Differences in LCMS, ELCA, WELS

[DaRev]

In the LCMS, the concept of authority in regards to women is in terms of the pastoral office and the functions and responsibilities therein. Women should not hold the office of pastor nor hold any other position that would either involve direct involvement of the functions of the pastoral office or involve oversight of the functions of the pastoral office. Those positions outside of the pastoral office or the functions of it can be held by women since the LCMS maintains that those postitions are man-made and are not part of the one divinely instituted pastoral office.

I've had discussions here about whether or not a woman can be the council president or vice president. Since our council also includes the board of elders and our elders are directly involved in some of the functions of the pastoral office, women cannot hold either of those positions since they would then hold a seat of authroity over aspects of the pastoral office, nor can they be elders. If they wanted to restructure the council and remove the elders from it, and only allow the council to handle matters regarding the operation and administration of the congregation as an entity, then women would be able to hold those positions since they would have no authority over any aspect of the pastoral office. That authority would then be given over to the board of elders.

 

[BigNorsk]

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.

Well, I think you could say the Church of the Lutheran Confession. You could read their differences with other synods. http://www.clclutheran.org/

They don't of course use Confessional Lutheran vocabulary since they aren't of that background.

I would turn to the Augburg Confession for what are to be used as the true church
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article VII: Of the Church.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.
[/FONT]
Would you say for instance that WELS and LCMS have true unity? If they do not, and I can't say where they do, then what are the areas of main disagreement. One area I always hear, the LCMS even list it on their site as one of the major disagreements is women's roles in the church. Now if women's role is not an area that is necessary to have agreement to have true unity, then why does it keep coming up?

You explain it to me, obviously you must think I misunderstand. But I would conclude that if it keeps coming up in discussion on church fellowship that it must be something the WELS holds to as a mark of the true church, because if it isn't, then it isn't necessary to agree to have true unity.

Explain to me where I'm wrong. If it's necessary to agree on something in order to have true unity, it must be concerning the right teaching of the Gospel or the correct administration of the Sacraments. Isn't that true? If it isn't necessary to agree on women's roles in the church to have true unity, why does WELS bring it up in discussions with the LCMS?

Marv

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Okay, that makes a little more sense then. You weren't explicitly saying that one church or another actually makes this claim. To make sure I am clear, here is what I think you're saying.

Christian A asks Christian B what makes the "true Church". Christian B responds with doctrine such as not letting women vote or church fellowship principles marks the true church.

Correct? I hope so!!

I totally agree that a good confessional Lutheran will always direct such a questioner to the scriptures.

Thanks for the additional clarification, Marv. I appreciate it!

Yes, it's ambiguous because in areas such as that, what people say when they aren't specifically asked what the marks of the true church is what they spontaneously say when they are telling you how good they are and how not so good someone else is are two different things.

If you ask any confessional Lutheran specifically what the marks of the church are, they will answer with the phrase they've been taught, referring to the gospel and the sacraments.

 

[porterross]

In the LCMS, the concept of authority in regards to women is in terms of the pastoral office and the functions and responsibilities therein. Women should not hold the office of pastor nor hold any other position that would either involve direct involvement of the functions of the pastoral office or involve oversight of the functions of the pastoral office. Those positions outside of the pastoral office or the functions of it can be held by women since the LCMS maintains that those postitions are man-made and are not part of the one divinely instituted pastoral office.

I've had discussions here about whether or not a woman can be the council president or vice president. Since our council also includes the board of elders and our elders are directly involved in some of the functions of the pastoral office, women cannot hold either of those positions since they would then hold a seat of authroity over aspects of the pastoral office, nor can they be elders. If they wanted to restructure the council and remove the elders from it, and only allow the council to handle matters regarding the operation and administration of the congregation as an entity, then women would be able to hold those positions since they would have no authority over any aspect of the pastoral office. That authority would then be given over to the board of elders.

I bet there are many, many wives of LCMS pastors who have a great deal more influence than their husbands might admit or even realize. Does that count?

 

[DaRev]

I bet there are many, many wives of LCMS pastors who have a great deal more influence than their husbands might admit or even realize. Does that count?

I wouldn't know.

 

[Till]

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.

Are historical-critical methods taught at LCMS's seminary?

Yesterday I spoke with a pastor at SELK - LCMS's sister church in Germany - about the najor differences between his church and the - mostly liberal - main Protestant/Lutheran church in Germany. He mentioned the liberal theology which SELK is not ascribing to but he also said that some professors at their seminary are beginning to introduce historical-critical methods. He mentioned that he is opposed to it but it is still happening.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Ummm...I"m not even sure where you're going with this, Marv. You clarified exactly what I needed to have clarified, but now you've edited that post. I'm confused. But I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night either.

