High Church > Low Church

[LutheranHawkeye]

As defined by wikipedia a high church in lutheranism is one that has resisted liberal theology and pietism. Wait then that would mean that the Lcms is classified as a High Church and the Elca a Low church...I already knew that though. My question is: If the lcms is considered the more orthodox, high church, does that mean that it's better then the low liberal church of the elca.

 

[KagomeShuko]

High church and low church are usually used to define liturgy and the ELCA is usually high church - there are some exceptions, of course.

Wikipedia is a great thing, but do remember that it is user-edited and that the user who put that there may not have truly known and it had not been caught by wikipedia users that know differently, so it may not yet have been changed or debated. Wikipedia is not the end-all be-all of defining things.

 

[Melethiel]

I've never seen that definition of high/low church before. As Bridget said, it's usually referring to liturgics. In terms of liturgics though, high church beats all.

 

[PaladinValer]

In my Anglican Church, it is used to conotate the liturgical bent, not the theological one.

Me thinks someone who edited wikipedia goofed.

 

[KagomeShuko]

So, see, look at this page:
http://www.danceage.com/biography/sdmc_High_Church_Lutheranism

I'd suggest searching for this before using wikipedia.

 

[KagomeShuko]

and again. . .

http://www.answers.com/topic/high-church-lutheranism

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Oh, hrmm I figured that low church meant liberal and modernish. But if it is determined by liturgy the elca and lcms are both high church lutheran. But this goes back to the fact that...the elca having lutheran in its name is very misleading. Technically if the elca is not lutheran...then how can it be considered a high lutheran church? I don't think any church in history that has unscriptural positions(ordination of women etc.) can actually be labeled as Lutheran. I'm sure the elca is a high church in some school of thought though, probably not in this elca member's eyes: The Lutheran, the ELCA's monthly magazine:
I was baptized into the ULCA, confirmed in the LCA, and I am now a member of the ELCA. After reading the proposals between the ELCA and Episcopalians, Reformed and Catholics, I fear I'll soon be a member of the UCLA -- Utterly Confused Lutherans in America. Little by little a new set of letters is becoming more appealing to me: LC-MS. At least those folks can count on their next pastor being Lutheran!27
I bet luther would find that real funny.
So I come to the point again. How can a non-lutheran church be considered a high lutheran church. Guess it doesn't work out huh?

 

[Melethiel]

First you would have to prove that the ELCA isn't Lutheran, and provide your definition of such.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

The ordination of women, especially when it is strictly forbidden by Paul. The Elca's modern agenda of being flexible to fit everyones needs is sacrificing its core. Personally and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say the elca drifted from the Lutheran church when it accepted the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The roman catholic church is not by any means reformed, Luther's original plan. By accepting this declaration the elca is subtly taking away the lutheran identity. I have no problem with this except that lutheran still remains in the title of the church. An unworthy title.

A short reading on the elca and there injustices to lutheranism.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2144

 

[BigNorsk]

I would agree that the ELCA makes some incorrect interpretations of scripture due to their style of interpretation of the scriptures.

Their style of worship is almost identical to the LCMS, both in the traditional liturgies and in the commonly called contemporary services many congregations have now instituted.

I am only familiar with high church-low church being used in the sense that you started using it in your original post within the Anglican church. Were you Anglican before becoming Lutheran? Your post would make sense if you were Anglican, but within Lutheranism, I've only heard of high church-low church in reference to the style of worship. Basically high church being similar to the Roman Catholic Mass, and low church doing away with many of those things. Such as vestments, chanting, and so on.

If you are just trying to make the point that the ELCA are not confessional Lutherans that would be true. Though the Book of Concord is in their constitution, I think it would be fair to say they don't lie awake at night worrying if they are in perfect agreement with it.

I thought it was interesting that your last post was actually in agreement with the ELCA that being against the ordination of women was a position of Paul and not necessarily God. They would say it was a cultural position relevant to the male-dominated culture Paul was in and is not applicable to us today because our culture is quite different.

Marv

 

[stumpjumper]

If you are just trying to make the point that the ELCA are not confessional Lutherans that would be true. Though the Book of Concord is in their constitution, I think it would be fair to say they don't lie awake at night worrying if they are in perfect agreement with it.

LOL.

Most members in my Church have probably not even read it...

I did and me likey, though. But I don't lose any sleep if my Church is not in full agreement...

 

[DaRev]

I thought it was interesting that your last post was actually in agreement with the ELCA that being against the ordination of women was a position of Paul and not necessarily God.

That's not what he said.

This must be understood in the context of the LCMS' position concerning the interpretation and use of Scripture. The words of Paul in the NT are the words of God. The position of Paul in the NT is the position of God. Paul's NT word and God's word are synonomous. It does not need to be clarified, at least not for the LCMS. With us, it's a given. For others, I guess that needs to be explained.


