Trying to understand ELCA and LCMS...

[jinc1019]

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

Very strong and persuasive post. This is precisely why these forums are so powerful. I went to an ELCA parish about two weeks ago here in Chicago where an older pastor gave a very orthodox sermon (not that it was particularly good).

Even still, I think, having talked to a lot of people in the ELCA, that the experience you had is widespread in the ELCA, especially in places like Chicago.

For me, I am a cross between Reformed and Lutheranism (agreeing with important parts of each), but the big problem I have with confessional Lutheranism is the mandate that all pastors and leaders must hold to every single word of the Book of Concord. I agree with nearly all of it, but not quite all of it. I don't believe, for instance, that the Pope is THE Anti-Christ, and this belief would prevent me from membership in some parishes and leadership in most parishes (at least according to their own rules).

 

[jinc1019]

I do appreciate the wonderful post though. It was incredibly instructive.

 

[VDMA]

I don't believe, for instance, that the Pope is THE Anti-Christ, and this belief would prevent me from membership in some parishes and leadership in most parishes (at least according to their own rules).

I think you misunderstand our views on the Papacy. We don't believe Pope Francis, or any of the office-holders of the Papacy to be the Anti-Christ, as in 666, end-times, spinning head, vomiting pea soup, Omen, Anti-Christ.

That one hasn't come yet (I don't think).

Rather we believe that the office of the Papacy, so long as it claims to speak "infallibly" (ex cathedra) in terms of Doctrine and Salvation as Christ's "shepherd" on Earth and mandate that it is the Head of the Church rather than first among equals as Bishop of Rome, it is acting as an Anti-Christ. If you haven't yet, read On the Power and Primacy of the Pope: Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope - Book of Concord

It's the office, not the holder.

"And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray" Matthew 24:11 ESV

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" 1 John 4:1 ESV

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" Matthew 24:24 ESV

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" Matthew 7:15

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" 2 Peter 2:1

We view the office of the Papacy in roughly the same light as we view the office of the Prophet in the LDS Church. As long as they claim they speak with the Authority of Christ infallible, we know they do not preach the truth, for Christ has already spoken, and has given us his Word in the Scriptures.

Plus, the doctrine is hardly ever mentioned in church services.

 

[jinc1019]

I think you misunderstand our views on the Papacy. We don't believe Pope Francis, or any of the office-holders of the Papacy to be the Anti-Christ, as in 666, end-times, spinning head, vomiting pea soup, Omen, Anti-Christ.

That one hasn't come yet (I don't think).

Rather we believe that the office of the Papacy, so long as it claims to speak "infallibly" (ex cathedra) in terms of Doctrine and Salvation as Christ's "shepherd" on Earth and mandate that it is the Head of the Church rather than first among equals as Bishop of Rome, it is acting as an Anti-Christ. If you haven't yet, read On the Power and Primacy of the Pope: Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope - Book of Concord

It's the office, not the holder.

"And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray" Matthew 24:11 ESV

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" 1 John 4:1 ESV

"For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" Matthew 24:24 ESV

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" Matthew 7:15

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction" 2 Peter 2:1

We view the office of the Papacy in roughly the same light as we view the office of the Prophet in the LDS Church. As long as they claim they speak with the Authority of Christ infallible, we know they do not preach the truth, for Christ has already spoken, and has given us his Word in the Scriptures.

Plus, the doctrine is hardly ever mentioned in church services.

I appreciate you wanting to make sure everyone who reads this understands the position! I am well aware of the difference, which is why I didn't specifically point out Pope Francis. I have read On the Power and Primacy of the Pope and I understand what the LCMS teaches on the issue. Even still, I don't believe the LCMS is right. I can certainly understand why Luther would have felt that way in the 16th century, but I think its clear today that the papacy is not the anti-Christ. That's just my opinion of course, but it's one of several reasons I am not LCMS. I may end up looking past this in the future because of the many things I like about the LCMS, but thus far, I have had a very difficult time doing that.

Justin

 

[VDMA]

I think that when you go to a Catholic mass (at least in my opinion, as it worked for me), and during the prayers of the church they have a petition that goes something along the line of "let us pray for our Holy Father, the Pope," you really see that though the Pope no longer has any political power, he still has some adverse spiritual.

You won't be able to change my opinion though, as I'm really stubborn when it comes to Lutheranism.

Oh well . . . If anything, I think that the Calvinism would cause you the most problems.

 

[Melethiel]

* This is just speculation between me and GCC and does not represent official doctrine. *

We know from the Confessions that the Church is where the Church does - where the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments administered. Could we in the same way say that the Antichrist is where the Antichrist does - perverts and prevents the preaching of the Gospel? If you look at the Papacy at the time of Luther, with its absolute spiritual and political power, that was certainly the case, and why the Treatise was applicable at the time it was written.

I think it's a matter of debate whether that is still the case today. I certainly haven't seen any recent Popes directly opposing the preaching of the Gospel (and the papacy doesn't have the same political power today). We should certainly be careful not to focus on the Papacy and neglect vigilance elsewhere - antichrists can come from other directions, and I would argue that pop-preachers such as Joel Osteen pose a much greater danger. The way the LCMS has allowed evangelicalism to invade is certainly of much more concern to the preaching of the Gospel than what Pope Francis is doing today.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

* This is just speculation between me and GCC and does not represent official doctrine. *

We know from the Confessions that the Church is where the Church does - where the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments administered. Could we in the same way say that the Antichrist is where the Antichrist does - perverts and prevents the preaching of the Gospel? If you look at the Papacy at the time of Luther, with its absolute spiritual and political power, that was certainly the case, and why the Treatise was applicable at the time it was written.

I think it's a matter of debate whether that is still the case today. I certainly haven't seen any recent Popes directly opposing the preaching of the Gospel (and the papacy doesn't have the same political power today). We should certainly be careful not to focus on the Papacy and neglect vigilance elsewhere - antichrists can come from other directions, and I would argue that pop-preachers such as Joel Osteen pose a much greater danger. The way the LCMS has allowed evangelicalism to invade is certainly of much more concern to the preaching of the Gospel than what Pope Francis is doing today.

I believe that's a fair assessment.

My husband and I were talking the other day and while there's the Anti-Christ with the big A, there's also a lot of "little A" anti-Christs out there who warrant some inspection.

Yes, I'd definitely include Joel Osteen in that pack. *shudder* Prosperity gospel is the WORST kind of gospel.

 

[jinc1019]

I think that when you go to a Catholic mass (at least in my opinion, as it worked for me), and during the prayers of the church they have a petition that goes something along the line of "let us pray for our Holy Father, the Pope," you really see that though the Pope no longer has any political power, he still has some adverse spiritual.

You won't be able to change my opinion though, as I'm really stubborn when it comes to Lutheranism.

Oh well . . . If anything, I think that the Calvinism would cause you the most problems.

I find that very interesting since Calvinism and Lutheranism agree on so many points and are more similar than most other denominations. I know you said you vehemently disagreed with TULIP-would love to find out more about that since Lutheranism agrees with the T-U-I...Anyway, as I said before, I like Lutheranism a lot...but I am not a literalist when it comes to that (and 6 days creation as well).

 

[VDMA]

My husband and I were talking the other day and while there's the Anti-Christ with the big A, there's also a lot of "little A" anti-Christs out there who warrant some inspection.

Yes, I'd definitely include Joel Osteen in that pack. *shudder* Prosperity gospel is the WORST kind of gospel.

Amen to that one.

 

[jinc1019]

* This is just speculation between me and GCC and does not represent official doctrine. *

We know from the Confessions that the Church is where the Church does - where the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments administered. Could we in the same way say that the Antichrist is where the Antichrist does - perverts and prevents the preaching of the Gospel? If you look at the Papacy at the time of Luther, with its absolute spiritual and political power, that was certainly the case, and why the Treatise was applicable at the time it was written.

I think it's a matter of debate whether that is still the case today. I certainly haven't seen any recent Popes directly opposing the preaching of the Gospel (and the papacy doesn't have the same political power today). We should certainly be careful not to focus on the Papacy and neglect vigilance elsewhere - antichrists can come from other directions, and I would argue that pop-preachers such as Joel Osteen pose a much greater danger. The way the LCMS has allowed evangelicalism to invade is certainly of much more concern to the preaching of the Gospel than what Pope Francis is doing today.

I don't disagree with your interpretation of the issue, and if that's how the LC-MS approached it, I would be fine with it, but they don't. They WOULD and DO argue that the pope today is still opposing the preaching of the Gospel, because they would argue the Catholic "version" of Christianity is not the same as their own. In one sense, they are right. Catholicism has some major differences with Lutheranism, but do those differences amount to the description of the anti-Christ in the Bible? Eh...not really. Catholics have some things wrong in my view (some very important things), but I would say much of what Lutherans say about Catholics isn't exactly true (anymore). For instance, may Lutherans say Catholics pray to saints...they don't. They ask saints to pray for them...There is a big difference there. That's just an example.

 

[VDMA]

I find that very interesting since Calvinism and Lutheranism agree on so many points and are more similar than most other denominations. I know you said you vehemently disagreed with TULIP-would love to find out more about that since Lutheranism agrees with the T-U-I...Anyway, as I said before, I like Lutheranism a lot...but I am not a literalist when it comes to that (and 6 days creation as well).

As to the points of TULIP and Calvinism I disagree with . . . here goes.

And keep in mind that I have sizable Congregationalist and Baptist roots (both sides descendants of colonial Puritans) who followed one form of Calvinism or another, with a few Dutch Reformed for good measure.

I don't believe in Limited Atonement . . . I believe Christ died for all. 'Nuff said.

I don't believe in Irresistible Grace . . . and neither do Lutherans. I make no distinction between outward signs of Grace and the inward call, as it is the same motion, being grounded in the work of the Holy Spirit, and so it is through the Means of Grace that conversion occurs. I also believe that man in his sinful nature can resist the call of the Spirit.

I don't believe in the Perseverance of the Saints . . . at least not in the sense that Calvin wrote of. I believe that a Fall from Grace is possible, but God gives assurance of salvation and perseverance.

I don't believe in Double Predestination . . . but rather Single. I believe that God predestined the Saints, but those damned were damned of their own corrupted and bound will. Read Bondage of the Will for a better example. If those statements seem contradictory, it's because the belief is sort of an honorary mystery of faith.

I flat out reject Calvin's violent iconoclasm. I think a crucifix can be a wonderful memorial of the death of Christ.

I reject Calvin's view of the Real Presence.

Other than that, yeah, we're more similar together than say, Lutherans and Methodists, or Lutherans and certain Southern Baptists.

Pax Christi,

VDMA

 

[jinc1019]

As to the points of TULIP and Calvinism I disagree with . . . here goes.

And keep in mind that I have sizable Congregationalist and Baptist roots (both sides descendants of colonial Puritans) who followed one form of Calvinism or another, with a few Dutch Reformed for good measure.

I don't believe in Limited Atonement . . . I believe Christ died for all. 'Nuff said.

I don't believe in Irresistible Grace . . . and neither do Lutherans. I make no distinction between outward signs of Grace and the inward call, as it is the same motion, being grounded in the work of the Holy Spirit, and so it is through the Means of Grace that conversion occurs. I also believe that man in his sinful nature can resist the call of the Spirit.

I don't believe in the Perseverance of the Saints . . . at least not in the sense that Calvin wrote of. I believe that a Fall from Grace is possible, but God gives assurance of salvation and perseverance.

I don't believe in Double Predestination . . . but rather Single. I believe that God predestined the Saints, but those damned were damned of their own corrupted and bound will. Read Bondage of the Will for a better example. If those statements seem contradictory, it's because the belief is sort of an honorary mystery of faith.

I flat out reject Calvin's violent iconoclasm. I think a crucifix can be a wonderful memorial of the death of Christ.

I reject Calvin's view of the Real Presence.

Other than that, yeah, we're more similar together than say, Lutherans and Methodists, or Lutherans and certain Southern Baptists.

Pax Christi,

VDMA

Great outline of the differences. I would actually disagree with you on limited atonement (one of the more difficult Reformed positions), perseverance of the saints, and irresistible grace, but agree with you on the Real Presence, the iconoclasm, and on predestination (kind of).

Interestingly, I think the differences between the two denominations on TULIP are actually quite small. For instance, you said that you reject limited atonement, but if you read Calvin carefully, you will see (and I am not saying you haven't) that he taught that Christ's death was sufficient for all but effective for only those who come to faith or whom God chooses. I think Luther would largely agree with this...as most Christians do. Christ's death is not effective, which is to say it doesn't actually save someone, who doesn't come to faith or isn't chosen by God. I would agree with you that Christ died for everyone, but not everyone takes advantage.

You make a good case against irresistible grace, but Martin Luther himself acknowledged that if God predestines or chooses a particular person to be saved, that person will be saved...no matter what. This, to me, is all perseverance of the saints is...It's another way of saying God's desire will be done...no matter what. I suppose the difference between the two is really more about whether a person can have genuine faith and then stop having faith or if genuine faith always perseveres. For Calvin, real faith always succeeds over every challenge...For Luther, a person can have real faith and then lose it...I think the Bible supports Calvin's claim better than Luther's, but I think this point is a very small one and rather unimportant.

Regarding the real presence...I don't have a problem with Luther's literal interpretation here. I would argue...we just don't know. I think it's reasonable to come to the conclusion Calvin did, but it's not necessary and a little too speculative for my liking.

I totally agree about iconoclasm. I think this was a real problem in Calvin's day, but I think it could have been straightened out without doing away with the crucifix, etc.

Regarding predestination...I agree that God saves whomever God chooses and that whoever is not saved is not saved because of his or her own sinful nature-not because of God. Calvin totally agrees up to this point...He would add, however, that because God passes over some, God obviously chooses NOT to save them, and therefore condemns them. I am more comfortable, as Luther was, living in the paradox than trying to understand how and why God chooses who he does. Calvin, who I think went a bit too far on this issue, does at least acknowledge that God can save anyone He wants and no one knows for sure who that will be (unless a person knows he or she has real faith, then he or she can be secure in that real faith).

So why post all this? I think it's always good to explain where I am coming from...Especially since I am asking for advice in many of my threads. The bottom line is: I am sort of a mix between the two, with a bit more Reformed in me than Lutheranism.

And by the way...I too come from Puritan (Massachusetts) roots on both sides, although I grew up in the Catholic Church.

 

[ricker]

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

I don't deny your experience, but you must have been exposed to a completely different type of ELCA congregation than I have belonged to (only two).
I wouldn't stay in a congregation that acted/taught like that, either.

I wouldn't use that as a reason to disparage all ELCA congregations, however. I'm sure if pressed enough all church groups could come up with some interesting stories about specific congregations!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't deny your experience, but you must have been exposed to a completely different type of ELCA congregation than I have belonged to (only two).
I wouldn't stay in a congregation that acted/taught like that, either.

I wouldn't use that as a reason to disparage all ELCA congregations, however. I'm sure if pressed enough all church groups could come up with some interesting stories about specific congregations!

The main issue is that the synod as a whole seems to embrace a lot of the nonsense. When you have a church body such as HerChurch that openly claims to be ELCA and the ELCA does nothing about it, that's an issue. I tell anyone looking for good Lutheran worship to avoid ELCA as much as possible.

 

[Arcangl86]

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).

I've heard this before, but i wonder, where does that come from? I have never heard anybody say they hold with the confessions so far as they agree with the Bible.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I've heard this before, but i wonder, where does that come from? I have never heard anybody say they hold with the confessions so far as they agree with the Bible.

You won't find that word in their doctrine, true, but it's deep in their practices. Women clergy, for example. Luther disagreed with women being pastors. I'd post quotes but I'm on my phone.

 

[VDMA]

You won't find that word in their doctrine, true, but it's deep in their practices. Women clergy, for example. Luther disagreed with women being pastors. I'd post quotes but I'm on my phone.

Actually, the Book of Concord contains nothing about female ordination. Why? Because the very thought would have been completely heretical.

It's more on issues of Doctrine. If the ELCA held the confessions quia, than there would be absolutely no wish-wash on the Real Presence, or on the Means of Grace, or the infallibility of the Bible, &c.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Actually, the Book of Concord contains nothing about female ordination. Why? Because the very thought would have been completely heretical.

It's more on issues of Doctrine. If the ELCA held the confessions quia, than there would be absolutely no wish-wash on the Real Presence, or on the Means of Grace, or the infallibility of the Bible, &c.

The ELCA is many unfortunate things things, but I don't think they're wishy-washy on the real presence or the means of grace. As far as they're concerned, their communion with other mainline denominations does not constitute a denial of their own doctrines of the means of grace and the real presence (because communion is not doctrinal as far as they are concerned). In fact, you could say that they believe in the objectivity of the sacramental presence so strongly, that they believe Reformed churches have the real presence even if they're not partaking in it rightly.

 

[Dakota Brother]

A partial quote from an excellent article on the WELS website:

"Holy communion is three-dimensional. One dimension is the union effected by the real presence of the Savior in the bread and the wine. Another is the union between Christ and each communicant. A third dimension is the union between the communicants who celebrate the Lord's Supper. Their oneness in faith is a prerequisite for communing together. Oneness in faith means agreement in all the articles of faith set forth in God's Word (Matthew 28:20). It is a contradiction of the word "communion" when people who are not in doctrinal agreement commune together"

It would be wrong of us to expect you to acknowledge you are in doctrinal agreement if you are not, and to let you partake to your detriment.
I sometimes think people understand "close" as in "close the door", and not as close as in next to you. Thereby saying the communion practice is "closed", which it is not, we are only looking out for you.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

A partial quote from an excellent article on the WELS website:

"Holy communion is three-dimensional. One dimension is the union effected by the real presence of the Savior in the bread and the wine. Another is the union between Christ and each communicant. A third dimension is the union between the communicants who celebrate the Lord's Supper. Their oneness in faith is a prerequisite for communing together. Oneness in faith means agreement in all the articles of faith set forth in God's Word (Matthew 28:20). It is a contradiction of the word "communion" when people who are not in doctrinal agreement commune together"

It would be wrong of us to expect you to acknowledge you are in doctrinal agreement if you are not, and to let you partake to your detriment.
I sometimes think people understand "close" as in "close the door", and not as close as in next to you. Thereby saying the communion practice is "closed", which it is not, we are only looking out for you.

I'm not arguing that communion shouldn't be based on doctrinal unity. I'm just saying the ELCA doesn't believe that, and therefore their communion with mainline Protestant churches is not a reflection of "wishy-washyness" on sacramental theology.