Should we be Lutheran?

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

As a member of the ELCA I am plenty used to being acused of not being "really Lutheran" and while we hold to the Lutheran Confessions (to what extent is debated by many) we are in many ways very much apart from "orthodox" or "conventional" Lutheranism. In many ways we are much like the "Philipists" (those Lutherans who followed Melanchthon's theology after Luther's death) at least we are in our ecumenical efforts. Besides, Luther never wanted to be called a Lutheran. He always claimed to be Catholic, and said if you're gonna call us something else, call us an evangelicals (gospel centered) although today that is already used for other traditions. What this thread boils down to though, is should we take the step and change our "denominational name"? Are there any benefits/issues with remaining or no longer being called "Lutheran"?


...I hope no one takes this in any way to mean we should change our theological stances/confessions or mean to ignore the importance of Luther to our heritage.

[stumpjumper]

...I hope no one takes this in any way to mean we should change our theological stances/confessions or mean to ignore the importance of Luther to our heritage.

Well, unless we do change our theological stances or confessions then I would have to say that we are Lutheran...

Could you give me an example of where ELCA is more of a Philipist in their thinking? I know Melancthon was a synergist but I don't see that in ELCA's stances on anything... In regards to Ecumenism, I would have to say that ELCA is following the Book of Concord in that regard:

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

If the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered by, say, Methodists then why should we not recognize them as such by being in full communion?

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Well, unless we do change our theological stances or confessions then I would have to say that we are Lutheran...

Could you give me an example of where ELCA is more of a Philipist in their thinking? I know Melancthon was a synergist but I don't see that in ELCA's stances on anything... In regards to Ecumenism, I would have to say that ELCA is following the Book of Concord in that regard:

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

If the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments rightly administered by, say, Methodists then why should we not recognize them as such by being in full communion?


Much like the ELCA today, Philipists were charged of "betraying" Lutheran theology by the "orthodox" lutherans. The fact that the Augsburg Confession (and the Variata) was used by Melanchthon as a uniting (ecumenical) document to tie various backrounds (first with the Catholic, then with the Reformed) is an example.
Let's use your example, I agree with your statement about the one Holy Church, and much like Melanchthon we look at that as reason to find ecumenical efforts to unite us visibly. But Luther used that theology for the opposite reason. The theology of the one Holy Church arose with the concern "If I'm not Catholic, am I outside of the church?" He used it to assert his right to stay apart from the Catholic Church because he would still be a part of THE Church.
Keep in mind also that WELS and LCMS Lutherans (not all, but many) will say to that the problem is also that the methodists don't "rightly administer" the sacrament and therefore consider ELCA efforts "unconfessional" and therefore "non-Lutheran".
So I see your response as we ARE a Lutheran church because we have Lutheran theology. But many Calvinist churches follow Calvin's theology without the necessity of "Calvinist" Is the Lutheran title more of a hinderance than an aid? It has us singled out by LCMS and WELS among other churches as "extra bad" if I may. While we stand on opposite ends of the spectrum of the same theology, is it worth calling both ends Lutheran? Can someone who encounters Lutheran from another synnod be mislead to our church's stances and theological interpretations because we are both called Lutheran. Many people are not aware of the fact that there are various sects/synnods within Lutheranism.

[stumpjumper]

Hmmm. I see what you're saying...

Luther did meet with Zwingli and Calvin though so I would have to say that ecumenical efforts were not just on the Melanchthon side...

Regardless, you are correct as there are no "Calvinist" Churches as they are Presbyterian mostly...

I was under the impression that Methodists believed in regenerative Baptism and the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist...


Check back later.

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Hmmm. I see what you're saying...

Luther did meet with Zwingli and Calvin though so I would have to say that ecumenical efforts were not just on the Melanchthon side...

Regardless, you are correct as there are no "Calvinist" Churches as they are Presbyterian mostly...

I was under the impression that Methodists believed in regenerative Baptism and the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist...


