Trying to understand ELCA and LCMS...

[AngelusSax]

All I will say on the subject of the Real Presence is this:
I've been an ELCA member my whole life, and I have never been taught anything other than the Real Presence of the body and blood in the Sacrament. We take "this is my body" to mean exactly that.

Of course, we also believe that passages like 1 Cor 11 are speaking against wantonly eating and drinking the bread and wine, as some were doing, leaving nothing left for other members of the church to partake of. It had become just a meal to some, and was no longer the Sacrament of Communion to them. That is what Paul railed against rather than fully understanding that which is infinitely more mysterious than we want to accept.

 

[Moses Medina]

When I was deployed I was able to have talks with an ELCA chaplain, I am thankful for him because he pointed me to the name "Lutheran" and was very open and honest with me on ELCA views as opposed to LCMS since he knew my position on the Bible.

He let anyone on the base that attended his service to take communion. We had Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Non-Denom and Mormons. I am sad to say that I didn't know of this forum yet nor the confessions and I was taking it. Thank God for the forgiveness of sins. He was okay with people only taking the bread and not the wine. And he really saw no problem whatsoever with open practicing homosexual pastors and thought the Bible was meant for the times.

He was very knowledgable on the LCMS though and admitted he is sure when he stands before Christ, that he would be questioned on why he did certain things the way he did... I always found this troubling. It was clear to me that the ELCA was in error.

 

[jinc1019]

All I will say on the subject of the Real Presence is this:
I've been an ELCA member my whole life, and I have never been taught anything other than the Real Presence of the body and blood in the Sacrament. We take "this is my body" to mean exactly that.

Of course, we also believe that passages like 1 Cor 11 are speaking against wantonly eating and drinking the bread and wine, as some were doing, leaving nothing left for other members of the church to partake of. It had become just a meal to some, and was no longer the Sacrament of Communion to them. That is what Paul railed against rather than fully understanding that which is infinitely more mysterious than we want to accept.

Thanks for weighing in on this! It's possible this may vary regionally.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I will say though...While it is obvious that there are at least some who take these radical positions, is it pervasive or is it relegated to just small minority of groups?

I think that the trouble is that while such radicalism is a small vocal minority, it is not relegated to a small minority. Rather, that small minority has risen to the top ranks of ELCA leadership. The PCUSA and the ECUSA also face similar problems. The conservative to moderately liberal majority of parishioners in all three Reformation-era mainline denominations are largely under the leadership of a moderate to strongly liberal leadership. How much of a problem that is for any given average church largely depends on how much authority the central national and district offices have over individual congregations. In the ECUSA, it is a considerable problem, because the bishops of the Episcopal church have very strong authority over their parish churches to the extent that the bishop officially owns all church property in his diocese; the ELCA is in a fairly good position because congregations remain fairly autonomous; and the Presbyterian Church USA is somewhere in the middle.

 

[jinc1019]

I think that the trouble is that while such radicalism is a small vocal minority, it is not relegated to a small minority. Rather, that small minority has risen to the top ranks of ELCA leadership. The PCUSA and the ECUSA also face similar problems. The conservative to moderately liberal majority of parishioners in all three Reformation-era mainline denominations are largely under the leadership of a moderate to strongly liberal leadership. How much of a problem that is for any given average church largely depends on how much authority the central national and district offices have over individual congregations. In the ECUSA, it is a considerable problem, because the bishops of the Episcopal church have very strong authority over their parish churches to the extent that the bishop officially owns all church property in his diocese; the ELCA is in a fairly good position because congregations remain fairly autonomous; and the Presbyterian Church USA is somewhere in the middle.

All very interesting and informative...Thanks for providing the insight!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

All very interesting and informative...Thanks for providing the insight!

Sure thing!

Actually, the question just happens to come at a very good time for me, because this weekend I was visiting a very close friend who was recently installed as a PCUSA pastor in southwestern Virginia. He and his parish are conservative as far as that goes in the PCUSA, and there are concerns about the future relationship between his congregation and the denomination as a whole for exactly those reasons.

