Questions from an ELCA Member

[Mr_E]

First of all, I do not wish to start a debate. I am simply looking for answers from the LCMS/WELS perspective. To be completely honest, I am thinking about leaving the ELCA and LCMS would be one of the churches I would consider moving to.

I understand that the LCMS does not allow women pastors. I understand where this comes from. However, I am confused about why LCMS has stuck with that, but does not require women to cover their heads when praying and to stay quiet in church etc (or am I mistaken?).

I am also a little confused about the Real Presence in Holy Communion. I believe that Christ is truly present, but in the sense that he is omnipotent and also via the Holy Spirit. When I read scripture about the Last Supper, it seems to me as though the bread and wine are to remind us of Christ' Body and Blood being given for us. Not that the wine and bread actually transform into the body and blood of Christ. I do not even see the significance. Shouldn't it be about what Christ Body and Blood does for us, and not what the physical makeup of the bread and wine is when we consume it?

Thanks for taking time to explain!

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

First of all, I do not wish to start a debate. I am simply looking for answers from the LCMS/WELS perspective. To be completely honest, I am thinking about leaving the ELCA and LCMS would be one of the churches I would consider moving to.

I understand that the LCMS does not allow women pastors. I understand where this comes from. However, I am confused about why LCMS has stuck with that, but does not require women to cover their heads when praying and to stay quiet in church etc (or am I mistaken?).

I am also a little confused about the Real Presence in Holy Communion. I believe that Christ is truly present, but in the sense that he is omnipotent and also via the Holy Spirit. When I read scripture about the Last Supper, it seems to me as though the bread and wine are to remind us of Christ' Body and Blood being given for us. Not that the wine and bread actually transform into the body and blood of Christ. I do not even see the significance. Shouldn't it be about what Christ Body and Blood does for us, and not what the physical makeup of the bread and wine is when we consume it?

Thanks for taking time to explain!

I'm probably the wrong person to be answering this, but about women's ordination...the examples that you brought up all take into account a fundamentalist reading of scripture which we in the LCMS do not condone. Context is key, but I do know that women's ordination has to deal with the order of creation, and the different Biblical models we get for women and men, ie. a Bishop must be a man of one wife etc.

We do not believe that in the Last Supper that Christ transformed the bread and wine into himself, we believe that Christ is in, with, and under the wine and bread, but ultimatley we leave it a mystery as it should be, like the Eastern Orthodox do.

These answers were just short little blurbs until another person can go into further depth. I pray daily that the ELCA will keep non-celibate homosexual pastors out of their clergy because of the absence of the law. Why would someone have to repent of something if they are told by their church that sins in the Bible are not relevant today, so then why did Christ have to die if we are so perfect? I hope your journey of faith continues to be blessed, and most espeically for you to place Christ above all else in your search.

 

[seajoy]

.

 

[Earnie]

Wow! I could write a lot about these subjects. First of all, regarding the Woman's Role and responsibilites , read 1Timothy and Titus. They are both short books and to the point..and not hard to understand.
Secondly, regarding Communion. Remember this was done on the the Passover, which was the beginning of the substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of the nation of Israel. The penalty for sin is death..something had to die for your sin. According to the law soon to be revealed to the Jews, an animal, usually a lamb of the first year(and usaully male) had to die and the blood applied to the mercy seat of God. In this first sacrifice, the lambs blood was applied to the doorpost, and that would cause the angel of death to pass over that household and spare the male child. If you did not have the blood applied, as the Egyptians did not, the fistborn males would be killed. Hance, the Jewish Holyday was established. The Passover was in remembrance of that first passover. They were saved by the blood of the sacrifice. As you know, Jesus was the end of the sacrificial law. He became the final sacrifice for all. The reason the make-up of the drink and bread are important is because they are symbolic.(and yes, symbolism is very important to God. That's Why he commands us from the very beginning not to make any statues or images that resemble anything in the sky or on the earth or in the seas, and not to bow down to them). The bread must be un-leavened and the wine un-fermented. Leaven is a type of sin and fermentation, also. As the wine(grape juice) and un-leavened bread symbolize Jesus' blood and body, which was and is sinless, it cannot be fermented or leavened. God is very consistent. He does not do something one way one day and another way the next day. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Jesus was the last and final sacrifice. He did not command us to be cannibals. In regards to John 6, study that very prayerfully..the answer is there.

 

[Lupinus]

As to Women being Pastors, I will admit those who know more then I will have to delve into the specifics of why LCMS permits women to teach certain things, but not be Pastors. The Bible tells us who should and should not be a Pastor, and that is men. I'm sure others can better explain the details of other areas on your question so I wont even try.

As for Holy Communion Christ is in, with, and under the bread and wine. That is to say that He is truly present, but the bread and wine do not transform into his body and blood. To do so would be transubstantiation which is the RCC teaching, not Lutheran. To understand the Lutheran teaching think of the bread and wine as vehicles.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Wow! I could write a lot about these subjects. First of all, regarding the Woman's Role and responsibilites , read 1Timothy and Titus. They are both short books and to the point..and not hard to understand.
Secondly, regarding Communion. Remember this was done on the the Passover, which was the beginning of the substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of the nation of Israel. The penalty for sin is death..something had to die for your sin. According to the law soon to be revealed to the Jews, an animal, usually a lamb of the first year(and usaully male) had to die and the blood applied to the mercy seat of God. In this first sacrifice, the lambs blood was applied to the doorpost, and that would cause the angel of death to pass over that household and spare the male child. If you did not have the blood applied, as the Egyptians did not, the fistborn males would be killed. Hance, the Jewish Holyday was established. The Passover was in remembrance of that first passover. They were saved by the blood of the sacrifice. As you know, Jesus was the end of the sacrificial law. He became the final sacrifice for all. The reason the make-up of the drink and bread are important is because they are symbolic.(and yes, symbolism is very important to God. That's Why he commands us from the very beginning not to make any statues or images that resemble anything in the sky or on the earth or in the seas, and not to bow down to them). The bread must be un-leavened and the wine un-fermented. Leaven is a type of sin and fermentation, also. As the wine(grape juice) and un-leavened bread symbolize Jesus' blood and body, which was and is sinless, it cannot be fermented or leavened. God is very consistent. He does not do something one way one day and another way the next day. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Jesus was the last and final sacrifice. He did not command us to be cannibals. In regards to John 6, study that very prayerfully..the answer is there.

I don't understand how Baptists can take such a fundamentalist view of scripture yet not believe in the real presence of Christ within the Eucharist. Jesus did not say this symbolizes my body, and this symbolizes my blood. He said that it is his Body and Blood, meaning he is present within. Your 16th century heresy really doesn't belong in the Conservative Lutheran forum, sorry Earnie.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

This question belongs in the general part of TCL's forum.

I ask tons of questions on the ELCA forum, I think this post is fine.

 

[Studeclunker]

I have no problems with members of other denominations asking questions. One can't get answers otherwise. As the Orthidox were so hospitable to me last year, so I have no problem returning the favour to you, E.

As far as Communion is concerned, this conversation has been going on since the conferrence of Marburg (or Marburg Colloquy), in 1529. Martin had very little use for the Ana-Baptists and Lutherans today generally don't either. I wouldn't go so far as Luther in saying that they are not Christian, still, we don't believe the same things in core doctrine. A short synopsis:

The Colloquy

Although the two prominent reformers, Luther and Zwingli, found a consensus on fourteen points, they kept differing on the last one on the Eucharist: Luther maintained that by Sacramental Union, the consecrated bread and wine in the Lord's Supper were united to the true body and blood of Christ for all communicants to eat and drink; whereas, Zwingli considered bread and wine only symbols of the body and blood of Christ. On this issue they parted without having reached an agreement.
Underlying this disagreement was their theology of Christ. Luther believed the human body of Christ at the right hand of God was ubiquitous (present in all places) and so present in the bread and wine. This was possible because the attributes of God infused Christ's human nature. Luther emphasizing the oneness of Christ's person. Zwingli who emphasized the distinction of the natures, believed that Christ in his deity was omnipresent, Christ's human body could only be present in one place. Because of the differences Luther refused to acknowledge Zwingli and his followers as Christian.

The table that Zwingli and Luther sat at was reportedly covered with a velvet table-cloth. Phillip Melangthon (sp?) reports that Luther, upon arriving, threw the cloth aside and wrote on the table, "This IS my Body. This IS my blood." He did this without any explanation at all then covered it with the cloth. Upon leaving, he threw the cloth aside and proclaimed the truth hidden (thereby explaining his first action upon arriving) from Zwingli and the Ana-Baptists. Obviously, by Earnie's comments, nothing has changed in five hundred years.

In the WELS churches, women aren't allowed in any position of authority over men at all. This is consistant with their strict adherence to Biblical teachings.

As to the difference between LCMS and ELCA, the gap is slowly closing as Pres. K. slowly changes the structure and emphasis of the synod. Still, don't look for women or homosexuals as pastors anytime soon. They haven't fallen THAT far yet. The problem with ELCA is much more deeply rooted than just who serves as pastor. It has to do with the view of scripture and how it's applied to the current age and daily living. This belief will, like the rudder of a ship, direct the workings of a church body. WELS has a hard-line percipuity of scripture. They hold that the Scriptures are to be taken as they are and applied as they are. In otherwords, yes, things are taken in context. Still, even though our society isn't the same as those of two thousand years ago, the application doesn't change to suit our current mores and life-styles. Thus, the church isn't blown about like a rudderless ship. Hence, one won't see congregations like Ebeneezer Lutheran (ELCA) in San Fransisco, occuring in WELS. I've said this time out of hand in this forum; GOD DOESN'T CHANGE! He is the same today, yesterday, tomorrow, two thousand years in the past, and ten thousand years in the future. Homosexuality was an abomination to him two thousand years ago, it is now, and it will be ten thousand years into the future, possibly for all eternity. I use homosexuality as an example as it is the most glaring of examples. A little leven levens the lump, as the Good Book says. When we compromise a little, everything else gets polluted with it.

 

[seajoy]

I ask tons of questions on the ELCA forum, I think this post is fine.

Sorry, I was having a 'moment'. Yes, his question is fine.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

First of all, I do not wish to start a debate. I am simply looking for answers from the LCMS/WELS perspective. To be completely honest, I am thinking about leaving the ELCA and LCMS would be one of the churches I would consider moving to.

I understand that the LCMS does not allow women pastors. I understand where this comes from. However, I am confused about why LCMS has stuck with that, but does not require women to cover their heads when praying and to stay quiet in church etc (or am I mistaken?).

I am also a little confused about the Real Presence in Holy Communion. I believe that Christ is truly present, but in the sense that he is omnipotent and also via the Holy Spirit. When I read scripture about the Last Supper, it seems to me as though the bread and wine are to remind us of Christ' Body and Blood being given for us. Not that the wine and bread actually transform into the body and blood of Christ. I do not even see the significance. Shouldn't it be about what Christ Body and Blood does for us, and not what the physical makeup of the bread and wine is when we consume it?

Thanks for taking time to explain!

Thank you.


1. On the women's ordination thing, I suggest you go to the LCMS website to check that out. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod -

2. On Real Presence, I have an extensive thread on that here: www.christianforums.com/t7385593/ Including the 3 common views on it.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

.

 

[Mr_E]

Thanks everybody! You have given some very helpful answers. I think I will continue to study these topics for a while. So, if anybody else has any insight to offer, please do so.

At a minimum, I can now see where your beliefs come from. The reason I was a little uncertain about why LCMS/WELS churches practice the belief that women cannot be pastors but they do not have to cover their heads, is because some in the ELCA use context to take out things that God clearly detests (like homosexual acts). It sounds like, in the case of the role of women, you believe that those rules were never intended to be applied to all churches, rather than believing they no longer apply because society is now somehow different. I absolutely agree with the point that Studeclunker made about the fact that society changes, but God (and His attitude toward certain sins) does not.

Just for clarification, your church believes that Christ is present in the bread and wine, but it would not be acceptable for somebody in your church to believe that Christ is present in some sense during Holy Communion and not that His Body and Blood are somehow present?

 

[wildboar]

The passage in regards to the headcoverings is actually pretty confusing. Anthony Thiselton devotes quite a bit of space in his commentary to the issue. It's really not clear whether or not the "headcovering" is the woman's hair or a separate article of clothing. But the headcovering wasn't the point. Paul was speaking against those who misinterpreted sayings like "there is no longer male nor female" to say that there are no longer gender roles and speaking against women dressing like men and men dressing like women. The core issue of what Paul is addressing is contradicted by those who believe that women should be pastors. The 1 Timothy passage is addressing the issue of who can serve as an elder. That's the issue that it is addressing and it is specifically stated that women should not serve as teachers in the church and the rational given is not some cultural issue but the creation ordinance itself.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

Sorry, I was having a 'moment'. Yes, his question is fine.

Too familiar. I seem to be the King of 'moments'

 

[Studeclunker]

Originally Posted by seajoy

Sorry, I was having a 'moment'. Yes, his question is fine.
​

Too familiar. I seem to be the King of 'moments'

Curses, deposed again!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mr. E,

Welcome, and thank you for posting here.

Some of us here are old enough to recall when our Synods shared in fellowship. Here in Canada, we for a time shared Seminary facilities and resources in Saskatoon SK.

The parting of ways resulted from a number of issues, but it all comes down to the LCMS, and here in Canada now LCC steadfastly holding to the 1580 Book of Concord and as an exposition of Scriptural truths found in Scripture, and the rejection of the "Historical Critical" interpretation of Scripture.

While to us Lutherans, our Synods seem a world apart on many things, yet because of our heritage we still share much in common.

Now, we are not perfect, but as a life long LCMS/LCC'r, the more I studdy our denominations, other denominations, and Scripture I find that I have become more steadfast in my confessionality, and have been able to not only accept, but embrace doctrines and practices that I once questiond.

Now, I don't want to sound cheesy, but to borrow from our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, I believe that you would find in a Confessional LCMS congregation that it would be like "Comming Home", not to Rome, but to Wittenburg.

May God bless you through the gifts of the Holy Spirit as you search and discern the direction that our Lord wills for you.

Please feel free to ask what ever you desire to know. We will try to answer the best that we can.

Your friend in Christ,

Mark

 

[Studeclunker]

Mark, the split that occured in 1936 between WELS and LCMS had to do with LCMS declaring doctrinal and theological unity with the ALC. WELS still recognizes the Book of Concord and works by it as well. They however, don't hold with what the ALC was teaching in the thirties and won't put up with the shennanigans that the LCMS is currently pulling. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the problems that LCMS is currently experiancing, trace back to that declaration in 1936 that led to the final break with WELS in 1951.
I may not have that final year right. It was between '51 and '60, but I'm pretty sure it was '51. WELS never, I repeat, NEVER backed or promoted Historical Criticism! THAT was the ALC. Also, that same issue is one of the major reasons WELS broke with LCMS. To declare oneself in Doctrinal and Theological unity with an organization that practices the "Historical Critical" interpretation of Scripture, is to declare oneself in approbation of such practices!

Sorry, E, about getting a bit off topic. However, you will find that the interpretation issue is still going on and is the root of many of the problems in the ELCA today. I'm sure you know that the ALC was one of the major players in the merger that created the ELCA? The ALC is the source of, 'The Statement On Human Sexuality,' that's currently causing so much trouble in your synod. Several ALC pastors were working on the document before the merger and were given permission to continue working on it afterwards. Just because they've repackaged it and changed the wording, it's still the same lie they've been pushing onto the laity for almost twenty years. Sadly, the LCMS has been infected with this philosophical poison, first revealed as Seminex and now coming out under the cover of ABLAZE! A little leven levens the lump.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mark, the split that occured in 1936 between WELS and LCMS had to do with LCMS declaring doctrinal and theological unity with the ALC. WELS still recognizes the Book of Concord and works by it as well. They however, don't hold with what the ALC was teaching in the thirties and won't put up with the shennanigans that the LCMS is currently pulling. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the problems that LCMS is currently experiancing, trace back to that declaration in 1936 that led to the final break with WELS in 1951.
I may not have that final year right. It was between '51 and '60, but I'm pretty sure it was '51. WELS never, I repeat, NEVER backed or promoted Historical Criticism! THAT was the ALC. Also, that same issue is one of the major reasons WELS broke with LCMS. To declare oneself in Doctrinal and Theological unity with an organization that practices the "Historical Critical" interpretation of Scripture, is to declare oneself in approbation of such practices!

Sorry, E, about getting a bit off topic. However, you will find that the interpretation issue is still going on and is the root of many of the problems in the ELCA today. I'm sure you know that the ALC was one of the major players in the merger that created the ELCA? The ALC is the source of, 'The Statement On Human Sexuality,' that's currently causing so much trouble in your synod. Several ALC pastors were working on the document before the merger and were given permission to continue working on it afterwards. Just because they've repackaged it and changed the wording, it's still the same lie they've been pushing onto the laity for almost twenty years. Sadly, the LCMS has been infected with this philosophical poison, first revealed as Seminex and now coming out under the cover of ABLAZE! A little leven levens the lump.

Sorry Stude,

I was referring to the split between the ELCA and LCMS, and how it had transpired here in Canada.

I too share your assessment of "Ablaze". For the most part we in LCC have been blessed with good sound confessional Pastors, and have been blessed with quite a number of the same coming up to Canada from the LCMS; some because of Ablaze, and the other issues.

The split with Wisconsin is something that a lot of do not remember, but still regret.

God's peace,

Mark