What did you expect from CNLC/ELCA when it was forming?

[Timotheus Verinus]

......
Mr. Erdner, who I'll bet, didn't even know that a merger was going on or if he did, understand how it was to be accomplished has a very interesting case of reverse-ahistorical-paranoia, an almost humorous aberration in thinking which says "Hey, way back there, someone was trying to sneak something that I don't like past me even though I wasn't even there."
Like it or don't like it, folks, but the thought that the ELCA merger was some sneaky deal is laughable.

Well actually I was watching as it unfolded, in the mid eighties, and you are both right. If you wanted to watch, you could see clearly what was happening, You had clues all over. Seminaries teaching pastors to bring Playboy magazine into the Sunday School class, is a vivid memory of mine. But it was clear enough for me to leave before the merger was finallized. So Charles I'd say you are right.

In the midst of this in the pews were two spirits that seemed unbreakable. Ostrich and head in the sand syndrome was pretty prevalent. Then as now, there were a lot of "who really cares?" It was easier to get a volunteer for the Evangelism committee, than to get someone to look at what was happening. The second was an almost "heady" euphoria of the times, that we are all just one world, loving one another. Well we were one world, all rotten to the core, and shooting each other in the streets, but that wasn't what the Elton John pink glasses meant. So George is right, that anyone who wanted to chart a path, and lay out a plan (agenda) did so pretty much unimpeded.

And that too is why I left as the sad circus opened. I expected it to eventually get to where we are today.

TV

[hillwilliam]

  We werre told specifically that amendments could be offered, but could not be passed without threatening the birth of this new Church, which was too important a thing to let anything stand in the way.  To use the all too tired expression, the train was leaving the station and you either had to be on board or get run over.

Hmmmm.....didn't  a similar  thing happen ten days ago in Grove City, Ohio?

IIRC the moderator said there wasn't time to deal with amendments, so please don't offer them as formal motions.

Similar, but not the same.  The moderator "requested" that amendments not be formally offered, but be presented as suggestions that would be considered during the next year and brought to next year's convention.  And, in point of fact, amendments WERE presented and voted on at the convocation despite this request.

Marshall Hahn

All very true:  I was there, and voted for the Provisional Constitution in spite of many serious reservations, not the least of which was how an assembly numbering near one thousand could make decisions for 18 congregations.

Having helped at many a country butchering the whole process reminded me of sausage making.

We have to remember that the Provisional Constitution was the product of the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee. They wanted to provide a home for traditional Lutheran Christians who were leaving the ELCA. It was not their intention to dictate to the leaders, congregations, and laity of the new body but simply to provide a workable structure for developing their constitution. Any amendment that forced CORE to tell the NALC what they could or could not do, should be put off until the first NALC Convocation. As they develop their identity, the leaders, congregations, and laity of the NALC should be allowed to control the process.

That is why, after a short conversation with Bp. Spring, I presented my amendment and requested that it be referred to the Executive Council of the NALC for consideration at the first convocation of the NALC.

[Steven Tibbetts]

When the ELCA was formed, there was no need to hurry. The ALC, LCA, and AELC were getting along fine. Another six months to a year of negotiations to get things right wouldn't have hurt the chances of the ELCA succeeding.

A timeline was set in 1982 with the commitments by the 3 churches to constitute a new church in 1987.  There was indeed a sense of urgency due to the AELC's precarious position.  Note that Christ Seminary-Seminex "deployed" its faculty to LSTC, PLTS, and Wartbug in '83.  Part of the "getting along fine" was that after their 1984 conventions, the churches and their institutions were operating under the assumption that the new church would be launched in 1987 with the constituting convention.  

As for the things that most of us describe as "needing more negotiation," while contentious discussion continued (both throughout the CNLC's history and into the ELCA's even to this very day,) these matters were effectively settled (in that no significant changes were made afterwards) by 1984.  From then on, every snag that threatened to derail the process --and there were some big ones over the years -- was "settled" basically on the grounds that the merger was going to happen now or after everyone involved was dead -- and ultimately no one was willing to stand for the latter.

spt+

[totaliter vivens]

When the ELCA was formed, there was no need to hurry. The ALC, LCA, and AELC were getting along fine. Another six months to a year of negotiations to get things right wouldn't have hurt the chances of the ELCA succeeding.

A timeline was set in 1982 with the commitments by the 3 churches to constitute a new church in 1987.  There was indeed a sense of urgency due to the AELC's precarious position.  Note that Christ Seminary-Seminex "deployed" its faculty to LSTC, PLTS, and Wartbug in '83.  Part of the "getting along fine" was that after their 1984 conventions, the churches and their institutions were operating under the assumption that the new church would be launched in 1987 with the constituting convention.  

As for the things that most of us describe as "needing more negotiation," while contentious discussion continued (both throughout the CNLC's history and into the ELCA's even to this very day,) these matters were effectively settled (in that no significant changes were made afterwards) by 1984.  From then on, every snag that threatened to derail the process --and there were some big ones over the years -- was "settled" basically on the grounds that the merger was going to happen now or after everyone involved was dead -- and ultimately no one was willing to stand for the latter.

spt+

I agree with the other Steven Paul on this one. I think a prime example was the "Study on the Ministry." It was an issue, and exposed fissures that certainly should have been examined BEFORE the formation of the ELCA.

SPS

[Kurt Strause]

I think a prime example was the "Study on the Ministry." It was an issue, and exposed fissures that certainly should have been examined BEFORE the formation of the ELCA.
SPS

I think the Evangelical Catholic wing of the predecessor bodies put a lot of hope in the Ministry Study. It was the piece that was going to offset quotas, creeping congregationalism and the anti-clericalism of the ELCA governing structure. It almost succeeded when it proposed a modified three-fold order of ordained ministry. But the assembly voted that part down and substituted a unitary ordained order.

