Messages

Terry, you are correct that congregation polity does not necessarily mean lack of Lutheran theology. In the case of the AFLC, however, you have an extended history that shapes your identity. Your congregational polity still allows for a seminary of your own, which helps sustain your ethos.

In the case of LCMC, there is not that same kind of extended history. As I've said, it consists mostly of former ELCA churches that for various reasons decided that the ELCA wasn't for them, and "we don't like hierarchy" seems to be the most common piece of identity in the organization. I think there could be a greater sense of identity than that, but there hasn't been much focus on theology, as I've said, and there isn't a single, recognized seminary.

Some of the shortcomings you mentioned are what lead Lutheran Core to begin their own denomination with a hierarchy in 2010 (NALC) rather than just have congregations move to LCMC. The AALC (which formed in 1987) by congregations opposing the ELCA, wasn't a strong option because they do not ordain women.

Yes, this is true. The word you use, "hierarchy," is the word often used by people in LCMC to express their dislike of the ELCA and their lack of desire to join the NALC. I wouldn't call the NALC "hierarchical" myself. There is structure and leadership, and the organization has the capacity to speak on behalf of the organization since it is a "church" and not simply an "association" like LCMC. But the way I often hear people in LCMC talk about the NALC, they make no distinction between having organized leadership and the historic episcopate.

One of the challenges facing LCMC is that because it is so decentralized with so much emphasis on congregational autonomy, there really isn't the capacity for intentional theological reflection and the expectation that congregations will be rooted in Lutheran theology. Some districts within LCMC do encourage Lutheran theology, however. But the speakers at the LCMC "annual gatherings" (as they call them) tend to focus on issues such as "leadership," which is not all bad, but if there is no seminary of its own and no means to foster a Lutheran expression in our religious climate, Reformed Arminianism will quickly come to dominate. I've heard people within LCMC comment that "the Lutheran Confessions get in the way of mission." Rather than viewing our Lutheran background as an asset, it's looked at as outdated and irrelevant. So as much as I do love the people of LCMC and have many good connections with them, I do have some concerns about the long-term Lutheran identity of the organization.

I am on the clergy roster of both LCMC and the NALC. However, I am much more active with NALC. In fact, I haven't had much of anything to do with LCMC in a number of years.

Note, it is properly referred to as simply "LCMC" and not the LCMC. LCMC stands for Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ.

But I will share some thoughts that hopefully will add clarity to what LCMC is all about. As has been noted, it was formed in 2000 and 2001 by 25 congregations from the ELCA. Initially, the theological and confessional issue was the opposition to the mandated historic episcopate in the ELCA as a result of the Called to Common Mission agreement with the Episcopal Church. Those who felt in good conscience they could not go along with it needed an alternative organization. But LCMC considered itself from the beginning to be a post denominational organization. They left it open to each congregation to decide if they wanted to be affiliated exclusively with LCMC or to remain also with the ELCA. Over the years, this has meant that many LCMC congregations have become dually affiliated with groups like the NALC and Canadian Association of Lutheran congregations, and so forth.

LCMC slowly and gradually added congregations, especially congregations from the ELCA (though a few new starts as well), over the first ten years of its existence. But most of its growth came after the ELCA's decision in 2009 regarding sexual standard for clergy. Since the NALC was not formed immediately, LCMC became the primary landing zone for ELCA congregations looking for an alternative organization. LCMC lists well over 900 congregations among its members, but it's important to remember that that includes international congregations. In the United States, I estimate that there are probably just under 800 LCMC congregations.

Congregations in LCMC consist primarily of small rural congregations along with several large mega churches. There is actually very little in between. Many of these are from the upper Midwest, so it's probably true that there is a significant "Norwegian" part of LCMC, though not exclusively.

As has also been noted, LCMC considers itself to be an association of congregations rather than a denomination. The congregation is viewed as being the primary authority. There is little if any oversight. In LCMC, a congregation can call anyone it wants to serve as its pastor, regardless of educational credentials. LCMC does have a certified pastor status, but a congregation is not required to call someone who is a certified LCMC pastor. Those who have not been certified are referred to as contract pastors. The idea of congregational freedom stemmed in part, I think, from reaction against what many of them saw as a top-down bureaucracy in the ELCA. But as has happened in a couple of cases, this congregational freedom has resulted in congregations actually abandoning Lutheranism altogether. There have been a couple of congregations that have been expelled from LCMC for refusing to baptize infants.

