Discussion of ELCA

[DailyBlessings]

I wonder if that is the direction that ELCA is going. Or has gone.

As you know, the ELCA is quite a patchwork, but I would say that most Lutherans have always been moderate in the sense that the new subforum means it: relatively orthodox in belief, but willing to have community with those who believe differently.

 

[RadMan]

I post in moderate Christians, too, because I can't claim membership in Conservative Christians right now.

That's not to say that I would quit moderate Christians if CC ever became palatable to me...I'd probably post in both places.

What do yo consider moderate? I always equated WELS with conservative.

 

[DaSeminarian]

As you know, the ELCA is quite a patchwork, but I would say that most Lutherans have always been moderate in the sense that the new subforum means it: relatively orthodox in belief, but willing to have community with those who believe differently.

That's just the point. They define community within the confines of the sacrament. The ecumenicism is defined by saying that we come together in Holy Communion rather than we are Christian in the fact that we believe that he died for our sins, however, they miss the idea that the differences that separate us prevent the actual Communion of Christ's body and blood.

 

[DailyBlessings]

That's just the point. They define community within the confines of the sacrament. The ecumenicism is defined by saying that we come together in Holy Communion rather than we are Christian in the fact that we believe that he died for our sins, however, they miss the idea that the differences that separate us prevent the actual Communion of Christ's body and blood.

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing what you are saying. Could you elaborate?

Where do you stand concerning the 8th article of the Formula of Concord and the debate with the Crypto-Calvinists? Are you claiming that human works have the power to expel Christ's presence? Do you believe that the Word can similarly be expelled by "improper" belief?

 

[DaSeminarian]

I'm sorry, I think I'm missing what you are saying. Could you elaborate?

Where do you stand concerning the 8th article of the Formula of Concord and the debate with the Crypto-Calvinists? Are you claiming that human works have the power to expel Christ's presence? Do you believe that the Word can similarly be expelled by "improper" belief?

I am sorry I wasn't more clear. What I am trying to say is that the ELCA (I was one once) has over the past almost 20 years is develop altar and pulpit fellowship with church bodies which do not share the same beliefs of Real Presence of Christ, Physicall and Spirituall in, with and under the bread and wine. The have these fellowships with Reformed bodies such as the Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopalian Church USA etc and were the first Lutheran body to sign the JDDJ with the Romanists. They do it in the name of Ecumenicalism.

Likewise, although the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even public sinners remain among the righteous, the sacraments—even though administered by unrighteous priests—are efficacious all the same.57 For as Christ himself indicates [Matt. 23:2–3*]: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. . . .”
Condemned, therefore, are the Donatists58 and all others who hold a different view.​

http://foru.ms/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=40723469#_ftn457 This speaks to an issue raised during the 1529 Marburg Colloquy against Ulrich Zwingli. See WA 30/3: 157, 1–15; LW 38:81.

*

2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
3 therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.​

Matthew 23:2–3 (NRSV)​

58 Named after Donatus, a North African bishop. Donatists denied the validity of the ministry of those who had become unfaithful under Roman persecution. Although the Donatist schism did not last long, its rigorist standards of ministry were often revived in Christian history. “Others” here may include some Anabaptists, who argued that baptism received from a “false” priest was invalid. See Luther, Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) (WA 26:506, 13–21; LW 37:366) and Concerning Rebaptism (1528) (WA 26:163, 11–25; LW 40:250).

http://foru.ms/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=40723469#_ftnref4Kolb, Robert ; Wengert, Timothy J. ; Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 42

This is from the Book of Concord on Libronix. I hold quia subscription to the Augsburg Confession and its apology. As well as the other documents found in the Book of Concord.

 

[Jim47]

I post in moderate Christians, too, because I can't claim membership in Conservative Christians right now.

That's not to say that I would quit moderate Christians if CC ever became palatable to me...I'd probably post in both places.