Check back later.
1) Luther and Calvin never did meet. Though Luther did acknowledge and start saying kind things about him in the latter half of his life. Melanchthon was a very close friend with Calvin.
2) Luther and Zwingli did meet once one year before Zwingli died. Though Luther did not wish to meet but eventually did agree, his reason was that he didn't believe that Zwingli would give in to him. And while at that debate they did agree on 14 of the 15 articles of the Margburg Articles. They debated for I think it was three days about the real presence of the Body and Blood in the Supper. With it ending with Zwingli in tears and "THIS IS MY BODY" carved into the table by Luther. Needless to say, they never moved passed that issue. So I would still say that as much as Luther is my theological champion, he is perhaps the "founder" of closed communion.
Both Zwingli and Calvin sought fellowship with the Lutherans, both to be turned down.
As to your statement on Methodists, I don't know their stance or theology well enough to comment except that something about it is problematic to the LCMS and WELS which tells me that they would still argue it might not be "properly administered". I am not in favor of closed communion, nor do I think that Lutheran theology truly supports it, but it is clearly one of the largest issues regarding how people look at whether the ELCA is or is not "confessional Lutheran".

[stumpjumper]

True. I have never understood the reasoning behind closed communion... As long as the communicants understand what they are partaking at the Lord's Supper then I think that is all scripture and Lutheran theology supports...

I'm sure there are members who understand the small catechism pretty much nominally so what would be the difference between them and a visitor?

Also, though, the Lutheran Liturgy is certainly distinct and so even if some ELCA practices are unconfessional they certainly are distinctly Lutheran as far as liturgy goes...

[KagomeShuko]

I don't see why we SHOULDN'T be Lutheran. I do understand all the implications of the ELCA being confused with the LCMS/WELS/others that can make it difficult if somebody doesn't feel welcome in one of those churches.

However, we do come from a tradition of "Luther." We really shouldn't ignore our heritage. I think changing the name would upset a significant amount of the members.

I personally don't care if we keep the name "Lutheran" or not - though I do call myself Lutheran. I'm a Christian first and "Lutheran" is just a title/way to explain my theology concisely (which is actually ELCA).

(Growing up in Southwest Louisiana and being Lutheran gives Lutherans a hard time - people are so dense that they think Lutherans are devil worshippers and we get called that!)

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Stump, I Agree with what you say about the liturgy. Good Point.

Kagome, you reminded of something my former Pastor and mentor used to say, "I'm Lutheran by choice and Christian by call!".

So since the concensus is stay with "Lutheran", is the primary reason/advantage to make our heritage and theological/practical backround clear? Or is there something bigger I'm missing?

[stumpjumper]

I think a correct understanding of Lutheran theology is probably lacking in most Lutheran Churches...

The Liturgy, though, is pretty uniform among the various Lutheran Churches I have attended and they are all ELCA. There's only one LCMS Church with 40 miles of my house so ELCA is it... Of all of the ELCA Churches I have attended, the liturgy was pretty much uniform. Only one of them had a contemporary service and that was on Saturday night...

The Church I currently attend has an emergent (not contemporary) service, though. In all actuality, though, I tend to prefer traditional services. Oddly, though, we have a group that studies theology (we did Barth, the large catechism, some McLaren a popularizer, and Braaten)...

My parents church where I was an acolyte only has a Bible study and I doubt if a majority of the parishoners even know what The Book of Concord is ;)

And they're very traditional...

[AngelusSax]

I'm not sure (so correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't "Lutheran" in many parts of the world called "Reformed Church" or "Reformed Catholic" or something?

Lutheran sounds-to many outsiders of the Lutheran church (like my wife's family)-like a cult. Having to explain that Lutheran is a Christian denomination, while fun, can get old.

[Confess]

EDIT:

Deleting my post

[synger]

I'm not sure (so correct me if I'm wrong), but isn't "Lutheran" in many parts of the world called "Reformed Church" or "Reformed Catholic" or something?

