Differences in LCMS, ELCA, WELS

[keeptrying]

I was raised LCMS but have not always been able to attend that synod because none were in the area, I attended ELCA during those times (because of work my family has moved frequently). I am now considering attending a WELS but would like to know what the main differences are.

I know that ELCA has open communion and is more liberal with regards to being gay, women in leadership.
I read some of the topics before posting this and learned some things, someone mentioned womans suffrage. Could someone elaborate on that as well.

I did attend one WELS service and did not notice too much difference except there seemed to be an emphasis on childrens programs and not to many adult ones but that could just have been that particular church. I don't have children at home any longer.
Also the LCMS and ELCA in my area do many activities together through Trivent etc. but not the WELS. Does anyone know why that is?
Thanks for the help.

[cerette]

WELS has a stricter church fellowship doctrine, for example we have close(d) communion which means we only commune with those who are in church fellowship with us. In America that would include fellow WELSers and ELSers.
We believe that women should not be in authority over men, therefore women do not vote in church matters.

Perhaps it would be good to visit a wels church and maybe stay for a chat with the pastor afterwards?

[Studeclunker]

Actually, in California, there are a lot of LCMS churches who cooperate with ELCA congregations in their activities. I won't go so far as using the word 'fellowship', but cooperation in things like VBS and other activities. Our church in Moreno Valley used to share it's VBS with the LCMS church every year. We didn't have a building yet, and the arrangement was much easier. When the building and campus were completed, I understand the cooperation between congregations continued. Often the children from both congregations would attend both VBS'. My wife's memorial service, for instance, was held in the LCMS sanctuary as ours wasn't completed yet.

As to the doctrinal and theological differences, surprisingly there are few. The problems between the congregations have more to do with intrepretation and understanding of scripture. A more appropriate ranking of the sects would be the following;

ELCA - The most liberal of the Lutherans.

LCMS - Less liberal, more conservative.

WELS - VERY conservative, some would say almost hide-bound (and that seems to me to be a good thing;) ). Rock solid on scripture and the Book Of Concord.

There are two more congregations I forget the acronyms for who are even MORE conservative than WELS (if that's possible LOL:D ). Being consistant is a great virtue that it seems only the most conservative congregations possess any more. It seems to be a great strength of WELS and her sisters. I truely pray that the leadership of LCMS will come to their senses before we also start down that slippery slope that the ELCA fell down.

[BigNorsk]

I was raised LCMS but have not always been able to attend that synod because none were in the area, I attended ELCA during those times (because of work my family has moved frequently). I am now considering attending a WELS but would like to know what the main differences are.

I know that ELCA has open communion and is more liberal with regards to being gay, women in leadership.
I read some of the topics before posting this and learned some things, someone mentioned womans suffrage. Could someone elaborate on that as well.

I did attend one WELS service and did not notice too much difference except there seemed to be an emphasis on childrens programs and not to many adult ones but that could just have been that particular church. I don't have children at home any longer.
Also the LCMS and ELCA in my area do many activities together through Trivent etc. but not the WELS. Does anyone know why that is?
Thanks for the help.

One basic difference is ElCA uses historical critical exegesis of the Bible. Wels and LCMS use grammatico-historical. That is reflected in that the WELS and LCMS basically believe in an inerrant Bible right down to the level of the words ELCA doesn't.

Both LCMS and WELS are also Confessional Lutherans, that mean they hold a quia subscription to the entire Book of Concord. ELCA does not.

In church government, the LCMS and WELS are basically congregational, the ELCA basically episcopalian.

For differences between LCMS and WELS, the WELS is stricter in their interpretation of unionism and syncretism.

WELS believes the synod is the church, whereas in LCMS the synod is specifically not the church, the local congregations are.

The WELS understands the prohibition on a woman's authority over a man to mean any sort of authority whatsoever so women do not vote. The LCMS understands that word to mean the direct authority whereby the woman would directly command or direct the man to do things, so they let women vote and hold office as long as that office is not in the ministry or too much authority.

On the day to day life of a Lutheran parishioner, the three can seem almost identical depending of course on the congregation, but over time, the differences do become evident, especially if one is active beyond the level of just show up on Sunday, throw a check in the offering and go on your way.

Hope that helps.

Marv

[latebloomer]

ELCA allows women to be pastors, LCMS and WELS do not.

Once upon a time, if I remember right from long-ago confirmation class, before the LCA and ALC merged to become ELCA, I seem to remember that the different synods were formed somewhat from geography. German Lutherans formed the LCMS, Norwegians formed the ALC, or something along those lines, and perhaps there was something about where people settled in the USA in the 1800s. I could be wrong, and probably am. My mom was ALC (Norwegian) and my dad is LCMS (German). Mom switched when they got married.

[keeptrying]

So where does the WELS stand on women voting in national and local elections not associated with the church?

[dinkime]

So where does the WELS stand on women voting in national and local elections not associated with the church?


they have no issues with it.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The WELS understands the prohibition on a woman's authority over a man to mean any sort of authority whatsoever so women do not vote.
Marv

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark

[PreachersWife2004]

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark

(Wanted to clarify that I am speaking of public elections here, by the way, in response to another person's question regarding whether women vote in those or not)

This is true. I have refrained from voting in the last two elections for this very reason, even though several pastors in the WELS have explained that voting in the elections is a civil issue and not a religious issue. But, for my own peace of mind, I choose not to vote.

As for voting within the church, I have several people I can go to and express my thoughts on a current issue. I have my husband (who is also my pastor), the church council and the elders. Never have I felt that I was without a voice in the church because I could not vote.

One thing that should be explained is that the role of man and woman within in the church is not one of dominance versus submission. The word of God honors women in various ways throughout the bible, and Jesus himself honored women. The roles are merely different, and we complement each other.

I've heard many people say that the WELS is oppressive to women, but I've never experienced in the lifetime that I have been WELS. I do believe that those who would use those words do not understand the doctrine of the role of man and woman.

[BigNorsk]

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark

I would say it's actually liberal pietism. The LCMS allowed women to vote after extensively studying the word translated "have authority" and examining what that meant. It has nothing to do with the level of authority that voting would entail. Thayer's has a pretty good entry on it.

G831
αὐθεντέω
authenteō
Thayer Definition:
1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker)

Voting is nothing like that. And to make it a mark of the true church as it seems to me is often done, violates both scripture and the Confessions. It's just good old pietism rolled in a different breading. Which always parades itself as conservatism.

If you want to try and live in the 1800s, join the Amish. If you want to have a good church then follow the bible. Not allowing women to vote is not a biblical position. Teaching it is is a mistake, it's adding to the word.

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

We'll just have to disagree. I'm not in this thread to again argue about the differences between the synods. I don't really think the OP wants an argument on it either. But do know this: the WELS does NOT make the issue of whether women vote or not a "true church" position. Matter of fact, they don't use anything but the bible as the means of the true church, because the WELS doesn't feel it is the "one true church". So unless you were mistakenly referring to the WELS, perhaps you should clarify who you meant by that remark.

I would say it's actually liberal pietism. The LCMS allowed women to vote after extensively studying the word translated "have authority" and examining what that meant. It has nothing to do with the level of authority that voting would entail. Thayer's has a pretty good entry on it.

G831
αὐθεντέω
authenteō
Thayer Definition:
1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker)

Voting is nothing like that. And to make it a mark of the true church as it seems to me is often done, violates both scripture and the Confessions. It's just good old pietism rolled in a different breading. Which always parades itself as conservatism.

If you want to try and live in the 1800s, join the Amish. If you want to have a good church then follow the bible. Not allowing women to vote is not a biblical position. Teaching it is is a mistake, it's adding to the word.

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh, and I'd just like to say that I don't feel amish, I don't look amish, I don't act amish. Not being able to vote in the church elections and decisions has not diminished the quality of my life by any means, so please, those of you who aren't Lutheran but are reading this, don't be fooled by those that wish to make us feel that way.

[cerette]

Oh, and I'd just like to say that I don't feel amish, I don't look amish, I don't act amish. Not being able to vote in the church elections and decisions has not diminished the quality of my life by any means, so please, those of you who aren't Lutheran but are reading this, don't be fooled by those that wish to make us feel that way.
I don't feel Amish either eventhough I bought an amish hat once. I DON'T wear it in church, or anywhere else for that matter :)

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't feel Amish either eventhough I bought an amish hat once. I DON'T wear it in church, or anywhere else for that matter :)

^_^

I like yoder popcorn. That's about as amish as I get.

[porterross]

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark
OK, let me paint another scenario for you, though. It doesn't particularly address voting, but rather council and/or committee positions.

What if the most God gifted and talented person whose intellect and gifts which are desperately needed to assist the congregation have been given to woman?

Furthermore, what if the woman's whose gifts would make a huge difference in said church is single and does not have a husband through whom her assistance can be passed to benefit others by way of voting or serving in another capacity?

How is being a a benefit to a congregation with one's gifts and talents in any way authoritative? Wouldn't that more accurately be viewed as a blessing? Wouldn't not making use of someone like this because of gender be a shame and loss for all involved?

[PreachersWife2004]

While the WELS doesn't allow women on the council, a woman can be a member of a committee. A woman can even be chairperson of a committee...I was the chairperson of the publicity committee for Emanuel's 150th Anniversary. But I had no authority, I was acting in what one might consider a consultant's position. The council took my suggestions and voted on them. I was chosen to be the chair because I have an extensive background in graphic design, marketing and public relations.

So women aren't shut away in the church. We are allowed to offer our suggestions and comments. In our voters' meetings, we are allowed to write letters that are then read by the church president.

I was a single mom for ten years, and again, I personally never felt like I didn't have a voice.

[porterross]

I'm very relieved to hear that, Beckie. Thank you for the much-needed clarification. ;)

[BigNorsk]

Preacherswife,

I was replying to a post by Mark. I don't know why you took it as speaking specifically about the WELS.

And I should mention that if no one makes it a matter concerning church fellowship or communion, then I have misunderstood many other conversations in other places.

But mostly I was referring to what Mark said, even in synods where women are given the vote, that some do not, and that is supposed to reflect some deep understanding of scripture. It doesn't. It a misunderstanding of scripture that isn't too hard in English, but it clearly is not refering to they type of authority that one would use in voting. It would be much more like a slavemaster commanding the slave. I don't believe it comes at all from a deep undestanding of scripture, rather it's much more likely just to be a change from what I know is bad because however I got used to things, that was correct.

I'm not sure why WELS doesn't let women vote, I sure hope it isn't just based on 1 Ti 2:12.

If thinking that women voting would be like that sort of authority, well, I would think anyone that would think those overlappeed wouldn't use money. Because greed is idolatry and the love of money is the root of all sorts of evils.

I can even see where not giving women the vote in assembly actually would violate the passage, if for instance in driving to the meeting, if the wife told the husband how to vote because she can't, that would violate it. Maybe that never happens. It's just a hypothetical.

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

Marv, the way you worded something in regards to using voting as a "true church" issue was very ambiguous. I just wanted clarification on what church actually says they are the true church because they don't allow women to vote.

Thanks.

[cerette]

OK, let me paint another scenario for you, though. It doesn't particularly address voting, but rather council and/or committee positions.

What if the most God gifted and talented person whose intellect and gifts which are desperately needed to assist the congregation have been given to woman?

Furthermore, what if the woman's whose gifts would make a huge difference in said church is single and does not have a husband through whom her assistance can be passed to benefit others by way of voting or serving in another capacity?

How is being a a benefit to a congregation with one's gifts and talents in any way authoritative? Wouldn't that more accurately be viewed as a blessing? Wouldn't not making use of someone like this because of gender be a shame and loss for all involved?
My former church always had 'open meetings' when voting about church matters. Everyone was welcome (and encouraged) to attend, and to state their opinion. I was welcome to tell everyone what my opinion was and why, and they all listened to me. It made no difference that I was a woman. Then when it was time to vote, only the men did it. I never had a problem with that. (In fact, I was often happy it wasn't my responsibility to make any huge decisions!!)

