The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

[LutheranHawkeye]

Hi all! I have a quick question for everyone on this forum. What is your personal opinion about the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod compared to global Lutheranism in the category of progress? Do you think that our Synod is hindering Lutheranism or preserving it? Any thoughts would be great!

 

[IowaLutheran]

I don't know if I have enough firsthand knowledge of the Missouri Synod to adequately answer your question. I'll try to venture a few observations about both the ELCA and the LCMS to frame the discussion:

The challenge of Lutheranism worldwide is to keep the Gospel message of the crucified and risen Christ at the center.

IMHO, right-wing Lutheranism emphasizes law at the expense of the Gospel. It troubles me when I lurk at conservative Lutheran websites (lutherquest, for example) and I see much more concern about who is guilty of "unionism" or "syncretism" than about the Gospel. On the other hand, left-wing Lutheranism emphasizes an "anything goes" mindset that risks denying the Gospel altogether. I am greatly concerned that some on the left seem to be flat-out denying elements of the Nicene Creed, and this is accepted.

In the future, the challenge for the LCMS is to not let law overshadow the Gospel, and the challenge for the ELCA is to not let the Gospel become so diluted that it is unrecognizable. I pray that both churches meet these challenges head-on with the crucified Christ in mind at all times.

 

[Levahddi]

I think to a certain extent both LCMS and ELCA need eachother in in the US sort of like the Republican and Democratic parties need each other to balance eachother out. I think IowaLutheran hit the nail on the head with regards to the differences between the two in terms of pointing out the weaknesses of both sides.

 

[IowaLutheran]

Thanks, Levahddi.

I'll give a couple of examples of the problems I was referring to.

I think the Missouri Synod was a poor witness to the Gospel during the whole post 9/11 deal with one of their district presidents who attended an interfaith prayer service at Yankee Stadium. Instead of praising him for being a witness to the Gospel to others during this time of great sadness, some tried to defrock him for the heresy of "unionism" with other faiths by standing on the same stage with them.

A recent article in the official magazine of the ELCA, "The Lutheran" illustrates a problem on the other end of the spectrum. A new bishop was recently installed, and this bishop has a daughter who converted to Judaism and is in the process of becoming a rabbi. Of course, like any father, it is appropriate for the bishop to love his daughter no matter what. However, the bishop went beyond that and had his daughter participate in the installation service by reading scripture. The tone of the article in "The Lutheran" seems to approve of what happened. I believe that tolerance is a virtue, but there has to be limits, and I do not believe it was appropriate for the bishop or the magazine to approve this kind of denial of the faith.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Okay thanks for the great answers, but I want you to expand from the United States. As you know confessionalism is the minority in the Lutheran Church. I think about only 5% of Lutherans are contained within confessional Lutheran Church bodies. So in your opinion do you think that the Missouri Synod is hindering global Lutheranism's progress as a stubbon minoirity, or is it preserving some aspects of Lutheranism as a vocal minority?

 

[IowaLutheran]

First, I'm not sure how you define "confessional" because all Lutheran churches subscribe to the confessions in some fashion.

Second, to answer your question, I don't see LCMS-type churches as hindering global Lutheranism at this point.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

First, I'm not sure how you define "confessional" because all Lutheran churches subscribe to the confessions in some fashion.

Second, to answer your question, I don't see LCMS-type churches as hindering global Lutheranism at this point.

By confessional I mean those Lutheran Church bodies contained within the ILC. Wait are there Church bodies within the LWF that believe in the innerancy of the Bible?

 

[Till]

By confessional I mean those Lutheran Church bodies contained within the ILC. Wait are there Church bodies within the LWF that believe in the innerancy of the Bible?

I do not think there are any church bodies that do subscribe to the bible NOT being inerrant. The question is what is being taught at the seminaries of churches. As for the churches in the LWF, I can tell you that the theological training of Lutheran churches in Scandinavia and Germany - and they would probably form the biggest part of LWF - is usually using historical-critical methods.

