lcms and wels diffs?

[Studeclunker]

I can't say that I entirely agree with the WELS position on Women's Sufferage. In fact, I have to admit complete disagreement. However, they have ample biblical backing for this policy. Thus, I can't argue with it without feeling like I'm backing the E*CA policies of cultural application for scripture. Therefore, just because society disagrees with Church policy, doesn't necessarily invalidate the Church's authority in that area. As a supporting example; abortion is supported by the greater majority of our country's population. The Church (those that still follow the Bible) renounces it as infanticide, or murder. An extreme example, to be sure, still valid for the application. Thus, just because society at large embraces Women's sufferage, doesn't necessarily mean the Church should follow suit.

As to Society's application of Women's Sufferage, I believe that it is appropriate. After all, the larger majority of the population isn't part of the conservative Christian community. Therefore the traditional role of the woman results in unconsionable abuse of said women. Thus Women in our society submit to the Church's authority and strictures voluntarily, as it should be. We all submit to Christ as our King and brother, being subjects of His kingdom and sojorners in the countries where we currently reside. As Christians, we must remember that we are resident aliens in the country where we are placed. Our culture and traditions are different from the larger population. Thus, the Amish are an excellent (though riddled with error) example of this policy. They refuse to conform to the greater society, preserving their way of life to the Glory of Christ. Now, I don't suggest that we as Lutherans go back to the German service and organize local Ordungs. However, the Amish stand as an example of living their faith that we could learn from.

Zec, calm down please. You have a tendency of getting a bit heated and carried away. Remember; gentle like a dove (I'll try to be a bit more gentle also).

forgive me please for wandering off in this side issue. It keeps being brought up as a difference between the two Synods, and I thought a bit more of a look at it was necessary.

 

[Zecryphon]

Let's see, here is the first post on this thread:



Well, if this thread hasn't turned into a flame war yet, it is sure headed that way.

Zec, that comes across as rather harsh and hurtful.

I'm confused. Exactly what is it you're attributing to me? You've quoted tagyourit. I don't see anything I've said quoted.

 

[Zecryphon]

I can't say that I entirely agree with the WELS position on Women's Sufferage. In fact, I have to admit complete disagreement. However, they have ample biblical backing for this policy. Thus, I can't argue with it without feeling like I'm backing the E*CA policies of cultural application for scripture. Therefore, just because society disagrees with Church policy, doesn't necessarily invalidate the Church's authority in that area. As a supporting example; abortion is supported by the greater majority of our country's population. The Church (those that still follow the Bible) renounces it as infanticide, or murder. An extreme example, to be sure, still valid for the application. Thus, just because society at large embraces Women's sufferage, doesn't necessarily mean the Church should follow suit.

As to Society's application of Women's Sufferage, I believe that it is appropriate. After all, the larger majority of the population isn't part of the conservative Christian community. Therefore the traditional role of the woman results in unconsionable abuse of said women. Thus Women in our society submit to the Church's authority and strictures voluntarily, as it should be. We all submit to Christ as our King and brother, being subjects of His kingdom and sojorners in the countries where we currently reside. As Christians, we must remember that we are resident aliens in the country where we are placed. Our culture and traditions are different from the larger population. Thus, the Amish are an excellent (though riddled with error) example of this policy. They refuse to conform to the greater society, preserving their way of life to the Glory of Christ. Now, I don't suggest that we as Lutherans go back to the German service and organize local Ordungs. However, the Amish stand as an example of living their faith that we could learn from.

Zec, calm down please. You have a tendency of getting a bit heated and carried away. Remember; gentle like a dove (I'll try to be a bit more gentle also).

forgive me please for wandering off in this side issue. It keeps being brought up as a difference between the two Synods, and I thought a bit more of a look at it was necessary.

Stude, I am so sick and tired of you telling me to calm down and scrutinizing my posting style and no one else's. So, please, stop. I will continue to express myself in the way I feel best gets my point across, just like everyone else here does, and whom you continually ignore to focus on me. I do not appreciate being made to feel like I'm your pet project or some one you need to fix. I am who I am. I'm not changing for you or anyone else. I don't know why you're obsessed with me and feel it's your job to tell me to calm down every chance you get. But if you have a legitimate issue with me, take it to PMs, these threads are not the place for you to impersonate a moderator.

 

[Zecryphon]

Ok....points taken., Zec. And thanks for your honesty.

You're welcome.

 

[QuiltAngel]

I'm confused. Exactly what is it you're attributing to me? You've quoted tagyourit. I don't see anything I've said quoted.

Sorry Zec, I forgot to multi post. I was referring to your post #118

 

[Zecryphon]

Sorry Zec, I forgot to multi post. I was referring to your post #118

Okay. Post # 118, has many points in it. Which ones do you feel are harsh? Was it my summation of what fellowship threads usually consist of? Was it my objection to the whole forum becoming a fellowship only forum, because a few people are tired of the "fighting?" Was it my advice that those who are sick of debate and discussion threads go to fellowship for a while? What part of # 118 was harsh, in your opinion? Tell me and I will explain what I meant.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Am taking part of this conversation to PM and unsubscribing from this thread.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This is a family issue, which runs a bit different. We are not to be stumbling blocks either...