Hmm, from my perspective that forum is sadly lacking for true conservatives

I have people over there that go so far as to PM me cause I never post there anymore just so they can tell me what a rotten person I am funny part is it don't bother me a bit so they lose.

I guess in all honesty its only a handful of people who given the forum a bad name, but they have pretty well spoiled it in my opinion.

 

[KimLCMS]

Hmm, from my perspective that forum is sadly lacking for true conservatives

I have people over there that go so far as to PM me cause I never post there anymore just so they can tell me what a rotten person I am funny part is it don't bother me a bit so they lose.

I guess in all honesty its only a handful of people who given the forum a bad name, but they have pretty well spoiled it in my opinion.

Funny, I was wondering if I was the only one to think that there wasn't much there to get excited about.

 

[DailyBlessings]

"Likewise, although the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even public sinners remain among the righteous, the sacraments—even though administered by unrighteous priests—are efficacious all the same."
. . .

I hold quia subscription to the Augsburg Confession and its apology. As well as the other documents found in the Book of Concord.

Why then, do you say that "the differences that separate us prevent the actual Communion of Christ's body and blood"? The Confession, the Formula of Concord, the Scriptures that they are based on, and the passage that you just quoted as though you were agreeing with it, all insist that the Eucharist is sacrosanct- it's origin is in God and in the grace of God, and Christ is truly present in body and spirit wherever and whenever it is taken. Not only is this belief held to be true in Lutheran tradition, but in the Roman and Greek churches that preceded it- it is nigh well a universal belief. The Scriptures are absolutely clear on this: the sacraments cannot be harmed or made invalid by the human faults of the men involved with it's distribution. The pastor/priest who administers can be in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, and the blessing of the Eucharist will still occur. Why then do you suggest that Christ is somehow not involved in the communion of one group or the next?

"Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf."

 

[Tofferer]

I received a copy of an open letter to the ELCA's head bishop regarding many pastors who were leaving the ELCA for either the orthodox or RC church. Interesting reading, though a bit long winded. I do wonder, with all the arrangements the ELCA has made with other church bodies, if the ELCA isn't in some form of "death throw" and is simply trying to stay alive, though they are (in a sense) already dead?

 

[BakaFidelis]

oooo scan it in and let us read? If it is an open letter, there shouldn't be any concern over privacy.

 

[Tofferer]

I will post it in a series of four to six parts in this thread.


An Open Letter to Bishop Mark Hanson
From Carl E. Braaten

The Reverend Dr. Mark Hanson
Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
8765 West Higgins Road
Chicago, Illinois 60631

Dear Bishop Mark Hanson:

Greetings! I am writing out of a concern I share with others about the theological state of affairs within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The situation might be described as one of "brain drain." Theologians who have served Lutheranism for many years in various capacities have recently left the ELCA and have entered the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church in America. Why?

When Jaroslav Pelikan left the ELCA and became a member of the OCA, I felt it was not terribly surprising. After all, he had been reading and writing about the Fathers of Eastern Orthodoxy for so many years, he could quite naturually find himself at home in that tradition, without much explanation. A short time before that Robert Wilken, a leading patristics scholar teaching at the University of Virginia, left the ELCA to become a Roman Catholic. Then other Lutheran theological colleagues began to follow suit. Jay Rochelle, who for many years was my colleague and the chaplain at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago joined the Orthodox Church. Why?

Leonard Klein, pastor of a large Lutheran parish in York, Pennsylvania, and former editor of Lutheran Forum and Forum Letter, last year left the ELCA to study for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Why?

This year Bruce Marshall, who taught theology for about fifteen years at St. Olaf College and was a long-standing member of the International Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue, has left the ELCA to enter the Roman Catholic Church. Why? David Fagerberg, formerly professor of religion at Concordia College, although coming from a strong Norwegian Lutheran family, left the ELCA for the Roman Catholic Church, and now teaches at the University of Notre Dame. Reinhard Huetter, a German Lutheran from Erlangen University, came to the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago fifteen years ago to teach theology and ethics, now teaches at Duke Divinity School, and this year became a Roman Catholic. Why?

