I was doing some research on the top ten (plus a few) largest parishes in the Synod (as counted by membership and weekly attendance), it is fascinating to watch the recorded sermons on YouTube to note the various differences in settings and styles of service.

From traditional Mass to more evangelical appearances with some having women reading from the lectern or assisting in the administration of the Eucharist.

• Concordia Lutheran Church (San Antonio)
• Hosanna Lutheran Church (Mankato)
• Hales Corners Lutheran Church (Wisconsin)
• St. Lorenz Lutheran Church (Frankenmuth)
• St. John's Lutheran Church (Orange, CA)
• Immanuel Lutheran Church (Alexandria, VA)
• St. Luke’s Lutheran Church (Oviedo, FL)
• Faith Lutheran Church (Las Vegas)
• St. Peter's Lutheran Church (Columbus, IN)
• Divine Shepherd Lutheran Church (Black Hawk, SD)
• St. Paul's Lutheran Church (Fort Wayne, IN)
• Trinity Lutheran Church (Roselle, IL)
• Holy Cross Lutheran Church (Lake Mary, FL)
• Christ Greenfield Lutheran Church (Gilbert, AZ)

The Rev. lwk melts RZ's argument on ELCA. What are your thoughts?

God bless the LCMS!

Has anyone been to this event or something like it in another District?

I'm curious if other districts have such events like this or Adult Adventure Camp?

It would be great to fellowship with others in the Synod.

Does anyone have church resources on Genesis 6, The Sons of God, or the Nephilim? Particularly of the Sethite view.

Thank you!

Is there much diversity in our Synod today after the WELSians broke fellowship?

Did most of the Waltherians go with Wisconsin?

How much more catholic has Missouri become since then?

To clarify my questions: I was thinking more about how strongly local autonomy and anti-hierarchical instincts are compared to how strongly does a parish emphasize historic continuity, liturgy, sacramental identity, and the pastoral office.

I have really enjoyed listening to the scholastic Revs. who have been guests at On The Line.

What scholastic subject(s) do you enjoy studying and why?

I read this on a parish website and it made me smile.

May the church continue in the strength and wisdom of Christ, my prayer for the men meeting in Phoenix this summer is that the Lord gives them understanding.

GodBlessTheLCMS

Research Preface

I previously published two research papers pertaining to the topic of WELS theology from an LCMS view, continuing my short series, I wanted to provide additional context from what I have gathered and understood of our Synod's perspective.

Please feel free to read my first paper, "Why I chose to come back to Missouri instead of going with Wisconsin: Theology of Office, Church Practice, Fellowship Boundaries, and Internal Variation": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t0c4ws/why_i_chose_to_come_back_to_missouri_instead_of/

And I likewise invite you to read my second paper "On the Dangers of WELS Theology": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t31kc0/on_the_dangers_of_wels_theology

---

Opening Statement

I hope this research helps the reader not only see the dangers of WELS theology but also build confidence in articulating our response to such within the LCMS in a way that is conversational and not overly scholastic.

---

On Doctrine of the Ministry

LCMS critiques WELS for collapsing the pastoral office into a broader, more "function" based concept of ministry which ignores the institution that Christ gave of a distinct pastoral office, the office is not simply one form among many. The "one ministry in many forms" that WELS teaches brings about real risk of blurring the distinction between pastors, teachers, and church workers which may unintentionally suggest that the pastoral office is not uniquely instituted. This can lead to weakened clarity on who is authorized to preach and administer the Sacraments.

---

On Inconsistency Between Theology and Practice

LCMS critiques WELS for saying the ministry is one and distributed, but in practice restricting such heavily. WELS could theoretically, and as noted has practically in the past, allow a broader exercise of preaching and/or sacraments beyond pastors due to the "flexible" structure. Here we can see real world examples of how such theoretical framework leads to practical dangers.

---

On Fellowship Principles

LCMS critiques WELS for being too strict and over-applying bounds beyond what Scripture requires by treating every difference in practice as church-dividing and refusing fellowship even when there is substantial doctrinal agreement. Turning fellowship into isolationism as has been the case historically can be seen today in the refusal of joint prayer or cooperation which may negatively affect the witness of the Gospel.

---

On Prayer Fellowship

LCMS critiques WELS for treating prayer as an absolute marker to indicate full doctrinal unity. While LCMS agrees that prayer expresses unity, WELS collapses contextual distinctions thus ignoring the graduated standards between church services, civic events, and personal or family settings. Applying a single rule with such rigidity can be harmful to the witness of the Gospel.

