The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

[D.W.Washburn]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to the main forum.

I think that would be best.

How 'bout that? We agreed about something and it wasn't beer!

 

[DaRev]

I think that would be best.

How 'bout that? We agreed about something and it wasn't beer!

Hell is getting colder every day.

 

[IowaLutheran]

The OP asked a question specifically limited to ELCA/ELCIC, so it should stay here.

If some wish to debate what has been said here, post a new thread on the general forum instead of moving this one there.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

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.

RevCowboy...this is so incredibly true. I actually had no idea that Lutheranism came in a variety of flavors from the get go until very recently. Bach moved to Leipzig from Cothen to a lesser job with less prestige and pay because in Leipzig they practiced more frequent Holy Communion and he attended mass every Thursday (not available in Cothen) in addition to Sunday services. The Lutheran territories nearest the Reformed took on a more characteristic Reformed look...some of the other territories kept a more Roman Catholic look but there was never one look/style that could be said to fully characterize Lutheranism.

This is important to know...particularly for those Lutherans looking to reform Lutheranism...reform to what kind...more Reformed? ...more Roman Catholic? ...more early 1900's? Personally I think a return to Leipzig couldn't hurt!

 

[RevCowboy]

This is important to know...particularly for those Lutherans looking to reform Lutheranism...reform to what kind...more Reformed? ...more Roman Catholic? ...more early 1900's? Personally I think a return to Leipzig couldn't hurt!

I don't think it could hurt either. Some in our church are worried about looking too Catholic, but our congregation and many Lutheran chruches look more Catholic (ie liturgical bells and smells) than most Catholic churches do.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Leipzig sounds great...

Especially if we can get an organist like Bach.

Cheap!

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

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.

Excellent Post! Angelus

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

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.



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.

I will not debate LCMS stuff on this forum. I asked a question on this forum, if you want to argue about the 9/11 Benke thing you can on a different forum, you already know my opinion. I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and I do believe in closed communion, but I also believe that ecumenism is a great thing. Now thank you for all the info everyone!

 

[Willy]

The LCMS, like most church bodies, is quite diverse. It contains within it a great deal of variety. The conservative segment of this church body, I believe, represents what happens when anxiety rules. I think these folks are so afraid of what modernity will lead us that they have become more and more rigid. The LCMS was not always so officially rigid. It is not unusual for there to be a backlash to change. I think that the conservative side of the LCMS (the side that in official circles is winning) reacted to the changes within the culture and the church by becoming more rigid. I don't think we are at our best or our healthiest when we are in a reactive mode. We tend to be crabby, angry, bitter, rigid, and sometimes not much fun. That is what I am afraid is occurring in some parts of the LCMS. And while I am at it, I could suggest, too, that there may be a need to look at the role of alcoholism and sexual dysfunction and repression to understand what is really going on in some of the system that is the LCMS. I buy into a lot of the work that is being done on systems these days. I think we have very unhealthy systems in the modern church, but we are afraid to be honest about them. We are not ready for the truth.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

The LCMS, like most church bodies, is quite diverse. It contains within it a great deal of variety. The conservative segment of this church body, I believe, represents what happens when anxiety rules. I think these folks are so afraid of what modernity will lead us that they have become more and more rigid. The LCMS was not always so officially rigid. It is not unusual for there to be a backlash to change. I think that the conservative side of the LCMS (the side that in official circles is winning) reacted to the changes within the culture and the church by becoming more rigid. I don't think we are at our best or our healthiest when we are in a reactive mode. We tend to be crabby, angry, bitter, rigid, and sometimes not much fun. That is what I am afraid is occurring in some parts of the LCMS. And while I am at it, I could suggest, too, that there may be a need to look at the role of alcoholism and sexual dysfunction and repression to understand what is really going on in some of the system that is the LCMS. I buy into a lot of the work that is being done on systems these days. I think we have very unhealthy systems in the modern church, but we are afraid to be honest about them. We are not ready for the truth.

