Listing Concerns about Those Other Lutherans

[Brian Stoffregen]

Singing a cappella works if the music is already familiar to the congregation or they can read music and have had enough training to sing a cappella. That training is, I fear, greatly lacking in most people, especially younger ones. My impression is that public education has not had as much an emphasis on music for everybody as previously.

I don't know what they sang in Nadia's congregation. She was intentional about trying to reach folks were not the normal church people. Some songs, like those from Taizé are fairly easy to learn because of the repetition.

Much of contemporary worship music is not so familiar to the average congregation that they would already know most of the music, and the few times that I've worshiped with contemporary worship, only the words and not the music was supplied to the congregation. (One reason that I usually find contemporary worship unsatisfying as worship. I have a hard time participating and find treating it as a concert to be observed lacking as worship.)

I completely agree with you on this. While early on I only printed words in bulletins, in the late 1990s, I bought a program that allowed me to include at least the melody lines with the words in the bulletins. (With some songs I would reprint all four parts, e.g., Children of the Heavenly Father.)


Another pastor and I walked out of a synod worship service because it was essentially a performance by the musicians. They were singing songs we didn't know. They only projected words. We both read music and the music readers are likely to be the better singers to help the congregation sing their song.


As a musician (besides being a pastor,) one of the issues we face is how to help the congregation worship rather than being a performance. Related to that: how to accompany the congregation's song in such a way that doesn't draw undo attention to one's self. That can happen if there are too many mistakes or if there are too many embellishments.


One key of accompanying that I have read and learned by experience, is that the accompanist should not sing. S/he needs to be able to hear how well the congregation is singing and adjust the accompaniment accordingly. If they seem to know the tune well, e.g., Amazing Grace, there can be greater embellishments. If it's a new song and they aren't getting the melody too well, give greater emphasis on the melody - sometimes playing it in octaves without filling in the other notes to the chords. At times, good accompaniment can mean dropping out for a verse. This was especially true at synod events when folks were singing a well-known hymn and most seemed to know the four-part harmony, e.g., Beautiful Savior.


For anyone working with a musical ensemble, I recommend Marty Haugen's book: Instrumentation and the Liturgical Ensemble. I understand that this was his master's thesis. He has rewritten and updated the version I have. Here's a link:
https://www.giamusic.com/store/resource/the-liturgical-ensemble-second-edition-print-g9522


As a basic rule, the more instruments, the less each one should play.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Dave wrote:

However, the kicker is that the majority, and that majority is growing greater, of the people in worship on any given Sunday are in those blended/contemporary congregations.  Does that feel somehow then more Baptist to worshipers?  I don't know; but to someone committed to liturgical worship, the answer might be Yes.

Is it documented that more Lutherans are attending blended/contemporary services than traditional services? Is there a study that shows this? I've not seen one. Someone please enlighten me.

Things Lutherans do that Baptists typically don't:
Public confession and absolution
Lectionary readings
Communion at the altar
Altar at the center
Baptize infants
Aaronic Benediction
Creeds
Responsive readings and prayers, etc.

Things Baptists do that Lutherans typically don't:
Altar calls
Persistently preacher picked Bible texts
Long Bible study styled sermons that dominate the service
Pulpit at the center
Adult Baptisms only
Testimonials

Unless I'm missing something, Baptists are still pretty sure we're Roman Catholic (or too close to it!).

[Dave Benke]

Dave wrote:

However, the kicker is that the majority, and that majority is growing greater, of the people in worship on any given Sunday are in those blended/contemporary congregations.  Does that feel somehow then more Baptist to worshipers?  I don't know; but to someone committed to liturgical worship, the answer might be Yes.

Is it documented that more Lutherans are attending blended/contemporary services than traditional services? Is there a study that shows this? I've not seen one. Someone please enlighten me.

Things Lutherans do that Baptists typically don't:
Public confession and absolution
Lectionary readings
Communion at the altar
Altar at the center
Baptize infants
Aaronic Benediction
Creeds
Responsive readings and prayers, etc.

Things Baptists do that Lutherans typically don't:
Altar calls
Persistently preacher picked Bible texts
Long Bible study styled sermons that dominate the service
Pulpit at the center
Adult Baptisms only
Testimonials

Unless I'm missing something, Baptists are still pretty sure we're Roman Catholic (or too close to it!).

