Methodists and Lutherans...differences and similarities?

[mark46]

I find this to be very, very important. My understanding is that UMC and ELCA are in full communion. The implication is that there are no "critical" theological differences. It is true that UMC (anglican and EO for that matter) do not find the need to explain what happens in the Eucharist. It is a holy mystery.

.
For instance, the UMC and ELCA fully recognize each other's validity, but other denoms (in both the Methodist and Lutheran continuums) don't necessarily see ecumenism in as positive a light.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I find this to be very, very important. My understanding is that UMC and ELCA are in full communion. The implication is that there are no "critical" theological differences. It is true that UMC (anglican and EO for that matter) do not find the need to explain what happens in the Eucharist. It is a holy mystery.

Yes. The ELCA pushed this because it it an important part of their understanding to be able to share in Holy Communion with other Christian bodies. Prior to this in some ELCA churches they practiced open communion, some practiced a more limited form of open communion, and some actually had restricted communion. Now, the agreement itself is primarily about who can preside over communion and thus the ability to share pulpits with one another. But in many respects it was born out of this desire for an ecumenical table. Since in the UMC we already practice open communion and can allow for the appointment of pastor of other denominations in our churches on a case by case basis, the importance of the agreement had more to do with the larger goals of Christian unity on the whole.

Now, this is the ELCA we have been talking about. Missouri Synod is a whole other story. Their theology of communion and baptism may be the same as the ELCA, but ecumenical they are not. Yet they don't mean anything degrogatory toward other Christian bodies. They just don't believe that the communion table ought to be open beyond the local church. I've even known of cases where children raised in a Missouri Synod congregation on moving away and joining another Missouri Synod congregation were not allowed to receive communion in the church they were raised in and taking communion in a year before. That is their unique understanding of what it means to belong to the church, i.e. the local assembly.

As for the ELCA, when I was serving in it I never gave up my UMC orders, I just took a leave of absence. And so, on more than one occassion, even before this agreement in which the ELCA and UMC recognized each other as being in full communion, I was invited to consecrate and serve Holy Communion in an ELCA church, not by virtue of my role serving in the ELCA, but based on my authority to do so as an ordained elder in the UMC.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Ok, if I can propose another question. This is really a 'what if' type of question and not necessarily theology. But I am wondering what Methodists/Wesleyans believe about the salvation of those who have never heard the gospel or Christ's name (or even of God the Father). Do Methodists/Wesleyans believe they can be saved? Also, I invite other Lutherans to chime in if they come by!

I don't believe that this question can be answered on behalf of the UMC as a whole. I cannot think of any place where we have made a definitive comment on this as a denomination. Perhaps some other Wesleyan denominations have addressed it, but I don't believe it has been an issue in the UMC. What you will find is among Methodists there are enough differences that you will eventually get answers that fall all over the place. As a result our answers on this are not doctrine, but opinion. Hopefully theologically informed and reflective, but still just an individual's own point of view.

For myself, I believe that if saved, all who are saved are saved by the work of Christ on the cross. I also don't believe that one has to fully and rightly understand it, or in some cases even be conscious of that work, for Christ to save us. As such, I do believe that there will be those who have not confessed Christ as their Lord and Savior who may yet be saved: small children, the feeble minded, those raised without sufficient knowledge of Christ to make a confession of faith in him but who nonetheless had a heart turned toward the limited knowledge they have of God. And this latter group would not only include not only people like Abraham or David who lived before the coming of Christ, nor only the person living today in a tribe that has yet to be reached with the Gospel, but also those who may have been raised in an environment that was in opposition to Chritianity, but that was all they knew. If those individuals, despite all that is at work against them, follow what little revelation they have, then I believe Romans 2 teaches that God is merciful to them and receives their obedience to general revelation (even apart from the specific revelation of Christ) as an act of faith on their part.Now, this doesn't mean that I definitly think that Mahatma Gandhi is saved; only that I don't exclude it from the realm of possibility.

