Formation of the ELCA

[LutheranHawkeye]

The other day I watched a mosaic (ELCA video magazine) video on the formation of the ELCA. I learned some very interesting things that can probably describe much of the problems that the ELCA and LCMS are having now. It seems that after the AELC broke off from the LCMS, it wanted to merge with a church body so bad that it rushed the merger process of the three predecesor bodies of the ELCA. In this video the former president of the ALC even states that the process was rushed. I think that if the AELC hadn't rushed the process that all the main Lutheran bodies could have mutually benefited, even if the same bodies had merged. Maybe some issues that could have been cleared up: The ALC's curious view of inerrancy coupled with their ordination of women, and the LCMS's union with the ALC. So I pose this question to all on TCL: If the AELC hadn't rushed the process of merging, could the ALC and LCMS merged instead of the LCA with the ALC. This is a very interesting question and I would like to get reactions about this question, as well as possible problems in both church bodies that have roots in this. A few examples, hermeneutics, church structure, and views of sexuality and the office of pastor.

 

[DaRev]

If I remember my history correctly, the LCMS and ALC broke fellowship before the formation of the AELC. One of the reasons for the break of fellowship was the ALC's persuit of fellowship with the LCA, which again predates the formation of the AELC. So the wheels that led to the formation of the ELCA were rolling before then.

I doubt very highly that the LCMS would have ever merged with the ALC. Their fellowship only lasted a few years as it was, and it was in place before Preus' "house cleaning" in '74. You see how long it took for the AALC (those congregations that left the ALC at the time of the ELCA merger) to come back around in order to enter fellowship with the LCMS.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

If I remember my history correctly, the LCMS and ALC broke fellowship before the formation of the AELC. One of the reasons for the break of fellowship was the ALC's persuit of fellowship with the LCA, which again predates the formation of the AELC. So the wheels that led to the formation of the ELCA were rolling before then.

I doubt very highly that the LCMS would have ever merged with the ALC. Their fellowship only lasted a few years as it was, and it was in place before Preus' "house cleaning" in '74. You see how long it took for the AALC (those congregations that left the ALC at the time of the ELCA merger) to come back around in order to enter fellowship with the LCMS.

I doubt it too, I just think that the Lutheran Church in the United States could have greatly reduced the radical liberal faction within the ELCA and the fundamentalist faction within the LCMS through increased intra-Lutheran dialouge. It seems that after the ELCA was formed all dialouge amongst Lutheran denominations ceased to exist, the ELCA branding the LCMS as unnecessarily strict, and the LCMS branding the ELCA as not orthodox. I just wish the ELCA would worry more about dialouge with other Lutherans and less about the reformed, and that the LCMS would open up and try to compromise...Lord knows that district presidents, and our current call processes could use revising.

 

[DaRev]

I doubt it too, I just think that the Lutheran Church in the United States could have greatly reduced the radical liberal faction within the ELCA and the fundamentalist faction within the LCMS through increased intra-Lutheran dialouge. It seems that after the ELCA was formed all dialouge amongst Lutheran denominations ceased to exist, the ELCA branding the LCMS as unnecessarily strict, and the LCMS branding the ELCA as not orthodox. I just wish the ELCA would worry more about dialouge with other Lutherans and less about the reformed, and that the LCMS would open up and try to compromise...Lord knows that district presidents, and our current call processes could use revising.

Whoa there junior!

I'm confused by your statement "fundamentalist faction within the LCMS." What are you referring to?

The LCMS and ELCA have been in dialogue over different things for years.
What do you think the LCMS should compromise on?

Also, what do you not like about the DP's and call processes?

 

[filosofer]

If I remember my history correctly, the LCMS and ALC broke fellowship before the formation of the AELC. One of the reasons for the break of fellowship was the ALC's persuit of fellowship with the LCA, which again predates the formation of the AELC. So the wheels that led to the formation of the ELCA were rolling before then.

I doubt very highly that the LCMS would have ever merged with the ALC. Their fellowship only lasted a few years as it was, and it was in place before Preus' "house cleaning" in '74. You see how long it took for the AALC (those congregations that left the ALC at the time of the ELCA merger) to come back around in order to enter fellowship with the LCMS.

