Why LCC/LCMS?

[Tetzel]

In what way has the ELCA become more Epscopalian than Lutheran?

If it is regarding the notion of bishop - that is actually the historic stance of the European Lutherans since Luther. We have an "historic episcopacy" already since the days when Catholic Bishops (not yet Roman until the Council of Trent) became Lutheran and then installed their successors or neighboring new bishops. American Lutheranism to a great extent forgot, found it inconvenient or rejected this ministry.

We all hold to the Book of Concord as our defining documents, and hold the Bible is inspired and authoritative for faith

Yes and no. German Bishops stayed with Rome, so German Lutherans (who happened to form the LCMS) didn't really care at all about AS. In the Scandinavian state churchs AS was maintained, but most immigrants who came to America from Scandinavia resisted the State Churches' attempts to come with them, thus also stopping AS. I was in the ELCA until I started going to LCMS services about a year ago. One of the things that disturbed me most about the ELCA was its desire to play the ecumenism game with everyone. The LWF should not be communicating with Rome until Rome clears up the abuses that it justifies in the name of tradition. The ELCA should not be in communion with the PCUSA because they PCUSA has very different views on what the sacrament is. While the ECUSA has a compatible view on the sacrament, it has far too many different strains of doctrine (many of which are at odds with Lutheran beliefs) within it for the call to common mission to be justifiable.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

German Lutherans (who happened to form the LCMS) didn't really care at all about AS.

This isn't what I got out of reading the BoC (some examples below). I gathered that the Lutherans really wanted bishops and were not at all opposed to AS but the bishops weren't behaving so they went at it without them...not in opposition to AS or ecclesiatical order but solely in opposition to bad bishops.

...Furthermore, we want at this point to declare our willingness to keep the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, provided that the bishops stop raging against our churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations, present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the bishops. Thus men may read that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftn1http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftnref1
Consequently, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Gospel and are unwilling to administer ordination,3 the churches retain the right to ordain for themselves.http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=19967507#_ftn2
3 German: to ordain suitable persons.


Perhaps I never quite understood this properly.

 

[Tetzel]

This isn't what I got out of reading the BoC (some examples below). I gathered that the Lutherans really wanted bishops and were not at all opposed to AS but the bishops weren't behaving so they went at it without them...not in opposition to AS or ecclesiatical order but solely in opposition to bad bishops.

...Furthermore, we want at this point to declare our willingness to keep the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, provided that the bishops stop raging against our churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations, present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the bishops. Thus men may read that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

Consequently, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Gospel and are unwilling to administer ordination,3 the churches retain the right to ordain for themselves.
3 German: to ordain suitable persons.


Perhaps I never quite understood this properly.

You cut out the first clause of the sentence, "The German Bishops stayed with Rome" We were willing to have bishops, but did not take the resistance of Bishops as a signal that the movement to reform the Church was illegitimate. In other words we had rejected the idea that AS is necessary for legitimacy

 

[ByzantineDixie]

OK...here is the whole thing. I still don't see a rejection of AS. Where are you seeing it?

[Article XIV. Ecclesiastical Order]​

1 With the proviso that we employ canonical ordination, they accept Article XIV, where we say that no one should be allowed to administer the Word and the sacraments in the church unless he is duly called.3 On this matter we have given frequent testimony in the assembly to our deep desire to maintain the church polity and various ranks of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, although they were created by human authority. We know that the Fathers had good and useful reasons for instituting ecclesiastical discipline in the manner described by the ancient canons. 2 But the bishops either force our priests to forsake and condemn the sort of doctrine we have confessed, or else, in their unheard of cruelty, they kill the unfortunate and innocent men. This keeps our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason for the abolition of canonical government in some places, despite our earnest desire to keep it. Let them see to it how they will answer to God for disrupting the church.