 

[joyfulthanks]

I spent about 20 years of my life as a United Methodist, I'm the daughter of life-long Methodists, and the grandaughter of a Methodist minister. I'm now an LCMS Lutheran.

Here's my take on a few of the differences:

Theology: There is a huge difference between Luther's "Theology of the Cross" and Wesley's theology of "Entire Sanctification." The differences are too long to get into here, but I would suggest googling them and seeing what you come up with.

Communion: Others have already covered the theological differences well (the main difference being that Methodists believe that Christ is present "only after a heavenly and spiritual manner," while Lutherans believe that Christ's body and blood are given to us to eat and drink in, with, and under the bread and wine.) I'll just add that Methodists practice open communion, and the LCMS does not. My last Methodist church communed two practicing Muslims whenever they would visit as Islamic goodwill ambassadors. Some LCMS congregations (including mine) allow other Christians to commune if they agree with certain key doctrines, while others won't allow anyone outside of their own congregation to commune. The most common approach is churches communing all other LCMS members. Methodists are fond of saying "It's the Lord's table, not a Methodist table" LCMS Lutherans believe it is the Lord's table, but also believe that the Scriptures teach that people who commune not properly discerning the Lord's body and blood do themselves great harm, and so feel a responsibility to guard against this. Methodists use grape juice. Lutherans use wine. Methodists often use leavened bread. All Lutherans I've ever seen use unleavened bread. I have often seen where the words of institution are not used in their entirety in Methodist churches. In my experience, they are always used in their entirety in the LCMS. This is because we believe it is the Word of God that makes a sacrament a sacrament. In my experience, Methodist churches have communion about once a month. Most LCMS churches have communion every other week. Some have it weekly.

Baptism: LCMS Lutherans believe that through the Word of Christ in and with the water of baptism God cleanses us from original sin, imparts faith, fills with the Holy Spirit, makes one a part of the church, and gives forgiveness of sins. This is 100% the work of God and not of man. Whether or not the regenerate person retains the salvation they are freely given depends on whether or not they continue in repentance and faith. I'll let the Methodists give you their view of baptism, since I've always been a little unclear on it.

Authority: Lutherans believe the Scriptures alone are the sole rule of faith. Methodists believe matters of faith are guided by the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Traditional, Reason, and Experience.

Confession and Absolution: Methodists have a form of this that you will hear from time to time, but in my experience, it's not used often in the liturgy. In the Methodist version I'm familiar with, the Pastor will absolve the congregation, and the congregation will turn around and absolve the Pastor. Lutherans practice corporate confession and absolution every week. Lutherans believe that the Pastor has authority from God to forgive or retain sins in Christ's stead and by His command. I'm not really sure what the Methodist view of this is. In my personal experience, I don't ever recall hearing it expounded on.

Pastors: Methodists ordain women. LCMS churches do not.

Social Issues and Morals: The Methodist church is a HUGE tent. You will find an incredible range of both theological and moral beliefs in the Methodist Church -- everything from extremely liberal to extremely conservative, and everything in between. LCMS tends to be very conservative.

Liturgy: Methodist liturgy tends to be (but is not always) less formal and can vary a great deal from place to place. Lutheran liturgy tends to be (but is not always) more formal and varies a bit less.

Miscellaneous: Methodist Pastors generally wear black robes. Lutheran Pastors generally wear white ones. Methodist choirs are usually at the front of the church. Lutheran choirs are generally at the back. Methodist hymns deal a lot with inspiration and christian living. Lutheran hymns deal a lot with the cross and theology. Lutheran hymns can be challenging to sing if you're not used to them.

Confirmation: I was confirmed as a child in the Methodist church. There were a few classes beforehand -- not long, and a big deal wasn't made out of it. GraceSeeker is right that Lutherans put a lot of effort into confirmation - unfortunately, not all of which pays off as far as kids staying in the faith. The kids in my church do confirmation with the Pastor for two years. In that time, they memorize 60 scripture verses and Luther's shorter catechism in its entirety. It's a big deal.