The Missouri Synod stat I have from Pre-COVID is that 50-55% of the worshippers we’re from 15% of the congregations.  In other words the large(r) ones.  I would guess at this point
A) lots less people in worship, sadly
B) greater percentage in the larger ones than before

As to the rest, the biggest difference is in the Sacraments, and that remains.

Dave Benke

[Dave Likeness]

Mega Non-Denominational Order of Worship:

15 minutes....Praise Team leads congregation in singing
5 minutes......Offering/Prayers
40 minutes....Sermon

There is no Confession of Sins or Absolution,  no Apostles
Creed or Lord's Prayer, no O.T. lesson, Epistle lesson or
Gospel lesson, no Holy Communion, no Invocation or
Benediction

[RayToy]

Pastor Charlton says  his ELCA:
- considers "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to be an optional metaphor
- considers the Gospel to be synonymous with Social Justice
- considers sex outside of marriage to be acceptable for ordained ministers
- believes that Christ is one among many saviors

I comment:
-No. Our ELCA says God is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. And however we refer to God, that Holy Trinity is the God to whom we refer, no one else.
-Care for our neighbor, individually and collectively, and for justice for our neighbors  is a clear, un-disputed biblical mandate. It must exist with the proclamation of the Gospel. Only the weirdest “faith-is-me-and-my-God” heretic would argue with that.
-No. Full sexual intimacy belongs within a committed, public, life-long relationship.
-Show us where, in our statements of faith, our liturgical publications, our hymnals, the words of our key leaders, we say Christ is “one among many saviors”. If I thought the ELCA taught that, I would resign from it immediately. (There may be other saviors out there, but Jesus is the only one revealed to us as Christians and the only one we follow. We call everyone to Jesus, not to anyone else.)

You are describing an ELCA that once existed.  Time has passed you by. 
- The notion that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a metaphor, but not God's name, has prevailed.  (See the installation of Bishop Rohrer.)
- The distinction between Law and Gospel, which would recognize the importance of preaching justice as Law, while still distinguishing it from the Gospel, strictly speaking, has been lost.  (See just about any pronouncement on justice that comes from the ELCA.)
- Being in a committed, public, life-long relationship is no longer the standard.  (See the installation of Nadia Bolz-Weber as public theologian.)
- It is no longer clear where the ELCA stands in regard to religious pluralism, and the necessity of Christ for salvation.  (See CWA 2019)

This is how the ELCA works.  First, the proponents of change establish facts on the ground, then they may or may not bother to change our governing documents to reflect those changes.  An appeal to what is in the ELCA constitution doesn't change facts on the ground. 

Whatever the ELCA constitution may say, students at ELCA seminaries have been taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a replaceable metaphor for over 30 years.  The idea that social justice is the true Gospel, and that the distinction between Law and Gospel is the opiate of the masses, has likewise been taught for over 30 years.  ELCA bishops ordained people in same-sex relationship long before it was permitted.  And universalism has been alive and well in the ELCA from the beginning.  (And I'm not talking about Christocentric universalism.)

Yes, it is true that prominent theologians and professors, including Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten, resisted these trends.  Walter Bouman, at my seminary, did the same.  (Bouman may have supported ordaining pastors in committed, lifelong, same-sex relationships.)  They lost the battle.

    The center of gravity in the ELCA has definitely shifted.  Back when the Gay/Lesbian ordination question was being debated, there were four basic groups in existence.

Group 1-Opposed the question, and were willing to leave if the question went in favor.
Group 2-Opposed the question, but were willing to stay if the question went in favor.
Group 3-Supported the question, but were willing to stay if the question lost.
Group 4-Supported the question, and were willing to leave if the question lost.

    Of course, the question was approved by one vote, and the status quo changed.  When a motion to rescind the decision was ruled out of order, the groups were still in existence, but they became redefined with the new situation.

