Differences in LCMS, ELCA, WELS

[keeptrying]

I was raised LCMS but have not always been able to attend that synod because none were in the area, I attended ELCA during those times (because of work my family has moved frequently). I am now considering attending a WELS but would like to know what the main differences are.

I know that ELCA has open communion and is more liberal with regards to being gay, women in leadership.
I read some of the topics before posting this and learned some things, someone mentioned womans suffrage. Could someone elaborate on that as well.

I did attend one WELS service and did not notice too much difference except there seemed to be an emphasis on childrens programs and not to many adult ones but that could just have been that particular church. I don't have children at home any longer.
Also the LCMS and ELCA in my area do many activities together through Trivent etc. but not the WELS. Does anyone know why that is?
Thanks for the help.

 

[cerette]

WELS has a stricter church fellowship doctrine, for example we have close(d) communion which means we only commune with those who are in church fellowship with us. In America that would include fellow WELSers and ELSers.
We believe that women should not be in authority over men, therefore women do not vote in church matters.

Perhaps it would be good to visit a wels church and maybe stay for a chat with the pastor afterwards?

 

[Studeclunker]

Actually, in California, there are a lot of LCMS churches who cooperate with ELCA congregations in their activities. I won't go so far as using the word 'fellowship', but cooperation in things like VBS and other activities. Our church in Moreno Valley used to share it's VBS with the LCMS church every year. We didn't have a building yet, and the arrangement was much easier. When the building and campus were completed, I understand the cooperation between congregations continued. Often the children from both congregations would attend both VBS'. My wife's memorial service, for instance, was held in the LCMS sanctuary as ours wasn't completed yet.

As to the doctrinal and theological differences, surprisingly there are few. The problems between the congregations have more to do with intrepretation and understanding of scripture. A more appropriate ranking of the sects would be the following;

ELCA - The most liberal of the Lutherans.

LCMS - Less liberal, more conservative.

WELS - VERY conservative, some would say almost hide-bound (and that seems to me to be a good thing ). Rock solid on scripture and the Book Of Concord.

There are two more congregations I forget the acronyms for who are even MORE conservative than WELS (if that's possible LOL ). Being consistant is a great virtue that it seems only the most conservative congregations possess any more. It seems to be a great strength of WELS and her sisters. I truely pray that the leadership of LCMS will come to their senses before we also start down that slippery slope that the ELCA fell down.

 

[BigNorsk]

I was raised LCMS but have not always been able to attend that synod because none were in the area, I attended ELCA during those times (because of work my family has moved frequently). I am now considering attending a WELS but would like to know what the main differences are.

I know that ELCA has open communion and is more liberal with regards to being gay, women in leadership.
I read some of the topics before posting this and learned some things, someone mentioned womans suffrage. Could someone elaborate on that as well.

I did attend one WELS service and did not notice too much difference except there seemed to be an emphasis on childrens programs and not to many adult ones but that could just have been that particular church. I don't have children at home any longer.
Also the LCMS and ELCA in my area do many activities together through Trivent etc. but not the WELS. Does anyone know why that is?
Thanks for the help.

One basic difference is ElCA uses historical critical exegesis of the Bible. Wels and LCMS use grammatico-historical. That is reflected in that the WELS and LCMS basically believe in an inerrant Bible right down to the level of the words ELCA doesn't.

Both LCMS and WELS are also Confessional Lutherans, that mean they hold a quia subscription to the entire Book of Concord. ELCA does not.

In church government, the LCMS and WELS are basically congregational, the ELCA basically episcopalian.

For differences between LCMS and WELS, the WELS is stricter in their interpretation of unionism and syncretism.

WELS believes the synod is the church, whereas in LCMS the synod is specifically not the church, the local congregations are.

The WELS understands the prohibition on a woman's authority over a man to mean any sort of authority whatsoever so women do not vote. The LCMS understands that word to mean the direct authority whereby the woman would directly command or direct the man to do things, so they let women vote and hold office as long as that office is not in the ministry or too much authority.

On the day to day life of a Lutheran parishioner, the three can seem almost identical depending of course on the congregation, but over time, the differences do become evident, especially if one is active beyond the level of just show up on Sunday, throw a check in the offering and go on your way.

