lcms and wels diffs?

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I remember when I was a Lutheran a lot of people were complaining that LCMS had departed from the original ("old Missouri" in their parlance) position on this. I've struggled to find that comment entirely verifiable. What's your understanding of that?

Somehow I missed this post.

Historically, the LCMS has always held the same fellowship principal it currently holds. It has always made the distinction between altar/pulpit fellowship and other forms of fellowship outside of altar/pulpit.

If my history recollection serves me well, there were a couple of issues that led to the dissolution of fellowship between the LCMS and the WELS/ELS. One was the LCMS' interest in entering into fellowship with the ALC. The old ALC of 1930 had several issues that prevented this. It reorganized in 1960 and the LCMS continued to persue fellowship until it was finally declared in 1969 (one of the bigger mistakes of the LCMS, IMO). The other was that the LCMS began looking into allowing women's suffrage which put it at odds with the WELS.

It must be remembered that all of this occurred during a time when there was a widening fracture in the LCMS which eventually led to the walk-out of 1974 and the formation of Seminex and the AELC, another one of the church bodies that merged to form the ELCA in the late 80's. The Missouri Synod was a bit of a mess back then.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Somehow I missed this post.

Historically, the LCMS has always held the same fellowship principal it currently holds. It has always made the distinction between altar/pulpit fellowship and other forms of fellowship outside of altar/pulpit.

OK, thanks for that...the accusation I have heard leveled at the LCMS is that it has changed its position since the 1932 Brief Statement by approaching the matter of fellowship by levels (as I think you hinted at earlier) which (the critics say) was never the original position. I don't know whether or not they can prove their point without it ending in an argument from silence, hence I am cautious at accepting the critique given to the LCMS.

So, am I to understand that your position is the original position, and churches like the CLC have introduced a novel interpretation of the doctrine of Church fellowship?

If my history recollection serves me well, there were a couple of issues that led to the dissolution of fellowship between the LCMS and the WELS/ELS. One was the LCMS' interest in entering into fellowship with the ALC. The old ALC of 1930 had several issues that prevented this. It reorganized in 1960 and the LCMS continued to persue fellowship until it was finally declared in 1969 (one of the bigger mistakes of the LCMS, IMO). The other was that the LCMS began looking into allowing women's suffrage which put it at odds with the WELS.

Yes, I understood that as well, the other divisive issues (church and ministry, church fellowship) developed later as far as these two bodies go, IIRC.

It must be remembered that all of this occurred during a time when there was a widening fracture in the LCMS which eventually led to the walk-out of 1974 and the formation of Seminex and the AELC, another one of the church bodies that merged to form the ELCA in the late 80's. The Missouri Synod was a bit of a mess back then.

Reading American Lutheran church history is a difficult task- there are so many acronyms, so many walk-outs, divisions and unions over a little less than a couple of hundred years that it can get confusing at first. Things seem to be sorting themselves out nowadays, thanks be to God.
 
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Being that I have a brother-in-law who has been a WELS pastor since '66 (which means my parents born and raised LCMS and left LCMS for the WELS) went through the tribulation between the two which started from the 30's on till the infamous "split".

The historical difference is:

What is a "church" per Biblical definition
  • LCMS contends that the Bible recognizes only the local congregation as "church."
  • WELS contends that the Bible recognizes any visible gathering of confessing Christians--group of people, the local congregation or synod--is properly as "church."
Because of this definition LCMS does not have the ability for discipline and ultimatly remove an erring pastor\teacher outside the congregational level.

When taking scripture as an example; all the Apostles convened in Jersulam to settle matters, Paul correcting Peter, and Paul instructing the Corinth church pastor\leaders to stop their tolerance of falsehood in 1 Corinthians then to praise them for as per instructed in 2 Corinthians, - would show that the local churches were not self governing.

