Woo Hoo! The starting up of yet another liberal church body! Seriously though, it’s really sad that they leave one liberal church body only to begin one that is slightly less so.

I see that the LCMC has “committed to an ongoing close working relationship” with NALC.

I’m curious what the similarities and differences are in these two bodies, since it appears that most of both bodies’ congregations are former ELCA congregations, and both have female “pastors” in leadership roles.

Why 2 separate bodies?

I went back and found this in the CORE newsletter:

How does the NALC relate to
Lutheran Congregations in Mission
for Christ (LCMC)?
The NALC and LCMC are committed
to working in close partnership. Some
have called the two church bodies
fraternal twins. LCMC is a vibrant and
faithful association of congregations,
rather than a denominational church
body. Like LCMC, the NALC will be
focused on and do its ministry through
congregations, but it will have more of
a traditional denominational structure
to assist congregations in their mission
and ministry and in calling pastoral
leadership. Congregations can be
members of both NALC and LCMC.

So is NALC just a 1980′s version of the ELCA or are they theologically different? If all they did was turn back the clock, the same theological views could have them in the same place that the ELCA is today.

@jim_claybourn

Jim- You must bear in mind that Missourians have a tendency of assuming that the ELCA is all the same. Namely that everyone goes around wearing rainbow colored vestments and talking about social justice, and going to gay rights rallies.

The ELCA is a some what theologically diverse place (though it is becoming less so) because it was made up of several different regional churches.

You have three main theological factions: Mid-west Pietist/Neo-orthodox, Liberals, and eastcoast Evangelical Catholics- the “Catholics” with a large “C” is not a mistake.

The Liberal faction controls most of the church government and therefore the most public. They’re the ones who most LCMS and WELS people think of when they think of the ELCA, but they are by no means the majority. They structured the church so that they could have an assembly that would be maximally theologically uninformed and therefore push through their liberal agenda. They’re not leaving because they always get their way. Pretty much they just think the church exists to promote far-left ideas and be caring and inclusive. There’s not a lot there and none of the really big theologians in the ELCA belong to this faction.

LCMC are Midwestern Pietists. Most of them used to be ALC and their ancestors were German and Nordic Pietists. They are low churchy. They are congregationalistic. They were made a big stink about “Call to Common Mission,” but not about fellowship with the Reformed because they never have communion, but they dislike anything that seems “Catholic.”

NALC are eastcoast Evangelical Catholics. They are very high Church and are genuinely interested in ecumenism. They’re relatively morally conservative (except on the women’s ordination thing). They like bishops and think that basically if you had strong bishops everything in the church would be fixed. Their theologians, like Robert Jenson, formerly Michael Root, and David Yeago argue that the Papacy is necessary as a universal symbol of unity. Their not keen on forensic justification either, they follow the Finnish school and want it to be conflated with mystical union. They like to talk about “participation in Christ” in quasi-Thomistic terms.

So, as you can see, from our perspective they would of course all have theological problem and all be too liberal. But theologically they’re actually quite distinct. There’s really no way they’ll ever get together. NALC and LCMC are more different than WELS and the LCMS.

Also, I might add, they have too unstable a theological mix. So-called “moderate” denominations suffer from the same malady that mixed religious marriages do. Eventually one person is going to convert to the other person’s religion. If you’re a quasi-liberal denomination, and let’s say, gay marriage is just a bridge too far for you, then because on your principles (distrust in the absolute authority of the Bible) then it wouldn’t be for your children. On the other hand, maybe your children will see that distrust in Scripture is what’s leading to the mess and then accept it. Then they’d be in the other camp and therefore, by definition, not “moderate.” Consequently, the whole enterprise is going fail.

“You must bear in mind that Missourians have a tendency of assuming that the ELCA is all the same. Namely that everyone goes around wearing rainbow colored vestments and talking about social justice, and going to gay rights rallies.”

What, you mean that’s not accurate?

Also note – the big Word Alone (in alliance with LCMC) theologians are Forde, Nestigen, etc. They are also pro-women’s ordination, but in their case due to a functionalist view of the office of the ministry. My husband (Jack above) was just talking via the internet with an LCMC guy who notes that many of their pastors argue that there is no separate office of the ministry and that lay people can administer the sacrament.

Sorry, last comment. For more on the LCMC, including helpful comments from an LCMC pastor, see http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=11993

Evangelical Catholics who allow for women’s ordination? It sounds like a Jesuit’s liberal dream. I guess a few people think the bishop’s hierarchy covers a multitude of errors, though strict congregationalism doesn’t seem to have a better track record, either. Pray for faithful, doctrinal pastors and laypeople in all denominations.

The Liberal faction controls most of the church government and therefore the most public. They’re the ones who most LCMS and WELS people think of when they think of the ELCA, but they are by no means the majority. They structured the church so that they could have an assembly that would be maximally theologically uninformed and therefore push through their liberal agenda. They’re not leaving because they always get their way. Pretty much they just think the church exists to promote far-left ideas and be caring and inclusive.

As a former member of an ELCA congregation, I would say Dr. Kilcrease’s post is a pretty accurate description of the so-called liberal faction, although “caring” and “inclusive” are not necessarily the words that I would use. The attitude of this liberal faction towards anyone they perceive as being outside their group tends to be a mixture of condescension (if only you were as smart as they are and cared as much as they do, you could not help but see things their way) and contempt. This liberal faction is quite willing to have non-liberals stay in the ELCA, so long as they don’t get all uppity and try to challenge the new status quo.

Your critiques are so over simplified as to be cartoonish. Never have communion? Example: Who are you talking about? I’ve never seen this or heard of it. More likely, the communion is every Sunday. Liturgical? Very much so in some churches, never in other churches, in the same general area, geographically. Ditto with social programs or openness.

@Eiolg

“Who are you talking about?”

Eiolg- Though I’m saying much of this with tongue and cheek, my remarks are not that that much of an exaggeration on this point.

I used to work in Luther seminary book store and encountered ELCA pastors driving in from all over region 1 (Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota). Listening to them talk, I definitely heard the preference for highly infrequent communion.

One guy with whom I was discussion the fact that the ELCA had adopted a eucharistic prayer (contrary to Lutheran sacramental theology and also Luther’s own practice of removing it from the liturgy) said “wow, I mean, why does this have to be a big deal. This isn’t a big problem for us because we only have communion once a month.”

Another friend of mine in the ELCA was a interim pastor in northern Minnesota. People in the congregation tried to have communion as infrequently as possible. He would try to have it more frequently at the divine service and no one would come up. He was told that the ideal was to receive the Lord’s Supper twice- once at your confirmation and once at death. Before he knew this, he went to visit one of his parishners at the hospital and brought them the sacrament. They began to freak out because they thought that they meant that they were going to die.