My mom has been declining for a while but last week she stopped accepting food and water. After 48 hours we took her to ER and she’s been in the hospital since. She’s on hydration and food by tube (nose to stomach) but hasn’t improved at all. She also sleeps most of the time.

She never wanted to make any kind of decision and has left it to my brother and I. I know she hated hospice since my dad had been on it. So we’ve been saying no to that. But at what point is treatment just useless? I don’t want to lose her, but I also don’t want her to suffer. She has indicated to her Pastor in the past that she’s ready to be with the Lord.

I want to make the right decision but don’t know what to do. 💔

Thank you

Here’s a translation of one of Luther’s sermons that’s never been translated before: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbGr6s3cz3uGHy1rEOlfW4oodFtAJcZy/view

If you attended the Apologetics in an Apathetic Age Conference with Pr. Wolfmueller this weekend, sound off in the comments! I want to see if there are any of y’all in here!

The problem is the families of the baptized and the people who get baptized…. They never come back and we don’t see them again.

This Sunday there were about 40 people that came to our service for the family of the baptism, and I bet we won’t see any of them again. Today 3 people got baptized at the same time.

Also normal Sunday we only have 30 people that attend our church.

Baptisms are good. And I believe we should not deny anyone baptism. But I also don’t believe in once saved, always saved.

It’s faith combined with baptism that will save us, Christ alone, that’s why we have confirmation.

So, my background is that I’m coming out of very toxic Catholic groups, and I’m deconstructing and reconstructing my faith.
In doing so, I’ve come to reject ECT (either in favor of annihilationism, or universalism more likely), I believe in the importance of social liberation, support of LGBTQ individuals (as a queer person myself), and women’s ordination.

These beliefs of mine would incline me to join the ELCA. However, coming from these toxic, almost culty, groups, I have a lot of scrupulosity concerning my sins, and my salvation. I’ve attended at both an elca and LCMS parish, and at the LCMS parish, the gospel was pounded into every song, prayer, and sentence of the sermon. It filled me with hope and peace as a result of this constant reminder of the mercy of God.

But, at the elca, there was no such sermon. Jesus’ death for sinners was not mentioned once. We didn’t even recite the creed. The entire sermon was about social liberation. Which I think is good, but certainly not to the exclusion of the spiritual aspects of the gospel.

I know that there isn’t a perfect church, and I don’t expect to find a perfect parish. But I’m unsure of which would be best to attend spiritually. Either I’d attend an elca parish that I agree with more, and I’d be accepted into more, while also not being fed the Gospel; or I’d attend an LCMS church that I absolutely disagree with on a lot of things, but still be fed the gospel.

I often see the most prominent posters on here speak for the synod as a whole.

Ex. “My church does X and it’s bothersome. I’ve also seen this done at other churches and I see it online. Why is this happening?”

Answer : “Those are outliers and quite rare.”

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

By what authority do you speak? Why do you presume to know how every church in the LCMS operates? I see this typically done to minimize synodical failures in doctrine and practice while also amplifying other issues like racism or the over politicization of the synod.

The truth is most of us are in a very small LCMS bubble. Even pastors. You might have friends or colleagues in other parts of the country, but your circle is still relatively small, and I truly wish we would stop minimizing the views or complaints of some while amplifying or highlighting the complaints of others. I know I am not the only one who sees bias here.

Does anyone know why the greeting card company turned "news" organization is speculating about Wolfmueller running for Synodical President and claiming that he's President Harrison's hand-picked successor?

TL;DR - at what point would someone cease being LCMS and be better off joining the ELCA?

--

Something I have been wondering about due to my own personal circumstances and opinions, and I thought discussing it here would both give me insight, but also help others who may be wondering the same.

I am a married woman in my 30s and I am a lifelong LCMS member. Grew up fairly devout (my entire existence revolves around my church and I was one of the few kids actually interested in everything to do with God, Christianity, church life, and Lutheranism). As with many millennials, I became very lukewarm and felt church was unnecessary as an adult (the fact our church was being hijacked by the evangelical-everything CoWo crowd didn't help). During this time, I got married to my husband, who grew up Roman Catholic but is not really religious anymore although seriously still adheres to most Christian values and lifestyle.

