The "Ask a Lutheran" Thread!

[JonNC]

Back to the op, I have a question:

Is there open hostility (anamosity or emnity or whatever term you wish to describe) between the different local branches of Lutherans, say MS and WS and ELCA?

As a comparison, I know there is much hostility between PCA and PCUSA Presbyterians.

Thanks!

I don’t think hostility or emnity are the right words here, Mark. More like definitive disagreement in some limited areas. The differences between LCMS and WELS are few, but in the eyes of some in both camps, quite important, not unlike Orthodoxy and Rome, or various parts of Anglicanism.
The differences between LCMS and ELCA, however, are sadly growing. It is the persception of LCMS that the leadership of the ELCA is moving away from confessional Lutheranism, in a few areas. Their closeness to the Episcopal Church and UCC is, at least to me, evidence of this. But we are in constant dialogue. The ELCA’s presiding bishop is always invited to speak at our convention, and ours is always invited to their Churchwide assembly. And the oft-stated truth of the matter is that the further away Lutherans gets from Chicago and St. Louis, the closer they become. Most Lutheran congregations are welcoming to all Christians,and that is particularly so of other Lutherans, regardless of synod.

That’s my experience. Others may see it differently
Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

I don’t think hostility or emnity are the right words here, Mark. More like definitive disagreement in some limited areas. The differences between LCMS and WELS are few, but in the eyes of some in both camps, quite important, not unlike Orthodoxy and Rome, or various parts of Anglicanism.
The differences between LCMS and ELCA, however, are sadly growing. It is the persception of LCMS that the leadership of the ELCA is moving away from confessional Lutheranism, in a few areas. Their closeness to the Episcopal Church and UCC is, at least to me, evidence of this. But we are in constant dialogue. The ELCA’s presiding bishop is always invited to speak at our convention, and ours is always invited to their Churchwide assembly. And the oft-stated truth of the matter is that the further away Lutherans gets from Chicago and St. Louis, the closer they become. Most Lutheran congregations are welcoming to all Christians,and that is particularly so of other Lutherans, regardless of synod.

That’s my experience. Others may see it differently
Jon

I largely agree with Jon’s reply…

Lutherans take issues of doctrine and practice VERY seriously - especially conservative Lutherans. And so issues that would seem almost moot in some communities seem large to Lutherans.

The differences between The Wisconsin and Missouri synods are too few to mention; they are mostly issues of praxis associated with what we call “fellowship” (a sticky point for conservatives Lutherans). The differences between LCMS and WELS on the one hand, and ELCA on the other are sadly widening. While OFFICIALLY there is still agreement (we all embrace the Lutheran Confessions of 1560 as our statement of faith), in practice, it is the view of conservative Lutherans that our ELCA brothers and sisters are moving rapidly away from our traditional faith and practice. It’s not ENTIRELY unlike the tension seen in most faith communities, the same “conservative/liberal” tension. But, all in all, I’d regard it as less so than in most others. For all the screaming heard in WELS and LCMS, it’s a stretch in MOST cases to call ELCA “liberal.” When I was active in the Catholic Church, MUCH was heard about those “liberal Catholics!!” Always made me chuckle a bit… It’s a tension nearly everywhere.

I hope that helps.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[JonNC]

=AmericanJosiah;5988343] For all the screaming heard in WELS and LCMS, **it’s a stretch in MOST cases to call ELCA “liberal.” **When I was active in the Catholic Church, MUCH was heard about those “liberal Catholics!!” Always made me chuckle a bit… It’s a tension nearly everywhere.

Josiah,
I think you are quite right here. Even 25 to 30 years ago, my dad and a number of his pastor friends used to often discuss the fact that the LCA/ELCA was a conservative Church with a liberal leadership. It is even moreso today. Most ELCA Lutherans are far more conservative, and I’d venture to say more confessional, than the leadership in Chicago.

Jon

 

[IAGladfelter]

The Augsburg Confession says: "*Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. *"

I, personally. would not attend, much less commune, under the circumstances you have described.

