Nearly all the congregations of LCMC are former ELCA congregations, reflecting a process of defection that began nearly a decade ago in response to the ELCA full communion agreement with the Episcopal Church and accelerated in the last year following the pro-gay resolutions of the ELCA churchwide assembly (CWA09). As a splinter organization of the ELCA, it follows that much of who they are and what they say and do reflects their negativity toward the ELCA.
This blog has frequently countered LCMC’s criticism of the ELCA. As a generalization, our critique of LCMC has been from the left and thus a recent Missouri Synod (LCMS) blog post that criticizes the LCMC from the right offers a radically different perspective but illuminating nevertheless.
The brothers of John the Steadfast blog has become a strident conservative voice within the LCMS, and their August 17th post about the LCMC contains plenty of good data about LCMC history and policy, but it is their conservative critique that is fascinating.
Thus far, there seems to be much good in the LCMC for us to rejoice and be thankful for. But there are theological problems in such a denomination … including Women’s Ordination, an almost anti-clerical emphasis on the priesthood of believers, Biblical inerrancy and interpretation, and fellowship issues.
Most of the LCMC pastors, with their training and roots in the ELCA, are unwilling to turn their backs on their women colleagues and continue to affirm the ordination of women that began in the ELCA several decades ago. For this, the Steadfast blog questions the traditionalist credentials of LCMC:
This is allowing for experience to rule over the Scriptures. So already, their formal principal of the Scriptures has been violated in the ordination of women.
John the Steadfast asks: Is women’s ordination not in clear contravention of scripture? Should experience trump the Biblical witness? By considering empirical evidence, does the LCMC risk sliding down a slippery slope? The Steadfast ones lament that the LCMC vacillates between an inerrant view of scripture and the historical-critical interpretive model, willy-nilly choosing when to be literalists and when to be contextualists. While the brothers criticize the LCMC for too little obeisance to inerrancy, our critique is that the LCMC countenances too much literalism.
The Steadfast folks also take the LCMC to task for their anti-clericalism. It appears that LCMC is rather “low church”, both in their suspicion of denominational structures and in their liturgical practices, which probably reflects a “Haugean” strain that dates back to the Norwegian lay preacher Hans Hauge and his anti-clerical revivalist movement of two centuries ago. The ELCA embraces both high church and low church worship styles, and I would not criticize LCMC on this account. I think that ELCA congregations have greater local autonomy than the LCMC would acknowledge, but the loose association of congregations that comprise the LCMC is certainly a congregationalist model rather than the denominational polity of the ELCA or the LCMS, for that matter. “A website and a mailing list” is an apt characterization of the LCMC.
The Steadfast blog points out another inconsistency in the LCMC regarding the importance of doctrine. On the one hand, LCMC congregations have split from the ELCA due to doctrinal differences, yet seemingly exhibit a broad range of doctrinal influences within their own ranks. It is ironic that the LCMC criticizes the ELCA for doctrinal laxity in failing to honor the Lutheran Confessions while utilizing seminaries that are essentially Baptist in outlook. Here is the Steadfast impression of the LCMC doctrinal ambiguities.
The LCMC is much more elusive to pin down to a certain theology or practice due to its heavy congregational structure. A survey of the different districts of the LCMC reflects the wide array of beliefs and practices allowed in the LCMC … A final concern is that the LCMC allows for its clergy to be trained at a number of seminaries that even includes non-Lutheran ones … This represents another disconnect between the confession of the LCMC and their accepted practices.
While this blog and that of John the Steadfast make for strange bedfellows, we acknowledge their keen insight from the right which in many ways confirms our view from the left.
This is a very interesting take from a LCMS blog. The critique from “brothers of John the Steadfast blog” starts off though saying, “Thus far, there seems to be much good in the LCMC for us to rejoice and be thankful for.” After this statement of support, it goes into its criticisms. I don’t think you are being honest though in claiming that “their keen insight from the right…in many ways confirms our view from the left.” Obie, lets be serious you have never, never, never claimed that there is much good in the LCMC for you to rejoice over.
@Stephen Johansson
I think a fair reading of my blog post makes it clear that it is the John the Steadfast criticisms of LCMC that I characterize as “keen insight from the right” and not their lukewarm praise.
