what are we, chopped liver? :)

[seajoy]

What are all these questions for the LCMS? :) Those of us in the WELS and ELS are feeling just plain left out. :cry:

*there, got that off my chest* ^_^

[RadMan]

What are all these questions for the LCMS? :) Those of us in the WELS and ELS are feeling just plain left out. :cry:

*there, got that off my chest* ^_^
Hey chopped liver----I mean seajoy---wuzzup :)

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Seajoy, you left out your foreign cousins; LCC.

Mark

[DaSeminarian]

What are all these questions for the LCMS? :) Those of us in the WELS and ELS are feeling just plain left out. :cry:

*there, got that off my chest* ^_^


Well maybe you should take joy in the fact that no one thinks your synod is controversial.

Chopped Liver is not the meat I was thinking of. I like to think of the WELS and ELS as a nice medium rare sirloin with Mushrooms and onions.

Is that better?

and Mark, The LCC is the cousin to the LCMS in the states so maybe we should all call ourselves Chopped Liver.

[vle045]

What are all these questions for the LCMS? :) Those of us in the WELS and ELS are feeling just plain left out. :cry:

*there, got that off my chest* ^_^
No way... not chopped liver...

Just that the Lutheran Church down the road from me that I am considering visiting happens to be LCMS. It doesn't appear that some of the other Lutheran churches are nearby. And I don't want to get too confused.

[seajoy]

No way... not chopped liver...

Just that the Lutheran Church down the road from me that I am considering visiting happens to be LCMS. It doesn't appear that some of the other Lutheran churches are nearby. And I don't want to get too confused.
I'm so glad you are here asking questions. And no, we would not want you confused. I was just funnin' :)

I have been LCMS in the past. If there were no WELS church where I lived, I would join one again.

God bless your search for a church. :hug:
seajoy

[seajoy]

Well maybe you should take joy in the fact that no one thinks your synod is controversial.

Chopped Liver is not the meat I was thinking of. I like to think of the WELS and ELS as a nice medium rare sirloin with Mushrooms and onions.

Is that better?

Amen! :clap: :)

[seajoy]

Seajoy, you left out your foreign cousins; LCC.

Mark
Oops :sorry:

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Liverwurst, the kind Herr Metzger makes (with whole green pepper corns in it) is a good thing!:P

Mark

[RadMan]

Liverwurst, the kind Herr Metzger makes (with whole green pepper corns in it) is a good thing!:P

MarkYa--liverwurst or bloodsausage. All good fried up and served with eggs. ummm

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I was always partial to Kaisewurst (head cheese) fried up, over potatoes!:thumbsup:

[DaRev]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/wuerg/vomit-smiley-015.gif

Give me a good thick steak, medium rare... with baked potato... that's a meal!! :yum:

[seajoy]

Oh brother :doh:, look what I get for trying to start a WELS thread! :swoon:

[RadMan]

Oh brother :doh:, look what I get for trying to start a WELS thread! :swoon:Chopped liver? :P

What do you want to talk about in WELS?

[seajoy]

What do you want to talk about in WELS?
I dunno. Anybody got a question for us? I don't claim to know anything. :sorry: But I'll try. ^_^

[seajoy]

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/wuerg/vomit-smiley-015.gif

where did you find that little puking guy? That's cool! :)

[RadMan]

I like WELS "Vision" statement and it looks like a very feasible objective without having the "church growth" AKA Ablaze getting involved. I noticed also that they are approaching it from the "equiping the saints" angle which is the biblical way. Not just getting numbers for the sake of numbers. Or is Ablaze getting a foothold?

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=778&contentID=72245&shortcutID=25254

[RadMan]

Oops-- I guess I should have read further in the WELS site. Seems that they have the same program but under a different name.

Q:What do you think about the LCMS Ablaze? Has WELS similar goals?