[DaRev]

In the LCMS, the concept of authority in regards to women is in terms of the pastoral office and the functions and responsibilities therein. Women should not hold the office of pastor nor hold any other position that would either involve direct involvement of the functions of the pastoral office or involve oversight of the functions of the pastoral office. Those positions outside of the pastoral office or the functions of it can be held by women since the LCMS maintains that those postitions are man-made and are not part of the one divinely instituted pastoral office.

I've had discussions here about whether or not a woman can be the council president or vice president. Since our council also includes the board of elders and our elders are directly involved in some of the functions of the pastoral office, women cannot hold either of those positions since they would then hold a seat of authroity over aspects of the pastoral office, nor can they be elders. If they wanted to restructure the council and remove the elders from it, and only allow the council to handle matters regarding the operation and administration of the congregation as an entity, then women would be able to hold those positions since they would have no authority over any aspect of the pastoral office. That authority would then be given over to the board of elders.

[BigNorsk]

Marv, the way you worded something in regards to using voting as a "true church" issue was very ambiguous. I just wanted clarification on what church actually says they are the true church because they don't allow women to vote.

Thanks.

Well, I think you could say the Church of the Lutheran Confession. You could read their differences with other synods. http://www.clclutheran.org/

They don't of course use Confessional Lutheran vocabulary since they aren't of that background.

I would turn to the Augburg Confession for what are to be used as the true church
Article VII: Of the Church.
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.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.

Would you say for instance that WELS and LCMS have true unity? If they do not, and I can't say where they do, then what are the areas of main disagreement. One area I always hear, the LCMS even list it on their site as one of the major disagreements is women's roles in the church. Now if women's role is not an area that is necessary to have agreement to have true unity, then why does it keep coming up?

You explain it to me, obviously you must think I misunderstand. But I would conclude that if it keeps coming up in discussion on church fellowship that it must be something the WELS holds to as a mark of the true church, because if it isn't, then it isn't necessary to agree to have true unity.

Explain to me where I'm wrong. If it's necessary to agree on something in order to have true unity, it must be concerning the right teaching of the Gospel or the correct administration of the Sacraments. Isn't that true? If it isn't necessary to agree on women's roles in the church to have true unity, why does WELS bring it up in discussions with the LCMS?

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

Okay, that makes a little more sense then. You weren't explicitly saying that one church or another actually makes this claim. To make sure I am clear, here is what I think you're saying.

Christian A asks Christian B what makes the "true Church". Christian B responds with doctrine such as not letting women vote or church fellowship principles marks the true church.

Correct? I hope so!!

I totally agree that a good confessional Lutheran will always direct such a questioner to the scriptures.

Thanks for the additional clarification, Marv. I appreciate it!

Yes, it's ambiguous because in areas such as that, what people say when they aren't specifically asked what the marks of the true church is what they spontaneously say when they are telling you how good they are and how not so good someone else is are two different things.

If you ask any confessional Lutheran specifically what the marks of the church are, they will answer with the phrase they've been taught, referring to the gospel and the sacraments.

[porterross]

In the LCMS, the concept of authority in regards to women is in terms of the pastoral office and the functions and responsibilities therein. Women should not hold the office of pastor nor hold any other position that would either involve direct involvement of the functions of the pastoral office or involve oversight of the functions of the pastoral office. Those positions outside of the pastoral office or the functions of it can be held by women since the LCMS maintains that those postitions are man-made and are not part of the one divinely instituted pastoral office.

I've had discussions here about whether or not a woman can be the council president or vice president. Since our council also includes the board of elders and our elders are directly involved in some of the functions of the pastoral office, women cannot hold either of those positions since they would then hold a seat of authroity over aspects of the pastoral office, nor can they be elders. If they wanted to restructure the council and remove the elders from it, and only allow the council to handle matters regarding the operation and administration of the congregation as an entity, then women would be able to hold those positions since they would have no authority over any aspect of the pastoral office. That authority would then be given over to the board of elders.


I bet there are many, many wives of LCMS pastors who have a great deal more influence than their husbands might admit or even realize. Does that count? :P


:sorry:

[DaRev]

I bet there are many, many wives of LCMS pastors who have a great deal more influence than their husbands might admit or even realize. Does that count? :P


:sorry:

I wouldn't know.

:sorry: :P

[Till]

One basic difference is ElCA uses historical critical exegesis of the Bible. Wels and LCMS use grammatico-historical. That is reflected in that the WELS and LCMS basically believe in an inerrant Bible right down to the level of the words ELCA doesn't.



Are historical-critical methods taught at LCMS's seminary?

Yesterday I spoke with a pastor at SELK - LCMS's sister church in Germany - about the najor differences between his church and the - mostly liberal - main Protestant/Lutheran church in Germany. He mentioned the liberal theology which SELK is not ascribing to but he also said that some professors at their seminary are beginning to introduce historical-critical methods. He mentioned that he is opposed to it but it is still happening.

[PreachersWife2004]

Ummm...I"m not even sure where you're going with this, Marv. You clarified exactly what I needed to have clarified, but now you've edited that post. I'm confused. But I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night either.

At any rate, we aren't in fellowship with the CLC, either. They broke with us because we were too slow breaking with the LCMS.

Besides, I don't usually associate Lutheran churches, regardless of synod, with the phrase "one true church". That is something that the Catholics are arrogant enough to proclaim that they are.

Well, I think you could say the Church of the Lutheran Confession. You could read their differences with other synods. http://www.clclutheran.org/

They don't of course use Confessional Lutheran vocabulary since they aren't of that background.

I would turn to the Augburg Confession for what are to be used as the true church
Article VII: Of the Church.
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.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.

Would you say for instance that WELS and LCMS have true unity? If they do not, and I can't say where they do, then what are the areas of main disagreement. One area I always hear, the LCMS even list it on their site as one of the major disagreements is women's roles in the church. Now if women's role is not an area that is necessary to have agreement to have true unity, then why does it keep coming up?

You explain it to me, obviously you must think I misunderstand. But I would conclude that if it keeps coming up in discussion on church fellowship that it must be something the WELS holds to as a mark of the true church, because if it isn't, then it isn't necessary to agree to have true unity.

Explain to me where I'm wrong. If it's necessary to agree on something in order to have true unity, it must be concerning the right teaching of the Gospel or the correct administration of the Sacraments. Isn't that true? If it isn't necessary to agree on women's roles in the church to have true unity, why does WELS bring it up in discussions with the LCMS?

Marv

[keeptrying]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?

[cerette]

Ummm...I"m not even sure where you're going with this, Marv. You clarified exactly what I needed to have clarified, but now you've edited that post. I'm confused. But I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night either.

At any rate, we aren't in fellowship with the CLC, either. They broke with us because we were too slow breaking with the LCMS.

Besides, I don't usually associate Lutheran churches, regardless of synod, with the phrase "one true church". That is something that the Catholics are arrogant enough to proclaim that they are.
After studying the CLC/WELS thing some, out of curiousity, I noticed that the CLC doesn't say they broke with the WELS because it took too long, but because the CLC thinks that WELS applies the Biblical principles regarding "breaking church fellowship" in a Non-Biblical way.
I will definitely study this matter more, and hopefully be able to talk to some CLC pastors about it as well.

[PreachersWife2004]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?

There were many issues that led to WELS breaking with LCMS, but I think by far the biggest one was that of fellowship. This link HERE (http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=13&cuItem_itemID=20356) from the WELS Q&A gives a better view from the WELS angle, although I'm sure the LCMS sees things differently.

[cerette]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?
CLC is the Church of the Lutheran Confession. (www.clclutheran.org (http://www.clclutheran.org))

The LCMS believes in 'levels of fellowship': Even if you can't take communion together you may sometimes pray together or something.

The WELS doesn't believe in any leves of fellowship: Either you can have full fellowship (communion together, pray together etc) or you cannot have fellowship.

I would guess this is a reason why you don't see the WELS joining the ELCA/LCMS activities.

[BigNorsk]

I see they use the term "close" Communion. Shouldn't that be "exact" Communion since the synod requires agreement in all matters for any level of Communion? In other words close doesn't count?

Marv

[cerette]

I see they use the term "close" Communion. Shouldn't that be "exact" Communion since the synod requires agreement in all matters for any level of Communion? In other words close doesn't count?

Marv
Close as in we are close to each other as a family because we share the same confession, rather than than Closed as if others would never be welcome. We would love to be able to commune with many many more. This is how I have always thought of the terms. Maybe I am wrong, I dunno.

[DaRev]

Are historical-critical methods taught at LCMS's seminary?

No. That was the whole issue during the 60's and early 70's that led to the then synod president, Jacob Preus, to do some "house cleaning" at the St. Louis seminary. The seminary president was suspended and 45 of the 50 faculty and about 75% of the students walked out in 1974. The result of all that was the formation of the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, a Lutheran synod that was one of the three bodies that merged to form the ELCA in 1988.
LCMS seminaries hold to the grammatical-critical (aka grammatico-historical) interpretation of Scripture. This is why a working knowedge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek is required in order to take any MDiv level courses at LCMS seminaries.

[BigNorsk]

The Wisconsin Synod teaches that agreement on all the teachings of Scripture is necessary for all forms of fellowship.


I just can't find the close in that statement. It doesn't allow someone to be fellowshipped who is close. It requires absolute complete agreement on all the teachings of Scripture. That goes way beyond close.

Article VII: Of the Church. 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. 2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.
Seems to me to be a statement forbidding requiring absolute complete agreement in every matter before one recognizes true unity. True unity would be recognized certainly in fellowship.

I have real trouble, in a group that so carefully distinguishes between the Law and the Gospel to take the need to agree on the doctrine of the Gospel as a mandate to agree on every teaching of the Bible.

And I cannot see where any of the disagreements between the WELS and the LCMS rise to the level of being either the "doctrine of the Gospel" nor do they differ on the administration of the sacraments, with the possible exception of the fact that many of the LCMS are more open in the administration of Communion than the official position of the LCMS. So if the desire was to be true to the Confessions, I would think that would be the one area of discussion for restoration of fellowship.

Wouldn't you agree?

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

I started to answer this and then realized that the Q&A once again puts it more succinctly than I can:


Both terms are fitting and commonly used. The term "close" communion (as in "close friends") is usually used to emphasize the necessity the communicant's unity with the Savior through Christian faith as well as unity in the faith and the confession of that faith (that is, doctrine and practice) with fellow communicants. The term "closed" communion (as in "closed door") more emphasizes that there are limitations or restrictions that the Bible imposes for communicants (e.g., it is only for believers who are knowledgeable about what the sacrament is, able to examine themselves, united in doctrine with those they are expressing fellowship with in this way). Another way of saying it is that the practice of "closed" communion (exploring and verifying the propriety of a person to receive communion at a particular time and place) is cherishing and protecting the blessing of "close" communion (having all communicants properly qualified and prepared to receive the sacrament because of their relationship with the Lord and fellow communicants).


They may be used interchangeably. But there may be a conscious choice and preference in which term to use depending on the purpose of the conversation and the person we are speaking with. Do we wish to emphasize the blessing and necessity of the vertical and horizontal unity expressed in the Lord's Supper? Or is it time to stress the need to verify and insist on that unity to the best of our ability -- which means exploring the situation and sometimes limiting participation? Or is it best to stress both aspects together all the time? This kind of decision is left in the hands of each Christian, to make choices that reflect love and spiritual edification in a given circumstance.

[PreachersWife2004]

I see they use the term "close" Communion. Shouldn't that be "exact" Communion since the synod requires agreement in all matters for any level of Communion? In other words close doesn't count?

Marv

We use both words to describe our communion doctrine. Close doesn't mean "well, you're close to fellowship with us, so you can commune with us".

LCMS holds the same practice. And rightly so, as it is commanded by scripture.

[DaRev]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?

The issues which led to the break in fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS are somewhat complicated, and I'm not sure I understand them all.

Our former synodical president, Al Barry, did have a good dialogue with both the WELS and the ELS during his tenure. Since then, the WELS and the ELS have had no desire to dialogue with the LCMS, justifiably so, which is too bad because I would much rather have a working relationship with another Confessional church body than with one who is considered by the LCMS to not be an orthodox Lutheran church body (ELCA). It's kinda senseless to me, but it's the present reality. Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.