Great point Willy! I would agree with you. I am pretty much staying with the most high church Lutheran body that I can. I don't like the protestant feel of a lot of congregations, nor the contemporary feel. I might be happy in almost any Lutheran Church body as long as it has an elaborate liturgy. I was just born in the wrong country I guess. Some of the Scandinavian countries would be perfect for me, its just I think that ELCA and LCMS High Churches are just too few. What about alcoholism and sexual dysfunction/repression? This is going on in the LCMS or is no one is trying to stop it? I know that I drink a lot because it really wasn't discouraged within my parish, but I am trying to wait until marriage for sex. Too much information? lol

 

[Willy]

I believe that alcoholism can be a systemic reality. Or obviously, it is a systemic reality. Many family systems are shaped by alcoholism. Sometimes in systems shaped by alcoholism boundaries become very rigid. Sometimes it is too hard to admit that a problem exists and people in the system react by trying to enforce some sense of normalcy. They want to make right what obviously is quite sick. Sometimes alcoholics themselves can be the chief promoters of rigidity as they try to deflect other members of the system from the real issue of alcoholism. From my observation, some church systems reflect this reality. The rigidity is an attempt to cover up the alcoholism that is at the center of the system. The same thing can be true with sexual dysfunction. I know a family whose father, a pastor, once molested a bunch of boys. This family, including the father, are some of the most rigid people I know. They are busy standing up for morality. It's a way to deflect everybody from the real issue. Church bodies, it seems to me, can be involved in the same deflection. "Let's make sure that everybody believes that Adam and Eve were real historical people. Let's make them tow the line." Then maybe they would not have to deal with the dysfunction that is driving the rigidity. By the way, I don't think that any system (the ELCA or the Missouri Synod or any other) is exempt from these systemic realities. Obviously some are healthier than others. And some are definitely sicker than others.

 

[RadMan]

Interesting insights posted into the "travail" of LCMS in this thread. I like some of your summations of what has gone on in our recent history. Very succinct but revealing. The ultra-conservatives vs the moderate (make no waves) and (lack of a better word) liberal.

A slight history might clarify why we are in the postion that we are in. When the Seminex element left the LCMS there were many advocates for Seminex that stayed and supposedly recanted and were kept in the synod and seminaries. These advocates migrated to many aspects of the synod and entrenched themselves and began their "liberal" agenda again (Jesus First, Daystar, etc.).

Here's an excerpt from Wohlrab's "Doctrinal Integrity and Outreach Within the LCMS." It's rather long but will give you a better synopsis into the dilemma within the LCMS.

There is no denying the deep polarization within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod at present. However, it should be recognized, as this paper demonstrates, this is not a recent occurrence. It has been developing for some time. Nor can it be characterized simply as a political power struggle. In reality, for more than fifty years there has been a battle within the Synod over the both/and of doctrinal integrity and outreach, as well as over the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. While some have sought to advocate outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity, confessional pastors and lay people have sought to pull the pendulum back from an either/or to a both/and. The outcome of this ongoing struggle is unclear.

Members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod must take seriously their Lord’s call to maintain both doctrinal integrity and outreach. It is who we are as confessional Lutherans. The current polarization within the Synod results from a denial or a rejection of this paradoxical imperative.

I have shown that the both/and of doctrinal integrity and outreach is closely linked to a proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Again, there is a tension involved. However, this tension is not resolved by excluding the third use of the Law. In difficult issues of casuistry, where it seems as though one may sin or cause offense no matter what is done, we must not discard Scriptural mandates, claiming freedom in the Gospel. The Law still stands, and when Christians break God’s Law, we turn to our gracious God for forgiveness, trusting that for Christ’s sake, He graciously gives it. This is the Gospel. Therefore, both Law and Gospel stand!
Finally, there is the issue of integrity and trust with respect to the stated position of the Synod’s Constitution, which under conditions for membership includes renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description. Military personnel and government officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Violations of this pledge can be considered a matter of treason or insurrection. As a Navy chaplain now and as a member of the Armed Forces for over twenty-nine years, I am very much attuned to this. The mission of a command, good order, morale, comradeship, esprit de corps, all depend on people bearing good faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Should allegiance in spiritual matters and in what is often referred to as “churchmanship” be considered less significant or less binding than matters of a civic nature? Can we expect anything but tension, conflict, a lack of trust, and polarization within a church body when people do not hold to that to which they have agreed – namely, an unconditional subscription to the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word, the Lutheran Confessions as a true exposition of the doctrine set forth in Scripture, and as members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, to abide by the Synodical Constitution?