A:LC-MS "Ablaze" is a multifaceted motivational and action ministry program to ignite their congregations for internal growth and external outreach. WELS has had every facet of this program (and more) in place for many years through Home Missions, Evangelism Office, and other Parish Services programs. We have united all of these efforts now under the banner of "North American Outreach" and the theme "Proclaim Peace through Jesus." We are visiting or contacting every WELS congregation four times over the next four years. We have agressive assimilation and retention seminars going on all over the country. Schools of Outreach motivate and train laity and clergy to seek the lost in their communities. All of our major publications and all our pastor and teacher conferences have this on their agendas for four years.http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=13&cuItem_itemID=7784

[BreadAlone]

I have been LCMS in the past. If there were no WELS church where I lived, I would join one again.
Shhhhh!!!!111!!11!1

You'll be excommunicated!! Don't talk about the evil anti-WELS in such ways!! ^_^

[BreadAlone]

Okay seajoy..since no one wants to ask a WELS question, I will.

ahem:

"What biblical principle does the WELS derive their "don't pray with people who aren't WELS" doctrine from?"

[seajoy]

Schools of Outreach motivate and train laity and clergy to seek the lost in their communities. All of our major publications and all our pastor and teacher conferences have this on their agendas for four years.
What's wrong with this part? :)

[seajoy]

ahem:

"What biblical principle does the WELS derive their "don't pray with people who aren't WELS" doctrine from?"
oh boy....did you have to start there? :eek: I struggle with this one myself. Where's PW...she will know what to say. :help:

[DaRev]

Shhhhh!!!!111!!11!1

You'll be excommunicated!! Don't talk about the evil anti-WELS in such ways!! ^_^

The LCMS is not "anti-WELS". The WELS is anti-LCMS. They were the ones who changed their fellowship policy and then broke fellowship with us.

[BreadAlone]

The LCMS is not "anti-WELS". The WELS is anti-LCMS. They were the ones who changed their fellowship policy and then broke fellowship with us.

I know that..I was just kidding! :sorry:

[BreadAlone]

oh boy....did you have to start there? :eek: I struggle with this one myself. Where's PW...she will know what to say. :help:
I think we all struggle with this one..along with the men and women roles thing..I guess it's just something a WELS member has to turn a blind eye to.. :sigh:

[seajoy]

I think we all struggle with this one..along with the men and women roles thing..I guess it's just something a WELS member has to turn a blind eye to.. :sigh:
I don't struggle with the women's roles thing at all. It's very biblical. I don't know very many, if any, women in my church who srtuggle with this. I don't feel like a 2nd class citizen. God has placed each gender in specific roles. I figure He knows much better what's best for His Kingdom to be furthered, than I do.

[RadMan]

What's wrong with this part? :)Those are not my words. They are from the WELS site and I don't see anything wrong with it.

[BreadAlone]

I don't struggle with the women's roles thing at all. It's very biblical. I don't know very many, if any, women in my church who srtuggle with this. I don't feel like a 2nd class citizen. God has placed each gender in specific roles. I figure He knows much better what's best for His Kingdom to be furthered, than I do.
Okay then. :) I just believe that the WELS' stance that women are subordinate to men is a little bit silly. If this is always the case, then I don't see how we can rationalize living in a country in which women are in governmental roles..(above men). [From the WELS website: We reject the opinion that male headship and female submission apply only to marriage or only to marriage and the church (1 Co 11:3; 1 Ti 2:12).] Thus meaning that women are subordinate to men in the workplace and such, unless the men command something unscriptural.

I also don't see why women shouldn't be able to vote and hold office in the church. (By hold office, I mean like serve on the Board of Elders or something. I don't mean women pastors..I'm not THAT crazy..:P)

[dinkime]

i dont turn a blind eye -- i turn to the bible -- key point there!

[RadMan]

Okay then. :) I just believe that the WELS' stance that women are subordinate to men is a little bit silly. If this is always the case, then I don't see how we can rationalize living in a country in which women are in governmental roles..(above men). [From the WELS website: We reject the opinion that male headship and female submission apply only to marriage or only to marriage and the church (1 Co 11:3; 1 Ti 2:12).] Thus meaning that women are subordinate to men in the workplace and such, unless the men command something unscriptural.