---

On Church Practice

LCMS critiques WELS for demarcating doctrinal boundaries by practice, whereby instead of distinguishing between doctrinal error and differences in practice, WELS asserts that if practice contradicts doctrine then it is a doctrinal error. Such strict application to boundaries can lead to unnecessarily breaking fellowship over application not just teachings.

---

On Ecumenical Isolation

LCMS critiques WELS for not sufficiently engaging other confessional Lutherans. Due to how WELS structures dialogue and restricts cooperation they hinder unity efforts and the mutual strengthening of confessional Evangelical Catholic churches.

---

Concluding Remarks

May we faithfully continue to allow the Gospel to purify and guard our church as it has for thousands of years and may that same Gospel guide us in mercy towards our WELS brothers and others who many hold to such dangerous theology.

May Christ bless us with unity in the Gospel, the Holy Scriptures, and the Confessions of our one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. The peace of Christ be with you!

To all clergy, thank you for your life laid down. I and many others pray for you daily.

View Poll

Research Preface

I previously published my first research paper pertaining to this topic in what now is becoming a short series on comparative theology, to outline the basic differences between the LCMS and WELS while also bringing attention to matters which are seldom spoken of.

You are invited to read Part I of my research paper series on comparative theology between LCMS and WELS entitled, "Why I chose to come back to Missouri instead of going with Wisconsin: Theology of Office, Church Practice, Fellowship Boundaries, and Internal Variation": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t0c4ws/why_i_chose_to_come_back_to_missouri_instead_of/

And I likewise invite you to read my third paper "Summarizing LCMS Critiques on WELS Theology": https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/1t3ogoy/summarizing_lcms_critiques_on_wels_theology/

---

Opening Statement

May we pray for our brothers in the WELS that they may come to their senses and understand the severity of their waywardness in such areas of theology and practice.

---

On the Dangers of WELS Making the Pastoral Office Functional:
A Comparative Analysis, Part I

-It becomes divisible, the LCMS would object by saying preaching, absolution, consecration, teaching, and oversight cannot be separated in functions and then assigned by the church.

-The church appears to create the office, the LCMS would object by saying that Christ institutes the office which precludes the church from arranging forms of ministry according to need.

-Women are theoretically and practically in ministry, the LCMS would object to the litmus test of "Does this task exercise authority over men?" and instead assert the proper question is to be asked "Does this belong to the pastoral office?"

-The pastorate does not hold sacramental administration, the LCMS would object to the Word and Sacrament being treated as assignable functions.

-Less clarity for laity, the LCMS would object to the congregation not knowing who exercises pastoral responsibility for doctrine, absolution, discipline, and the Supper.

---

On the Benefits of One Divinely Instituted Office in the LCMS:
A Comparative Analysis, Part II

-The church does not invent the ministry, it receives what Christ has already instituted.

-Preaching, absolution, pastoral care, and the Sacraments belong together and stay together.

-The theological weight to ordination is not merely the authorization of one's function.

-There is a clear public steward of doctrine, discipline, and sacramental care so that the congregation knows who is pastorally accountable.

-Women are morel clearly excluded from ordination because the question is not "What function is she doing?" but whether she is placed into the divinely instituted pastoral office.

---

On the Dangers of Ignoring the Order of Creation within WELS:

WELS uses a broader, functional doctrine of public ministry which creates different practical permissions for women, such theology includes the way in which WELS views the Order of Creation, that is by restricting women from exercising authority over men instead of restricting women from the pastoral office and authoritative public teaching/preaching all together as LCMS does.

Additionally, on ministry structure, WELS asserts the public ministry takes on multiple forms whereas the LCMS adheres to one divinely instituted office.

These two issues lead to the practical result by which women in WELS may serve in the office of ministry based on function if not exercising authority over men, while in the LCMS women are not permitted to serve in the office of ministry nor the functions belonging thereto but they may serve in other capacities.

The core principles are contrasted in that while WELS relies on the principles of order and function, the LCMS leans into the order of creation and apostolic prohibition. This leads to WELS permitting women in public ministry roles while the LCMS becomes increasingly restrictive as roles move towards pastoral and authoritative means.

---

On the Dangers of Bible Translations Published or Provided by WELS:

The WELS publishes their own synodical Bible translation called the Evangelical Heritage Version using the philosophy of balance and equivalence that aims for accuracy plus readability but includes more translator judgment such as substituting "people" for "men" and "brothers and sisters" for "brothers" whereas the LCMS uses the ESV for form-equivalency that preserves the original structure and theological precision including terms such as "man" and "brother" as to no obscure divinely intended masculine language. Furthermore, the LCMS warns that translation must be closely faithful to the actual text of Scripture and the masculine biblical language for God must not be neutralized.