 

[jinc1019]

Sure thing!

Actually, the question just happens to come at a very good time for me, because this weekend I was visiting a very close friend who was recently installed as a PCUSA pastor in southwestern Virginia. He and his parish are conservative as far as that goes in the PCUSA, and there are concerns about the future relationship between his congregation and the denomination as a whole for exactly those reasons.

Sad to hear that...There is a lot of fighting going on in American Christianity today. Hopefully that will all be sorted out in the next decade or two.

 

[MissingtheMark]

Justin,

I know this is a month after the discussion ended, but I think I understand where you are. Though baptized as an infant, I was raised outside the church--any church. The seed of faith was planted, but without Word, it withered.

In my early 20's, only by the grace of God, I was brought to faith--that is--by hearing and reading his inspired and inerrant word, the Holy Spirit made it "click" for me. (At the time, I had been attending a deeply-flawed charismatic church out of curiosity and misunderstood that I made a decision. Later, I realized that I had nothing to do with it---I could not make myself believe anything of the gospel.)

Soon thereafter, I started to question their teachings--tongues (by peer pressure) and prophecy (that included "new" teachings in disagreement God's word). I was also struggling with my own sin at the time and unwilling to repent. In brief, I wandered away within short order.

Fast forward about 8 or 9 years...I had met the woman I wanted to marry. She was divorced with two sons and we moved in together. Once engaged, we decided to marry in a church.

Before we met, I worked with the wife of a WELS pastor and they were a remarkable couple. In my ignorance, I thought Lutheran was Lutheran was Lutheran, so we found a local ELCA church in late 2006 and joined, while planning our wedding for July of 2007.

Overall, my experience with them was positive. There was NO shortage of hospitality or Christian love in general. We joined without any judgment over our living situation and were warmly welcomed to participate in all areas of the church, including the Lord's Supper. We were taught real presence there (in the "real" Lutheran way) and not in the "generic" Reformed way.

Taking the words of institution very seriously, I decided to study it in more detail. Still of the "Lutheran is Lutheran" persuasion, I began looking at Lutheran websites and ended up on WELS' robust Q&A section. From there and the ELCA sites, I quickly learned of the vast differences in meaning of the Lord's Supper and fellowship to both church bodies. Returning to God's word, it became clear to me that drinking condemnation on oneself was detrimental.

Teaching on the Lord's Supper in ELCA wasn't surprising to me at all--it was clear that their goal was to reunite Christ's earthly church by being in fellowship with PCUSA, UCC, UMC and actively seeking to restore a relationship with Rome. In learning this, I could not sin against my own conscience and used the WELS Q&A to ask about leaving ELCA.

I emailed the pastor of the ELCA church to share my concerns and ask for a release from membership. Unsurprisingly, his response was very kind, but included the following:

The issues you addressed, it seems to me, are pretty much the issues that separate the ELCA from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church. I would think that you would be much more comfortable in their practice and understanding of Holy Communion.

Concurrent with our release from ELCA, my then-fiancée and I began meeting with the WELS pastor I know and began pre-marital counseling. He lovingly and biblically admonished our living situation so we made changes to ensure celibacy until marriage, took Bible Information Classes and were married on-schedule in July of 2007.

Almost 7 years later, I remain confident that it was right for us to leave the ELCA, but think that MANY confessionals could learn from them about hospitality and how they treat visitors. I have visited many LCMS and WELS congregations where they have a sign in the parking lot reading, "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE MISSION FIELD" while not a single person greeted us on the way into or out of the church.

Today, I am a WELS member (confirmed at age 35) but my wife is not (long story). In full disclosure, I am considering leaving for LCMS but that's another topic for another day.