I also don't see why women shouldn't be able to vote and hold office in the church. (By hold office, I mean like serve on the Board of Elders or something. I don't mean women pastors..I'm not THAT crazy..:P)You won't change any WELS members minds on this because it's biblical. At least they don't make the women wear long hair, cover it in church or tell them they can't talk. At least I don't think they do. :scratch:

[BreadAlone]

You won't change any WELS members minds on this because it's biblical. At least they don't make the women wear long hair, cover it in church or tell them they can't talk. At least I don't think they do. :scratch:
And why don't they make them do those things? Because taken in context, it is apparent that in Paul's day, women who dressed with piercings etc. were deemed promiscuous. It would be equatable to a woman coming to church today with a see-through blouse. In the same way, if a woman spoke up in discussion with men, it was abnormal and offensive, and Paul didn't want to make the church something unbelievers wouldn't even consider.

I believe it is the same with the other issues..but I digress.

I agree Rad, it would take a mandate from heaven (and then some) to change anything in the WELS, let alone this..

[seajoy]

Those are not my words. They are from the WELS site and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Sorry....I figured you would agree with it :) . I had a confused moment...it happens now and then. :eek:

[seajoy]

I agree Rad, it would take a mandate from heaven (and then some) to change anything in the WELS, let alone this..
That's way we like it. :amen:

[DaSeminarian]

Okay then. :) I just believe that the WELS' stance that women are subordinate to men is a little bit silly. If this is always the case, then I don't see how we can rationalize living in a country in which women are in governmental roles..(above men). [From the WELS website: We reject the opinion that male headship and female submission apply only to marriage or only to marriage and the church (1 Co 11:3; 1 Ti 2:12).] Thus meaning that women are subordinate to men in the workplace and such, unless the men command something unscriptural.

I also don't see why women shouldn't be able to vote and hold office in the church. (By hold office, I mean like serve on the Board of Elders or something. I don't mean women pastors..I'm not THAT crazy..:P)

First of all you need to separate Church and State. The State is not allowed to establish any church. THat being said why does the church then have to follow the mores of civic/civil ideals and morals? The church is separate and therefore is to follow scripture not what the country mandates. Most of the things you speak of are Feminist mandates in which the submission of women to their husbands would be verboten. The church does not and should not cater to the whims of society. Voting BTW is a left kingdom issue not a right kingdom issue. Women should not be elders as that would give them some authority over man.

[Jim47]

Okay seajoy..since no one wants to ask a WELS question, I will.

ahem:

"What biblical principle does the WELS derive their "don't pray with people who aren't WELS" doctrine from?"


Giving the short answer as I don't have the knowledge to write a book, which by the way there is an excellant book by John F. Brug titled "Church Fellowship" and you can find all your questions answered there

short anser is, prayer fellowship is no different then Pastors of different churches sharing a pulpit, or members of a chgurch sharing The Lord's Supper with those who do not profess to hold to the same beliefs. Fellowship is fellowship, there is no disctinction written in the bible. The same principle holds true to even music fellowship and Christian day schools.

You will find more detailed explainations then mine at WELS http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/wels?sitelist=google&q=prayer+fellowship&WELSGroupID=0&mscID=&scope=1&searchType=X&hq=inurl%3Awww.wels.net+OR+streams.wels.net

[Jim47]

Okay then. :) I just believe that the WELS' stance that women are subordinate to men is a little bit silly. If this is always the case, then I don't see how we can rationalize living in a country in which women are in governmental roles..(above men). [From the WELS website: We reject the opinion that male headship and female submission apply only to marriage or only to marriage and the church (1 Co 11:3; 1 Ti 2:12).] Thus meaning that women are subordinate to men in the workplace and such, unless the men command something unscriptural.

I also don't see why women shouldn't be able to vote and hold office in the church. (By hold office, I mean like serve on the Board of Elders or something. I don't mean women pastors..I'm not THAT crazy..:P)



If we were truely a God fearing nation we wouldn't have women in government positions of authority because God has clearly stated that women shall not have authority over a man. But the church on earth has no power over government, if we did, we would not have aborthions or gay rights or anything else that defies God's commands.

Being an elder is a position of authority in the church, for that reason women should not be elders nor are they allowed to vote in church elections, but....

women are to give make their voices heard to their husbands and fathers and brothers, and to the elected officials of the church. In this way their Godly voices are given heed and this is the manner in which God had designed it.

WELS men do not look down on their women, wives or any female. We hold them is high esteem, but we also believe in the God given roles of men and women in the church.

