WELS/LCMS merger

[DaRev]

Um, I thought this thread was about WELS and LCMS and if they would ever merge. My thought is they would not. As has been said, there are just enough differences that neither are willing to move on.

Personally, I would prefer to see us talking with WELS than ELCA.

Oh, I find there are plenty of moderates in the LCMS. They may lean toward conservative, but there are many there.

Actually, in the LCMS, the term "moderate" refers to the more liberal thinking side. The terms "conservative" and "confessional" refer to the more conservative side. President Keischnick is considered a "moderate." Personally, I would prefer more "confessional" leadership in the Synod. Perhaps then more dialogue would be possible with the WELS, whom I, too, would rather see us talking with, rather than the ELCA.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Thanks for the correction. Guess I have been out of the loop as far as these terms lately. I know that I have heard them but guess have not paid too much attention. How would you define confessional and conservative? Guess I need to figure out where I fall on the spectrum again as well as those around me. Yet, a previous post stated that there were only liberal and conservatives out there in his experience, but I find there are many that fall in between.

I know I have been busy with life and not paying too much attention to the politics of the church. That in itself is not a real bad thing, but I should get myself up to date shouldn't I? Especially with convention this summer. I do know who I don't support for Synodical President.

 

[Studeclunker]

President Keischnick is considered a "moderate."

Ah, then K = Keischnick? I really hate netspeak. When people start with the inane abbreviations dense people, like me, are left with, "Huh?"

I agree with both of you, I'd much rather be closer to WELS than ELCA. I almost joined WELS. Probably should have...

 

[porterross]

There is one Lutheran church here and it is LCMS, but I often feel that things are too loose and that the strong-willed members have too much influence on our pastor. He's too nice and tries to be too accommodating sometimes, but then he is in the DELTO program and seems to be too much at their mercy. It's an interesting dynamic and a bit chaotic at times from my perspective.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Um, I thought this thread was about WELS and LCMS and if they would ever merge. My thought is they would not. As has been said, there are just enough differences that neither are willing to move on.

Personally, I would prefer to see us talking with WELS than ELCA.

Oh, I find there are plenty of moderates in the LCMS. They may lean toward conservative, but there are many there.

What do you consider a moderate? I've seen moderate, conservative, liberal and traditional bantered around so much that the designations are getting blurred.

On another note; within LCMS the different factions are at odds with each other and can't agree on theology. It just depends on who has the biggest support at the time. As in secular society there seems to be more lines being drawn and more polarization. Wider gaps between liberal and conservative. That's the price of democracy; a multi party system.

The LCMS is just feeling the pains of forsaking our Lutheran heritage for more contemporary ideas. 'Course it doesn't help that when Seminex left that our synod forgave some radicals and let them come back to the flock. Now we are paying the price.

The gap gets wider and wider.

 

[QuiltAngel]

I agree that the terms are getting blurred or changed. I am waiting for DaRev to come back and hear how he defines them as he said above that the moderates lean towards the liberal side.

To me, a moderate is in the middle. Some leaning liberal and some leaning conservative. Apparently, we have more terms to describe those in the middle. That is probably a good thing as it would describe those in the middle better.

I agree that there is polarization, yet I see many more who are somewhere in the middle. Maybe that is because of where I live and have lived.

 

[DaRev]

I agree that the terms are getting blurred or changed. I am waiting for DaRev to come back and hear how he defines them as he said above that the moderates lean towards the liberal side.

To me, a moderate is in the middle. Some leaning liberal and some leaning conservative. Apparently, we have more terms to describe those in the middle. That is probably a good thing as it would describe those in the middle better.

I agree that there is polarization, yet I see many more who are somewhere in the middle. Maybe that is because of where I live and have lived.

The way the LCMS uses the term "moderate" does not necessarily match its definition. In the Missouri Synod, the term "moderate" denotes someone who is actually more liberal, theologically speaking, when compared to the "confessionals" or "conservatives". And there is a difference in the synod between "confessional" and "conservative."

 

[QuiltAngel]

And there is a difference in the synod between "confessional" and "conservative."

DaRev, I think I know the difference between confessional and conservative, but would you explain that to me so I am clear. I have not really paid much attention to all this as it seems the pastors around here are pretty close where they stand. We do have one that is extremely conservative.