That does not mean though that there aren't members and pastors of these churches that do believe the bible to be inerrant.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I do not think the LCMS is "hindering" global Lutheranism, I think it is seperating itself from that (for better or worse). What I mean is this, the LCMS really in many ways wants nothing to do with other Lutheran bodies including those near like the ELCA and those far like the Lutherans in Germany. They do that to "preserve" the tradition, just like the other lutherans feel that they are supporting the Lutheran tradition.

I would also argue that being "confessional" is not simply an issue about biblical inerrancy. Certainly seminex might make it seem like that is the core issue, but generally when someone calls themselves confessional (as a Lutheran) or more specifically says someone else is not confessional, they feel that they are being loyal to the standards of the Lutheran Confessions (Book of Concord) and the other church is somehow betraying that. This is an issue with the ELCA and LCMS in what confessional means in regard to the Eucharist and Ordination.

If you were to ask my opinion, I would think that the LCMS is more in line with the Spirit of Luther, but whether that means that Lutheranism is preserved only by following this is a different issue. What I mean is, Luther reached a point in the reformation in which he held firm that what was fixed was fixed and there should be no more change or moving forward-liken I believe to the LCMS's standpoint. However, I do not think that this means that by being forward moving in certain areas you cannot do so in light of Lutheran Theology. But I do think it means you use it in a much different manner than Luther often did. Is that bad? I would say no, if they are for the mission of and grounded in Word and Sacrament.
O boy, I am ranting again, I am terribly sorry.
Peace be with you.

 

[RevCowboy]

There is a lot of history that goes with this question... but I will try there are few points that have crossed my mind.

The LCMS is freeze dried Lutheranism of 1840s Germany. I think the Evangelische Kirke of Luther's day was far more Roman looking than we really know and that most Lutherans bodies today have a few more reformed/calvinistic elements than we would really like to admit. And in North America there is a of course a little evangelicalism thrown in for good measure.

We also have to remember that many Scandinavian Lutherans saw some of the early confessional writings a too context specific, especially some of writings against Bishops. In Germany the Bishops stayed Roman. In Scandinavia the priests and bishops converted.

Lutheranism has had a variety of incarnations right from the beginning. Asking if one particular version is more Lutheran than another is like asking if a birch is more of a tree than a pine.

 

[DaRev]

I think the Missouri Synod was a poor witness to the Gospel during the whole post 9/11 deal with one of their district presidents who attended an interfaith prayer service at Yankee Stadium. Instead of praising him for being a witness to the Gospel to others during this time of great sadness, some tried to defrock him for the heresy of "unionism" with other faiths by standing on the same stage with them.

Just to set the record straight...

The "poor witness to the Gospel" was in this LCMS leader who publically recognized the validity of false religions by participating in a joint religious service in Yankee Stadium. His participation in such spoke against the very words of Jesus when He said. "No one comes to the Father except through Me." It is the mission of the Church to promote the truth of the Gospel and the exclusive teaching of Christ as the only means of salvation. Pr. Benke's participation in that service was contradictory to the Gospel witness.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

There is a lot of history that goes with this question... but I will try there are few points that have crossed my mind.

The LCMS is freeze dried Lutheranism of 1840s Germany. I think the Evangelische Kirke of Luther's day was far more Roman looking than we really know and that most Lutherans bodies today have a few more reformed/calvinistic elements than we would really like to admit. And in North America there is a of course a little evangelicalism thrown in for good measure.

We also have to remember that many Scandinavian Lutherans saw some of the early confessional writings a too context specific, especially some of writings against Bishops. In Germany the Bishops stayed Roman. In Scandinavia the priests and bishops converted.

Lutheranism has had a variety of incarnations right from the beginning. Asking if one particular version is more Lutheran than another is like asking if a birch is more of a tree than a pine.

Great Post Rev! I just wish the LCMS was freeze dried in the Lutheranism of the late 15 early 1600s. There is a pretty big minority of LCMS parishes that do retain the Roman feel though. I also wish that we were more ecumenical. Is our overly strict view on ecumenism from Walther...I know it can't come from Luther. It almost seems like missouri is Waltherian, opposed to Lutheran sometimes.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Just to set the record straight...