It is regrettable that we have such turmoil in the Missouri Synod at present. The average Missouri Synod parishioner says, “Why can’t we just stop all this hair-splitting and squabbling about abstruse points of doctrine and get on with the mission of the church: to save souls.” It is unfortunate that Jesus First and other groups that press for outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity should make such vicious attacks on those who seek to restore balance in the LCMS with accusations of being Nazis, the Taliban of Christianity, Pharisees, and other such malicious rhetoric. None of us wants to fight. But at such a critical time in our Synod, we should bear in mind the words of our first synodical president, C.F.W. Walther:
Manifold are the difficult and arduous tasks of a minister of Jesus Christ; but the most difficult and arduous of all, beyond question, is the task of proclaiming the pure doctrine of the Gospel of Christ and at the same time exposing, refuting, and rejecting teachings that are contrary to the Gospel. The minister who does this will discover by practical experience the truth of the old saying: Veritas odium parit (telling the truth makes enemies).

If faithful Athanasius in his day had been content to proclaim his doctrine that Jesus Chris is true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary; if he had not at the same time vigorously attacked Arius and the Arians, who denied this doctrine, he would undoubtedly have finished his life in honor and pleasant peace, for he was a highly gifted man. Had Luther followed the example of Staupitz of quietly teaching the pure Gospel to his brother monks without at the same time attacking the abominations of the Papacy with great earnestness, not a finger would have been raised against him. …
Worldly men and all false Christians cannot but attack those who teach a faith and doctrine different from theirs and to regard them as disturbers of the peace, as peace-hating, quarrelsome, and malicious men. These unfortunate people have no idea of the blindness which enshrouds them; they do not know how gladly the boldest champions of Christ would have kept peace with all men, how much they would have preferred to keep silent, how hard it was for their flesh and blood to come out in public and become targets for the hatred, enmity, vilification, scorn, and persecution of men. However, they could not but confess the truth and at the same time oppose error. Their conscience constrained them to do this because such conduct was required of them by the Word of God. …

The Church is not a kingdom that can be built up in peace; for it is located within the domain of the devil, who is the prince of this world. Accordingly, the Church has no choice but to be at war. It is ecclesia militans, the church militant, and will remain such until the blessed end. Wherever a Church is seen to be, not ecclesia militans, but ecclesia quiescens, a church at ease, that—you may rely on it!—is a false church.

It may seem to some that the confessional movement in the Missouri Synod today is emphasizing pure doctrine at the expense of outreach. But the opposite is the case. There has been for too long an emphasis on outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity. True Lutherans know that both doctrinal integrity and outreach must be kept in balance.