Governance: Methodist churches have bishops. Lutheran churches in the US don't. The local congregation is autonomous in the LCMS.

Creeds: Methodists use lots of different creeds and affirmations. Some of the affirmations, in particular, I have found troubling. When I was growing up, the Apostle's Creed was used most of the time in the Methodist Church. As an adult, it seemed like Korean Methodist creed was getting a lot of use. Lutherans use three: the Apostle's, the Nicene, and the Athansian.

Confessions: Methodists have a set of doctrines, but there is wide latitude about what individuals can believe. LCMS Lutherans have the Lutheran Confessions, and it is pretty much expected that you will adhere to them. Lutherans place a GREAT DEAL of emphasis on the content of what we believe, and the LCMS approach to finding a church is generally focused on finding one that teaches doctrine accurately. Agreement on doctrine is not as much of a central issue for Methodists as it is for confessional Lutherans.

Alcohol: As others mentioned, Lutherans generally don't have any problem with drinking alcohol. Some Methodists do, and some do not.

Sermons: In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Lutheran sermons I have heard are focused on the cross in one way or another. The overwhelming majority of Methodist sermons I heard in my 20 years of being a Methodist dealt with Christian living.

Well, that's just a few thing I can think of off the top of my head. Some are important issues, others just random bits of info. Hope it helps, and please feel free to correct me, anyone, if I've misrepresented Methodism in any way.

 

[rturner76]

Very good post! I learned a lot. I was almost confirmed in the WELS. (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod), they are more conservative as well. Male Pastors only and more closed about communion. A lot more so than even ELCA. Coming from a WELS Jr High school and working at an ELCA for a while as an adult, I was in for a shocker on a number of things. One thing I just saw on a church is that there is also an ELC. Is that right? It seemed to be much smaller than ELCA. I don't know about some things. I went to AME and they say is you want to look up any doctrine or rules just look in the UMC manual. I wonder if things will change if and when things become more liberal concerning sexual orientation and marriage or relationships in general. I went to a church that accepted everybody but didn't approve of everything everybody did if you know what I mean. Nobody got turned away at all but I guess it just wasn't talked about period. Where some churches I've been to make a point to bring it up either way. I kind of like the just leave it idea. We don't need to even bring it up really and sorry I just did.

 

[Lee52]

I have always found following Christ in His examples left for us in the NT to be a very good way of approaching people. Though not found per se in the Bible, "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a just summation of Jesus' work on this earth. Jesus loved unconditionally. Jesus did not/does not condemn, sin does. Our sin actions and thoughts condemn us, not Jesus.

Jesus saw broken people and offered them restoration and healing.

In order to get people to recognize their situation, He used several means, both gentle and confrontive. The mystery to this is letting Jesus lead us instead of us leading Him.

Whether one is inclined to "high Church" or "low Church" is immaterial, for we are all of One Body, if we are in Christ Jesus our LORD. Whether we are following Christ Jesus through our understanding according to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or a muriad of other humbly great men of Christ, if we follow Christ Jesus, though we be a little pinky toe or great leg muscle, Jesus can use us to further His kingdom.

It is all a matter of surrender to Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior.

Be blessed,
Lee52

 

[joyfulthanks]

It is all a matter of surrender to Jesus Christ as LORD and Savior.

You said, "It's all a matter of surrender to Christ Jesus as LORD and Savior."

Lutherans would say, "It's all a matter of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and LORD."

Is the change of just two words, and the reordering of the last part of the sentence just an unimportant difference in semantics -- a distinction without a difference? Not for me. For me, that slight shift in emphasis from 'me and what I must do for God,' to 'Jesus and what He has done for me' made all the difference in the world in my life and faith walk! It changed me so much so that I wound up changing my name on this forum from 'contriteheart' to 'joyfulthanks.'

To me, that omnipresent difference in emphasis is probably the major area of distinction I see between Methodism and Lutheranism.

 

[rturner76]

You said, "It's all a matter of surrender to Christ Jesus as LORD and Savior."