Lutheran sounds-to many outsiders of the Lutheran church (like my wife's family)-like a cult. Having to explain that Lutheran is a Christian denomination, while fun, can get old.
No, the Reformed church is another "branch" of doctrine, which came out of Calvin's theology. So Dutch Reformed, and the Reformed Church are traditionally congregational (each church its own entity)/calvinistic. Presbyterians are traditionally presbyterian (kinda like representative democracy)/calvinistic. Reformed Baptists are traditionally credo-baptists/calvinistic. The common theme is calvinism.

I'm coming out of the Reformed tradition of Presbyterianism. In fact, I was ordained an elder in the PCUSA. There are a lot of similarities between Lutheran and Reformed theology. But the main differences are in how Lutherans see the sacraments (which I agree with) and soteriology (which I'm still iffy on). The rest of it is very similar.

[synger]

Oh, the Reformed Catholics are a new Catholic order that takes parts from both the Old Catholics of the Netherlands and the Orthodox church.

And in other countries, Lutherans are often called Evangelicals, though that seems to be changing with the push of the American Fundamentalist flavor of "evangelism" changing the term as we use it.

A lot of old-time Lutherans prefer to think of themselves as Evengelical Catholics. Luther preferred something like that, too.

[KagomeShuko]

I do have a problem with Lutherans who reject or pick and choose what Lutheran doctrines they choose to adhere to. To me it is like going to a family reunion and rejecting certain members of your family just because you either don't like or understand them. If you are going to be apart of the family, then accept everyone born, adopted or married into it. Same with the Lutheran doctrines. If you want to reject it, then you are fashioning for yourself a different denominational sect and only causing confusion to those who are searching for the Truth.

To me the kind thing to do is to rename yourself since you do not adhere to the same doctrines as found in the BoC.
Now, you are getting really picky - the ELCA is a welcoming church and now you are saying by EXCLUDING other believers that we are being FRIENDLY which doesn't seem right at all!

Of course, is one is a MEMBER, they should accept the Lutheran doctrines - but with ELCA being a welcoming synod, that also means that on social issues the church has pretty much learned to agree with people disagreeing - and that unites many of us. . .

What you say is more separating to others than you think it is!

[Confess]

EDIT:

Deleting my post.

[KagomeShuko]

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

The ELCA has professors that have taught my friends that there is no Trinity. THAT is seperatism. They teach things that Lutheranism has denied for over 450 years.

Do you think it is OK to reject doctrine just to be inclusive? What about truth? Doesn't that matter? What about unity in faith? Is that not important?

If it doesn't matter then why should it matter that we believe in Jesus Christ at all?
First of all, I'd need to meet these professors or hear them teach. I would not agree that they are ELCA by what they teach.. .or even really Christian.

What you stated is that we SHOULD be separate if people do not agree that they should be rejected while giving an example where people should not. . .

You likened doctrines to people. . .rather than say, oh, people to people. . .

The BoC is important to the ELCA - but we believe in it insofar as it agrees with scripture. . .

Still, God loves them. . and they need to hear that. . .yet, you want to put doctrines over that??? Hmm. . .

(also, please realize, this is the ELCA and liberal subforum!)

[Confess]

EDIT:

I am deleting my message because I am a conservative Lutheran (newbie to this forum). I have learned I am not welcomed to post here, so I will be deleting my messages to keep the peace.

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

My hope is that even if someone is conservative minded they could post here. After all, part of welcoming others' opinions and thoughts includes that of those who are conservative.

As to the BOC issue, I would also put to the discussion the fact that there is no "universal" method of interpretation of the BOC, same as scripture. Lutherans translate Matthew 16:18 different from catholics, well ELCA understands articles differently than LCMS or WELS.
While we battle over that, I would think that today the LCMS and WELS are more concerned regarding the ELCA's ethical stances. After all, many of the objections against us as becoming less lutheran is regarding us simply following the "liberal protestantism" slide that generally is driven regarding ethical issues. The primary I think confessional dispute between us is regarding our ecumenical stances.
THanks for all your input everyone, I hope you all continue to keep this thread alive.
Peace be with you
Doulos

[KagomeShuko]

My hope is that even if someone is conservative minded they could post here. After all, part of welcoming others' opinions and thoughts includes that of those who are conservative.

