Monday, June 25, 2018

ELCA vs. LCMS, It's Not Really about Homosexuality...

Wow, hard to believe over a year since my last post.  Since then, my wife and I have moved and are therefore attending a new church.  I represented that church as a lay delegate at the Northwest District Conference of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS). 

IT'S ALL ABOUT CONFESSIONALISM
Foremost on my mind, as it is in posts below, is the understanding of why the LCMS exists apart from other Lutheran Synods, such as ELCA, which was formed out of the infamous split in the Lutheran Church of America (LCA) starting back in the 1970's, known as Seminex.   As the ELCA has gotten even more theologically liberal or, more accurately "conformed to the world",  subsequent waves of ELCA parishioners have fled the ELCA for other churches, mostly those of the LCMS.  LCMS churches have also received refugees from other liberal protestant denominations.

The latest wave of world-conformity to plague of (or bless, depending on your view) the ELCA, was the ordination of openly homosexual pastors, including those married to their "partners" and recognizing/performing homosexual marriages.  Of course, this came on the heels of communing openly homosexual parishioners, which came on the heels of conforming to feminism by ordaining female pastors.

Predictably, some parishioners from the ELCA have brought with them the core non-confessionalist notion that, "well, I was OK with open communion, the new hymnal and even ordaining women, but the 'gay thing' is just a bridge too far for me".   Of course, this results in/from a lack of understanding of why we do the things we do in the LCMS, even to the point of harassing, intimidating and marginalizing our Confessional LCMS pastors who are attempting to maintain or bring a core LCMS theology to their congregations.  Some LCMS congregations are less confessional than others, as theological liberalism has left its stain on the LCMS as well.

Let's back up for a moment and define Confessionalism.  Some fairly devout and educated Christians may misunderstand it.  A confessional church is one that confesses that The Bible is Holy Scripture, and, as such, is the "inerrant, inspired word of God".  This stands in opposition to those who believe that the Bible rather merely contains  the word of God.  It is on this axis alone that the difference between the LCMS and ALL liberal protestant/reformist churches AND the Roman "catholic" church turns.

The Roman ("catholic") church absurdly and alarmingly still aspires to be "the church" of the whole world, i.e. catholic, even though much of what it teaches and does stands apart from or adds to scripture (The Holy Bible).

Liberals* within the Lutheran Church, along with other liberal protestant churches waited until the western cultural revolt of the mid-20th century to bring their apostasy to their churches through the "Historical - Critical Method" of interpreting scripture.  So, as in Vatican Rome,  but in a more open and ongoing, but perhaps less authoritarian manner, the church authorities in theologically liberal protestant churches are deciding for God's people which is and which is not the word of God.  And, as the world wears down, that interpretation keeps changing to conform to the world.  (See Romans 12:2)

THE CASUAL CONSUMPTION AND ADOPTION OF FALSE DOCTRINE
Luther spoke and wrote often of the need for each Christian to possess his or her own knowledge of The Word of God and not be beholden to pastors, priests or bishops to interpret Holy Scripture for them.   Armed with freedom AND with faith, knowledge and a moral compass, individual Christians will preserve and hold fast to the true Word, and prevent a corrupt hierarchy from usurping their freedom of conscience.  Sound familiar?  Luther and the reformist movement in Germany actually provided the precepts foundational to the American Revolution 220 years later.

The Christian understanding of knowledge is that it is inextricably linked to faith.  "In the world, faith comes from knowledge.  In God's kingdom, knowledge comes from faith".  That is grace.

Yet, in our post-McLuhan/post-literate world of passive, non-critical and unstudied consumption of information, sloth and sin-nature open the door for the world's prince to enter into the conversation in a more persuasive way. False doctrine is remarkably intuitive when casually consumed in the context of the world.

NON-CONFESSIONALIST DOCTRINE MANIFESTS AT THE LORD'S SUPPER
Even though I embrace it as doctrinally sound, even I occasionally struggle with the term "Closed Communion"  for describing our practice of sharing Holy Supper only with those whom we are in Communicant Harmony regarding scripture, including, but not limited to the meaning and doctrinal Holy reality of the Holy Supper. 

Scripture is clear that sharing Communion or Holy Supper with those who do not believe and confess as we do does them a fundamental and profound disservice by allowing them to "drink it to their own damnation".  In the days of Paul, Corinthian parishioners were treating the Lords supper as communal feast of conviviality and fellowship.  Paul told, them "if you are hungry, eat at home first before coming"... to truly discern the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  1 Cor. 11:17-34. 

LCMS doctrine is clear on the meaning of the Lord's Supper, "While the Lord’s Supper is always a personal matter, it is never a private matter. That is an important truth that is often overlooked.  Those who commune at the same altar are thereby declaring publicly that they are united in the doctrine of the Apostles (Acts 2:40-42). Therefore, fellowship in the Supper is church fellowship.  This is what is taught by Holy Scripture in 1 Cor 10 and 11."  (A.L. Barry LCMS President, 1992-2001)

The concept of "open communion" sounds nicer, more welcoming and more loving than "closed communion", which, especially to the contemporary American mind,  seems restrictive, "exclusionary" and "unwelcoming".  But that perception is exactly 180 degrees from the Biblical truth, as illustrated above and in the logical understanding of what was going on at the actual Lord's Supper on the eve of Our Lord's crucifixion. While Jesus openly preached His Word and Gospel message to all who would gathered to hear Him, he did not invite all the masses to this supper.   This Supper was only served to all who were to hear, understand (even if they didn't totally) and most of all believe in who He was and to directly carry out the His Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).

While I am grateful to be included and gladly attend mass with close friends and relatives of mine who are RC members and attend Roman mass (very similar liturgy to LCMS, by the way),  I would not besmirch theirs or my faith by sharing in their Communion, which carries with it an understanding of "transubstantiation", with which we Lutherans disagree, along with many other Roman precepts, such as purgatory, the primacy of the Pope, the nature of salvation, grace and much else. 

The Roman Church still officially mandates closed communion but renegade liberal* priests are here and there declaring open communion in their parishes. 

Not welcoming?  We welcome all to attend service and receive The Word, a fundamental "delivery system" for faith according to Holy Scripture and Lutheran doctrine.  We baptize all whose sponsors attest to their faith and their commitment to being stewards of the faith for the baptized (much more open than the Baptist and other reformer church's who eschew infant baptism in favor of the more restrictive and danger-fraught practice of adult baptism).  And we welcome ALL to come to the communion rail and receive a pastoral blessing in lieu of taking the hosts of the Holy Supper.

But communion stands as a "close" or "closed" breaking of bread, just as Our Lord did not invite all the thousands of faithful to His Last Supper.  Holy Supper is an "apostolic" sacrament.  The term "close communion" was popularly translated from the original German to describe our practice of closed communion.  "Close" was later used as a modifier by more liberal LCMS pastors to allow any who believe in the true presence of the body and blood to share in communion at their divine services.  Research has shown that the original German intent was that "close" and "closed" meant the same thing.  The LCMS supper is for LCMS members only.  Pastors have discretion.

And while I am interested and delighted to attend a non-confessional ELCA service and participate in their hymns and prayers,  I would not take communion with them as we fundamentally disagree on what is happening in the Lord's Supper. As a believer in the "Invisible Church",  I have no doubt that many faithful and saved people attend these services, but our church and theirs do not have a Communicant Relationship because we do not believe the same thing about a whole host of things, including communion but, most importantly and overall, what scripture is!

I do not love or care for Roman catholics, ELCA Lutherans or any other Christians any less, but out of respect for their tradition, I do not participate in their communion because our churches are not "in Communion" with each other on these important doctrinal issues.

I hew to the understanding of taking communion only with those with whom I have a communicant relationship because I have prayerfully considered this issue over the years as Christian, a parishioner and congregational leader in the Lutheran Church, not because "authorities" tell me it's the right thing to do. This includes presiding over internal controversies about communion within the church going back to the 1990's.

EXERCISE AND NURTURE YOUR CHRISTIAN FREEDOM
By that stroke, I think that it is important for Christians to prayerfully discuss, meditate upon and actively wrestle with these theological/doctrinal issues.  Please remember, that we are the New Israel in Christ.  And, of course you know, "Israel" is Hebrew for "wrestles/contends with God".  Avoiding these controversies and dwelling in a worldly "love cave" is fraught with danger.  Our faith-driven knowledge needs to be strengthened by the crucible of debate and active consciousness.  "A faith without works [is indeed] a dead faith".  James 2:14-26

Confessionalism is THE core understanding of Scripture. It is the nucleus of our saving faith. There are no proper "different interpretations" of Holy Scripture.  And it is up to the free-thinking, deeply conscious individual Christian to understanding these things on his/her own rather than to simply follow political authorities in the church.

Be glad in the salvation that comes to us from God, in the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ and delivered to us through the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

*Liberal here refers to theological, not necessarily political left-liberalism.  The two often, but not always, conjoin.

No comments: