ELCA and United Methodists Differences

[KagomeShuko]

I keep trying to find the differences between ELCA and the UMC. I only find one major difference - that the UMC believes in becoming holy on this earth and has more of a focus on earthly works.

However, they still believe in God's grace and that Jesus is the one who saves. They believe that the holy spirit dwell among us.

I keep hearing that there are other major differences, but I never find them from my searching.

I know, of course, that Lutherans have the Book of Concord (and I know the more conservative Lutherans tend to have a problem with the ELCA because of not adhering strictly to it as the ELCA is more focused on scripture than the Book of Concord).

I'm looking for things theology wise, and I honestly don't find all that much other than the above.

Does anybody know of anything I'm missing?

 

[actionsub]

I keep trying to find the differences between ELCA and the UMC. I only find one major difference - that the UMC believes in becoming holy on this earth and has more of a focus on earthly works.

However, they still believe in God's grace and that Jesus is the one who saves. They believe that the holy spirit dwell among us.
Does anybody know of anything I'm missing?

You're actually skimming the surface of the major theological differences, the main one being the place of free will in a Christian's salvation. (I am a bit more of a theology nerd than your average person...)

ELCA, being Lutheran, would follow Luther's lead that the individual's free will is so mangled through total depravity as to render the person incapable of choosing God on his own. There is some aspect of God electing people to salvation, though Luther didn't take this line of predestination to the lengths that Calvin would later.

Wesley threw predestination completely out the window in his theology, making free will a primary driver in salvation. Wesley's view was that any idea of predestination led to fatalism and a lack of urgency to seek holiness. He taught that "prevenient grace" had been given to all, making it possible for all to be saved.

 

[KagomeShuko]

You're actually skimming the surface of the major theological differences, the main one being the place of free will in a Christian's salvation. (I am a bit more of a theology nerd than your average person...)

ELCA, being Lutheran, would follow Luther's lead that the individual's free will is so mangled through total depravity as to render the person incapable of choosing God on his own. There is some aspect of God electing people to salvation, though Luther didn't take this line of predestination to the lengths that Calvin would later.

Wesley threw predestination completely out the window in his theology, making free will a primary driver in salvation. Wesley's view was that any idea of predestination led to fatalism and a lack of urgency to seek holiness. He taught that "prevenient grace" had been given to all, making it possible for all to be saved.

What are more theological differences? I am wanting to know. I love theology, too.

 

[actionsub]

What are more theological differences? I am wanting to know. I love theology, too.

Wesley would have turned thumbs down on consubstantiation, preferring not to try to define exactly how the elements become the body and blood of Christ.
The other main difference is that Wesley believed a human could become sinless in this lifetime, while Luther said we were justified, yet we would always be sinners.

 

[KagomeShuko]

Wesley would have turned thumbs down on consubstantiation, preferring not to try to define exactly how the elements become the body and blood of Christ.
The other main difference is that Wesley believed a human could become sinless in this lifetime, while Luther said we were justified, yet we would always be sinners.

Lutherans, at least those in the ELCA, don't believe in consubstantiation. They believe in the real presence of God/Jesus in and under the elements - but they are still bread and fruit of the vine.

The sinless thing, yes, that is different, but not a huge deal to those in the ELCA, as long as it is all about God's and Jesus's grace . . .

 

[actionsub]

Lutherans, at least those in the ELCA, don't believe in consubstantiation. They believe in the real presence of God/Jesus in and under the elements - but they are still bread and fruit of the vine.

Au contraire. I too am ELCA, and what you defined there IS consubstantiation, as opposed to the Catholic belief in transubstantiation where the elements become the body and blood of Christ.

"Consubstantiation: the doctrine that the substance of the bread and wine coexists with the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist." (Oxford Dictionary)

In other words, "the real presence of Jesus in and under the elements"...but still bread and wine.

 

[tampasteve]

Lutherans, at least those in the ELCA, don't believe in consubstantiation. They believe in the real presence of God/Jesus in and under the elements - but they are still bread and fruit of the vine.

I am also ELCA, and yes - we do believe in what many refer to as consubstantiation but is better called "sacramental union". Methodists and Anglicans are closer to Reformed in their view and would be more comfortable in saying that Christ is really present but do not try and explain how. Many in practice take a more Reformed stance and see it as a real spiritual presence rather than physical as a Lutheran would. Given the history of the Anglican church and its ties to the Reformed movement this is not a surprise.

But these matters do not need to separate us as believers or churches, and the Full Communion agreements bear this out.

 

[KagomeShuko]

But these matters do not need to separate us as believers or churches, and the Full Communion agreements bear this out.

Exactly.

 

[KagomeShuko]

I am also ELCA, and yes - we do believe in what many refer to as consubstantiation but is better called "sacramental union". Methodists and Anglicans are closer to Reformed in their view and would be more comfortable in saying that Christ is really present but do not try and explain how. Many in practice take a more Reformed stance and see it as a real spiritual presence rather than physical as a Lutheran would. Given the history of the Anglican church and its ties to the Reformed movement this is not a surprise.

But these matters do not need to separate us as believers or churches, and the Full Communion agreements bear this out.

As said, it doesn't really matter WHAT you believe, but consubstantiation isn't the official teaching of the ELCA.

From https://download.elca.org/ELCA Reso...40.2011657183.1581532220-252380472.1581532220, page 21 . . .

as experienced around these topics. The fourth plenary session convened October 30-November 2, 2003, at the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Due to other commitments, the Rev. Dr. Amy Laura Hall was replaced by the UMC Council of Bishops with the Rev. Dr. Sarah Heaner Lancaster of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio. Dialogue members discussed papers on the mission of the Church and orders of ministry, as well as a draft version of “This Holy Mystery,” a document articulating the eucharistic theology of The United Methodist Church to be considered at its 2004 General Conference. Participants were encouraged by the understanding of Holy Communion it described, but proposed an amendment to clarify reference to a common misunderstanding among United Methodists that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation. This proposed amendment was subsequently considered by the UMC General Conference and adopted for the final version of “This Holy Mystery

You can believe in consubstantiation, but I don't. I believe in the Real Presence, that somehow, Christ is in and under the bread and fruit of the vine, not that the body and blood coexist with the elements.

 

[tampasteve]

As said, it doesn't really matter WHAT you believe, but consubstantiation isn't the official teaching of the ELCA.

From https://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/Church_Council_Agenda_April_11_13_2008.pdf?_ga=2.198900140.2011657183.1581532220-252380472.1581532220, page 21 . . .



You can believe in consubstantiation, but I don't. I believe in the Real Presence, that somehow, Christ is in and under the bread and fruit of the vine, not that the body and blood coexist with the elements.

Not to beat a dead horse since we agree that it does not really matter, but what I said is the Lutherans, ELCA included, believe in Sacramental Union, not Consubstantiation. The two terms are used interchangeably by some (particularly non-Lutheran's), but they are not really interchangeable.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sacramental Union doesn't imply a local presence of Christ in the elements, as if Christ were interspersed within bread, it's more mysterious than that. We aren't eating pieces of Christ in the sacrament, either; under either species or element, we receive the whole person of Christ. Nor does the doctrine imply that Christ's presence is restricted to a particular time or place, which is why the ELCA doesn't re-consecrate bread and wine in the context of the reception of the sacrament.

The ELCA considers its Eucharistic doctrine's distinctive character a question of emphasis, and not something church dividing. Other churches' practices of communion are valid means of grace, as long as they include the Words of Institution - indeed, it is the very same sacrament offered, whether it is Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist.

 

[actionsub]

Sacramental Union doesn't imply a local presence of Christ in the elements, as if Christ were interspersed within bread, it's more mysterious than that. We aren't eating pieces of Christ in the sacrament, either; under either species or element, we receive the whole person of Christ. Nor does the doctrine imply that Christ's presence is restricted to a particular time or place, which is why the ELCA doesn't re-consecrate bread and wine in the context of the reception of the sacrament.

The ELCA considers its Eucharistic doctrine's distinctive character a question of emphasis, and not something church dividing. Other churches' practices of communion are valid means of grace, as long as they include the Words of Institution - indeed, it is the very same sacrament offered, whether it is Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist.

That's a great way of framing the concept!

 

[FireDragon76]

That's a great way of framing the concept!

It's really a question of emphasis, since it's a mystery what exactly happens in communion. The Lutheran doctrine emphasizes the importance of eating and believing, but the Reformed doctrine emphasizes that Christ is always with the Church. I think both perspectives are mutually illuminating.