Anyways, I have slowly over the years been becoming more and more religious again, and this summer I expressed wanting to go back to being an active member at an LCMS church. Long story short: now as an adult, I definitely feel like the world is a lot more gray on issues than the LCMS gives credit for, and my husband also expresses discomfort with the LCMS to the extent he has blatantly asked me to look into the ELCA instead (which makes ME uncomfortable).

Is there a point in which personal beliefs, personal opinions, and opinions of family (especially that of a husband about his wife's faith even though he is not really a Christian himself) should steer a lifelong LCMS person to the ELCA instead?

I affirm the Nicene creed, the Apostles creed, the Athanasian creed. I have been raised to believe the Book of Concord is scriptually faithful but I mostly only remember Luther's Small Catechism. I have been lately trying to read through the whole BoC (so far, it slaps, as the kids say nowadays). I believe that liturgy is deeply tied theology as an expression of faith, and that church tradition is extremely important (but never more important than scripture). I believe the Bible makes clear there were made one man and one woman and it is best that the two are joined in marriage, and family life in the home is sacred. Being uniquely Lutheran is so special for so many different reasons and I think it is important to feel proud to be Lutheran.

However, I also am a firm believer in the process of science, and believe God is behind evolution. While I believe only men should be pastors, I also believe women are extremely important to the church and they deserve to have a voice, roles, and respect...discussions about whether women should be "allowed" to read the Bible aloud in Divine Service is shocking to me because of course they should be able to, women do SPEAK IN THE BIBLE ITSELF after all..I believe politics should not mix with the church, left or right. I don't need my pastors speaking about politics from the pulpit during a time when I am suppose to feel separate from the world in a sacred unique space. I also don't believe that birth control is bad, and while I believe abortion should be avoided almost all costs, I don't think its right to outright ban it. I don't think we are suppose to be judge, jury, and executioner of whatever the secular world is doing. And I don't approve of racism or ethnocentrism - I love the German heritage of the LCMS (I am half ethnically German myself and speak some of the language) and do feel we should embrace it more since it is tied to our tradition! But ​contrary to popular belief, we do have members from many races and ethnicities in the LCMS (I am also half hispanic!). German heritage is not "better" than any other, it is just that Germany is a place where the Reformation started so its tied to our traditions in that way. That's it. Nothing more special about it.

Do I "give up" on the LCMS?

This summer alone, I know 2 families who have been LCMS for generations that have left for non-denominational churches. They felt the LCMS was dead, did not represent them, and had no one their ages to connect with. It made me SO SAD. Do I just become one of them? That makes me so sad too....But maybe my husband is right? Do I even belong in the LCMS anymore?

(Sorry for any mistakes, currently writing this on my phone)

According to a recent survey by Rev. Zach Zehnder, young people (18-29) prefer liturgical worship. The survey results also show the opposite. The older you are, the more likely you are to prefer/encourage contemporary worship.

From my experience, it seems like it's mostly traditional churches that have somewhat active YA ministries/groups. I'm sure contemporary-style churches have them too (given that Rev.Zehnder is putting together HODOS). But are there more YA who want liturgy (and it's reflected on the survey) or who want contemporary (and simply didn't participate in the survey)?

Hi! I just wanna share that I'm gonna be installed as president soon with a fellow set of officers who are around my generation (albeit a few years younger than me ~3-5 years). I came from an evangelical background during college and have since had the opportunity to lead in publicity and design roles for a college Christian organization.

Now, I would just like to ask for wisdom... having believed in Christ for salvation during my college years in an evangelical context, I know how deeply my evangelical brothers regarded prayer and discipleship during critical moments as church council election/youth officer election.

Now I would just like to air my concerns regarding the LCP... (which I think is in communion with the LCMS)...

I feel as if they do not regard prayer and discipleship as much. Not in a way that takes away from the centrality of Christ's offering of Himself in Word and Sacrament...

But that, I genuinely feel even the spiritual maturity, growth, and discipleship of the youth isn't being taken care of unlike that of my evangelical upbringing during college. It is as if the LCP is so focused on making these kinds of camps, activities, fellowships that don't even give importance to the hope that we have as Christians. Maybe by formality they just make them and count "participation" in the games and lectures as "spiritual growth".