I find it helpful on forums such as this that terms be defined so that all understand where another is coming from. Can clear up a lot of misunderstandings, IMHO.
Thanks

 

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
One of the problems in the LCMS over the past 20 years is that the referent for "confessional" has changed. Now some claim that to be "confessional" it is not enough to adhere to the BoC as the correct exposition of Scripture; now there are things like "no women voters", no one assists the pastor at any time, no lay readers", absolute adherence to the hymnal order of service, etc., which may be good, but may go beyond the scope of confessional subscription.

In essence the "ultra-confessionalists" begin to draw circles of "Lutheran-law" inclusion that are so small that most true confessional Lutherans would not fit into the circle.

Note, I don't think DaRev (or most others here) fit this ultra-confessional definition.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[porterross]

Speaking of lay readers. What disqualifies someone?

Is age an/or gender a factor, IYO?

We have this debate occurring in our congregation and I am curious as to what others here might think.

 

[DaRev]

One of the problems in the LCMS over the past 20 years is that the referent for "confessional" has changed. Now some claim that to be "confessional" it is not enough to adhere to the BoC as the correct exposition of Scripture; now there are things like "no women voters", no one assists the pastor at any time, no lay readers", absolute adherence to the hymnal order of service, etc., which may be good, but may go beyond the scope of confessional subscription.

And I would define those who fit what you listed above as "conservatives". Those who hold to the extreme of those things would be "ultra-conservatives" or even reactionaries to an extent.

 

[Confess]

And I would define those who fit what you listed above as "conservatives". Those who hold to the extreme of those things would be "ultra-conservatives" or even reactionaries to an extent.

Hmmm. I consider myself confessional.

I believe that the BoC accurately reflects the Bible. I confess this (hence the name )

I do not confess conservatism. One can say that aquiring the name would mean that you are trying to "conserve" the truth, but I do not think that conserving the truth is in my power. That (IMO) is in God's hands. He is the one that conserves the truth, I am here to confess the truth.

Also, conservatism tends to have a more moralistic connotation to it which I shy away from.

One other thing. Conservative also implies political.

While I do like a good debate, my main purpose (albeit not always successful) is to confess the truth without getting political.

I used to be very political in the LCMS. But then I just stopped caring. People tend to shut others out when they find out what "side" your on (genetic fallacy I think?)

Rather, if we just confess the truth and prove it with Scripture (which put the burden of proof OFF of us and ON to God) then I believe that communication, ill feelings etc., can be lessened (yet not entirely avoided).

The typical self proclaiming "confessional" does not support contemporary worship, desires the Sacrament every Sunday, has a high view of Baptism (in that delaying baptism is looked down upon), has a liturgical worship, finds a pastor with a strong law/gospel message, believes in private c&a .... and ... um .... thats all I can think of.

That is just my opinion on the matter. Nothing is set in stone due to the subjective nature of the issue.

 

[Confess]

Oh, two other things.

Lay readers are not normally used because they were not called to proclaim God's Word in worship.

It is just my opinion, but it is like being an electrician and telling the house owner that he can help do the electricians job so that he may feel more apart of the experience.

You call a pastor to conduct the service, not to have others do some of it for him.

And one thing that just makes me different from probably 99% of those here on the board, I do not believe that men or women have the right to vote on doctrine. No one votes on what God says or doesn't say. Either he said it, and it is practiced, or he didn't say it and the congregation doesn't practice it.

Now, I already hear wheels in motion with comments..

"What about congregations that practice things that aren't biblical and it needs to be put into place?"

Well, then let the pastor put it into place, but don't vote on it. If it is apart of our faith, then apply it. If it is not appart of our faith then get rid of it.

Let the voters decide on non-doctrinal things and let them judge their pastor by how much he submits to God's word.

 

[filosofer]

Oh, two other things.

Lay readers are not normally used because they were not called to proclaim God's Word in worship.

It is just my opinion, but it is like being an electrician and telling the house owner that he can help do the electricians job so that he may feel more apart of the experience.

You hire a pastor to conduct the service, not to have others do some of it for him.

Except "hire" isn't exactly appropriate... but I understand what you say.