LCMC does not have its own seminary, but rather works with various existing seminaries to help prepare pastors for its congregations.

LCMC has districts, which are simply voluntary associations of its congregations. Congregations are not required to be a part of any district, but they can belong to one or more organized districts if they want. Some districts are geographical in focus and others are theological in their focus. There are many disparate groups within LCMC.

My own personal perception is that there is among LCMC strong influence of American Evangelicalism and "contemporary" worship trends.

I hope that clarifies some things. Though I definitely feel more at home in the NALC, I do believe there are many good people and some solid congregations in LCMC.

I recently had some guests in worship who said they were members of a CLB congregation. I honestly don't know anything about this Lutheran body; I've rarely heard of them.

Any insights to this church body and what distinguishes them from other Lutheran groups in America?

The group originated from congregations that left the United Norwegian Lutheran Church (UNLC) in the year 1900. UNLC was formed in 1890. The CLB folks were critical of allowing nominal members to be on church rolls without displaying a true commitment. They sought to promote "pure" congregations. As as been mentioned, they are, like other Norwegian Lutheran bodies, influenced by the Haugean revival tradition.

As I mentioned in my private message, both ILT and St. Paul's are independent Lutheran schools, not controlled by a particular denomination, though most students at both schools would come from the "centrist" Lutheran camp of NALC, LCMC, CALC, etc.

Michael,

St. Paul Lutheran Seminary came out of a schism with another institution, namely the Institute of Lutheran Theology, in 2011, I believe. I don't have much contact with the folks at St. Paul Lutheran Seminary, so I can't say much more than that other than it is an online based school like ILT.

In the interest of full disclosure, I serve on the faculty of the Institute of Lutheran Theology.

Yes, I was just being more polite in my language

It was emphasizing that explicit rejection of the faith confessed is serious indeed.

It was emphasizing that explicit rejection of the faith has eternal consequences.

We use it every year on Trinity Sunday. We break it up into three parts. I view it as an important teaching opportunity. I take the time to explain the history behind it, how it emerged as a response to the threat posed to the faith by the Arian Goths. I believe it needs to be understood in that spirit. The point is not to say that intellectual understanding of the Trinity is what saves. It was emphasizing that explicit rejection of the faith confessed is serious indeed.

We've talked about this topic before, but rather than resurrect an old buried thread I'm starting this one fresh to discuss Trinity Sunday and whether people plan to use the Athanasian Creed. What are the pros and cons of using it, especially if the sermon is not totally or in part devoted to explaining some of the parts of it that on the surface seem to contradict basic tenets of the faith as people have come to understand it?

We plan to confess the Athanasian Creed this Sunday and do so responsively. I'm not sure yet, but I think I'm going to focus on the idea of "giving an account" and the relationship between reality and one's understanding/description of it. Reality is simply God's story/narrative; you are what God says you are, not what you say you are. The Truth is what God says happened (per Peter's Pentecost sermon), not what anyone else says happened. The Law and Gospel proclaim God's account of your life and therefore focus on Christ for you rather than you in isolation. Repentance and faith are simply a matter of squaring our account of ourselves and others with God's Word/reality.

Cathi was a great friend and mentor to many. She provided my family and me with much encouragement. She will be greatly missed, but we give thanks for resurrection hope.

We said the Pledge of Allegiance and sang God Bless Our Native Land after the Divine Service today, and we have a US Flag near the chancel, along with that Methodist Sunday School flag that was so popular over the years, but we've actually had people in our congregation speak out in favor of removing the flags.

I recall reading that the only reason the national flag was put in Missouri Synod churches was because of anti-German sentiments during World War I.  Strange thing considering the people we were at war with at the time were supposedly worshipping the same God. This is also why no one speaks German anymore in the Missouri Synod...my grandpa (born in 1931) didn't know a word of German but his parents were raised speaking it. Both of them went through Confirmation using German-language Kirchengesangbuchs. My great-grandma offered to teach me when I was a kid but I stupidly refused.

Back to the topic, we removed the flags from our nave about three years ago, moving them to the parish hall, but a woman who rarely attended church complained so much about it that they were put back.

The transition from European languages such as German (and Norwegian, Swedish, etc.) to English happened fairly swiftly after US involvement in WWI.  This was partially due to anti-German sentiment in the US, but it also had to do with the fact that immigration after WWI pretty much ground to a halt.  In some places with a strong German heritage, the use of German persisted until quite late, perhaps the 40s and 50s, though English was used alongside it.