Neither would I, Jon. Actually, I would walk out of the church as soon as I realized a layman was presiding; but “lay presidency at the Eucharist” is not unknown among Lutherans in the U.S. when a pastor is unavailable for any reason for some length of time; especially among the ELCA’s Haugean (Norwegian) Pietists in the more remote rural and semi-rural areas of the Northern plains states and parts of West and NW Minnesota. It is not unheard of in the LCMS and WELS either, though usually when a Sunday service is held by a Lay Parish Worker or a congregational Elder, he celebrates “Divine Worship” (ante-communion with sermon) instead of the Eucharist. Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle or aumbry with the Mass of the Presanctified is rare in Lutheranism except for the small number of highly Romanized Lutheran Churches with apostolic succession. In the last year or so, “lay presidency at the Eucharist” has surfaced as an issue promoted by some (pietists of various types, mostly) in the ELCA.

Here is how “lay presidency at the Eucharist” is justified by the parishes where this is found: Though the Unaltared Augsburg Confession (UAC) does have the above statement, if there is no pastor to call, or if no pastor accepts their call, this is justified as an exception from the UAC justified by the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, based on Martin Luther’s teachings. While Luther didn’t use the term, “priesthood of all believers,” he adduces a general priesthood of all believers in two of his documents: In the first, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, (1520) he wrote that all baptized Christians are “priests” and “spiritual” in the sight of God: "That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2:9] says, “You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom,” and Revelation [5:10], “Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings.”[3]

The other document, also written in 1520, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther wrote: "How then if they are forced to admit that we are all equally priests, as many of us as are baptized, and by this way we truly are; while to them is committed only the Ministry (ministerium Predigtamt) and consented to by us (nostro consensu)? If they recognize this they would know that they have no right to exercise power over us (ius imperii, in what has not been committed to them) except insofar as we may have granted it to them, for thus it says in 1 Peter 2, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom.” In this way we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry. Thus 1 Corinthians 4:1: “No one should regard us as anything else than ministers of Christ and dispensers of the mysteries of God.”

Of course, in my humble opinion, in these documents, Martin Luther was way across the line into heresy, period. Nontheless the concept of the priesthood of all believers, which was also developed by John Calvin, became a foundational principle of Protestantism, and Lutheran Pietism is certainly Protestant.

In general, “confessing evangelical” (low-church, Protestant oriented) Lutherans are willing to tolerate lay presidency in certain limited, temporary circumstances, and evangelical catholic (high-church, Catholic oriented) are steadfastly opposed to it.

Unlike Episcopal Church bishops who often will ordain an “indigenous person” a deacon and priest to serve in a remote location only, even in areas with a persistent clergy shortage, ELCA bishops and LCMS/WELS regional Superintendants refuse to ordain who is not either a graduate of a residential seminary or has gone through a residential seminary’s colloquy program to serve only in such remote places.

Hope this helps.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[IAGladfelter]

Josiah,
I think you are quite right here. Even 25 to 30 years ago, my dad and a number of his pastor friends used to often discuss the fact that the LCA/ELCA was a conservative Church with a liberal leadership. It is even moreso today. Most ELCA Lutherans are far more conservative, and I’d venture to say more confessional, than the leadership in Chicago.

Jon

That may soon change, Jon. Earlier this month (November, 2009) leaders of Lutheran CORE, a coalition of ELCA parishes unwilling to accept the ELCA’s new standards authorizing the ordination of active, partnered GLBT people, the performance of same-sex Marriges (?), and liberal biblical interpretation based on the work of Bultmann and others of his school and the new "contextual) exegesis, announced the formation of a new Lutheran Church which will be a continuation of what the ELCA was before its leadership was taken over by hard-core liberal revisionists. On the ELCA side, rather than try to “muddle through” the controversy, the ELCA’s presiding bishop and most of the synodical bishops are moving rapidly to consolidate their victory at last August’s Churchwide Assembly, presenting the new sexuality standards and principles of biblical exegesis as “settled law,” no longer up for discussion.

Blessings,
Irl

P.S. In some ways the ELCA is catching up with the European Churches in the Lutheran World Federation, most of whom have been ordaining GLBT people and blessing same sex marriages (?) since the 1990’s. Even before that, in the 1980’s I often heard it said that to European Lutherans, all Lutheran Churches including the ELCA and its predecessor bodies, were considered to be conservative.

 

[mark_a]

The differences between The Wisconsin and Missouri synods are too few to mention; they are mostly issues of praxis associated with what we call “fellowship” (a sticky point for conservatives Lutherans).

Do the WELS teachings regarding contraception cause friction?

 

[JonNC]

Do the WELS teachings regarding contraception cause friction?