Please let me know if I can be of any help to you.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here in the first two paragraphs. Are you saying that some in the ELCA hold to a reformed view of the real presence while others hold to a more confessional (Lutheran) position? I think something has been lost in translation.

Officially no, individually some may. The unaltered 1580 Edition of the Book of Concord; based on Scripture, clearly confesses the Real Presence and accepts the Biblical Admonitions regarding reciving the Eucharist in a "worthy manner". The ELCA teaches "real presence" yet admits those who historically have vehemently taught against it and deny it. Even if their intentions are 'good', the practice is anti-scriptural.

Thanks for weighing in on this! It's possible this may vary regionally.

I think that the trouble is that while such radicalism is a small vocal minority, it is not relegated to a small minority. Rather, that small minority has risen to the top ranks of ELCA leadership. The PCUSA and the ECUSA also face similar problems. The conservative to moderately liberal majority of parishioners in all three Reformation-era mainline denominations are largely under the leadership of a moderate to strongly liberal leadership. How much of a problem that is for any given average church largely depends on how much authority the central national and district offices have over individual congregations. In the ECUSA, it is a considerable problem, because the bishops of the Episcopal church have very strong authority over their parish churches to the extent that the bishop officially owns all church property in his diocese; the ELCA is in a fairly good position because congregations remain fairly autonomous; and the Presbyterian Church USA is somewhere in the middle.

This whole controversy is the result of a very "reformed" approach to Scriptural interpretation. As Dario pointed out, the Chaplain felt that the Bible was written for the time when it was written. This is a position that I could never get my head around. If Scripture is the "Divinely inspired Word of God", why would God give us something that only half applies to us and our time. So, they read Scripture and personally interpret what applies to them and what does not (despite how clearly worded Scripture may be). So... here we have a very reformed protestant view; personal interpretation. This is why there is the appearance regionalism; which I believe in fact is a manifest of individualism.

If unity/fellowship is based on anything goes and those involved say they adhere to their confessions, then there are two possible scenarios:
It is false unity, because their official teachings are at odds with each other... or they don't really hold an official position. In both scenarios; it is a false ecumenism.

I'm LCC, in fellowship with LCMS. I have a lot of issues when I see people and Churches trying to sit on both sides of what historically has been a barbed-wire fence (not a good idea... I grew up on a farm).

On the other hand, LCC/LCMS and WELS do not share fellowship. I have the utmost respect for my brothers and sisters in WELS for their position... even though I may not agree.

 

[EddardStark]

Are you sure about this? The ELCA website doesn't seem to indicate that. They say they hold to the Lutheran confessions... At least to some extent.

A man tried to sell me a bridge once. He even had a piece of paper that said the bridge was his. But in reality, it wasn't.*
A group writes on their facebook-page that they're an "open, inclusive, tolerant and multicultural group". The fact that they spit on black people (not all of that color are American, and therefore "African-American" is insufficient), are all in white, including hoods to conceal their identity, burn crosses, etc, proves their claims false.

The ELCA make claims. Their practises gives their claims the lie. Groups like that don't care about the Scriptures, or the Confessions, as long as they can be "open, inclusive and tolerant", to become popular in the eyes of the world.



* = This incident never happened. No man has ever tried to sell me a bridge. No woman, either, for that matter. Though people HAVE tried to sell the "liberal theology" narrative to me, a far more preposterous and vile thing.

 

[hedrick]

Please note that none of the churches that the ELCA is in communion with hold that communion is just a memorial. All hold that we in some way we commune on Christ's body and blood.

So the question is: how important is the exact way in which we describe communion? The Catholic tradition believes that to be real, Christ's presence must involve the elements changing into the substance of his body and blood. Lutherans don't believe that but still say that they believe in the real presence.

During the 16th and 17th Cent Lutherans and Reformed fought about exactly how to express this. Some historians suspect that they fought about this in part because the traditions agreed about so much that for institutional reasons they had to find ways to distinguish themselves. But the underlying difference is whether Christ's body is present everywhere or just in heaven. Lutherans believed it was present everywhere. Calvin believed that like a normal human body, it is present in just one place. For him the issue is Christological: the true humanity of Christ's body. Thus for Calvin the Holy Spirit mediates our contact with the body and blood. He maintains that we truly commune on his body and blood, but through the Holy Spirit.

Note that the churches with which the ELCA is in communion are episcopal, Reformed, and the United Methodist Church. None of these teach that communion is just a memorial. All would say that in some manner they teach a real presence of Christ. I've talked about the Reformed churches. Now, for the Methodists. Their current position is that in faith, they partake of the body and blood of Christ, but they don't define how. (See http://steve4040.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/this-holy-mystery-book.pdf.) Episcopal have a range of views, but I'd say this is the "lowest" they would go. Is this the real presence? The Methodists think so.

There's no question that the ELCA, like my own PCUSA, does not insist on specific ways of formulating some things to allow churches to be in full communion. The question for you is whether you believe that we can fully accept, including communion and preaching in each other's churches, churches with somewhat different ways of expressing things such as the real presence and the operation of God's grace.

 

[LilLamb219]

"Real presence" in other churches isn't always defined in the same way that Lutherans do.

 

[Dakota Brother]

Just an observation on ELCA, if they are willing to accept homosexuality, ordain females,
offer communion to your detriment, and accept a revisionist views to the scriptures, how can they claim to even be a Christian denomination ? What's next, eliminating the commandments they feel are to restrictive ?
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

 

[EddardStark]

What's next, eliminating the commandments they feel are to restrictive ?

This is not "next". This is "first", and it is what enables what you just listed

 

[Melethiel]

When I became Lutheran, I started out ELCA, then was WELS for a while, and am now LCMS. I left the ELCA for multiple reasons, but a lack of belief in the real presence was certainly not one of them. Trying to say that the ELCA is in communion with reformed bodies that understand the Sacrament differently, and therefore they don't really believe in the real presence, is just as misinformed as trying to argue that churches in the WELS and LCMS that don't practice weekly communion don't really believe in the real presence.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

obviously, in the OT there were instructions including "no adultery".
likewise, in heaven there is "no adultery".
so , i'm kinda curious of this other view> --- today in NT times, is there to be "no adultery" or is adultery okay ?

This is not "next". This is "first", and it is what enables what you just listed

 

[Esdra]

The bible tells us that taking communion without fully understanding it means we do it to our detriment.

Having an open rail means there's no discernment of who's coming to the table.

If someone comes to the table believing communion to be simply symbolic, they are taking communion to their detriment. This is serious business, according to the bible. 1 Corinthians 11 speaks quite a bit on it.

In our church, we have close communion, meaning you need to be a member of the WELS, ELS or a church body in fellowship with our synod in order to take communion. This is because the churches we are in fellowship with all believe in Real Presence and have close communion.

But I as a roman Catholic wouldn't be allowed to partake communion in your church anyway, despite I believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, as do the orthodox and Anglicans and old catholics. Why are these churches not allowed to take communion anyway in a lcms church?
My point is that it seems that there have to be far more points to be in fellowship

 

[PreachersWife2004]

But I as a roman Catholic wouldn't be allowed to partake communion in your church anyway, despite I believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, as do the orthodox and Anglicans and old catholics. Why are these churches not allowed to take communion anyway in a lcms church?
My point is that it seems that there have to be far more points to be in fellowship

Well, in all fairness we believe that your definition of real presence differs from ours, so that's one thing that would prohibit fellowship in that area.

Yes, there are more points involved in not being in fellowship with another denomination. I don't think the argument has been made that communion is the only one...

 

[jinc1019]

Justin,

I know this is a month after the discussion ended, but I think I understand where you are. Though baptized as an infant, I was raised outside the church--any church. The seed of faith was planted, but without Word, it withered.

In my early 20's, only by the grace of God, I was brought to faith--that is--by hearing and reading his inspired and inerrant word, the Holy Spirit made it "click" for me. (At the time, I had been attending a deeply-flawed charismatic church out of curiosity and misunderstood that I made a decision. Later, I realized that I had nothing to do with it---I could not make myself believe anything of the gospel.)

Soon thereafter, I started to question their teachings--tongues (by peer pressure) and prophecy (that included "new" teachings in disagreement God's word). I was also struggling with my own sin at the time and unwilling to repent. In brief, I wandered away within short order.

Fast forward about 8 or 9 years...I had met the woman I wanted to marry. She was divorced with two sons and we moved in together. Once engaged, we decided to marry in a church.

Before we met, I worked with the wife of a WELS pastor and they were a remarkable couple. In my ignorance, I thought Lutheran was Lutheran was Lutheran, so we found a local ELCA church in late 2006 and joined, while planning our wedding for July of 2007.

Overall, my experience with them was positive. There was NO shortage of hospitality or Christian love in general. We joined without any judgment over our living situation and were warmly welcomed to participate in all areas of the church, including the Lord's Supper. We were taught real presence there (in the "real" Lutheran way) and not in the "generic" Reformed way.

Taking the words of institution very seriously, I decided to study it in more detail. Still of the "Lutheran is Lutheran" persuasion, I began looking at Lutheran websites and ended up on WELS' robust Q&A section. From there and the ELCA sites, I quickly learned of the vast differences in meaning of the Lord's Supper and fellowship to both church bodies. Returning to God's word, it became clear to me that drinking condemnation on oneself was detrimental.

Teaching on the Lord's Supper in ELCA wasn't surprising to me at all--it was clear that their goal was to reunite Christ's earthly church by being in fellowship with PCUSA, UCC, UMC and actively seeking to restore a relationship with Rome. In learning this, I could not sin against my own conscience and used the WELS Q&A to ask about leaving ELCA.

I emailed the pastor of the ELCA church to share my concerns and ask for a release from membership. Unsurprisingly, his response was very kind, but included the following:

The issues you addressed, it seems to me, are pretty much the issues that separate the ELCA from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church. I would think that you would be much more comfortable in their practice and understanding of Holy Communion.

Concurrent with our release from ELCA, my then-fiancée and I began meeting with the WELS pastor I know and began pre-marital counseling. He lovingly and biblically admonished our living situation so we made changes to ensure celibacy until marriage, took Bible Information Classes and were married on-schedule in July of 2007.

Almost 7 years later, I remain confident that it was right for us to leave the ELCA, but think that MANY confessionals could learn from them about hospitality and how they treat visitors. I have visited many LCMS and WELS congregations where they have a sign in the parking lot reading, "YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE MISSION FIELD" while not a single person greeted us on the way into or out of the church.

Today, I am a WELS member (confirmed at age 35) but my wife is not (long story). In full disclosure, I am considering leaving for LCMS but that's another topic for another day.

Please let me know if I can be of any help to you.

Peace,
Mark

Thank you Mark, I am very appreciative of your position and for taking the time to respond to me. I apologize for not responding for so long, but your post was lost on me-I must have missed it!

Please believe me when I say that hearing the experiences of others is very, very important to me and your efforts will not be forgotten. I am very thankful and will consider each of your points carefully.

Justin

 

[VDMA]

I think I can add a little to this conversation, even though I'm coming in a little late.

I'm an adult convert, and came into Christianity about a year ago. I had read the New Testament three times, and the Old Testament a few, and as such was a rather strong Biblicist. I tried attending multiple congregations of different faiths. I went to a Catholic church, which I didn't agree with for multiple reasons, a Pentecostal church, during which I didn't know whether to praise the Lord or call an ambulance (their practice of glossolalia can be quite reminiscent of the girl in the Exorcist for those who have no clue what's happening), I went to a Confessional Reformed Church, and discovered that I vehemently deny most most of TULIP, I went to a Southern Baptist Church, where they said that the reason they didn't even have a single cross in the church was because of the Bible bans idolatry (I'm partial to the crucifix myself), I went to a United Church of Christ congregation, and found it was less a church and more a Socialist/Liberal advertisement (though it might just be the one I went to), I went to an Episcopal Church, again, too liberal, I went to an Orthodox church, and, well, that didn't fare to well. On and on this went, all the time trying to find a church which I enjoyed and measured up to my biblical scrutiny.

Finally one of my friends, who ironically is ELCA, told me to read the Book of Concord, which is the 1,000+ page book that collects under one cover all of the Lutheran Confessions which the LCMS/WELS/ELS hold in their entirety quia or because they are completely faithful to Biblical teachings. It was ironic that my ELCA friend told me to read them because they (the ELCA) only hold to them as quatenus, or so far as they agree with the Bible (which I, after a few weeks experience, highly doubt).

Needless to say, I decided Lutheranism was the religion for me, and thus set off to an ELCA congregation.

There were two Pastors, a man and a women, which irked me because, as I said before, I was a Biblicist, but I figured they would make up for it in Theology.

I don't mean to demean the ELCA, as this was just the experience I personally had at one congregation. Here's a list of ten things I, the congregation, or the catechumens were taught during my six weeks:

1. This is the only Church I've ever been to in which the Pastor opens up (her) sermon with, "According to Tibetan Buddhist tradition . . ." Excuse me? Pastor? I came here to be preached the Law and the Gospel, and the Bible. I'm a soon to be Lutheran, in a Lutheran church, not a Tibetan Buddhist.

2. Again, the only Church where I've heard the "Father Jesus, Mother God" prayer. Doesn't the Bible say God the Father every three verses?

3. When one of your two Pastors says "I believe the Real Presence to be merely symbolic" (even after years of Lutheran seminary), and the other says "the Real Presence is literal," you've got some Theological gaps to close up. That's really not a good situation.

4. "Baptism isn't necessary for salvation." Hm. . . what about 1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38, Acts 16:31, Romans 6:3-6, and the other, oh, I don't know, fifty or so "baptism is necessary for salvation" passages?

5. "Any baptized Christian can partake in communion." Well, uh, what about the Biblical passages saying that we need agreement, and the nearly 500 year Lutheran tradition of close-communion? Can a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, and a Catholic all take the same communion? When the Lutheran believes in the Real Presence because of Christ's promise, the Presbyterian believes the Body and Blood are merely symbolic, and the Catholic believes in Transubstantiation, but that unless you are a Catholic Priest with Papal Authority you can't physically transform the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Christ, and thus, this communion isn't valid? Huh? I didn't think so.

6. "Oh, the Sacraments aren't means of Grace." Both Pastors said this. No explanation needed.

7. Oh, and my favorite: "Jesus didn't really say half of the things that are in the Bible" WHAT? At this point I raised my hand and asked "If Jesus didn't really say half of the things that are in the Bible, then why do we worship him as God, and come to Church to hear what he wrote?"

8. Her answer (the female Pastor), and our discussion: "It's okay. We don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, yet we still believe Jesus is God." Hold on for a second. "If there wasn't a literal Adam and Eve, then they didn't consume the forbidden fruit. If they didn't consume the forbidden fruit, then there was no Fall from Grace. If there was no Fall, then (a) we should be immortal and still living in Eden, and (b) we would be reconciled to the Father and would never sin. If we never sinned, then why do we need reconciliation. If we don't need reconciliation and forgiveness from our sins, why do we need a savior? If we don't need a savior, why do I believe in Jesus?" Her answer . . . "Well Science has shown [ . . . ] and we really need to understand scripture and recognize that it applied back then, but not really in today's society."

This is why I love the LCMS. Because we believe in the slogan of the Reformation: Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum, VDMA for short. In English, The Word of the Lord Endures Forever. I take great comfort in knowing that it is not my job to understand scripture, but rather my job to stand under scripture. As it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be. The inerrant and infallible Word of God.

9. "Gay marriage is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of God." Hm . . . "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ESV. Or maybe this will jog your mind: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26-27 ESV. Or Leviticus 20:13 ESV: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

10. "Martin Luther said . . ." No, sorry, after all this, you don't have the right to say that. You want to know why? Here you go.

What Martin Luther would said about these ten teachings:

1. This wasn't a problem when Luther was around, though if he was here, he would probably burn the female pastor at the stake simply because she was a female pastor, and also because she taught the doctrines of pagan religions at the Altar of our Lord.

2. "We have here two persons, the Father, and the Son to whom the Father has given all that is subject to him. To "sit at the right hand of God" means to be over all God's creatures; he must therefore be God to whom is given all this. God has also commanded us not to worship strange gods." - 1522 Sermon

Or maybe: "God would thereby [with this little introduction] tenderly urge us to believe that He is our true Father, and that we are His true children, so that we may ask Him confidently with all assurance, as dear children ask their dear father." - Small Catechism

3. As he wrote in the Small Catechism, which is supposed to be taught to all Confirmands, and a "Lutheran" Pastor should definitely know: "What is the Sacrament of the Altar? It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."

4. "What does Baptism give or profit? It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare." - Small Catechism

5. "I have the commission and charge, as a preacher and a doctor, to see to it that no one is misled, so that I may give an account of it at the Last Judgment." According to Lutheran Theology, whoever takes communion in vain or incorrectly is greatly misled.

6. "If we define the sacraments as rites, which have the command of God and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to determine what the sacraments are, properly speaking. For humanly instituted rites are not sacraments, properly speaking, because human beings do not have the authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without the command of God are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps serve to teach or admonish the common folk." - Augsburg Confession

7. "Not only the words which the Holy Spirit and Scripture use are divine, but also the phrasing." or "In the article of the [Nicene] Creed which treats of the Holy Spirit we say, ''Who spake by the prophets.' Thus we ascribe the entire Holy Scripture to the Holy Spirit."

8. Same as number seven.

9. The homosexuality of the people of Sodom is "extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature."

10. Martin Luther disagreed with the vast majority of what you've been teaching. I'm sorry, but that kind of disqualifies you from using that phrase.

Anyways, after six weeks of attendance, I became a little exasperated. Not only, in my mind, was this congregation blatantly disregarding the Bible, but they also weren't following the Lutheran Confessions.

So what could I do? Well, it was then that I went online and tried to find a good Lutheran Church.

I sort of stumbled onto the Missouri Synod. And then I read the Wikipedia page. I agreed a lot more with the LCMS, I found, then with the ELCA. So I emailed the Pastor, and we met one afternoon. I told him all about my experiences, and a few months later, on October 27, 2013 (Reformation Sunday, no less), at the age of 17, I was Baptized and Confirmed in a congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

I've been there ever since, and oh, what a blessing it has been. I'm leaving for University in a few weeks, where I hope to major in Religious Studies, and then go to Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, after which, God willing, I'll become a Called and Ordained Pastor.

So that's the shortened version of my story. The LCMS is Confessional, Conservative, Biblically Sound, bigger than the Episcopal Church in America, and really a wonderful denomination.

Before I go, I just want to leave you with another Martin Luther Small Catechism quote which I think could help you with your journey in Lutheranism: "God's name is indeed holy in itself; but we pray in this petition that it may become holy among us also. How is this done? When the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, and we as the children of God also lead holy lives in accordance with it. To this end help us, dear Father in heaven. But he that teaches and lives otherwise than God's Word teaches profanes the name of God among us. From this preserve us, Heavenly Father."

If you have any questions whatsoever, don't hesitate to contact me.

Pax Christi,

VDMA