Ablaze?

[LutherNut]

Guess I'm just a bit sensitive. The WELS and LCMS used to come together in this part of TCL (in our little corner of the world)....it's just not like that anymore. Always something to nit-pick about amongst the conservative/confessionals now. Makes it hard to want to come here. Don't know where I belong.

I know what you mean. The WELS folks have been regularly bashing the LCMS in here for quite some time. We're not allowed to defend ourselves?

Maybe I should have just stayed away to begin with. I remember the days when this forum was fun. That hasn't been the case in nearly 3 years now.

 

[Zecryphon]

Fellowship with the WELS broke in 1961, which was 8 years before women's suffrage in the LCMS. So that wasn't the issue at all. The issue was that the WELS changed their fellowship policy in 1960. That is why fellowship broke. If they reverted back to their policies from prior to 1960, it would be a different story. It wasn't the LCMS that changed in 1960, it was the WELS.

I know the role of the woman in the church wasn't the point of your post. I provided that excerpt to show you that the LCMS has changed too, to refute your claim that if the WELS just went back to their fellowship policy of 1960 all would be good between the two synods. There were other issues in play besides the role of the woman in the church. There was the Boy Scout issue, the military chaplaincy issue, and the doctrines of church and ministry.

Actually, if the WELS changed their fellowship policies back to what they had in 1960, that wouldn't fix the break in fellowship between the two synods. Since the LCMS changed their view on the role of the woman in the church in 1969, that would still prevent fellowship from happening today. So I contend that it is the LCMS that needs to change if you want to restore fellowship with the WELS at least on this one point.

Besides, those scriptural passages you quoted are in reference to the one divinely instituted office (which the WELS does not officially recognize, BTW), not man made offices. Congregation officers such as treasurers and stewardship chairmen and high school principals did not exist when the Scriptures were written. How could those passages apply to offices which didn't even exist? This shows that the WELS has added to what the Scriptures speak of. Last I knew, adding to the word of God was a no-no.

Ever heard of applying a scriptural principle? I didn't mention high school principals or treasurers, I mentioned women seving on the LCMS Board of Directors. How do you justify that position being held by a woman, when a board of directors of a church did not exist in Biblical times? I don't remember Jesus having a board of directors or any women serving on it. Also, we do have Biblical evidence of the office of treasurer. I believe Judas was the treasurer of the twelve disciples, was he not? Wasn't he in charge of the money?

And your post shows that the LCMS has ignored God's divine word on the issue of women serving in positions of authority over men. That too is a no-no. So you're not all squeaky clean here either.

 

[Zecryphon]

I know what you mean. The WELS folks have been regularly bashing the LCMS in here for quite some time. We're not allowed to defend ourselves?

Maybe I should have just stayed away to begin with. I remember the days when this forum was fun. That hasn't been the case in nearly 3 years now.

Do you have any proof of this LCMS bashing? Cuz I remember last week or maybe it was two weeks ago some members of the LCMS really tearing on the WELS.

 

[LutherNut]

I know the role of the woman in the church wasn't the point of your post. I provided that excerpt to show you that the LCMS has changed too, to refute your claim that if the WELS just went back to their fellowship policy of 1960 all would be good between the two synods. There were other issues in play besides the role of the woman in the church. There was the Boy Scout issue, the military chaplaincy issue, and the doctrines of church and ministry.

I don't believe that the LCMS has changed anything in regards to those issues at all. The WELS was in fellowship until they changed their policy in 1960 which then made those issues.

Ever heard of applying a scriptural principle? I didn't mention high school principals or treasurers, I mentioned women seving on the LCMS Board of Directors. How do you justify that position being held by a woman, when a board of directors of a church did not exist in Biblical times? I don't remember Jesus having a board of directors or any women serving on it. Also, we do have Biblical evidence of the office of treasurer. I believe Judas was the treasurer of the twelve disciples, was he not? Wasn't he in charge of the money?

The Board of Directors is not only a man-made office and thus not under the Biblical directive of women's authority, it also has no authority over the divine office of the Church. The BoD handles the secular affairs of the synod as a corporation.