I don’t think it is synod dividing with LCMS, but I could be wrong. Certainly, it would be a concern for the ELCA (one of many).

 

[JonNC]

Neither would I, Jon. Actually, I would walk out of the church as soon as I realized a layman was presiding; but “lay presidency at the Eucharist” is not unknown among Lutherans in the U.S. when a pastor is unavailable for any reason for some length of time; especially among the ELCA’s

Hi Irl,
Yes, I know. My mother, before she resigned her membership in response to the Churchwide Assembly, was a member of a Church where this practice was used. I was astounded and told her she should not commune. And she is in an area of the Northeast where Lutheran churches abound.

=IAGladfelter;5990113] Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle or aumbry with the Mass of the Presanctified is rare in Lutheranism except for the small number of highly Romanized Lutheran Churches with apostolic succession.

This is what should be happening, particularly when all cannot be consumed.

Jon

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Do the WELS teachings regarding contraception cause friction?

I’m not aware that WELS has any official position on that.
I know that LCMS does not. Never has.

I do know that many pastors in LCMS and WELS are passionately opposed to it. If you go to the LCMS website, there is an article there on this. It begins - the first sentence - by nothing what I did. That there is NO official position - AND NEVER HAS BEEN. The entire rest of the article is the expression of the author that contraception is immoral. I don’t know if it is similar in WELS, but I suspect so. Again, there is no official position in LCMS and I don’t think there is in WELS. Thus, no, it cannot be a divisive point. Eeither way.

.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I think one of the things that many do not understand about recent ELCA decisions is this. Because the ELCA says a congregation can call and install an openly gay pastor no congregation is under any obligation to ever do so. Same with same sex weddings.

 

[JonNC]

I think one of the things that many do not understand about recent ELCA decisions is this. Because the ELCA says a congregation can call and install an openly gay pastor no congregation is under any obligation to ever do so. Same with same sex weddings.

And we know that will most likely be temporary, as it is synod bishops that submit names of candidates for call to local congregations. A congregation may make it clear that they will not accept an openly practicing gay “pastor”, but the bishop can very easily put that congregation between that kind of “pastor”, and no pastor at all, simply in order to extend that local synod bishop’s (and Chicago’s) view of “diversity”. I think it is fairly easy to predict that the extreme liberals in leadership in the ELCA will do everything they can to enforce (and force) this practice.

Because the ELCA says a congregation can call and install an openly gay pastor no congregation is under any obligation to ever do so. Same with same sex weddings

That the ELCA would even make these options available makes the leadership, in my opinion, apostate at best. This, however, is no reflection on the members, my Lutheran siblings, for whom I pray.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=IAGladfelter;5990142]

Irl,
I have aquestion for you about the ALCC. Considering that you are not yet in communion with Rome, how do you view your own Eucharist. Is it valid and/or licit?

Jon

 

[IAGladfelter]

Irl,
I have a question for you about the ALCC. Considering that you are not yet in communion with Rome, how do you view your own Eucharist. Is it valid and/or licit?

Jon

Irregular but valid. A number of Roman Catholic authorities (our advisors, and Catholic Canon Lawyers and bishops with which we are in contact, including those involved in processing the ALCC’s petition use that same phrase - "irregular but valid. Our status is essentially the came as the PNCC in that regard. Like them, we share with the Catholic Church a common valid priesthood and Eucharist. We just don’t have the indorsement to work in the Catholic Church without having an “endorsement” from a Catholic bishop to do so. (One of our bishops has such an endorsement to say mass and to concelebrate from his local Catholic ordinary.) However, we can and do function validly within our own jurisdiction. (like the PNCC, for instance.

All of our clergy, as you know are ordained as sacrificing priests using the ordinal of the Roman Catholic Church with no additions or omissions except the celibacy vow in the diaconal rite; set within a celebration of the Mass (Paul VI /Novis Ordo or the Anglican Use Pastoral provision’s Book of Divine Worship. Our Mass is celebrated using the Novis Ordo Mass or the Book of Divine Worship. (The use of Lutheran or Anglican rites is illegal and will get the priest using it returned to lay communion!)

Our primary apostolic lineage is the Duarte-Costa line of the Rebiban (Vatican) Succession. We also hold the Dutch Old Catholic lineage as well as a number of others all of which have been declared technically valid in writing by various Popes.