\\\\\\

"Fellowship"
  • LCMS practices "selective" fellowship
  • WELS practices "complete oneness in conviction and confession" fellowship
On the basis of such passages as Romans 16: 17, 1 Corinthians 1:10 and Matthew 28:20 WELS has held only same confessional and conviction pastors should preach as a subsitute\visitor in other churches. It also hold that members only commune\worship in same manner.

\\\\\\

Roles of women in the church
  • LCMS has a more liberal view
  • WELS has a more conservative view
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Being that I have a brother-in-law who has been a WELS pastor since '66 (which means my parents born and raised LCMS and left LCMS for the WELS) went through the tribulation between the two which started from the 30's on till the infamous "split".

The historical difference is:



What is a "church" per Biblical definition
  • LCMS contends that the Bible recognizes only the local congregation as "church."
  • WELS contends that the Bible recognizes any visible gathering of confessing Christians--group of people, the local congregation or synod--is properly as "church."
The LCMS defines "Church" as the Confessions define it, "where the Gospel is preached in its purity and the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's institution."

Because of this definition LCMS does not have the ability for discipline and ultimatly remove an erring pastor\teacher outside the congregational level.

Not sure where you got this information, but it is incorrect. Since clergy are individual members of Synod, the synod most certainly has the ability to discipline and remove, if necessary, erring pastors, and has done so. The congregation also has the ability to rescind the call of erring pastors. The problem, however, has been a lack of consistency.

When taking scripture as an example; all the Apostles convened in Jersulam to settle matters, Paul correcting Peter, and Paul instructing the Corinth church pastor\leaders to stop their tolerance of falsehood in 1 Corinthians then to praise them for as per instructed in 2 Corinthians, - would show that the local churches were not self governing.

In matters of doctrine and practice, they are not self-governing. Member congregations are to adhere to the doctrinal positions of the Synod, or face discipline or possible expulsion from synod membership. Again, there has been a lack of consistency in this area as well.



"Fellowship"
  • LCMS practices "selective" fellowship
  • WELS practices "complete oneness in conviction and confession" fellowship

I'd be interested in your definition of "selective". The LCMS makes a distinction between corporate worship, where full agreement is required, and other forms of Christian expression where full agreement isn't necessarily required.
On the basis of such passages as Romans 16: 17, 1 Corinthians 1:10 and Matthew 28:20 WELS has held only same confessional and conviction pastors should preach as a subsitute\visitor in other churches. It also hold that members only commune\worship in same manner.

Same position as the LCMS.


Roles of women in the church
  • LCMS has a more liberal view
  • WELS has a more conservative view

The Scriptures tell us that the Office of the Public Ministry is the one divinely instituted office in the Church. The prohibitions concerning women in the Church fall mainly within the functions of this Office. Women are not to hold this office, perform any of the duties of this office, nor hold any position in the Church which has public accountability of the functions of this Office. (Again, there's a problem with consistency on this.)
The WELS does not recognize that the Office of Public Ministry is distinct from any other office in the church and thus applies the prohibitions concerning women across the board, even to man-made offices within the congregation. It's not a "liberal/conservative" matter, but an interpretation and application matter.
 
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
My orginal quote "Because of this definition LCMS does not have the ability for discipline and ultimatly remove an erring pastor\teacher outside the congregational level."

Not sure where you got this information, but it is incorrect. Since clergy are individual members of Synod, the synod most certainly has the ability to discipline and remove, if necessary, erring pastors, and has done so. The congregation also has the ability to rescind the call of erring pastors. The problem, however, has been a lack of consistency.

In matters of doctrine and practice, they are not self-governing. Member congregations are to adhere to the doctrinal positions of the Synod, or face discipline or possible expulsion from synod membership. Again, there has been a lack of consistency in this area as well.

I got this from several sourses. First from people who have lived it for over 80 yrs, from my brother-in-law who has been a wels pastor for 45 yrs, from the wels web site. Now this may not quailify in your arena of "correct vs. not correct", but i'ts good enough and reliable enough for me.

