ALPB Forum Online
ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Russ Saltzman on April 18, 2013, 12:18:23 PM
-
I dropped out of the ELCA pension plan in the late 1980's. The account is so small I shouldn't complain about being "de-ordained." Assign my unhappiness to my cranky and peevish nature. And really I would not have said anything about it except for a recent letter I got, again addressed Mr., announcing yet another whiz-bang record-keeping service Portico has employed to make my investment experience even more thrilling than it is already. Just one "mister" too many, Mr. Thiemann.
____________________________
April 18, 2013
The Rev. Jeffrey D. Thiemann
President and Chief Executive Officer
Portico Services
800 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1050
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2892
Dear Pr. Thiemann:
I am never one to put much investment in the title “Reverend.” Mostly I prefer “Pastor”; it at least has the warrant of some biblical use. But social convention being, um, conventional I’ve never chafed at it. People use it, fine; they don’t use it, okay too.
But when I note a persistent, deliberate omission of the honorific I do become peeved. Such is the case with Portico correspondence and conversations with service personnel on the phone.
When I transferred ministerial credentials from the ELCA to the NALC in 2011 I received several bits of officially officious information carefully explaining I had been, well, “de-ordained.” My “de-ordination” apparently carries to Portico usage as well.
Had I become, say, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, something other than a member of the NALC clergy roll, could I have expected the omission of “Reverend” in those circumstances? I don’t know.
But to me it is odd that of all the financial outlets I use, Portico alone took the step to remove a title I’ve been privileged to bear since 1980. You know, my credit card company kept it. My local insurance agent hasn’t said anything about it. Certainly my bank never bothered. Portico alone purposely searched for my name and removed the appended title. Of course, these other places ask my occupation and tend to take my word. Understand, I really don’t care about the title. What I complain about is the altogether unnecessary small but studied insult I and numerous pastors like me have received.
Sincerely,
Russell E. Saltzman,
Pastor
-
When I get letters from the Methodist pension board, they are addressed to "Mr." Since they're sending me several hundred dollars more per month than I had anticipated, I've foregone my cranky and peevish nature.
-
Don't you guys watch the BBC? Or Downton Abbey? The Anglicans frequently refer to clerics as "Mr."
-
Don't you guys watch the BBC? Or Downton Abbey? The Anglicans frequently refer to clerics as "Mr."
Also in a Johnny Cash song: "The Reverend Mr. Black."
-
Don't you guys watch the BBC? Or Downton Abbey? The Anglicans frequently refer to clerics as "Mr."
I had no idea that Portico was based in England or served primarily Anglicans.
Dan
-
As does the New York Times ;)
-
Isn't Austin the one who kvetches when people don't use the correct honorifics for people he personally holds in high regard?
-
Plus there is a big difference between getting it wrong, not being aware, or not thinking it is that big a deal and deliberately changing the title on the mailings to make some sort of point. As I understand Russ's piece, they addressed him as "Rev." until he joined the NALC, at which point they went out of their way to change it to "Mr." Which is something a jerk would do but very few others.
-
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
-
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
Many things were very different forty years ago, including the regulations governing companies that managed pension funds.
-
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
A benefit plan benefits by having more members. A self-serving courtesy is no courtesy at all. As for the Concordia Plans in the 70's, anyone who was vested obviously kept their benefits, but I don't think (I could be wrong) Concordia's constitution/charter gave them the option of serving non-LCMS folks. So it wasn't (again, if that is correct) a decision made on the basis of courtesy or discourtesy and it in fact meant the plan taking a hit by losing members, so whether it was a decision or not, it was the opposite of self-serving. In the case of deliberately going out of your way to change "Rev." to "Mr." in addressing a clergyman, it is clearly deliberate, clearly a decision, and clearly discourteous. No comparison whatsoever.
-
As for the Concordia Plans in the 70's, anyone who was vested obviously kept their benefits,...
Pastor Speckhard - I think that point needs to be fact-checked. I knew an LCMS pastor who retired in response to the blow up in LCMS. He was vested and he informed me that he would have lost his retirement had he joined AELC.
-
As for the Concordia Plans in the 70's, anyone who was vested obviously kept their benefits,...
Pastor Speckhard - I think that point needs to be fact-checked. I knew an LCMS pastor who retired in response to the blow up in LCMS. He was vested and he informed me that he would have lost his retirement had he joined AELC.
I know one who left and told me directly that he lost all of his pension. I believe that the rules changed since then.
-
For several years, my Lutheran Forum magazine and Forum Letter arrived addressed to "Mr. Charles Austin."
-
As does the New York Times ;)
The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.