The critique is baseless. There are many places in scripture (I won’t quote chapter and verse and be accused of being a proof-texter 🙂 that uphold women in leadership, in both testaments. Certainly, there are also other verses (Paul is most often mentioned) , that do say women should not be leaders, should be quiet in church, etc.
As has been pointed out by many, if scripture contained both commendation of gay relationships as well as prohibition of them (in both testaments) , then the point would be moot. Because then you have to hold the scriptures in tension on those and many issues.
But the usual analogies that are used of slavery or women in leadership simply don’t hold water in the current crisis du jour….both the issues of slavery and women as leaders has positive and negative connotations in scripture. In the current crisis, there is no scriptural support. One can argue from culture, from legal perspectives, from common sense, but the comparison is not valid.
There is no positive mention
“A website and a mailing list” is an apt characterization of the LCMC.
– No standards, no vetting, no candidacy process. It means the flunkies from these processes from the ELCA are welcomed with open arms into the LCMC. They are going to be hurting a lot of people in the pews …
@Jeff
I half agree. I wholeheartedly concur with your defense of women clergy, but I disagree with your assertion “there is no scriptural support” or that women’s ordination and the abolition of slavery do not provide analogical support for gay issues. But, since that is straying from the subject of the blog post, I will reserve full elaboration for another day.
This is an interesting article from the LCMS. I went to the source and read the whole thing. My new UCC pastor wondered how a lay person could be leading a communion service in the LCMC church and this article helped clarify that. I realize that in joining UCC which includes Reformed churches , I am leaving behind my Lutheran teaching of the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine. I don’t think I have a problem with the UCC interpretation and am rather glad not to have the “sinner” guilt trip every Sunday. That leaves me free to love and praise God in a different but not all that different way. We do love Jesus and what He did for us.
@ anonymous
Since you don’t provide your name, kind of interesting you would make those assertions. I know a number of people in LCMC, there is a candidacy process, and vetting, and standards for clergy and congregations.
As far as “flunkies” from the ELCA, there are number of folks in the ELCA, and some leaving, who can tell you the candidacy process there is far from stellar. I know of at least several pastors with deep psychological issues who got approved and ending up destroying congregations before getting defrocked.
By the way, I am not a part of the LCMC, nor do I plan to be, but just because it is a different model doesn’t mean the standards are not there. They are much more parish based.
@Obie
Fair enough. By the way, nice job on the blog.
Jeff
I read the entire original post from the Brothers of John the Steadfast…having worked in retail in my past, I have a term for the way they set up their post. To put it nicely, it’s a giant poo sandwich; good at the beginning and end, bad in the middle.
Let’s not blast the whole LCMC until we see how this thing plays out. While I changed churches, there is a majority of the people in the LCMC church I left that are satisfied and even think that being more independent is a good thing. I think the thing we have to realize is that each LCMC church is going to have somewhat of an individual flavor based on the expectations of the pastor and of the congregation. The basic teachings and constitution issues are ELCA without the bishops and without gay pastors. These churches are going to have to feel their way somewhat and decide issues as congregations. I am concerned that right now, they may not have materials that are unique to their denomination’s teaching because what I have seen is still in development. If they have to use Concordia materials, which some ELCA churches were using anyway, why not just say so.
@Obie Holmen
Obie, I hereby invite you to come see how much more than a mailing list and a website LCMC is. We will be at your favorite Lutheran congregation in Golden Valley Oct 3-6. Come on up.
That being said, the BJS critique is pretty much what I would expect from them. I am surprised that you bothered with the post, since you and I have much more in common theologically than thee and they.
One other point: seminaries are becoming general providers of theological education in a diverse marketplace. When I was at Luther, I had Baptist and Presbyterian and UCC classmates. They did not leave as Lutherans. In fact, I would suggest that the exposure to Lutheranism in such an intense way made those I knew stronger in their own convictions.
@Lilly Thanks for that first sentence Lilly. 🙂
TS
@Tony Stoutenburg
I had a good talk with a Christus member a week or so ago and she would have liked it if I had stayed. That is nice to know. However, the stricter interpretations that were coming from the pastor makes me think I will be happier as a liberal even if I may not go along with everything . Time will tell.