3 In this issue our consciences are clear and we dare not approve the cruelty of those who persecute this teaching, for we know that our confession is true, godly, and catholic. 4 We know that the church is present among those who rightly teach the Word of God and rightly administer the sacraments. It is not present among those who seek to destroy the Word of God with their edicts, who even butcher anyone who teaches what is right and true, though the canons themselves are gentler with those who violate them. 5 Furthermore, we want at this point to declare our willingness to keep the ecclesiastical and canonical polity, provided that the bishops stop raging against our churches. This willingness will be our defense, both before God and among all nations, present and future, against the charge that we have undermined the authority of the bishops. Thus men may read that, despite our protest against the unjust cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=19969678#_ftn23 Roman Confutation: “It ought to be understood that he is rightly called who is called in accordance with the form of law and the ecclesiastical ordinances and decrees hitherto observed everywhere in the Christian world … ” (Pt. I, Art. XIV).

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=19969678#_ftnref2Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

 

[Tetzel]

Where do you see the retention of AS?

Does it not say that the bishops are hostile, but that they continue anyway. Is that not a rejection of AS, or at the very least a relegation of it to a low status?

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Where do you see the retention of AS?

Well, what I see is an earnest desire to keep the ecclesiastical structure but a need to abandon it in some places (note: not all) because of the cruelty of the bishops. This to me is a far cry from flat out rejecting AS.

But in all honesty...I don't think your position is uncommon.

 

[saami]

Yes and no. German Bishops stayed with Rome, so German Lutherans (who happened to form the LCMS) didn't really care at all about AS. In the Scandinavian state churchs AS was maintained, but most immigrants who came to America from Scandinavia resisted the State Churches' attempts to come with them, thus also stopping AS. I was in the ELCA until I started going to LCMS services about a year ago. One of the things that disturbed me most about the ELCA was its desire to play the ecumenism game with everyone. The LWF should not be communicating with Rome until Rome clears up the abuses that it justifies in the name of tradition. The ELCA should not be in communion with the PCUSA because they PCUSA has very different views on what the sacrament is. While the ECUSA has a compatible view on the sacrament, it has far too many different strains of doctrine (many of which are at odds with Lutheran beliefs) within it for the call to common mission to be justifiable.

Not all German Lutherans are Missouri Synod - the Texas and Iowa Synods that joined in making the ALC - were German. LCMS Lutherans were those that left Germany to avoifthe Prussian Union - the making of a state church that was Evangelical and Reformed. Thus to this day LCMS is against mergers or some tyoes of cooperation - its part of their history.

Two types of Scandinavians (churchwise) moved to the US. Those that eventually formed the LCA and ALC were not against the state church blending, such as the Suomi Synod. Others, like the National Evangelical [Finnish] Lutherans were more "home church/Bible study league" types and very lay oriented [my home church, by the way] - and some Norwegians - like the Preuses - and have mostly joined up with the LCMS.

The ELCA is very active in talking to other parts of the Body of Christ and trying to clear up differences. But there is not intention to merge - just stand united against a sinful world. In these discussions we have discovered we have often mis-interpreted other, or found that they have been reforming, too. Did you know that Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, considers the Augsburg Confession a "catholic" document? - in other words expounding true Christianity!

Regarding communion - I have served Lutheran congregations - LCMS as a deaconess and now ELCA as a pastor - and I find few people in the pews who can correctly explain Holy Communion. Do I deny their fellowship at the altar? Impossible to make happen. The communion guests are all limited and human - each in our own way on a journey in Christ. To use your words - too many strains of doctrine - I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

 

[LutherNut]

I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

But the Word of God clearly says that "any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Is it not the responsibility of the Pastor to withhold the body and blood if he knows that the one receiving is sinning, and eating and drinking judgement upon themself? (Obviously he cannot know what is in everyone's heart, but there are some that he can know, such as members of Reformed church bodies that openly reject the Real Presence, and thus do not discern the body of Christ as our Lord's Word says is necessary for worthy and beneficial reception.) Scripture does set the condition of worthy reception upon the Sacrament of the altar. To allow one to receive the Sacrament when they clearly do not recognize the true body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is not only irresponsible, but is spiritually injurious to the recipient.