And one thing that just makes me different from probably 99% of those here on the board, I do not believe that men or women have the right to vote on doctrine. No one votes on what God says or doesn't say. Either he said it, and it is practiced, or he didn't say it and the congregation doesn't practice it.

Let the voters decide on non-doctrinal things and let them judge their pastor by how much he submits to God's word.

Of course, "voting on doctrine" is a non-issue. I think that "vote on doctrine" is a fallacy that has crept into all of the major Lutheran Church bodies.
[FONT="Book Antiqua"]
And whether only men can vote on non-doctrinal issues is not determined by Scripture either. In my first call I served as pastor of a dual parish, one congregation had women voters, the other congregation did not. C F W Walther indicated that the primary reason women did not vote was because they did not vote in secular matters.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/FONT]

 

[Confess]

Ooops, I meant "call" not hire. I wasn't thinking, sorry.

I agree with you on the voters issue.

 

[porterross]

Elders in my church have been reading the lessons for as long as I can remember, but recently, teenagers (male & female) of a member family read the lessons (at the request of their parents) and there was quite the backlash from some of our members.

What say you?

 

[filosofer]

One problem I have with "lay readers" is that many of them do not read well orally. If this is meant as part of the divine service, then excellence is demanded. Reading aloud in a public setting is far different than reading in a small group.

When we were in seminary we were urged to stand up in the sanctuary and read aloud the Scriptures, not once or twice, but until we were conversant and smooth with it. Sadly, some pastors get to the point where they don't do any better than someone who is trying to read it for the first time.

My personal conviction is that there should not be lay readers. But I am not adamant about it.

I made it practice to do that throughout my active ministry, and I would do the same with the liturgy, even if I had done it several hundred times.

In Christ's love,
filo

 

[Confess]

Elders in my church have been reading the lessons for as long as I can remember, but recently, teenagers (male & female) of a member family read the lessons (at the request of their parents) and there was quite the backlash from some of our members.

What say you?

I would want the pastor to take control over worship.

He is in charge of the worship, not the elders or the other congregants.

I don't have scripture right off the top of my head, but am studying what Luther wrote in Sunday School about the role of the pastor and laypeople.

Basically what Luther says (if I can give justice to summerizing), is that the Pastor has been given the call to lead worship, guide and shepherd the flock.

When you think of it, what shepherd would allow a sheep to help lead?

Another interesting point in what we are learning from Luther's writting was that Pastors were selected from the ELDERS. The elders were educated in the faith and were then selected to become pastors. Today, we have it in place where if you feel called into the ministry, then you take it upon yourself to become a pastor.

Not so in Luther's day. A man had to prove himself blameless and worthy of the call.

 

[filosofer]

I would want the pastor to take control over worship.

He is in charge of the worship, not the elders or the other congregants.

I would agree that the pastor is in charge of the service. But there is much more to this than a simple decision that the pastor does it all.

Another interesting point in what we are learning from Luther's writting was that Pastors were selected from the ELDERS. The elders were educated in the faith and were then selected to become pastors. Today, we have it in place where if you feel called into the ministry, then you take it upon yourself to become a pastor.

Not so in Luther's day. A man had to prove himself blameless and worthy of the call.

[FONT="Book Antiqua"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]

Actually in the LCMS (and I assume in WELS/ELS) a man does not take it upon himself to be a pastor. He may be led in that direction, even going to the seminary. But the process of interviewing with his pastor, then later at the seminary, under the tutelage of the field work supervisor, vicarage supervisor, and finally interviews with seminary professors prior to placement insure that there is more than just a personal desire to be a pastor. And finally a congregation has to extend a call that God uses to place him into pastoral service. I had several classmates who thought they were called to be pastors, stayed at seminary for 1-3 years, but eventually left because it was determined that they were not fit for the ministry (and observing them closely in some cases, every decision by the seminary was appropriate).

So there are two aspects to be called as a pastor: first, the internal call to serve (which includes preparation), and second, the external call from the congregation.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/FONT]


In Christ's love,
filo
[/FONT]

 

[DaRev]

The typical self proclaiming "confessional" does not support contemporary worship, desires the Sacrament every Sunday, has a high view of Baptism (in that delaying baptism is looked down upon), has a liturgical worship, finds a pastor with a strong law/gospel message, believes in private c&a .... and ... um .... thats all I can think of.

You just described me to a tee!!