No, the AELC was formed in 1976 as the natural consequence of the walkout of Concordia Seminary, 1974. It was composed of the ~100,000 members who left LCMS during that time period. ALC fellowship was from 1969-1981. AELC officially disband in 1987 with the ELCA formation on Jan 1, 1988.

The roots of fellowship discussions among the Lutherans has been on-going since the early 1800's (General Council and General Synod being two in the 1800's). However, while the General Council and General Synod were formed as mergers, those on the right-of-center seldom if ever discussed merger, but formal Altar and Pulpit fellowship. LCMS and ALC (formed 1930) began fellowship talks in the 1930's, and continued in the post war era, and especially with ALC (formed 1960). When LCMS and ALC established Altar and Pulpit fellowship in 1969, it was specifically avoiding discussion of merger. Likewise when AALC and LCMS began informal discussions in 1989 and finally consummated in 2007 with Altar and Pulpit fellowship, merger was not even a point of discussion, nor will it ever be.

 

[DaRev]

No, the AELC was formed in 1976 as the natural consequence of the walkout of Concordia Seminary, 1974. It was composed of the ~100,000 members who left LCMS during that time period. ALC fellowship was from 1969-1981. AELC officially disband in 1987 with the ELCA formation on Jan 1, 1988.

Thank you sir. I stand corrected.

 

[Edial]

Whoa there junior!

I'm confused by your statement "fundamentalist faction within the LCMS." What are you referring to?

The LCMS and ELCA have been in dialogue over different things for years.
What do you think the LCMS should compromise on?

Also, what do you not like about the DP's and call processes?

Wow. That is some reaction.
He just asked some questions.

 

[RedneckLutheran]

interesting stuff...I just watched it myself...

 

[Tofferer]

Yes. He asked questions, however, those questions can only be answered by answering other questions. Insofar as that goes, I would like to see him answer DaRev's questions. From there we can build upon those answers to answer his questions. That is how learning tends to work, or am I wrong?

 

[DaRev]

Wow. That is some reaction.
He just asked some questions.

What questions? The post I responded to had no questions at all, just some remarks that need to be qualified or rectified.

 

[Phoebe]

No, the AELC was formed in 1976 as the natural consequence of the walkout of Concordia Seminary, 1974. It was composed of the ~100,000 members who left LCMS during that time period. ALC fellowship was from 1969-1981. AELC officially disband in 1987 with the ELCA formation on Jan 1, 1988.

The roots of fellowship discussions among the Lutherans has been on-going since the early 1800's (General Council and General Synod being two in the 1800's). However, while the General Council and General Synod were formed as mergers, those on the right-of-center seldom if ever discussed merger, but formal Altar and Pulpit fellowship. LCMS and ALC (formed 1930) began fellowship talks in the 1930's, and continued in the post war era, and especially with ALC (formed 1960). When LCMS and ALC established Altar and Pulpit fellowship in 1969, it was specifically avoiding discussion of merger. Likewise when AALC and LCMS began informal discussions in 1989 and finally consummated in 2007 with Altar and Pulpit fellowship, merger was not even a point of discussion, nor will it ever be.

That explains a few things for me. I wasn't active in church back in 1988. I can't remember if I grew up in the ALC or LCA. I'll see if I can find out.

 

[Studeclunker]

I doubt it too, I just think that the Lutheran Church in the United States could have greatly reduced the radical liberal faction within the ELCA and the fundamentalist faction within the LCMS through increased intra-Lutheran dialouge. It seems that after the ELCA was formed all dialouge amongst Lutheran denominations ceased to exist, the ELCA branding the LCMS as unnecessarily strict, and the LCMS branding the ELCA as not orthodox. I just wish the ELCA would worry more about dialouge with other Lutherans and less about the reformed, and that the LCMS would open up and try to compromise...Lord knows that district presidents, and our current call processes could use revising.

I don't believe that the LCMS is branding the ELCA as unorthodox. They're branding them as hetrodox. There's a somewhat of a difference.

If the LCMS compromises any more they won't even be Christian anymore! Ahem... sorry. Personal issues you know...