Jay

 

[SPALATIN]

Not all German Lutherans are Missouri Synod - the Texas and Iowa Synods that joined in making the ALC - were German. LCMS Lutherans were those that left Germany to avoifthe Prussian Union - the making of a state church that was Evangelical and Reformed. Thus to this day LCMS is against mergers or some tyoes of cooperation - its part of their history.

Up until 1911 the LCMS had not allowed English speaking congregations. Those that wanted to be in the LCMS but were English speaking were in a separate synod until that year. LCMS history is very suspicious of episcopal or consistorial governing of church. It is one reason they do not have bishops and the congregations have constitutions. The synod acts as merely an advisor to the congregation but does not lay down polity.

Two types of Scandinavians (churchwise) moved to the US. Those that eventually formed the LCA and ALC were not against the state church blending, such as the Suomi Synod. Others, like the National Evangelical [Finnish] Lutherans were more "home church/Bible study league" types and very lay oriented [my home church, by the way] - and some Norwegians - like the Preuses - and have mostly joined up with the LCMS.

The ELCA is very active in talking to other parts of the Body of Christ and trying to clear up differences. But there is not intention to merge - just stand united against a sinful world. In these discussions we have discovered we have often mis-interpreted other, or found that they have been reforming, too. Did you know that Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, considers the Augsburg Confession a "catholic" document? - in other words expounding true Christianity!

Regarding communion - I have served Lutheran congregations - LCMS as a deaconess and now ELCA as a pastor - and I find few people in the pews who can correctly explain Holy Communion. Do I deny their fellowship at the altar? Impossible to make happen. The communion guests are all limited and human - each in our own way on a journey in Christ. To use your words - too many strains of doctrine - I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

The ELCA however, from my observations is bending to the culture instead of standing against those things it has traditionally seen as sinful. It will only be a matter of time before the Homosexual is allowed to be ordained.

 

[KEPLER]

But the Word of God clearly says that "any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." Is it not the responsibility of the Pastor to withhold the body and blood if he knows that the one receiving is sinning, and eating and drinking judgement upon themself? (Obviously he cannot know what is in everyone's heart, but there are some that he can know, such as members of Reformed church bodies that openly reject the Real Presence, and thus do not discern the body of Christ as our Lord's Word says is necessary for worthy and beneficial reception.) Scripture does set the condition of worthy reception upon the Sacrament of the altar. To allow one to receive the Sacrament when they clearly do not recognize the true body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament is not only irresponsible, but is spiritually injurious to the recipient.


Jay

Jay,

What does Paul mean by body in this sentence that you quote?

 

[Tetzel]

Not all German Lutherans are Missouri Synod - the Texas and Iowa Synods that joined in making the ALC - were German. LCMS Lutherans were those that left Germany to avoifthe Prussian Union - the making of a state church that was Evangelical and Reformed.

I wasn't saying that all Germans were LCMS. I was saying that no German Lutherans (as far as I know) had been able to maintain AS because the German bishops stayed with Rome. A consequence of this is that the predominantly German LCMS does not have AS. In fact, no Lutheran groups (eventual parts of the ELCA) that came to America brought AS with them.

Two types of Scandinavians (churchwise) moved to the US. Those that eventually formed the LCA and ALC were not against the state church blending, such as the Suomi Synod. Others, like the National Evangelical [Finnish] Lutherans were more "home church/Bible study league" types and very lay oriented [my home church, by the way] - and some Norwegians - like the Preuses - and have mostly joined up with the LCMS.

This is not an issue of Church blending with the Scandinavians. Rather it is a juristictional question. My grandmother was Swedish and the history of Swedish Lutherans that my father basically said that Swedes and Norwegians resisted attempts by the Church of Sweden to establish an American subsidiary, thus no AS for Scandinavian-Americans. No Scandinavian AS in the USA + No German AS in the world= No Lutheran AS in the USA. Unless there was a small Lutheran group with AS in the USA, and that begs the question of why Lutherans would get AS from the Episcopalians if it was possible to get it "in house"

The ELCA is very active in talking to other parts of the Body of Christ and trying to clear up differences. But there is not intention to merge - just stand united against a sinful world. In these discussions we have discovered we have often mis-interpreted other, or found that they have been reforming, too.