Mickey Mattox, a theologian who recently served at the Lutheran Ecumenical Institute in Strasbourg and now teaches at Marquette University, has recently begun the process of becoming a Roman Catholic. In all these cases the transition involves spouses and children, making it incredibly more difficult. Why are they doing this? Is there a message in these decisions for those who have ears to hear?

All of these colleagues have given candid explanations of their decisions to their families, colleagues, and friends. While the individuals involved have provided a variety of reasons, there is one thread that runs throughout the stories they tell. It is not merely the pull of Orthodoxy or Catholicism that enchants them, but also the push from the ELCA, as they witness with alarm the drift of their church into the morass of what some have called Liberal Protestantism. They are convinced that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has become just another liberal protestant denomination.

Hence, they have decided that they can no longer be a part of that. Especially, they say, they are not willing to raise their children in a church that they believe has lost its moorings in the great tradition of evangelical (small e) and catholic (small c) orthodoxy (small o), which was at the heart of Luther's reformatory teaching and the Lutheran Confessional Writings. They are saying that the Roman Catholic Church is now more hospitable to confessional Lutheran teaching than the church in which they were baptized and confirmed. Can this possibly be true?

 

[Tofferer]

I have decided, without any doubt about it, that I could not re-invent myself to become something else than I was raised to be by my Magadascar missionary parents - an heir of the Lutheran confessing movement. Through theological study and ecumenical engagement I thought I had learned something about what it means to be Lutheran. I have written many books and articles, preached and published many sermons - leaving a long paper trail - over a period of five decades, explaining what it means to be Lutheran. There is nothing in all of those communications that accommodates liberal Protestantism, which Karl Barth called a "heresy," an assessment with which I fully agree. If it is true that the ELCA has become just another liberal protestant denomination, that is a condition tantamount to heresy.

The most damning thing in my view that can be charged against the ELCA is that it is just another liberal protestant denomination. Are all these theologians wrong in their assessment of the ELCA? I wish I could deny it. I have been looking for some convincing evidence to the contrary, because I am not about to cut and run. There is no place I know of where to go. I do know, however, that the kind of Lutheranism that I learned - from Nygren, Aulen, Bring, Pinomaa, Schlink, P. Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Pannenberg, Piepkorn, Quanbeck, Preus, and Lindbeck, not to mention the pious missionary teachers from whom I learned the Bible, the Catechism, and the Christian faith -- and taught in a Lutheran parish and seminary for many years is now marginalized to the point of near extinction.

In looking for evidence that could convincingly contradict the charge that the ELCA has become just another liberal protestant denomination, it would seem reasonable to examine what is produced by its publishing house, theological schools, magazines, publications, church council resolutions, commission statements, task force recommendations, statements and actions by its bishops. The end result is an embarrassment; there is not much there to refute the charge. As Erik Petersen said about 19h century German Protestantism, all that is left of the Reformation heritage is the aroma from an empty bottle. A lot of the pious piffle remains, but then, so was Adolf von Harnack a pious man. All the heretics of the ancient church were pious men. Our pastors and laity are being deceived by a lot of pietistic aroma, but the bottle is empty.

Just ask these fine theologians - all friends and colleagues of mine - who have left the ELCA. They are not stupid people; they don't tell lies; they don't make rash decisions. They are all serious Christians. What is happening is nothing less than a tragedy. The ELCA is driving out the best and the brightest theologians of our day, not because it is too Lutheran, but because it has become putatively just another liberal protestant denomination. I would think that this is a situation that ought to concern you immensely as well as all the leadership cadres of the ELCA.

But might it also be the case that the very persons who ought to be troubled by this phenomenon will say to themselves (perhaps not out loud), "good riddance, we won't be bothered by those dissenting voices anymore? We wish more of their ilk would leave." I must tell you that I read all your episcopal letters that come across my desk. But I must also tell you that your stated convictions, punctuated by many pious sentiments, are not significantly distinguishable from those that come from the liberal protestant leaders of other American denominations.

