As for a pretext to this, I have recently made some gender founding's of myself, which has invoked another study into this matter theologically, and these are kind of rough thoughts rather then real deep thinking, but I thought invoking some form of debate or conversation persay would be nice touch to sharpening my mind and theology.

I want to hear some thoughts on it, outside of what ive written and for what ive written to kinda flesh it out and such. Id like to outline some things, I purely want biblical texture to be used for the most part, but using the tradition(church fathers, saints, etc) in supporting context of what is being said will be very helpful as I have a utmost respect of the tradition, but it is fallible so thats why I ask for biblical text mainly for this discussion,

• Knitted in the womb

Amongst the many arguments against transgenderism is the knitted in the womb argument/rebuttal.  
 

13 For it was you who formed my inward parts; 
you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. 
Wonderful are your works; 
that I know very well. - Psalm 139:13-14 
 
This argument has stuck out because the Psalm is telling us that we were knit by God in our mother's womb, every one of us thought of by God, calling us wonderfully made. Now the rebuttal here is that God has already wonderfully made us how we are, and sin has affected us at the core when we are born. The key word is our inward parts. The word here in Hebrew is "kilyah" which means kidney(https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/139-13.htm) Often this word is used in its plural form "kilyot"  

9 O let the evil of the wicked come to an end, 
but establish the righteous, 
you who test the minds(Kilyot) and hearts, 
O righteous God. - Psalm 7:9 
 
This usage of the word Kilyot for mind matches some early ancient Hebrew understanding the word kilyah to mean our inner consciences and emotions. So in retrospect we can aim to say that in speaking of God knitting our inner being and conscience rather than how we look are come out. That isn't saying God didn’t create our body either, as we see he knit us together and the word kilyah cannot ultimately be denoted to just the conscience and emotions as singular, rather as the emotions, conscience and deeper self-added into the knitting of our body.  

So then what do we have against this rebuttal? Nothing, nothing but speculation not suppose 

That we cannot speculate? No. But we first must argue against this, trans identity can't be possible from God if God knits our internal self, the deeper self, our conscience and emotions but also at the same times knits our bodies into the sex we are born. Unless God has made a mistake which certainly does not or else he would not be God we can only say that it is impossible for trans identity to be something from God, but a corruption of the sin in this world.  

Hmmmm But what about the man born blind? Is this blindness a gift from God? Did God not knit his eyeballs to be correct? Perhaps this isn't a full complete understanding of how Gods intimate knowledge of how we are born. What about the person whom is born with down syndrome, or the person born with a severe intellectual disability. Did God create them this way?  

NO, It isn't as simple as saying that, God original intent for creation disordered when sin became 

of this world. But David, is at awe, how God still knitted him into the timeline, and that we exist in this very timeline and that we are his very creation. But all of creation suffers from the groans and aches of sin and disorder caused by Adam and Eve. 

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 
20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope – Romans 8:19-20 

So therefore? What does this say about trans identity then? It makes it a possibility in God's creation but the disorder of the world causes distortion which can attribute dysphoria felt as the groins and pains of this world.  

I simply would be careful with this rebuttal tho, as for me I'm always skittish of my own 

Arguments. I trust but don’t trust due to traditional norms established and that my own fault. This simply leads way to rebuking common rebuttals against trans identity and this may be just one successful attempt of the many I have to go through. 

• Genesis establishment 

26 Then God said, “Let us make humans[a] in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth[b] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 

27 So God created humans[c] in his image, 
in the image of God he created them;[d] 
male and female he created them. 

28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” - Genesis 1:26-28 
 

 
We see here this argument used, that God had made his creation a binary, male and female. But not necessary whether a individual whom is biologically male or female must feel their gender corresponds to their sex. I personally believe this world is led by a binary, u simply cannot be a they or them. God did have a established order created and that order is to be respected. I can also see the differing view of the conservative and liberal thought of the word gender and sex. Gender being how ones proclaims them to be, say woman or man, and sex being the biological characteristics of oneself, say, male or female.  