The problem is that the farther away from the original generation of those who where personally involved the more clouded as per the specific reasons. And as time usually does, the details are more of opinions based on what you want to believe more than what actually happened.

In laymans language from those who were involved, the sem. in St. Louis in the 60's became more "liberal" than the sem in Ft Wayne. When LCMS requested that those erring professors leave, they did so and became refered to as "sem-inex" (sem professors in exile". After awhile, some of those "sem-inex" inquired about returning to St. Louis, and where told if they would say the "right things" (wink - wink;))they could be reinstated...which some where. This has been the source of the current problem of "liberal" pastors\churches and the "conservative" pastors\churches in LCMS.

Ideologically you can say what you do. Historically LCMS has not. As one pastor from the wels wrote [name can't remember]

"the loss of confessional integrity in the LCMS would include:

(1) the inroads of the historical-critical approach to interpreting the Bible, especially among their theological professors and pastors; (which occured between St. Louis sem vs. Ft Wayne sem --that was more for the 2nd career guys)

(2) the hesitancy to exercise internal discipline when error surfaces, often resulting from the idea that only a local congregation could/should initiate discipline even when high-profile and powerful leaders are involved and often resulting from a tendency in Missouri [LCMS] to care almost exclusively about one's own parish and let others do their own thing;

(3) the sheer size of the LCMS, which organizationally and administratively makes things complex, coupled with the historic tendency of the LCMS to stress constitutional procedure even when doing so may obscure or delay action on more urgent theological or doctrinal emergencies;

(4) the decision to tolerate changes in fellowship practices [e.g., prayer fellowship with heterodox and "levels of fellowship"] that fuel toleration of doctrinal differences and often at a "slow" rate. Theological foundations are being weakened slowly but not dramatically as when the deity of Christ or justification by faith is attacked frontally. A false security often results."

I'd be interested in your definition of "selective". The LCMS makes a distinction between corporate worship, where full agreement is required, and other forms of Christian expression where full agreement isn't necessarily required.

Your explanation is a good start to the definition. WELS makes no distinction between "corporate" vs. "non-corporate" worship. All worship is "corporate". That is why WELS for instance never participated in the chaplin program in the military.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
My orginal quote "Because of this definition LCMS does not have the ability for discipline and ultimatly remove an erring pastor\teacher outside the congregational level."

I got this from several sourses. First from people who have lived it for over 80 yrs, from my brother-in-law who has been a wels pastor for 45 yrs, from the wels web site. Now this may not quailify in your arena of "correct vs. not correct", but i'ts good enough and reliable enough for me.

The problem is that the farther away from the original generation of those who where personally involved the more clouded as per the specific reasons. And as time usually does, the details are more of opinions based on what you want to believe more than what actually happened.

In laymans language from those who were involved, the sem. in St. Louis in the 60's became more "liberal" than the sem in Ft Wayne. When LCMS requested that those erring professors leave, they did so and became refered to as "sem-inex" (sem professors in exile". After awhile, some of those "sem-inex" inquired about returning to St. Louis, and where told if they would say the "right things" (wink - wink;))they could be reinstated...which some where. This has been the source of the current problem of "liberal" pastors\churches and the "conservative" pastors\churches in LCMS.

Ideologically you can say what you do. Historically LCMS has not. As one pastor from the wels wrote [name can't remember]

"the loss of confessional integrity in the LCMS would include:

(1) the inroads of the historical-critical approach to interpreting the Bible, especially among their theological professors and pastors; (which occured between St. Louis sem vs. Ft Wayne sem --that was more for the 2nd career guys)

(2) the hesitancy to exercise internal discipline when error surfaces, often resulting from the idea that only a local congregation could/should initiate discipline even when high-profile and powerful leaders are involved and often resulting from a tendency in Missouri [LCMS] to care almost exclusively about one's own parish and let others do their own thing;

(3) the sheer size of the LCMS, which organizationally and administratively makes things complex, coupled with the historic tendency of the LCMS to stress constitutional procedure even when doing so may obscure or delay action on more urgent theological or doctrinal emergencies;

(4) the decision to tolerate changes in fellowship practices [e.g., prayer fellowship with heterodox and "levels of fellowship"] that fuel toleration of doctrinal differences and often at a "slow" rate. Theological foundations are being weakened slowly but not dramatically as when the deity of Christ or justification by faith is attacked frontally. A false security often results."