Lutherans would say, "It's all a matter of faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and LORD."

Is the change of just two words, and the reordering of the last part of the sentence just an unimportant difference in semantics -- a distinction without a difference? Not for me. For me, that slight shift in emphasis from 'me and what I must do for God,' to 'Jesus and what He has done for me' made all the difference in the world in my life and faith walk! It changed me so much so that I wound up changing my name on this forum from 'contriteheart' to 'joyfulthanks.'

To me, that omnipresent difference in emphasis is probably the major area of distinction I see between Methodism and Lutheranism.

I can see that because a big part of my spirituality comes from surrendering my will and my life to Christ. That is a different emphasis. One is more Pauline it would seem and one is a bit more Jamesy. James is my favorite book and I grew up in St James Church. It is a big part pf our spirituality that the more we give ourselves to Christ, the more he indwells within us. SOmething like that. We are not saved by our works but works are the fruit of our faith. We still believe we are saved by grace. That grace allows us our relationship with Christ which allows us to be further sanctified. Is that it Graceseeker? Lee?

 

[GraceSeeker]

CJtheCatholic, are you still with us? Have we provided the help and guidance you were seeking when you originated this thread?

 

[Maid Marie]

I can see that because a big part of my spirituality comes from surrendering my will and my life to Christ. That is a different emphasis. One is more Pauline it would seem and one is a bit more Jamesy. James is my favorite book and I grew up in St James Church. It is a big part pf our spirituality that the more we give ourselves to Christ, the more he indwells within us. SOmething like that. We are not saved by our works but works are the fruit of our faith. We still believe we are saved by grace. That grace allows us our relationship with Christ which allows us to be further sanctified. Is that it Graceseeker? Lee?

Sounds good to me.

 

[rturner76]

Maid Marie you're a rock

 

[Maid Marie]

Maid Marie you're a rock

Gee, Thanks

 

[Lee52]

Joyfulthanks,
I am going to attempt to clarify the theology of grace and sanctification by an analogy......

GOD, in His infinite love and grace for us, came to us as Jesus; fully GOD-fully man. GOD in Jesus laid down His human life to pay the cost of sin for all of time, for all of sin, for all of mankind-who will accept that free gift. That free gift of salvation is sitting on a table along side a road that every human must walk by on our life journey. It is ours for the taking. It is free. GOD did all the work. GOD did all of the packaging. GOD did all of the gift wrapping. GOD put the "Free Gift" sign on it. GOD put it on the table that He set up on the road all of us have to travel. The road that He made.

That free gift is in our path. It will not jump into us uninvited. We must stop, ponder the sign, ponder the gift, ponder the giver of the gift, before we decide to either accept the free gift or reject the free gift because of our pride, suspicion, lack of faith, cynicism, or any and all other excuses and rationalizations as to why we will not accept a free gift of eternal life.

Realize that there is nothing that we can do to earn that free gift. There is no work yet to be done to complete that gift. It is complete. It is finished.

When we accept that free gift, it is not a burden to carry. It replaces our heavy burdens with unconditional love and power from GOD to live a life victorious. It changes our burdens from selfish burdens to burdens of love for others. This wonderful gift changes everything about who we are. As this gift works in us, it brings focus to life. It brings a burden for others upon us, a burden that we are also given strength to carry, because our strength is insufficient to carry the burdens that we now accept for others. As we surrender more and more of self to Christ Jesus, Christ Jesus begins to become apparent in us. The power of the Holy Spirit begins to encompass our very existence so that others begin to see Jesus Christ in us when they look at us. The more we surrender, the more Jesus is seen in us=sanctification.

We did nothing, no works, to get saved. We merely accepted a free gift that was totally completed before we every accepted it.

What you are saying and what we Wesleyan doctrine Christians are saying is not different in action, it is only different in semantics. We are accepting the exact same meaning of grace. The differences come latter in theological discussions.

I hope this helps.