And your post shows that the LCMS has ignored God's divine word on the issue of women serving in positions of authority over men. That too is a no-no. So you're not all squeaky clean here either.

The issue of women having authority over men has to do with the divine office. I thought I made that clear before, but apparently not. While women may serve in man-made offices within the organization of the congregation, no woman can hold any office which has any authority or public accountability over the divine office or the functions of the divine office, which is strictly to be held and carried out by men. In this matter, the LCMS is keeping with Scripture exactly. The issue I have with the WELS is that they have added to the Scriptural mandate by including any and all man-made offices which the Scriptures do not speak of. In that sense, women holding man-made offices is really adiaphora.

 

[Zecryphon]

I don't believe that the LCMS has changed anything in regards to those issues at all. The WELS was in fellowship until theytheir policy in 1960 which then made those issues.

changed It doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe, what matters is the truth. Since you're asserting that the LCMS has not changed it's position on women in positions of power over men, why don't you do some research and get back to me on that.

The Board of Directors is not only a man-made office and thus not under the Biblical directive of women's authority, it also has no authority over the divine office of the Church. The BoD handles the secular affairs of the synod as a corporation.

So it's a man-made office that puts women in authority over men. How is that not violating the scriptures that say a woman is submissive to a man and that the man shall have authority over the woman?

The issue of women having authority over men has to do with the divine office. I thought I made that clear before, but apparently not. While women may serve in man-made offices within the organization of the congregation, no woman can hold any office which has any authority or public accountability over the divine office or the functions of the divine office, which is strictly to be held and carried out by men. In this matter, the LCMS is keeping with Scripture exactly. The issue I have with the WELS is that they have added to the Scriptural mandate by including any and all man-made offices which the Scriptures do not speak of. In that sense, women holding man-made offices is really adiaphora.

If you really believed this were an issue of adiaphora you wouldn't have this much of a problem with the position of the WELS.

 

[LutherNut]

It doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe, what matters is the truth. Since you're asserting that the LCMS has not changed it's position on women in positions of power over men, why don't you do some research and get back to me on that.

I thought we were talking about the break in fellowship which occured in 1961. You keep flopping back and forth within a 10 year span. Trying to follow you is making me dizzy.

So it's a man-made office that puts women in authority over men. How is that not violating the scriptures that say a woman is submissive to a man and that the man shall have authority over the woman?

Because the Scripture is talking about the divine office. I've said this four times now. The BoD is not the divine office. The Scripture has examples of women in positions of authority outside of the Church. Ever hear of Deborah the Judge?

If you really believed this were an issue of adiaphora you wouldn't have this much of a problem with the position of the WELS.

The only problem I have with the WELS is that they (including yourself) continue to bash the LCMS concerning this issue. If they wish to misapply Scripture, they are certainly free to do so, but stop beating up those who don't agree with that. The WELS has been doing it for almost 50 years now.

 

[Studeclunker]

I posted this in another thread that was going in the same LCMS/WELS carping direction and it's just as valid here:

With the LCMS and it's 'Beyond Walther' programme, it leaves me to wonder what they are getting off to? The Ablaze programme certainly isn't core Lutheran in any way. So just what is beyond Walther that the Special K taskforce is trying to attain?

As to the WELS/LMCS split; it all started in 1938. LCMS entered into altar and pulpit fellowship with ALC and WELS threw a fit. In 1939 Military Chaplancy and Boy Scouts entered into the fray as well. A pamplet conflict ensued and the break was announced in 1955 by the ELS. WELS held a decision on the issue in abeyance hoping for the LCMS to come around. In 1961 WELS finally severed ties with LCMS. Incidentally, this process caused a split in the WELS in 1955 creating the CLC. This is a condensed version of the story as it's presented in the book, "Together in Christ" A history of the Wisconsin Evengelical Lutheran Synod. I'd like to hear an honest version of the LCMS side sometime. Although, declairing doctrinal and theological unity with the ALC will require some serious explanation.

Now, Zee and Luthernut, please get your facts straight!

This is the timeline for the break and the reasons WELS gives thereof:

1938 LCMS declaires doctrinal unity with the ALC.

1939 WELS protests and is ignored. ELS also protests LCMS's actions.

Here I will quote 'Together in Christ':

Over the next years at every convention, the Wisconsin Synod discussed what it considered an erosion of the confessional Lutheran faith in the Missouri Synod. In addition, is shared its concern at the conventions of the Synodical Conference.