@Tony: You are far braver than I to tread over to Steadfast Lutherans. I’ve tried to read several posts over there, just end up angry, and reaffirm why I defected from the Missouri Synod and its institutionalized anti-woman policies.
The rub really got me when the author tried to assert that Sunday School teachers are a proxy for ONLY the father, who if he is generous enough, will allow his subservient wife to teach HIS children about God.
Flames. Flames on the side of my face.
A thought that occurs to me: if LCMC is criticized from both sides, then perhaps they are genuinely centrists. This is not, of course, to say that centrism is necessarily good.
@Kelly
Yes, I agree. The old German good old boys club surely can stretch the truth.
@Brant 🙂
@Kelly
C’mon Kelly, don’t you remember watching your husband in the intense labor pains HE underwent to give birth to HIS children? Gee whiz. These guys sounds positively Aristotelian / preformationist.
Actually, I won’t go back there to debate further, but the explanations they are giving in response to me are really stretching credibility / the limits of logic.
@Brant
Which is why I am now referring to LCMC as the Mainstream Lutheran church body in this country. We stand between an avowedly liberal ELCA and an avowedly conservative LC-MS.
Blessings, TS
@Tony Stoutenburg
I’m not sure that the terms liberal, conservative and mainstream really apply. I do think that LCMC has a centrist position in American Lutheranism, and Lutheranism has a centrist position in American Christianity.
If I may reply to your statement to Kelly, logic does not apply in debates with the LC-MS. Logic is the product of corrupt human reason. Only the Bible applies. The fact that it is corrupt human reason that leads them to their biblicistic position means nothing.
I actually had an LC-MS pastor tell me that the Bible “properly interpreted” is inerrant and infallible. Those words in quotes tell a tale.
God bless,
Brant
PS to Obie. I reviewed A Wretched Man on my blog: http://saintandcynic.blogspot.com/2010/08/apostle-paul-kissed-boy.html
@Brant
Thanks, Brant; your review is very kind and much appreciated.
@Obie Holmen
I passed the book on to a man who left our LCMC church and is now in a church that hired an LCMC pastor part time. I am waiting to see what his comments are. Personally, I like books that make you think and yours does.
@Tony Stoutenburg
In case you don’t know, Kelly is an MD and sees this side of life. Women MDs also have to deal with male “superiority”.
the LCMS abandoned Biblical innerrancy when they allowed divorced clergy to continue serving. It doesn’t fit with their claims. I’m not pointing to a “speck” I will gladly claim my hypocrisies.
@Tony
You are quite right about people with strong convictions exposed to positions contrary to theirs “in such an intense way” makes them “stronger in their own convictions.” That is, in part, why it’s so disappointing that the traditionalist camp is leaving – seemingly in droves – the ELCA to form a new denomination. Instead of sticking around to allow both sides to discuss and grow together in faith (that does not necessarily mean that either side need budge on its convictions), one side feels “defeated” and “betrayed” by the Church and thus leaves behind only like minded people – in this case, the “liberals.” With no noticeable difference opinion during debate, how can either side grow stronger in its convictions? What kind of progress develops or health proceeds from a discussion where everyone says, “Yeah, you’re right.” and leaves it at that?
I’m a member of a Sunday school class where people are afraid to question anything in the Bible for fear of appearing faithless. Any time someone asks a question about a particular passage, the answer is something like, “Well, the Bible says X.” and we move on from there. There is no discussion. When no one challenges a position, even as the devil’s advocate simply for the sake of discussion, not a lot of fruitful discussion ensues. I might venture that not a lot of “faithful” discussion ensues. In such an instance, I might submit the editorial in the most recent “The Lutheran” about faith vs. certainty. When all sides are certain about the same thing in the same way, no discussion is necessary, no growth happens. The same can be said for when all sides are of the same mind in a discussion – no discussion is necessary…what can be said? “The sky is blue.” “Yeah, you’re right.” End of discussion…
@Daniel
I quite agree. When I would talk to the pastor and his answer always started with “the Bible says” or “Luther said” it didn’t leave much room for discussion. I finally told him it bugged me because my brother on the farm was very good at quoting scripture to control me. That helped.
But it wasn’t just the pastor. Some of the ladies in my Bible study circle would get quite upset if I gave a Biblical interpretation that didn’t jibe with what they had learned in Sunday School 50 years ago. So this “liberal” is moving on. I appreciated some of the more liberal interpretations that were coming out from female seminary professors but I also enjoyed Nestingen’s works.
Thank you to any of my former pastors who were brave enough to tell us that there are some things in the Bible that are symbolic. God bless all of you pastors out there. You have a busy job and a motley assortment of people to address. It would be hard to get to know many of them at a level that you could speak their personal conditions and beliefs.
@Lilly,
Don’t worry. Tony’s just joking. I’m not offended by what he said. In fact, he was affirming the ridiculousness of the Missouri Synod pastor’s argument.
I find it laughable that this guy really thinks that a Sunday School teacher is a proxy for the father. I really want to ask him who taught him his first prayer? Was it his father, or was it a bedtime prayer his mother taught him when she tucked him in at night? I think this guy is really forgetting how instrumental his mother was in his first experiences with faith.
Our former associate pastor joked that she wanted to send her daughter to the Lutheran preschool in town (it is a Wisconsin Synod preschool) just so that when the staff asked her daughter what her mommy did for a living, she could proudly proclaim, My Mommy is a PASTOR!
@Brant
Lutherans must be of two minds on logic and reason. Luther called reason “the devil’s whore,” but he also rather famously stated that, “unless I can be convinced by Scripture and sound reason…”
@Kelly
Actually, I taught Matt his bedtime prayer… :)~ But I agree with you. If Sunday School teachers can be a proxy for fathers, then maybe the church needs to teach men more about the vocation of being a parent.
@Daniel
I don’t recollect saying anything like “You are quite right about people with strong convictions exposed to positions contrary to theirs “in such an intense way” makes them “stronger in their own convictions.””
I suppose you could infer that from my statement. Actually, I suppose you did. 🙂
I am not generally in favor of divorce. I think that the old saw, “Better to have a divorce than to have the children growing up around all that fighting,” is far too easily and quickly fired off as an excuse not to do the work of living life together. However, if there are no children involved, and the two partners are fighting all the time, what is the point of living together?
I think that denominations are a gift God has given us. It is a coping mechanism for the sinfulness which infects us all. We do not read the Scriptures uniformly, and so my buddy Bruce over at Bethel Baptist Church here in Hayward and I can get along just fine and work on projects and community worship services together, because we do not have to fight over the bound will or the third use or infant baptism. Some of the most liberal members of the ELCA church in town here and I have worked together on community theater projects. That would be more difficult if we were trying to attend the same church given our diverse opinions on many matters.
I think that there is a limit to the sustainable size of American protestant denominations. Among Lutherans, apparently 5 million exceeded the limit. But that is not a bad thing.
I suspect that the SW Wash Synod assemblies (my last ELCA synod) are happier events for the departure of me and those who agree with me. I know that LCMC annual gatherings are certainly easier on my blood pressure than those Synod assemblies ever were.
I am not advocating that we completely separate, but I think it is a better witness to our Lord to have peace in our own houses, If conflict requires us to live apart, that must (better?) not preclude us from working together.
Blessings, TS
Thanks Kelly. The ELCA/LCMC church has here lost members who wanted their kids to go to the LCMS school. They joined there to avoid the extra tuition. I am afraid your former pastor might have got charged double 🙂 I figured Tony was really joking but I thought I would put in a word for you anyway.
Blessings to everyone!
I am about to isit for the first time the only LCMC Church in Puerto Rico. I have been many years struggling with the will of becoming lutheran. Let me visit and then I will comment. Of what I have read so far, I like LCMC. Confussion is not rom God, you may find God in the simpleness, obviously respecting Word and Sacrament and the Eucharistic Liturgical History an peformance of ALL luherans. If you speak spanish, please search Iglesia Cristiana Luterana Genesis, Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico.
Pax Christi
Javier
Puerto Rican Episcopalian
@Javier
I’ll be interested to read your report, Javier.