All this said, we are all praying for the entrance of the ALCC into the Roman Catholic Church in whichever format the Pope and Curia offers us. Please pray for the reunion of the Church.

Hope this helps.

Blessings,
Irl

 

[crowtherkidsmom]

I agree. My biggest complaint with ‘contemporary’ worship does not come from the music style necessarily but rather for the theology therein. Also, I find that congregants have trouble following some of the complicated rhythms that more modern music has, and I would personally rather see everyone participating in ‘boring’ music than having just the choir sing something upbeat.

A congregation that I was a member of in Central Alberta, Canada started a sort-of “praise-band” format. However, this group not only sang more contemporary songs, but also sang hymns out of the hymnal (adding a flute, clarinet or guitar to make the sound of the hymn more upbeat. Sometimes it simply takes a few different instruments taking part to make a hymn more accessible to the younger generation.:harp:

 

[crowtherkidsmom]

Agreed on the concern.

My church and other congregations in my synod have effectively altered the Nicene Creed on their own - instead of “one holy catholic and apostolic church,” it’s been altered to read “one holy christian and apostolic church.”

Catholic does not mean the same thing as christian.



There needs to be some kind of significant movement against this type of thing- most people just accept it because it’s what their pastor says, and because the worship folder represents that it’s been “said this way since the 300’s.”

I shall borrow a phrase from Catholics and brand this type of thing liturgical abuse. And that’s being generous.

The LCC (equivalent to the LCMS) church that I attend in Alberta, Canada says “one holy Christian and Apostolic Church”… however, that does not stop those of us who still believe in the “one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” from saying that instead. The footnote at the bottom of the page in the Lutheran Service Book says under both the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed says that where it is stated Christian in the texts: The ancient text reads “catholic”, meaning the whole Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine". I myself learned both of the creeds with “Catholic” instead of “Christian” and I continue to say the creeds this way.

 

[JonNC]

Irregular but valid. A number of Roman Catholic authorities (our advisors, and Catholic Canon Lawyers and bishops with which we are in contact, including those involved in processing the ALCC’s petition use that same phrase - "irregular but valid. Our status is essentially the came as the PNCC in that regard. Like them, we share with the Catholic Church a common valid priesthood and Eucharist. We just don’t have the indorsement to work in the Catholic Church without having an “endorsement” from a Catholic bishop to do so. (One of our bishops has such an endorsement to say mass and to concelebrate from his local Catholic ordinary.) However, we can and do function validly within our own jurisdiction. (like the PNCC, for instance.

All of our clergy, as you know are ordained as sacrificing priests using the ordinal of the Roman Catholic Church with no additions or omissions except the celibacy vow in the diaconal rite; set within a celebration of the Mass (Paul VI /Novis Ordo or the Anglican Use Pastoral provision’s Book of Divine Worship. Our Mass is celebrated using the Novis Ordo Mass or the Book of Divine Worship. (The use of Lutheran or Anglican rites is illegal and will get the priest using it returned to lay communion!)

Our primary apostolic lineage is the Duarte-Costa line of the Rebiban (Vatican) Succession. We also hold the Dutch Old Catholic lineage as well as a number of others all of which have been declared technically valid in writing by various Popes.

All this said, we are all praying for the entrance of the ALCC into the Roman Catholic Church in whichever format the Pope and Curia offers us. Please pray for the reunion of the Church.

Hope this helps.

Blessings,
Irl

Thanks, Irl. It does.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The LCC (equivalent to the LCMS) church that I attend in Alberta, Canada says “one holy Christian and Apostolic Church”… however, that does not stop those of us who still believe in the “one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” from saying that instead. The footnote at the bottom of the page in the Lutheran Service Book says under both the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed says that where it is stated Christian in the texts: The ancient text reads “catholic”, meaning the whole Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine". I myself learned both of the creeds with “Catholic” instead of “Christian” and I continue to say the creeds this way.

My congregation proclaims it as “one holy catholic and apostolic church”

.

 

[mark_a]

I’m not aware that WELS has any official position on that.
I know that LCMS does not. Never has.

