Estranged members sue ELCA-LCMC congregation

[Charles_Austin]

Thank you, Pastor Hatcher, for understanding what I am saying in describing some - not all, but some - of those who have left the ELCA or led the calls to leave.
 
You write:
Many (of those who left CA)  that I know had long service and support of the ELCA, some going back to the formation and foundation of 'this church'.  Many had deep personal and emotional investment in the ELCA and found parting painful.
I comment:
I understand this, also, and know that it is true.
 
You write:
For the folk I describe, to hear 'that they never really joined the ELCA in the first place' does little to ease the sorrow felt over leaving or makes folk like myself, who has remained in the ELCA and is profoundly troubled by the direction of my church, feel as if my voice is welcome.
I comment:
But I am not referring to those people you describe and whom I know to exist. I'm referring to some, perhaps many, who fit my description of some of the others who left or led the drive to leave.
As I have said for years, I want the "other voices" to be present in the ELCA. You, of course, understand that in some places they may not be "welcomed," but that does not mean you should not be there.
 
 
 

[Jeremy Loesch]

Just last week, a person very deeply involved in the early days of the ELCA as a leader and active to the present day told me that many of the congregations that left after after 2009 had "never really joined the ELCA in the first place and were just looking for a reason to leave." I hope to be quoting that person in publication sometime soon, so wait for it.
   I repeat so that you will not be able to twist my words. Not all of you were in that category. But some of you were. And the numbers were not necessarily small.
   That's my take on the situation. You don't have to like it. But I believe it is accurate.

This, of course, has some truth to it.  I know of congregations and pastors that could fit this description.  That said, what I have observed in my small corner of the kingdom was the gradual erosion of trust that culminated in the vote of 2009 being the point beyond which folk could not go.  Many that I know had long service and support of the ELCA, some going back to the formation and foundation of 'this church'.  Many had deep personal and emotional investment in the ELCA and found parting painful.  For the folk I describe, to hear 'that they never really joined the ELCA in the first place' does little to ease the sorrow felt over leaving or makes folk like myself, who has remained in the ELCA and is profoundly troubled by the direction of my church, feel as if my voice is welcome.   

Perhaps it is not that the congregations were not part of the ELCA but that the ELCA was not a part of those congregations?  I think that sentiment cuts both ways.  It is troublesome and it certainly does effect the unity of a district, synod (ELCA), and Synod (LCMS).  Periodically the church and the church body do pull together and periodically they do not.  The same sort of thing happens in an individual congregation. 

Just an observation.

Jeremy

 

[Charles_Austin]

In the ELCA, Jeremy Loesch, and in most of our predecessor bodies, it was difficult to imagine a congregation without a "connection" to synod or district and/or national church body. For many of us, it was the national church body that began congregations, trained and ordained pastors and was an essential part of "the church."
The ELCA was envisioned as a rather co-equal, somewhat trinitarian (with all the attendant complications) entity of congregation, synod, and national "expression" of the ELCA. One did not exist without the other, and no two could exist without the third and all were "co-equal" in a way in being "church."
We have always had "lone wolf" pastors and isolationist congregations; but they have been aberrations and have not defined us, nor have they been proper representations of what the ELCA intended to be. I was a little surprised when, after the formation of the ELCA, a strain of staunch "congregationalism" seemed to appear; and I was disappointed to learn that too many pastors were simply dismissive of or indifferent to anything which did not originate locally or would not be "accepted" locally, as if the local church - as important as it is - was all that there is.
That is not who we in the ELCA said we are or intend to be.

[Team Hesse]

"Connection" is important. The question is whether connection is to be collegial or authoritarian. This distinction always comes to the fore in issues involving church differences. Luther wanted a conversation, the Romanists turned the discussion into a question of his obedience to the Pope. For us moderns, the question is submission to churchwide directives or "you have not made your case" from scripture and clear reason.


Lou

[DCharlton]

I comment:
You overstate, as usual, and misinterpret my words, as you usually do; to the point where I can only begin to assume that it is intentional. No, Pastor Cottingham, get this very clear and I will underline it for you. I do not believe that you are all rubes, fakes, bad pastors, not competent, or the above:  not loyal from the start...?
  I do not say that you were all any of those things. But some of you were; and I know this from 1) personal experience, 2) witnessing people who spoke at synodical and churchwide assemblies, and 3) talking with bishops, assistants to bishops and national church leaders over the past 20 years. Just last week, a person very deeply involved in the early days of the ELCA as a leader and active to the present day told me that many of the congregations that left after after 2009 had "never really joined the ELCA in the first place and were just looking for a reason to leave." I hope to be quoting that person in publication sometime soon, so wait for it.
   I repeat so that you will not be able to twist my words. Not all of you were in that category. But some of you were. And the numbers were not necessarily small.
   That's my take on the situation. You don't have to like it. But I believe it is accurate.

Charles,

Will you concede that to say that some in the ELCA have failed to guard the Catholic faith, that some bishops acted in a way that eroded trust, that some have allowed politics to supplant confession and proclamation is not to say that all have?  Can you concede that to criticize the actions of some is not to condemn all nor is it to condemn the whole ELCA?