Kurt Strause

[totaliter vivens]

I think a prime example was the "Study on the Ministry." It was an issue, and exposed fissures that certainly should have been examined BEFORE the formation of the ELCA.
SPS

I think the Evangelical Catholic wing of the predecessor bodies put a lot of hope in the Ministry Study. It was the piece that was going to offset quotas, creeping congregationalism and the anti-clericalism of the ELCA governing structure. It almost succeeded when it proposed a modified three-fold order of ordained ministry. But the assembly voted that part down and substituted a unitary ordained order.

Kurt Strause

I had been praying fervently for a new evangelical understanding of the historic three-fold ministry. I was deeply disappointed.

SPS

[racin_jason]

I'd like to hear from those who were following the merger at the time: how big of a sticking point was having quotas?

Where were the proponents?

Who, if any, were those who spoke out against them?

[Charles_Austin]

RJ writes  (re quotas):
Who, if any, were those who spoke out against them?

I respond:
I did, but I had no voice in any legislative or deliberative forum. I don't think quotas were much of a  "sticking point" at all, as the LCA had them for some years.

[Steven Tibbetts]

I did, but I had no voice in any legislative or deliberative forum. I don't think quotas were much of a  "sticking point" at all, as the LCA had them for some years.

Charles, if we had them in the LCA, they were unwritten and unspoken.  Except in very selected circles of authority.

As to any controversy, Trexler's Anatomy of a Merger tells a rather different story than you do here.

Pax, Steven+

[racin_jason]

I would like to read The Anatomy of a Merger but in checking Amazon the book is selling used from $79-$999.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0806625473/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

What? Why?

[Steven Tibbetts]

What? Why?

Supply and demand, my friend.  Glad I bought my copy a decade ago.  Being an AFP paperback from the very early '90s, copies probably have a nasty habit of falling apart if the book is opened more than a dozen times.  Mine hasn't, but the pages' attachment to the spine sure feels fragile.

Some ELCA church libraries will have copies, as should some of your colleagues.  Easiest bets: your synod's Resource Center and your local public library (more likely on interlibrary loan).

Pax, Steven+

[Richard Johnson]

I would like to read The Anatomy of a Merger but in checking Amazon the book is selling used from $79-$999.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0806625473/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

What? Why?

That is pretty astonishing. Quick, buy Texler's "High Expectations" (about the early years of the ELCA) at AF before it goes out of print!

[SmithL]

That is pretty astonishing. Quick, buy Texler's "High Expectations" (about the early years of the ELCA) at AF before it goes out of print!

I just hope ALPB hits up CPH AF for big ads in their publications that CPH AF will actually be required to pay for.
Hey, fair's fair, right?

[Erma S. Wolf]

I'd like to hear from those who were following the merger at the time: how big of a sticking point was having quotas?

Where were the proponents?

Who, if any, were those who spoke out against them?

John Tietjen was one of the proponents of the quotas.  Carl Braaten was one who spoke out against them. 

I have first-hand knowledge of this.  Both men were at LSTC at the time (mid-1980's). There was a forum, open to both students and faculty, where the two professors were to discuss and debate various proposals for the "New Lutheran Church," including the proposed quota system.  That part dealing with quotas quickly showed just how heated the two sides were in regards to the proposed quota system.  Dr. Braaten argued vehemently that to impose quotas was a misuse of the Law in the Church, while Dr. Tietjen argued in response that quotas were a necessary use of the Law in order to insure that the "New Lutheran Church" would indeed live up to the demands of the Gospel.  The time for the enitre forum ran out, and the formal part of the debate ended -- but the real "debate", aka shouting match, continued.  As the two men (and the students attending) left the room on the second floor of LSTC and started down the stairs, they continued shouting at each other regarding the right vs. wrong of using quotas as Law to force people to live as the Gospel says those in the church should live.  It is a scene I will never forget, if I live to 150!

Yes, I would say it was a major sticking point.   

[totaliter vivens]

I'd like to hear from those who were following the merger at the time: how big of a sticking point was having quotas?

Where were the proponents?

Who, if any, were those who spoke out against them?

John Tietjen was one of the proponents of the quotas.  Carl Braaten was one who spoke out against them.  

I have first-hand knowledge of this.  Both men were at LSTC at the time (mid-1980's). There was a forum, open to both students and faculty, where the two professors were to discuss and debate various proposals for the "New Lutheran Church," including the proposed quota system.  That part dealing with quotas quickly showed just how heated the two sides were in regards to the proposed quota system.  Dr. Braaten argued vehemently that to impose quotas was a misuse of the Law in the Church, while Dr. Tietjen argued in response that quotas were a necessary use of the Law in order to insure that the "New Lutheran Church" would indeed live up to the demands of the Gospel.  The time for the enitre forum ran out, and the formal part of the debate ended -- but the real "debate", aka shouting match, continued.  As the two men (and the students attending) left the room on the second floor of LSTC and started down the stairs, they continued shouting at each other regarding the right vs. wrong of using quotas as Law to force people to live as the Gospel says those in the church should live.  It is a scene I will never forget, if I live to 150!

Yes, I would say it was a major sticking point.  

Ahhh... the joy that was LSTC in the 80's.  

SPS

P.S.: Another interesting thing about LSTC in the early and mid 80s... many of the most vocally orthodox students were gay. Go figure.