[PreachersWife2004]

I just can't find the close in that statement. It doesn't allow someone to be fellowshipped who is close. It requires absolute complete agreement on all the teachings of Scripture. That goes way beyond close.


Seems to me to be a statement forbidding requiring absolute complete agreement in every matter before one recognizes true unity. True unity would be recognized certainly in fellowship.

I have real trouble, in a group that so carefully distinguishes between the Law and the Gospel to take the need to agree on the doctrine of the Gospel as a mandate to agree on every teaching of the Bible.

And I cannot see where any of the disagreements between the WELS and the LCMS rise to the level of being either the "doctrine of the Gospel" nor do they differ on the administration of the sacraments, with the possible exception of the fact that many of the LCMS are more open in the administration of Communion than the official position of the LCMS. So if the desire was to be true to the Confessions, I would think that would be the one area of discussion for restoration of fellowship.

Wouldn't you agree?

Marv




Well, since WELS considers its fellowship doctrine and its policy on men and women and their roles to be scripturally correct, then I'm thinking it is an issue of a doctrine of the gospel. The desire is to remain true to the Word of God.

[PreachersWife2004]

The issues which led to the break in fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS are somewhat complicated, and I'm not sure I understand them all.

Our former synodical president, Al Barry, did have a good dialogue with both the WELS and the ELS during his tenure. Since then, the WELS and the ELS have had no desire to dialogue with the LCMS, justifiably so, which is too bad because I would much rather have a working relationship with another Confessional church body than with one who is considered by the LCMS to not be an orthodox Lutheran church body (ELCA). It's kinda senseless to me, but it's the present reality. Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.

:amen:

[BigNorsk]

We use both words to describe our communion doctrine. Close doesn't mean "well, you're close to fellowship with us, so you can commune with us".

LCMS holds the same practice. And rightly so, as it is commanded by scripture.

Okay then I will scratch off Article VII of the Augsburg Confession since it conflicts with scripture.

Marv

[filosofer]

Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.

And sistern, too?

:D

^_^

[PreachersWife2004]

Okay then I will scratch off Article VII of the Augsburg Confession since it conflicts with scripture.

Marv
You do realize that the Article is speaking in terms of "the Church", right? This is the invisible Church, not any one particular church here on earth. This Church we do all have unity with, in heaven.

But, since we don't believe the same thing about communion as, say, the baptists, we don't commune with them. Communion is also a statement of fellowship, or agreement, with our church's teachings. If I don't believe what the LCMS teaches, why would I want to partake of something that makes it appear as though I do, and vice versa.

Be honest here...what exactly are you trying to figure out? WELS and LCMS have long had their differences, but we've always had the attitude that DaRev posted about above, that we would love to have fellowship between the two synods. That just isn't possible at the moment. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time with it.

[PreachersWife2004]

And sistern, too?

:D

^_^



Eh, you know, we don't count for anything!! ^_^

[DaRev]

And sistern, too?

:D

^_^



I thought a "sistern" was a hole in the ground with water in it?

Oh, wait, that's "cistern". :sorry: My bad.

^_^

[BigNorsk]

You do realize that the Article is speaking in terms of "the Church", right? This is the invisible Church, not any one particular church here on earth. This Church we do all have unity with, in heaven.

But, since we don't believe the same thing about communion as, say, the baptists, we don't commune with them. Communion is also a statement of fellowship, or agreement, with our church's teachings. If I don't believe what the LCMS teaches, why would I want to partake of something that makes it appear as though I do, and vice versa.

Be honest here...what exactly are you trying to figure out? WELS and LCMS have long had their differences, but we've always had the attitude that DaRev posted about above, that we would love to have fellowship between the two synods. That just isn't possible at the moment. I'm not sure why you're having such a difficult time with it.


Well, you both claim to hold a quia subscription to the Confessions. And in Article VII the Augsburg Confession makes a conciliatory statement that full agreement in everything is not necessary to have full unity. And it's not just talking about those things which come from man because those are specifically added in the next clause.

So if you require complete agreement in all matters of doctrineto have full unity, you disagree with the Augsburg Confession. And if scripture requires full agreement in all matters of doctrine to have full unity then the Augsburg Confession disagrees with scripture.

You are taking a statement saying full agreement in everything is not necessary and turning it into full agreement in everything is necessary. Or, you are taking the teachings of someone else, maybe Walther, and putting that over the Confessions.

I would agree that partaking at the rail does indeed proclaim unity. But that doesn't mean absolute agreement on every doctrine. It just doesn't. The Confessions tell us the only unworthy participant in Communion is the unbeliever.

And I would say you do deny the biblical truth about Communiion. When you partake of Christ's body and blood, you are in Communion with the LCMS and every other Christian who truly participates in a Communion service. One body is one body. And I think you do actually recognize that on some level, but you want to deny the full unity that actually already exists. Notice I did not say full agreement. The Confessions specifically say that full agreement is not necessary for full unity.

I know what the response always is, you will now search the areas of disagreement and try to turn them into disagreements on the doctrine of the Gospel, or talk of how they might possibly in some way affect a sacrament.

I would suggest that you shouldn't really worry about this. It's only likely to cause problems for your marriage of if your husband were to agree with this it would basically end his career as a pastor in the WELS. I realize that you really can't examine this because your tradition won't permit it. Leave it to those of us who have a martyr complex or something and don't mind jousting with windmills. Examining it is only likely to bring you heartache and sorrow.

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh, Marv...I don't worry about it at all. I know that LCMS and WELS are both biblically sound in their communion practices.

I think you are reading the article the wrong way, personally.

[DaRev]

Close Communion is not about agreement on man made traditions, but rather on not accepting false teachings based upon Scripture. I think the differences between LCMS and WELS are quite subtle as compared to say Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, or even ELCA doctrines. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem communing a WELS member if they desired to do so, but a good WELS member wouldn't.

[Jim47]

The issues which led to the break in fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS are somewhat complicated, and I'm not sure I understand them all.

Our former synodical president, Al Barry, did have a good dialogue with both the WELS and the ELS during his tenure. Since then, the WELS and the ELS have had no desire to dialogue with the LCMS, justifiably so, which is too bad because I would much rather have a working relationship with another Confessional church body than with one who is considered by the LCMS to not be an orthodox Lutheran church body (ELCA). It's kinda senseless to me, but it's the present reality. Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.



The WELS would like to have fellowship with the LCMS again, but as it is, things are going in the wrong direction. Our having fellowship with the LCMS without the necesary changes that show a willingness to comply with scritural teachings and Lutheran doctrines would be like the WELS saying those things arern't really all that important.

[Jim47]

Well, you both claim to hold a quia subscription to the Confessions. And in Article VII the Augsburg Confession makes a conciliatory statement that full agreement in everything is not necessary to have full unity. And it's not just talking about those things which come from man because those are specifically added in the next clause.

So if you require complete agreement in all matters of doctrineto have full unity, you disagree with the Augsburg Confession. And if scripture requires full agreement in all matters of doctrine to have full unity then the Augsburg Confession disagrees with scripture.

You are taking a statement saying full agreement in everything is not necessary and turning it into full agreement in everything is necessary. Or, you are taking the teachings of someone else, maybe Walther, and putting that over the Confessions.

I would agree that partaking at the rail does indeed proclaim unity. But that doesn't mean absolute agreement on every doctrine. It just doesn't. The Confessions tell us the only unworthy participant in Communion is the unbeliever.

And I would say you do deny the biblical truth about Communiion. When you partake of Christ's body and blood, you are in Communion with the LCMS and every other Christian who truly participates in a Communion service. One body is one body. And I think you do actually recognize that on some level, but you want to deny the full unity that actually already exists. Notice I did not say full agreement. The Confessions specifically say that full agreement is not necessary for full unity.

I know what the response always is, you will now search the areas of disagreement and try to turn them into disagreements on the doctrine of the Gospel, or talk of how they might possibly in some way affect a sacrament.

I would suggest that you shouldn't really worry about this. It's only likely to cause problems for your marriage of if your husband were to agree with this it would basically end his career as a pastor in the WELS. I realize that you really can't examine this because your tradition won't permit it. Leave it to those of us who have a martyr complex or something and don't mind jousting with windmills. Examining it is only likely to bring you heartache and sorrow.

Marv



Marv, you're a really smart man, but believe me, you do not have a clear understanding of this problem. So for me to give you an example, which of the doctrines in the bible did God say we could teach falsely?

That is why we need complete unity in agreement of doctrinal issues. All biblical doctrines are important and its not up to man to say "well, that isn't nearly important as the other doctrines are"

Its only for us to obey and follow, not to cast doubt or teach against what scripture teaches.

[DaRev]

The WELS would like to have fellowship with the LCMS again, but as it is, things are going in the wrong direction. Our having fellowship with the LCMS without the necesary changes that show a willingness to comply with scritural teachings and Lutheran doctrines would be like the WELS saying those things arern't really all that important.

The "official" teachings of the LCMS have not changed. What the synod allows member congregations to get away with has. For example, the synod has always held to close communion, but allows member congregations to practice open communion. This is the problem I have with the synod, and it's not likely to change until we have a more Confessionally and ecclesiatically sound leadership in place. Our current leadership is more concerned with politics and power than ecclesiastic matters.

[Jim47]

The "official" teachings of the LCMS have not changed. What the synod allows member congregations to get away with has. For example, the synod has always held to close communion, but allows member congregations to practice open communion. This is the problem I have with the synod, and it's not likely to change until we have a more Confessionally and ecclesiatically sound leadership in place. Our current leadership is more concerned with politics and power than ecclesiastic matters.



I feel your pain Pastor. Thankfully the LCMS still has confessional Pastors such as yourself.

[DaRev]

I feel your pain Pastor. Thankfully the LCMS still has confessional Pastors such as yourself.

And I do believe our numbers will be growing in coming years, so all may not be lost. :pray:

[cerette]

The "official" teachings of the LCMS have not changed. What the synod allows member congregations to get away with has. For example, the synod has always held to close communion, but allows member congregations to practice open communion. This is the problem I have with the synod, and it's not likely to change until we have a more Confessionally and ecclesiatically sound leadership in place. Our current leadership is more concerned with politics and power than ecclesiastic matters.
The official teachings alone are not what matter...we also have to look at the practice..how they live out their confession..

[keeptrying]

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?

[PreachersWife2004]

In my husband's church, he would probably not commune you. If you were LCMS, attending an ELCA church but wanting to commune in a WELS church, he would more than likely suggest that you take the bible information course first and then becoming a member of WELS.

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?

[cerette]

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?
No, you could not commune in a WELS church unless you were a member of a WELS or ELS church. I am positive though, that the pastor would be glad to explain why, if you asked him afterwards.

[NordicLutheran]

I would like to thank all of you for your posts. I have learned alot. One more question though. If I visit a WELS this Sunday and they have communion would I be welcome to participate? Would I be welcome if I told the paster I am a comfirmed member of the LCMS even though the last church I attended was ELCA?
I would say your best bet is to stick with Missouri. Our attractiveness average is far higher than that of the other Synods. Just kidding, but seriously.

[BreadAlone]

No..we practice close(d) communion here in the one true church (WELS that is..note the dripping sarcasm). You'd have to become a member in order to join with us in the feast of the Lord.

[BigNorsk]

You'd be welcome at a Lutheran Brethren Congregation.

Come on down!

We recognize we are in Communion with you already, even if you don't partake in our congregations.

Marv

[RadMan]

No..we practice close(d) communion here in the one true church (WELS that is..note the dripping sarcasm). You'd have to become a member in order to join with us in the feast of the Lord.Not if someone doesn't say anything when they approach the communion rail. :) My experience in visiting many Lutheran churches is they don't ask.

[PreachersWife2004]

No..we practice close(d) communion here in the one true church (WELS that is..note the dripping sarcasm). You'd have to become a member in order to join with us in the feast of the Lord.

Oh you said it wrong. It should read:

The. One. True. Church. ™

[cerette]

You'd be welcome at a Lutheran Brethren Congregation.

Come on down!

We recognize we are in Communion with you already, even if you don't partake in our congregations.