Furthermore, can you understand how the phrase "never really joined the ELCA" can be heard as an un-inclusive dismissal of those Hispanic and African churches who departed?  Were they dishonest in stating their desire to cooperate in proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Were they dishonest in their commitment to Scripture, the Ecumenical Creeds and the Lutheran Confessions?  Just what did they fail to do?  Can you see how some might reverse the charges and say that some, although fully committed the ELCA and its governing documents, fudged in their commitment to the ELCA's confession of faith?  Can you recognize how some might believe that when some failed to guard the Catholic faith, they(some not all) were the ones who broke away?

Now, to be clear, I don't agree with every response to CWA 2009, nor to do agree with every criticism of the ELCA. I wish those who left had stayed.   But I understand and respect why many have chosen to depart. 

David  Charlton

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Charlton writes:
I wish those who left had stayed.   But I understand and respect why many have chosen to depart. 

I comment:
So do I.

[Steven Tibbetts]

I'm referring to some, perhaps many, who fit my description of some of the others who left or led the drive to leave.

Was it truly necessary, Charles, to include the "perhaps many" clause in that sentence?  It has the effect, at least on this ELCA pastor, of negating the rest of your post.

 

[Mel Harris]

Warning:  Back on topic

       If you have half an hour, and are interested in the topic of this thread, you may want to watch this video.

              Mel Harris

[cnehring]

The ELCA was envisioned as a rather co-equal, somewhat trinitarian (with all the attendant complications) entity of congregation, synod, and national "expression" of the ELCA. One did not exist without the other, and no two could exist without the third and all were "co-equal" in a way in being "church."

That is not who we in the ELCA said we are or intend to be.

Ok, Charles. Let's have it this way. The elca must end this non-representative form of governance. If all areas are equal, then why are 4.something million members represented by a mere 1100, of which only 1/2 or 2/3 need to vote, independently of any wishes of the congregations or synod, to change doctrine as it is set down according to Scripture and the Confessions? If the synod and/national "expression" of the elca decides on something, then why not let the congregations also have a voice?

And don't tell me that they have their "chance" to elect representatives for the larger "expressions." The elca must follow a secular idea of diversity in who votes on these issues, and those elected are told that they represent, not the synods or the congregations they come from, but themselves for the sake of the "churchwide."

[Steven Tibbetts]

Ok, Charles. Let's have it this way. The elca must end this non-representative form of governance. If all areas are equal, then why are 4.something million members represented by a mere 1100, of which only 1/2 or 2/3 need to vote, independently of any wishes of the congregations or synod, to change doctrine as it is set down according to Scripture and the Confessions?

Well, Craig, in defense of the ELCA's form of governance, the 313 million people in the USA are represented by only 435 people. And congressional districts are specifically designed for provide "safe" seats for particular sorts of diversity, that is, racial and party.  Similarly for the 50 State legislatures.

The problem is not the ELCA's form of governance.  It is that the checks and balances in our form of governance are designed to be weak, which makes them easy to ignore in the face of raw power.  And raw power has been the major mode of operation in the ELCA for the last decade or so. Witness the post-2009 subjugation of synods by churchwide regarding the ministry, the redefinition of the ELCA as a "hierarchical church" in courts, the summary dismissals of rostered clergy, the sudden appearance of people at congregational meetings (that's actually an old one, and ring-leaders can be on both sides of the vote), the application/non-application of constitutional provisions by whim, etc.

Christe eleison, Steven+

[George Erdner]

Ok, Charles. Let's have it this way. The elca must end this non-representative form of governance. If all areas are equal, then why are 4.something million members represented by a mere 1100, of which only 1/2 or 2/3 need to vote, independently of any wishes of the congregations or synod, to change doctrine as it is set down according to Scripture and the Confessions?

Well, Craig, in defense of the ELCA's form of governance, the 313 million people in the USA are represented by only 435 people. And congressional districts are specifically designed for provide "safe" seats for particular sorts of diversity, that is, racial and party.  Similarly for the 50 State legislatures.

The problem is not the ELCA's form of governance.  It is that the checks and balances in our form of governance are designed to be weak, which makes them easy to ignore in the face of raw power.  And raw power has been the major mode of operation in the ELCA for the last decade or so. Witness the post-2009 subjugation of synods by churchwide regarding the ministry, the redefinition of the ELCA as a "hierarchical church" in courts, the summary dismissals of rostered clergy, the sudden appearance of people at congregational meetings (that's actually an old one, and ring-leaders can be on both sides of the vote), the application/non-application of constitutional provisions by whim, etc.

Christe eleison, Steven+

You got that right! That's why I applaud the new Lutheran church bodies that include the process of congregational ratification as a check-and-balance in their decision making process. If the ELCA is truly "three expressions", they requiring ratification by 2/3rds or 3/4ths of all congregations would accomplish two things. It would solidify the claim to the three expressions being equal, and it would remove the ability for raw power to be used to force decisions on everyone.