When my grandpa died and was given an ELCA funeral, we refused to participate. We were there, but we did nothing in the service. That ticked some people off to be sure, but we could not show unity with ELCA, especially when we knew my grandpa wanted a WELS pastor to conduct his funeral in the first place, but my uncle as executor decided differently.

Had we chosen to participate, we surely wouldn't be hell-bound, but we would've done so carefully, acknowledging that we have no unity with the church body doing the funeral. With the exception of my family, the rest of the folks were either atheists, JWs or ELCA, and so distanced from us that it didn't matter. Honestly we didn't care if we came across as unsympathetic. They knew our issues. Actually, one family (2nd cousins if I remember correctly) has now started taking classes at their WELS church and have left their ELCA church.

In a case where you're praying with your grandma and whatnot, that is between you and your grandma and my husband would not hesitate to say that it was okay. However, recently one of our WELS pastors, who is rather well-known throughout the synod, led a prayer on a spiritual radio show of some sorts, with several other churches present. The MI District of the WELS called this guy to task as breaking our fellowship doctrine. These are the guys I'm talking about, Seajoy, not the people praying with their families. When I visited my Aunt, who is slowly dying of mental illness, I prayed with her. We all prayed together at holiday gatherings.

I hope you didn't think I meant you or anything. I totally wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that.


The idea behind the fellowship doctrine is that if we show unity with a church who believes differently than we do, we are, in effect, condoning what that church practices. We would be condoning something, therefore, that generally goes against scriptures. With the ELCA, it's fairly obvious what that is. With LCMS, it's more nuanced, and trust me, most general laypeople aren't going to understand, on either side. That's not an insult...I've dealt with many older folks who went through the split who still don't understand what the split was all about. They have no qualms about going to the local LCMS church and taking communion. And the local LCMS church has no problems giving it to them. And yeah, I've heard there's some WELS churches out there who do it, too.

I'm not sure what to say to this statement, but I did pray with my 90yr old LCMS grandma. It would have been very disrepectful not to, as she and I both trust in Jesus as our Savior, and agreed on the Sacraments. She is now in heaven - but to dis her that way here on earth, I just don't get it. It's my only trouble with the WELS - I agree on everything else - women not voting, close Communion, boy scouts etc....and other stuff that I can't think of right now. You just may look at this as a blatent disobedience to WELS teachings, but it is something that's stuck in my heart. My grandma taught me much of what I know of Jesus, when my parents were off on their Baptist TV preacher stuff.....while still attending a Lutheran church. (I kid you not). My parents are now Baptist.
Also, I was baptized in an LCMS church. I became WELS in 7th grade. Went back to the LCMS in my early 20's, and have now been WELS for many years, and am staying here. I'm just too close to too many LCMS conservatives, though, to try and make them feel we aren't brothers and sisters in Christ. My conscience won't let me.

 

[Matt Faith]

delete.

 

[Matt Faith]

delete.

 

[seajoy]

I won't quote your whole post, PW, but I thank you for what you said. I do feel better now.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Okay, it was pointed out to me that when I posted

Why should we change just because the WELS wants us to?

it comes across as being inflexible. I did not mean it that way, but was posting out of some frustrations with this thread.

PW, our LCMS Pastors do the same thing when it come to funerals in the family of those who are not Lutheran. My brother wanted my husband to co-officiate at our mother's. She was a member of the Evangelical Free Church so could not participate in that way.

Okay, stepping away from this thread now.

 

[DaRev]

Whether the positions are man made or not, women aren't supposed to be in authority over men in the church. How you think you have the position officially correct is beyond me. As I recall, you allow women to be members on the church council. The church council has authority over the church. Sometimes church councils are also in charge of church discipline...do the women on these councils just excuse themselves from that?

Herein lies the difference.
The LCMS holds that the Bible makes a distinction between the office of the public ministry and other man made positions in the Church. The prohibition of women having authority is limited to that divinely instituted office, and not to offices that are man made. Nowhere in the Bible is mentioned the offices of Treasurer, Recording Secretary, Stewardship Chairman, etc. The church council only has authority over the temporal affairs of the congregational organization, not over matters of doctrine. As the LCMS correctly teaches, women are not to hold the office of pastor, any office or position that requires the carrying out of the functions of the pastoral office, nor any office or position that involves accountability (authority over) the functions of the pastoral office. The treasurer, recording secretary, etc. have no authority over the functions of the pastoral office which includes church discipline. Those matter are handled by a board specifically designated for that purpose, like a board of elders.

 

[Zecryphon]

Rev,

I disagree that the office of treasurer is not mentioned in the Bible. I remember Judas Iscariot being basically a treasurer as we see in verse 6 below. Now Judas was appointed to the position of money keeper by Jesus, right? So how can we conclude that the office of Treasurer is not a divinely appointed office?