[DaRev]

The one Biblical difficulty with the WELS position of women in civil authority is the issue of Deborah who was both a judge and a military leader. She certainly had authority over men in those capacities.

[PreachersWife2004]

The WELS Q&A has a great page HERE (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=49&cuItem_itemID=10930) that talks in-depth about praying with others.

The short answer is that praying with someone is declaring a unity of fellowship and/or doctrine. If you look at the site I referenced above, it gives the biblical backing for that.

Part of the reason why the WELS is still going strong after all these years is because we have stayed true to the biblical principles that we were founded on. When we were shown to be in error, we mended our ways, only to see our sister synod trod down the same path we were headed.

WELS is certainly NOT anti-LCMS. We love and cherish our sister synod as we do any other Christian. But we are not going to sit silent while biblical doctrines get thrown out the window. The bible says we are to correct our erring brothers and sisters. Like I mentioned above, the LCMS put WELS back on the right track, but then fell themselves the same way...and when the WELS tried to help the LCMS find her way back, we were basically told to be quiet.

Our doctrines come from love, not from a desire to separate ourselves from others. It is our desire that all are united in faith, but that will not happen here on earth, so we look forward to that day in heaven when we will truly see the glory of God with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

[RadMan]

That was OT. We're NT Christians. NT is pretty clear on roles of both men and women. If men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church then that is an awesome, heavy responsibility.

[PreachersWife2004]

The one Biblical difficulty with the WELS position of women in civil authority is the issue of Deborah who was both a judge and a military leader. She certainly had authority over men in those capacities.

Yes, and when we talk about Deborah, there is usually talk about how shameful it was that she had to take over and do a man's job.

[Jim47]

The one Biblical difficulty with the WELS position of women in civil authority is the issue of Deborah who was both a judge and a military leader. She certainly had authority over men in those capacities.



God can choose whoever He wants, but we are to follow His instructions.

A good example of that is He chose Saul to deliver His message to the gentiles.

[DaRev]

The problem with the WELS/LCMS fellowship issue is that the WELS changed their fellowship standard in 1960 which led to the dissolution of fellowship in '61. The LCMS has maintained the same fellowship standard historically.

[BreadAlone]

The WELS Q&A has a great page HERE (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=49&cuItem_itemID=10930) that talks in-depth about praying with others.

The short answer is that praying with someone is declaring a unity of fellowship and/or doctrine. If you look at the site I referenced above, it gives the biblical backing for that.

Part of the reason why the WELS is still going strong after all these years is because we have stayed true to the biblical principles that we were founded on. When we were shown to be in error, we mended our ways, only to see our sister synod trod down the same path we were headed.

WELS is certainly NOT anti-LCMS. We love and cherish our sister synod as we do any other Christian. But we are not going to sit silent while biblical doctrines get thrown out the window. The bible says we are to correct our erring brothers and sisters. Like I mentioned above, the LCMS put WELS back on the right track, but then fell themselves the same way...and when the WELS tried to help the LCMS find her way back, we were basically told to be quiet.

Our doctrines come from love, not from a desire to separate ourselves from others. It is our desire that all are united in faith, but that will not happen here on earth, so we look forward to that day in heaven when we will truly see the glory of God with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Nooo! Not the WELS Q&A! lol we have like a two hundred page book of the Q&A from the WELS website that we use as a text book in religion class..

[Jim47]

The problem with the WELS/LCMS fellowship issue is that the WELS changed their fellowship standard in 1960 which led to the dissolution of fellowship in '61. The LCMS has maintained the same fellowship standard historically.



This is not how I understand it but I will listen to your explaination ;)

[PreachersWife2004]

The problem with the WELS/LCMS fellowship issue is that the WELS changed their fellowship standard in 1960 which led to the dissolution of fellowship in '61. The LCMS has maintained the same fellowship standard historically.

Like Jim said, this is not how we understand it, but I am interested to hear your side of things.

The way I understand it is that LCMS changed its fellowship practices in the 50s, and the WELS spent some 10 odd years trying to change you back. We also lost a good chunk (CLC) because we didn't break fellowship soon enough for some.