Be blessed,
Lee52

 

[joyfulthanks]

What you are saying and what we Wesleyan doctrine Christians are saying is not different in action, it is only different in semantics. We are accepting the exact same meaning of grace. The differences come latter in theological discussions.

Hi Lee,

Your analogy of salvation is a good description of Wesleyan thought as I understand it from having been a Methodist for 20 years, and an evangelical Christian for another 20 years. However, this is not the way Lutherans understand salvation by grace through faith.

I must disagree with you when you say that what we believe is not different in action, only semantics. Having personally been on both sides of this fence, my experience has been that what you are calling a semantic difference leads to very different implications and applications in real life.

I respect the fact that I'm in the Wesley's Parish, so I won't go into more detail than that. Hopefully, i haven't already overstayed my welcome. Since the OP was asking about differences between Methodism and Lutheranism, I figured I might be able to be of some help since I've been on both sides of the fence. I tried hard to describe objectively what I see as some of the differences. I hope I did it accurately and fairly from you guys' perspective.

God's blessings to you all!

 

[GraceSeeker]

Since the OP was asking about differences between Methodism and Lutheranism, I figured I might be able to be of some help since I've been on both sides of the fence. I tried hard to describe objectively what I see as some of the differences. I hope I did it accurately and fairly from you guys' perspective.

God's blessings to you all!

Since I've been on both sides of the fence in a slightly different context I can affirm that in general you have articulated the difference accurately and fairly. I do think you may have had a unique exposure to hymnody if you think that Lutheran hymns deal with the cross more than Methodist hymns do. But didn't think that was worth of a post just to make that point. I only add it here to note how much I agree with the rest of what you have articulated.

Perhaps worth noting is that I think the best baptismal hymn ever written is "Borning Cry". Written by a Lutheran for a Lutheran assembly, it perfectly expresses not just the theology behind a Lutheran understanding of baptism, but also the contextual way one feels about when talking about it with other Lutherans inside the church itself. But also worth noting, though such a song could never have been written by Charles Wesley, it has become nearly as popular in those Methodist circles where it has been introduce as it is in Lutheran hymnody. All that is to say that though we may have different beginning places for thinking about theological things, in the end I believe that Methodism and Lutheranism are headed in the same theological direction.

 

[Lawrence7]

Being in communion with a denomination is not the same as having the same doctrine. There are distinct differences between Lutheranism and Methodism. Some denominations look past the differences and focus on core Gospel.

>>>

A few years late, but the topic is pertinent to me today as an LCMS Lutheran wishing to understand my friend's Methodist views.

I also wish to jump in on the "Baptism" conversation, of which a number of critical ideas should be addressed.

These comments focus on Lutheran doctrine that sometimes has little direct equivalent in other Protestant doctrines.

Lutheran Baptism (as well as Holy Communion, and Marriage) are Sacraments. Not mere ceremonies, but Sacraments in the old-school, Orthodox (I dare say catholic) manner.

In this there are THREE active elements. The person, corporate participation/prayer, and God Himself. The importance is the Holy Spirit aspect of God actively present in the encounter.

In this regard both Marriage and Holy Communion could be considered a type of Baptism, and Baptism in the broader sense could take many forms other than the actual formal ceremony using prayer, confirmation of faith, and water. This is also why Lutherans embrace infant Baptism, it is the corporate prayer of parents and congregation, coupled with the physical presence of the infant, and the direct work of the Holy Spirit. In some circles this concept of Baptism may be referred to as the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

This is important because Lutherans will say that we can only have true Faith through the work of the Holy Spirit, not by any means through our own efforts. Herein that only through Faith and Baptism (Holy Spirit driven Faith/Baptism) can a person be truly saved. Salvation being Christ's death and resurrection. Sanctification being the work of Holy Spirit driven Faith and repentance.

This is a simplified perspective not addressing Grace and Scripture. (Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Scripture Alone.) Doctrinal language that seems to be uniquely Lutheran in this day and age.