I do agree though, the whole process from the President down could use revising. In fact, a complete re-organization of the LCMS wouldn't be a bad idea. The office of the president and the district presidents seem to have too much leeway in their duties.

Sadly, that, "radical liberal faction within the ELCA," seems to have infected the LCMS. The only thing lacking at this point are the homosexuals and the female preachers.

 

[Tofferer]

As long as we are discussing the ELCA, this apparently came from the desk of Kieschnick:

MEMO

To: The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod

From: Gerald B. Kieschnick, President

Subject: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Document
“Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies”
Date: February 22, 2009

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

Grace and peace be with you, from God our Father and from our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

It is with great disappointment and deep sadness that I share with The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod these brief comments on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s Task Force on Sexuality document “Gift and Trust” and the “Report and Recommendations on Ministry Policies.” The “Report and Recommendations” document recommends that the ELCA undertake a process that would result in the incorporation of “structured flexibility in decision making to allow, in appropriate situations, people in publicly accountable, monogamous, lifelong, same-gendered relationships to be approved for the rosters of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.” The two documents were released February 19 by an ELCA task force and are expected to be considered by the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August.

If this recommendation should be adopted by the Churchwide Assembly, it would constitute a change in the ELCA’s present position, which precludes “practicing homosexuals” from being included on its rosters. More importantly, it would constitute a radical departure from the 2,000-year-long teaching of the Christian tradition that homosexual activity, whether inside or outside of a committed relationship, is contrary to Holy Scripture.

As the ELCA Task Force Report itself states, “This church [the ELCA] does not have biblical and theological consensus on this matter.” It therefore concludes that the ELCA “must seek a common way to live and serve in the midst of disagreements” such as “the understanding of the nature of sin,” “the interpretation of the Bible,” “how the Bible guides our lives,” and “the level of disagreement the ELCA can bear.”

The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod has repeatedly affirmed the biblical truth and historical understanding of the Christian church that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as “intrinsically sinful” and is therefore contrary to the will of the Creator and constitutes sin against the commandments of God (Lev. 18:22, 24, 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-20; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; and Rom. 1:26,27).

Our prayer in the LCMS is that our gracious God will penetrate the lives and hearts of the leaders and members of the ELCA in the coming months as they discuss, debate, and determine the outcome of the task force report and its recommendations.

In the meantime, it behooves us in the LCMS, in a spirit of sincere humility, love, care, and concern, to continue to endeavor faithfully to honor Resolution 3-21A of the 2001 Convention of our Synod that while “we cannot consider [the ELCA] to be an orthodox Lutheran church body … we of the LCMS recognize that many of our brothers and sisters of the ELCA remain faithful to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and we resolve to reach out to them in love and support…”

God’s grace, mercy, and peace be with us all.


Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod

I received this from the retired pastor friend of mine who was excommunicated shortly before I was. I am still hesitant to bring this up, but given the topic at hand, I am hoping for some thoughtful comment on it. I pray forgiveness if I am wrong to share this.

 

[Korah]

As long as we are discussing the ELCA, this apparently came from the desk of Kieschnick:
I received this from the retired pastor friend of mine who was excommunicated shortly before I was. I am still hesitant to bring this up, but given the topic at hand, I am hoping for some thoughtful comment on it. I pray forgiveness if I am wrong to share this.

I'm ELCA and I say vote it down.
If they don't want to be Christian anymore, why should we let them be Lutheran?
Korah

 

[Tofferer]

I'm ELCA and I say vote it down.
If they don't want to be Christian anymore, why should we let them be Lutheran?
Korah

My retired pastor friend would likely agree with you on this, as do I.

 

[DaRev]

I don't believe that the LCMS is branding the ELCA as unorthodox. They're branding them as hetrodox. There's a somewhat of a difference.

I believe it was the 2001 LCMS convention where a resolution was passed that stated the LCMS does not consider the ELCA to be "an orthodox Lutheran church body." I believe that to be a little stronger statement than saying "heterodox."

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Whoa there junior!

I'm confused by your statement "fundamentalist faction within the LCMS." What are you referring to?

The LCMS and ELCA have been in dialogue over different things for years.
What do you think the LCMS should compromise on?

Also, what do you not like about the DP's and call processes?