For if pure doctrine is lost, we are reaching out with an empty message. St. Paul understood this, and kept his own ministry in balance as both theologian and missionary. The early church understood this as well, as Hermann Sasse points out:
What would have happened if in the second century Basilidians, Valentinians, Marcionites and Catholics, Montanists, Theodotians and Modalists had had a round table discussion and said: For the sake of missions, let us bury the war hatchet. As followers of Jesus we desire nothing other than to follow the Master, to build one church in which everyone may carry on his particular tradition within the realm of a common truth, over against the one Lord of the one church. What would have come of the church of the fourth and fifth centuries if for the sake of the mission task it had not battled through the Arian and Nestorian controversies, if Arian, Homousian, Homoiusian, Nestorian, Monophysite, Pelagian and followers of Augustin had allowed themselves simply to be united in one great ecclesiastical communion? This question is posed in order to find the only answer which can be given to it: Today the church would simply no longer exist. The church would have been ruined. Just as a man whose kidneys no longer eliminate poisons which have accumulated in the body will die, so the church will die which no longer eliminates heresy.
In summary, it should be crystal clear to pastors and laity throughout our Synod that both doctrinal integrity and outreach are vital to our identity and mission as confessional Lutherans. Hermann Sasse once noted:
The old Missouri Synod—and I hope in this respect it will never change in spite of all legitimate theological growth—has been for all churches in America the great example of a church that cares for purity of doctrine. In spite of all mistakes and shortcomings it has shown to other churches that the Gospel of the saving grace of God in Christ, the proclamation of the love of God is inseparably linked up with the never ceasing fight against the heresies with which the old evil foe tries to destroy it. But this fight must begin in ourselves with the daily prayer that God may keep us in His Word. We ourselves cannot do that.

At a recent Navy Senior Chaplain Leadership Conference, Robert Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership concept was studied, which is derived from Jesus’ leadership example. And a statement was made that is worth pondering: “Leaders manage meaning.” In his acceptance speech at the 1992 synodical convention in Pittsburgh, Dr. Alvin Barry said: “Keep the message straight, Missouri. Get the message out, Missouri.” Dr. Barry had a way of putting things simply and clearly, and thus, he had a gift for managing meaning. Doctrinal integrity and outreach: our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, has indeed called us to both. “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to God our Savior, who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.” (Jude 24-25).

 

[Edial]

GUYS! You know that debates by LCMSers is not allowed here.
I closed this thread for staff review.
I did not report anyone, since proposals were made here and agreed to moving this thread to the main forum. So, there is a mutual understanding.

And ELCAers, please report such things.
This way mods will know that thread needs attention.

Please PM me if anyone wants this thread reopened.
If it is re-opened, please remember that debates here are only for the ELCAers and ELCICers.
Others will be reported for debating here.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

The thread is reopened as per the request of the ELCAer.

Members of other synods, please refrain from debating here , as per the Sticky.
Fellowship posts onely.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

I believe that alcoholism can be a systemic reality. Or obviously, it is a systemic reality. Many family systems are shaped by alcoholism. Sometimes in systems shaped by alcoholism boundaries become very rigid. Sometimes it is too hard to admit that a problem exists and people in the system react by trying to enforce some sense of normalcy. They want to make right what obviously is quite sick. Sometimes alcoholics themselves can be the chief promoters of rigidity as they try to deflect other members of the system from the real issue of alcoholism. From my observation, some church systems reflect this reality. The rigidity is an attempt to cover up the alcoholism that is at the center of the system. The same thing can be true with sexual dysfunction. I know a family whose father, a pastor, once molested a bunch of boys. This family, including the father, are some of the most rigid people I know. They are busy standing up for morality. It's a way to deflect everybody from the real issue. Church bodies, it seems to me, can be involved in the same deflection. "Let's make sure that everybody believes that Adam and Eve were real historical people. Let's make them tow the line." Then maybe they would not have to deal with the dysfunction that is driving the rigidity. By the way, I don't think that any system (the ELCA or the Missouri Synod or any other) is exempt from these systemic realities. Obviously some are healthier than others. And some are definitely sicker than others.

This is a weird post.

I was not sexually abused, nor the family was an alchoholic. Yet I believe the words of the Bible for what they say.

There is NO WAY one can prove that Adam and Eve did not exist. No way.
You KNOW that.

The Bible however, plainly supports the facticity of such events.

The argument you are presenting is flawed.
I am an ELCAer and find this argument to be baseless.

Ed

 

[BabyLutheran]

I consider myself pretty moderate, but that post is almost nonsensical.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Not every member of an alcoholic family is an alcholic, but alcoholism affects every member. According to systems theory some members of an alchoholic family may be enablers, scapegoats, etc. Alcoholic families tend to be closed and rigid.