A Lutheran might say; it is not about accepting God but about stopping our rejection of Him. This occurs through repentance, which is only possible through Faith, of which only the Holy Spirit can make us Faithful. This is where Baptism comes in as a reflection of Holy Spirit drive Faith and repentance.

The only large Christian denominations I know of with similar Sacramental views are old-school Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, maybe some Coptics, there are probably many others who do, but I'm just not as familiar with them.

>>>

The contrast with much of modern Protestant views of things like Baptism are more in light of a ceremony than a Holy Sacrament. God is certainly present, just as He is always present in everything, wherein the significance of the ceremony is no greater than any other God focused/inspired ceremony or tradition. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view.

>>>

Acceptance of alcohol among Lutherans is a cultural issue not a doctrinal issue. Lutherans do not approve of drunkenness and abstention is encouraged to avoid abuses.

>>>

There are also distinctions between German Lutherans and English Lutherans based on Historical, Cultural, and Language issues. ELCA has more of an English/Scandinavian history, whereas LCMS or WELS have more of a German history. ELCA churches identify more with modern protestant movements including modern Methodists. WELS doesn't identify with anyone specifically. While some LCMS might say we are catholic, just not Roman Catholic. However, the core doctrinal positions of all these denominations remain the same with regard to the Book of Concord and the Augsburg confession.

Lutherans are also heavily academic in approaching Scripture and Bible Study. Lutherans study other Christian denominational doctrines almost as much as their own. Correct understanding and interpretations is paramount from Liturgy, to Sermon, to Confirmation, through Seminary, etc. Lutheran pastors read both Greek and Latin and many also read German. Lutherans have the second largest parochial school system in the U.S. behind Roman Catholics, one of the largest world outreach programs (Lutheran World Relief), and one of the largest Christian publishing organizations (Concordia). Lutherans do not believe in glorifying themselves so they do not advertise their works, which is why most people outside Lutheran circle know so little about Lutheran theology and influence.

Corporate Worship is just as important as private Worship. Public corporate confession and absolution is a core element of Lutheran Liturgy. Private confession and absolution with pastor is greatly encouraged and practiced.

>>>

Breaking Sacraments is a big deal to Lutherans.

Divorce is more than just two people splitting up. It is a breakup of a sacred union between a man a woman and God. Lutherans have a really hard time dealing with divorce.

Communion improperly ministered or received becomes an insult to God's presence. Hence the practice of close/closed communion.

Baptism improperly ministered has no real meaning. Any Baptism properly invoking the Holy Spirit is valid at any age. Most Lutheran churches accept the Baptisms of most Protestant denominations, as well as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

And Sanctity of Life at conception is an absolute.
.

 

[circuitrider]

Lawrence, Methodists certainly don't view the sacraments as mere ceremonies. We believe, as United Methodists, in the real presence of Christ in communion. We believe God begins a work of grace in persons who are baptized "by water and the Spirit."

I worship on occasion with an ELCA congregation in my area when I've been invited by the pastor for special events. There is very little difference between the eucharistic liturgy between the ELCA and the UMC other than the ELCA tends to use the Agnus Dei more often than we do.

The UMC and ELCA are indeed in full communion and recognize each other's clergy and sacraments.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Being in communion with a denomination is not the same as having the same doctrine. There are distinct differences between Lutheranism and Methodism. Some denominations look past the differences and focus on core Gospel.

I'm glad that circuitrider has responded, because I was thinking some of those very same things when I read your post the other day. There are some things that you have said that I would agree with -- there are distinct differences between Lutheranism and Methodism. But there are some things that I would not. For example....

Lutheran Baptism (as well as Holy Communion, and Marriage) are Sacraments. Not mere ceremonies, but Sacraments in the old-school, Orthodox (I dare say catholic) manner.

Divorce is more than just two people splitting up. It is a breakup of a sacred union between a man a woman and God. Lutherans have a really hard time dealing with divorce.

