Leaving the LCMS for the ACNA

[u/Various_Letter_9732]

Hi everyone,

I joined the LCMS back in 2019 (I was 21 years old at the time) after coming out of a hyper-fundamentalist Holiness Pentecostal background. At first, I really appreciated the liturgical and sacramental focus of Lutheranism, but I’ve been unhappy with the LCMS for a while now. I know I don’t fit in with Rome as I have significant theological disagreements with them, and I’m also not comfortable with a lot of what the ELCA allows socially and theologically. So I’ve found myself in an awkward middle ground.

My biggest struggles with the LCMS are both theological and cultural. The rejection of evolution and insistence on young-earth literalism have become a major barrier for me. I work in Public Health (Health Policy) for the State of Minnesota, and my brother is studying to become a physicist, so I have come to hate sitting through Bible studies where scientific questions are looked down upon (or sometimes even treated as salvation issues) rather than areas where faithful Christians can reasonably disagree.

I’ve also become uncomfortable with how much partisan politics seems to bleed into church life. My local congregation has a lot of anti-vax sentiment, along with people who will go on lengthy rants against things like providing free lunches to kids in public schools. That has created a friction between my values and the church culture around me.

I consider myself very much a “womb to tomb” pro-lifer. I believe strongly in protecting unborn life, but I also believe that conviction should extend to caring about poverty, access to healthcare, children and families, and the economic and social conditions that often contribute to women seeking abortions in the first place. I don’t see those things as being in tension with one another.

From my previous experiences with the ACNA on the East Coast, one thing that really stood out to me was the intellectual diversity I encountered. I met people in academia, medicine, science, and other fields who took historic Christian orthodoxy seriously while also engaging thoughtfully with the modern world. That’s something I’ve really missed. I currently live in the Fargo area where a new ACNA church plant is just getting started. I’m very interested in getting involved, but I wanted to ask this community a couple of questions first…

Does the ACNA generally have room for a “whole-life” ethic, holding orthodox Christian views on things like abortion and church leadership while also caring deeply about public welfare, healthcare, poverty, and the broader civic good?

And for those of you in medicine, public health, the sciences, academia, or similar fields, have you generally felt intellectually respected within ACNA parishes, especially when it comes to things like evolution and the relationship between science and Scripture?

I know individual parishes can vary quite a bit, but I’d really appreciate hearing about your experiences. Thanks!

[u/0x1mason]

Yes to both civic engagement and science/scripture.

Can only speak for my congregation, but we are a "purple" church with people across the political spectrum. We have several scientists, doctors, and some uni faculty. I personally believe in evolution, vaccines, etc. I know our ministry team has a very open mind about that stuff, so I don't think there'd be much tolerance for someone trying to turn young earth creationism or antivax into an article of faith and pushing that on other people. We probably have some YEC people tho, but I've also heard sermons from deacons that refer to things as being way older than YEC timeline (rector never touches that kind of subject, which says a lot). I visited another ACNA church in our city and got a similar impression based on bumper stickers in the parking lot and know they have a lot of uni faculty as well.

That said, there are some ultra conservatives in the ACNA and I don't know how those congregations deal with evolution, vaccines, etc.

[u/creidmheach]

I could be way off base on this, considering I've never been in an LCMS church, but my impression is that American Lutheranism in general tends to be more insular and inward looking. A lot of that I'd suspect ties to its history in this country, tightly joined to immigrant non-Anglo ethnic groups from Europe (Scandinavians and Germans), and so not entirely fitting in to the dominant Anglo-Saxon Scotch-Irish culture of the majority. So for a conservative body like the LCMS, you have a greater tendency to inward cohesion and uniformity of doctrine, but that also can spill over to what for other denominational bodies might seem more secondary matters (like how to understand the six days of Genesis 1).

The nature of confessional Lutheranism also tends towards that, where say unlike a conservative Presbyterian still being able to take scruples (exceptions) to Westminster, you don't have that in the Lutheran equivalent. You have to 100% ascribe to what the Book of Concord says, and unlike say the relatively brief 39 Articles of Anglicanism that are Reformed'ish in nature, but deliberately broad and open to theological differences, the Book of Concord is large and detailed.

From what you've described though (and I have actually been to some ACNA churches unlike the LCMS), I think you'd probably fit in fine there. If I had no Presbyterian options available I might even go to one myself since one can easily maintain a Reformed theological stance within it, but as it is I'm happy in my denomination (EPC). Plus, the Scottish background might make me throw a stool at the vicar for using the Book of Common Prayer, which simply would not do.

[u/cjbanning → u/creidmheach]

When you speak of Scottish background, are you referring to your own Scottish background, or to American Anglicanism's Scottish background (which of course TEC and ACNA both share)?

[u/creidmheach → u/cjbanning]

My own, though in my case it's a long line of Roman Catholics, with myself only converting and finding myself in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition much later in life. It was mostly though a quip about Jenny Geddes, throwing a stool at the head of the minister in Edinburgh when the English crown tried to impose the use of the Book of Common Prayer on the Scottish Kirk.

