatism. One can say that aquiring the name would mean that you are trying to "conserve" the truth, but I do not think that conserving the truth is in my power. That (IMO) is in God's hands. He is the one that conserves the truth, I am here to confess the truth.

Also, conservatism tends to have a more moralistic connotation to it which I shy away from.

One other thing. Conservative also implies political.

While I do like a good debate, my main purpose (albeit not always successful) is to confess the truth without getting political.

I used to be very political in the LCMS. But then I just stopped caring. People tend to shut others out when they find out what "side" your on (genetic fallacy I think?)

Rather, if we just confess the truth and prove it with Scripture (which put the burden of proof OFF of us and ON to God) then I believe that communication, ill feelings etc., can be lessened (yet not entirely avoided).

The typical self proclaiming "confessional" does not support contemporary worship, desires the Sacrament every Sunday, has a high view of Baptism (in that delaying baptism is looked down upon), has a liturgical worship, finds a pastor with a strong law/gospel message, believes in private c&a .... and ... um .... thats all I can think of.

That is just my opinion on the matter. Nothing is set in stone due to the subjective nature of the issue.

[Confess]

Oh, two other things.

Lay readers are not normally used because they were not called to proclaim God's Word in worship.

It is just my opinion, but it is like being an electrician and telling the house owner that he can help do the electricians job so that he may feel more apart of the experience.

You call a pastor to conduct the service, not to have others do some of it for him.

And one thing that just makes me different from probably 99% of those here on the board, I do not believe that men or women have the right to vote on doctrine. No one votes on what God says or doesn't say. Either he said it, and it is practiced, or he didn't say it and the congregation doesn't practice it.

Now, I already hear wheels in motion with comments..

"What about congregations that practice things that aren't biblical and it needs to be put into place?"

Well, then let the pastor put it into place, but don't vote on it. If it is apart of our faith, then apply it. If it is not appart of our faith then get rid of it.

Let the voters decide on non-doctrinal things and let them judge their pastor by how much he submits to God's word.

[filosofer]

Oh, two other things.

Lay readers are not normally used because they were not called to proclaim God's Word in worship.

It is just my opinion, but it is like being an electrician and telling the house owner that he can help do the electricians job so that he may feel more apart of the experience.

You hire a pastor to conduct the service, not to have others do some of it for him.

Except "hire" isn't exactly appropriate... but I understand what you say.


And one thing that just makes me different from probably 99% of those here on the board, I do not believe that men or women have the right to vote on doctrine. No one votes on what God says or doesn't say. Either he said it, and it is practiced, or he didn't say it and the congregation doesn't practice it.

Let the voters decide on non-doctrinal things and let them judge their pastor by how much he submits to God's word.

Of course, "voting on doctrine" is a non-issue. I think that "vote on doctrine" is a fallacy that has crept into all of the major Lutheran Church bodies.

And whether only men can vote on non-doctrinal issues is not determined by Scripture either. In my first call I served as pastor of a dual parish, one congregation had women voters, the other congregation did not. C F W Walther indicated that the primary reason women did not vote was because they did not vote in secular matters.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Confess]

Ooops, I meant "call" not hire. I wasn't thinking, sorry. :)

I agree with you on the voters issue.

[porterross]

Elders in my church have been reading the lessons for as long as I can remember, but recently, teenagers (male & female) of a member family read the lessons (at the request of their parents) and there was quite the backlash from some of our members.

What say you?

[filosofer]

One problem I have with "lay readers" is that many of them do not read well orally. If this is meant as part of the divine service, then excellence is demanded. Reading aloud in a public setting is far different than reading in a small group.

When we were in seminary we were urged to stand up in the sanctuary and read aloud the Scriptures, not once or twice, but until we were conversant and smooth with it. Sadly, some pastors get to the point where they don't do any better than someone who is trying to read it for the first time.

My personal conviction is that there should not be lay readers. But I am not adamant about it.

I made it practice to do that throughout my active ministry, and I would do the same with the liturgy, even if I had done it several hundred times.

In Christ's love,
filo

[Confess]

Elders in my church have been reading the lessons for as long as I can remember, but recently, teenagers (male & female) of a member family read the lessons (at the request of their parents) and there was quite the backlash from some of our members.

What say you?
I would want the pastor to take control over worship.

He is in charge of the worship, not the elders or the other congregants.

I don't have scripture right off the top of my head, but am studying what Luther wrote in Sunday School about the role of the pastor and laypeople.

Basically what Luther says (if I can give justice to summerizing), is that the Pastor has been given the call to lead worship, guide and shepherd the flock.