Other issues arose such as chaplaincy and scouting....
...The conflict grew to a full-scale pamphlet war between the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods.

1955

ELS declared that its ties with the Missouri Synod were broken. Also that year the Wisconsin Synod voted to "hold in abeyance' its final vote on a resoulution to break with the Missouri Synod...

...the resolution that was held in abeyance said, "Whereas the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has created divisions and offenses by its resoultions, policies, and practices not in accord with Scripture, we, in obedience to the command of our Lord in Romans 16:17,18, terminate our fellowship with the Lutheran Church---Missouri Synod."

This abeyance caused a split in the Wisconsin Synod creating the Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC).

1961 Wisconsin Synod broke fellowship with LCMS.
The issues cited were the same as above in 1939.

1963 Wisconsin Synod withdrew from the synodical conferrence.

So, as one can see, the WELS members have gone beyond the call of Biblical duty in patience with LCMS. They have suffered division and personal suffering to bring what they considered an erring brother back to the fold of Biblical correctness.

Though I have the same troubles now with the 'Circle the wagons and close ranks' mentality in the WELS as I did in the past, it seems to be what has largely insulated them from the leven that has infected the LCMS and basically brought down the ELCA. It can be rather easily established that the social, doctrinal (seminex), and organizational problems that LCMS has been dealing with for the past forty years can be traced to 1938 when they started aligning themselves with what eventually become elements of the ELCA. In fact, LCMS was part of the conference of synods and churches that were involved with the merger that created the ELCA. Their first hymnal was created largely through the cooperation of members in the LCMS (and there is a mention of this in the introduction). I remember our Music Director complaining bitterly about the result of LCMS's involvement, "We used to have a singable Hymnody. Thanks to the LCMS no one can sing anything in the hymnal anymore." However, late in the conferrence, LMCS backed out and the ELCA formed without them.

So, as you can see, the influence of the ELCA is now being manifest again in the Ablaze movement just like it was in the Seminex movement. The proponents of anti Lutheran-Confessional worship are at it again.

So, gentlemen, PUH-LEASE! Keep your facts straight and please remember; this thread is about ABLAZE not the differences between LCMS and WELS.

In otherwords, will the LCMS members quit shooting at the WELS members as we are really on the same side?

OI, VAY!

 

[seajoy]

Thanks, Stude.

 

[LutherNut]

I mentoned this in another thread also, but the ALC of 1930 is not the ALC of 1960 with which the LCMS entered into full fellowship. The fellowship was declared in 1969.
My facts are straight.

 

[LutherNut]

So, as you can see, the influence of the ELCA is now being manifest again in the Ablaze movement just like it was in the Seminex movement. The proponents of anti Lutheran-Confessional worship are at it again.

I apologize for my part in derailing this thread. I think perhaps what would be beneficial for not only myself but for all who call this sub-forum 'home' is to start a thread discussing the things that the WELS and LCMS have in common.

As for the influence of Ablaze and the ELCA, I don't see any connection whatsoever. While I am not a fan of the Ablaze program, I don't see it resembling the gross heterodoxy that is destroying the ELCA from within.
My initial post in this thread was to point out that what some of y'all call "anti Lutheran-Confessional worship" has indeed now entered the WELS. I was curious to see how the WELS folks here would respond to it.

 

[Studeclunker]

I apologize for my part in derailing this thread. I think perhaps what would be beneficial for not only myself but for all who call this sub-forum 'home' is to start a thread discussing the things that the WELS and LCMS have in common.

As for the influence of Ablaze and the ELCA, I don't see any connection whatsoever. While I am not a fan of the Ablaze program, I don't see it resembling the gross heterodoxy that is destroying the ELCA from within.
My initial post in this thread was to point out that what some of y'all call "anti Lutheran-Confessional worship" has indeed now entered the WELS. I was curious to see how the WELS folks here would respond to it.