The "poor witness to the Gospel" was in this LCMS leader who publically recognized the validity of false religions by participating in a joint religious service in Yankee Stadium. His participation in such spoke against the very words of Jesus when He said. "No one comes to the Father except through Me." It is the mission of the Church to promote the truth of the Gospel and the exclusive teaching of Christ as the only means of salvation. Pr. Benke's participation in that service was contradictory to the Gospel witness.

I think Bishop Benke stood up as a witness for Christ that day. Proclaiming the Lord amongst the other non-christian religions. That was the day that fundamentalism really showed itself within the LCMS. Sad.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

The last few posts are not appropriate to this subforum.

http://christianforums.com/t3158457...not-allowed-in-this-liberal-member-forum.html

http://christianforums.com/t2962830...els-lcc-and-other-conservative-lutherans.html

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm not a Lutheran, though I might have been, and I'm a big fan of Luther's theology. But if I were I'd have to be ELCA, because I support open communion and the ordination of women. I have no standing to say whether LCMS is good or bad for Lutheranism as a whole, but I can say it isn't attractive to me.

 

[AngelusSax]

The "poor witness to the Gospel" was in this LCMS leader who publically recognized the validity of false religions by participating in a joint religious service in Yankee Stadium. His participation in such spoke against the very words of Jesus when He said. "No one comes to the Father except through Me."

One cannot preach the truth to those who do not believe by only staying inside the church walls of those who already believe.

Did this Bishop actually validate the other religions, or did he simply attend a joint service with them in an effort to heal all he could through the power of Christ?

Christ spent a lot of time with deniers of the faith, heretics, and people who just got things wrong. For us to hole ourselves up and only be in the physical company of those who already believe as we do is to deny the example of Christ, and may well lead to denying Christ altogether. I know you don't promote denying either, of course, I'm merely pointing out what CAN happen as a result.

Now, as for the LCMS "hindering the Gospel" or anything like that, I don't believe it is. I don't believe it's promoting it to the fullest it can, but then no church truly is, in all honesty. Maybe individual congregations are, but as a whole, denominations don't.

In keeping with my "wish for unity" mindset, I refuse to believe the LCMS is trying to harm Christianity, or trying to slow the growth of the faith. I believe their overall practices and seeming mindsets of "Come to us because we won't go to you" (I said seeming, not that it actually is, and there is no doubt it is perceived as such by many, if not most and if not all outside of the denomination to be so) do this, but I cannot and will not believe that it is by actual design of goal.

 

[DaRev]

Great Post Rev! I just wish the LCMS was freeze dried in the Lutheranism of the late 15 early 1600s. There is a pretty big minority of LCMS parishes that do retain the Roman feel though. I also wish that we were more ecumenical. Is our overly strict view on ecumenism from Walther...I know it can't come from Luther. It almost seems like missouri is Waltherian, opposed to Lutheran sometimes.

Are you LCMS? If you were you would certainly know better than that. Luther certainly never condoned communion with those who reject the Real Presence in the Sacrament, let alone any group that rejected Christ.

I think Bishop Benke stood up as a witness for Christ that day. Proclaiming the Lord amongst the other non-christian religions. That was the day that fundamentalism really showed itself within the LCMS. Sad.

Do you even know what Benke's "prayer" was at YS? I don't see where claiming that Jesus was "a son" instead of "the Son" is much of a Gospel witness.

 

[DaRev]

But if I were I'd have to be ELCA, because I support open communion and the ordination of women.

Even though the Bible clearly condemns both of those practices?

 

[DaRev]

The last few posts are not appropriate to this subforum.

http://christianforums.com/t3158457...not-allowed-in-this-liberal-member-forum.html

http://christianforums.com/t2962830...els-lcc-and-other-conservative-lutherans.html

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the main forum.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Even though the Bible clearly condemns both of those practices?

I don't agree that it does, but I don't think we're allowed to debate that here. By defending your position, you'd be attacking the beliefs of the synods whose home forum this is. And I'm not officially a Lutheran at all, only a "closet Lutheran" (as RegularGuy has called me), so I shouldn't be debating here either.