When you think of it, what shepherd would allow a sheep to help lead?

Another interesting point in what we are learning from Luther's writting was that Pastors were selected from the ELDERS. The elders were educated in the faith and were then selected to become pastors. Today, we have it in place where if you feel called into the ministry, then you take it upon yourself to become a pastor.

Not so in Luther's day. A man had to prove himself blameless and worthy of the call.

[filosofer]

I would want the pastor to take control over worship.

He is in charge of the worship, not the elders or the other congregants.


I would agree that the pastor is in charge of the service. But there is much more to this than a simple decision that the pastor does it all.




Another interesting point in what we are learning from Luther's writting was that Pastors were selected from the ELDERS. The elders were educated in the faith and were then selected to become pastors. Today, we have it in place where if you feel called into the ministry, then you take it upon yourself to become a pastor.

Not so in Luther's day. A man had to prove himself blameless and worthy of the call.

Actually in the LCMS (and I assume in WELS/ELS) a man does not take it upon himself to be a pastor. He may be led in that direction, even going to the seminary. But the process of interviewing with his pastor, then later at the seminary, under the tutelage of the field work supervisor, vicarage supervisor, and finally interviews with seminary professors prior to placement insure that there is more than just a personal desire to be a pastor. And finally a congregation has to extend a call that God uses to place him into pastoral service. I had several classmates who thought they were called to be pastors, stayed at seminary for 1-3 years, but eventually left because it was determined that they were not fit for the ministry (and observing them closely in some cases, every decision by the seminary was appropriate).

So there are two aspects to be called as a pastor: first, the internal call to serve (which includes preparation), and second, the external call from the congregation.

In Christ's love,
filo



In Christ's love,
filo

[DaRev]

The typical self proclaiming "confessional" does not support contemporary worship, desires the Sacrament every Sunday, has a high view of Baptism (in that delaying baptism is looked down upon), has a liturgical worship, finds a pastor with a strong law/gospel message, believes in private c&a .... and ... um .... thats all I can think of.

You just described me to a tee!! ;)

[DaRev]

Actually in the LCMS (and I assume in WELS/ELS) a man does not take it upon himself to be a pastor. He may be led in that direction, even going to the seminary. But the process of interviewing with his pastor, then later at the seminary, under the tutelage of the field work supervisor, vicarage supervisor, and finally interviews with seminary professors prior to placement insure that there is more than just a personal desire to be a pastor. And finally a congregation has to extend a call that God uses to place him into pastoral service. I had several classmates who thought they were called to be pastors, stayed at seminary for 1-3 years, but eventually left because it was determined that they were not fit for the ministry (and observing them closely in some cases, every decision by the seminary was appropriate).

When I entered seminary, there were 141 of us in the MDiv program. Two years later, there were 101 of us that received vicarage calls. Two years after that there were (I believe) 92 of us who graduated, received the MDiv and were certified for ordination and received a call. It;s a very thorough process that not everyone makes it through. I'm not sure how many in the laity are aware of this.


So there are two aspects to be called as a pastor: first, the internal call to serve (which includes preparation), and second, the external call from the congregation.


And both of which originate with the Holy Spirit.

[QuiltAngel]

By the definition Confess gives of a confessional, that describes me too. Thanks for the definition.

[TheCosmicGospel]

As one of numerous pro-Confessional St. Louis alums, I take exception to your remark here. I suggest that you do a little homework before making such erroneous blanket statements like this again.

I just don't understand your defensive reaction to anything anyone seems to say..especially when it is not even directed at YOU. LCMS is polarized into two positions that anyone can see is a St. Louis sem vs. Ft. Wayne sem. St. Louis sem supports Kieshnick. Right or wrong? Ft. Wayne does not? Right or wrong? As a pro-Confessional, you should be taking exception, but not at me, but over the lamentable condition of LCMS. So instead of telling me to do more "homework" in a reactionary tone, just give us then "how you see it."

As a fellow St. Louis alum,
Cosmic

[DaRev]

I just don't understand your defensive reaction to anything anyone seems to say..especially when it is not even directed at YOU.

Your comments seem to be in reaction to posts that I have made. Anyone here would take that as a response to them.

LCMS is polarized into two positions that anyone can see is a St. Louis sem vs. Ft. Wayne sem.

This is only the case for those who come form the Fort Wayne sem. The "little brother" still needs to grow up. ;)


St. Louis sem supports Kieshnick. Right or wrong?
Wrong. I'm from the St. Louis sem.
Perhaps that's why you assume that I support the current leadership?