There is no connection between Ablaze and the ELCA. I was using the comparison between the two to illustrate the problems cropping up in the LCMS. I was there when ELCA was forged out of several very different Lutheran Denominations. I watched as the liberal elements took hold and overwhelmed the leadership of the Church. Do you think the policies and practices that take place in that denomination were just started all at once? It was a gradual thing that took five to ten years. There were dozens of congregations calling for dicipline for Ebenezer Lutheran in S.F. for years and they were ignored. When those two homosexual women were enrolled at the seminary, we were told that they would never be pastors. When they returned and the congregation of Ebenezer called and ordained them, we were told there would be something done. In all these cases, the liberal element had no intention that anything at all would be done. Now, ELCA ordains women, homosexuals, and allows any number of excesses. All in the name of inclusiveness. Ablaze is just another way of doing the same thing. It's that inclusiveness game done in a tailor made package for the LCMS. Will they go so far as the ELCA? Prooooobably not. Then again, we thought that the conservative elements in the merger would temper and bring into correction the more liberal elements of what became the ELCA. Yeah, right.

If I might be allowed to quote Martin Luther on the small Catechism:

In the first place, the preacher should take the utmost care to avoid changes or variations in the text and wording of the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the sacraments, etc. On the contrary, he should adopt one form, adhere to it, and use it repeatedly year after year. Young and inexperienced people must be instructed on the basis of a uniform, fixed text and form. They are easily confused if a teacher employs one form now and another form--- perhaps with the intention of making improvements---later on. In this way all the time and labour will be lost.

Many new members come in during the later service, that is usually the Contempo service. The problem with Ablaze and it's partner, Creative Worship, is that these new worshipers become completely confused as to what's going on. The Creeds and confessions are re-worded and modified to tailor them to the Pastor's message. It's impossible for people to memorize the creeds and confessions if they're different each week. These people are the 'inexperianced' types that Luther was speaking about. Also, our youth often gravitate to the contempo service as well. It's an endemic problem that parents aren't doing their job in catechising their children. Thus, all this is on the shoulders of a pastor who isn't doing so in a coherent manner!

The Lutheran order of service, or liturgy, is it's calling card. This coupled with the Creeds, Confessions, and sacraments is what makes us unique in our worship. Our doctrines and theology are what these things are expressions of. Ablaze is weakening the foundations of our church by watering down doctrine, theology, and through that, order of service. The liberals say, "Oh no, we are still holding true to the spirit of the confessions and creeds. We still have the same Theology and Doctrines we always had."

And where have I heard this before?

 

[Radiata]

I wonder...... Do you think this might be a better method than ablaze?





YouTube - Evangelical Linebacker

 

[Studeclunker]

Sorry, Radiata, I'm on dialup and it takes half an hour or more to load things from Utube. You'll just have to make that point another way, sorry...

 

[seajoy]

Sorry, Radiata, I'm on dialup and it takes half an hour or more to load things from Utube. You'll just have to make that point another way, sorry...

It's just a bunch of guys hitting people in order to get their attention, I guess. I didn't watch the whole thing.

 

[LutherNut]

I have yet to see what is doctrinally wrong with the Ablaze program. I'm not a fan of it, but I don't see any doctrinal issues either.

 

[Studeclunker]

I have yet to see what is doctrinally wrong with the Ablaze program. I'm not a fan of it, but I don't see any doctrinal issues either.

Radiata, most of that issue (doctrine) is subtle and often found in the Pastor's sermon. According to the Ablaze formula, the sermon is supposed to be softer and more geared to what people want to hear now. In a liberal congregation like the one in Redding, this gives way to a trainload of possiblilities. In the case of the local congregation, they're attempting to copy the example of a mega-congregation here in town. The problem is, they're Pentecostals.

This admixture of Pentecostal-style worship and Lutheran liturgy is a silly and profitless venture. The congregation isn't growing and the more traditional members are becoming increasingly annoyed.

Yes, the traditional Lutheran order of service is adiaphora (sp?). Still, how much adiaphora (sp?) does one throw out till there isn't anything left to indicate what or who one is? This movement isn't new. They tried the same thing back in the time of Luther and Melangthon. The large and small catechisms were the result. Luther himself denounced this kind of 'enthusiast' approach to the order of service. Ablaze is a Church Growth programme that has gone wrong and needs to be ended.