Fundamentalist factions within the LCMS--Biblical literalists who tend to congregate around contemporary worship just like non-denominational churches. Also Ablaze would be a wonderful example of a fundy tool...market church blah blah blah disregard the work and person of the Holy Spirit.

I think I've already stated my position on DP's...we are a church not a buisness, no? Enter Issue's Etc. example here. Seeker sensitive programs over gospel oriented programs for political reasons.

From what I have heard the call process seems incredibly earthly, like pastors being able to reject calls for whatever reason, and move around. Why can't our pastors be ordained and be able to pick a few congregations that they would want to serve at and then be placed there by a congregation in conjunction with a bishop?

And I don't think the LCMS should compromise on anything, especially liberal protestantism and american evangelicalism, but I do think that in terms of structure it is time to replace our historical practice of DPs which was started in reaction to a corrupt bishop to something more biblical, and biblical sounding.

 

[filosofer]

From what I have heard the call process seems incredibly earthly, like pastors being able to reject calls for whatever reason, and move around. Why can't our pastors be ordained and be able to pick a few congregations that they would want to serve at and then be placed there by a congregation in conjunction with a bishop?

Regardless of the method, God still uses humans in that call process. Is one Biblical and the other not? No. Is one better than the other? No. Do pastors reject calls for "whatever reasons"? A little bit of hype in that, don't you think? I have known many, many pastors in the LCMS over the past 40 years. Everyone of them took seriously the call that was extended to them.

When I was assigned my first call (and yes, 500 other people heard about it at the same time as my wife and son and I heard about it), little did I know how well suited I was for that dual parish. Would I have picked it? Probably not. But it was definitely the Holy Spirit working to achieve his purpose.

And I don't think the LCMS should compromise on anything, especially liberal protestantism and american evangelicalism, but I do think that in terms of structure it is time to replace our historical practice of DPs which was started in reaction to a corrupt bishop to something more biblical, and biblical sounding.

For further clarification, the DP structure was not set up in response to the issue of a corrupt bishop. Rather, the Circuit Counselor was the original link between the SP and the congregations/pastors. The DP structure developed when size made it impossible to continue as it was.

 

[DaRev]

From what I have heard the call process seems incredibly earthly, like pastors being able to reject calls for whatever reason, and move around. Why can't our pastors be ordained and be able to pick a few congregations that they would want to serve at and then be placed there by a congregation in conjunction with a bishop?

And I don't think the LCMS should compromise on anything,

But in your post you said they should.

I just wish the ELCA would worry more about dialouge with other Lutherans and less about the reformed, and that the LCMS would open up and try to compromise...

So I'll ask again... what should the LCMS compromise on?

but I do think that in terms of structure it is time to replace our historical practice of DPs which was started in reaction to a corrupt bishop to something more biblical, and biblical sounding.

Show me the Scripture passages that command a specific church polity.

The only English Bible versions that I have that use the word "bishop" is the KJV and the NKJV. It doesn't appear in the ESV, NASB, or NIV. Even so, the English word "bishop" is used to translate the word "episkope" which is most often translated "overseer" and Biblically refers to pastors. So what "Biblical sounding" term would you like to see used?

Also, the Call is from God. When a pastor receives a Call, he spends much time in prayerful consideration to ascertain if it is of God. He can reject the call if he truly feels that the Spirit is moving him to do so. Also, it is not up to the pastor to choose where he wants to serve, it's up to God.

 

[QuiltAngel]

From what I have heard the call process seems incredibly earthly, like pastors being able to reject calls for whatever reason, and move around. Why can't our pastors be ordained and be able to pick a few congregations that they would want to serve at and then be placed there by a congregation in conjunction with a bishop?

How long should that Pastor remain at the congregation? Who decides how long and when they should move? Should they remain there their whole career? Should they be moved every few years?

My husband has been a Pastor for over 20 years and i have yet to know of any Pastor accept or return a call for "whatever reason." What may seem like a reason to one person may be a horrible reason for another person. Actually, when a Pastor is considering a call, they are really considering two calls. The parish they are currently serving and the parish that extended the call.

Personally, I prefer the call system we have. For the first call out of Seminary, the Seminarian gets to put down preferences of they type of parish they would like to see as well as what region in the country.