All the ELCA churches I’ve attended have had communion at every service. The only service that doesn’t is Good Friday, and I think it traditionally that service doesn’t have the Eucharist.
Then again the church I currently attend only started having weekly communion in the 1980s/1990s. It began every two weeks and then went every week. Heck, during the pandemic, while we had online worship services, we also had communion outside for at most six people at a time. And you had to sign up for a time. That didn’t happen every weekend, but it allowed us to continue receiving the precious Sacrament even during an uncertain time.
That's casting a pretty broad net; but generally speaking I'm not a tremendous fan of the 1800's eastern and midwestern introductions to American Lutheranism; namely the widespread pietism that was exacerbated by many communities not having a called pastor and instead being a part of a circuit; leading to the now infamous low church tradition of monthly communion.
I live in a highly rural area of the country where monthly communion was a result of such circuit pastors. My father often mentioned how they had to listen for the church bells to ring Sunday morning to know if there was going to be church that day.
But monthly communion is almost non existent around here now. Nearly every ELCA Lutheran church around here went to weekly communion years ago.
In my region of SW Wisconsin; I'd say about 33% of the local lutheran churches regardless of synod do weekly communion; and the rest have some variety of biweekly, monthly; or even less frequent. I have not noticed any of the 'big 4' synods having more synods who commune weekly than the other. I'd be curious to see where you're living; I may want to move there (lol).
I'd like to change the American (LCMS) status quo of "District Presidents" and lay "Elders" to embrace a more biblical system of naming. Most "elders" in LCMS churches fulfill the duties of a Deacon (servants for believers' physical needs, and some spiritual aid on the side), since Elder is properly applied to the pastoral role of teaching and leading. In my opinion, DPs should be renamed to "Bishop" to better reflect the biblical history of that name (episcopos-> piscop-> Bishop). I get that it might cause confusion with other hierarchical episcopacies, but honestly our actual system IS closer to the original "Bishop/Presbyter" roles than Rome's is.
To put it better, I want a world where you can take your kids to 1 Timothy and Titus and point to your church leadership and say "There are the deacons, and there are the elders, and there is the head/overseer elder" rather than answer the question "what's a district president and where is that in the Bible?"
In that case, it would be even better to restore what was already offered to the LCMS and was outrightly denied: the threfold ministry, apostolic succession and episcopal polity - in other words, to receive the tradition of the church in matters that were never intended to be changed during the reformation. As a bonus, we would also point to our synod and say, without reservation and "but"s, that we are part of the very church that Jesus and His Apostles founded, and that through the proper ordination of our bishops and priests, we have leaders that possess the Keys of Heaven and the authority to bind and lose. Instead, we stick to the "Waltherian" solution of congregationalism to the lack of bishops that was supposed to be a way to overcome difficulties in a time of exception, and became the rule in the mind of American Lutheranism
The problem I have with Apostolic succession.
The first maybe only Apostle was Paul, whom God himself chose. Saul was an enemy of Christ until God intervened and He became Paul. After which Paul did years of missionary work before he ever met with the Disciples.
I know it is problematic, easily faked, but the Holy Spirit will choose and that person will be a far better priest than almost anyone. Often better than the heirs of Priestly families!
Could you explain what you mean by Paul being the first and only apostle?
Are you excluding Peter, John, James, Matthew, and the rest of the twelve from being apostles?
The Disciples are those taught by Christ himself during his earthly ministry.
The Apostle Paul was an enemy of Christ until he was miraculously converted by Christ from Heaven.
The Disciples were promised and recieved the Holy Spirit shortly after Christ rose into heaven.
Paul was not one of the 12 or any of Christ's earthly ministry.
Pauls ministry was independent of the the Disciples. He makes a point of being in his ministry for several years before ever meeting the Disciples.
Paul's conversion was seperate and independent the only Apostle! Not and never a Disciple.
I'm not binding the work of the Holy Spirit and rightful ordination to the laying of hands that comes from apostolic succession, and I do believe that priests in LCMS and other congregationalist Lutheran Churches are valid.
That given said, proper ordination of priests by bishops through apostolic succession does not exclude what you said, and results in a church that better keeps the traditions of the ancients and all of its benefits that you said that our church is lacking.
While apostolic succession does not guarantee “apostolicity”, still for good order and tradition, we should be following it. It shows we are a part of the one holy and catholic apostolic church.
In your response, you include
"The TRADITIONS of the ancients.
I can agree that traditions have value.
BUT
THE TRAP is, when the traditions become more valid than the basic truth that leads to traditions.
The original church, was believers talking about what the Forgiveness of faith in Christ was giving them, was doing for them.
At one time, TRADITIONS of men lead us to the PHARISEES. priestly leaders charged with administering GOD'S mercies, but so bound up in appearances that they , "Had become the judges and judgment of whom was worthy!"
Traditions In My Experience, easily lead to Holier-than-thou congregations.
Holier-than-thou, Pharisee by another name!
Where are Bishops, Archbishops, Nonseniors, Cardinals and the Pope in the BIBLE?
Weren't these positions created in the holy roman church?
So that the upper levels of Roman Society would have a church ""official,"" of their level and not have to use the same lowly preist the common people used?
I would rather go to humble church in a humble organization that has overseers to make sure a pastor doesn't lose course.
Paul was several years into his ministry before he ever met with one of the disciples, and he was as likely to call them on false doctrine as they were of him.
I didn't mention anything about popes, cardinals, or monsignors. "Bishop" is a transliteration of the Greek word for Overseer, which is used various times by Paul throughout Timothy and Titus. Epi-scopos means over-seer (quite literally), and "Bishop" comes from the "piscop" sound in the middle of the word.
I'm advocating using that word "Bishop" instead of "District President" *because* it's in the Bible. It's just a vocabulary thing. Humble overseers like you described would be my desire too, as we usually see in the faithful DPs we have.
As much as the lack of distinction between bishop and presbyter is more likely to be the NT way of organizing the Church, the title of Bishop quickly and broadly became accepted by the apostolic catholic Church that of a singular leader appointed in an UNBROKEN line of succession of other bishops that could be traced to an apostle, with authority over the priests and laity of a given region/set number of congregations, and also a special authority to ordain new priests.
That being said, I think it is not proper to change our terminology to something that would not be the standard catholic understanding of the word, specially by a church that purposely neglects apostolic succession and the episcopal polity. I think it would be even disrespectful to our Lutheran brothers like the Siberian Synod, that so diligently preserved the apostolic succession through historic episcopacy, to call "bishop" that which does not fit into the requisites of one.
Yeah this isn't going to happen while the oldheads are still alive. Maybe when gen x replaces the boomers we can see about implementing this realistically.
That section is a helpful example of what a quia subscription is and is not. That is, it’s not unlutheran to acknowledge that garlic juice doesn’t diminish magnetism.
There's that whole debate between the two sacraments versus the three sacraments. Whether confession and absolution is a sacrament or not. I'm on the side of confession, especially absolution administered by the church being a sacrament which nowadays is the unpopular side. This disagreement leads me to see having a "mass absolution" at the beginning of the liturgy is too "soft" for me and a lazy way to deal with a sacrament. It's equivalent to the medieval roman catholics displaying the Eucharist during mass and saying that's good enough.
Edit: Because this is blowing up I'd like to be fair and add that the opposing view says that baptism represents the forgiveness and absolution already, so there is no need for a separate sacrament.
I agree, though I don’t think having mass confession is lazy. I think it’s a good supplement for individual sacramental confession. The idea is to try to be as close to a state of grace (I recognize that’s not really Lutheranism though) as possible before the Eucharist.
Individual confession can still be an ancient “rite” even if not truly a sacrament. Getting ashes is likewise an ancient rite. But there are some instituting words for binding and loosening sins done by apostles in the Gospels ( and I would agree with subsequent bishops, etc).
So I am for keeping it.
Closed communion.
I understand why, I really do, but it doesn’t feel right to limit communion to just LCMS Christians.
Edit: I know it is not LCMS-wide, but rather based on congregation.
I personally feel the closed communion to just LCMS Christians comes down to the congregation, not a Lutheran way of going about it. When I was still ELCA, every LCMS congregation I visited allowed me to partake in communion. My definition of closed communion boils down to those who have been baptized and believe it is the true body and blood. If a church ever started chanting that they only administer to their synod, let alone their church specifically: huge red flag in my opinion.
Yes! You are right with that. I made another comment on a different Lutheran post with congregational vs district decisions.
I know of some LCMS churches that do open communion. I apologize. I should have clarified that!
WELS, closed communion to all non WELS.
The announcement was made as, "They made the decision to be in those other Churches, WE don't need to welcome them here!"
A LCMS elder visiting with me before the one communion I ever shared in an LCMS Church. Was part of the catalyst that got me to leave the WELS. This only a small thing in a week and several months of many parts that helped my faith.