Peace, JOHN
-
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
I do believe that those Missourians who were "vested" (with 5 years of previous enrollment) were permited to remain. Many of those are now receiving pension benefits. Perhaps your friend was referring to health benefits, which would cease if their congregation left Missouri.
I know former AELC pastors who are getting pension benefits. No doubt, Richard John Neuhaus did. "Some of my best friends...."
Peace, JOHN
-
As does the New York Times ;)
The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.
I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.
-
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
I've been hearing that for over some 30 years at least.
One of my colleagues is almost proud to be the first LCMS pastor removed from the rolls in that time. But shortly before he turned 65 came a nice letter from the Concordia Plans, reporting the pension benefits he would soon be receiving from them. It's not very much, but he is receiving his vested benefits.
And considering that he had moved several times in the intervening years without notifying the Plans...
Pax, Steven+
-
As does the New York Times ;)
The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.
I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.
Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.
In any event, the New York Times is not concerned about confessional propriety (thank God, since their confession would not likely be Lutheran) but English usage. And since "Rev. Smith" is not correct English, they are finding it convenient and correct to write "Pastor Smith." "The Rev. Mr. Smith" is also correct.
Peace, JOHN
-
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
I've been hearing that for over some 30 years at least.
One of my colleagues is almost proud to be the first LCMS pastor removed from the rolls in that time. But shortly before he turned 65 came a nice letter from the Concordia Plans, reporting the pension benefits he would soon be receiving from them. It's not very much, but he is receiving his vested benefits.
And considering that he had moved several times in the intervening years without notifying the Plans...
Pax, Steven+
Pastor Tibbets - when did your colleague actually retire? I'm certain threats that way were made. It could well be that someone in St. Louis figured out that they could not follow through on them. As I noted above, the person who spoke to me about it retired rather than putting the threats to the test. Younger pastors likely would have outlived the threat.
-
A threat? From a Lutheran church pension board? OMG! Who could imagine such a thing?!! ::)
-
For several years, my Lutheran Forum magazine and Forum Letter arrived addressed to "Mr. Charles Austin."
No doubt that's what you put on your subscription paperwork. Trust me, ALPB does not have the staff to research the ecclesiastical standing of our millions of subscribers.
-
Had a conversation yesterday with a Presbyterian pastor who have moved from the PCUSA to the EPC. They are so civilized in Presbyterian circles that they actually refer to this as a "transfer" from one church body to another. Different polity, I know, but rather more courteous that the ELCA boilerplate telling NALC pastors they should no longer wear collars or refer to themselves by ecclesiastical titles.
-
Pastor Tibbets - when did your colleague actually retire? I'm certain threats that way were made.
He still is not retired, but he is of retirement age. He was quite surprised to receive the letter, too.
As for such "threats," I do not doubt them in the least. My own personal experience in the wake of the 2009 CWA leads me to suggest that it was the church's officials who spoke them, and not the pension plan officials. Though indeed, since the Concordia plan was "defined benefit," there was certainly a significant pension "cost" to leaving the Synod and pension officials would have wanted to make that clear.
Pax, Steven+
-
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
THat would only be for those who are active clergy and are foolish enough to leave their pensions there. BOP made it clear that they no longer wanted non-ELCA contributions at the end of 2011, when they terminated active pension contributions for non ELCA pastors. They "graciously" allowed existing funds to remain with them, but no new contributions could be made.
I honestly know of no one who had to then enroll in a new pension plan who did not immediately transfer their BOP funds over to the new one as well. And considering the complexities of the tax laws and how BOP never bothered to designate contributions as "housing equity" (a move that Hahn did immediately for its NALC pastors - thus allowing early withdrawal for housing purposes), it was a move that I do not regret.
-
As does the New York Times ;)
The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.
I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.
Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.
Peace, JOHN
Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called. If he is not rightfully called, and it is the call of the congregation that makes a man a minister, this practice that is so summarily brushed off as "not confessionally grounded" may indeed merit some discussion.
Many struggle with this ... even in simple situations such as filling a pulpit for a vacationing or ill pastor or a vacant or non calling congregation.
It is a rather broad brush to simply state something is non-confessional simply because of a disagreement ... especially when church fathers ... right or wrong have spoken to the subject.
-
As does the New York Times ;)
The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.
I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.
Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.
Peace, JOHN
Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called. If he is not rightfully called, and it is the call of the congregation that makes a man a minister, this practice that is so summarily brushed off as "not confessionally grounded" may indeed merit some discussion.
Many struggle with this ... even in simple situations such as filling a pulpit for a vacationing or ill pastor or a vacant or non calling congregation.
It is a rather broad brush to simply state something is non-confessional simply because of a disagreement ... especially when church fathers ... right or wrong have spoken to the subject.