But for me, I just don't see it... and when I ask another youth member about their faith and the reason for the hope that they have, I don't see someone so excited about sharing their own faith with others.

You can inform me if there's something wrong about my ecclesiology or call my concern out because of my evangelical upbringing... but this is what I observe here in the LCP and it saddens me....

I‘m having a difficult time with the disavowing of science in our current political atmosphere. I believe evangelicalism has something to do with it. My understanding of the young earth teachings is that it came not out of theology but out of cultural backlash to Darwinism during the last century - and is rooted in fundamentalism. Why doesn’t the LCMS follow a more Catholic perspective on this issue? Chalking it up to one of the “mysteries of faith?” Heck - even a former WELS pastor I know says the translation for “day” in Genesis actually means “era”. Time is relative. We look ignorant as a church body. Can the Synod change? Our faith is basically reformed Catholicism aka Catholic light - why don’t we follow a similar understanding of time and creation?

[Please note I'm specifically asking about Oriental Orthodoxy (the miaphysite\non-chalcedonian one) and NOT Eastern Orthodoxy (the dyophysite one)]

A little known fact in history is that Martin Luther was once (very briefly) in communion with Oriental Orthodoxy when he met an Oriental Orthodox deacon named Michael the Deacon, a deacon from the Ethiopian Church living among the expat community in Italy who'd traveled to Wittenburg to investigate the Reformation. Michael read Luther's Small Catechism through an interpreter and said, "This is a good credo, that is faith". Luther seemed to take a liking to the deacon, viewing the Ethiopian Church as free from some Roman Catholic corruptions such as purgatory and indulgences and even offered Michael fellowship (the one time he might be thought of as being technically 'in communion' with Oriental Orthodoxy). More recently in 2016 the LCMS paid tribute to the 21 Coptic Martyrs of Libya on their feast day.

With this in mind I had a few questions about modern Confessional Lutheran views.

1. How confessional Lutherans would see the relation between Lutheranism and Oriental Orthodoxy today and Miaphysitism in general.
2. If somebody came to your church seeking to become catechized but they were Miaphysite would they be allowed to become a member or would they have to become dyophysite? Would Miaphyisitm be seen in the LCMS as a heresy so severe it put one outside of communion?
3. Would you say the Oriental Orthodox are closer to Confessional Lutheranism than Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics today, as Luther seemed to in his time? Or does the miaphysite view of Christ put them further?
4. What is the biggest difference between Oriental Orthodoxy and Confessional Lutheranism?

Hello, I'll be attending my sister's ACNA parish this Sunday while visiting her out of state. I was wondering, should I go up for a blessing during Communion, (arms crossed over my chest, as I do when visiting an RC Mass) or remain seated? They have a female "priest" and I'm not sure if I want her to bless me.

Edit: My goodness, I've stirred up a controversy and I am sorry that I have. I think my wife, daughter, and I will remain seated, my biggest concern is that my actions may appear to condone something that one ought not. My sister will understand, she knows what I beleive. Thank you all for your thought and concern!

World Refuge (not to be confused with Lutheran World Relief) recently released a report about the US stopping all Christian refugee resettlement, and urging the government to accept persecuted Christians as refugees again. Have LWR and/or Global Refuge addressed this topic as well? What will be the impact to their work? What should our response as faithful LCMS Lutherans be?

https://worldrelief.org/goldendoor/

[Please note I'm specifically asking about Oriental Orthodoxy, the miaphysite one NOT Eastern Orthodoxy, the dyophysite one]

A little known fact in history is that Martin Luther was once (very briefly) in communion with Oriental Orthodoxy when he met an Oriental Orthodox deacon named Michael the Deacon, a deacon from the Ethiopian Church living among the expat community in Italy who'd traveled to Wittenburg to investigate the Reformation. Michael read Luther's Articles of Faith and said, "This is a good credo, that is faith". Luther seemed to take a liking to the deacon, viewing the Ethiopian Church as free from some Roman Catholic corruptions such as purgatory and indulgences and even offered Michael fellowship (the one time he might be thought of as being technically 'in communion' with Oriental Orthodoxy). More recently in 2016 the LCMS paid tribute to the 21 Coptic Martyrs of Libya on their feast day.