At any rate, we aren't in fellowship with the CLC, either. They broke with us because we were too slow breaking with the LCMS.

Besides, I don't usually associate Lutheran churches, regardless of synod, with the phrase "one true church". That is something that the Catholics are arrogant enough to proclaim that they are.

Well, I think you could say the Church of the Lutheran Confession. You could read their differences with other synods. http://www.clclutheran.org/

They don't of course use Confessional Lutheran vocabulary since they aren't of that background.

I would turn to the Augburg Confession for what are to be used as the true church
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article VII: Of the Church.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.
[/FONT]
Would you say for instance that WELS and LCMS have true unity? If they do not, and I can't say where they do, then what are the areas of main disagreement. One area I always hear, the LCMS even list it on their site as one of the major disagreements is women's roles in the church. Now if women's role is not an area that is necessary to have agreement to have true unity, then why does it keep coming up?

You explain it to me, obviously you must think I misunderstand. But I would conclude that if it keeps coming up in discussion on church fellowship that it must be something the WELS holds to as a mark of the true church, because if it isn't, then it isn't necessary to agree to have true unity.

Explain to me where I'm wrong. If it's necessary to agree on something in order to have true unity, it must be concerning the right teaching of the Gospel or the correct administration of the Sacraments. Isn't that true? If it isn't necessary to agree on women's roles in the church to have true unity, why does WELS bring it up in discussions with the LCMS?

Marv

 

[keeptrying]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?

 

[cerette]

Ummm...I"m not even sure where you're going with this, Marv. You clarified exactly what I needed to have clarified, but now you've edited that post. I'm confused. But I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night either.

At any rate, we aren't in fellowship with the CLC, either. They broke with us because we were too slow breaking with the LCMS.

Besides, I don't usually associate Lutheran churches, regardless of synod, with the phrase "one true church". That is something that the Catholics are arrogant enough to proclaim that they are.

After studying the CLC/WELS thing some, out of curiousity, I noticed that the CLC doesn't say they broke with the WELS because it took too long, but because the CLC thinks that WELS applies the Biblical principles regarding "breaking church fellowship" in a Non-Biblical way.
I will definitely study this matter more, and hopefully be able to talk to some CLC pastors about it as well.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?

There were many issues that led to WELS breaking with LCMS, but I think by far the biggest one was that of fellowship. This link HERE from the WELS Q&A gives a better view from the WELS angle, although I'm sure the LCMS sees things differently.

 

[cerette]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?

CLC is the Church of the Lutheran Confession. (www.clclutheran.org)

The LCMS believes in 'levels of fellowship': Even if you can't take communion together you may sometimes pray together or something.

The WELS doesn't believe in any leves of fellowship: Either you can have full fellowship (communion together, pray together etc) or you cannot have fellowship.

I would guess this is a reason why you don't see the WELS joining the ELCA/LCMS activities.

 

[BigNorsk]

I see they use the term "close" Communion. Shouldn't that be "exact" Communion since the synod requires agreement in all matters for any level of Communion? In other words close doesn't count?

Marv

 

[cerette]

I see they use the term "close" Communion. Shouldn't that be "exact" Communion since the synod requires agreement in all matters for any level of Communion? In other words close doesn't count?

Marv

Close as in we are close to each other as a family because we share the same confession, rather than than Closed as if others would never be welcome. We would love to be able to commune with many many more. This is how I have always thought of the terms. Maybe I am wrong, I dunno.

 

[DaRev]

Are historical-critical methods taught at LCMS's seminary?

No. That was the whole issue during the 60's and early 70's that led to the then synod president, Jacob Preus, to do some "house cleaning" at the St. Louis seminary. The seminary president was suspended and 45 of the 50 faculty and about 75% of the students walked out in 1974. The result of all that was the formation of the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, a Lutheran synod that was one of the three bodies that merged to form the ELCA in 1988.
LCMS seminaries hold to the grammatical-critical (aka grammatico-historical) interpretation of Scripture. This is why a working knowedge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek is required in order to take any MDiv level courses at LCMS seminaries.

 

[BigNorsk]

The Wisconsin Synod teaches that agreement on all the teachings of Scripture is necessary for all forms of fellowship.

I just can't find the close in that statement. It doesn't allow someone to be fellowshipped who is close. It requires absolute complete agreement on all the teachings of Scripture. That goes way beyond close.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article VII: Of the Church.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6. [/FONT]

Seems to me to be a statement forbidding requiring absolute complete agreement in every matter before one recognizes true unity. True unity would be recognized certainly in fellowship.

I have real trouble, in a group that so carefully distinguishes between the Law and the Gospel to take the need to agree on the doctrine of the Gospel as a mandate to agree on every teaching of the Bible.

And I cannot see where any of the disagreements between the WELS and the LCMS rise to the level of being either the "doctrine of the Gospel" nor do they differ on the administration of the sacraments, with the possible exception of the fact that many of the LCMS are more open in the administration of Communion than the official position of the LCMS. So if the desire was to be true to the Confessions, I would think that would be the one area of discussion for restoration of fellowship.

Wouldn't you agree?

Marv[/FONT]

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I started to answer this and then realized that the Q&A once again puts it more succinctly than I can:


Both terms are fitting and commonly used. The term "close" communion (as in "close friends") is usually used to emphasize the necessity the communicant's unity with the Savior through Christian faith as well as unity in the faith and the confession of that faith (that is, doctrine and practice) with fellow communicants. The term "closed" communion (as in "closed door") more emphasizes that there are limitations or restrictions that the Bible imposes for communicants (e.g., it is only for believers who are knowledgeable about what the sacrament is, able to examine themselves, united in doctrine with those they are expressing fellowship with in this way). Another way of saying it is that the practice of "closed" communion (exploring and verifying the propriety of a person to receive communion at a particular time and place) is cherishing and protecting the blessing of "close" communion (having all communicants properly qualified and prepared to receive the sacrament because of their relationship with the Lord and fellow communicants).


They may be used interchangeably. But there may be a conscious choice and preference in which term to use depending on the purpose of the conversation and the person we are speaking with. Do we wish to emphasize the blessing and necessity of the vertical and horizontal unity expressed in the Lord's Supper? Or is it time to stress the need to verify and insist on that unity to the best of our ability -- which means exploring the situation and sometimes limiting participation? Or is it best to stress both aspects together all the time? This kind of decision is left in the hands of each Christian, to make choices that reflect love and spiritual edification in a given circumstance.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I see they use the term "close" Communion. Shouldn't that be "exact" Communion since the synod requires agreement in all matters for any level of Communion? In other words close doesn't count?

Marv

We use both words to describe our communion doctrine. Close doesn't mean "well, you're close to fellowship with us, so you can commune with us".

LCMS holds the same practice. And rightly so, as it is commanded by scripture.

 

[DaRev]

Does anyone know why WELS broke off with LCMS? As I said in my OP, in my town anyway the LCMS and ELCA seem to collaborate on many projects but never with WELS. Is it just my area or they feel the differences are too great? Also what is the CLC?

The issues which led to the break in fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS are somewhat complicated, and I'm not sure I understand them all.

Our former synodical president, Al Barry, did have a good dialogue with both the WELS and the ELS during his tenure. Since then, the WELS and the ELS have had no desire to dialogue with the LCMS, justifiably so, which is too bad because I would much rather have a working relationship with another Confessional church body than with one who is considered by the LCMS to not be an orthodox Lutheran church body (ELCA). It's kinda senseless to me, but it's the present reality. Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I just can't find the close in that statement. It doesn't allow someone to be fellowshipped who is close. It requires absolute complete agreement on all the teachings of Scripture. That goes way beyond close.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Seems to me to be a statement forbidding requiring absolute complete agreement in every matter before one recognizes true unity. True unity would be recognized certainly in fellowship.

I have real trouble, in a group that so carefully distinguishes between the Law and the Gospel to take the need to agree on the doctrine of the Gospel as a mandate to agree on every teaching of the Bible.

And I cannot see where any of the disagreements between the WELS and the LCMS rise to the level of being either the "doctrine of the Gospel" nor do they differ on the administration of the sacraments, with the possible exception of the fact that many of the LCMS are more open in the administration of Communion than the official position of the LCMS. So if the desire was to be true to the Confessions, I would think that would be the one area of discussion for restoration of fellowship.

Wouldn't you agree?

Marv[/FONT]

Well, since WELS considers its fellowship doctrine and its policy on men and women and their roles to be scripturally correct, then I'm thinking it is an issue of a doctrine of the gospel. The desire is to remain true to the Word of God.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

The issues which led to the break in fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS are somewhat complicated, and I'm not sure I understand them all.

Our former synodical president, Al Barry, did have a good dialogue with both the WELS and the ELS during his tenure. Since then, the WELS and the ELS have had no desire to dialogue with the LCMS, justifiably so, which is too bad because I would much rather have a working relationship with another Confessional church body than with one who is considered by the LCMS to not be an orthodox Lutheran church body (ELCA). It's kinda senseless to me, but it's the present reality. Our prayers are that one day such differences can be resolved to at least allow a working relationship in the ministry of the Gospel with our WELS brethren.