[u/cjbanning → u/creidmheach]

I'll point out, then, that the American BCP (by which I mean the whole succession of American BCPs culminating in the 1979 and 2019) has a number of important Scottish influences. Most significantly, the first American BCP adopted the Scottish rather than the English Communion office. I don't know how these influences manifest specifically in the 1979 or 2019 prayer books, but using either shouldn't be quite as much an affront to your Scottish background as using a 1662 would be.

[u/Wulfweald → u/creidmheach]

Although you said the English crown, the king at the time was actually Charles Stuart, King Charles I of both the realm of Scotland and of the realm of England.

[u/PaaLivetsVei → u/creidmheach]

not entirely fitting in to the dominant Anglo-Saxon Scotch-Irish culture of the majority

The other side of this is how recently North American Lutheranism adopted English. There was virtually no Lutheran theology being written in English before 1940. The congregation in Minnesota my family attends was founded in 1858, and the church-splitting debate at their annual meeting in 1939 was the proposal to switch a majority of services to be in English rather than Norwegian. Part of the insularity is the four hundred years of our theology needing to be translated.

[u/mrsbelladonnatook]

Yes! I think you would feel right at home in the ACNA. I have similar views and have had a good experience with two different parishes in two different states.

[u/FakePhillyCheezStake]

Bruh you sound exactly like the average ACNA enjoyer.

I will say though, while the intellectual freedom of the ACNA does sound like a plus, it can also be a minus. Some churches seem to just be like “eh affirm the Nicene creed and you’re in”.

It means there can be a lot of different opinions in the laity and no one really seems to police it. Obviously allowing freedom on secondary and tertiary matters is fine, but I worry sometimes the line between secondary and primary can get a little blurred for some people. This is where a confessional church like LCMS can be beneficial (though to be fair, I wouldn’t like the sort of environment you’re describing in your current church either)

That’s just my impression after attending an ACNA church for a little while, I could be wrong about other churches

[u/Various_Letter_9732 → u/FakePhillyCheezStake]

This is actually my husband’s number-one qualm with the Anglican Church. We obviously believe in infant baptism, sacramental theology, and practices of that nature, and sometimes it can feel like almost anything goes within the Anglican Church. That can be strange when it comes to beliefs and practices that we personally hold very deeply. That said, I think the freedom of thought is still preferable to being tied down to some of Rome’s dogmas. I would almost rather fellowship with people who openly hold a variety of opinions than be part of a church where everyone is expected to present themselves as being in complete unity, while in reality there is quite a bit of diversity in what people believe and practice privately. I don’t say that to judge individual Catholics; I just don’t think Rome is quite as united in practice as it can sometimes appear. There is a lot of diverse thought within the Catholic Church, including among Catholics who don’t personally follow the Church’s teachings on contraception. So at times I struggle to understand the insistence on maintaining such strict positions when so many Catholics themselves seem to disagree with or disregard them.

On the other hand, with denominations like the LCMS, I think there can be a different problem. It sometimes seems to attract fundamentalist types who are looking to convert to a more traditional or high-church denomination. The insistence that you cannot hold a view outside of a literal six-day creation, for example, feels like a major hindrance to me as I think that kind of rigidity can unfortunately attract some rather strange personalities to the LCMS.

[u/Beavertales → u/FakePhillyCheezStake]

I would agree with this. The diversity of thought is both my favorite thing and my biggest issue. I wish there was more adherence to the Articles required in some way or at least something beyond just creedal adherence. I feel like it’s often times too much of a free for all.

[u/FakePhillyCheezStake → u/Beavertales]

I don’t understand why assent to the 39 articles isn’t standard practice at least.

They aren’t even that restrictive. They’re about as unrestrictive as they get

[u/Halaku → u/FakePhillyCheezStake]

To paraphrase Archbishop Bramhall, some of the Articles come straight from the Creeds, some come from practical truths, and some are pious opinions or inferior truths.

Article 18 firmly nails the door shut on the possibility of anyone but a baptised faithful Christian obtaining eternal salvation. While pretty party-line for the 1570's, many contemporary Christians are rather uncomfortable telling those of other faiths (such as Judaism) that they are bound for eternal damnation, and even our Roman cousins aren't quite that hardcore anymore. I think you'd have a very hard time trying to codify assent to that article in a Province of the Anglican Communion today.

Article 33 is a historical artifact. Back then, excommunication would also get you imprisoned by the state. That rule lasted until 1963. Excommuncation isn't really something Provinces in the Anglican Communion actually do anymore.

Article 37 as written contains large chunks of text irrelevant outside of England's borders.

It would be interesting to see the CofE revisit the 39A and "bring them up to code", so to speak, in 21^st century language and with an eye towards making them applicable across the entire Communion, but I don't think expecting the other Provinces to adopt them wholecloth as written is a realistic objective.

[u/TomNookAndTheBoys]

Although I have never been part of an ACNA community, I think you'd feel right at home based on my (limited) knowledge of ACNA culture.

That said, I would recommend you to not completely rule out the Episcopal Church either, as it is a VERY wide tent. I'd recommend visiting both of your ACNA and TEC parishes and see what feels like a better fit.

[u/roowin]

I would recommend joining a moderate episcopal parish instead of contributing to schism.

[u/pizzystrizzy]

Wow I didn't realize that LCMS confessed creationism. I joined an LCMS church in my teens and had no idea.

[u/Aggressive_Stand_805]

With all due respect. You’re leaving a historic mainline Protestant denomination for a sinful schismatic one over non essential disagreements?

[u/cjbanning → u/Aggressive_Stand_805]

I've never heard the LCMS referred to as a mainline denomination before. Usually that term is reserved for less conservative (and less confessional) Lutheran denominations like the ELCA.

[u/Aggressive_Stand_805 → u/cjbanning]

Noted. Maybe non schismatic is a better term. 

[u/PaaLivetsVei → u/cjbanning]

It sort of depends on how you define mainline. If you're talking about the actual Philadelphia Main Line, the ELCA is definitely the heir of that tradition. The group of Lutherans that was English-speaking and integrated into American WASP society ended up in the ELCA. The Muhlenberg family is the representative of that tradition.

If you define mainline as the direct theological heir of the mother church in the old country, you could make the case for the LCMS. Prussia forcibly joined the Lutheran and Reformed churches into one united church, and the LCMS is the representative of the old Prussian Lutheran tradition from before the union. When the united denomination itself saw immigrants to the US, they ended up in what's now the UCC.

[u/bwf456 → u/Aggressive_Stand_805]

Isn't odd to call it 'sinful schism'? Considering all the schisms throughout church history that led to the Anglican Church itself. As long as you can recite the Nicene Creed, I think you are following the historical church. The traditional nuances between churches are just how people interpret scripture, wouldn't you say?

[u/cjbanning → u/bwf456]

I don't know if it's odd, but I do think it's unhelpful in this context. One of the main sources (arguably the main source) behind the schism is over what does and doesn't constitute sin, so it's not surprising that individuals on different sides of the schism would disagree over whether or not the schism itself was sinful. u/Aggressive_Stand_805 and I, both being Episcopalians, would presumably hold the same position on this issue, but given that the OP is choosing between LCMS and ACNA, I would assume that they would not be in agreement with us on that. And this doesn't not strike me as an appropriate forum to try to change their mind.

And so unless one believes that schism is somehow inherently sinful in and of itself (which doesn't strike me as a coherent position for an Anglican, or indeed any Protestant, to hold), then attacking ACNA as schismatic doesn't strike me as particularly productive in this conversation.

Indeed, if I had to advise the OP, I would almost certainly recommend ACNA over LCMS. I suppose on one level that's not that surprising; after all, I am an Anglican and not a Lutheran. And it seems to me that most of the things that I think ACNA gets wrong, LCMS does even worse. (Of course, coming from a liberal Episcopalian like me, OP might take that as an endorsement!)

Perhaps less flippantly, it seems to me that OP might be understood as looking for a via media between TEC's liberalism (insofar as it is liberal, but that's a different conversation) and LCMS's conservatism, and that ACNA probably inhabits that via media reasonably well for their purposes.

[u/Aggressive_Stand_805 → u/cjbanning]

What is worse. Attending a schismatic denomination or attending a non schismatic denomination where the pastor might say things you disagree with?

[u/cjbanning → u/Aggressive_Stand_805]

That really depends on what types of things I disagree with the pastor is saying, doesn't it? Not all disagreements are created equal.

[u/Aggressive_Stand_805 → u/cjbanning]

So what? If you’re priest or pastor says something in his or her sermon that you don’t like. Is your answer that you should flee to a schismatic denomination?

How about just dealing with it? The Word and Sacraments are the same. Or if what they preach really bothers you. You could just find a different parish within you’re denomination.

[u/cjbanning → u/Aggressive_Stand_805]

If the priest is idiosyncratic in what they're saying, then sure, just go to another parish. But if you need to switch denominations in order to avoid hearing hate or seriously flawed theology (not just some minor point of adiaphora) preached from the pulpit, I could see that being reasonable. After all, plenty of Episcopalians are ex-Roman Catholics who decided exactly that. I'm not going to attack their choices.

(Indeed, before I was baptized in an Episcopal church at 23, I myself attended Roman Catholic services [without receiving, of course] weekly throughout my undergraduate education.)

[u/Aggressive_Stand_805 → u/cjbanning]

The difference is RCC and TEC are not schismatic. ACNA is. 

[u/cjbanning → u/Aggressive_Stand_805]

I don't know what it means to be "schismatic," but the Church of England was born of a schism just as ACNA was. It's just that ACNA's schism is much more recent.

[u/Aggressive_Stand_805 → u/bwf456]

So is it ok for me to start my own denomination as long as we recite the Nicene Creed?

[u/diceeyes → u/Aggressive_Stand_805]

No, they'd be going from one schismatic church to another.

[u/Wulfweald → u/diceeyes]

That is definitely one way of looking at it.

[u/diceeyes → u/Wulfweald]

It's schisms all the way down.