DaRev

 

[DaRev]

What I find most intriguing is that with the theological laxity in the ELCA, their worship styles are very liturgical and formal, while the LCMS which maintains a theological formity with the Scriptures and Confessions has seen many congregations move away from formal liturgical worship. Personally, I find this distressing.


DaRev

 

[KEPLER]

The ordination of women, especially when it is strictly forbidden by Paul. The Elca's modern agenda of being flexible to fit everyones needs is sacrificing its core. Personally and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say the elca drifted from the Lutheran church when it accepted the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The roman catholic church is not by any means reformed, Luther's original plan. By accepting this declaration the elca is subtly taking away the lutheran identity. I have no problem with this except that lutheran still remains in the title of the church. An unworthy title.

A short reading on the elca and there injustices to lutheranism.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2144

Although I am LCMS, and I follow what my syond holds regarding the ordination of women, I think that this is a pretty unLutheran way to decide who is and who is not being a good Lutheran.

The "Article by which the Church Stands or Falls" is Justification by Grace Alone through Faith Alone, not Ordination of Men Alone. While the ordination of women may be unbiblical, it does not in fact impinge upon the doctrine of Justification. PERIOD. To suggest that it does is a modified form of donatism, which is heresy.

Kepler

 

[Melethiel]

I have no problem with this except that lutheran still remains in the title of the church. An unworthy title.

You can keep the title. I prefer Evangelical Catholic anyway.

 

[BigNorsk]

That's not what he said.

This must be understood in the context of the LCMS' position concerning the interpretation and use of Scripture. The words of Paul in the NT are the words of God. The position of Paul in the NT is the position of God. Paul's NT word and God's word are synonomous. It does not need to be clarified, at least not for the LCMS. With us, it's a given. For others, I guess that needs to be explained.


DaRev

Really, so even the words Paul wrote where he specifically says he is not receiving his position from God but they are from himself are still the words of God?

How did the LCMS arrive at that?

1 Corinthians 7:12 NET.
(12) To the rest I say — I, not the Lord — if a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her.

Marv

 

[RayJGentry]

i guess the big ones that bug me are the passages of paul explaining dress for women in worship. they are not to wear gold, earrings, braids or decorate themselves...yet i know of no common congregation that requires women to follow those rules. i'm at work and don't have my Bible in front of me, but i'm sure people know what i'm talking about. is there a preface before them where paul says "this is what I say" or is it just that most churches that say that every word of the bible is the exact word of God choose not to follow it, while citing the gross exemptions of the ELCA?

if churches do, in fact, just choose to brush these regulations of paul aside? if that is the case i ask, how? the ELCA sees the Bible as having some social rules incorporated in the early church, however churches with exact literal beliefs of the bible would then be in concious dischord with the Word.

 

[stumpjumper]

if churches do, in fact, just choose to brush these regulations of paul aside? if that is the case i ask, how? the ELCA sees the Bible as having some social rules incorporated in the early church, however churches with exact literal beliefs of the bible would then be in concious dischord with the Word.

Your best bet is to ask ELCA:

On the Bible: http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=16

On the role of women: Arr. I can't find the article I was looking for...

 

[KEPLER]

i guess the big ones that bug me are the passages of paul explaining dress for women in worship. they are not to wear gold, earrings, braids or decorate themselves...yet i know of no common congregation that requires women to follow those rules. i'm at work and don't have my Bible in front of me, but i'm sure people know what i'm talking about. is there a preface before them where paul says "this is what I say" or is it just that most churches that say that every word of the bible is the exact word of God choose not to follow it, while citing the gross exemptions of the ELCA?

if churches do, in fact, just choose to brush these regulations of paul aside? if that is the case i ask, how? the ELCA sees the Bible as having some social rules incorporated in the early church, however churches with exact literal beliefs of the bible would then be in concious dischord with the Word.

Generally, Ray, conservative scholars "get around" those prohibitions you mention by asserting that Paul connects women (not) being ordained with the order of creation, while the social prohibitions have no such connection, so they are just social. The problem with this approach is that there is indeed such a connection with creation. Paul connects the length of a woman's hair with her created state (her glory), thereby connecting those social dress prohibitions with creation. (BTW, the passages in question are 1 Cor 11, and 1 Tim 2.) Paul makes a explicit appeal to creation and divine order for women's dress.

So you are VERY correct when you point out that this is an inconsistency.

K

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

I saw that article in wikipedia on high lutheranism and it said that the lutheran churches that have succumbed to liberal theology were low church and that the confessional were high church. I knew that term was used in the anglican church for liturgy, but I was very interested in the fact that there was some high church/low church split in the lutheran church. So basically instead of saying confessional and non-confessional, you could in fact say high church and low church. High church/Low church is not liturgy to the lutheran church, it is confessional or non confessional. It's funny how lightly you can throw away the words of Paul to fit in with your views of the world. It's the word of god, follow it don't change it for your own comfort.