Even more important, it assumes that the Holy Spirit will guide the voting of the pewsitters in the congregations, so that it's God's will that is done.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The ELCA was envisioned as a rather co-equal, somewhat trinitarian (with all the attendant complications) entity of congregation, synod, and national "expression" of the ELCA. One did not exist without the other, and no two could exist without the third and all were "co-equal" in a way in being "church."

That is not who we in the ELCA said we are or intend to be.

Ok, Charles. Let's have it this way. The elca must end this non-representative form of governance. If all areas are equal, then why are 4.something million members represented by a mere 1100, of which only 1/2 or 2/3 need to vote, independently of any wishes of the congregations or synod, to change doctrine as it is set down according to Scripture and the Confessions? If the synod and/national "expression" of the elca decides on something, then why not let the congregations also have a voice?

And don't tell me that they have their "chance" to elect representatives for the larger "expressions." The elca must follow a secular idea of diversity in who votes on these issues, and those elected are told that they represent, not the synods or the congregations they come from, but themselves for the sake of the "churchwide."

For the ALC to disband and become part of the new ELCA, congregations had to ratify the convention's actions. We read the resolution. There could be discussion, although most people were not well-informed about the work of the Commission. We could not amend the resolution in any way. We could only agree or disagree with what others had already decided. Quite a few people asked me, How should we vote?" People with even less knowledge about what was going on, who had not participated in the discussions at the convention, were now being asked to a decision for the whole church. Our present structure is better.

[A Catholic Lutheran]

FWIW, it appears that the "Grace" name stays with the building...  Hence the "Amazing Grace" folks are now "Grace Lutheran Church" and the "Grace" folks are now "Saving Grace."

This whole mess is just so much...a mess.

Pax Christi;
Pr. Jerry Kliner, STS

[DCharlton]

The ELCA was envisioned as a rather co-equal, somewhat trinitarian (with all the attendant complications) entity of congregation, synod, and national "expression" of the ELCA. One did not exist without the other, and no two could exist without the third and all were "co-equal" in a way in being "church."

That is not who we in the ELCA said we are or intend to be.

Ok, Charles. Let's have it this way. The elca must end this non-representative form of governance. If all areas are equal, then why are 4.something million members represented by a mere 1100, of which only 1/2 or 2/3 need to vote, independently of any wishes of the congregations or synod, to change doctrine as it is set down according to Scripture and the Confessions? If the synod and/national "expression" of the elca decides on something, then why not let the congregations also have a voice?

And don't tell me that they have their "chance" to elect representatives for the larger "expressions." The elca must follow a secular idea of diversity in who votes on these issues, and those elected are told that they represent, not the synods or the congregations they come from, but themselves for the sake of the "churchwide."

For the ALC to disband and become part of the new ELCA, congregations had to ratify the convention's actions. We read the resolution. There could be discussion, although most people were not well-informed about the work of the Commission. We could not amend the resolution in any way. We could only agree or disagree with what others had already decided. Quite a few people asked me, How should we vote?" People with even less knowledge about what was going on, who had not participated in the discussions at the convention, were now being asked to a decision for the whole church. Our present structure is better.

Now Brian, there are many congregations full of well informed people.  Many congregations have studied and responded to the various issues that come before the Churchwide Assemblies.  Furthermore, to be fully informed one needs more than the discussion that takes place at the convention.  Because of time limits and logistics, the information given to voting members is often that which the organizers of the convention wanted them to have.  Information that might argue against proposals favored by the organizers is much more difficult to come by.  So a congregation that exists before and continues to exist after an assembly takes place has more time to become fully informed. 

[cnehring]

Ok, Charles. Let's have it this way. The elca must end this non-representative form of governance. If all areas are equal, then why are 4.something million members represented by a mere 1100, of which only 1/2 or 2/3 need to vote, independently of any wishes of the congregations or synod, to change doctrine as it is set down according to Scripture and the Confessions?

Well, Craig, in defense of the ELCA's form of governance, the 313 million people in the USA are represented by only 435 people. And congressional districts are specifically designed for provide "safe" seats for particular sorts of diversity, that is, racial and party.  Similarly for the 50 State legislatures.

The problem is not the ELCA's form of governance.  It is that the checks and balances in our form of governance are designed to be weak, which makes them easy to ignore in the face of raw power.  And raw power has been the major mode of operation in the ELCA for the last decade or so. Witness the post-2009 subjugation of synods by churchwide regarding the ministry, the redefinition of the ELCA as a "hierarchical church" in courts, the summary dismissals of rostered clergy, the sudden appearance of people at congregational meetings (that's actually an old one, and ring-leaders can be on both sides of the vote), the application/non-application of constitutional provisions by whim, etc.

Christe eleison, Steven+

Sure, but is this the way the Church is supposed to work?

I was responding to Charles' insistence that the 3 expressions are equal (like the Trinity even!). If they are equal, then why do congregations get very little say in the long term? Why are they not represented by people who are to represent them, but to vote according to their own "conscience?"

At least, in theory, those whom we elect to represent us in Washington or at the state level, are supposed to represent our desires. Granted, practice does not necessarily reflects the theory.