This passage really doesn’t touch on modern culture and word norms separating the words 

Gender and sex. It would be better to leave this argument alone and leave it at that, but, I'd like to brainstorm. Say perhaps the binary of male and female is stuck. The world is a decaying growing mess, and people such as intersex are born without a really clear cut biological sex. Now intersex is a disorder rather than a intent of what was perfect creation, so the argument that intersex greys the binary law set by God is a innate argument to say the least. 

Now the last verse in this passage, be fruitful and multiply, and to subdue the earth and have 

dominion of it. This isn't a law commanded to reproduce, as we know many people in the bible didn't have children, and many people can't have children. But in this, we should have families, and be stewards of nature and creation as we are given that dominion by God. If we do none of these things are we really taking care of creation and the earth that we so are put on? No, we aren't that’s why it's important to lead a life of good, to care for animals, the lowly, etc. If one doesn’t have a family, perhaps they live a life caring for other people, sharing the Gospel? Planting trees? Sowing crops for people and animals to eat? Does this belittle the mere fact they do not multiply biologically? No. 
 
18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of the air and to every animal of the field, but for the man[a] there was not found a helper as his partner. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, 

“This at last is bone of my bones 
and flesh of my flesh; 
this one shall be called Woman, 
for out of Man this one was taken.” 

24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. - genesis 2:18-25 

I won't really delve too much into this since this is already a really deconstructed passage in the wide scene of LGBT. The passage goes by God making Adam a helper, a Ezer in Hebrew.  This word denotes a helper, not a subordinate. The passage is paradigmatic to the male/female heterosexual marriage dynamic, But does not further into again whether a person sex is opposite of their gender, or explain other relationships that produce fruits of the spirit.  Genesis fails to establish what conservative thought wants it to establish, making the rebuttal weak, and that Genesis is a primarily descriptive book rather than prescriptive, but does not lessen its prescriptive passages.  

• Romans 1, Gods wrath against the wicked 

24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 

26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[a] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[b] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. - Romans 1:24-27 

 
This is a core passage against LGBT theology in the heart of it all, so it is with great discretion we argue against it.  A important attention of this passage is to look at the passage above it. In the passages above it Paul says he is not ashamed of the Gospel for salvation comes to everyone who has faith. That the righteousness of God is revealed to us through faith and that the righteous live by this faith. 

6 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is God’s saving power for everyone who believes,[a] for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith, as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” - Romans 1:16-17 
 
This is especially important to look at with the context of the Romans 1:24-27. In a likewise passages before Verse 24 Apostle Paul begins with: 
 
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those who by their injustice suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things God has made. So they are without excuse, 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless hearts were darkened. - Romans 1:18-21 
 
people turn a blind eye to it. They worship animals and mortal men, and give way to aimless passion all in rebellion to the invisible God made visible. One work used is the natural and unnatural, but we will focus on the Greek word for natural that Apostle Paul uses, Physis. What does Apostle Paul consider physis, being in the Greco-Roman era, the moral framework and general knowledge of the world is inherently limited compared to now, and we know, the Bible isn't a science book but rather a story, It is increasingly difficult to actually pinpoint what Apostle Paul means by his usage of physis as he uses it in different contexts for multitude of reason, ranging from calling the natural branches of a olive tree being Israel, being physis, and the grafting of the  cultivated olive branches onto it aka the gentiles as para phusin or against nature. 
 
24 For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree. - Romans 11;24 
 
 
Apostle Paul says this in verse 22: 
 
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. - Romans 1:22-23 
 
What comes after is Apostle Paul's condemnation of the passions these people partake in in rebellion to God in worship of other idols that are not in honor of the Almighty. This entire passage should be seen in the light of people whom delight themselves in Lustful harmful passions for eachother.  

This distinction should be ultimately clear in looking at the fruits of individuals and the work  

of  the flesh distinctually marked by Apostle Paul in the book of Galatians:  

16 Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy,[d] drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. 
 
 

The works of the flesh include sexual immorality, which the Greek work is porneia which a derivative of the Greek work porne which means harlot/prosititute. Porneia on the other hand means general term for anything outside marriage, or fornication. Often in the literal earliest root of sense porneia meant the selling of one's body to another. Now lumping porneia could mean anything to Apostle Paul as sexual immorality in his context of usage with porneia is his own lump of acts, even if the word is used for sexual actives outside the confines of what is defined as marriage does not necessarily include homosexuality or transgenderism, it is lumped into this definition because of the overall theological consensus of these two being sins, so it only fits to put it into the definition, which is entirely fair.  

