So I have said... the ELCA approaches things with the view point that whatever Scripture does not expressly forbid is therefore permitted and even then, somethings that Scripture forbids we permit under the rule of the Gospel principle trumps specific law... the WELS approaches things with the view point that whatever Scripture does not expressly permit is therefore forbidden (hence Scouts, etc...) and then Missouri's approach is well, it all depends on what we are talking about... If Scripture speaks then it is answered and if it does not speak expressly to this, we must apply what Scripture does say to the particular issue...
And I have said the ELCA has chosen to identify with mainline Protestantism in America (Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians)... they have tied their identity and their future to this trajectory... The WELS has chosen to identify with a conservative Evangelical identity rooted in the inerrancy of Scripture and a high standard of fellowship... and Missouri has .... and this is where I fall down... are we the happy clappy Evangelicals or the evangelical and catholic people of the Augsburg Confession.... I know what I would like to say but I also know that is not the whole truth...
So, without going over a checklist of individual areas of agreement or disagreement... anyone got a better quick answer to this whole thing???
5 comments:
Perhaps our problem in Missouri is that we don't know who we are. If we truly subscribe the the Lutheran Confessions then we would be (as you said) "the evangelical and catholic people of the Augsburg Confession." However, when those within the Synod dispense with the Confessions, it seems to lead inevitably to becoming "the happy clappy Evangelicals."
So it seems to me that until (and unless) we recover the Confessions, we (the Synod as a whole) will not have an identity and will be tempted by whichever way the wind is blowing that day.
The phrase "expressly forbid" in the explanation is likely to confuse. "Expressly", according to the Lutheran Confessions? Or to whom? And what about simply "forbid," according to the Lutheran Confessions?
It's probably better to have a checklist on the major positions of the LCMS, WELS, and the E_CA (at least on paper) relative to the Lutheran Confessions and to the doctrine of church and ministry, which is where differences in the church bodies exist.
Then the Lutheran class members will be able to determine where practices within each church body differ from what's on paper.
Since you asked for a quick answer, here’s how I (WELS pastor) summarize this in my classes.
The ELCA teaches that the Bible does not mean what it says in many places, which has opened the door to all sorts of false teachings. We do not consider them to be a “Confessional Lutheran” church body (having already explained “confessional” earlier in the class).
The LCMS is a Confessional Lutheran church body (insert much praise here for the LCMS for bringing WELS into a more confessional stance long ago). The main difference between LCMS and WELS remains over the doctrine of church fellowship. The LCMS has been willing to practice levels of fellowship with heterodox church bodies (mainly the ALC-now-ELCA), and WELS doesn’t see where Scripture allows for levels of fellowship (hence our historical problem with joining together to serve the generic “god” of the Boy Scouts of America).
I don’t go much into differences over Woman Suffrage or Open Communion, because I know some LCMS congregations that are as “conservative” as WELS in those areas, while other LCMS congregations have a more liberal practice. It’s hard for us (WELS) to know which is the “real” Missouri. That isn’t to imply that there’s no spectrum of confessional commitment in WELS, or that there’s no room for growth (we have some happy-clappy, too).
I also don’t go much into differences over Church & Ministry, because honestly, I think we need to sit down and figure out if our differences are fundamental disagreements or just different approaches to the Office of the Holy Ministry. To be sure, WELS hasn’t always been clear in how we’ve spoken about this, and overstatements have probably been made on both sides.
I see that my “quick answer” wasn’t so quick. Kinda like my “short sermons” aren’t so short. Ah, well.
whenever I arrive at the subject with my Inquirers Classes I try to define differences by speaking about public teaching differences and then some of the realities of life within a particular church body... that works best when I describe the LCMS and I would hope also you toward whatever is left of the ELCA when it gets thru convulsing, with or without a bunch of us. Like we teach women pastors are fine and you teach no they aren't... the tendency in LCMS is to be more restrictive at the HC rail and ours less... we now officially teach actively gay pastors in committed relationships are OK but the reality is that there are quite a bunch of ELCA folks who cannot abide that teaching... like the RC church, we can find a lot of public teaching that finds salvation in work righteousness but individual priests and lay people have spoke quite clearly and in an unqualified fashion of grace and faith sounding much like we do. I know that we say that what we publically teach is what we ought to be judged by but say in the area of evangelism, we all teach: go get 'em... but the reality of almost all Christian denominations is that we don't do that very well at all. Harvey Mozolak
Having left the ELCA for Missouri I can say that doctrine and the lack of it were the primary reasons for that departure. I won't say that the grass is necessarily greener. I've been concerned about my congregation's frequent liturgical lapses, but not with it's theology (yet). My old ELCA congregation was liturgically pretty spot on, but the ELCA has deep-sixed any notion of confessional standards. That leaves a confessional, "high church" evangelical catholic in something of a quandary. Further breakdowns along adherence to doctrine are only more confusing especially as we try to align confession with liturgical practice.
Post a Comment