I do not disagree with your political leaning to the left. I am a life-long political liberal, unlike many of
my friends. My wife and I opposed the unjust war against Vietnam in the 60's and 70's, and we have with equal conviction opposed the foolhardy invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration. We also supported the ELCA in its ecumenical actions to re-institute the episcopal office by means of passing the CCM as well as to adopt the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification with the Vatican. But none of that
equates with transforming Lutheranism into a liberal protestant denomination, in terms of doctrine, worship, and morality.

 

[Tofferer]

When I finished my graduate studies at Harvard and Heidelberg, I was ordained by the ELC and served a parish in North Minneapolis, simultaneously teaching at Luther Seminary. At that time I was instrumental in founding Dialog, a journal of theology, together with Robert Jenson, Roy Harrisville, Kent Knutson, James Burtness, and others, in order to draw midwest Lutheranism into the world-wide orbit of Lutheran theology. We were not ecumenically oriented at the start. At that time no Luther Seminary professors were dealing with the issues posed by Bultmann, Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Brunner, Aulen, Nygren and many others. Dialog got the reputation of being a journal edited by young upstarts who thought they knew better. It seemed to us then that most of our professors were not very well informed. But they were good Lutherans, not a single heretic among them. Heresy was not the problem at that time.

The journal that our group founded in 1961 has now become the voice of a liberal protestant version of Lutheranism. Robert Jenson and I resigned from the journal as its editors in1991 to found a new journal, Pro Ecclesia, a Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology. In the last fourteen years we have published the articles of theologians of all traditions - Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox - exhibiting the truth that we all share common ground in the Great Tradition. The same cannot be said of Dialog anymore. It has become a function of the California ethos of religion and morality, nothing seriously Lutheran about it anymore, except the aroma of an empty bottle. Too bad. I was its editor for twenty years and Jenson for ten years, but now in our judgment it has become, perhaps even unwittingly, the veryopposite of what we intended. The journal now expresses its belief that to be prophetic is to become the mouthpiece of the denominational bureaucracy, that is, to attack the few dissenting voices in the ELCA.

One day a church historian will write the history of Lutheranism in America. There will be a few paragraphs trying to explain how the self-destruction of confessional orthodox Lutheranism came about around the turn of the millennium and how it underwent a metamorphosis into a liberal protestant denomination. Recently in an issue of the Lutheran Magazine you expressed your hope that Lutherans could some day soon celebrate Holy Communion with Roman Catholics. My instant reaction was: it is becoming less and less likely, as the ELCA is being taken hostage by forces alien to the solid traditions Lutherans share with Roman Catholics. The confessional chasm is actually becoming wider. So much for the JDDJ! The agreement becomes meaningless when Lutheranism embarks on a trajectory that leads to rank antinomianism.

Where do we go from here? I am going nowhere. Meanwhile, I am hearing rumors about a possible schism or something about the formation of a dissenting synod. None of that will redound to the benefit of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church we confess in the Creed. Each person and congregation will do what they deem fitting and appropriate in view of the apostasy that looms on the horizon of our beloved Lutheran Church. My friend Wolfhart Pannenberg has stated that a church that cannot take the Scriptures seriously is no longer a church that belongs to Jesus Christ. That is not an original statement of his or mine, but one said by every orthodox theologian in the Great Tradition, including Athanasius and Augustine, as well as Martin Lutherand John Calvin.

Does the ELCA take the Scriptures seriously? We will soon find out. Whoever passes the issue off as simply a hermeneutical squabble is not being honest - "we have our interpretation and you have yours." Who is to judge who is right? The upshot is ecclesiastical anarchy, sometimes called pluralism. To each his own. Chacun son gout! I am extremely sorry it has come to this doctrinally unstable situation in the church I was ordained to serve almost half a century ago. My father and two of his brothers served this church in Madagascar and China. My brother and sister served this church in the Camaroons and Madagascar. My cousins have served this church as ordained ministers in this country and abroad for decades. Knowing them as well as I do, I am confident in stating their belief that this church in some of its expressions is not remaining truly faithful to the kind of promises they made upon their ordination to the Christian ministry.