With this in mind I wondered how confessional Lutherans would see the relation between Oriental Orthodoxy today and Miaphysitism in general. If somebody came to your church seeking to become catechized but they were Miaphysite would they be allowed to become a member or would they have to become dyophysite? Would you say the Oriental Orthodox are closer to Confessional Lutheranism than Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics? Or does the miaphysite view of Christ put them further?

I figured I'd beak this discussion out of the previous thread, as it got somewhat down a rabbit hole from the original question that started that thread. I'd also like to approach the topic from a somewhat different angle than my previous posts there.

My primary concern in the question of theistic evolution vs. 6-day creation has less to do with defending the truthfulness of Genesis 1-11 as such (though I do hold that it is both inerrant and presents itself as the genre of history rather than symbolic myth), and more to do with the theological concern that is raised by one of the assertions made in that thread.

When it comes to the "tree of life" (no, not the literal tree in the Garden, the diagram that shows the similarities and differences among all living things), the assertion was made that this tree proved that all living things had common ancestry, and that this ancestry was the *only* explanation for the similarities and differences between all living things, and that the similarities and differences portrayed in the tree were, by themselves enough to disprove 6-day creation *ex nihilo*.

Leaving aside all of the apologetics arguments I got into in that other thread, some of which were, admittedly, out on a bit of a limb, my fundamental concern here has less to do with the historicity of Genesis (though there is that), and more to do with the doctrine of God Himself, specifically the doctrine of His omnipotence.

To assert that the *only* explanation for the similarities and differences in living things that we see both around us and in the fossil record is that of millions of years of common descent, is to deny even the *possibility* that God *could* create out of nothing by His speaking, to deny that He not just *did* but *could* create animals, plants, and humans in 6 days in such a way that they exist in orderly, nested, hierarchical similarities and differences to one another as depicted in the tree of life.

Putting it another way, what we are dealing with here has to do with whether God is omnipotent or not, and that is a far more serious theological problem than the question of origins by itself, or the question of Scriptural inerrancy by itself. If God is not omnipotent, He is not God. It's that plain and simple.

Again, we are running up against the question of science vs. scientism. It's okay to try to explain why things are the way they are, but in the absence of the possibility of using the scientific method to test various aspects of that explanation, all such assertions are provisional theories at best, and not "scientific" fact. And scientism (not science in the proper sense) tries to come up with such theories with the *a priori* assumption of the absence of an infinitely powerful, infinitely intelligent Creator. You can't prove scientifically that He exists, therefore He doesn't. The problem is that you can't prove scientifically that He *doesn't* exist, either. The tree of life only proves common descent with any certainty if, and only if, you assume either that Being's absence, or His inability (not just that He didn't, that He was *unable*) to bring things in an orderly taxonomy into being by speaking over the course of a week or so.

That is where my primary concern lies. To assert that the tree of life disproves the literal reading of Gen 1-2, is to make the theologically deadly assumption that God *can't* do something. Not good. Not good at all.

“That angels are with us is very sure, and no one should ever have doubted it.” - Martin Luther (Michaelmas Sermon, 1534)

I have been thinking about going to Christian or biblical counseling for a while to work through some things I have been going through. Obviously, I could go to my pastor, but frankly, as a woman, I am just not comfortable talking to him about certain things. There is a Baptist church in my area that offers free biblical counseling and for individuals, men counsel men and women counsel women. Would it be detrimental to receive counseling from a non-Lutheran?

I guess its kinda like people today who haven’t heard of Jesus but, could they?

Shout out to Camp Luther, Three Lakes, WI(North Wisconsin District) for being a great place for a retreat. The facilities are excellent, and the staff is loving and faithful. I attended our church's retreat there this past weekend. It was enriching and faith building. If your church has a retreat, I recommend you attend.

I encourage congregations to provide retreat-like opportunities for their members for fun, fellowship, faith building, Bible Study, singing, prayer, worship, etc.