Author Topic: The thread for info on churches voting to change affiliation & all follow-up.  (Read 842012 times)

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43164
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3840 on: November 08, 2010, 12:05:37 PM »
Quote
Had these pastors joined an LCMC congregation -- a congregation of another church body?

If the Bishop declares the very vote to do so, "null and void," then  how on God's green earth can he then say that they ARE an LCMC congregation? If a vote to leave the ELCA fails, then they are still an ELCA congregation. If that is the case, AND if the Bishop has declared their vote to join LCMC null and void, then they are schismatic exactly...how? In which case, their pastor ought to be removed from the roster without due process...why?

While the vote to leave the ELCA was null and void, the vote to join LCMC was not. They are listed as a congregation of the LCMC.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Charles_Austin

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3841 on: November 08, 2010, 12:05:56 PM »
Or, since we are very far from the actual situation, the bishop removed the pastors for other valid reasons. We don't know the whole story and here we are reading - as usual - only one side.

David Norland

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3842 on: November 08, 2010, 12:06:23 PM »
Brian, you have said repeatedly now that it is not a matter of discipliine, this removing of clergy from the ELCA roster because they have joined LCMC.

Then why did I recieve a certified letter informing me of my removal as a matter of discipline, citing my joining LCMC?

Why can't we call things what they are?  A bishop removed me.  As an act of discipline.

Yes, we need to call things what they are. You acted contrary to our rules and suffered the consequences of your actions.

If a parent tells a child, "if you don't stop doing what you're doing or you'll be spanked," and the child doesn't stop and gets spanked, is that act of discipline the fault of the parent or the child?

It would be more correct to say that the disciplinary process spelled out in those bylaws do not relate to the discipline defined in the manual.


Whoa there, Brian.  Please.

I understand consequences.  I knew the 99% certainty of consequences to the action I took.  Are you trying to belittle me?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43164
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3843 on: November 08, 2010, 12:09:25 PM »

If a parent tells a child, "if you don't stop doing what you're doing or you'll be spanked," and the child doesn't stop and gets spanked, is that act of discipline the fault of the parent or the child?


"Oh, but my child is not allowed to do.  Therefore, she's not my child."

Yes, that can happen. I've had a couple families in congregations who disowned their child.

However, the question is: if the child gets spanked for disobeying the parents, is the spanking the parents' fault or the child's fault?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

hillwilliam

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3844 on: November 08, 2010, 12:09:55 PM »
It appears a number of bishops are putting an unpleasant spin on what must be an uncomfortable truth:  Charles and Brian have quoted a bishop, and I was directly told by Bishop Tom Aiken, that those who join LCMC have removed themselves from the roster of the ELCA.  That claim is simply not true.

I did not remove myself from the roster of the ELCA.  I was removed.

You can quibble all you want about why that difference would be important to me.  I recognize it might not be important at all to some.  But what is indisputable is the simple truth of it.

Being removed from the roster is the stated consequence of joining LCMC.

  That was the ruling of the Secretary of the ELCA.  I don't think he has the power to circumvent the constitutional discipline processes either.

It's not a matter of discipline. It's stating what ELCA clergy are not allowed to do, and the consequences of it. If pastors join another church body, they forfeit their clergy status in the ELCA. Similarly, our congregations state what active members are to do -- and if they fail to do it, they can be removed from membership without going through the disciplinary steps stated elsewhere in the constitution and bylaws.


So do you have any facts that support your contention that the Pastors were not members of an ELCA congregation? The Bishop claims that the congregation is still ELCA. The Pastors were still on the membership rolls of the Congregation and had done nothing to be rostered by the LCMC. They took no action to leave the ELCA and were punished by the Bishop. The congregation is actively involved with efforts to leave the ELCA and are not being punished. How does that make any kind of sense?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43164
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3845 on: November 08, 2010, 12:10:54 PM »
Brian, you have said repeatedly now that it is not a matter of discipliine, this removing of clergy from the ELCA roster because they have joined LCMC.

Then why did I recieve a certified letter informing me of my removal as a matter of discipline, citing my joining LCMC?

Why can't we call things what they are?  A bishop removed me.  As an act of discipline.

Yes, we need to call things what they are. You acted contrary to our rules and suffered the consequences of your actions.

If a parent tells a child, "if you don't stop doing what you're doing or you'll be spanked," and the child doesn't stop and gets spanked, is that act of discipline the fault of the parent or the child?

It would be more correct to say that the disciplinary process spelled out in those bylaws do not relate to the discipline defined in the manual.


Whoa there, Brian.  Please.

I understand consequences.  I knew the 99% certainty of consequences to the action I took.  Are you trying to belittle me?

Nope. You knew what you were doing. You knew the consequences. You caused the removal of your name from the ELCA clergy roster.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven Tibbetts

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 10213
  • Big tents are for circuses.
    • View Profile
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3846 on: November 08, 2010, 12:11:30 PM »

Not all matters of discipline are required to following the disciplinary process of chapter 20 in the ELCA constitution and bylaws. Even an accounting major should be able to understand that.

Sorry, Brian, I don't understand that.  The disciplinarians get to decide whether or not they follow the discipline process?  

That's naked power applied at whim.

Which is contrary to every the ELCA stands for.
The Rev. Steven Paul Tibbetts, STS
Pastor Zip's Blog

pr dtp

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3847 on: November 08, 2010, 12:11:49 PM »
Page 45 of the Manual has been quoted a couple of times as the basis for the bishop's actions against a clergy who “enters the ordained ministry of another church body, or who joins a religious group or congregation of another church body (except as provided in 7.41.17.), or who serves a group schismatic from this church or from a congregation thereof.”

Had these pastors joined an LCMC congregation -- a congregation of another church body?

When you searched through the LCMC governing documents I posted links to earlier, where did you find any specific language that said that the called minister of an LCMC congregation was required to be an individual member of the LCMC? The ELCA does have such specific language in its governing documents. Where does the LCMC have similar language?

Were the pastors members of an LCMC congregation? Where the pastors serving an LCMC congregation? When the congregation joined LCMC, all their members, including the pastors, also became members of the LCMC. Probably if the pastors had resigned their membership from Zion and their calls to the congregation, they would remain on the ELCA clergy roster.

One more time:

1.  The bishop strenuously argues that the church's attempt to join the LCMC is completely invalid - it is neither legal nor efficacious.

2.  The bishop strenuously then argues that the pastors are being removed because the church left the ELCA to join the LCMC.


By the way - your pitiful red herring about the effect on young homosexuals committing suicide is exactly that.  To his date I have counseled 6 youth - dealing wiith that issue.  Not one has committed suicide - and some are still struggling with the issue and the spiritual implications of such feelings.  To claim that calling a sin a sin is the root cause of suicide is a either a bold lie or deliberate foolishness. Poor pastoral care is the answer, but assuring the sinner that a devotion to a sinful lifestyle leaves them "ok" with God is not pastoral at all.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43164
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3848 on: November 08, 2010, 12:12:03 PM »
It appears a number of bishops are putting an unpleasant spin on what must be an uncomfortable truth:  Charles and Brian have quoted a bishop, and I was directly told by Bishop Tom Aiken, that those who join LCMC have removed themselves from the roster of the ELCA.  That claim is simply not true.

I did not remove myself from the roster of the ELCA.  I was removed.

You can quibble all you want about why that difference would be important to me.  I recognize it might not be important at all to some.  But what is indisputable is the simple truth of it.

Being removed from the roster is the stated consequence of joining LCMC.

  That was the ruling of the Secretary of the ELCA.  I don't think he has the power to circumvent the constitutional discipline processes either.

It's not a matter of discipline. It's stating what ELCA clergy are not allowed to do, and the consequences of it. If pastors join another church body, they forfeit their clergy status in the ELCA. Similarly, our congregations state what active members are to do -- and if they fail to do it, they can be removed from membership without going through the disciplinary steps stated elsewhere in the constitution and bylaws.


So do you have any facts that support your contention that the Pastors were not members of an ELCA congregation? The Bishop claims that the congregation is still ELCA. The Pastors were still on the membership rolls of the Congregation and had done nothing to be rostered by the LCMC. They took no action to leave the ELCA and were punished by the Bishop. The congregation is actively involved with efforts to leave the ELCA and are not being punished. How does that make any kind of sense?

Check the LCMC directory of congregations. The congregation is there. It is a congregation who belongs to another church body. The pastors, as members of the congregation, were also members of that other church body.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43164
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3849 on: November 08, 2010, 12:14:08 PM »

1.  The bishop strenuously argues that the church's attempt to join the LCMC is completely invalid - it is neither legal nor efficacious.

Nope. The bishop argues that they attempt to leave the ELCA failed. Check the LCMC directory of congregations. They have joined LCMC.

Quote
2.  The bishop strenuously then argues that the pastors are being removed because the church left the ELCA to join the LCMC.

Nope. They are being removed because the congregation joined the LCMC (even though they did not leave the ELCA).
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Cathy Ammlung

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3850 on: November 08, 2010, 12:16:33 PM »
Quote
While the vote to leave the ELCA was null and void, the vote to join LCMC was not. They are listed as a congregation of the LCMC.

Well, I'm sure it is, from LCMC's perspective. My quandary remains: from the ELCA's perspective, this is still an ELCA congregation. The bishop is evidently insisting on Sec'y Swartling's interpretation that a congregation can be ELCA OR LCMC but not both, from the ELCA's side at least (what LCMC or NALC or anyone else does is their own business, for purposes of this discussion). Okay, let's run with that.

So if the vote to leave the ELCA not only fails but the very vote itself was nullified by the Bishop, the congregation still is an ELCA congregation. Period. Either that, or, with a stroke of the pen, the Bishop is not only nullifying the abortive vote to leave the ELCA,but is actually overturning it and declaring that they have already done so by their vote to join LCMC. In other words, he is doing for them what they could not, at this time, do for themselves.


David Norland

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3851 on: November 08, 2010, 12:18:21 PM »
Brian -

1) The next time you hear a bishop say, "They removed themselves from the ELCA roster"; would you be so kind as to show them the error of that statement and to offer them you clarity on consequences, showing that they indeed took an action as a responce to another's action?  Would you do that?

2) The next time you hear anyone say, "Removal from the ELCA roster for joining LCMC is not an act of discipline"; would you be so kind as to point out the fact that it is indeed an act of discipline?

These are the two corrections I have been so kind to offer you, and it does seem you have granted their accuracy now.

Whoops, you posted again and have just said that a bishop did not remove me; but that I removed myself.  We are back to square one.  

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43164
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3852 on: November 08, 2010, 12:18:34 PM »

Not all matters of discipline are required to following the disciplinary process of chapter 20 in the ELCA constitution and bylaws. Even an accounting major should be able to understand that.

Sorry, Brian, I don't understand that.  The disciplinarians get to decide whether or not they follow the discipline process?  

The process for removing an ELCA pastor who has joined another church body is in the hands of the bishop -- not the disciplinary hearing committee.

The process for removing a congregation who has called a non-rostered pastor (without the bishop's consent) is in the hands of the synod council -- not the disciplinary hearing committee.

That's what our rules state.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

hillwilliam

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3853 on: November 08, 2010, 12:18:47 PM »
Page 45 of the Manual has been quoted a couple of times as the basis for the bishop's actions against a clergy who “enters the ordained ministry of another church body, or who joins a religious group or congregation of another church body (except as provided in 7.41.17.), or who serves a group schismatic from this church or from a congregation thereof.”

Had these pastors joined an LCMC congregation -- a congregation of another church body?

When you searched through the LCMC governing documents I posted links to earlier, where did you find any specific language that said that the called minister of an LCMC congregation was required to be an individual member of the LCMC? The ELCA does have such specific language in its governing documents. Where does the LCMC have similar language?

Were the pastors members of an LCMC congregation? Where the pastors serving an LCMC congregation? When the congregation joined LCMC, all their members, including the pastors, also became members of the LCMC. Probably if the pastors had resigned their membership from Zion and their calls to the congregation, they would remain on the ELCA clergy roster.

One more time:

1.  The bishop strenuously argues that the church's attempt to join the LCMC is completely invalid - it is neither legal nor efficacious.

2.  The bishop strenuously then argues that the pastors are being removed because the church left the ELCA to join the LCMC.


By the way - your pitiful red herring about the effect on young homosexuals committing suicide is exactly that.  To his date I have counseled 6 youth - dealing wiith that issue.  Not one has committed suicide - and some are still struggling with the issue and the spiritual implications of such feelings.  To claim that calling a sin a sin is the root cause of suicide is a either a bold lie or deliberate foolishness. Poor pastoral care is the answer, but assuring the sinner that a devotion to a sinful lifestyle leaves them "ok" with God is not pastoral at all.

No it is psychology.  ;)

George Erdner

  • Guest
Re: The thread for info on churches voting to leave the ELCA & all follow-up.
« Reply #3854 on: November 08, 2010, 12:18:59 PM »
Page 45 of the Manual has been quoted a couple of times as the basis for the bishop's actions against a clergy who “enters the ordained ministry of another church body, or who joins a religious group or congregation of another church body (except as provided in 7.41.17.), or who serves a group schismatic from this church or from a congregation thereof.”

Had these pastors joined an LCMC congregation -- a congregation of another church body?

When you searched through the LCMC governing documents I posted links to earlier, where did you find any specific language that said that the called minister of an LCMC congregation was required to be an individual member of the LCMC? The ELCA does have such specific language in its governing documents. Where does the LCMC have similar language?

Were the pastors members of an LCMC congregation? Where the pastors serving an LCMC congregation? When the congregation joined LCMC, all their members, including the pastors, also became members of the LCMC. Probably if the pastors had resigned their membership from Zion and their calls to the congregation, they would remain on the ELCA clergy roster.

That didn't answer my question. It's another of your beside-the-point red herrings. You ask two separate questions. Where did you find in the LCMC governing documents that I linked to any clear statement that to serve and LCMC congregation a pastor must also be a member of the congregation that he is serving? Until you can answer that, the rest of what you are saying is meaningless.