I find it interesting that all your sources are from WELS, which is rather slanted. But much of what you wrote here is somewhat inaccurate.

Your explanation is a good start to the definition. WELS makes no distinction between "corporate" vs. "non-corporate" worship. All worship is "corporate". That is why WELS for instance never participated in the chaplin program in the military.

Don't twist my words. I think if you read what I posted you will not find the words "non-corporate worship".
 
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
There is no such thing as....
"other forms of Christian expression where full agreement isn't necessarily required." taught in scripture.

The fact still remains LCMS practices "selective" fellowship.

Selective fellowship:
"It [LCMS] has always made the distinction between altar/pulpit fellowship and other forms of fellowship outside of altar/pulpit."

Not to be defensive, I didn't twist anything. You classified alter\pulpit fellowship as "corporate" not me ... so where is the harm in calling the other forms "non-corporate"

Again, not to be defensive, but why would my "sources" be any more "slanted" than yours?
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
There is no such thing as....
"other forms of Christian expression where full agreement isn't necessarily required." taught in scripture.

The fact still remains LCMS practices "selective" fellowship.

So Christians are only Christian in church on Sunday morning?

Not to be defensive, I didn't twist anything. You classified alter\pulpit fellowship as "corporate" not me ... so where is the harm in calling the other forms "non-corporate"

No, I was referring to worship in the corporate setting as opposed to Christian expression outside of corporate worship. You are the one who coined the phrase "non-corporate worship". I said no such thing. They are two different things.

What I find a bit confusing is that the LCMS has historically held to fellowship this way and the WELS was OK with it until they changed their fellowship policy in 1960.

Again, not to be defensive, but why would my "sources" be any more "slanted" than yours?

Well, like I said, much of what you wrote is simply not true.
 
Upvote 0

Studeclunker

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2006
2,325
162
People's Socialist Soviet Republic Of California
✟10,816.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
So Christians are only Christian in church on Sunday morning?

I know a lot who think that way Revrand, LOL.;) Sadly, many of them are Lutherans.:doh::sigh:

What I find a bit confusing is that the LCMS has historically held to fellowship this way and the WELS was OK with it until they changed their fellowship policy in 1960.

Actually, the WELS position is that they didn't change anything. They simply tightened the definition. The reason they felt it necessary to do so is the inconsistancy in the LCMS that was causing trouble in the WELS laity.

You keep bringing up the final break in 1960. The trouble actually started in the late thirties. LCMS ignored the complaints and objections of WELS till they finally broke with them. You also don't seem to recognize the angst and pain this break caused the WELS. They were patient for well over twenty years, some thought too patient.

Well, like I said, much of what you wrote is simply not true.

Your opinion. However, if one diggs into the issues, perhaps they might find, not so. I have heard your side of this for many years. Even Rod Rosenbladt expressed some confusion over the split (odd... because he's usually good for giving both sides of an issue). Never had I dug into this break till joining the WELS. It amazed me how much more there is to the story than the LCMS tells its people.

LCMS made a serious mistake Revrand. Since the sixties, into the seventies, and still, they are paying for it! I wonder if the Synod will ever wake up and deal with the issues that fraternizing with the ALC poisoned them with? Until this mistake is recognized and admitted to, the error will continue to grow stronger in LCMS and will eventually bring it down. The way things are going, that may not be very long in coming.:sigh: The new Synodical President is only one man. The bureaucracy in the LCMS is very entrenched with the cronies of the previous President. We will see what happens...
 