The ELCA should be careful. This is dangerous stuff. Rome has wiped out dissention before and could do it again. Even if Rome has made reforms, the details of the reforms mean very little if scripture is not the highest authority and the office of the papacy remains.

Did you know that Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, considers the Augsburg Confession a "catholic" document? - in other words expounding true Christianity!

Yes I've heard such things, but none of this matters unless he declares it as pope. Until then it's just a matter of personal opinion. My question for you is: what would the consequences be for Lutherans who participate in ecumenical dialogue if the Augsburg Confession is officially declared Catholic by Rome?

Regarding communion - I have served Lutheran congregations - LCMS as a deaconess and now ELCA as a pastor - and I find few people in the pews who can correctly explain Holy Communion. Do I deny their fellowship at the altar? Impossible to make happen. The communion guests are all limited and human - each in our own way on a journey in Christ. To use your words - too many strains of doctrine - I could not deny them nourishment of the spirit from Christ because they do not understand everything perfectly - none of us could receive Him, then, if that were the pre-requisite.

As a pastor it is your responsibility to teach the people what the sacrament is. When I was a child in the ELCA I did not understand what it was and thought that it was symbolic. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Such situations illustrate well that communion for catechized Lutherans only is a good idea.

 

[SPALATIN]

From the example that Zion mentions it would appear that she sees it as only a vertical relationship of God to his children to supply them the spiritual nourishment they desire, however there is a horizontal relationship that needs to be fed as well. The Sacrament is also a matter of confession. If we do not share the same confession we ought not to commune with each other. If the congregation has a female pastor serving and a visitor doesn't agree with the doctrine of female pastors that visitor should abstain from Holy Communion on that basis.

 

[BalaamsAss51]

If the congregation has a female pastor serving and a visitor doesn't agree with the doctrine of female pastors that visitor should abstain from Holy Communion on that basis.

If there is a female pastor I wouldn't even set my foot in the door, let alone refrain from attending a false communion.

Pax

 

[Tetzel]

I'm going to have to differ in opinion here. Although scripture commands that women not be placed in the position of pastor, I do not see why the sacrament would become false or invalid. Such a position reeks of Donatism. That having been said, it is good that the LCMS follows scripture's authority on the issue rather than popular innovations.

 

[BalaamsAss51]

Hello Tetzel.

Well, of course the Donatists were men, but I take you to mean that we should not take their position that pastoral acts of an unworthy bishop are invalid.

I would not disagree with this, but in the case of female pastors they are not pastors (worthy or unworthy) to begin with.

Further, no emergency situation exists, no one has to step into a vocation that is not theirs.

Also, and this I'm not sure how to explain what I mean, but here goes. At a certain point (and I'm not sure where that is) the changing of meaning about what God's Word tells us leads to a split between the true and false church. It's like those who baptism in the name of the creator, sanctifier, and comforter instead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not exactly kosher. Brings the whole thing into question. How far may you go before you've gone too far and are no longer really Christian?

Pax

 

[SPALATIN]

Hello Tetzel.

Well, of course the Donatists were men, but I take you to mean that we should not take their position that pastoral acts of an unworthy bishop are invalid.

I would not disagree with this, but in the case of female pastors they are not pastors (worthy or unworthy) to begin with.

Further, no emergency situation exists, no one has to step into a vocation that is not theirs.

Also, and this I'm not sure how to explain what I mean, but here goes. At a certain point (and I'm not sure where that is) the changing of meaning about what God's Word tells us leads to a split between the true and false church. It's like those who baptism in the name of the creator, sanctifier, and comforter instead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Not exactly kosher. Brings the whole thing into question. How far may you go before you've gone too far and are no longer really Christian?

Pax

Exactly! If they use those words they had better define that they mean the same to everyone. I think that many of the liberal factions like to use the words that they think define Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I am also in agreement with you on the women pastor topic.