The WELS website used to have good info on that, taking a very dim view of nfp. Whether or not the info was an official WELS position on that, I don’t know. I used to recommend it to Lutherans all the time. But now the website is being reworked and the page is no longer active.

hmmmmm

 

[Oldtimer_7]

I have been on a call committee and the inside workings in the ELCA are complex enough that it is unlikely to the extreme that a congregation would have any sort of pastor “forced” on them. A bishop could send a list of approved candidates who were all gay, or female, or liberal, or Albanians. Any of the candidates would need to have unanimity in the call committee to have any hope of getting further in the process. The candidate would then meet with the committee and the church council, with the expectation that the “family” of the candidate would be included. Since the attendees would be by definition the leaders in the church, unanimity would be highly preferable. Then the candidates would be called to lead worship for the whole congregation. This would be followed by a vote of the entire congregation. The usual advice to candidates is that any vote of less than 70% in favor would be in effect a veto. There would be too big an oppositional bloc to make the likelihood of a successful ministry impossible.

So, yes, a bishop could string along a congregation by doing such a thing, A congregation could then withhold its giving to the synod. We have such a situation going on in our synod now, with a congregation withholding its contribution and the synod is suffering financially as a result. The power ultimately is in the hands of the congregation.

It is not a bad thing for a congregation to go without a pastor for a while. It gives the members a chance to use their talents in leadership and discipleship. Too often a congregation gets soft and flabby by counting on the pastor to get things done. It is a strong laity that leads to a strong church, not a strong pastor. Thus, a bishop who kept a congregation without a pastor for an extended period of time would actually end up with an even stronger congregation rather than one that was cowed into submission.

 

[joe370]

Hey JonNC, you said:

Joe, I just feel moved to respond to some of the things you’ve said here. This sounds a bit condescending, though I doubt you meant it that way.

Condescending? Never my friend! I simply told my former Pastor that I was starting to believe in the true presence in the Eucharist and he told me not to bring such Catholic heresies into “his” church.

More importantly, if taking the “pastor’s word for it” was what you were taught in a Lutheran Church, I daresay you were poorly chatechized.

I would aptly agree!

Lutheranism is confessional, and by definition, does not rely on the local pastor’s word for it. In fact, that local pastor is bound by the Lutheran Confessions. His personal interpretation is irrelevent at best, and can lead to his removal from Lutheran minstry at worst.

The Church of the Lutheran Confession “is a conservative Christian religious body theologically adhering to confessional Lutheran doctrine. Founded in 1960 in Minnesota, it has approximately 75 congregations in 24 U.S. states, and missions in Canada, India, and Africa,”

My former church does not embrace the Lutheran Confessions. Sole authority lies within the pages of the bible alone, as is the case with every Protestant church, other than Lutheran churches connected with the preceding conservative Christian religious body:

“SCRIPTURE ALONE: The Bible is God’s inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine.”

Not sure what you mean be exclusive authority. Please explain.

Well, what I mean is: “SCRIPTURE ALONE: The Bible is God’s inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine.” In your case it is the bible + the Lutheran confessions.

Lutherans accept scripture as the final norm.

But not the final authority?

Again, this seems to reveal a lack of understanding of Lutheranism. Lutherans do not exclude teachers and teachings.

They exclude teachings if said teachings disagree with their teachings; correct?

We have, after all the Lutheran Confessions, the early councils and creeds, and ECF’s that we rely on.

As does the CC, yet the catechism of the Catholic church is a big no-no, unlike the Lutheran confessions. Perhaps the Lutheran church to which you belong feels differently. Do they???

I have studied the early church Fathers extensively, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, (disciples of Peter and Paul), Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others, and I became convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the early Church was indeed Catholic - never to impugn the work of any Protestant church, of course. After all we are all brothers and sisters in Christ! Intellectual honestly and spiritual integrity forced me to make the swim. As the old adage goes: The water is always cooler and cleaner as you draw closer to the source.

Scripture is the final norm for these things.

In other words: the final benchmark when it comes to truth, regarding any one truth? It doesn’t seem to work though. I have an Evangelical friend who belongs to a Lutheran church that believes/teaches as does the CC regarding the Eucharist, and I have friends that belong to my former Lutheran church as well as other Lutheran churches that adamantly disagree. They both defer to sacred scripture as their final norm for “these things,” yet come away with opposing truths, and there can only be one truth regarding this doctrine or any doctrine for that matter. Who is right; who is wrong; does it even matter to you?

I often quote Martin Chemnitz when this apparant misunderstanding of sola scriptura comes up.

Which is???

Continued…