FYI, our congregational nominees for synod Pres. and VP's contain no incumbants.

Ft. Wayne does not? Right or wrong? I assume 'right', even though Keischnick is an alumnus of CTS.

As a pro-Confessional, you should be taking exception, but not at me, but over the lamentable condition of LCMS.

I do take offense over the condition of the synod. I fear for it's survival. But sometimes I must admit that I feel it would be better to split it now instead of it being ripped apart, as I feel is inevitible.

I also take exception of your tone and your assertions about me, none of which is true.

So instead of telling me to do more "homework" in a reactionary tone, just give us then "how you see it."

Lose the insults, the sarcasm, and the condescending tone, and maybe we could have intelligent conversations. But don't pretend to know who or what I support or believe. You know nothing about me other than my alma mater.

As a fellow St. Louis alum,
What year?

[BigNorsk]

What do you guys think? I have seen ELCA congregations dissolve as well as liberal LCMS congregations dissolve. None of them went to more confessional Lutheran congregations or Synods. They went to the Episc., Moravians, Penecostals etc.

I used to be on a discussion list for the LCMC. None of them would ever consider any of the more confessional Lutherans mainly due to the female pastor issue.

What do you think? Hypothetically, if the ELCA "blew-up", would there be a big increase in membership in the more confessional churches?

No, I don't think it would happen. About the only thing most ELCA members could really tell you about confessional churches is that ELCA members aren't really welcome. And there is no way for synod officials to reach out to them and establish relationships with ELCA congregations without being accussed of and probably found guilty of unionism. So there is almost no bridge building that is possible to aid their transition. They simply have to come to full and complete confessional agreement all on their own. It's not going to happen.

Don't feel bad, they aren't going to come to the Lutheran Brethren either. Though there could be a few, and we aren't so afraid of unionism so we can iteract before full agreement is reached so maybe. I know some of the ALC congregations are possibilities. Especially those of Free Lutheran background, though I would think they would probably go with the Free Lutherans if they felt forced to decide.

I know in my hometown, there was a splinter group that left the two ELCA congregations due to one of the things that happened. They didn't go to the LCMS church across town, they formed their own, and struggled along until they disbanded and most returned to their former congregations just in time for the apostolic succession to be established for the ministers. That time there was no serious consideration of leaving.

Truth is it's a tough world for a lone congregation, and things like seminary, and materials, and so on bind congregations to their synod probably more strongly than doctrine. You might see a lot of unhappy looking Lutherans at a lot of the happenings, but what happens is they go on, and they build alliances within the larger synod and so it's almost like multiple churches in the same synod, all bound by the common resources if not the common confession.

Anyway, that's how I see it. I wouldn't hold my breath for a rapid influx of members from the ELCA or any other synod.

Marv

[TheCosmicGospel]

Your comments seem to be in reaction to posts that I have made. Anyone here would take that as a response to them.

Since the post in question contained the quote I responded to, YOU were not in the picture. So you're WRONG.

This is only the case for those who come form the Fort Wayne sem. The "little brother" still needs to grow up. ;)

Now who is "condenscending"?

Wrong. I'm from the St. Louis sem.
Perhaps that's why you assume that I support the current leadership?

Your suggestion for my need of "homework" would be more consistent with the K camp. And DaRev. How was I to know?

FYI, our congregational nominees for synod Pres. and VP's contain no incumbants.

This speaks for the SYNOD?

I assume 'right', even though Keischnick is an alumnus of CTS.

I do take offense over the condition of the synod. I fear for it's survival. But sometimes I must admit that I feel it would be better to split it now instead of it being ripped apart, as I feel is inevitible.

You drove your buggy to finaly....AGREE? Here I thought you were taking such great "exception"!

I also take exception of your tone and your assertions about me, none of which is true.

And that is why...you agreed with me? You are curious.

Lose the insults, the sarcasm, and the condescending tone, and maybe we could have intelligent conversations. But don't pretend to know who or what I support or believe. You know nothing about me other than my alma mater.

You remind me of Friday for some reason. "The facts ma'am. Just the facts." Maybe you could just stick to them next time without making every single thing about YOU, brotha!

What year?

DaRev, you have the last word. No further response is necessary. It is amazing how much we agree on issues, and you have had the opportunity to be a brother and have chosen instead to wrangle over "non-issues". Take off the collar. Go have a beer. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

Cosmic

[DaRev]

DaRev, you have the last word. No further response is necessary. It is amazing how much we agree on issues, and you have had the opportunity to be a brother and have chosen instead to wrangle over "non-issues". Take off the collar. Go have a beer. Stop taking yourself so seriously.