Can the situation which I have described in stark terms be remedied? Have we reached the point of no return? Are we now hopelessly mired in what Karl Barth identified as "Kulturprotestantismus?" I know of about half a dozen Lutheran renewal groups desperately trying to call the ELCA back to its foundational texts and traditions. Would they exist if there were no problem that needs to be addressed? How many congregations and pastors have left or are leaving the ELCA for other associations? One day we will have to answer before the judgment seat of God as to what we have done for and against the Church of Jesus Christ. There will be no one by our side to help us find the words to use in response. All of us will have many things for which to repent and to implore God's forgiveness. And we will all cry out, "Lord, have mercy!"



Sincerely in Christ our Lord,

Carl E. Braaten


Ok, it was only three parts. I was wrong.

 

[RadMan]

I received a copy of an open letter to the ELCA's head bishop regarding many pastors who were leaving the ELCA for either the orthodox or RC church. Interesting reading, though a bit long winded. I do wonder, with all the arrangements the ELCA has made with other church bodies, if the ELCA isn't in some form of "death throw" and is simply trying to stay alive, though they are (in a sense) already dead?

This might be of some interest to you Chris. I just posted this in our sub forum. It's also about the concerns of pastors leaving LCMS and going EO or RCC.
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40731112&postcount=114

 

[DaRev]

Why then, do you say that "the differences that separate us prevent the actual Communion of Christ's body and blood"? The Confession, the Formula of Concord, the Scriptures that they are based on, and the passage that you just quoted as though you were agreeing with it, all insist that the Eucharist is sacrosanct- it's origin is in God and in the grace of God, and Christ is truly present in body and spirit wherever and whenever it is taken. Not only is this belief held to be true in Lutheran tradition, but in the Roman and Greek churches that preceded it- it is nigh well a universal belief. The Scriptures are absolutely clear on this: the sacraments cannot be harmed or made invalid by the human faults of the men involved with it's distribution. The pastor/priest who administers can be in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, and the blessing of the Eucharist will still occur. Why then do you suggest that Christ is somehow not involved in the communion of one group or the next?

"Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf."

This, from the FC SD VIII (The Holy Supper), paragraph 32:

After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion.

This is why the Reformed do not have the Sacrament, and why altar fellowship with them is in contradiction to the Lutheran Confessions.

 

[stumpjumper]

You can read Professor Braaten's letter here as well:
http://versuspopulum.blogspot.com/2005/07/theology-in-elca.html

I started a discussion about it here probably a year and a half ago...

 

[DailyBlessings]

This, from the FC SD VIII (The Holy Supper), paragraph 32:

After this protestation, Doctor Luther, of blessed memory, presents, among other articles, this also: In the same manner I also speak and confess (he says) concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, that there the body and blood of Christ are in truth orally eaten and drunk in the bread and wine, even though the priests [ministers] who administer it [the Lord's Supper], or those who receive it, should not believe or otherwise misuse it. For it does not depend upon the faith or unbelief of men, but upon God's Word and ordinance, unless they first change God's Word and ordinance and interpret it otherwise, as the enemies of the Sacrament do at the present day, who, of course, have nothing but bread and wine; for they also do not have the words and appointed ordinance of God, but have perverted and changed them according to their own [false] notion.

This is why the Reformed do not have the Sacrament, and why altar fellowship with them is in contradiction to the Lutheran Confessions.