Alcoholism can also affect systems larger than families. And again, it doesn't mean that every member of the system is an alcoholic, but it does mean that every member of the system is affected by the alcoholism. I knew of a camp that was run by an alcoholic. It was run with a rigid sense of control, mostly to compensate for the fact that the administrator felt his life to be out of control. When the administrator resigned, the dysfunction of the system was revealed. The camp closed. Understand this: the administrator was the alcoholic. His alcoholism affected the entire system. That does not mean that the campers were alcoholics. That does not mean that the staff were alcoholics. It does mean that the system was pervaded by its leaders alcoholism.

I have no idea whether the LC-MS is truly an alcoholic system. I have no idea whether there is alcoholism in its leadership. But I think that Willy makes an interesting point, which is that in its rigidity and closedness, the LC-MS shows some of the same characteristics of an alcoholic system.

By the way, this has nothing to with biblical inerrancy, the historicity of Adam and Eve or any other matter of doctrine. It has to do with the rigidity with which doctrines are held.

 

[Edial]

Not every member of an alcoholic family is an alcholic, but alcoholism affects every member. According to systems theory some members of an alchoholic family may be enablers, scapegoats, etc. Alcoholic families tend to be closed and rigid.

Alcoholism can also affect systems larger than families. And again, it doesn't mean that every member of the system is an alcoholic, but it does mean that every member of the system is affected by the alcoholism. I knew of a camp that was run by an alcoholic. It was run with a rigid sense of control, mostly to compensate for the fact that the administrator felt his life to be out of control. When the administrator resigned, the dysfunction of the system was revealed. The camp closed. Understand this: the administrator was the alcoholic. His alcoholism affected the entire system. That does not mean that the campers were alcoholics. That does not mean that the staff were alcoholics. It does mean that the system was pervaded by its leaders alcoholism.

I have no idea whether the LC-MS is truly an alcoholic system. I have no idea whether there is alcoholism in its leadership. But I think that Willy makes an interesting point, which is that in its rigidity and closedness, the LC-MS shows some of the same characteristics of an alcoholic system.

By the way, this has nothing to with biblical inerrancy, the historicity of Adam and Eve or any other matter of doctrine. It has to do with the rigidity with which doctrines are held.

John the Baptist was very rigid concerning his theology. Prophets were rigid concerning their theology.
Jesus Christ was also rigid cncerning His theology.

What this has to do with an alchoholic system?

Just because there are few alchoholics or church leaders that are strict because they want to overcompensate for their fall, does that mean that being rigid is an unhealthy symptom?

How about Paul?

If one would say that someone is rigid, yet lacks compassion, one knows there is something wrong.

All these guys I mentioned were rigid when the Bible was "toyed" by people or certain ''spiritual laws" were plainly broken.

Now, I do not want to compare LCMS to all these Biblical characters I mentioned.
None of us is even in the same league with these guys.

My point is, using the rigidity of a person, be it in the context of the Bible, some general rules, even traffic rules has nothing to do with a presupposed sickness.

There are people that like following rules and they feel uncomfortable with people that do not, so the perceived rigifity surfaces.

It is normal.

The OT calls them in general terms as righteous and unrighteous.

The former followed (or wanted to follow) the rules.
The latter did not think much about rules.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Respectfully, Ed, I think you are missing the point.

This is not about doctrine. It's certainly not about biblical inerrancy. It's not about individuals such as Paul (arguably a highly adaptable person) or the prophets. It is about systems.

Systems that are rigid, exclusionary, unadaptable, closed are unhealthy.

Willy can correct me if I'm wrong, but the point I take from his post...and it is an interesting one...is that the LC-MS, or portions thereof, exhibit the same traits as alcoholic systems.

A side point: Righteousness is not about adhering to the rules. Righteousness is a relational term. Righteousness means being right with God. It is not acheived by acts of the Law. Though I think that moral behavior is an indicator of righteousness.

Peace.

 

[DaRev]

This is the singularly the most ridiculous discussion I have ever seen anywhere.