There was no congregational calling procedure in Luther's time. That's a modern invention, which does not make it bad. But it does mean that Luther did not know about it.
Peace, JOHN
-
As does the New York Times ;)
The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.
I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.
There is a (vocal) minority who holds this view, but it is neither representative nor official LCMS policy.
-
As does the New York Times ;)
The Times often uses "Pastor" as well, with increasing frequency it seems.
I was led to believe that "pastor" was not an appropriate title for an LCMS clergy who was not serving a "flock" in a congregation, e.g., the ordained who are called to teach full-time at a Concordia, should not be called "pastor," nor should that be used of retired clergy who are not shepherding a flock.
Not a LCMS rule that I know about. If it were, I would ignore it as yet another one not confessionally grounded.
Peace, JOHN
Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called. If he is not rightfully called, and it is the call of the congregation that makes a man a minister, this practice that is so summarily brushed off as "not confessionally grounded" may indeed merit some discussion.
Many struggle with this ... even in simple situations such as filling a pulpit for a vacationing or ill pastor or a vacant or non calling congregation.
It is a rather broad brush to simply state something is non-confessional simply because of a disagreement ... especially when church fathers ... right or wrong have spoken to the subject.
There was no congregational calling procedure in Luther's time. That's a modern invention, which does not make it bad. But it does mean that Luther did not know about it.
Peace, JOHN
What then prompted Luther's comment?
-
Had a conversation yesterday with a Presbyterian pastor who have moved from the PCUSA to the EPC. They are so civilized in Presbyterian circles that they actually refer to this as a "transfer" from one church body to another. Different polity, I know, but rather more courteous that the ELCA boilerplate telling NALC pastors they should no longer wear collars or refer to themselves by ecclesiastical titles.
This reminds me of the couple who asked their Lutheran pastor for a letter of transfer to a local Baptist church. The stunned pastor asked if they did not realize the huge differences in doctrine between Lutheran and Baptist churches.
"Pastor, you never taught us doctrine."
-
Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called.
Not Luther, Melanchthon. AC XIV.
-
JAY
..."unless properly called" (Latin -...nisi rite vocatus) or "...without a proper (public) call" (German -...ohn ordentlichen Beruf refers to the entire process of sustaining the Church's ministry (the initial personal call, the public authorization [ordination], and the local, congregation service, however that is determined). It does not refer to our modern congregational call because the Lutherans did not do that until they came to America. The Roman Catholics approved this article (XIV) of the Augsburg Confession as do I, most certainly.
Peace, JOHN
-
Though not certain ... and having overheard conversations in that same vein ... could it be a reference to Dr. Luther's statement that a man should not preach or administer the sacraments unless he is rightfully called.
Not Luther, Melanchthon. AC XIV.
Well, if we're going to be picky about it, it's actually all Lutherans -- brother Phillip, Father Martin, and us.
;)
-
Had a conversation yesterday with a Presbyterian pastor who have moved from the PCUSA to the EPC. They are so civilized in Presbyterian circles that they actually refer to this as a "transfer" from one church body to another. Different polity, I know, but rather more courteous that the ELCA boilerplate telling NALC pastors they should no longer wear collars or refer to themselves by ecclesiastical titles.
I got one of those letters. I keep it framed next to my ordination certificate.
-
except Peter, and I say this with less anger... just cause I am getting too old for some forms of anger and I like some LCMS pastors.... when the LCMS kept those of us who were vested... yes, they kept our money for us but reduced our interest on that money to I believe a 1% figure all the ensuing years... I retired last year and after a 10 year vesting period's money was kept all those years (and they included some big interest times we all recall, I get $100 a month! There was some punitive action. I just really hope some poor pastors who never made much at least are enjoying the interest I never enjoyed. Harvey Mozolak
In this conversation, it should be noted that Portico is continuing to manage the benefit plans for those pastors who have left ELCA. If my recollection is correct, that was not a courtesy that Concordia Plans extended to LCMS pastors who joined AELC.
A benefit plan benefits by having more members. A self-serving courtesy is no courtesy at all. As for the Concordia Plans in the 70's, anyone who was vested obviously kept their benefits, but I don't think (I could be wrong) Concordia's constitution/charter gave them the option of serving non-LCMS folks. So it wasn't (again, if that is correct) a decision made on the basis of courtesy or discourtesy and it in fact meant the plan taking a hit by losing members, so whether it was a decision or not, it was the opposite of self-serving. In the case of deliberately going out of your way to change "Rev." to "Mr." in addressing a clergyman, it is clearly deliberate, clearly a decision, and clearly discourteous. No comparison whatsoever.