Cosmic


I really don't know what your problem is or where you get off using the tone and attitude you do here toward me. You're not going to get very far around here like that.

Until you grow up a little and can have a normal, civil conversation, I have nothing more to say to you. You have made assertions about me that are absolutely not true, and then made very condescending remarks at my expense.

And I noticed that you refused to answer the "what year" question.

This subforum exists to get away from this type of nonsense. If it continues, I'll need to involve the staff again.


And I will have that beer.
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n183/ScottyVegas26/yuengling.jpg

[Confess]

MY FAVORITE!!!

http://www.soaresantiques.com/images/beer%20bottles/8470a.jpg

[porterross]

I notice that bottle is EMPTY, Confess.

Atta girl.

[seajoy]

All I see around here lately is fightin' and drinkin'. :help:
I think I'll head on to bed. Even the Conservative bar isn't much for refuge today. :sigh:

[porterross]

You know how men get when they drink. :mad: Maybe we need to switch to champagne and hope it makes them as silly as it makes me. :P

[seajoy]

You are so cute porter :) . Let's hope for a better day tomorrow.

[Confess]

I notice that bottle is EMPTY, Confess.

Atta girl.
*Hic-up* :P

[QuiltAngel]

No champagne for me, gives me a headache. Although I am learning about other beers, wonder how hard they are to find.

[Jim47]

No champagne for me, gives me a headache. Although I am learning about other beers, wonder how hard they are to find.


The only time I have ever really drank champagne was in 1984 when we went to Vegas. All the casions had free hand outs. I had some but really didn't care for it that much, beer tastes much better to me, or good burbon whiskey. I think its been over a week since I had a beer, maybe tonight :yum:

[porterross]

I was thinking the same thing, Jim. There are 2 Shiners in my fridge that have been in the way since Christmas, so what choice do I have? I can't let them get warm again. That would be beer abuse!

[Jim47]

I was thinking the same thing, Jim. There are 2 Shiners in my fridge that have been in the way since Christmas, so what choice do I have? I can't let them get warm again. That would be beer abuse!


We sure couldn't let thet happen Heh? Soon as I finish my cranberry juice I'm gonna have one :yum:

[WildStrawberry]

Am I really Lutheran if I don't like beer?

Or coffee?

I do like potluck...does that make up for my shocking display of non-Lutheranism?

:D

Kae

[C.F.W. Walther]

Us non coffee, non-beer drinkers are 500 years past having to do penance so we're lucky. Thanks Martin :)

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Am I really Lutheran if I don't like beer?

Or coffee?

I do like potluck...does that make up for my shocking display of non-Lutheranism?

:D

Kae


I'm fairly new to Lutheranism, and I was interested in historic/conservative/traditional Anglicanism, too. But I LOVE coffee (addicted to it, actually) and don't like tea. I like beer but hate gin. So....

[DaSeminarian]

The only time I have ever really drank champagne was in 1984 when we went to Vegas. All the casions had free hand outs. I had some but really didn't care for it that much, beer tastes much better to me, or good burbon whiskey. I think its been over a week since I had a beer, maybe tonight :yum:


This is a crime. A whole week without a beer? What would the real Luther think?

Get that beer out now.:D

[porterross]

We sure couldn't let thet happen Heh? Soon as I finish my cranberry juice I'm gonna have one :yum:
I had a bloody mary instead. It's just too cold for beer without a basketball game to watch. I'll save it for after I mow the lawn for the first time this year, which needs to be done pretty soon.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Mow the lawn because it needs it???????

[QuiltAngel]

You go mow your lawn while some of us push snow around as we dream of mowing the lawn.

[Jim47]

This is a crime. A whole week without a beer? What would the real Luther think?

Get that beer out now.:D


Well I'm a first class villan now, cause I feel asleep in my chair before I made it to the fridge, but I promise I'll mke up for it tonight :yum:

[Jim47]

I had a bloody mary instead. It's just too cold for beer without a basketball game to watch. I'll save it for after I mow the lawn for the first time this year, which needs to be done pretty soon.



Mow lawn? There isn't even any grass visible here, but at least it warmed up to the low 20s today and a wee wittle bit of sunshine sneaking thru a very overcast sky witgh light snow.

Been years since I had a bloody mary, I like brandy and whiskey occasionaly though, especially if I get a cold, really warms up the inards and clears out the throat, at least if you mix about 6-8 shots to a little ginger ale :yum: