WELS and LCMS

[Joshua G.]

I want to apologize first because I know you guys get this question all the time. My point is not to start any controversy or question anyone's reasoning.

I know that the WELS and LCMS are not in communion. When I was in the LCMS, it was my impression that this is the WELS' decision (and that the LCMS would be for intercommunion with WELS tomorrow if WELS were up for it).

If I am correct on this (and if not, please correct me), what are the reasons for the divide? I am not asking why are you different synods (although surely the answers overlap) but why there is not communion between the two synods.

I know at least some of it has to do with the fact that the LCMS officially supports the action of praying with other non LCMS Lutherans whereas WELS does not (officially). Am I correct on this? If so, is that the only reason?

I have other questions, but I think that they may be answered in the course of this thread. I welcome answers from anyone knowledgeable, but I would like to hear most of all from both knowledgeable WELS and LCMS. I am not looking for opinions as much as simply the facts.

Thanks so much guys!

God bless you!

Joshua

 

[PreachersWife2004]

From the WELS perspective:

Differences Between Wisconsin And Missouri Synod - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

I'm sure someone will be in to give from the LCMS perspective. It's just a brief over-view and probably doesn't totally encompass everything that went on.

I think, though, that it's fair to say that both synods pray for the other quite regularly, and not necessarily that one or the other comes to its senses, but that we stay the true road and follow the path that Jesus has laid out for us.

 

[DaRev]

From the LCMS perspective:

Differences Between the LCMS and the WELS - Lutheran Church Missouri Synod

The LCMS does not necessarily consider the WELS to be heterodox. The differences between the two seem to be more with practical theology than with doctrine, and are more concerned with extra-Biblical applications.

One thing that the WELS position linked above states that I firmly agree with is that the LCMS seems unwilling or unable to doctrinally discipline those relatively few congregations that have departed from the official synodical practices concerning communion and the role of women in the Church. This is something that many in the LCMS are concerned with. It is hoped that with a change of leadership at the synodical level some of these issues will be addressed.

I personally would also like to see more cooperation bewteen the LCMS and the WELS as true Confessional Lutheran church bodies. Perhaps with the ELCA finally taking the plunge off the deep end the LCMS will sever it's cooperative efforts with that truly heterodox church body.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thanks guys. Exactly what I was looking for. This thread can be closed if the mods feel it might save the forum from any unnecessary arguments (not that the two posters above were doing so at all).

Thanks again!

joshua

 

[Studeclunker]

What caused the split was the LCMS declaring agreement with the ALC and opening altar and pulpit fellowship. In fact, the LCMS was involved with the ELCA merger at the beginning. THANKFULLY someone was awake at the switch and LCMS backed out between '86 and '87. I personally believe that most of the problems that the Revrand pointed out are the result of that laison with ALC.

So, looked at from the above viewpoint, WELS broke ties with LCMS because they (LCMS) weren't true to their agreement (with WELS). After all, if WELS doesn't agree with ALC enough to be in fellowship, then LCMS shouldn't either (if they're in agreement with WELS).

Clear as mud, right?

 

[DaRev]

What caused the split was the LCMS declaring agreement with the ALC and opening altar and pulpit fellowship. In fact, the LCMS was involved with the ELCA merger at the beginning. THANKFULLY someone was awake at the switch and LCMS backed out between '86 and '87.

Not true. First, the LCMS didn't declare fellowship with the ALC until 1969, almost ten years after the WELS broke fellowship. While the LCMS did consider entering dialog with the LCA in the early 60's to discuss possible fellowship, this never actually happened. There was absolutely no cooperation involving the LCMS with the ELCA merger in the 80's. In fact, the ALC's involvement in the merger discussions is what finally prompted the LCMS to break fellowship with them in 1981.

The fact is that the LCMS had been in discussions with the ALC (including it's former form - the ALC of 1930, and even it's predecessor bodies, the Iowa Synod and the Buffalo Synod) for several decades. It wasn't until the late 50's that the WELS began to be concerned, which leads me to believe that there was more than just the LCMS' persuit of the ALC at stake.

The issue concerning the persuit of this fellowship was whether or not one member of the Synodical Conference could declare altar/pulpit fellowship with another church body without all members of the Synodical Conference also declaring fellowship. This prompted the WELS to issue it's fellowship statement in 1960, which led to their breaking fellowship with the LCMS in 1961.

In my opinion, which is shared by many in the LCMS, the declaration of fellowship with the ALC was one of the biggest mistakes the LCMS ever made.

 

[DaRev]

Thanks guys. Exactly what I was looking for. This thread can be closed if the mods feel it might save the forum from any unnecessary arguments (not that the two posters above were doing so at all).

Thanks again!

joshua

No, we weren't arguing. Just presenting each sides perspective.

 

[filosofer]

In fact, the LCMS was involved with the ELCA merger at the beginning. someone was awake at the switch and LCMS backed out between '86 and '87. I personally believe that most of the problems that the Revrand pointed out are the result of that laison with ALC.

You might want to research history more and get the facts correct. What you have presented is not supported in fact. The LCMS was not involved in the formation of the ELCA (known as the NLC - New Lutheran Church, until the acronym ELCA was selected). Since it was not involved, there was nothing for the LCMS to back out of between 1986-87.

Now, the AELC (formed in 1976 from the Seminex led-group) was involved in the merger discussions; in fact, it was the primary push for the merger itself. And several of the current ELCA Bishops are former AELC pastors. But that has nothing to do with the LCMS after 1974.

 

[filosofer]

Not true. First, the LCMS didn't declare fellowship with the ALC until 1969, almost ten years after the WELS broke fellowship. While the LCMS did consider entering dialog with the LCA in the early 60's to discuss possible fellowship, this never actually happened. There was absolutely no cooperation involving the LCMS with the ELCA merger in the 80's. In fact, the ALC's involvement in the merger discussions is what finally prompted the LCMS to break fellowship with them in 1981.

The ALC was not completely up front in the original discussions either regarding where it stood on several issues. The seeds for the breaking of fellowship were already in place long before the agreement was signed. Already by 1966 the ALC was allowing women to become students at ALC seminaries. The ALC-LCMS fellowship agreement in 1969 was followed in 1970 by the ALC decision in convention to allow women pastors, since the first women students were now graduated. The plea at the 1970 convention to allow women pastors was not based on Scripture, but a plea from the mother of one of the women students... it was entirely emotional.