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
So Christians are only Christian in church on Sunday morning?..

Like I said before, the sem in St. Louis wasn't on the same page as the sem in Ft. Wayne. The culmination of this was most evident in the '60's but it was a growing problem prior to it.

Your line of reasoning shows "the loss of confessional integrity in the LCMS" that became an issue long prior to 1961.



No, I was referring to worship in the corporate setting as opposed to Christian expression outside of corporate worship. .

Romans 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10 and Matthew 28:20 has no selective applications.

:prayer: Prayer is worship. To have scriptural "unity" in the arena of worship is to include prayer. Which means outside of corporate worship ("non-corporate" setting) when someone is leading a prayer that not part of your confessional church (and those fellowship with) you refrain from praying with them.

What I find a bit confusing is that the LCMS has historically held to fellowship this way and the WELS was OK with it until they changed their fellowship policy in 1960..

Fact is that WELS didn't wake up in 1960 and decided to "change", behind closed doors, this issue was a thorn for some 30+ years prior to 1960.

The ELS quite its fellowship with the LCMS over doctrinal disagreements in 1955 and chided WELS for not taking the lead (to the embarrassment of some in WELS). If WELS had not been as patient as long as they were, the parting of ways could have occured 10-15 years earlier. The hope was that through continued conversation, LCMS would turn to the truth of what scripture taught as to "complete unity" when it came to fellowship.

It was only because of openly expressed desire to stop wanting to come to this truth by the LCMS that WELS did what they did in 1961....and at that it was not an easy task.

Well, like I said, much of what you wrote is simply not true.

That is totally your opinion and are entitled to it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I know a lot who think that way Revrand, LOL.;) Sadly, many of them are Lutherans.:doh::sigh:



Actually, the WELS position is that they didn't change anything. They simply tightened the definition. The reason they felt it necessary to do so is the inconsistancy in the LCMS that was causing trouble in the WELS laity.

You keep bringing up the final break in 1960. The trouble actually started in the late thirties. LCMS ignored the complaints and objections of WELS till they finally broke with them. You also don't seem to recognize the angst and pain this break caused the WELS. They were patient for well over twenty years, some thought too patient.



Your opinion. However, if one diggs into the issues, perhaps they might find, not so. I have heard your side of this for many years. Even Rod Rosenbladt expressed some confusion over the split (odd... because he's usually good for giving both sides of an issue). Never had I dug into this break till joining the WELS. It amazed me how much more there is to the story than the LCMS tells its people.

LCMS made a serious mistake Revrand. Since the sixties, into the seventies, and still, they are paying for it! I wonder if the Synod will ever wake up and deal with the issues that fraternizing with the ALC poisoned them with? Until this mistake is recognized and admitted to, the error will continue to grow stronger in LCMS and will eventually bring it down. The way things are going, that may not be very long in coming.:sigh: The new Synodical President is only one man. The bureaucracy in the LCMS is very entrenched with the cronies of the previous President. We will see what happens...

Studeclunker,
Your absolutly correct about "LCMS made a serious mistake" about ALC.

My father was one of the layman that was at the multiple meetings in the late '50s. The meetings at times got so pationate that at times some pastors where concerned that some of the elder retired LCMS pastors (who could not believe the direction of the LCMS was headed) would make it home without having a heart attack ... I kid you not.

The idea that 100% LCMS is\was united on this issue is not true. A number of LCMS churchs and pastors left LCMS to join WELS in 1961. My wifes church i.e. in Billings MT left the LCMS to stay with WELS. This not only seperated families between LCMS and WELS\ ELS ... but in 1961 it seperated the family within LCMS.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I don't want to argue with you gentlemen concerning this issue. There are obviously very different opinions on this issue. I certainly don't agree that the WELS got it completely right, though, thus my disagreement with your views on the matter.