Hope that helps.

Marv

 

[latebloomer]

ELCA allows women to be pastors, LCMS and WELS do not.

Once upon a time, if I remember right from long-ago confirmation class, before the LCA and ALC merged to become ELCA, I seem to remember that the different synods were formed somewhat from geography. German Lutherans formed the LCMS, Norwegians formed the ALC, or something along those lines, and perhaps there was something about where people settled in the USA in the 1800s. I could be wrong, and probably am. My mom was ALC (Norwegian) and my dad is LCMS (German). Mom switched when they got married.

 

[keeptrying]

So where does the WELS stand on women voting in national and local elections not associated with the church?

 

[dinkime]

So where does the WELS stand on women voting in national and local elections not associated with the church?

they have no issues with it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The WELS understands the prohibition on a woman's authority over a man to mean any sort of authority whatsoever so women do not vote.
Marv

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark

(Wanted to clarify that I am speaking of public elections here, by the way, in response to another person's question regarding whether women vote in those or not)

This is true. I have refrained from voting in the last two elections for this very reason, even though several pastors in the WELS have explained that voting in the elections is a civil issue and not a religious issue. But, for my own peace of mind, I choose not to vote.

As for voting within the church, I have several people I can go to and express my thoughts on a current issue. I have my husband (who is also my pastor), the church council and the elders. Never have I felt that I was without a voice in the church because I could not vote.

One thing that should be explained is that the role of man and woman within in the church is not one of dominance versus submission. The word of God honors women in various ways throughout the bible, and Jesus himself honored women. The roles are merely different, and we complement each other.

I've heard many people say that the WELS is oppressive to women, but I've never experienced in the lifetime that I have been WELS. I do believe that those who would use those words do not understand the doctrine of the role of man and woman.

 

[BigNorsk]

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark

I would say it's actually liberal pietism. The LCMS allowed women to vote after extensively studying the word translated "have authority" and examining what that meant. It has nothing to do with the level of authority that voting would entail. Thayer's has a pretty good entry on it.

G831
αὐθεντέω
authenteō
Thayer Definition:
1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker)

Voting is nothing like that. And to make it a mark of the true church as it seems to me is often done, violates both scripture and the Confessions. It's just good old pietism rolled in a different breading. Which always parades itself as conservatism.

If you want to try and live in the 1800s, join the Amish. If you want to have a good church then follow the bible. Not allowing women to vote is not a biblical position. Teaching it is is a mistake, it's adding to the word.

Marv

 

[PreachersWife2004]

We'll just have to disagree. I'm not in this thread to again argue about the differences between the synods. I don't really think the OP wants an argument on it either. But do know this: the WELS does NOT make the issue of whether women vote or not a "true church" position. Matter of fact, they don't use anything but the bible as the means of the true church, because the WELS doesn't feel it is the "one true church". So unless you were mistakenly referring to the WELS, perhaps you should clarify who you meant by that remark.

I would say it's actually liberal pietism. The LCMS allowed women to vote after extensively studying the word translated "have authority" and examining what that meant. It has nothing to do with the level of authority that voting would entail. Thayer's has a pretty good entry on it.

G831
αὐθεντέω
authenteō
Thayer Definition:
1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself
2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic
3) an absolute master
4) to govern, exercise dominion over one
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker)

Voting is nothing like that. And to make it a mark of the true church as it seems to me is often done, violates both scripture and the Confessions. It's just good old pietism rolled in a different breading. Which always parades itself as conservatism.

If you want to try and live in the 1800s, join the Amish. If you want to have a good church then follow the bible. Not allowing women to vote is not a biblical position. Teaching it is is a mistake, it's adding to the word.

Marv

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Oh, and I'd just like to say that I don't feel amish, I don't look amish, I don't act amish. Not being able to vote in the church elections and decisions has not diminished the quality of my life by any means, so please, those of you who aren't Lutheran but are reading this, don't be fooled by those that wish to make us feel that way.

 

[cerette]

Oh, and I'd just like to say that I don't feel amish, I don't look amish, I don't act amish. Not being able to vote in the church elections and decisions has not diminished the quality of my life by any means, so please, those of you who aren't Lutheran but are reading this, don't be fooled by those that wish to make us feel that way.