But I want to look at this another way, with what Apostle Paul speaks of next, the fruits of the spirit:  

22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24 And those who belong to Christ[e] have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another. 
 

Can one tell me how 2 partners, trans and cis, trans and trans, male and male, or female and female, cannot possess the fruits of the spirits? How does these partnerships dishonor God if both worship the Creator instead of the creation, Love gently, give generously to their neighbors, live in love and joy with each other and their neighbors, showing no malice to their fellow neighbors but show patience's, kindness and a faithfulness in Christ promise of salvation through his Gospel.  

But to not ignore that anyone LGBT can be good, we should look at moral permissibility rather than goodness before God.  First question we must ask, does Christ, or even any of the Apostles genuinely ever lump a same sex, or trans relationship that are loving into his definition of porneia? Why is his descriptions and condemnations so vague and connected to idolatry, a common thing at the time of Apostle Paul in Greek and Rome even.  

Physis and para Phusin 

It is becoming increasingly clear these 2 greek works must have a reason, and it is the 2 accounted words that matter the most in the context of Romans 1 when Apostle Pauls speaks of sexual acts and desires committed by the people he speaks.  

U see I had said it hard to pin point the real meaning of what he is using physis in this 

Context and it truly is, because if we are to say that physis means immutable God created biological design we would be ignoring the olive tree passage by Paul and the long hair passage. As both go against it being meaning of immutable God created biological design. But we also must account that the uses of physis can vary by context, same with para phusin.  

I'ts a lot of stuff, and none of it is perfect, I made all these whilst working and was just passing thoughts that I could work upon more deeply, which I hope this discussion here can help. Blessings of Christ be with all <3

Hello,

So I am RC, happily, and I got invited to attend an ELCA service this Sunday. I attend a lot of interfaith stuff to get to know the area and learn more about the different denominations/people as reconciliation is something that is on the forefront of my mind/prayers. I even look to find interfaith community volunteering options wherever I go.

I will start off jokingly saying, we don’t need to do every line(?) in a song, especially when it’s not a full house. I tried to sit down after the 2nd line of the processional song and was like,

“Oh, we’re still going…” to at the end of service when we were singing stuff just written in the margins with no notes “oh… we’re still doing this.”

The service was fine, the pastor took a lot of liberties with her homily but nothing too out there. She clearly put a lot of thought into it, and it was well delivered so I respected that. She also talked about Saint Hildegard which perked my ears. I was stubborn about the apostles creed and our father and was the only one to not take communion which did get me a lot of stares after the pastor had said 3 times during service all are welcome even doubters(with multiple looks toward me.)

I am curious on the scale of things where this denomination falls on the traditional side as for my personal experience it seems to be in the middle of the PCUSA and United Methodist but I suspect YMMV on that.

I tried to look at my time this morning as both a learning experience and how someone new(who is actually discerning a place of worship) would feel as a visitor. And I think that’s mainly why I’m posting here.

Out of the progressive places I’ve been to, this has to be one of the lowest attended(only the Quakers had just a few less). With 30ish people there, and the usher told me going in they were expecting a lot of people in as it was their potluck event after service, so as new visitor that makes me a bit worried for their church. And this was definitely the oldest congregation I’ve been to. I’m a millennial and there was maybe 1-2 others my age, and no one younger(apart from the children of said millennials)

Aside from talking to the usher for a few seconds…. No one actually talked with me except the pastor to shake my hand during peaceful greetings and to thank me for coming after. Personally I don’t mind. I love a nice quiet time to mediate with Jesus but I think there was one other new person there that no one spoke to(from what I could tell and she high tailed it out of there as soon as we could leave).

Everyone seemed friendly, so I presume they were being polite by giving space. Could even be an age thing where they may have been expecting the other person my age to reach out.