Matt also reminded me that fellowship, while the most important, wasn't the only doctrine that we disagreed on at the time.

[DaRev]

The WELS made an official statement regarding their fellowship standard in 1960. This was apparently in reaction to the LCMS seeking fellowship with the old ALC who was outside the Synodical Conference. This basically changed their fellowship standard to which the LCMS no longer fit. This led directly to their breaking fellowship in 1961. The LCMS fellowship standard was obviously OK with the WELS until the WELS changed their standard in 1960.

[PreachersWife2004]

From the WELS site:

For nearly 100 years (1868-1961) the LCMS and WELS were in doctrinal fellowship in the Synodical Conference. They cooperated in mission work and education. What led to the end of this fellowship?

Formerly, the LCMS and WELS agreed that agreement in all doctrines of the Bible is necessary for church fellowship and that all forms of worship, including joint prayer, are expressions of church fellowship. In the 1930s the LCMS began fellowship talks with the American Lutheran Church in spite of the fact that that the ALC did not believe that complete doctrinal agreement was necessary for fellowship. The LCMS also changed its position on prayer fellowship to allow joint prayer with the leaders of other churches with whom the LCMS was not in doctrinal agreement. Long efforts to resolve these differences were unsuccessful and the WELS broke fellowship with the LCMS in 1961.

Although disagreement about fellowship and the practice of fellowship in such groups as the Scouts and the military chaplaincy was the immediate cause of the break between WELS and the LCMS, other divisive issues that arose included the introduction of historical-critical methods of scripture study into the LCMS seminary at St. Louis during the 1960s, differences concerning the doctrine of church and ministry, and disagreement about the role of women in governing bodies of the church. The WELS has also been disturbed by a seeming lack of corrective action against lax fellowship practices, such as open communion and ecumenical services, in many LCMS congregations.

Although the LCMS has made progress at rolling back the influence of historical-critical methods of scripture study in its midst, published remarks by recent presidents of the LCMS show that the disagreement concerning fellowship practices still remains unresolved. In fact, things have gotten worse since the LCMS is now willing to enter fellowship with some churches that are members of the liberal Lutheran World Federation. There is no evidence that doctrinal discipline is being restored in the LCMS.


I think, Rev, that you might at least agree with the last paragraph if nothing else...

It would seem to me that entertaining entering fellowship with a church not within a synodical conference would be, in effect, changing your (LCMS) view on fellowship.

[seajoy]

Good stuff, everybody. :) Thanks for all your contributions to the thread. Keep up the good work, I'm learning lots, as I'm sure others are. :hug:

[Aibrean]

Actually I like chopped liver...especially marinated with onions and topped with a mild taco sauce.

[DaRev]

It would seem to me that entertaining entering fellowship with a church not within a synodical conference would be, in effect, changing your (LCMS) view on fellowship.

Not at all. The LCMS hadn't changed their fellowship guidelines. There was nothing in them that would have precluded the LCMS from sharing fellowship with both the synodical conference and the ALC of 1960 at the time. The WELS initiated the "unit concept" of fellowship in 1960, which changed their guidelines for fellowship with the LCMS, but it did not effect the LCMS fellowship with the WELS. It was the WELS who broke fellowship in '61. That's my understanding of it.

Keep in mind that the fellowship with the ALC of 1960 was short lived because of changes they made in their doctrine and practice.

[filosofer]

Not at all. The LCMS hadn't changed their fellowship guidelines. There was nothing in them that would have precluded the LCMS from sharing fellowship with both the synodical conference and the ALC of 1960 at the time. The WELS initiated the "unit concept" of fellowship in 1960, which changed their guidelines for fellowship with the LCMS, but it did not effect the LCMS fellowship with the WELS. It was the WELS who broke fellowship in '61. That's my understanding of it.

Keep in mind that the fellowship with the ALC of 1960 was short lived because of changes they made in their doctrine and practice.

To clarify the timeline, LCMS and ALC did not enter into formal fellowship until 1969 and then the LCMS broke fellowship with ALC in 1981.

[DaRev]

To clarify the timeline, LCMS and ALC did not enter into formal fellowship until 1969 and then the LCMS broke fellowship with ALC in 1981.



Das ist am meisten sicher wahr.