I don't feel Amish either eventhough I bought an amish hat once. I DON'T wear it in church, or anywhere else for that matter

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't feel Amish either eventhough I bought an amish hat once. I DON'T wear it in church, or anywhere else for that matter

I like yoder popcorn. That's about as amish as I get.

 

[porterross]

Within some of the older, more conservative rural parishes in LCC (and I assume LCMS) many persons both male and female still hold this belief. Even though women have been allowed to vote for many years it is interesting to note how few have actually became voting members. When asked thy usually say "it's not my place"; reflecting a deep understanding of Scripture.

Mark

OK, let me paint another scenario for you, though. It doesn't particularly address voting, but rather council and/or committee positions.

What if the most God gifted and talented person whose intellect and gifts which are desperately needed to assist the congregation have been given to woman?

Furthermore, what if the woman's whose gifts would make a huge difference in said church is single and does not have a husband through whom her assistance can be passed to benefit others by way of voting or serving in another capacity?

How is being a a benefit to a congregation with one's gifts and talents in any way authoritative? Wouldn't that more accurately be viewed as a blessing? Wouldn't not making use of someone like this because of gender be a shame and loss for all involved?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

While the WELS doesn't allow women on the council, a woman can be a member of a committee. A woman can even be chairperson of a committee...I was the chairperson of the publicity committee for Emanuel's 150th Anniversary. But I had no authority, I was acting in what one might consider a consultant's position. The council took my suggestions and voted on them. I was chosen to be the chair because I have an extensive background in graphic design, marketing and public relations.

So women aren't shut away in the church. We are allowed to offer our suggestions and comments. In our voters' meetings, we are allowed to write letters that are then read by the church president.

I was a single mom for ten years, and again, I personally never felt like I didn't have a voice.

 

[porterross]

I'm very relieved to hear that, Beckie. Thank you for the much-needed clarification.

 

[BigNorsk]

Preacherswife,

I was replying to a post by Mark. I don't know why you took it as speaking specifically about the WELS.

And I should mention that if no one makes it a matter concerning church fellowship or communion, then I have misunderstood many other conversations in other places.

But mostly I was referring to what Mark said, even in synods where women are given the vote, that some do not, and that is supposed to reflect some deep understanding of scripture. It doesn't. It a misunderstanding of scripture that isn't too hard in English, but it clearly is not refering to they type of authority that one would use in voting. It would be much more like a slavemaster commanding the slave. I don't believe it comes at all from a deep undestanding of scripture, rather it's much more likely just to be a change from what I know is bad because however I got used to things, that was correct.

I'm not sure why WELS doesn't let women vote, I sure hope it isn't just based on 1 Ti 2:12.

If thinking that women voting would be like that sort of authority, well, I would think anyone that would think those overlappeed wouldn't use money. Because greed is idolatry and the love of money is the root of all sorts of evils.

I can even see where not giving women the vote in assembly actually would violate the passage, if for instance in driving to the meeting, if the wife told the husband how to vote because she can't, that would violate it. Maybe that never happens. It's just a hypothetical.

Marv

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Marv, the way you worded something in regards to using voting as a "true church" issue was very ambiguous. I just wanted clarification on what church actually says they are the true church because they don't allow women to vote.

Thanks.

 

[cerette]

OK, let me paint another scenario for you, though. It doesn't particularly address voting, but rather council and/or committee positions.

What if the most God gifted and talented person whose intellect and gifts which are desperately needed to assist the congregation have been given to woman?

Furthermore, what if the woman's whose gifts would make a huge difference in said church is single and does not have a husband through whom her assistance can be passed to benefit others by way of voting or serving in another capacity?

How is being a a benefit to a congregation with one's gifts and talents in any way authoritative? Wouldn't that more accurately be viewed as a blessing? Wouldn't not making use of someone like this because of gender be a shame and loss for all involved?

My former church always had 'open meetings' when voting about church matters. Everyone was welcome (and encouraged) to attend, and to state their opinion. I was welcome to tell everyone what my opinion was and why, and they all listened to me. It made no difference that I was a woman. Then when it was time to vote, only the men did it. I never had a problem with that. (In fact, I was often happy it wasn't my responsibility to make any huge decisions!!)