Joh 12:1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus therefore came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
Joh 12:2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at the table.
Joh 12:3 Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
Joh 12:4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was about to betray him), said,
Joh 12:5 "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?"
Joh 12:6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.
Joh 12:7 Jesus said, "Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial.
Joh 12:8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."

 

[PreachersWife2004]

How does LCMS split out these "offices", especially in light of this passage?

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
​

The bible then says that women are not to have authority over men in the affairs of the church, not just doctrine and not just the pastor.

What happens, though, if you have a voters meeting and more than half of your voters are women and they vote differently than the men do? Do you only let them vote on certain matters?

Herein lies the difference.
The LCMS holds that the Bible makes a distinction between the office of the public ministry and other man made positions in the Church. The prohibition of women having authority is limited to that divinely instituted office, and not to offices that are man made. Nowhere in the Bible is mentioned the offices of Treasurer, Recording Secretary, Stewardship Chairman, etc. The church council only has authority over the temporal affairs of the congregational organization, not over matters of doctrine. As the LCMS correctly teaches, women are not to hold the office of pastor, any office or position that requires the carrying out of the functions of the pastoral office, nor any office or position that involves accountability (authority over) the functions of the pastoral office. The treasurer, recording secretary, etc. have no authority over the functions of the pastoral office which includes church discipline. Those matter are handled by a board specifically designated for that purpose, like a board of elders.

 

[DaRev]

How does LCMS split out these "offices", especially in light of this passage?

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
​

That passage is speaking about spitirual gifts, not the divinely established office. Does the WELS allow woemn to be teachers? According to your interpretation of this passage women cannot be school teachers. Can WELS women be parish nurses? According to this passage, they cannot.
Context is king.

The bible then says that women are not to have authority over men in the affairs of the church, not just doctrine and not just the pastor.

The context is that the prohibition of women's authority over men and their silence in the Church pertains to the teaching and preaching office, which is only one divinely established office in the Church.

What happens, though, if you have a voters meeting and more than half of your voters are women and they vote differently than the men do? Do you only let them vote on certain matters?

Matters of doctrine are determined and decided by the Word of God and not the voter's assemblies. The VA handles mainly the temporal affairs of the congregation. There is nothing Scripturally that prohibits women from using their God given gifts in these matters.

 

[DaRev]

Rev,

I disagree that the office of treasurer is not mentioned in the Bible. I remember Judas Iscariot being basically a treasurer as we see in verse 6 below. Now Judas was appointed to the position of money keeper by Jesus, right? So how can we conclude that the office of Treasurer is not a divinely appointed office?

Did Jesus appoint him to this position?

 

[Jim47]

That passage is speaking about spitirual gifts, not the divinely established office. Does the WELS allow woemn to be teachers? According to your interpretation of this passage women cannot be school teachers. Can WELS women be parish nurses? According to this passage, they cannot.
Context is king.



The context is that the prohibition of women's authority over men and their silence in the Church pertains to the teaching and preaching office, which is only one divinely established office in the Church.



Matters of doctrine are determined and decided by the Word of God and not the voter's assemblies. The VA handles mainly the temporal affairs of the congregation. There is nothing Scripturally that prohibits women from using their God given gifts in these matters.

This is exactly why the WELS will never again joing in fellowship with the LCMS, unless you should change and follow what is truely written. The LCMS rejects also the belief that prayer is not a form of worship and therefore they pray even with people outside of their own fellowship. How do you justify that?

I don't care to debate this subject as I have done so in the past and I have seen no change, likewise you will no change in the WELS practises of following scripture as written.

1Co 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints,
1Co 14:34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1Co 14:35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That passage is speaking about spitirual gifts, not the divinely established office. Does the WELS allow woemn to be teachers? According to your interpretation of this passage women cannot be school teachers. Can WELS women be parish nurses? According to this passage, they cannot.
Context is king.

That passage does NOT say women can't be teachers or nurses, it says that some are called to do this, some are called to do that. And it says right in the passage that GOD has appointed. GOD has appointed teachers. GOD has appointed administrators. THIS is why we believe that our teachers (both male and female) have received a divine call. THIS is why we install our Sunday School teachers, our council members, our elders, our administrators. The bible CLEARLY states that they are appointed by GOD, not man.

The context is that the prohibition of women's authority over men and their silence in the Church pertains to the teaching and preaching office, which is only one divinely established office in the Church.

Matters of doctrine are determined and decided by the Word of God and not the voter's assemblies. The VA handles mainly the temporal affairs of the congregation. There is nothing Scripturally that prohibits women from using their God given gifts in these matters.

Exactly what do you guys vote on at your meetings? Who serves next month's potluck?

 

[Zecryphon]

Did Jesus appoint him to this position?

I can't find any scripture that says Jesus specifically appointed him to that office, but Jesus did call him as an apostle and Judas was the money keeper as pointed out in John 12:6. So if Jesus did not give him that job, how did he come to have it?

Mar 3:16 He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
Mar 3:17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);
Mar 3:18 Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,
Mar 3:19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Joh 12:6 He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.