That being said, I do have to admit that the LCMS went through a rather dark period in the 50's and 60's, culminating in the seminex walk-out in 1974. While many of the problems were resolved following that, many remained and have yet to be fully dealt with. It may take a few more years as older clergy retire out of the ministry before the house can be swept clean, so to speak.

I do know that the stark differences between the LCMS seminaries is no longer as wide as they once were. Having gone through the St. Louis sem and coming out a Confessional Lutheran pastor (I do have people asking if I went to Ft. Wayne) shows that the Confessional standard of the synod is intact. The biggest problem we face is consistency, which was severely hindered by the previous administration in St. Louis.

I feel much better about the perspective future of my beloved synod than I did three months ago, but there is still a long row to hoe. It is my prayer that as we work toward severing what ties remain with the ELCA concerning joint efforts (the sooner the better), that we can once again enter into some sort of official dialogue with the WELS, something that WELS refused to do with the previous synodical leadership (and who can blame them). This is soemthing that we should have worked toward 20-30 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
I don't want to argue with you gentlemen concerning this issue. There are obviously very different opinions on this issue. I certainly don't agree that the WELS got it completely right, though, thus my disagreement with your views on the matter.

That being said, I do have to admit that the LCMS went through a rather dark period in the 50's and 60's, culminating in the seminex walk-out in 1974. While many of the problems were resolved following that, many remained and have yet to be fully dealt with. It may take a few more years as older clergy retire out of the ministry before the house can be swept clean, so to speak.

I do know that the stark differences between the LCMS seminaries is no longer as wide as they once were. Having gone through the St. Louis sem and coming out a Confessional Lutheran pastor (I do have people asking if I went to Ft. Wayne) shows that the Confessional standard of the synod is intact. The biggest problem we face is consistency, which was severely hindered by the previous administration in St. Louis.

I feel much better about the perspective future of my beloved synod than I did three months ago, but there is still a long row to hoe. It is my prayer that as we work toward severing what ties remain with the ELCA concerning joint efforts (the sooner the better), that we can once again enter into some sort of official dialogue with the WELS, something that WELS refused to do with the previous synodical leadership (and who can blame them). This is soemthing that we should have worked toward 20-30 years ago.

DaRev,
There are certianly many in the WELS who would be more than happy to see a return of fellowship with the LCMS. It is a question asked in the web q\a of the WELS.

I find it interesting that you get asked from what sem you came from. To me. that should give you some indication that the Confessional standard of the synod was not unified. I can remember my uncle (who was LCMS) use to say that. He would say something like "our pastor didn't come from ST. Louis sem, so we are very much like WELS" and he was right.

If you say the two are closer now ...the question is, in which way? It would not be (from a theological perspective) for the better if Ft. Wayne has compromised more than it has already done in the past.

I'm not in the position to know what would it take for re-opening the dialogue. From my limited sources, there doesn't seem to be a whole big desire to do so. I'm guessing that it's like this: As far as WELS pov

  • it's like a marriage that ended in divorce. (theologically speaking)
  • A divorce that happened because of unfaithfulness on LCMS part(theologically speaking)
  • LCMS joins fellowship with ELCA (which raised many eyebrows)
  • now LCMS appears to be getting divorced from ELCA (which many thanks of prayer are raised)
In the interim, WELS\ELS entered a fellowship [marriage]. (theologically speaking)
  • This fellowship is going just fine (theologically speaking)
  • The peace of unity between brothers is a blessing from God
Besides the two N's (numbers and nostalga) WELS has considered:
  • What's to be accomplished\lost by re-entering (theologically speaking)
  • Is there an obligation to do so (theologically speaking)
  • Would WELS re-enter the same common ventures previously shared
and has not seen the need to persue it (expecially with the current events with ELCA and LCMS).
 
Upvote 0

QuiltAngel

Veteran
Apr 10, 2006
5,355
311
Somewhere on planet earth
✟15,847.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Twin Spin, are you saying that Ft. Wayne was the more liberal of the two seminaries? Not sure where you get that. It wasn't that way in the 80's and 90's. Hubby graduated from Ft. Wayne.