-
I'm hope my friend Russ Saltzman will agree that, if the ELCA and its poohbahs had someone like him or like this humble correspondent on the staff, people with some knowledge of public image and public relations, we could have found a way to write that letter that would not make the ELCA look silly and the letter-writers vindictive.
The letter, rightfully saying that the recipient may no longer consider themselves a pastor in the ELCA or act as such, is a textbook example of bad writing and corporate ineptitude.
(And people say I do not criticize the ELCA!)
-
I'm hope my friend Russ Saltzman will agree that, if the ELCA and its poohbahs had someone like him or like this humble correspondent on the staff, people with some knowledge of public image and public relations, we could have found a way to write that letter that would not make the ELCA look silly and the letter-writers vindictive.
The letter, rightfully saying that the recipient may no longer consider themselves a pastor in the ELCA or act as such, is a textbook example of bad writing and corporate ineptitude.
(And people say I do not criticize the ELCA!)
Nothing all that wrong about the letter. Lowell Almen wrote it more than a decade ago. Trouble is, it's the form letter intended for people who have been removed from the clergy roster for disciplinary reasons. Probably didn't have room on the file label to explain the appropriate use.
-
That's my point, Pastor Rothaar. The letter was appropriate for those who have been disciplined out of the ELCA ministerium. It was the wrong letter for those leaving to go to another church body, and it was a bit of inept bozo-ness to use it as such.
-
That's my point, Pastor Rothaar. The letter was appropriate for those who have been disciplined out of the ELCA ministerium. It was the wrong letter for those leaving to go to another church body, and it was a bit of inept bozo-ness to use it as such.
The "Draft of letter of notice of removal from roster of ordained ministers–revised version as of August 2010" and the "Draft of letter of notice of resignation from roster of ordained ministers)revised version as of February 2001" are part of the Manual of Policies and Procedures for Management of the Rosters of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which downloads from this link. (http://www.elca.org/~/media/Files/Who%20We%20Are/Office%20of%20the%20Secretary/Official%20Guidelines/Roster_Manual_2011.pdf)
As Charles has publicly accused many of the synod bishops of the ELCA (and those at Higgins Road who have been advising them) of "inept bozo-ness", he can probably expect to receive one of those letters soon. ;)
Mel Harris (Whose ELCA bishop did not send him one of those form letters when he resigned from the ELCA Clergy Roster.)
-
Mel Harris writes:
As Charles has publicly accused many of the synod bishops of the ELCA (and those at Higgins Road who have been advising them) of "inept bozo-ness", he can probably expect to receive one of those letters soon.
I muse:
Folks here can dream, but I have received nothing by letters commendation from my bishop for the past 25 years. I have always admitted the presence of bozos in various synodical and churchwide positions. Sometimes I have even said which particular person wears the red nose and big floppy shoes.
-
Here in the Midwest the term bozo has been replaced
by the word clown. A clergy clown could be someone
who sits in the ivy tower of denominational headquarters
and has no clue what is happening in the local parish.
Usually these clown clergy could not cut it in a parish and
retreated to the inner walls of security as a pencil pusher
in a denominational office. They have no qualms about
addressing clergy as Mister instead of Pastor.
This raises the question " whatever happen to the clergy
discount that many merchants offered in the 1950's?"
As Rodney Dangerfield would say, "Clergy get no respect."
-
This raises the question " whatever happen to the clergy
discount that many merchants offered in the 1950's?"
As Rodney Dangerfield would say, "Clergy get no respect."
The so-called "clergyman's discount" was well known in retail. It consisted of marking prices up, then offering a special "sale" to reduce them back to normal. It is still often seen on catalogs and websites that include a bogus "actual" price alongside their special discounted price which happens to be the normal, ordinary "street" price almost everyone pays. That's why the MRSP (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price) of most products is a joke.
-
Here in the Midwest the term bozo has been replaced
by the word clown. A clergy clown could be someone
who sits in the ivy tower of denominational headquarters
and has no clue what is happening in the local parish.
Usually these clown clergy could not cut it in a parish and
retreated to the inner walls of security as a pencil pusher
in a denominational office. They have no qualms about
addressing clergy as Mister instead of Pastor.
This raises the question " whatever happen to the clergy
discount that many merchants offered in the 1950's?"
As Rodney Dangerfield would say, "Clergy get no respect."
With all the clergy sex scandals, clergy lost their respected place in society.
-
With all the clergy sex scandals, clergy lost their respected place in society.
It happen long before that ... at one time the clergy was one of the most highly educated in the congregation in addition to being recognized as God's representative among us. As the education rose in the congregation that respect dwindled as did the respect given to the office. Of course, the clergy scandals of any type did not help matters.