Additionally, WELS supplies other versions of the Bible (NIV2011, ESV, CSB, NIrV, and KJV), most of which notably lack tight precision and the latest conservative scholarship (notably only the ESV retains both). Of particular concern are the NIV2011, CSB, NIrV, and the KJV but for disparate reasons: the first three lack tight precision and employ gender-neutral language as the WELS own EHV does, the last one also lacks the latest conservative scholarship.

---

Concluding Remarks

Taking the functional view of WELS to its logical conclusion would mean that the pastoral office is not divinely instituted and its restriction to men cannot be based on a direct divine command.

May such dangers never lead to our WELS brothers moving towards ecclesiastical nominalism.

---

On Historic Events Surrounding Such Topics, Addendum I

John Schaller (1859-1920), former President of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (1893-1908), claimed that the pastoral office developed historically, while Professor John Burg (ret.), in his book "Ministry of the Word" (2009) argues that external forms of ministry are not divinely instituted, going so far as to state that "Scripture does not say that a woman should not be ordained or that she should not be pastor or elder." Both men have helped formulate the current WELS position on women participating in office and activities of the public ministry as is stated in the WELS official "This We Believe" section.

Furthermore, in 2009, the WELS Conference of Presidents enacted an indefinite moratorium on the practice as to not cause offense with the ELS and to maintain unity within its own ranks, most notably this was not a statement of doctrinal condemnation.

Thereafter, the LCMS, in their statement to clarify the Synod's position on ministry differentiation, asserted that this difference in the view of the ministry furthermore prevents communion between the Synods.

---

Debunking Synodical Misnomers, Addendum II

First, we will address the misconception that "WELS is the more conservative Synod." While this maybe true insofar as "conservative" being defined in the application of strict boundaries concerning practice and fellowship (for which I would say "fundamentalist" is a better term to use when describing WELS), conversely, it is not true because the foundation by which such aforementioned downstream effects are influenced, that being theology of office, is relegated to function by WELS thus being stripped of it's ontological purpose as a divine office (of which the LCMS protects).

Second, we will address the misconception that "WELS separated from the LCMS due to their differing views on practice and fellowship which now persists because the LCMS is too open on such matters." for which is most famously known about due to each Synod's view on prayer, conversely, fellowship remains broken due to the WELS view on theology of office being fundamentally flawed according to the LCMS.

Just that we are the purified true, holy, catholic, and apostolic church?

Here are a few others I am considering from an LCMS brother in RZ:

We are orthodox (having right worship).

We are pentecostal (having the proper understanding of the Holy Spirit's work).

We are charismatic (we are all about God's gifts in the Divine Service).

We are baptist (we never stay quiet about baptism).

And why do so many in the Reconquista Movement have such disdain for Missouri even though we are the only institutional stalwart?

(at least in the USA)

Is CPH moving to build out their digital outreach (YouTube, Tiktok, Insta, etc.) for reaching Gen Z and Millennials?

Also, what resources do they have for clergymen about local parishes reaching the next generation through new media (socials, shorts, etc.)?

This looks like a map that has some great LCMS high church parishes on it, there seems to be overlap with lutheranliturgy.org, too.

https://issuesetc.org/findachurch/

Do you prefer one map over another in any case?

Research Preface
Why did you write this piece?

I wrote this in hopes that it helps someone who is doing research and praying about the two main confessional Lutheran synods in the United States, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).

I did much research myself over the past several months on many confessional Lutheran topics, today I wanted to share why I chose to once again swim across the Mississippi (but this time without my swimmies), therefore, I am particularly sharing on this topic because it is one that I did find to be frequently discussed.

---

Opening Statement
What is the context for your research?

My research was done in part because I wanted to look into the differences between LCMS (herein, Missouri) and WELS (herein, Wisconsin) beyond the common citing of a difference in prayer fellowship. To this end, I find Theology of Office to be of much greater consequence, as an ecclesiastical matter in general and specifically of polity and authority, than Church Practice and Fellowship Boundaries albeit they are intrinsically linked. Therefore, I wanted to share my findings with you as they may be a help.

---

On Theology of Office
Who can administer the Word and Sacraments and excercise the Office of the Keys in each Synod?

-Missouri mandates that only call and ordained clergymen can hold the [fixed] office and the keys according to a stricter application [and hierarchy] of Christ's institution seeing such as divinely mandated; tied to office therefore the distribution of ministerial functions are more concentrated including the Sacraments being tied to the office; office [and it's authority] protected (defined, ordered, ontological).