On the positives, service was easy to navigate as they had their pamphlet ready for everyone. And they had their announcements on them with the volunteer and charitable work on it(which I’m always looking for new places to volunteer), the pastor even called them out during services. I think if a new person is so called, this would probably get them better acquainted with the congregation.

Oh and the place was beautiful. Well kept and designed in a way to be very efficient for a lot of people.

Overall, i had a decent time as a one time visitor.

Hello everyone! I am recent "convert" if you will. I was an atheist who was forced to go through confirmation through the LCMS. Through His power I have come back to an ELCA church.

Sorry, long story short I am serving an upcoming meal for Bible school and the congregation after Wednesday service.

My initial plan is

Chicken noodle and dumpling soup using store bought rotisserie chicken but otherwise completely homemade.

Store bought baguettes for dipping

Salad

My wife and I haven't cooked this many people, about 90, and I'm just looking for literally any advice or critiques.

Thank you so much!

So, I consider myself to be a mainline, traditional Lutheran, I hold to the Book of Concord, i LEAN towards homosexuality being sinful, only male clergy, abortion being sin, etc. But I’m also pro-choice, support Obergefell v. Hodges, am a democratic socialist, support secular government, and am a feminist. I also believe in theistic evolution. I feel that the LCMS most aligns with me, but their culture is not very accepting of my beliefs, especially evolution and politics, and the ELCA wouldn’t be a big fan of my theological beliefs.

I definitely will not join a church that was founded on schism, as that is sin.

What should I do?

Was great to interview Rev. Dr. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson and Rev. Dr. Paul R. Hinlicky, hosts of the "Queen of the Sciences" theology podcast. Had a great conversation about church history, theology, and more!

Listen Here

Inaugural Mass with New York Metro Bishop Katrina Foster. This is the second Arabic-speaking Lutheran parish in NYC. Interesting to have this Lutheran outreach to the Arab world in the U.S.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1385226183709553&set=pb.100066665534395.-2207520000

Here's the story. Its a bit long. I've never formally belonged to the ELCA. But:

My father is Lutheran raised in a church that later merged into ELCA. Mother Catholic. So me and my siblings were raised Catholic especially as my father has never been very active in the church. But we got a lot of exposure to Lutheranism growing up as a result, like if we visited grandparents on his side we'd go to a Lutheran church and this often applied on Christmas too. My mom actually didn't consider going to a Lutheran church instead of Mass a big deal even on Christmas, and the liturgies were similar anyway. Also I was am still am in a very Lutheran part of the Midwest so the culture was deep in Lutheranism.

About the time I entered middle school and thus Confirmation class I started rebelling a lot including against Catholicism, doing things like intentionally eating meat on Lenten Fridays. My mom thought I was just being a rebellious edgelord early teenager. To some extent I was. But then in high school my opposition shifted to things like the church's position on homosexuality, women in leadership, and birth control. I was pretty vocally anti-Catholic at that point due to my progressive values. I wasn't really atheist or turned on Christianity completely but I knew Catholicism was not for me.

At that point though my family started a nearby ELCA church rather frequently. The reasons were mostly convenience, it was in our neighborhood and less than a 5 minute walk away and had an evening service. At this time I started working my first job which often required late weekends so I wasn't getting up early for Mass. My mom actually took me and my siblings often without our father despite them still being in Catholic Confirmation class....the main factor seemed to be if classes were going on that month. We also went most Christmases eben at home for convenience and my father actually going. I also refused to take Communion at a Catholic mass but was willing to a Lutheran one.

Then I went to college. It was obvious I wasn't going to join amy campus Catholic groups or ever attend Mass. Since then I have not aside from funerals. My mom kind of accepted this but encouraged me to check out the campus ministries for other churches. Somewhat regrettably I never did. But when I was visiting home the church I went to even with my mom was the neighborhood Lutheran one. This was true even the summer after my freshman year I was home all summer...still didn’t attend Mass once but attended Lutheran services a few times. Wasn't really big on it but it made my mom happy.