So you do believe that human works have the power to expel Christ from the Scriptures and the Eucharist? Weighty claim. Dare I ask whether you can justify it scripturally? Or by any other means than a quotation that you may well be misunderstanding, considering that the argument proceeds onward from this point to affirm that:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]74...not the word or work of any man produces the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, whether it be the merit or recitation of the minister, or the eating and drinking or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed alone to the power of Almighty God and the word, institution, and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]75] For the true and almighty words of Jesus Christ which He spake at the first institution were efficacious not only at the first Supper, but they endure, are valid, operate, and are still efficacious [their force, power, and efficacy endure and avail even to the present], so that in all places where the Supper is celebrated according to the institution of Christ, and His words are used, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed, and received, because of the power and efficacy of the words which Christ spake at the first Supper. For where His institution is observed and His words are spoken over the bread and cup [wine], and the consecrated bread and cup [wine] are distributed, Christ Himself, through the spoken words, is still efficacious by virtue of the first institution, through His word, which He wishes to be there repeated. 76] As Chrysostom says (in Serm. de Pass.) in his Sermon concerning the Passion: Christ Himself prepared this table and blesses it; for no man makes the bread and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but by God's power and grace, by the word, where He speaks: "This is My body," the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper.
[/FONT]
​

I can grasp how you might suggest that one who is not right spiritually might not receive any benefit from it, individually. But you have attacked the sacrament itself, and Christ himself, by suggesting that human works could in any way take away the power and the authority of Holy Communion. If you are going to excommunicate a fellow Christian from communion, stating that someone belonging to a given earthly political structure cannot receive the communion, you'd better be arguing than from a greater place of authority than the command of our Lord at the Last Supper. I can imagine no such authority.
​

 

[BakaFidelis]

Ok, it was only three parts. I was wrong.

Wow that is really interesting to read! Thank you for sharing it with us.

It was morbidly fascinating to hear him lament that he had no defense against the charge of being just another liberal protestant denomination. I really thought that "Man this guy is really taking the realization of liberalism seriously." But then I slap my forehead as he praises himself for being liberal before there was heresy in the seminaries.

I don't understand how he can want to have one foot on each side of the fence like that. It really makes me scratch my head in confusion.

Well, no matter what he believes of ELCA, he was wrong in believing in a demise of confessional Lutheranism. It is alive, well and thriving... Just sadly not in ELCA anymore.

 

[DaRev]

So you do believe that human works have the power to expel Christ from the Scriptures and the Eucharist? Weighty claim. Dare I ask whether you can justify it scripturally? Or by any other means than a quotation that you may well be misunderstanding, considering that the argument proceeds onward from this point to affirm that:

I can grasp how you might suggest that one who is not right spiritually might not receive any benefit from it, individually. But you have attacked the sacrament itself, and Christ himself, by suggesting that human works could in any way take away the power and the authority of Holy Communion. If you are going to excommunicate a fellow Christian from communion, stating that someone belonging to a given earthly political structure cannot receive the communion, you'd better be arguing than from a greater place of authority than the command of our Lord at the Last Supper. I can imagine no such authority.​

If you are accusing me of attacking the Sacrament, then you are accusing the Lutheran Confessions of the same thing. I have not attacked the Sacrament. I simply showed that when the word of God is perverted it is no longer considered the word of God but rather the word of Man. The word of Man has no effect on the Sacrament.

And even if you don't believe that the Confessions are thoroughly Scriptural (which they are), then you would still have to adhere to the word of God written by St, Paul in 1 Cor. 11 where one must recognize the body of Christ or else they are sinning against the body and blood of Christ and thus bringing judgement upon themselves. How many people from the Reformed churches that the ELCA is in altar fellowship with are indeed communing to their judgement by unworthily receiving the Sacrament?

 

[BakaFidelis]

You can read Professor Braaten's letter here as well:
http://versuspopulum.blogspot.com/2005/07/theology-in-elca.html

I started a discussion about it here probably a year and a half ago...

I did not know the letter was that old, but it was still something to really read!

Another thing that really amazed me is how many people in that blog thought that Braaten was speaking in some obscure code or that it must have had hidden meanings because they could not understand it.