When a Lutheran congregation never uses their hymnals, even in the Conservative service, there's something desparately wrong. The congregation in Redding hasn't used theirs in four years.

 

[LutherNut]

Radiata,

Lose your glasses?

most of that issue (doctrine) is subtle and often found in the Pastor's sermon. According to the Ablaze formula, the sermon is supposed to be softer and more geared to what people want to hear now. In a liberal congregation like the one in Redding, this gives way to a trainload of possiblilities. In the case of the local congregation, they're attempting to copy the example of a mega-congregation here in town. The problem is, they're Pentecostals.
This admixture of Pentecostal-style worship and Lutheran liturgy is a silly and profitless venture. The congregation isn't growing and the more traditional members are becoming increasingly annoyed.

Yes, the traditional Lutheran order of service is adiaphora (sp?). Still, how much adiaphora (sp?) does one throw out till there isn't anything left to indicate what or who one is? This movement isn't new. They tried the same thing back in the time of Luther and Melangthon. The large and small catechisms were the result. Luther himself denounced this kind of 'enthusiast' approach to the order of service. Ablaze is a Church Growth programme that has gone wrong and needs to be ended.

When a Lutheran congregation never uses their hymnals, even in the Conservative service, there's something desparately wrong. The congregation in Redding hasn't used theirs in four years.

I think you are basing the actions of one pastor in one congregation for your whole outlook on the program. It isn't a "pentecostal" approach to Lutheran doctrine or evangelism. It does promote the use of the historic liturgies found in our LSB hymnal, in fact the hymnal project was a part of the program early on. Ablaze isn't really a doctrinal issue.

One of the things I have found that the program does address is the function and purpose of the Church. It's intent is to move it from a maintenance mode to a missional mode, making outreach a priority instead of cow towing to the whims of a clique mentality within the congregation. What individual pastors or church leaders do with that is up to them, and there is no doubt some have gone over the top. But that's not the fault of Ablaze in my mind. It's the fault of the liberal clergy and congregational leaders within our midst.

 

[BigNorsk]

I would note that both the Catholic and Pentecostal approaches to worship are enthusiast approaches, as are their foundational theologies.

 

[Archaenfel]

The problems with Ablaze isn't necessarily docrinal, other than perhaps a clash with the Epistles.

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers. - Ephesians 4:11

We don't all have an evangelistic spirit. Many of us were given other far more subtle gifts. Remember: poor evangelism is worse than none at all.


The biggest problem with Ablaze, however, isn't even that: it's that it readily sacrifices quality for quantity. Ablaze isn't interested in developing people with a proper Godly soul. From all I've seen and heard, they're just interested in numbers. Ablaze isn't interested in the fact that I have personal issues and I have no one to councel me on them. Ablaze doesn't care about the state of my soul or the troubles I have.

I go to church on Sunday - Ablaze is content, save that I don't drag others through the door with me. Personally: I want more.

 

[RadMan]

The problems with Ablaze isn't necessarily docrinal, other than perhaps a clash with the Epistles.

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers. - Ephesians 4:11

We don't all have an evangelistic spirit. Many of us were given other far more subtle gifts. Remember: poor evangelism is worse than none at all.


The biggest problem with Ablaze, however, isn't even that: it's that it readily sacrifices quality for quantity. Ablaze isn't interested in developing people with a proper Godly soul. From all I've seen and heard, they're just interested in numbers. Ablaze isn't interested in the fact that I have personal issues and I have no one to councel me on them. Ablaze doesn't care about the state of my soul or the troubles I have.

I go to church on Sunday - Ablaze is content, save that I don't drag others through the door with me. Personally: I want more.

You've tapped into the basic problem of Ablaze. It can't be effective if there is no thorough training in evangelism of the people that do the program. If the aim is to increase the flock then is should be done with people that have been properly catechized. The Small Catechism is the best place to start for information on what we Lutheran are. If the aim is to tell outsiders what type of social programs we have or how contemporary our services are then the whole thing will fall flat. Just like it's doing now. God's Word will not come back to Him void and that's what converts people. Not how great a social club the LCMS is.