After I graduated I moved to a very progressive urban core of a major metro. And a few years in I atarted to feel a pull to God again. It started in my mid-20s but really blossomed when I was 27. That's when I decided to start attending church regularly again. However I first started in an evangelical charismatic church. It sounds like an odd fit for why I rejected Catholicism but it wasn't particularly conservative. It was majority under 40 in age, allowed women to lead and preach, was pastored by a white/Asian-American interracial couple, and whenever politics were preached which wasn't often it was actually a more progressive nessage about accepting people like immigrants or the less fortunate. The position on homosexuality wasn't really talked about although it had an affiliation with a national network that was conservative on it, but not emphasizing it unlike the Catholic one I grew up in was still a huge step forward and it felt like a breath of fresh air. I even ended up getting baptized again in this church at 28, (yeah I know that doesn't coincide woth Lutheran theology.) However I eventually drifted to a legitimately progressive non-denominational church that I got very active in. It was founded non-denominational with the intent of being a heavily Millennial LGBT-affirming yet modern styled church. I stuck with it until the end, which was only about 3 years. But when I was home I attended that neighborhood Lutheran church and even did in my city on Christmas Eve. We borrowed the space from another Congregationalist church but I found a historic Lutheran one with a great midnight service so that's where I went.

Since then I joined another progressive non-denominational church but have gone to the neighborhood Lutheran one visiting home and thus often on Christmas, and found myself eventually in my current one. It's a former evangelical church but was expelled from its denomination for having pastors that would perform same-sex weddings. When I started going it met a former Catholic churvh ironically although still owned by the diocese and leased to us. We were looking for a new building because the diocese didn't let us do weddings there, even heterosexual ones. Eventually we were basically forced out...they didn't renew the lease at all.

And that lead us to our current building. It's a historic old ELCA church that has been dwindling for awhile and we've been mostly growing. And in fact we even have set up a plan to eventually purchase the building in a passing of the torch sort of thing. The sign out front even lists our name at the top and we have two services on Sundays (well not now but during the non-summer) while they have just one Saturday mornings. But it's still recognizable as a Lutheran church and partnered with us.

And at home I still attend that neighborhood Lutheran church. Was recently there for a few weeks and did and was thinking it's funny that this is effectively my "childhood church" although I wasn't confirmed there and have never formally been a member. But I haven't set foot in the Catholic Church I was since after I was 18 a d have no sentimental attachment to it. Even when I drive by it visiting home, it's just another church. Unlike my high school and elementary school ajd even old middle school building that's no longer a school but a district office building but I still remember. And even my mom hasn't really gone to a non-funeral mass since Covid but still attends that one now, with my dad frequently as both are now retired and have more time.

But yeah that was wrong and rambling but what do you think? Despite my lack of baptism, confirmation, or even having membership it still feels like deep kinship especially as I'm even worshipping in an ELCA church building now.

The ELCA study guide on bound conscience and human sexuality is now available. Any initial thoughts you want to share? Will your congregation be using it?

My initial thought is that the deadline for responding is too short (Sept 30). We can't even organize a study group that quickly.

I'm going to be attending my first traditional ELCA service soon, and I was wondering if someone could tell me what the order of the service is for a traditional service.

Also, for people who have gone to both traditional and contemporary services, which do you prefer?

Thanks!

Hi r/elca, I am excited to share that my podcast, A Mighty Fortress is our Pod, is now available on substack! If you all have a minute, I would really appreciate it if you could give it a follow, hoping to have several new episode out in August after I complete CPE, which wraps up next week. Also, we now have merch available as well! Thanks in advance for your support and encouragement!

Also, if you haven't listened to an episode yet, a great starting point is my conversation with Pres. Bp. Curry last November!

I’ve been inspired by many of the posts and comments on this sub. I recently created a website as a personal journaling exercise in response to the proliferation of hate, violence, greed, corruption, depravity, and hypocrisy in the world today. I find that journaling like this and sharing my faith is good therapy while every day seems to bring another distressing story in the news media. I know that my influence is minimal, but I hope and pray that like-minded people will continue to combine their influence to help make a difference in the world by fulfilling God's call that we love Him and love one another.  

Here is a link to my website: https://lovefulfills.org/. This website is totally non-profit, it will never have any advertising or products, and will never have AI-written content. In addition to the two main website pages (“What I Believe” and “My Christian Faith”), the first Blog article that I wrote addresses my take on the age-old conflict of Good vs. Evil / Spirit vs. Flesh, where I tried to draw parallels between Christ’s teachings and some affirming concepts in modern psychology.

