| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scott
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:39 am Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
 |
|
Actually I was referring to the Pastor since that is who is in the stead of
Christ.
You know: "as a called and ordained servant ............in the stead and
by the command
of my Lord Jesus Christ ...." Well, if the person delivering that message
to the congregation
is "in the stead" of Christ then how can that be a woman??
Sure, the cry will be that I'm being too literal again, but WHERE do you
draw that line?
For me it becomes simple when you take into account that the Church is the
bride of Christ.
So it might map out like this:
Christ = Groom
Church = Bride.
Pastor ~= Christ
Church = Bride (still)
Therefore, Pastor = Male
If
Pastor = Female and
Church still = Bride
then we have a homosexual "marriage" taking place at the altar.
Not to mention the scripture about women being silent in the church.
"RJ" <re_johnson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1g2s45c.t283421mmkn68N%re_johnson@hotmail.com...
| Quote: | Scott <brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
If the Church is the bride of Christ, then it follows that the person
leading the
Church in the stead of Christ be male.
You must be leaving a lot out, because that sentence by itself makes no
sense. Unless you're speaking of the Pope, maybe. |
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Toranut97
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:44 am Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
Kami,
I think I said up from that I think many of our differences (if not most)
stem from differing methods of biblical interpretation. I know that the LCMS
does not approve of the historical-critical method, nor does it utilize this
method of study. Your conclusion about what happens in cases where this is
"taken to the extreme" is of course conjecture --- and an opinion with which
I disagree personally. Someone seeking to attack the Bible and its central
message of salvation would not need to mess around with the
historical-critical method. They have other ways of doing this. The h-c
method is used prayerfully and with the hope of the Holy Spirit's
enlightening presence.
In any case, I do not seek to promote this method with members of the LCMS.
Yes, I agree -- we sure do disagree!
Donna
"kami" <kami@kami.ka> wrote in message news:3F89DB1D.20605@kami.ka...
| Quote: |
Toranut97 wrote:
Can't we at least agree to disagree in a civil manner? I do not
attack the LCMS here. I told MAK to head on over to the LCMS and
enjoy blessings and enrichment there. I meant it sincerely. Can't we
leave well enough alone?
If there's to be discussion there also should be honesty regarding the
official stands of the synods.
At the ELCA webite within their FAQ section it states:
www.elca.org/co/faq/elcalcms.html
"The pattern of Scripture interpretation generally practiced in the ELCA
seeks to consider carefully the meanings of passages and their form. The
time and place in which passages were written are studied to assist in
interpretation. Emphasis is placed on the message of a text in the
context of Scripture. As indicated in the ELCA's constitution, 'This
church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as
the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its
proclamation, faith, and life.'"
This, in one breath while ELCA as a denomination states the Bible is:
"The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written
Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors,
they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ.
Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian
faith and fellowship for service in the world..." they are also stating
it doesn't need to have literal application whether or not the words of
the passage read indicates it or not. That while it is "inspirired" and
may hold God's truth...it does not need to be factual or a historical
account. Which is evidenced by what was found within their FAQ
section regarding the Genesis creation:
www.elca.org/co/faq/evolution.html
"The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution,
but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical
interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is
therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may
actually have used evolution in the process of creation.
'Historical criticism' is an understanding that the Bible must be
understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written."
Taken to the extreme so-called "Historical criticism" and confining the
Bible to it's "cultural context" can ultimately deny Jesus Christ,
who is is, and what He has done for us by His death and resurrection.
IE: Loss of faith and salvation.
ELCA plainly leaves open to various teachings and doctrines. The same
danger is growing within the LCMS by those who desire the synod to also
be more open and supporting of conflicting views regarding the
Scriptures which in turn heavily affects Christian doctine and life.
Again, this is speaking of the church as a denomination. What is
officially and publically allowed within its doctrines.
It is required there be an open and honest understanding regarding
where and how the two synod's stand and on what basis for any attempt at
honest acknowledgement to take place. "Agreement to disagree" usually
gives the impression that somehow the disagreement is of no concquence
even though, when it comes to the Scriptures, it is. It would be better
said: "Agree that we disagree".