-Wisconsin would claim that called and ordained clergymen as well as teachers and other called workers can hold the office and the keys as a function of ministry [lacking hierarchy]. Thereby assigning greater adiophora to what "public ministry" means and it's structure according to their understanding of the priesthood of all believers seeing such as humanly arranged forms of one divine ministry; authority tied to call assignment therefore the ministerial functions are more distributed therefore the Sacraments are not tied to a single office but can be assigned within a call; church's authority protected to structure ministry (flexible, delegated, functional).

---

On Church Practice
What can each local parish look and feel like within each Synod?

-Missouri is moderately strict thus allowing a wide range of church settings including a higher ceiling that enables liturgymaxxing and a lower floor that allows for more contemporary styles within confessional bounds. This leads to circuits being essential to discussing brotherly differences, districts having strong regional identities as semi-distinct ecosystems, and the synod having resolutions that are debated at convention, voting blocs and caucuses that exist, public theological debate. Church discipline is a multi-step process (flexible).

-Wisconsin has a restrictive narrow band that is neither maximized fully nor diluted completely. This leads to circuits being essential for accountability and consensus building, districts being more uniform as part of one system, and the synod having strong consensus before convention, less conflict on the floor with strong alignment before decisions, more unified resolutions. Church discipline is addressed quickly (defined).

---

On Fellowship Boundaries
What does fellowship look like in each Synod?

-Missouri has strict fellowship (includes prayer and worship settings, closed communion) that requires substantial agreement* but allows time for correction and internal disagreement during controversy, working towards resolution over time (values process, theological discussion, gradual correction), distinguishes between church fellowship and civic cooperation (flexible, graduated).

*Missouri has recognized fellowship via International Lutheran Council (ILC) and maintains altar and pulpit fellowship with the American Association of Lutheran Churches (AALC); AALC is more cautious with fellowship style than Missouri while also having less internal diversity and holding to the same theology of office via a smaller synod that has a slightly lower liturgical ceiling.

-Wisconsin has very strict fellowship (includes prayer and worship settings, strict closed communion) that requires complete doctrinal agreement and visible unity of practice**, no tolerance for error (values clarity, consistency, immediate action), avoids church fellowship (including weddings and funerals) and civic cooperation that implies unity in faith (defined, binary).

**Wisconsin has recognized fellowship via Conference of Evangelical Lutheran Confessions (CELC) including with the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) therein; ELS has a functional form of ministry and very strict fellowship bounds via a tight-knit synod having a lower liturgical ceiling.

---

Concluding Remarks
So how does all of this come together?

-Missouri's anchor of authority is the office while maintaining a defined ministry structure which enables flexibility in practice and a process-oriented fellowship model.

-Wisconsin's anchor of authority is the church while adhereing to a functional ministry structure which requires consistency in practice and a boundary-oriented fellowship model.

---

Schismatics and Micro-Groups, Addendum
Where do the smaller groups of confessional Lutherans fall?

-Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA) has a strong theology of office and leans strict on boundaries via a diocesan model while having a high liturgical ceiling without maxing out at the highest heights.

-Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (ACLC) has a strong theology of office and is strict regarding boundaries via a small insular synod while having a lower variable liturgical ceiling.

-Lutheran Ministerium and Synod USA (LMS-USA) has a simplified theology of office while maintaining strict boundaries via a loose ministerium while having a lower variable liturgical ceiling.

-Augustana Ministerium has a strong theology of office that is influenced by Scandinavian roots while maintaining moderately tight fellowship bounds via a ministerium while having a high liturgical ceiling.

-Association of Free Lutheran Congregations (AFLC) has an emphasis on functional ministry with moderate fellowship bounds via congregational government while having a low liturgical ceiling.

-Church of the Lutheran Confession (CLC) has an emphasis on functional ministry with very strict fellowship bounds via synodical government while having a lower variable liturgical ceiling.

-Concordia Lutheran Conference (CLC) has a strong theology of office and very strict fellowship bounds via a loose conference structure while having a higher variable liturgical ceiling.

I was thinking about stopping by the convention to visit the exhibit hall in Phoenix this summer, does the Synod allow for laity to visit from the general public? Is there an official dress code there?

I was furthermore curious if anyone from r/LCMS will be attending on the floor or in general this year, maybe we can get an informal meetup set or is something already in the works on that front? Also, are there any informal meetings or events happening throughout the week that are adjacent to Missouri?

I would be particularly interested in topics surrounding high church liturgy, Gottesdienst renewal, etc. But of course, that is not in any way a litmus test for any r/LCMS meetup we may put together here, just a personal preference of mine as to attending something that may already be on the calendar.

Being active in parish life and within my circuit, having attended district events and even one national event (NYG), I am keen on experiencing convention.