Group 1-Essentially left.
Group 2-Supports traditional sexuality mores, but recognizes that the advocacy train has left the station. This group for the most part stays silent on these kind of issues as long as the assumption of silence equates to ambiguity.
Group 3-Supports the expansion of sexual minorities into the pastoral ministry, but is willing to work with people in group 2.
Group 4-Supports the expansion of sexual minorities into the pastoral ministry, and wants group 2 to leave.
Group 5-Came into existence with "Naked and Unashamed." They believe that the entire notion of marriage and monogamy is intrinsically evil and morally bankrupt. NBW is a signatory.

     Many members of groups 2 and 3 (who were able to work with each other) are now retiring or otherwise leaving.  Many of the younger pastors coming up are in groups 4 and 5.  It will be interesting to see what happens.


Ray

[Dan Fienen]

Pastor Charlton says  his ELCA:
- considers "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to be an optional metaphor
- considers the Gospel to be synonymous with Social Justice
- considers sex outside of marriage to be acceptable for ordained ministers
- believes that Christ is one among many saviors

I comment:
-No. Our ELCA says God is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. And however we refer to God, that Holy Trinity is the God to whom we refer, no one else.
-Care for our neighbor, individually and collectively, and for justice for our neighbors  is a clear, un-disputed biblical mandate. It must exist with the proclamation of the Gospel. Only the weirdest “faith-is-me-and-my-God” heretic would argue with that.
-No. Full sexual intimacy belongs within a committed, public, life-long relationship.
-Show us where, in our statements of faith, our liturgical publications, our hymnals, the words of our key leaders, we say Christ is “one among many saviors”. If I thought the ELCA taught that, I would resign from it immediately. (There may be other saviors out there, but Jesus is the only one revealed to us as Christians and the only one we follow. We call everyone to Jesus, not to anyone else.)

You are describing an ELCA that once existed.  Time has passed you by. 
- The notion that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a metaphor, but not God's name, has prevailed.  (See the installation of Bishop Rohrer.)
- The distinction between Law and Gospel, which would recognize the importance of preaching justice as Law, while still distinguishing it from the Gospel, strictly speaking, has been lost.  (See just about any pronouncement on justice that comes from the ELCA.)
- Being in a committed, public, life-long relationship is no longer the standard.  (See the installation of Nadia Bolz-Weber as public theologian.)
- It is no longer clear where the ELCA stands in regard to religious pluralism, and the necessity of Christ for salvation.  (See CWA 2019)

This is how the ELCA works.  First, the proponents of change establish facts on the ground, then they may or may not bother to change our governing documents to reflect those changes.  An appeal to what is in the ELCA constitution doesn't change facts on the ground. 

Whatever the ELCA constitution may say, students at ELCA seminaries have been taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a replaceable metaphor for over 30 years.  The idea that social justice is the true Gospel, and that the distinction between Law and Gospel is the opiate of the masses, has likewise been taught for over 30 years.  ELCA bishops ordained people in same-sex relationship long before it was permitted.  And universalism has been alive and well in the ELCA from the beginning.  (And I'm not talking about Christocentric universalism.)

Yes, it is true that prominent theologians and professors, including Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten, resisted these trends.  Walter Bouman, at my seminary, did the same.  (Bouman may have supported ordaining pastors in committed, lifelong, same-sex relationships.)  They lost the battle.

    The center of gravity in the ELCA has definitely shifted.  Back when the Gay/Lesbian ordination question was being debated, there were four basic groups in existence.

Group 1-Opposed the question, and were willing to leave if the question went in favor.
Group 2-Opposed the question, but were willing to stay if the question went in favor.
Group 3-Supported the question, but were willing to stay if the question lost.
Group 4-Supported the question, and were willing to leave if the question lost.

    Of course, the question was approved by one vote, and the status quo changed.  When a motion to rescind the decision was ruled out of order, the groups were still in existence, but they became redefined with the new situation.

Group 1-Essentially left.
Group 2-Supports traditional sexuality mores, but recognizes that the advocacy train has left the station. This group for the most part stays silent on these kind of issues as long as the assumption of silence equates to ambiguity.
Group 3-Supports the expansion of sexual minorities into the pastoral ministry, but is willing to work with people in group 2.
Group 4-Supports the expansion of sexual minorities into the pastoral ministry, and wants group 2 to leave.
Group 5-Came into existence with "Naked and Unashamed." They believe that the entire notion of marriage and monogamy is intrinsically evil and morally bankrupt. NBW is a signatory.