Not in my experience. First, while I believe that even none religious people find divorce to be more difficult than they imagine it is going to be, one must be careful with the use of the term "sacred" in the context of talking about marriage and sacraments. It would easily be misconstrued that Lutherans view marriage as a sacrament when they do not. I don't think that the Lutheran view of marriage or divorce is significantly different from that of Methodists. (Though I actually know more divorced Lutheran pastors than I do divorced Methodist pastors.)


On a few other things I believe you show a sufficient lack knowledge regarding Methodist that while it is fine to make statements about what Lutheran's may believe, you ought not to be making comparative statements vis-à-vis Methodism.

This is important because Lutherans will say that we can only have true Faith through the work of the Holy Spirit, not by any means through our own efforts. Herein that only through Faith and Baptism (Holy Spirit driven Faith/Baptism) can a person be truly saved. Salvation being Christ's death and resurrection. Sanctification being the work of Holy Spirit driven Faith and repentance.

This is a simplified perspective not addressing Grace and Scripture. (Faith Alone, Grace Alone, Scripture Alone.) Doctrinal language that seems to be uniquely Lutheran in this day and age.

There is nothing uniquely Lutheran in this. Some of it is downright Catholic, and I don't know of a denomination that makes as big of a deal about Sanctification as do those, such as Methodists, that trace their roots back to the Wesleyan Revival.

The only large Christian denominations I know of with similar Sacramental views are old-school Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, maybe some Coptics, there are probably many others who do, but I'm just not as familiar with them.

I would that there are and you do appear to not be familiar with them.

There are also distinctions between German Lutherans and English Lutherans based on Historical, Cultural, and Language issues. ELCA has more of an English/Scandinavian history, whereas LCMS or WELS have more of a German history. ELCA churches identify more with modern protestant movements including modern Methodists. WELS doesn't identify with anyone specifically. While some LCMS might say we are catholic, just not Roman Catholic. However, the core doctrinal positions of all these denominations remain the same with regard to the Book of Concord and the Augsburg confession.

Communion improperly ministered or received becomes an insult to God's presence. Hence the practice of close/closed communion.

It might surprise you then to learn that I, a United Methodist pastor, have not only served in a Lutheran congregation, I was on synod staff, and have with the blessing of both the bishop and Lutheran congregations celebrated Holy Communion in the Lutheran Church. I've also never once been refused Holy Communion at a Lutheran worship service -- no, these were not LCMS or WELS churches, but they were Lutherans (and not just ELCA).

Baptism improperly ministered has no real meaning. Any Baptism properly invoking the Holy Spirit is valid at any age. Most Lutheran churches accept the Baptisms of most Protestant denominations, as well as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

Isn't it interesting that one can hold that baptism has no meaning of not properly administered, and yet at the same time hold that one is willing to accept the baptism performed by virtually other Christian denomination as being valid, even when they administer it differently than one does? Perhaps it is because what makes baptism "proper" isn't either the baptizer, the baptisee, nor even the manner in which the baptism is done; what makes baptism "proper" and therefore valid is the God in whose name we are baptized?

And Sanctity of Life at conception is an absolute.

I wish this were true, but I know all to well that it isn't.

 

[circuitrider]

Thanks for jumping in Grace Seeker!

Lawrence may not be aware that there are actually several Lutheran denominations that don't actually agree with each other either. The Missouri Synod is not what I would think of as the mainstream of Lutheranism.

This isn't intended as a criticism per se. But in most cases Missouri Synod churches and pastors will not participate in any kind of inter-church event, much less commune together. That isn't the view of say the ELCA which is fully ecumenically involved.

I have not serviced on staff in a Lutheran Church but I have helped serve communion and communed in a Lutheran Church on more than one occasion. I found the similarities in worship to be much much more than the differences as a United Methodist.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I'm not sure why so many have this idea that United Methodists reject the sacraments. We don't and we quite clearly don't; but it seems a common theme. A common understanding that the 'difference' between us and whoever comes in here is that we believe in 'mere ceremonies' and that's simply not true. Maybe our churches need to do a better job educating folks?