Yes, the practice of placing a US flag in the chancel was a way for German ethnic congregations (as well as Norwegians, Swedes, and Danes, along with other folk) to demonstrate their loyalty to the US.  It became even more popular during WWII, and interestingly, advertisements from Augsburg Publishing House can be found in The Lutheran Herald (the publication of the Norwegian Lutheran Church of America/Evangelical Lutheran Church) for churches to purchase a US flag to place in their sanctuaries.  No joke!  It seems that the purpose behind the placement of a flag evolved from something to demonstrate loyalty for their own protection to something to demonstrate support for the country more generally.

Personally, I'd prefer to not have a US flag in the sanctuary for reasons already stated.  But I also don't think it's the end of the world.  I think it can, along with the "Christian flag" of the International Sunday School Movement, be used to teach people about the place of civil authority.

So is anyone going to answer my question about why they think there is a need to establish a "new" Wittenberg Center, when one is already in place with the cooperation and support of the majority of Lutheran churches in Germany? And the established center apparently has the support of major Lutheran educational foundations and historic sites in "Lutherland."

Charles, I didn't take the time to read all 14 pages of this discussion, so I don't know if anyone responded to you or not.  But I will say that I was a part of the Wittenberg Center about 10 years ago when I did my internship in Germany in cooperation between the Wittenberg Center and a German congregation in Leipzig.  My understanding is (unless something has changed recently) that the Wittenberg Center has really been scaled back in size, and there is no longer a full time presence there.  Rather, an American pastor who also serves in the area devotes some time there.  So, that might explain why the LCMS felt that it was justified to establish a presence there.

This is an observation or maybe a mistaken impression.  It seems to me that in the ethnic experience of the Swedes that for varied reasons one time Lutherans became Swedish Covenant or Swedish Baptists.  It seems in the Norwegian experience there were those  who were more Baptist and Covenant than Lutheran but stayed Lutheran in name. 

That would be similar to my observations, too, Paul.  My recollection is that those who study the demographics note that only about 1/3rd of the Swedish immigrants to the US remained with Lutheran churches.

While the Swedish Baptist and the various Swedish Covenant churches are rather easy to identify because, like the Augustana Synod, they emphasized their Swedish ethnicity, one should note Swedish-American Methodists were particularly adept at meeting new immigrants upon their arrival to the US.

Pax, Steven+

The percentages of various ethnic groups that came from Lutheran lands in the old country that joined Lutheran churches in the US is interesting and a lot lower than what many might think:

Estimates are:

Norwegians: 30 percent
Finns: 25 percent
Swedes: 16 percent
Danes: 9 percent

These numbers seem low, but they would be even lower were it not for missionary pastors drawing immigrants into congregations.  The remainder became Methodists, Baptists, Mission Covenant, Evangelical Free, various other Christian churches, even Mormons, and some nothing at all.

Regarding the Augustana Synod, a relatively new book is available (AugsgurgFortress, 2008), The Augustana Story, by Maria Erling and Mark Granquist. It covers much of the territory discussed here.

A couple of other points/questions:
1. At the time of their formation many in the Evangelical Covenant/Mission Friends considered themselves Lutheran. So there were other options for Swedish Lutherans. In Sweden they are in full communion with the Church of Sweden, and even share the same publishing house.
2. It is my understanding that Rome has never formally condemned Swedish orders as they have Anglican orders. Is this correct?

Mark

Yes, the Granquist and Erling book is good, probably the first American Lutheran denominational history written in 40 years or so.  And it approaches things from a much different perspective than previous works, whose goal was to preserve the identity of their particular group when mergers were impending.  Mark Granquist is actually my doctoral adviser.

Regarding the Swedish Mission Covenant, it is true that many members of it at the outset probably still considered themselves Lutheran, but in time it was understood to be a departure from the Lutheran tradition (as in no acceptance of the Augsburg Confession), though in some places Lutheran elements are retained, as in Luther's Small Catechism.  If I remember correctly, the main issue leading to the departure of the Mission Covenant in the US was a dispute about the nature of the atonement, centering around the theology of a man named Waldenstrom, who interpreted it in a more subjective manner.

The Augustana Synod consisted of Swedes and
the ALC consisted of Norwegians.  So they waited
until 1962 to join their fellow Swedes in the LCA.

Why would that matter?  They were in fellowship with The American Lutheran Conference from 1930-1960 with the Norwegians...

Time-out for clarification.

The synodical alliances of that time period are sometimes hard to understand.  First of all, one must distinguish between the "old ALC" formed in 1930 (consisting of three/four different German background synods) and the "new ALC" of 1960 (made complete in 1963 when the Lutheran Free Church joined it), officially abbreviated "TALC" to distinguish it from the old, German ALC.  The American Lutheran Church of 1960/63 (TALC) consisted of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ELC, (Norwegian, and the largest group of the merger), the "old" ALC of 1930 (German in background), and the United Evangelical Lutheran Church, UELC, (Danish in background, of the "sad" variety from the Danish "inner mission" tradition as opposed to the other Danish group that joined with the LCA in 1962).  Compared to the ELC and ALC, the UELC was quite small, comprising only about three percent of the membership of the new TALC.  And as I said, in 1963, the Lutheran Free Church (also of Norwegian background) finally mustered enough votes to join TALC, but about 20 percent of its congregations declined to merge, and instead formed a new group call the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, AFLC.

As to why the Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church (Swedish) did not join TALC and instead joined the LCA, that is a complex matter, but I'll try to explain.  In the years leading up to the mergers of the 1960s, there were three broad groupings of Lutherans in the United States.  The one would be the Synodical Conference, which included the Missouri Synod, regarded as the most doctrinally rigid of the three.  On the other end of the spectrum was the ULCA, regarded as the least doctrinally rigid.  In the middle was a type of "protective alliance" of a few different synods called the American Lutheran Conference.  These were groups that participated with the ULCA in the National Lutheran Council, but feared the influence of the ULCA in theological matters.  The American Lutheran Conference folks were not quite as doctrinally rigid as the Synodical Conference folks, but they shared a greater kinship with the Synodical Conference than they did the ULCA.  The American Lutheran Conference consisted, I think, of the following groups: ELC (Norwegian), ALC (German), UELC (Danish), Lutheran Free Church, Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church.  Maybe I'm missing one or two in there.  But numerically, all three groups were about the same size.  Note here that the Augustana Church identified itself with these more doctrinally rigid groups.

The American Lutheran Conference, which was based on the Minneapolis Theses of 1925, written by Hans Gerhard Stub, the first president of the ELC, became the foundation for the eventual merger that produced the TALC in 1960.  Why, then, didn't the Augustana Swedes join them?  Well, historically, the Augustana Synod had ties to the eastern Lutheran groups that went on to form the ULCA in 1918.  They were originally a part of the General Council, but they declined to participate in the 1918 merger, pursuing an independent future.  And so they were pulled in a couple of directions.  Theologically, they tended to agree with their American Lutheran Conference sister synods.  But they also felt that merger negotiations should be open to all Lutherans who wanted to participate.  But the rest of the American Lutheran Conference wanted to exclude the ULCA from negotiations.  And that is what caused them to merge into the LCA in 1962.

[It is my understanding that in the Augustana Synod (the Church of Sweden in the USA) it was bishops who ordained; and since in Sweden the reformation was fairly gentle-- that is, bishops who had been Catholic and therefore in apostolic succession simply became Lutheran bishops instead, and kept on ordaining the way they had before-- the Church of Sweden claims apostolic succession.  Rome and the Orthodox disagree; but as I read literature about apostolic succession it seems that at its worst it is one more excuse we baptized employ to divide ourselves and declare others In Error.

But yes, I have known many Augustana Synod pastors who would note that the Historic Episcopate and Apostolic Succession was no big deal since they'd been doing ministry within it their whole careers.  Some LCA pastors, too, whose roots (and whose bishops) were Augustana, noted AS/HE as part of their identity.
[/quote]

Take note of my previous post.  The Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church was not "the Church of Sweden in the USA."  It was a Swedish-Lutheran ethnic synod, but it was not understood to be simply the American "arm" of the Church of Sweden.

The claim that the Church of Sweden has to have held on to apostolic succession is actually a good one.  The Church of Sweden, though it had severed ties with Rome in 1527, I think, did not become explicitly Lutheran until 1593.  For several decades it was just understood to be a nationally-run church independent of Rome.  Some bishops, including Laurentius Petri, brother of Olavus Petri, were consecrated as bishops, but without papal confirmation.  It is a practice that they just kept on doing (and by extension, the Finnish Church has the same claim), but without much theological significance attached to it.  Lutheran pastors from other countries have never had any trouble working within the Church of Sweden, for example.