     Many members of groups 2 and 3 (who were able to work with each other) are now retiring or otherwise leaving.  Many of the younger pastors coming up are in groups 4 and 5.  It will be interesting to see what happens.


Ray

Reminds me of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' eponymous Neuhaus Law: Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.

[David Garner]

You are describing an ELCA that once existed.  Time has passed you by. 
- The notion that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a metaphor, but not God's name, has prevailed.  (See the installation of Bishop Rohrer.)
- The distinction between Law and Gospel, which would recognize the importance of preaching justice as Law, while still distinguishing it from the Gospel, strictly speaking, has been lost.  (See just about any pronouncement on justice that comes from the ELCA.)
- Being in a committed, public, life-long relationship is no longer the standard.  (See the installation of Nadia Bolz-Weber as public theologian.)
- It is no longer clear where the ELCA stands in regard to religious pluralism, and the necessity of Christ for salvation.  (See CWA 2019)

This is how the ELCA works.  First, the proponents of change establish facts on the ground, then they may or may not bother to change our governing documents to reflect those changes.  An appeal to what is in the ELCA constitution doesn't change facts on the ground. 

Whatever the ELCA constitution may say, students at ELCA seminaries have been taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a replaceable metaphor for over 30 years.  The idea that social justice is the true Gospel, and that the distinction between Law and Gospel is the opiate of the masses, has likewise been taught for over 30 years.  ELCA bishops ordained people in same-sex relationship long before it was permitted.  And universalism has been alive and well in the ELCA from the beginning.  (And I'm not talking about Christocentric universalism.)

Yes, it is true that prominent theologians and professors, including Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten, resisted these trends.  Walter Bouman, at my seminary, did the same.  (Bouman may have supported ordaining pastors in committed, lifelong, same-sex relationships.)  They lost the battle.

I find this fascinating, mostly because it explains Pastor Austin's constant harping about what "Catholics in the pews" are doing over and against what their church teaches, as if that is somehow defining.

One Catholic goes to commune at an ELCA parish and all of a sudden closed communion isn't supposed to be a thing anymore.  Same with contraception, abortion, etc. 

The utter lack of any authority is the common denominator.  The Church is rendered a pure democracy where the mob rules.  One reason I came to embrace the Episcopacy.

[Dave Benke]

One reason I came to embrace the Episcopacy.  Be careful, David - you might be perceived as an Episcopalian.

Dave Benke

[David Garner]

One reason I came to embrace the Episcopacy.  Be careful, David - you might be perceived as an Episcopalian.

Dave Benke

I'm trying to avoid the temptation to respond with humor, mostly because it would be uncharitable and acerbic toward our Anglican and former Anglican friends here, and I'm not sure it would further the discussion.

That's my issue, not yours -- please don't take that as a critique of your post (which I did find humorous).

[Dan Fienen]

You are describing an ELCA that once existed.  Time has passed you by. 
- The notion that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a metaphor, but not God's name, has prevailed.  (See the installation of Bishop Rohrer.)
- The distinction between Law and Gospel, which would recognize the importance of preaching justice as Law, while still distinguishing it from the Gospel, strictly speaking, has been lost.  (See just about any pronouncement on justice that comes from the ELCA.)
- Being in a committed, public, life-long relationship is no longer the standard.  (See the installation of Nadia Bolz-Weber as public theologian.)
- It is no longer clear where the ELCA stands in regard to religious pluralism, and the necessity of Christ for salvation.  (See CWA 2019)

This is how the ELCA works.  First, the proponents of change establish facts on the ground, then they may or may not bother to change our governing documents to reflect those changes.  An appeal to what is in the ELCA constitution doesn't change facts on the ground. 

Whatever the ELCA constitution may say, students at ELCA seminaries have been taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a replaceable metaphor for over 30 years.  The idea that social justice is the true Gospel, and that the distinction between Law and Gospel is the opiate of the masses, has likewise been taught for over 30 years.  ELCA bishops ordained people in same-sex relationship long before it was permitted.  And universalism has been alive and well in the ELCA from the beginning.  (And I'm not talking about Christocentric universalism.)

Yes, it is true that prominent theologians and professors, including Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten, resisted these trends.  Walter Bouman, at my seminary, did the same.  (Bouman may have supported ordaining pastors in committed, lifelong, same-sex relationships.)  They lost the battle.

I find this fascinating, mostly because it explains Pastor Austin's constant harping about what "Catholics in the pews" are doing over and against what their church teaches, as if that is somehow defining.

One Catholic goes to commune at an ELCA parish and all of a sudden closed communion isn't supposed to be a thing anymore.  Same with contraception, abortion, etc. 

The utter lack of any authority is the common denominator.  The Church is rendered a pure democracy where the mob rules.  One reason I came to embrace the Episcopacy.

If I were to indulge in cynical bitterness, I could point out that for a certain poster, to find out what some churches, such as the RCC or the LCMS, actually believe and teach one should look at what those in the pews do and say, or what some of the pastors in the denomination do and say, not what the official teachings or those in positions of authority do.


But, on the other hand, when describing what the ELCA believes and teaches, we are directed by that poster's colleague to what the official statements of that church say, not what those in the pews or the rank and file pastors do and say.


Similarly, those within the ELCA who dissent are frowned upon as disloyal, but within the LCMS, dissenters are praised for flouting LCMS positions that our humble correspondent disagrees with.

[Rob Morris]

Pastor Charlton says  his ELCA:
- considers "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" to be an optional metaphor
- considers the Gospel to be synonymous with Social Justice
- considers sex outside of marriage to be acceptable for ordained ministers
- believes that Christ is one among many saviors

I comment:
-No. Our ELCA says God is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. And however we refer to God, that Holy Trinity is the God to whom we refer, no one else.
-Care for our neighbor, individually and collectively, and for justice for our neighbors  is a clear, un-disputed biblical mandate. It must exist with the proclamation of the Gospel. Only the weirdest “faith-is-me-and-my-God” heretic would argue with that.
-No. Full sexual intimacy belongs within a committed, public, life-long relationship.
-Show us where, in our statements of faith, our liturgical publications, our hymnals, the words of our key leaders, we say Christ is “one among many saviors”. If I thought the ELCA taught that, I would resign from it immediately. (There may be other saviors out there, but Jesus is the only one revealed to us as Christians and the only one we follow. We call everyone to Jesus, not to anyone else.)

You are describing an ELCA that once existed.  Time has passed you by. 
- The notion that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a metaphor, but not God's name, has prevailed.  (See the installation of Bishop Rohrer.)
- The distinction between Law and Gospel, which would recognize the importance of preaching justice as Law, while still distinguishing it from the Gospel, strictly speaking, has been lost.  (See just about any pronouncement on justice that comes from the ELCA.)
- Being in a committed, public, life-long relationship is no longer the standard.  (See the installation of Nadia Bolz-Weber as public theologian.)
- It is no longer clear where the ELCA stands in regard to religious pluralism, and the necessity of Christ for salvation.  (See CWA 2019)

This is how the ELCA works.  First, the proponents of change establish facts on the ground, then they may or may not bother to change our governing documents to reflect those changes.  An appeal to what is in the ELCA constitution doesn't change facts on the ground. 

Whatever the ELCA constitution may say, students at ELCA seminaries have been taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a replaceable metaphor for over 30 years.  The idea that social justice is the true Gospel, and that the distinction between Law and Gospel is the opiate of the masses, has likewise been taught for over 30 years.  ELCA bishops ordained people in same-sex relationship long before it was permitted.  And universalism has been alive and well in the ELCA from the beginning.  (And I'm not talking about Christocentric universalism.)

Yes, it is true that prominent theologians and professors, including Robert Jenson and Carl Braaten, resisted these trends.  Walter Bouman, at my seminary, did the same.  (Bouman may have supported ordaining pastors in committed, lifelong, same-sex relationships.)  They lost the battle.

    The center of gravity in the ELCA has definitely shifted.  Back when the Gay/Lesbian ordination question was being debated, there were four basic groups in existence.

Group 1-Opposed the question, and were willing to leave if the question went in favor.
Group 2-Opposed the question, but were willing to stay if the question went in favor.
Group 3-Supported the question, but were willing to stay if the question lost.
Group 4-Supported the question, and were willing to leave if the question lost.