As to the BOC issue, I would also put to the discussion the fact that there is no "universal" method of interpretation of the BOC, same as scripture. Lutherans translate Matthew 16:18 different from catholics, well ELCA understands articles differently than LCMS or WELS.
While we battle over that, I would think that today the LCMS and WELS are more concerned regarding the ELCA's ethical stances. After all, many of the objections against us as becoming less lutheran is regarding us simply following the "liberal protestantism" slide that generally is driven regarding ethical issues. The primary I think confessional dispute between us is regarding our ecumenical stances.
THanks for all your input everyone, I hope you all continue to keep this thread alive.
Peace be with you
Doulos
Doulos,

The conservative are welcome to POST here ihn FELLOWSHIP.

There is a main Lutheran area where they can debate as long as they do not insult, flame, or bash the ELCA.

This subforum was created so that there was no DEBATING. That rule was being broken. A conservative coming into the Lutheran liberal forum and saying that the liberals should not be Lutheran is breaking the rule right away. There is even a post mention that in this subforum.

[Confess]

Doulos,

The conservative are welcome to POST here ihn FELLOWSHIP.

There is a main Lutheran area where they can debate as long as they do not insult, flame, or bash the ELCA.

This subforum was created so that there was no DEBATING. That rule was being broken. A conservative coming into the Lutheran liberal forum and saying that the liberals should not be Lutheran is breaking the rule right away. There is even a post mention that in this subforum.
>>Not trying to inflame anything<<

I volunteered to delete my posts due to warnings I was given.

The initial post asked a question and I answered it as softly as possible. I did not insult or debate with that initial post I made, but find that my post caused a moderator to reply to me in a debating fashion by which I felt I should defend.

Now, that might now be how that person views it, but that is how I saw it and that is why I felt that the best thing for me to do was to step down before feelings got hurt.

It was upsetting to me, but its over now.

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Kagome,
If that is technically how it is, I guess that is how it will be, I was simply offering my opinion that I was interested in other peoples' sides as well. But I guess rules are rules.
Confess,
I'm sorry it was upsetting. I guess that is the system and since these forums are good things it is good to maintain the rules because that is how they stay stable. I am sorry.
Back to topic though, I hope you all are still ready and willing to give more input.
If we are Lutheran, than we believe we do hold to the Augsburg Confession (regardless of what others think) and we should hold to our strong liturgical backrond.

But I must ask, is the overall theology of the ELCA being driven and approached as a Lutheran? Or is our theology and direction moving with little to no regard for our history and theology? Because if that is the case, does the current overall concensus (that we ARE in fact Lutheran) stand.

[stumpjumper]

You could have the thread moved out to the main forum....

[IowaLutheran]

But I must ask, is the overall theology of the ELCA being driven and approached as a Lutheran? Or is our theology and direction moving with little to no regard for our history and theology? Because if that is the case, does the current overall concensus (that we ARE in fact Lutheran) stand.

I think the same question could be fairly asked of some of our LCMS/WELS brethren's fundamentalist views of Scripture. Luther's views on the Bible clearly were not in line with the way fundamentalist American protestants view the Bible, yet some people seem to think Lutherans should view the Bible like them.

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

you do make a good point iowa. that's why we pose these questions.
although i do think that the LCMS/WELS is more in lines with Luther in terms of ecumenism at least with regards to communion (although that does not necessarily mean I think that LCMS/WELS or Luther for that reason were taking the right stance).

[KagomeShuko]

You could have the thread moved out to the main forum....
No, this has already been discussed every time something like this happens and if a person wants to debate, they need to make a thread in the main forum themselves. The subfora were set up for certain reasons. . .

[IowaLutheran]

No, this has already been discussed every time something like this happens and if a person wants to debate, they need to make a thread in the main forum themselves. The subfora were set up for certain reasons. . .


I think the main forum has reached a new nadir in some of the recent posts in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4713868-the-same-name-two-different-meanings.html

[RegularGuy]

I think the main forum has reached a new nadir in some of the recent posts in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4713868-the-same-name-two-different-meanings.html
John 11:35