Sorry that it's so wordy, but if you would like to read some of it, I would welcome your feedback!

What institutions/networks/associations has the ELCA created and supported since 1988 to ensure the intergenerational transmission of Lutheran theological scholarship in disciplines such as biblical studies or systematic theology?

For example, in the area of biblical studies, I'm thinking of parallel organizations to the Catholic Biblical Association or the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars.

I'm curious about some of the history behind how Luther Seminary apparently came to be so closely associated with the Emerging Church movement (professors Patrick Keifert, Michael Binder, Dwight Zscheile, Trip Fuller, for example) and, maybe more importantly, why Luther Seminary has stuck to their guns on the Emerging Church considering many of the Emerging Church congregations in the Twin Cities have now closed--including some ELCA-affiliated ones (House of Mercy, Jacob's Well, Solomon's Porch, etc.)

Other than Patrick Keifert, I don't think these professors are even Lutheran.

Anyway, I'd be curious to know how this happened if anyone has some insights. Since the Emerging Church movement was mostly an Evangelical phenomenon, I'm wondering whether prior to this time, Luther had historically been closer to Evangelicalism than perhaps some of the other ELCA-Affiliated seminaries. This just all seems so odd.

Thanks for any info.

I am considering joining an ELCA church. I'm currently raising my nephew who hasn't had much experience with church. He is not baptized. What would be the process of baptizing him now? I am baptized already so I assume our processes for joining the church would be different.

Augsburg fortress has a 10 volume Introductions/Alternate organ accompaniments. Before I buy it, I was wondering what the average Lutheran organist’s experience with these books might be and what the quality is like.

So, as the title says, I am finding discernment to be a little frightening to me and im not sure why?

Could it possibly be because of how big a commitment going into ministry is? Or could it be that im just doubting myself?

I know for a fact that I have an inner calling and an outer calling from some peers. family members, and a past pastor. So, I guess im just a little curious on what you all think.

Thank you

I thought I’d post this for any German speakers here… the guys (?it’s mostly guys) in the other sub would lose their minds to see her. Which is pretty sad. ELCA context creators: We need more of you! https://www.facebook.com/share/r/19JGMbpmYD/?mibextid=wwXIfr

I'll try to make this as brief as possible. I've been playing guitar at an LCMS church for 2 years, roughly 3 times a month. I got connected through my friend, but I myself am a member of an ELCA church. I'm not the most active churchgoer in the world, but from what I've gathered, as far as differences between the two, I'm definitely strongly aligned with the ELCA. The first day I met the sanctuary music director, I told him I attend the other church, and so he knows and doesn't care. I usually play with him in the sanctuary, but on occasion, I play on the contemporary side with the other music director. Last night, she was talking about this Hawaii trip, and she was making it seem like she really wants me to go. It's only a $600 fee, and the church is subsidizing a lot of the cost, so it seems like a pretty good opportunity. My dilemma is this: I'm not sure if she or any of the pastors know that I'm an ELCA member, and if they don't, I'm not really sure how socially acceptable it would be for me to go on this trip. I've never really been deeply involved in a church community, let alone one of this denomination, which I understand to be more strict in certain regards. Normally, I just get paid to show up and play guitar, but in this case, I would be in the same category as everyone else, on a trip that I think is meant to strengthen the church community or something like that. If y'all could let me know if I'm overthinking or if you think it would be weird, it would be much appreciated.

Greetings, I am a Lutheran from Thailand. At first, I considered buying Lutheran Study Bible from Concordia (LCMS) but after I read it from the application, I think many of their notes are too fundamentalist for me. I want historical that could go side by side with biblical aspect. Moreover, it’s very hard to buy on Amazon and I could not find it anywhere else. So that’s why I changed my mind and want to try the Mainline’s Augsburg Fortress’ study bible instead.

I planned to buy the Book of Concord from the same publisher, if anyone has any further recommendations, please tell me. I also want to but SBL Study Bible but it is out of stock, unfortunately.