    Of course, the question was approved by one vote, and the status quo changed.  When a motion to rescind the decision was ruled out of order, the groups were still in existence, but they became redefined with the new situation.

Group 1-Essentially left.
Group 2-Supports traditional sexuality mores, but recognizes that the advocacy train has left the station. This group for the most part stays silent on these kind of issues as long as the assumption of silence equates to ambiguity.
Group 3-Supports the expansion of sexual minorities into the pastoral ministry, but is willing to work with people in group 2.
Group 4-Supports the expansion of sexual minorities into the pastoral ministry, and wants group 2 to leave.
Group 5-Came into existence with "Naked and Unashamed." They believe that the entire notion of marriage and monogamy is intrinsically evil and morally bankrupt. NBW is a signatory.

     Many members of groups 2 and 3 (who were able to work with each other) are now retiring or otherwise leaving.  Many of the younger pastors coming up are in groups 4 and 5.  It will be interesting to see what happens.


Ray

From where I sit, with a substantial number of transfers coming to my congregation from ELCA congregations whose new pastors are pretty deep into Groups 4 and 5, this summary is quite apt.

What it doesn't point out, is that these Groupings apply to pastors and laypeople alike. And when a congregation goes from a Group 2 Pastor to a Group 4/5 Pastor at the insistence of the Bishop, many congregants become Group 1.

My advice to LCMS pastors - have Elders and leaders who are clear on the ELCA/LCMS differences and are ready to dialogue with those leaving ELCA congregations. Within 10 years, I don't think the ELCA will be likely to have almost any Group 2 Pastors and I am willing to bet Group 3 will be pretty marginalized.

Also... the authority of the bishop is why three local ELCA congregations were pushed firmly from Group 2/3 into Group 4/5. The Episcopal authority thing cuts two ways: A bishop can be a change agent just as much as a bishop can prevent change. Much harder for a DP to do either in a congregational polity.

[Charles Austin]

I just wonder how you LCMS guys feel about the ELCA refugees you take in and whether you worry about their future impact. These are people who have seen women pastors at work for the last 50 years. These are people who have heard "moderate" or (OMG! No!) "liberal" sermons, and sent their kids to church camps where who know what they might have encountered there. These are people from churches welcoming Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and others to their communion rails.
No doubt they agree with the LCMS on certain issues concerning sexuality, but I wonder if that is the only point of easy and broad agreement.
So here they are, in your pews, teaching in your Sunday Schools, maybe being elders. Can you be sure you have purged all the ELCA heterodoxies and worse from them?

[Dave Benke]

The inter-Lutheran pilgrimage works both ways.  Charles' point is reasonably taken when it comes to female pastors.  We have received a number of ELCA refugees as congregations have been closed.  They're all non-white, mostly Caribbean, and have had good experiences with their female pastors.  They are appreciative of the active roles in leadership women play in our church, and that seems to be satisfactory.  But they are not opposed to the ordination of women.  Where does that lead down the line?  I don't think it leads anywhere, frankly.  I do think if women were absent from worship roles, or were not allowed to hold congregational leadership posts, they might find another church home. 

Dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

Good points, Dave. And I have said here before how I found the former Missourians in the congregation I served to be fine church members, with a good sense of church, ministry, worship, and public service. They also liked Bible study.

[D. Engebretson]

I just wonder how you LCMS guys feel about the ELCA refugees you take in and whether you worry about their future impact. These are people who have seen women pastors at work for the last 50 years. These are people who have heard "moderate" or (OMG! No!) "liberal" sermons, and sent their kids to church camps where who know what they might have encountered there. These are people from churches welcoming Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists and others to their communion rails.
No doubt they agree with the LCMS on certain issues concerning sexuality, but I wonder if that is the only point of easy and broad agreement.
So here they are, in your pews, teaching in your Sunday Schools, maybe being elders. Can you be sure you have purged all the ELCA heterodoxies and worse from them?

I have received a number of former ELCA folks over the last number of years, some "refuges" (as in post 2009), and some simply folks who moved to the area looking for a Lutheran church nearby.  I also follow up to explain the differences so they are fully aware.  To date I can't say that I've really had any issues with ELCA-related practices that are different than the LCMS in terms of these newer members.