Marv
Is it Lutheran Brethren that don't believe in all the Lutheran confessions?

[PreachersWife2004]

Is it Lutheran Brethren that don't believe in all the Lutheran confessions?

Yes. I'm not sure of the specifics, but I do find it odd that they hold to the Small Catechism but not the Large Catechism. :scratch:

[cerette]

Yes. I'm not sure of the specifics, but I do find it odd that they hold to the Small Catechism but not the Large Catechism. :scratch:
Yes that's a bit odd... wonder if they are lutheran enough to be lutheran

[DaRev]

http://www.electrobeans.de/static/smileys/popcorn.gif

[cerette]

http://www.electrobeans.de/static/smileys/popcorn.gif
Sittin' there enjoyin' your eve??

[BigNorsk]

Is it Lutheran Brethren that don't believe in all the Lutheran confessions?

No, that would be incorrect, we neither affirm nor deny them. Confessionalism didn't make it to Norway in time to get on the boat. Things like the Formula are a nonevent in our history.

That said we do use and teach from the Book of Concord.

Our Academic Dean and Systematics Professor has his S.T.M from Concordia in Fort Wayne and his PhD from Concordia in St Louis so you can imagine we are pretty close theologically in most things with the LCMS.

Marv

[DaRev]

Sittin' there enjoyin' your eve??

Waitin' for the show to start. ^_^

[cerette]

No, that would be incorrect, we neither affirm nor deny them. Confessionalism didn't make it to Norway in time to get on the boat. Things like the Formula are a nonevent in our history.

That said we do use and teach from the Book of Concord.

Our Academic Dean and Systematics Professor has his S.T.M from Concordia in Fort Wayne and his PhD from Concordia in St Louis so you can imagine we are pretty close theologically in most things with the LCMS.

Marv
Okay.. is there a reason why you don't affirm them now that they are handy and widespread, even in Norway?
Do you know if there are any L Brethren in Norway, and if so, what the name of their church is?
Thanks.

[cerette]

Waitin' for the show to start. ^_^
That's what I sorta thought :)
Did you ever get that coke from me last night?? Would be tasty with the popcorn.

[RadMan]

http://www.electrobeans.de/static/smileys/popcorn.gif
LMAO----^_^^_^

[BigNorsk]

What I can tell of the history is that in much of Scandinavia, Confessions were seen with a rather jaundiced eye since the doctrine of sola Scriptura was held so highly among many of the people. In both Norway and Denmarck, about all that was accepted was the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, plus of course the three historical Creeds those were accepted before the countries were even Lutheran.

No particularly strong or popular theologian ever rose up to promote the Book of Concord in either country. Many of the ministers were simply Catholic priests who became Lutheran on the day the state churches became Lutheran, early instructions to Lutheran ministers were always careful to instruct to distribute both bread and wine to the parishioners.

It's a shame too, those Catholic priests really ended up being the root of the dead state church that lead to pietism as the reform movement. To say the level of knowledge of theology among the clergy and the parisioners was low would probably be generous. Serious study of the Book of Concord would have been a great improvement. Frankly to this day, I would have wished every Lutheran Brethren who bought a copy of Purpose Driven Life would have bought a Book of Concord instead, their study would have been much more fruitful.

I'm not so sure that we aren't actually in the middle of a fight right now as to whether we will be Lutheran in the future. I think we will, but I'm afraid it's going to be closer than I would have thought. Right now, I'm thinking the ordained elders in our rural parishes will keep us Lutheran. I haven't run into a single one that likes the reforms suggested by the "Church Doctor" who was hired by the synod a few years ago to screw things up, oops, I mean fix problems. Another thing we got from the LCMS.

He seems to be rather adamant that being called Lutheran is a definite problem today.

Marv

[DaRev]

That's what I sorta thought :)
Did you ever get that coke from me last night?? Would be tasty with the popcorn.

No Coke... just Peepsi.

^_^

[cerette]

[quote=DaRev;43850395]No Coke... just Peepsi.

^_^

:P Nutbag

[DaRev]

[quote=DaRev;43850395]No Coke... just Peepsi.

^_^

:P Nutbag

No nuts... just cheeps. :P

[cerette]

What I can tell of the history is that in much of Scandinavia, Confessions were seen with a rather jaundiced eye since the doctrine of sola Scriptura was held so highly among many of the people. In both Norway and Denmarck, about all that was accepted was the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession, plus of course the three historical Creeds those were accepted before the countries were even Lutheran.

No particularly strong or popular theologian ever rose up to promote the Book of Concord in either country. Many of the ministers were simply Catholic priests who became Lutheran on the day the state churches became Lutheran, early instructions to Lutheran ministers were always careful to instruct to distribute both bread and wine to the parishioners.

It's a shame too, those Catholic priests really ended up being the root of the dead state church that lead to pietism as the reform movement. To say the level of knowledge of theology among the clergy and the parisioners was low would probably be generous. Serious study of the Book of Concord would have been a great improvement. Frankly to this day, I would have wished every Lutheran Brethren who bought a copy of Purpose Driven Life would have bought a Book of Concord instead, their study would have been much more fruitful.

I'm not so sure that we aren't actually in the middle of a fight right now as to whether we will be Lutheran in the future. I think we will, but I'm afraid it's going to be closer than I would have thought. Right now, I'm thinking the ordained elders in our rural parishes will keep us Lutheran. I haven't run into a single one that likes the reforms suggested by the "Church Doctor" who was hired by the synod a few years ago to screw things up, oops, I mean fix problems. Another thing we got from the LCMS.

He seems to be rather adamant that being called Lutheran is a definite problem today.

Marv
Okay, thanks. I do not know much about how it was in Norway and Denmark, but in Sweden the Augsburg Confession and the Catcheisms were officially endorsed in 1592, and about 80 years later the whole book of Concord. But that is Sweden, not Norway and Denmark as far as I know. Sadly enough, the former state church of Sweden is worse than the ones in Norway and Denmark.

[cerette]

[quote=cerette;43850787]

No nuts... just cheeps. :P
I had a very funny reply to that one, but I don't think it is suitable. After all, you are a pastor and this is a christian forum.