What DaRev says about the two being closer now is right. I would say that they are both more confessional. Yes, there was a time when it could not be said that way.

One who is WELS is going to present the WELS point of view and one who is LCMS is going to present the LCMS point of view. Both views are going to be skewed.

Also, the LCMS has been in fellowship with the ELCA? When?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
DaRev,
There are certianly many in the WELS who would be more than happy to see a return of fellowship with the LCMS. It is a question asked in the web q\a of the WELS.

I find it interesting that you get asked from what sem you came from. To me. that should give you some indication that the Confessional standard of the synod was not unified. I can remember my uncle (who was LCMS) use to say that. He would say something like "our pastor didn't come from ST. Louis sem, so we are very much like WELS" and he was right.

If you say the two are closer now ...the question is, in which way? It would not be (from a theological perspective) for the better if Ft. Wayne has compromised more than it has already done in the past.

It was not Ft. Wayne that was compromised. The problems arose at St. Louis in the 50's and culminated in the seminex walk-out in '74. In recent years, the St. Louis sem has returned to a confessional based theological approach (compared to what it was in those troubled years). There used to be a vast difference between the sems, to the point that some congregations would not accept candidates from one or the other. That disparity doesn't really exist anymore.

I'm not in the position to know what would it take for re-opening the dialogue. From my limited sources, there doesn't seem to be a whole big desire to do so. I'm guessing that it's like this: As far as WELS pov

  • it's like a marriage that ended in divorce. (theologically speaking)
  • A divorce that happened because of unfaithfulness on LCMS part(theologically speaking)
  • LCMS joins fellowship with ELCA (which raised many eyebrows)
  • now LCMS appears to be getting divorced from ELCA (which many thanks of prayer are raised)
Again, I don't know from where you get your information, but it is seriously flawed. The LCMS is not and has never been in fellowship with the ELCA. While there are some joint projects, much of which are remnants of the LCMS/ALC fellowship) there is no formal fellowship, never has been, nor will there ever be. In fact, the recent mindset of the synod as a whole has been to sever what joint efforts are left. The only thing that prevents that from happening sooner rather than later is the millions of dollars it would cost the LCMS to simply walk away from these things.


In the interim, WELS\ELS entered a fellowship [marriage]. (theologically speaking)
  • This fellowship is going just fine (theologically speaking)
  • The peace of unity between brothers is a blessing from God
Why would that have to change? Of the two, the ELS seems to be closer to the LCMS on some matters, especially concerning church and ministry.


Besides the two N's (numbers and nostalga) WELS has considered:
  • What's to be accomplished\lost by re-entering (theologically speaking)
  • Is there an obligation to do so (theologically speaking)
  • Would WELS re-enter the same common ventures previously shared
and has not seen the need to persue it (expecially with the current events with ELCA and LCMS).

This paints the WELS as being seperatist, something that many have accused them of. It just seems to make more sense to me for the two main Confessional Lutheran church bodies to dialogue together. What did Jesus say, "If your brother repents, forgive him." How forgiving is the WELS willing to be? From what you have written here, not very.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

twin.spin

Trust the LORD and not on your own understanding
May 1, 2010
797
266
✟72,766.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Twin Spin, are you saying that Ft. Wayne was the more liberal of the two seminaries? Not sure where you get that. It wasn't that way in the 80's and 90's. Hubby graduated from Ft. Wayne.

What DaRev says about the two being closer now is right. I would say that they are both more confessional. Yes, there was a time when it could not be said that way.

One who is WELS is going to present the WELS point of view and one who is LCMS is going to present the LCMS point of view. Both views are going to be skewed.

Also, the LCMS has been in fellowship with the ELCA? When?

No, Ft. Wayne was more conservative.
 
Upvote 0

Studeclunker

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2006
2,325
162
People's Socialist Soviet Republic Of California
✟10,816.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
This paints the WELS as being seperatist, something that many have accused them of. It just seems to make more sense to me for the two main Confessional Lutheran church bodies to dialogue together. What did Jesus say, "If your brother repents, forgive him." How forgiving is the WELS willing to be? From what you have written here, not very.

A very valid point. However, WELS is not suffering the division and troubles that LCMS is, and is wise to stand away from the poison of the E*CA's influence. The same pastors who were (very unwisely IMHO) re-admitted into LCMS (from Sem-In-Ex) have had thirty years to continue spreading their... lies, deceits, and beliefs, or lack thereof, in the Synod. Inconsistancy is still just as rife and perhaps more so, as it ever was. Why should WELS wish to re-unite themselves to such a Church body? You say WELS should forgive LCMS for their errors. I assure you they have. There are still people who have hard feelings for the division the break made within WELS itself. It will take years and possibly the passing of that generation to heal that wound. That alone is a great deal to forgive. The current generation just don't want to be also dragged down the same path as LCMS. Yes, WELS has a separatist attitude. This is both a disadvantage and an advantage. The advantage is that they haven't suffered the same problems that LCMS, and the united members of the ELCA have suffered. Forgiveness has been given. Reunification may never be possible unless LCMS can clean their house, which they seem lothe to do. Had they cleaned their house in the seventies, when it should have been done, there are likely thousands of people, like myself, who would still be worshiping in the LCMS.


In fact, the recent mindset of the synod as a whole has been to sever what joint efforts are left. The only thing that prevents that from happening sooner rather than later is the millions of dollars it would cost the LCMS to simply walk away from these things.

What price the soul of a Synod, Revrand?

There is a church in Anderson (Just south of Redding) that was a joint missionary effort between WELS and LCMS. I was told that they were originally LCMS and changed over to WELS in 1961. I never made the connection till tonight.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
What price the soul of a Synod, Revrand?

Does it make sense to bankrupt the synod? Or do you think it would make the WELS folks feel better if that happened? (Probably so.)

Common sense has to come into play at some point.

Personally, I don't see full fellowship with the WELS ever happening. One of the stickling points is women's suffrage. I personally believe that the LCMS is spot on in their Biblical basis for the disctinction between the divinely established office of the public ministry and other man-made offices and positions.The WELS fails to see such a distinction in the Scriptures. This is but one area that will probably never be resolved between the two. But that shouldn't stop dialogue, at least in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

QuiltAngel

Veteran
Apr 10, 2006
5,355
311
Somewhere on planet earth
✟15,847.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In laymans language from those who were involved, the sem. in St. Louis in the 60's became more "liberal" than the sem in Ft Wayne. When LCMS requested that those erring professors leave, they did so and became refered to as "sem-inex" (sem professors in exile". After awhile, some of those "sem-inex" inquired about returning to St. Louis, and where told if they would say the "right things" (wink - wink)they could be reinstated...which some where. This has been the source of the current problem of "liberal" pastors\churches and the "conservative" pastors\churches in LCMS.

At this time, the Seminary was in Springfield IL, not in Ft. Wayne. The Seminary moved to Ft. Wayne in 1976 after having been in Springfield for 101 years.

(1) the inroads of the historical-critical approach to interpreting the Bible, especially among their theological professors and pastors; (which occured between St. Louis sem vs. Ft Wayne sem --that was more for the 2nd career guys)

When and where did this happen? I don't remember hearing about being taught the historical critical method at the Fort.

Our current President plans on making some changes that were mandated from the convention as well as severing ties with organizations we are working with. Looks like right now that the ELCA is pulling out of the malaria project due to lack of funds on their part.

I have been LCMS for 30+ years and accompanied my husband to Seminary. The only church body that we have been in fellowship during these years has been the AALC and that just happened 3 years ago.

With the current views and doctrines in the ELCA, it become less likely that any improvement in relation with the ELCA will be made. The ELCA has moved so far from us, that it won't happen.
 
Upvote 0