Yet, as stated, even this would also
require there be an open and honest look regarding the differnces and
where they stem...and not simply brush them aside.
Kami
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Scott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:30 am Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
"Toranut97" <smith.donna@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BrIib.554282$Oz4.504331@rwcrnsc54...
| Quote: | Hello Scott,
The statements I considered to be misrepresentations of the bases for ELCA
decisions in your recent posts were the following (I quote your post in
this
same thread):
"The ELCA argument to this position, at least on this list, seems to
center
on what Christ said
in John 13:43: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another;
even as I have
loved you, that you also love one another." This passage is used to say
that we now accept
homosexuality and women pastors simply because to do so would be
"unloving". The fact
of the matter is that Christ is simply saying that this is a NEW
COMMANDMENT, He is
NOT saying that this is the ONLY commandment or that this supercedes prior
scripture."
I had not previously heard the passage from John used in support of the
positions you mention. So, to me, this is a misrepresentation. It implies
that the ELCA has just thrown up its "hands" and said, "Anything goes!"
The
majority of differences between the ELCA and LCMS stem from the different
approaches we have in scriptural interpretation. The historical-critical
approach involves studying scripture in its historical context. That is
how
women end up being ordained. Part of that is also a study of the positive
portrayals of women in leadership in the New Testament (as well as the
OT --
Deborah, Huldah, etc.)
This explains why your discussions with ELCA folk "fall apart" when you
get
"deeper" into Scripture. The reader who takes a literal approach will end
up
in a different place than the person who utilizes the historical-critical
method. I know my "justifications" for the ELCA positions will never hold
up
under literalist scrutiny. That's why we so often talk past each other
around here, I think. Just IMHO.
Donna
Thanks for the response. The misinterpretation is the reason I qualified my |
statement by saying "at least on this list". However I am still trying to
reconcile
the differences in interpretation. If Luther was the one who put forward
that we
rely solely on scripture to interpret scripture then where does h-c come
into play?
If you deny what Luther taught then how can you now claim to be Lutherans?
But, the core thing I don't understand, and am trying to, is the h-c itself.
What makes
modern people think they know more than the people closer to the event?
Take ANY
even in human history and it get distorted over time. Especially in recent
years. There
are those that deny the holocaust. But I digress. I'm not looking, right
now, to hold
h-c up to literalist scrutiny. I'm trying to understand where it came from
to begin with.
I've been studying for my BA in liberal arts (is that redundant?) and I have
found it
absolutley amazing. So much so that I am thinking of writing a book on it.
Look
at the "movers and shakers" from now and back through time. The vast
majority of
them were all for ditching religion to begin with. Many of them are
purpoted to be
homosexuals. This was at a time when the church looked down on them even
MORE
than they do now. These men were brought up in the church and here they
were
trying to get people away from it. People brought up with the morals of the
church
saying you didn't need the church to have morals. Ah, crap, there I go
again.
Donna, all I am truly seeking is to understand HOW h-c works, why it works
and what
makes people think they have more insight now? If you believe the Bible is
the
"inspired word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its
proclamation, faith
and life" (ELCA constitution, 2.03) then how can you then say, essentially,
that it's wrong
or that we now know better. I just don't get it. It looks to me like the
next attempt at the
people preaching to God rather than listening to him. And, no, I wold
prefer not to take it
off list. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Todd R Jerabek
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
MAK,
It isn't a question of conservative and traditional -vs- liberal. It
basically comes down to this question. Is the Bible God's Word (LCMS) or
does it contain God's Word.
There is the starting point for all the differences between the two church
bodies. Here are some others.
Are all the miracles of the Bible actual, historical events? LCMS - Yes.
ELCA - no.
Did Jesus actually speak all the words attributed to him in the Bible?
LCMS - yes. ELCA - no.
Was Mary really a virgin? LCMS - yes. ELCA - we don't know.
So, I'd suggest chosing your church based upon what you believe.
Todd |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
SS
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:51 am Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
Miriam, in the Bible, led the women, not the men in the act of praise in
Exodus 15. The statement, "Miriam led in public worship," is often used to
imply women may assume all sorts of public worship leadership positions.
This would be deceitful and fails to mention that Miriam stayed within her
role by leading women, not men. Later, when Mariam does presume the right
to equal leadership authority with Moses, God is so angry and displeased
with her that he strikes her with leprosy. (Numbers 12).
I Corinthians 14: 34-37 means exactly as it states, as the Lord commanded.
I, as a woman, do not have a problem with that. If more Christian women
would learn to become quiet, and listen, humbly, before our Lord, then maybe
we could hear what He is saying to us in love.
"Toranut97" <smith.donna@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BrIib.554282$Oz4.504331@rwcrnsc54...
| Hello Scott,
|
| The statements I considered to be misrepresentations of the bases for ELCA
| decisions in your recent posts were the following (I quote your post in
this
| same thread):
|
| "The ELCA argument to this position, at least on this list, seems to
center
| on what Christ said
| in John 13:43: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
another;
| even as I have
| loved you, that you also love one another." This passage is used to say
| that we now accept
| homosexuality and women pastors simply because to do so would be
| "unloving". The fact
| of the matter is that Christ is simply saying that this is a NEW
| COMMANDMENT, He is
| NOT saying that this is the ONLY commandment or that this supercedes prior
| scripture."
|
| I had not previously heard the passage from John used in support of the
| positions you mention. So, to me, this is a misrepresentation. It implies
| that the ELCA has just thrown up its "hands" and said, "Anything goes!"
The
| majority of differences between the ELCA and LCMS stem from the different
| approaches we have in scriptural interpretation. The historical-critical
| approach involves studying scripture in its historical context. That is
how
| women end up being ordained. Part of that is also a study of the positive
| portrayals of women in leadership in the New Testament (as well as the
OT --
| Deborah, Huldah, etc.)
|
| This explains why your discussions with ELCA folk "fall apart" when you
get
| "deeper" into Scripture. The reader who takes a literal approach will end
up
| in a different place than the person who utilizes the historical-critical
| method. I know my "justifications" for the ELCA positions will never hold
up
| under literalist scrutiny. That's why we so often talk past each other
| around here, I think. Just IMHO.
|
| Donna
|
|
|
| "Scott" <brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote in message
| news:AeOcnUmwb7rcsReiU-KYiQ@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Toranut97" <smith.donna@insightbb.com> wrote in message
| > news:PJ3ib.543707$cF.211652@rwcrnsc53...
| > > Allow me to say, as an ELCA pastor, that false statements about the
ELCA
| > are
| > > commonplace in this newsgroup. The scriptural bases for some decisions
| of
| > > the ELCA in the past (e.g. ordination of women) have been misstated,
for
| > > example. Because the approach to the interpretation of Scripture in
the
| > ELCA
| > > differs radically from that of the LCMS, our churches land in
radically
| > > different places in many matters. I feel no need to attack the views
of
| > the
| > > LCMS. Personally I find their attacks on the ELCA to be very
revealing;
| > that
| > > is to say, the true nature of the LCMS is made clearer.
| >
| > I think perhaps this is a compliment. However, I do not see where I
made
| > and
| > false statements. I am always willing to admit when I am wrong, when
you
| > can
| > show me by scripture where the error is. I have tried to have civil
| > exchanges with
| > members of ELCA but as we get deeper into scripture things tend to fall
| > apart.
| > Am I attacking the ELCA or making false statements? NO I am not.
| > I am simply trying to present things on an equal footing.
| > The sheer fact that you have been ordained in the first place shows
where
| we
| > differ when it comes to scripture. But since you are so close to the
| issue
| > perhaps
| > you can help me out. How DOES the ELCA justify ordaining women? Where
| > does scripture provide for such an occurence?
| > If the Church is the bride of Christ, then it follows that the person
| > leading the
| > Church in the stead of Christ be male. So how do you justify ordaining
| > women??
| > I'm not asking to be flippant, I'm asking because I honestly don't
| > understand.
| >
| > >
| > > It sounds like your inclination is towards a more conservative faith
| > > understanding. In that case, you will indeed feel a greater affinity
| with
| > > the LCMS. I hope your faith journey continues in a positive and
| enriching
| > > direction there. Should you desire any other information about the
ELCA,
| > > aside from the denominational website, please do not hesitate to
contact
| > me
| > > off-list.
| > >
| > > Donna
| > >
| > > www.gslc-cu.org
| >
| >
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 5:25 am Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
"MAK" <none@mail.com> wrote in message news:<Le_hb.95028$%h1.93010@sccrnsc02>...
| Quote: | Hello:
I found, on another ng, this list of the differences between the LCMS
and the ELCA:
|
<good stuff snipped>
My two cents: I have moved around a lot over the years (one step
ahead of my creditors...) I have belonged to both ELCA and LCMS
congregations. I have learned that the congregation matters much more
than the higher-level organization. Yes, there are different
tendencies between the two, but there are congregations in each where
the gospel is preached and there are congregations in each where it is
not. If you move, feel free to church-shop without worrying about the
color of the hymnal.
Richard R. Hershberger |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Toranut97
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:31 am Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
Hi Scott,
I'll do my best...
I don't think the historical-critical method tries to display some superior
knowledge of Scripture. It is more a matter of looking at Scripture in its
historical context. My Scripture professors at seminary used to guide us
through study of Scripture in its original language and context, learning
about the people of God to whom the different books were addressed and
considering what the message meant to the people of that place and time.
Then, as my wise NT professor once said, there was a "second naiveté" that
awaited us -- as we marveled at the Holy Spirit addressing people in ancient
times and contemporary times with the same living word! What a wonder!
Discovering the timeless message of Scripture is thrilling beyond
expression -- you must agree with that!
Luther taught that Scripture is always to be studied in light of the degree
to which it reveals Christ. That's why Luther had little love for the
Epistle of James and some other books of the Bible. He felt that the most
crucial passages of Scripture were those that revealed Christ crucified and
risen. That was his hermeneutical principle. We need to consider what our
hermeneutical principles are. Do we seek to proclaim the grace, forgiveness
and new life available in Christ? Or are we hung up on what people "must
believe" ?? (A kind of works righteousness of its own!)
As to the bases of the h-c method you can certainly consider Schweitzer's
"In Search of the Historical Jesus." He was an early practitioner. Bultmann
would be right up there too. I think Augsburg-Fortress has a real basic
short book about the history of the h-c method., too. There's lots out there
if you are interested.
The historical-critical method is one more way of studying and learning how
Christ is revealed in Scripture through all time. It does not criticize
Scripture. It does not make human beings superior to the Word of God.
I hope this is helpful. I am so wrapped up on the Cub game right now -- but
I didn't want you to think I was avoiding answering you. And of course I wil
not take things off-group unless you request it.
Donna |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Erica
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
In article <3F89DB1D.20605@kami.ka>, kami <kami@kami.ka> wrote:
| Quote: | Toranut97 wrote:
Can't we at least agree to disagree in a civil manner? I do not
attack the LCMS here. I told MAK to head on over to the LCMS and
enjoy blessings and enrichment there. I meant it sincerely. Can't we
leave well enough alone?
If there's to be discussion there also should be honesty regarding the
official stands of the synods.
At the ELCA webite within their FAQ section it states:
www.elca.org/co/faq/elcalcms.html
"The pattern of Scripture interpretation generally practiced in the ELCA
seeks to consider carefully the meanings of passages and their form. The
time and place in which passages were written are studied to assist in
interpretation. Emphasis is placed on the message of a text in the
context of Scripture. As indicated in the ELCA's constitution, 'This
church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as
the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its
proclamation, faith, and life.'"
This, in one breath while ELCA as a denomination states the Bible is:
"The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written
Word of God. Inspired by God¹s Spirit speaking through their authors,
they record and announce God¹s revelation centering in Jesus Christ.
Through them God¹s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian
faith and fellowship for service in the world..." they are also stating
it doesn't need to have literal application whether or not the words of
the passage read indicates it or not. That while it is "inspirired" and
may hold God's truth...it does not need to be factual or a historical
account. Which is evidenced by what was found within their FAQ
section regarding the Genesis creation:
www.elca.org/co/faq/evolution.html
"The ELCA doesn't have an official position on creation vs. evolution,
but we subscribe to the historical-critical method of biblical
interpretation, so we believe God created the universe and all that is
therein, only not necessarily in six 24-hour days, and that he may
actually have used evolution in the process of creation.
'Historical criticism' is an understanding that the Bible must be
understood in the cultural context of the times in which it was written."
Taken to the extreme so-called "Historical criticism" and confining the
Bible to it's "cultural context" can ultimately deny Jesus Christ,
who is is, and what He has done for us by His death and resurrection.
IE: Loss of faith and salvation.
ELCA plainly leaves open to various teachings and doctrines. The same
danger is growing within the LCMS by those who desire the synod to also
be more open and supporting of conflicting views regarding the
Scriptures which in turn heavily affects Christian doctine and life.
Again, this is speaking of the church as a denomination. What is
officially and publically allowed within its doctrines.
It is required there be an open and honest understanding regarding
where and how the two synod's stand and on what basis for any attempt at
honest acknowledgement to take place. "Agreement to disagree" usually
gives the impression that somehow the disagreement is of no concquence
even though, when it comes to the Scriptures, it is. It would be better
said: "Agree that we disagree".
Yet, as stated, even this would also
require there be an open and honest look regarding the differnces and
where they stem...and not simply brush them aside.
Kami
|
Goodness, I really am an ELCA'er, now that I read that. Hurrah. (waves
at the other ELCA'ers).
Howdy folk. Newbie here, rattling around in the
alt.religion.christian.(blank) newsgroups for the first time. If you
think this group is argumentative, try alt.religion.christian or
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy. Angry atheists abound. This place
seems tame in comparision.
Anyway, I thought I'd say hello.
One question: How do Missori Synod folk feel about Wisconsin Synod
doctrine?
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Erica
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
In article <AeOcnUmwb7rcsReiU-KYiQ@comcast.com>,
"Scott" <brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
| Quote: | If the Church is the bride of Christ, then it follows that the person
leading the
Church in the stead of Christ be male. So how do you justify ordaining
women??
I'm not asking to be flippant, I'm asking because I honestly don't
understand.
|
Would Galatians 3:28 be part of the answer?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man,
there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Erica
--
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
kami
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
Erica wrote:
| Quote: | Howdy folk. Newbie here, rattling around in the
alt.religion.christian.(blank) newsgroups for the first time. If you
think this group is argumentative, try alt.religion.christian or
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy. Angry atheists abound. This place
seems tame in comparision.
|
Welcome to alt.religion.lutheran. And very true. In my earlier days of
surfing the WWW I came across such groups. And I agree that compared to
them...this group is rather tame. Still, the odd spammer, troll, and
hate groups still post here as they do any other unmoderated newsgroup.
Just not as much.
| Quote: | Anyway, I thought I'd say hello.
One question: How do Missori Synod folk feel about Wisconsin Synod
doctrine?
|
As LCMS myself...IMHO in some matters of practice see too be incorrectly
applied. Such as the matter of women as pastors is unBiblical also
means they should also mean they are a barred from voting. Or chaplins
in the military. I do share their concerns regarding the the lack of
accountability and correction within the LCMS of not only laity but also
the congergations who introduce unBiblical teachings and doctrines.
It's because of this lack of accountability that one LCMS church may
radically differ from another both in doctrine and practice. Which is a
very good way to confuse LCMS members who don't take the time to study
the Scriptures themselves. Apathy is one of the the main reasons why
the LCMS is within the present Crisis it's in.
But there aren't troubles within just the LCMS...but in all Christiandom
in one way or another as Christiandom seeks to comform to the
world....rather than remaining on the One Foundation...that is on Jesus
Christ. Why many mainline church won't even state that we are saved by
grace, through faith in Jesus Christ alone. But are more willing to
say..."We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ...but other
people have other ways of being saved." At the herat of this struggle
is the very Gospel itself.
Anyway... :-)
The chief differnces between
LCMS and WELS from the LCMS website:
www.lcms.org/cic/WELS.html
---
From the LCMS perspective, the three main theological differences
between the LCMS and the WELS are the following:
1) The biblical understanding of fellowship.
The WELS holds to what is called the "unit concept" of fellowship, which
places virtually all joint expressions of the Christian faith on the
same level. In an official statement made in 1960 the WELS states,
"Church fellowship should therefore be treated as a unit concept,
covering every joint expression, manifestation, and demonstration of a
common faith" (Doctrinal Statements of the Wisconsin Evangelical
Lutheran Synod, 1970, pp. 51-52). The LCMS, however, has historically
not understood or practiced church fellowship in this way. Our Synod,
for example, has made a distinction between altar and pulpit fellowship
(for which full doctrinal agreement is required) and other
manifestations of Christian fellowship, such as prayer fellowship (which
do not necessarily require full doctrinal agreement). Disagreements on
this issue led the Wisconsin to break fellowship with the LCMS in 1961.
2) The doctrine of the ministry.
With respect to the doctrine of the ministry, since the days of C. F. W.
Walther our Synod has held that the office of the public ministry (the
pastoral office) according to the Scriptures is the one divinely
established office in the church, while the church possesses the freedom
to create other offices, by human institution, from time to time to
assist in the carrying out of the functions of the pastoral ministry.
The WELS' Theses on Church and Ministry, however, expressly deny that
the pastoral ministry is specifically instituted by the Lord in contrast
to other forms of public ministry (see Doctrinal Statements, pp. 9-11;
cf. the Commission on Theology and Church Relations' 1981 report on The
Ministry: Office, Procedures, and Nomenclature.
3) The role of women in the church.
While both the LCMS and the WELS strongly oppose the ordination of women
to the pastoral office on Scriptural grounds, the LCMS has concluded
that the Scriptures do not forbid woman suffrage. The WELS opposes woman
suffrage as contrary to the Scriptures.
---
And from the WELS perspective of LCMS:
http://www.wels.net/sab/faq.html
---
For nearly 100 years (1872-1961) the LCMS and WELS were in doctrinal
fellowship in the Synodical Conference. They cooperated in mission work
and education. What led to the end of this fellowship?
Formerly, the LCMS and WELS agreed that agreement in all doctrines of
the Bible is necessary for church fellowship and that all forms of
worship, including joint prayer, are expressions of church fellowship.
In the 1930s the LCMS began fellowship talks with the American Lutheran
Church in spite of the fact that that the ALC did not believe that
complete doctrinal agreement was necessary for fellowship. The LCMS also
changed its position on prayer fellowship to allow joint prayer with the
leaders of other churches with whom the LCMS was not in doctrinal
agreement. Long efforts to resolve these differences were unsuccessful
and WELS broke fellowship with the LCMS in 1961.
Although disagreement about fellowship and the practice of fellowship in
such groups as the Scouts and the military chaplaincy was the immediate
cause of the break between WELS and the LCMS, other divisive issues that
arose included the introduction of historical-critical methods of
scripture study into the LCMS seminary at St. Louis during the 1960s,
differences concerning the doctrine of church and ministry, and
disagreement about the role of women in governing bodies of the church.
WELS has also been disturbed by a seeming lack of corrective action
against lax fellowship practices, such as open communion and ecumenical
services, in some LCMS congregations
.. Although the LCMS has made progress at rolling back the influence of
historical-critical methods of Scripture study in its midst, published
remarks by recent presidents of the LCMS show that the disagreement
concerning fellowship practices still remains unresolved.
---
Kami |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
kami
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:34 pm Post subject: Re: LCMS vs. ELCA |
|
|
Erica wrote:
| Quote: | In article <AeOcnUmwb7rcsReiU-KYiQ@comcast.com>, "Scott"
brn2dipATyahooDOTcom> wrote:
If the Church is the bride of Christ, then it follows that the
person leading the Church in the stead of Christ be male. So how
do you justify ordaining women?? I'm not asking to be flippant, I'm
asking because I honestly don't understand.
Would Galatians 3:28 be part of the answer?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man,
there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ
Jesus."
|
Just a couple of verses before it states: " For ye are all the children
of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ". Going by the context of the
passage and what the entire passage is speaking of faith. That by faith
we are all in Christ. Or as Paul was referring to...a Jewish born person
who is brought to faith in Christ isn't more of a Christian because
they're born of a certain heritage. Or an uncircumcized male was any
less of a believer in Christ than the circumsized.
I'm puzzled by how 3:28 is applied to the pastoral ministry when the
passage itself is addressing the subject of faith.
Kami |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