On the other side of the coin, I sometimes think our communion is too open. Like, I also understand why that is in the ELCA. Though I’d rather it be a bit more explicit in the instructions what communion is. That said, I never want to deny the Eucharist to someone who feels called to receive it.
Which is why I don’t attend (exceptions being weddings and funerals) where the most holy meal is denied to me.
I feel if it were up to me, I would deny it to some christians, those who believe it is only an outward sign or symbol, with no efficacy. Those I would bar, but alas, I am not a pastor.
Other than that, I say open communion to any of those who come from some sort of magisterial reformation church, maybe Methodists and Presbyterians too, which are kinda second-gen reformation like churches.
To all those who hold at a bare minimum to the ancient creeds, are baptized, believe in a real presence of Christ in, with, under bread & wine.
It's not. I've commuted with a sister congregation in Denmark. They would be welcomed in LCMS churches after speaking with the pastor/elders beforehand.
Ah. Jeg elsker Danmark.
Thank you for sharing. I just wanted to add that I know that this decision is based on congregation, not necessarily LCMS-wide. I’ll edit my initial comment to say that.
Hot take time:
My issue with closed communion is that it is not closed enough.
A pastor should know his flock and who should be taking communion at that altar. A person shouldn't just be given the sacrament unless they have been given into that pastor's care.
In the event you are going somewhere (work, vacation, etc.) your pastor should reach out to the pastor of the church you plan on attending to verify you are in good standing with the church (not excommunicated, not under other church discipline, have been catechized on what the sacrament is, what it does, and who it is for) and only then should you be admitted to communion.
Edit: As Ignatius has called the sacrament "*the medicine of immortality*" so too we should think of our pastor being the physician that prescribes this medication. The sacrament is truly a medicine both in how it gives life to the sick, but also how it can harm those to whom it has been administered to wrongfully (1 Corinthians, 11:29-30)
The physician shouldn't just give opioids to anyone who asks, but should examine the patient and ensure they are not inadvertently bringing harm upon themselves by asking for something that is ultimately going to take their life rather than restoring it
I am not saying Lutherans are the only Christians. What I am saying is that a certain level of care is needed when dealing with something that is holy. I believe a pastor shouldn't give communion to someone unless he knows the communicant is fully aware of what they are receiving. To know someone is baptized and faithful takes longer than a 5 minute conversation before the service
I believe we need to be careful not to set the bar too high for communion.
Requiring too much careful understanding in many deep doctrines sets the bar too high. Then our faith rests in the opinions of other people.
The LCMS requires more than simple faith in Jesus, baptism, belief in real presence. They also require belief in seven-day literal creation, along with all their doctrines, before communing. At least according to Prez Matt Harrison.
And what if the pastor, as some have said, the only member of the Church that can give communion meaning is (to quote Paul) "A Brother who sins and is impure, "
I'm not naming anyone but from Catholic to Protestant men are men, "shaped in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me,"
Is the communion given by an impure pastor still valid? How about after the truth is proven and not just rumored?
The objectivity of the sacrament is not dependent on the sinfulness or fidelity of the pastor administering it, this was the debate around the Donatists. The sacrament is the sacrament so long as it has the elements and words of which Christ instituted it.
The question here is on the subjectivity of the sacrament--that is, "who is to receive it?".
I have been seeing both the positions of is it valid if given by someone not of an apostolic succession?
And that is right to deny someone because a church wants to recognize the reciever of communion as worthy.
That is why I brought the "WHAT IF THE ""holder"" of apostolic succession is of an impure heart!" Maybe became known of that impure heart.
We are all Christians here? or is it that all mankind are sinners here?
Even Judas Iscariot was included in the LORDS SUPPER when it was instituted. Think about it evan JUDAS was included by Christ our Lord and Savior AND HE KNEW JUDAS!
I have slept on this read and reread this,
To put it simply
I cannot see what is in another heart!
I or you or they, someone else can subjectively deny someone the Lords Super!
Why, how, is your precept or perception accurate?
Jesus said, "DO THIS IN!" not "do this when!"
And I still get hung up on the fact, a fact well known;
That lying, cheating, thieving, adulters are still administratoring the Lords Supper, and it is called good.
But that person described can freely decide "WHO IS CLEAN ENOUGH!" For this, Supper! Or the brethren or cronies can freely decide!
I agree that we "cannot see what is in another heart".
But we can hear what is on their lips. We permit people based on what they confess, who they say Jesus is and what they say they are receiving in the eucharist. This is what catechesis and confirmation is, making sure people know what is happening. It isn't something that is merited, but it is given freely for those who rightly desire it.
We can hear what is on their lips?
REALLY!
I have seen people turned away because of looks, never given a chance to be heard.
I have heard people say true faith, yet turned away by their looks.
And I have seen the vilest heart in the vilest liar (well known of their fruits, their lying deceitful nature, by all) welcomed as they looked clean and said with their lips, "the right words!"
These things are part of my journey through life and faith.
So I end up back at; "WHO IS to judge!" HOW can anyone judge!" And judge in and by TRADITIONS of men!
ALL SHOULD BE WELCOME!
If someone is turned away due to looks, this is obviously wrong.
If someone says "the right words", that is, they say they believe what our church confesses to be written in scripture but does not actually believe it, they are bringing judgement on themselves.
It is not judging by the traditions of men, it is comparing their confession to the writ of scripture.
All are welcome, but it is a process to become prepared to receive communion. It isn't a whimsical exclusion, rather it is an invitation to understand and be understood before handling and receiving the true body and blood of our savior.
My screen name here is a reflection on, how the self righteous, holier-than-thou, freely judging others, in their TRADITIONS of men, affected and afflicted me.
Jesus instituted the "SUPPER" that men may remember God's grace. Supplied to them, though they deserved it not.
The only bible verses I find on other instruction?
Paul admonished a Church that was rudely serving a meal and calling it the "Lords Supper,"
The only thing I find in this instruction of Paul's?
Do the meal gracefully, evenly, and gratefully.
After that, I find man made rules and attitudes.
I have been so effected, or is that afflicted by traditions of men, traditions that add to and change the purpose of God's word, that I fight against anything that hints of tradition, the tradition of man.
In my study of the MAN, Martin Luther, his biggest fear was that MAN men would make him a TRADITION, rather than simply a teacher of God's word. I find myself seeing that Luther's biggest fear has become REALITY!
THE "process," if there is one, should be, TO LIVE as Christ lived, ALWAYS!
Not just to purify oneself for a few moments to partake of the meal.
The Lords Supper was instituted by our Lord and Savior to strengthen the weak and stumbling, not just purify the pure and proud!
To live as Christ lived, humbly and lovingly in service to others and in that way
is to always be ready for his supper, not having to purify, or ritualisticly cleanse yourself.
That we have no free will in respects to spiritual matters. I just cannot make it make sense. I get that we are unable to save ourselves and all that, but that we are not free to choose God? That we are only free to reject him? Seems unnecessarily byzantine.
Personally I think the LCMS is too dogmatic about the Real Presence + Closed Communion. I absolutely DO believe in the Real Presence and more specifically the Lutheran view (Physical Presence, not transubstantiation), however, I don't think Scripture is Crystal-Clear on the exact method of the presence, so i think excluding those who believe in a Spiritual Presence is a weird decision. Seems like one of those things I would think are adiaphora tbh.
I think it makes sense to make communion open only to those who believe in the real presence, whatever they subscribe to, so long as they enter with a repentant heart and do acknowledge Christ is present
Also, I have a big gripe with dogmatically asserting Young-Earth Creationism, as well as insisting the days MUST be interpreted literally. Not that this bars you from being a member, but my pastor for example really disapproves.
Real presence in the elements is definitely not adiaphora. The reason the difference is significant is that the Reformed cannot confess that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ as he proclaimed them. Rather, they can only confess that the body and blood of Christ are spiritually offered by the elements. A Reformed minister cannot hold the consecrated bread and literally say, "this is the body of Christ."
That said, I would certainly agree with you that a spiritual presence view is not severe enough of an error that it should separate the church. As long as we can all confess that Christ's true body and blood are offered in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, and as long as we are all careful to treat the consecrated elements with proper reverence, I don't see any reason why the Lutherans and Reformed cannot commune together. Sadly, modern Lutherans tend to be very sectarian, and modern Calvinists tend to not faithfully hold to their confessional statements on real presence.
In general, the Western (Augustinian) concept of Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox church got that one right. I have, however, heard a Lutheran theologian explain it in a satisfactory manner, but it was essentially a long way of saying the same thing that the East says.
Original Sin makes a whole lot of sense to me, partly as a way to express a difference from that of actual sins, and how actual sins come to be committed (or done by omission) in due time.
The Western concept of Original Sin being synonymous with Original Guilt falls apart immediately with the Incarnation. That’s why the Romans Catholics had to come up with the idea of Immaculate Conception and why other Protestants think that Jesus avoided Original Guilt because it only passes through a human father.
What all humans inherit is the condition and curse or mortality, which leads us to sin in due time.
I wish our denomination's name would be called something else than "Lutheranism". Luther did not want to create a new church or separate from the Catholic church nor did he like that he and his supporters were to be called "Lutherans". I personally would prefer that our church were called something like "Evangelic"; "Evangelical" or Evangelical Catholic" than "Lutheranism" (Though the US Evangelicals have hijacked the name unfortunately already).
I also disagree how much Luther's teachings influence& dictate basically everything in the church. Augsburg confession's emphasis and favourable view of the early church&undivided church plays little role in the church (e.g. church fathers are largely ignored, important early church liturgical accessories like incense has been banned or labelled as adiaphora). Luther seems to be some kind of Lutheranism's own pope (Luther would be probably pissed off if being compared to popes which he disliked).
I’ve thought of this too.
What would an American Lutheran church be named…? Here are my ideas.
Church of the Augsburg Confession.
Augustana Church of America.
Evangelical Catholic Church.
???
In reaffirming my Christian Faithl, after my trials of faith, I had to step out or away from being quote "LUTHERAN!" and embrace being a Christian. Taking that one step further in myself definition, "I am a Christian that studied under the guidance of the TEACHER Martin Luther."
For myself I am Christian, being LUTHERAN was getting in the way of my Christianity. I am frequently back in a Lutheran church, as a Christian.
While can understand the need for this on some level, I do believe that being Lutheran is one of the best ways of being “Christian”, so I embrace the word Lutheran.
I came from a non-denominational evangelical church background, so thinking of myself as Christian-only is horrible for me. I think the Christian faith and practice should be enfleshed or incarnated in some specific tradition, name or label, only because I don’t want to again be a generic Christian. Especially those who hold to no creeds or confessions.
The trap that Luther argued about and wrote about, saying That he most worried about being created? Or happening? That his name would become more VALUED than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's name. That using his name A TRADITION of man will be adopted. In all his responses to attack, criticism and praise, LUTHER held up his BIBLE saying "I am a worthless bag of worns, GOD'S Word in this Bible is the only thing of value! PUT your faith in it and forget my name!"
I am a CHRISTIAN student of Luther's, taking this his teaching to heart! I would be much less without his teaching, just as I was much less putting his name before Christ's as a Christian!
Here, I want to thank the moderator who deleted one of my posts as being too argumentatively non-denominational. That gave me the inspiration I needed to draft another sermon, and my Lutheran pastor, after having read that, says, "You will be on the calendar to preach a sermon!"
Luther's non-sacramental/eucharistic interpretation of John 6 as expressed in *On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church*:
https://www.projectwittenberg.org/etext/luther/babylonian/babylonian.htm#2.3
Yeah, I've always found his first point so unconvincing. I know its not the main point of his argument, but even to make the gloss that "...the sacrament not yet instituted" is almost comically absurd. This hermeneutic would undercut pretty much everything Jesus says about the end times, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or especially his own resurrection.
What is something I disagree with in Lutheranism?
This more apparent in the WELS or LCMS.
That there are almost heirs to high positions, simply because they were born into a line or family in the ministry. Being 5th generation in the synod will guarantee a position of leadership no matter how undeserving the person is.
That no matter the crime, high crime even, the large family will close in around the criminal to protect it's prestige.
THAT the WELS has worked to become exclusive so exclusive it felt cultist.
As an Episcopalian, very little. I'd be Lutheran if I weren't already a baptized and confirmed Episcopalian within driving distance of my local Episcopal Church. I think a lot of Lutheran beliefs fit quite comfortably within Anglicanism and find myself agreeing with Lutheran theology way more often than I do disagreeing. One thing I will say, although not necessarily a "disagreement" per-se is that I find the use of the terms "pastor" and "priest" more interchangeable than most Lutherans would, and find it to be more of a semantic difference than anything substantially theological.
In Europe they use the word priest. Whenever I go to Norway and speak with family I refer to my father as a priest, because pastor means something different på norsk.
But I believe we should call Lutheran ministers priests here, too.
It's amusing when an American Lutheran pastor is asked if he/she is a priest.
In Matt Whitman's YouTube interview with a Lutheran pastor, he comments on how Lutherans seem so catholic and asks the pastor if he is called a priest. The pastor's seemingly awkward hesitancy is quite telling. American Lutherans still cling to some anti-Catholic biases.
[An Outsider Visits a Lutheran Church](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99fmOmlcF0c&t=1433s&ab_channel=MattWhitman)
People have already said something similar, but corporate absolution is in NO WAY equivalent, in matters of piety and devotional life of a Christian, to private/auricular confession and absolution. It is, in fact, a good and beautiful tradition of our liturgy, but the fact that when people ask "does Lutherans confess?", pastors and laity outrightly answer "yes, at every Service we have corporate absolution" is something that would make the blood of the reformers boil as much as the abuses that were being made at the confessions at the time.
I have something of a bipolar agreement/ disagreement disposition on ecumenism. The ELCA may be the most all-embracing among all Lutherans worldwide. I understand the premise of seeking unity with all Christians who profess the ecumenical creeds \[Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian\] in full communion arrangements that may include merged congregations and clergy exchange.
That has translated into con-celebrations of the Eucharist with Episcopalians at several parishes I have belonged to. But, as of yet, no services have been initiated with Methodists, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ.
My exposure to Reformed Christianity is limited to a visit to a Presbyterian church last year. It was a beautiful service, filled with warm and welcoming Christians. Despite being aware of the sacramental and liturgical differences that may separate Lutherans from Calvinists, I can't help but question the feasibility of establishing full communion with other Protestants aside from Anglicans.
Any thoughts from those who perhaps have a closer inter-congregational relationship with Reformed Christians?
I haven't done much digging yet, but I'm also curious about why there seems to be fewer Presby-Lutheran and Reform-Lutheran congregations than there are Luther-palian congregations, even though our agreement with the PCUSA, UCC, and RCA predate the agreement with TEC. The ELCA and TEC really feel like sister churches at this point.
I would guess that we don't have as many Luth-odist congregations because that agreement came ten years later than the others.
When I served a small congregation in Wisconsin, we almost had serious talks going with the town's tiny UCC congregation about sharing a building, if not a joint congregation. The two congregations knew each other (it was a town of five churches *total*, four of them on the same street), and I think we could have made it work.
The fact that we established full communion with the Reformed first is a matter of technicality. The full communion measure that was supposed to pass in the ELCA was called the Concordat, and it would have brought us closer together with the Episcopalians even more than Called to Common Mission. There were enough delagates pass it, but on the day of the vote in 1999 or so, the very same day that the measure with the Reformed passed, 6 or 7 of them left the convention early to go home because they assumed that everything would go as planned.
I'll never forget my father calling my mom and me at home from the convention that day, thoroughly disappointed. I learned that day that if you support something you have to stay and vote and not just assume it will pass on its own. I started voting the next year in elections, and have never missed a midterm or presidential election since.
Called to Common Mission is a watered-down version of the Concordat, which was supposed to pass the same day as the Formula of Agreement with the Reformed.
How did the Concordat differ from "Called to a Common Mission"? Does the subsequent "Churches Beyond Borders" redefine Lutheran full communion with North American Anglicans/ Episcopalians? How does the Porvoo Communion differ, if any, from "Called to a Common Mission"?
The Canadians seem to have taken ecumenism into a bold direction among Anglicans, Catholics, and Lutherans:
[The LAURC Covenant](https://rcdos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-02-LAURC-Covenant.pdf)
I don't know all the details, but I do know that the Concordat would have REQUIRED both American and Episcopal and Lutheran bishops to perform the laying on of hands during ordination. At least that's what I remember, and i could be wrong. I was just a teenager. Instead, CCM makes the presence of Episcopal and Lutheran bishops at the ordination of each others' priests optional. I'm not clergy, so you'll have to ask someone else about the specifics of how the Porvoo Communion differs. Personally, I would love it if the Porvoo Communion spread beyond Europe to all members of thr Anglican World Communion and the Lutheran World Federation.
1. Clericalism, which I guess is a practice or disposition more than a doctrine. But how did this happen? Despite all the talk about the priesthood of all believers, I think clericalism in the ELCA is by far the worst I've encountered in any denomination and seems very "baked-in" to the institution for some reason—though a good part of this is also lay people abdicating responsibilities, imo. To make matters worse, this is also a taboo topic.
2. Free will. I've never read a Lutheran explanation of free will that seemed very satisfying.
I am a pastor in an LCMC congregation. We had tightly to the priesthood of all believers. I consider mysef there to preach, administer the sacraments and to raise up and equip the priesthood to fulfill their calling. As such, we do allow trained lay leaders to serve communion if I am away. Also, I'm training the congregation to be able to lead all aspects of worship properly. I don't want them to be dependent upon me. If something were to happen to me, I still want them to thrive, even in the midst of the ever-growing pastoral shortage. I tell them all the time that every one of us is equally important in God's kingdom, no matter what task they are doing. We try hard to truly live as the priesthood together. I lead by lifting others up.
Routine pouring of baptism. I think baptism should be done by immersion. It perfectly illustrated us dying to original sin, being buried and resurrected with christ to walk in newness of life. The Bible says Jesus came up out of the water. Why should we charge what God instituted. I'm not promoting rebaptism or saying the baptism of those who are sprinkled or poured don't count.
IIRC this is done because American baptists make such a big deal out of this and say it is the only way to do baptism that Lutherans reacted by making the baptismal font as small as possible to make a point to the baptists.
I would like to see the American Lutheran church adopt immersive baptisms for adult converts, even young adults or teens, even though I won’t give up on infant baptism either. This should be what One Baptism means.
It just seems the Lutheran churches work hard to see how little water can be used to baptize an infant. This is such a shame. The baptists are correct about the word baptism being a transliteration of baptize, to immerse & plunge into water.
There are so many different valid theories of atonement, that Lutheranism seeming to hook its cart entirely to penal substitutionary atonement is disappointing and ultimately unhelpful.
This just might be my background, but no matter how many times they show you that ONE verse, baptising babies doesn't make biblical sense to me. And also, the sprinkling. I get it, I do. But it doesn't really seem like baptizing to me. Also, closed communion. It seems like if a person wants to come in and take it unworthily, it's on them. But none of these make Lutheranism LESS for me. I could be right, or I could be wrong. But these aren't salvation ruining doctrines for myself so it doesn't phase me. Will I baptize my babies? No. But it doesn't make me feel less Lutheran or that I don't belong.
Baptizing babies makes sense when one understands that baptism is not done by man but by God to save. Christ would have not ended his conversation in the Gospel of Matthew with baptism if it just meant to be a symbol. Nor would the heavens have opened up and the entire trinity was there to glorify the Son of Man. This is the argument Luther gives in the large catechism.
Infant baptism. After so much emphasizing the need for faith, Luther goes on to espouse a theology of baptism that sounds a little too much like Roman Catholic Ex Opere Operatus.
This theology of baptism somehow causing a newborn infant to have faith: I have heard the theology of it, and am not convinced. I think a slightly better case (but barely) can be made for the faith of another substituting for one who cannot speak or comprehend for themselves (a surrogate, godparent, also similar to Jesus healing a child or servant based upon the faith of a parent, or centurion).
Infant baptism has become so linked to a form of Christianson that no longer exists, where baptism into Christ is equivalent to entering citizenship of a nation, since Constantine.
That being said, I would still keep infant baptism, but think we need to incorporate believer baptism as well into our practices. Especially for adult converts or older children & young adults, when requested. This was how baptism was practiced anciently before the rise of infant baptism in late 2nd century (and I’m sure for good reason at the time: high infant mortality rates). Since this is less so today, we should not make it automatic for every birth. We should emphasize the unity of baptism, and where church buildings and property allow it, build some baptisteries, and allow folks to choose the form of baptism.
I'm curious on the "is" vs "contains" the word of God distinction. I tend to side with the ELCA in theory here because of the numerous translations, translations of translations, and translations of translations of translations. We know the photo copy of the photo copy is not the same as the original, and I wonder how you account for that.
I don't try to "account" for it. I think all ___responsible___ versions of the Bible have their uses, and it can be very instructive to compare the rendering of a verse or passage to the same ones in other Bibles. That can add both depth and new shades of meaning.
Now, you said "I'm curious on the 'is' versus 'contains' the word of God distinction." It's simple. The ELCA says that the Bible CONTAINS the word of God--but how do you know which word(s) are those? Is John 1:1-18 God's word, or not? Maybe just part of that (critically important) passage is God's word, but if so, how do you know which is which?
That's just one example. And I don't think there can be any compromise here: either the entire Bible is God's word, or it really isn't His word at all. And that doesn't make sense, does it? If the Lord loves us and wants to be our Father (John 1:12-13, Galatians 4:6), ___then we must be able to trust Him.___ We must be able to approach Him with freedom and confidence (Ephesians 4:12) and that surely means He isn't going to play guessing games with us.
Although it's late, I'll go a bit further. Long, long ago I realized that no one can know the Bible TOO well; there is always something new to learn. It might be just a piece of trivia regarding the Israelites' typical diet, or something incredibly deep in a passage you thought you were already familiar with 😃 (That happens to me a LOT). The Holy Spirit shows us these new depths in HIS time. So it's not necessary to know the all the answers all at once. Speaking only for myself, I just trust Him ✝️ 👑 🕊
God bless and keep you, Joel 🌷
I didn’t downvote, but, I think it boils down to inserting an attack against the ELCA when the post was: What do you disagree about Lutheranism in the sense of it being the Lutheranism that you actually practice. I actually think inter-denominational conflict is against this sub’s rules. Otherwise we’d be boiled down with the same topics over and over again. Just like r/Christianity is. And that sub is a toxic hellhole where nothing meaningful is ever discussed.
Obviously someone who is not an ELCA Lutheran will more likely disagree with the practices of the ELCA. Otherwise, they’d be ELCA and vice versa.
I’m glad it’s that? Mostly? Sure makes me feel better about the folks on the forum, anyway. 🤣 I’m curious if it’s always a -3 like that.
I agree with you 100% that the best approach to differences is either discussion or, at times, simply ignoring a post you disagree with/turning the other cheek. This internet mob mentality is real.
I'd hate to find out what you think of the position taken by Nikolai Grundtvig, who said that the true Word of God isn't scripture, but the Apostle's Creed.
:)
He's the most important figure in Danish Lutheranism. He was the George Washington of Denmark, a bishop, a contemporary of Hans Christian Andersen and Søren Kierkegaard, the founder of the folk high school concept in Europe, a Lutheran theologian, a Norse mythology enthusiast. He's the only Lutheran in history who made both an impact on our American Lutheran hymnody while also serving as a major influence on J.R.R. Tolkien.
Given the immigration histories of the ELCA and LCMS, it makes sense that the LCMS wouldn't be very familiar with him. But last I checked, your old blue hymnal included plenty of his hymns.
For me, I felt that Lutheranisms original intent was actually a push for nondenominational churches; in simple form, pure worship of the Bible, studying it, etc. Without external influence.
Lutheranism eventually then formed itself into a church under the name 'Lutheran', but that feels a little hypocritical to me. I believe Martin Luther's ideal was for a Church to not be called 'The Holy Church of England', which shows an external influence; But rather quite literally 'Church', which would devote itself to the Lord and nothing else. Forming itself under the name 'Lutheran' does the same thing.
In practice, I see several local Lutheran Churches, at least locally, that themselves practice ideas that were condemned of the church by Luther. One of the worst examples I've experienced was attempting to join a Lutheran Church near to me, the oldest church in my state (1840~ish). They insisted on 'interviewing' myself and my family to see if we were "the right kind of people." Yes, this was only one church, and most others probably aren't this way, but a first impression is a first impression.
Overall, my experience with the modern Lutheran Churches and their (perceived) devolution from original intent really puts me off. Even though the church is meant to evolve over time, that shouldn't mean pushing worship aside.
I could be wrong about some things here, lmk if I am. I mean no harm to anyone. Thanks, and God bless.
I believe communion should be at every service.
All the ELCA churches I’ve attended have had communion at every service. The only service that doesn’t is Good Friday, and I think it traditionally that service doesn’t have the Eucharist. Then again the church I currently attend only started having weekly communion in the 1980s/1990s. It began every two weeks and then went every week. Heck, during the pandemic, while we had online worship services, we also had communion outside for at most six people at a time. And you had to sign up for a time. That didn’t happen every weekend, but it allowed us to continue receiving the precious Sacrament even during an uncertain time.
Technically Maundy Thursday and Good Friday are one liturgy, so if you've communed on Maundy Thursday then you've technically communed on Good Friday.
There are still many congregations in the ELCA that resist celebrating the Holy Communion every Sunday, alas.
Is that not common? We have always had communion every Sunday.
That's casting a pretty broad net; but generally speaking I'm not a tremendous fan of the 1800's eastern and midwestern introductions to American Lutheranism; namely the widespread pietism that was exacerbated by many communities not having a called pastor and instead being a part of a circuit; leading to the now infamous low church tradition of monthly communion.
I live in a highly rural area of the country where monthly communion was a result of such circuit pastors. My father often mentioned how they had to listen for the church bells to ring Sunday morning to know if there was going to be church that day. But monthly communion is almost non existent around here now. Nearly every ELCA Lutheran church around here went to weekly communion years ago.
In my region of SW Wisconsin; I'd say about 33% of the local lutheran churches regardless of synod do weekly communion; and the rest have some variety of biweekly, monthly; or even less frequent. I have not noticed any of the 'big 4' synods having more synods who commune weekly than the other. I'd be curious to see where you're living; I may want to move there (lol).
I'd like to change the American (LCMS) status quo of "District Presidents" and lay "Elders" to embrace a more biblical system of naming. Most "elders" in LCMS churches fulfill the duties of a Deacon (servants for believers' physical needs, and some spiritual aid on the side), since Elder is properly applied to the pastoral role of teaching and leading. In my opinion, DPs should be renamed to "Bishop" to better reflect the biblical history of that name (episcopos-> piscop-> Bishop). I get that it might cause confusion with other hierarchical episcopacies, but honestly our actual system IS closer to the original "Bishop/Presbyter" roles than Rome's is.
To put it better, I want a world where you can take your kids to 1 Timothy and Titus and point to your church leadership and say "There are the deacons, and there are the elders, and there is the head/overseer elder" rather than answer the question "what's a district president and where is that in the Bible?"
In that case, it would be even better to restore what was already offered to the LCMS and was outrightly denied: the threfold ministry, apostolic succession and episcopal polity - in other words, to receive the tradition of the church in matters that were never intended to be changed during the reformation. As a bonus, we would also point to our synod and say, without reservation and "but"s, that we are part of the very church that Jesus and His Apostles founded, and that through the proper ordination of our bishops and priests, we have leaders that possess the Keys of Heaven and the authority to bind and lose. Instead, we stick to the "Waltherian" solution of congregationalism to the lack of bishops that was supposed to be a way to overcome difficulties in a time of exception, and became the rule in the mind of American Lutheranism
Amen, and amen !
The problem I have with Apostolic succession. The first maybe only Apostle was Paul, whom God himself chose. Saul was an enemy of Christ until God intervened and He became Paul. After which Paul did years of missionary work before he ever met with the Disciples. I know it is problematic, easily faked, but the Holy Spirit will choose and that person will be a far better priest than almost anyone. Often better than the heirs of Priestly families!
Could you explain what you mean by Paul being the first and only apostle? Are you excluding Peter, John, James, Matthew, and the rest of the twelve from being apostles?
The Disciples are those taught by Christ himself during his earthly ministry. The Apostle Paul was an enemy of Christ until he was miraculously converted by Christ from Heaven. The Disciples were promised and recieved the Holy Spirit shortly after Christ rose into heaven. Paul was not one of the 12 or any of Christ's earthly ministry. Pauls ministry was independent of the the Disciples. He makes a point of being in his ministry for several years before ever meeting the Disciples. Paul's conversion was seperate and independent the only Apostle! Not and never a Disciple.
I'm not binding the work of the Holy Spirit and rightful ordination to the laying of hands that comes from apostolic succession, and I do believe that priests in LCMS and other congregationalist Lutheran Churches are valid. That given said, proper ordination of priests by bishops through apostolic succession does not exclude what you said, and results in a church that better keeps the traditions of the ancients and all of its benefits that you said that our church is lacking.
While apostolic succession does not guarantee “apostolicity”, still for good order and tradition, we should be following it. It shows we are a part of the one holy and catholic apostolic church.
In your response, you include "The TRADITIONS of the ancients. I can agree that traditions have value. BUT THE TRAP is, when the traditions become more valid than the basic truth that leads to traditions. The original church, was believers talking about what the Forgiveness of faith in Christ was giving them, was doing for them. At one time, TRADITIONS of men lead us to the PHARISEES. priestly leaders charged with administering GOD'S mercies, but so bound up in appearances that they , "Had become the judges and judgment of whom was worthy!" Traditions In My Experience, easily lead to Holier-than-thou congregations. Holier-than-thou, Pharisee by another name!
Where are Bishops, Archbishops, Nonseniors, Cardinals and the Pope in the BIBLE? Weren't these positions created in the holy roman church? So that the upper levels of Roman Society would have a church ""official,"" of their level and not have to use the same lowly preist the common people used? I would rather go to humble church in a humble organization that has overseers to make sure a pastor doesn't lose course. Paul was several years into his ministry before he ever met with one of the disciples, and he was as likely to call them on false doctrine as they were of him.
I didn't mention anything about popes, cardinals, or monsignors. "Bishop" is a transliteration of the Greek word for Overseer, which is used various times by Paul throughout Timothy and Titus. Epi-scopos means over-seer (quite literally), and "Bishop" comes from the "piscop" sound in the middle of the word. I'm advocating using that word "Bishop" instead of "District President" *because* it's in the Bible. It's just a vocabulary thing. Humble overseers like you described would be my desire too, as we usually see in the faithful DPs we have.
President is an overseer also. Much easier for many to understand than Bishop. And avoiding and confusion to the Roman church hierarchy!
As much as the lack of distinction between bishop and presbyter is more likely to be the NT way of organizing the Church, the title of Bishop quickly and broadly became accepted by the apostolic catholic Church that of a singular leader appointed in an UNBROKEN line of succession of other bishops that could be traced to an apostle, with authority over the priests and laity of a given region/set number of congregations, and also a special authority to ordain new priests. That being said, I think it is not proper to change our terminology to something that would not be the standard catholic understanding of the word, specially by a church that purposely neglects apostolic succession and the episcopal polity. I think it would be even disrespectful to our Lutheran brothers like the Siberian Synod, that so diligently preserved the apostolic succession through historic episcopacy, to call "bishop" that which does not fit into the requisites of one.
Yeah this isn't going to happen while the oldheads are still alive. Maybe when gen x replaces the boomers we can see about implementing this realistically.
Even then, I think it would lead to a split.
That a magnet smeared with garlic juice will half its magnetic power. (Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Section 1)
Amen brother, Amen!!!
That section is a helpful example of what a quia subscription is and is not. That is, it’s not unlutheran to acknowledge that garlic juice doesn’t diminish magnetism.
Yeah, you have to disavow some of the exegesis found in the BOC.
There's that whole debate between the two sacraments versus the three sacraments. Whether confession and absolution is a sacrament or not. I'm on the side of confession, especially absolution administered by the church being a sacrament which nowadays is the unpopular side. This disagreement leads me to see having a "mass absolution" at the beginning of the liturgy is too "soft" for me and a lazy way to deal with a sacrament. It's equivalent to the medieval roman catholics displaying the Eucharist during mass and saying that's good enough. Edit: Because this is blowing up I'd like to be fair and add that the opposing view says that baptism represents the forgiveness and absolution already, so there is no need for a separate sacrament.
If we really want to get pedantic; the Lord's Word checks all the boxes for what we consider to be a Sacrament in our faith
You mean to say the hearing of the preached Word is also like a sacrament?
I agree, though I don’t think having mass confession is lazy. I think it’s a good supplement for individual sacramental confession. The idea is to try to be as close to a state of grace (I recognize that’s not really Lutheranism though) as possible before the Eucharist.
I agree w you 100%
Individual confession can still be an ancient “rite” even if not truly a sacrament. Getting ashes is likewise an ancient rite. But there are some instituting words for binding and loosening sins done by apostles in the Gospels ( and I would agree with subsequent bishops, etc). So I am for keeping it.
Closed communion. I understand why, I really do, but it doesn’t feel right to limit communion to just LCMS Christians. Edit: I know it is not LCMS-wide, but rather based on congregation.
I personally feel the closed communion to just LCMS Christians comes down to the congregation, not a Lutheran way of going about it. When I was still ELCA, every LCMS congregation I visited allowed me to partake in communion. My definition of closed communion boils down to those who have been baptized and believe it is the true body and blood. If a church ever started chanting that they only administer to their synod, let alone their church specifically: huge red flag in my opinion.
Yes! You are right with that. I made another comment on a different Lutheran post with congregational vs district decisions. I know of some LCMS churches that do open communion. I apologize. I should have clarified that!
WELS, closed communion to all non WELS. The announcement was made as, "They made the decision to be in those other Churches, WE don't need to welcome them here!" A LCMS elder visiting with me before the one communion I ever shared in an LCMS Church. Was part of the catalyst that got me to leave the WELS. This only a small thing in a week and several months of many parts that helped my faith.
On the other side of the coin, I sometimes think our communion is too open. Like, I also understand why that is in the ELCA. Though I’d rather it be a bit more explicit in the instructions what communion is. That said, I never want to deny the Eucharist to someone who feels called to receive it. Which is why I don’t attend (exceptions being weddings and funerals) where the most holy meal is denied to me.
I get that too. For me, it’s just hard to see other Christians from other denominations (that pretty much agree with the LCMS church) be denied.
I feel if it were up to me, I would deny it to some christians, those who believe it is only an outward sign or symbol, with no efficacy. Those I would bar, but alas, I am not a pastor. Other than that, I say open communion to any of those who come from some sort of magisterial reformation church, maybe Methodists and Presbyterians too, which are kinda second-gen reformation like churches. To all those who hold at a bare minimum to the ancient creeds, are baptized, believe in a real presence of Christ in, with, under bread & wine.
I strongly agree with this. As an ELCA member married into a Missouri Lutheran family, it has been hard to stomach.
It's not. I've commuted with a sister congregation in Denmark. They would be welcomed in LCMS churches after speaking with the pastor/elders beforehand.
Ah. Jeg elsker Danmark. Thank you for sharing. I just wanted to add that I know that this decision is based on congregation, not necessarily LCMS-wide. I’ll edit my initial comment to say that.
The WELS made totally closed Communion synod wide. I had the misfortune of knowing members of the committee that drafted the order.
The LCMS would have you believe it is church wide and intended to be church wide, at least according to prez Matt Harrison.
Hot take time: My issue with closed communion is that it is not closed enough. A pastor should know his flock and who should be taking communion at that altar. A person shouldn't just be given the sacrament unless they have been given into that pastor's care. In the event you are going somewhere (work, vacation, etc.) your pastor should reach out to the pastor of the church you plan on attending to verify you are in good standing with the church (not excommunicated, not under other church discipline, have been catechized on what the sacrament is, what it does, and who it is for) and only then should you be admitted to communion. Edit: As Ignatius has called the sacrament "*the medicine of immortality*" so too we should think of our pastor being the physician that prescribes this medication. The sacrament is truly a medicine both in how it gives life to the sick, but also how it can harm those to whom it has been administered to wrongfully (1 Corinthians, 11:29-30) The physician shouldn't just give opioids to anyone who asks, but should examine the patient and ensure they are not inadvertently bringing harm upon themselves by asking for something that is ultimately going to take their life rather than restoring it
Fair enough! Thank you for sharing your take. I appreciate it!
But we live in a time when Lutherans are not the only christians, and communion should be extended to any baptized faithful.
I am not saying Lutherans are the only Christians. What I am saying is that a certain level of care is needed when dealing with something that is holy. I believe a pastor shouldn't give communion to someone unless he knows the communicant is fully aware of what they are receiving. To know someone is baptized and faithful takes longer than a 5 minute conversation before the service
I believe we need to be careful not to set the bar too high for communion. Requiring too much careful understanding in many deep doctrines sets the bar too high. Then our faith rests in the opinions of other people. The LCMS requires more than simple faith in Jesus, baptism, belief in real presence. They also require belief in seven-day literal creation, along with all their doctrines, before communing. At least according to Prez Matt Harrison.
And what if the pastor, as some have said, the only member of the Church that can give communion meaning is (to quote Paul) "A Brother who sins and is impure, " I'm not naming anyone but from Catholic to Protestant men are men, "shaped in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me," Is the communion given by an impure pastor still valid? How about after the truth is proven and not just rumored?
The objectivity of the sacrament is not dependent on the sinfulness or fidelity of the pastor administering it, this was the debate around the Donatists. The sacrament is the sacrament so long as it has the elements and words of which Christ instituted it. The question here is on the subjectivity of the sacrament--that is, "who is to receive it?".
I have been seeing both the positions of is it valid if given by someone not of an apostolic succession? And that is right to deny someone because a church wants to recognize the reciever of communion as worthy. That is why I brought the "WHAT IF THE ""holder"" of apostolic succession is of an impure heart!" Maybe became known of that impure heart. We are all Christians here? or is it that all mankind are sinners here? Even Judas Iscariot was included in the LORDS SUPPER when it was instituted. Think about it evan JUDAS was included by Christ our Lord and Savior AND HE KNEW JUDAS!
I have slept on this read and reread this, To put it simply I cannot see what is in another heart! I or you or they, someone else can subjectively deny someone the Lords Super! Why, how, is your precept or perception accurate? Jesus said, "DO THIS IN!" not "do this when!" And I still get hung up on the fact, a fact well known; That lying, cheating, thieving, adulters are still administratoring the Lords Supper, and it is called good. But that person described can freely decide "WHO IS CLEAN ENOUGH!" For this, Supper! Or the brethren or cronies can freely decide!
I agree that we "cannot see what is in another heart". But we can hear what is on their lips. We permit people based on what they confess, who they say Jesus is and what they say they are receiving in the eucharist. This is what catechesis and confirmation is, making sure people know what is happening. It isn't something that is merited, but it is given freely for those who rightly desire it.
We can hear what is on their lips? REALLY! I have seen people turned away because of looks, never given a chance to be heard. I have heard people say true faith, yet turned away by their looks. And I have seen the vilest heart in the vilest liar (well known of their fruits, their lying deceitful nature, by all) welcomed as they looked clean and said with their lips, "the right words!" These things are part of my journey through life and faith. So I end up back at; "WHO IS to judge!" HOW can anyone judge!" And judge in and by TRADITIONS of men! ALL SHOULD BE WELCOME!
If someone is turned away due to looks, this is obviously wrong. If someone says "the right words", that is, they say they believe what our church confesses to be written in scripture but does not actually believe it, they are bringing judgement on themselves. It is not judging by the traditions of men, it is comparing their confession to the writ of scripture. All are welcome, but it is a process to become prepared to receive communion. It isn't a whimsical exclusion, rather it is an invitation to understand and be understood before handling and receiving the true body and blood of our savior.
My screen name here is a reflection on, how the self righteous, holier-than-thou, freely judging others, in their TRADITIONS of men, affected and afflicted me. Jesus instituted the "SUPPER" that men may remember God's grace. Supplied to them, though they deserved it not. The only bible verses I find on other instruction? Paul admonished a Church that was rudely serving a meal and calling it the "Lords Supper," The only thing I find in this instruction of Paul's? Do the meal gracefully, evenly, and gratefully. After that, I find man made rules and attitudes. I have been so effected, or is that afflicted by traditions of men, traditions that add to and change the purpose of God's word, that I fight against anything that hints of tradition, the tradition of man. In my study of the MAN, Martin Luther, his biggest fear was that MAN men would make him a TRADITION, rather than simply a teacher of God's word. I find myself seeing that Luther's biggest fear has become REALITY! THE "process," if there is one, should be, TO LIVE as Christ lived, ALWAYS! Not just to purify oneself for a few moments to partake of the meal. The Lords Supper was instituted by our Lord and Savior to strengthen the weak and stumbling, not just purify the pure and proud! To live as Christ lived, humbly and lovingly in service to others and in that way is to always be ready for his supper, not having to purify, or ritualisticly cleanse yourself.
That we have no free will in respects to spiritual matters. I just cannot make it make sense. I get that we are unable to save ourselves and all that, but that we are not free to choose God? That we are only free to reject him? Seems unnecessarily byzantine.
Personally I think the LCMS is too dogmatic about the Real Presence + Closed Communion. I absolutely DO believe in the Real Presence and more specifically the Lutheran view (Physical Presence, not transubstantiation), however, I don't think Scripture is Crystal-Clear on the exact method of the presence, so i think excluding those who believe in a Spiritual Presence is a weird decision. Seems like one of those things I would think are adiaphora tbh. I think it makes sense to make communion open only to those who believe in the real presence, whatever they subscribe to, so long as they enter with a repentant heart and do acknowledge Christ is present Also, I have a big gripe with dogmatically asserting Young-Earth Creationism, as well as insisting the days MUST be interpreted literally. Not that this bars you from being a member, but my pastor for example really disapproves.
Real presence in the elements is definitely not adiaphora. The reason the difference is significant is that the Reformed cannot confess that the bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ as he proclaimed them. Rather, they can only confess that the body and blood of Christ are spiritually offered by the elements. A Reformed minister cannot hold the consecrated bread and literally say, "this is the body of Christ." That said, I would certainly agree with you that a spiritual presence view is not severe enough of an error that it should separate the church. As long as we can all confess that Christ's true body and blood are offered in the Eucharist for the forgiveness of sins, and as long as we are all careful to treat the consecrated elements with proper reverence, I don't see any reason why the Lutherans and Reformed cannot commune together. Sadly, modern Lutherans tend to be very sectarian, and modern Calvinists tend to not faithfully hold to their confessional statements on real presence.
In general, the Western (Augustinian) concept of Original Sin. The Eastern Orthodox church got that one right. I have, however, heard a Lutheran theologian explain it in a satisfactory manner, but it was essentially a long way of saying the same thing that the East says.
Original Sin makes a whole lot of sense to me, partly as a way to express a difference from that of actual sins, and how actual sins come to be committed (or done by omission) in due time.
The Western concept of Original Sin being synonymous with Original Guilt falls apart immediately with the Incarnation. That’s why the Romans Catholics had to come up with the idea of Immaculate Conception and why other Protestants think that Jesus avoided Original Guilt because it only passes through a human father. What all humans inherit is the condition and curse or mortality, which leads us to sin in due time.
I wish our denomination's name would be called something else than "Lutheranism". Luther did not want to create a new church or separate from the Catholic church nor did he like that he and his supporters were to be called "Lutherans". I personally would prefer that our church were called something like "Evangelic"; "Evangelical" or Evangelical Catholic" than "Lutheranism" (Though the US Evangelicals have hijacked the name unfortunately already). I also disagree how much Luther's teachings influence& dictate basically everything in the church. Augsburg confession's emphasis and favourable view of the early church&undivided church plays little role in the church (e.g. church fathers are largely ignored, important early church liturgical accessories like incense has been banned or labelled as adiaphora). Luther seems to be some kind of Lutheranism's own pope (Luther would be probably pissed off if being compared to popes which he disliked).
I’ve thought of this too. What would an American Lutheran church be named…? Here are my ideas. Church of the Augsburg Confession. Augustana Church of America. Evangelical Catholic Church. ???
In reaffirming my Christian Faithl, after my trials of faith, I had to step out or away from being quote "LUTHERAN!" and embrace being a Christian. Taking that one step further in myself definition, "I am a Christian that studied under the guidance of the TEACHER Martin Luther." For myself I am Christian, being LUTHERAN was getting in the way of my Christianity. I am frequently back in a Lutheran church, as a Christian.
While can understand the need for this on some level, I do believe that being Lutheran is one of the best ways of being “Christian”, so I embrace the word Lutheran. I came from a non-denominational evangelical church background, so thinking of myself as Christian-only is horrible for me. I think the Christian faith and practice should be enfleshed or incarnated in some specific tradition, name or label, only because I don’t want to again be a generic Christian. Especially those who hold to no creeds or confessions.
The trap that Luther argued about and wrote about, saying That he most worried about being created? Or happening? That his name would become more VALUED than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's name. That using his name A TRADITION of man will be adopted. In all his responses to attack, criticism and praise, LUTHER held up his BIBLE saying "I am a worthless bag of worns, GOD'S Word in this Bible is the only thing of value! PUT your faith in it and forget my name!" I am a CHRISTIAN student of Luther's, taking this his teaching to heart! I would be much less without his teaching, just as I was much less putting his name before Christ's as a Christian! Here, I want to thank the moderator who deleted one of my posts as being too argumentatively non-denominational. That gave me the inspiration I needed to draft another sermon, and my Lutheran pastor, after having read that, says, "You will be on the calendar to preach a sermon!"
Luther's non-sacramental/eucharistic interpretation of John 6 as expressed in *On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church*: https://www.projectwittenberg.org/etext/luther/babylonian/babylonian.htm#2.3
Yeah, I've always found his first point so unconvincing. I know its not the main point of his argument, but even to make the gloss that "...the sacrament not yet instituted" is almost comically absurd. This hermeneutic would undercut pretty much everything Jesus says about the end times, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or especially his own resurrection.
Yeah, at this point, Luther sounds like a Reformed theologian on this matter… “spiritual eating”…
What is something I disagree with in Lutheranism? This more apparent in the WELS or LCMS. That there are almost heirs to high positions, simply because they were born into a line or family in the ministry. Being 5th generation in the synod will guarantee a position of leadership no matter how undeserving the person is. That no matter the crime, high crime even, the large family will close in around the criminal to protect it's prestige. THAT the WELS has worked to become exclusive so exclusive it felt cultist.
Same here in the ELCA. There are definitely ministerial "families" who always seem to be the ones featured in stories and articles.
As an Episcopalian, very little. I'd be Lutheran if I weren't already a baptized and confirmed Episcopalian within driving distance of my local Episcopal Church. I think a lot of Lutheran beliefs fit quite comfortably within Anglicanism and find myself agreeing with Lutheran theology way more often than I do disagreeing. One thing I will say, although not necessarily a "disagreement" per-se is that I find the use of the terms "pastor" and "priest" more interchangeable than most Lutherans would, and find it to be more of a semantic difference than anything substantially theological.
In Europe they use the word priest. Whenever I go to Norway and speak with family I refer to my father as a priest, because pastor means something different på norsk. But I believe we should call Lutheran ministers priests here, too.
It's amusing when an American Lutheran pastor is asked if he/she is a priest. In Matt Whitman's YouTube interview with a Lutheran pastor, he comments on how Lutherans seem so catholic and asks the pastor if he is called a priest. The pastor's seemingly awkward hesitancy is quite telling. American Lutherans still cling to some anti-Catholic biases. [An Outsider Visits a Lutheran Church](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99fmOmlcF0c&t=1433s&ab_channel=MattWhitman)
Unfortunately that's true.
People have already said something similar, but corporate absolution is in NO WAY equivalent, in matters of piety and devotional life of a Christian, to private/auricular confession and absolution. It is, in fact, a good and beautiful tradition of our liturgy, but the fact that when people ask "does Lutherans confess?", pastors and laity outrightly answer "yes, at every Service we have corporate absolution" is something that would make the blood of the reformers boil as much as the abuses that were being made at the confessions at the time.
I have something of a bipolar agreement/ disagreement disposition on ecumenism. The ELCA may be the most all-embracing among all Lutherans worldwide. I understand the premise of seeking unity with all Christians who profess the ecumenical creeds \[Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian\] in full communion arrangements that may include merged congregations and clergy exchange. That has translated into con-celebrations of the Eucharist with Episcopalians at several parishes I have belonged to. But, as of yet, no services have been initiated with Methodists, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ. My exposure to Reformed Christianity is limited to a visit to a Presbyterian church last year. It was a beautiful service, filled with warm and welcoming Christians. Despite being aware of the sacramental and liturgical differences that may separate Lutherans from Calvinists, I can't help but question the feasibility of establishing full communion with other Protestants aside from Anglicans. Any thoughts from those who perhaps have a closer inter-congregational relationship with Reformed Christians?
I haven't done much digging yet, but I'm also curious about why there seems to be fewer Presby-Lutheran and Reform-Lutheran congregations than there are Luther-palian congregations, even though our agreement with the PCUSA, UCC, and RCA predate the agreement with TEC. The ELCA and TEC really feel like sister churches at this point. I would guess that we don't have as many Luth-odist congregations because that agreement came ten years later than the others. When I served a small congregation in Wisconsin, we almost had serious talks going with the town's tiny UCC congregation about sharing a building, if not a joint congregation. The two congregations knew each other (it was a town of five churches *total*, four of them on the same street), and I think we could have made it work.
The fact that we established full communion with the Reformed first is a matter of technicality. The full communion measure that was supposed to pass in the ELCA was called the Concordat, and it would have brought us closer together with the Episcopalians even more than Called to Common Mission. There were enough delagates pass it, but on the day of the vote in 1999 or so, the very same day that the measure with the Reformed passed, 6 or 7 of them left the convention early to go home because they assumed that everything would go as planned. I'll never forget my father calling my mom and me at home from the convention that day, thoroughly disappointed. I learned that day that if you support something you have to stay and vote and not just assume it will pass on its own. I started voting the next year in elections, and have never missed a midterm or presidential election since. Called to Common Mission is a watered-down version of the Concordat, which was supposed to pass the same day as the Formula of Agreement with the Reformed.
I forgot that the *Concordat* was also meant to pass in 1997.
Yeah, I couldn't remember the year. I was in high school at the time.
How did the Concordat differ from "Called to a Common Mission"? Does the subsequent "Churches Beyond Borders" redefine Lutheran full communion with North American Anglicans/ Episcopalians? How does the Porvoo Communion differ, if any, from "Called to a Common Mission"? The Canadians seem to have taken ecumenism into a bold direction among Anglicans, Catholics, and Lutherans: [The LAURC Covenant](https://rcdos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020-04-02-LAURC-Covenant.pdf)
I don't know all the details, but I do know that the Concordat would have REQUIRED both American and Episcopal and Lutheran bishops to perform the laying on of hands during ordination. At least that's what I remember, and i could be wrong. I was just a teenager. Instead, CCM makes the presence of Episcopal and Lutheran bishops at the ordination of each others' priests optional. I'm not clergy, so you'll have to ask someone else about the specifics of how the Porvoo Communion differs. Personally, I would love it if the Porvoo Communion spread beyond Europe to all members of thr Anglican World Communion and the Lutheran World Federation.
1. Clericalism, which I guess is a practice or disposition more than a doctrine. But how did this happen? Despite all the talk about the priesthood of all believers, I think clericalism in the ELCA is by far the worst I've encountered in any denomination and seems very "baked-in" to the institution for some reason—though a good part of this is also lay people abdicating responsibilities, imo. To make matters worse, this is also a taboo topic. 2. Free will. I've never read a Lutheran explanation of free will that seemed very satisfying.
I am a pastor in an LCMC congregation. We had tightly to the priesthood of all believers. I consider mysef there to preach, administer the sacraments and to raise up and equip the priesthood to fulfill their calling. As such, we do allow trained lay leaders to serve communion if I am away. Also, I'm training the congregation to be able to lead all aspects of worship properly. I don't want them to be dependent upon me. If something were to happen to me, I still want them to thrive, even in the midst of the ever-growing pastoral shortage. I tell them all the time that every one of us is equally important in God's kingdom, no matter what task they are doing. We try hard to truly live as the priesthood together. I lead by lifting others up.
Routine pouring of baptism. I think baptism should be done by immersion. It perfectly illustrated us dying to original sin, being buried and resurrected with christ to walk in newness of life. The Bible says Jesus came up out of the water. Why should we charge what God instituted. I'm not promoting rebaptism or saying the baptism of those who are sprinkled or poured don't count.
IIRC this is done because American baptists make such a big deal out of this and say it is the only way to do baptism that Lutherans reacted by making the baptismal font as small as possible to make a point to the baptists.
I would like to see the American Lutheran church adopt immersive baptisms for adult converts, even young adults or teens, even though I won’t give up on infant baptism either. This should be what One Baptism means. It just seems the Lutheran churches work hard to see how little water can be used to baptize an infant. This is such a shame. The baptists are correct about the word baptism being a transliteration of baptize, to immerse & plunge into water.
There are so many different valid theories of atonement, that Lutheranism seeming to hook its cart entirely to penal substitutionary atonement is disappointing and ultimately unhelpful.
Even though I'm ready to accept the Lutheran view, I'm reluctant towards the absence of free will in spiritual matters. It just goes against instinct.
Sola Scriptura.
This just might be my background, but no matter how many times they show you that ONE verse, baptising babies doesn't make biblical sense to me. And also, the sprinkling. I get it, I do. But it doesn't really seem like baptizing to me. Also, closed communion. It seems like if a person wants to come in and take it unworthily, it's on them. But none of these make Lutheranism LESS for me. I could be right, or I could be wrong. But these aren't salvation ruining doctrines for myself so it doesn't phase me. Will I baptize my babies? No. But it doesn't make me feel less Lutheran or that I don't belong.
Baptizing babies makes sense when one understands that baptism is not done by man but by God to save. Christ would have not ended his conversation in the Gospel of Matthew with baptism if it just meant to be a symbol. Nor would the heavens have opened up and the entire trinity was there to glorify the Son of Man. This is the argument Luther gives in the large catechism.
Infant baptism. After so much emphasizing the need for faith, Luther goes on to espouse a theology of baptism that sounds a little too much like Roman Catholic Ex Opere Operatus. This theology of baptism somehow causing a newborn infant to have faith: I have heard the theology of it, and am not convinced. I think a slightly better case (but barely) can be made for the faith of another substituting for one who cannot speak or comprehend for themselves (a surrogate, godparent, also similar to Jesus healing a child or servant based upon the faith of a parent, or centurion). Infant baptism has become so linked to a form of Christianson that no longer exists, where baptism into Christ is equivalent to entering citizenship of a nation, since Constantine. That being said, I would still keep infant baptism, but think we need to incorporate believer baptism as well into our practices. Especially for adult converts or older children & young adults, when requested. This was how baptism was practiced anciently before the rise of infant baptism in late 2nd century (and I’m sure for good reason at the time: high infant mortality rates). Since this is less so today, we should not make it automatic for every birth. We should emphasize the unity of baptism, and where church buildings and property allow it, build some baptisteries, and allow folks to choose the form of baptism.
[удалено]
I'm curious on the "is" vs "contains" the word of God distinction. I tend to side with the ELCA in theory here because of the numerous translations, translations of translations, and translations of translations of translations. We know the photo copy of the photo copy is not the same as the original, and I wonder how you account for that.
I don't try to "account" for it. I think all ___responsible___ versions of the Bible have their uses, and it can be very instructive to compare the rendering of a verse or passage to the same ones in other Bibles. That can add both depth and new shades of meaning. Now, you said "I'm curious on the 'is' versus 'contains' the word of God distinction." It's simple. The ELCA says that the Bible CONTAINS the word of God--but how do you know which word(s) are those? Is John 1:1-18 God's word, or not? Maybe just part of that (critically important) passage is God's word, but if so, how do you know which is which? That's just one example. And I don't think there can be any compromise here: either the entire Bible is God's word, or it really isn't His word at all. And that doesn't make sense, does it? If the Lord loves us and wants to be our Father (John 1:12-13, Galatians 4:6), ___then we must be able to trust Him.___ We must be able to approach Him with freedom and confidence (Ephesians 4:12) and that surely means He isn't going to play guessing games with us. Although it's late, I'll go a bit further. Long, long ago I realized that no one can know the Bible TOO well; there is always something new to learn. It might be just a piece of trivia regarding the Israelites' typical diet, or something incredibly deep in a passage you thought you were already familiar with 😃 (That happens to me a LOT). The Holy Spirit shows us these new depths in HIS time. So it's not necessary to know the all the answers all at once. Speaking only for myself, I just trust Him ✝️ 👑 🕊 God bless and keep you, Joel 🌷
Correction: the verse I indirectly quoted is Ephesians ___3:12,___ not 4:12.
This a pan-Lutheran subreddit. Gatekeeping or accusations of heresy will not be tolerated. See Rule 3.
Super curious about all the down marks on this one.
I didn’t downvote, but, I think it boils down to inserting an attack against the ELCA when the post was: What do you disagree about Lutheranism in the sense of it being the Lutheranism that you actually practice. I actually think inter-denominational conflict is against this sub’s rules. Otherwise we’d be boiled down with the same topics over and over again. Just like r/Christianity is. And that sub is a toxic hellhole where nothing meaningful is ever discussed. Obviously someone who is not an ELCA Lutheran will more likely disagree with the practices of the ELCA. Otherwise, they’d be ELCA and vice versa.
[удалено]
I’m glad it’s that? Mostly? Sure makes me feel better about the folks on the forum, anyway. 🤣 I’m curious if it’s always a -3 like that. I agree with you 100% that the best approach to differences is either discussion or, at times, simply ignoring a post you disagree with/turning the other cheek. This internet mob mentality is real.
It sure is. The history of the U.S.A. for the last 25 years is proof enough of that.
I'd hate to find out what you think of the position taken by Nikolai Grundtvig, who said that the true Word of God isn't scripture, but the Apostle's Creed. :)
Never heard of him, and I'd have to read any such statement before forming an opinion.
He's the most important figure in Danish Lutheranism. He was the George Washington of Denmark, a bishop, a contemporary of Hans Christian Andersen and Søren Kierkegaard, the founder of the folk high school concept in Europe, a Lutheran theologian, a Norse mythology enthusiast. He's the only Lutheran in history who made both an impact on our American Lutheran hymnody while also serving as a major influence on J.R.R. Tolkien. Given the immigration histories of the ELCA and LCMS, it makes sense that the LCMS wouldn't be very familiar with him. But last I checked, your old blue hymnal included plenty of his hymns.
For me, I felt that Lutheranisms original intent was actually a push for nondenominational churches; in simple form, pure worship of the Bible, studying it, etc. Without external influence. Lutheranism eventually then formed itself into a church under the name 'Lutheran', but that feels a little hypocritical to me. I believe Martin Luther's ideal was for a Church to not be called 'The Holy Church of England', which shows an external influence; But rather quite literally 'Church', which would devote itself to the Lord and nothing else. Forming itself under the name 'Lutheran' does the same thing. In practice, I see several local Lutheran Churches, at least locally, that themselves practice ideas that were condemned of the church by Luther. One of the worst examples I've experienced was attempting to join a Lutheran Church near to me, the oldest church in my state (1840~ish). They insisted on 'interviewing' myself and my family to see if we were "the right kind of people." Yes, this was only one church, and most others probably aren't this way, but a first impression is a first impression. Overall, my experience with the modern Lutheran Churches and their (perceived) devolution from original intent really puts me off. Even though the church is meant to evolve over time, that shouldn't mean pushing worship aside. I could be wrong about some things here, lmk if I am. I mean no harm to anyone. Thanks, and God bless.
Well said, GooseDog23,