:D

[DaRev]

I had a very funny reply to that one, but I don't think it is suitable. After all, you are a pastor and this is a christian forum.

:D

Are you even old enough to remember the SNL skit that that comes from?

Cheeboogie, cheeboogie, cheep, cheep, Peepsi, Peepsi...

[BigNorsk]

Here's what the state church of Norway confesses today:
En rettesnor for tro, lære og livhttp://frikirken.no/bilder/bibellesing.jpg
Den Evangelisk Lutherske Frikirke tror, lærer og bekjenner:
Guds ord er den eneste regel og rettesnor for tro, lære og liv. Dette omfatter de profetiske og apostoliske skrifter i Det gamle testamentet og Det nye testamentet (Bibelen).

Den evangelisk-lutherske bekjennelse er grunnet i, og i samsvar med Guds ord. Denne bekjennelsen er uttrykt i den apostoliske, den nikenske og den athanasianske trosbekjennelse, samt i den augsburgske konfesjon og Luthers lille katekisme.





As you can see still no Book of Concord. Still just the three Creeds, Apostles (den apostoliske), Nicene (den nikenske) the Augsburg Confession (den augsburgske konfesjon) and the Small Catechism (Luthers lille katekisme).

Marv

[Till]

Here's what the state church of Norway confesses today:

As you can see still no Book of Concord. Still just the three Creeds, Apostles (den apostoliske), Nicene (den nikenske) the Augsburg Confession (den augsburgske konfesjon) and the Small Catechism (Luthers lille katekisme).

Marv

This is not the Norwegian state church Den Norske Kirke (http://www.kyrkja.no) . It is theEvangelical Lutheran Free Church of Norway. I searched the Norske Kirke's web site but the only thing I could find on confessions is this about the two churches working together:
http://www.kyrkja.no/?event=showArticle&FamID=2019

It says:
" anerkjenner at begge våre kirker står sammen i bekjennelsen av den apostoliske tro slik den er gitt oss i Den hellige skrift og uttrykt i de oldkirkelige bekjennelser, Den augsburgske bekjennelse og Luthers lille katekisme, "

Also here no mentioning of the Formula of Concord.

[BigNorsk]

That's funny, I went there by search engine and never thought to check that it was the state church. Thanks for the correction.

Marv

[Till]

Marv,

Actually: What are Lutheran Brethren? Do they have their roots in pietism?

Thanks,
Till

[cerette]

Are you even old enough to remember the SNL skit that that comes from?

Cheeboogie, cheeboogie, cheep, cheep, Peepsi, Peepsi...
No but I have some antique friends and they can teach me things sometimes :D

[cerette]

This is not the Norwegian state church Den Norske Kirke (http://www.kyrkja.no) . It is theEvangelical Lutheran Free Church of Norway. I searched the Norske Kirke's web site but the only thing I could find on confessions is this about the two churches working together:
http://www.kyrkja.no/?event=showArticle&FamID=2019

It says:
" anerkjenner at begge våre kirker står sammen i bekjennelsen av den apostoliske tro slik den er gitt oss i Den hellige skrift og uttrykt i de oldkirkelige bekjennelser, Den augsburgske bekjennelse og Luthers lille katekisme, "

Also here no mentioning of the Formula of Concord.
This is very interesting, I read on the homepage of the Norwegian state church that they in fact do not confess the Book of Concord. Interesting info, thanks guys!
Funny that the former Swedish state church holds on to the Book of Concord, eventhough they don't believe half of it. Oh well, none of my business, I have left those heretics long ago.

[filosofer]

No but I have some antique friends and they can teach me things sometimes :D

The sad thing: SNL was long after my time!

[cerette]

The sad thing: SNL was long after my time!


WOW..HOW old are you???? :P

[PreachersWife2004]

WOW..HOW old are you???? :P

don't let him fool you. He's still a spring chicken. :P

[BigNorsk]

filosofer,

Does that mean you are more a Monte Python's Flying Circus type of guy?

Maybe you are in the Ministry of Silly Walks?

We must be quite though, since the Ministry of Silly Walks was intimately united forever through the Faulty Tower to the "Germans".

Marv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

4 minutes of silly walking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od0z1KYnpGU&feature=related

Basil's funny walk from The German's edition of Faulty Towers, about a minute.

[filosofer]

WOW..HOW old are you???? :P

Well, you are half way between our older son and our oldest grandchild.

When I was young, science only included only three main elements, fire was acknowledged during my school days. Or as my sig on Excel sites says:

Software: Office 2003 on XP/Office 2004 on Mac OS X
Humanware: older than dirt

:D

^_^

[filosofer]

filosofer,

Does that mean you are more a Monte Python's Flying Circus type of guy?

Maybe you are in the Ministry of Silly Walks?



No, Monte Python is after me as well... ^_^

[DaRev]

filosofer,

Does that mean you are more a Monte Python's Flying Circus type of guy?

Maybe you are in the Ministry of Silly Walks?

We must be quite though, since the Ministry of Silly Walks was intimately united forever through the Faulty Tower to the "Germans".

Marv


The first video is no longer available.

[cerette]

Well, you are half way between our older son and our oldest grandchild.

When I was young, science only included only three main elements, fire was acknowledged during my school days. Or as my sig on Excel sites says:

Software: Office 2003 on XP/Office 2004 on Mac OS X
Humanware: older than dirt

:D

^_^


That was a tricky math question... I really can't figure how old you are. But let me put it this way: Did you ever meet Jesus face to face yet??

[cerette]

Well, you are half way between our older son and our oldest grandchild.

When I was young, science only included only three main elements, fire was acknowledged during my school days. Or as my sig on Excel sites says:

Software: Office 2003 on XP/Office 2004 on Mac OS X
Humanware: older than dirt

:D

^_^


That was a tricky math question... I really can't figure how old you are. But let me put it this way: Did you ever meet Jesus face to face yet??

[filosofer]

That was a tricky math question... I really can't figure how old you are. But let me put it this way: Did you ever meet Jesus face to face yet??

You thought Aaron was the only one holding up Moses' hands?



^_^

[cerette]

You thought Aaron was the only one holding up Moses' hands?



^_^


:D