Estranged members sue ELCA-LCMC congregation

[Chuck Sampson]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

I thought that the ELCA would be liberal as compared to the LCMS or WELS. I never thought it would be considered liberal in comparison to the Universal Life Church or the Scientologists.

au contraire...in my neck of the woods back then the "old" ALC did not resemble the LCA.  The minority position of the old ALC lost much of its influence in connection with altar-pulpit fellowship conversation, imo.

Some Haugean and free Lutheran traditions were part of the ALC -- a piety that I don't believe folks in the LCA understood (or perhaps appreciated). Conversely, the LCA had the grand Augustana liturgical piety that those Haugeaners just couldn't fathom. The "sides" did poke a bit of fun at each other, e.g., "happy" Danes vs. "sad" Danes. Both the ALC and LCA, in the mergers that created them learned to become a "big tent" church to accommodate the many different Lutheran flavors that were coming together.


On one hand, you can say that the minority position (WordAlone types) lost much of its influence when they couldn't sway the CWA to reject the full-communion agreement with the Episcopalians. On the other hand, the ELCA revised its constitution and bylaws just for this minority group, so that it would be possible for candidates to be ordained without a synod bishop present. Even as the losing minority, they still had influence with the whole body.

[readselerttoo]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Just wanting to preserve this against a possible deletion later.

I thought that the ELCA would be liberal as compared to the LCMS or WELS. I never thought it would be considered liberal in comparison to the Universal Life Church or the Scientologists.

au contraire...in my neck of the woods back then the "old" ALC did not resemble the LCA.  The minority position of the old ALC lost much of its influence in connection with altar-pulpit fellowship conversation, imo.

Some Haugean and free Lutheran traditions were part of the ALC -- a piety that I don't believe folks in the LCA understood (or perhaps appreciated). Conversely, the LCA had the grand Augustana liturgical piety that those Haugeaners just couldn't fathom. The "sides" did poke a bit of fun at each other, e.g., "happy" Danes vs. "sad" Danes. Both the ALC and LCA, in the mergers that created them learned to become a "big tent" church to accommodate the many different Lutheran flavors that were coming together.


On one hand, you can say that the minority position (WordAlone types) lost much of its influence when they couldn't sway the CWA to reject the full-communion agreement with the Episcopalians. On the other hand, the ELCA revised its constitution and bylaws just for this minority group, so that it would be possible for candidates to be ordained without a synod bishop present. Even as the losing minority, they still had influence with the whole body.

I suppose I should have been specific enough to clarify that the "old" ALC at least in my neck of the woods was represented within the German tradition. 

[George Erdner]

I thought that the ELCA would be liberal as compared to the LCMS or WELS. I never thought it would be considered liberal in comparison to the Universal Life Church or the Scientologists.

I'm sorry George, but that is way out of line.  I have no great  love of ELCA theology, but your comparison is odius, and way inaccurate..
 
Dan

I was using hyperbole to make a point. I thought that was obvious.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I suppose I should have been specific enough to clarify that the "old" ALC at least in my neck of the woods was represented within the German tradition.

Considering that the old ALC (1930) came from German roots as did the LCMS and WELS, we can easily understand some of the great differences of German Lutheranism. Johann Konrad Wilhelm Löhe (who is commemorated on January 2) sent missionaries who helped start the Synod of Ohio and Missouri Synod, and Iowa Synod. Even from one school in Germany, different synods arose whose differences remain today. (Iowa and Ohio synods were part of the old ALC).

[Erma S. Wolf]

On one hand, you can say that the minority position (WordAlone types) lost much of its influence when they couldn't sway the CWA to reject the full-communion agreement with the Episcopalians. On the other hand, the ELCA revised its constitution and bylaws just for this minority group, so that it would be possible for candidates to be ordained without a synod bishop present. Even as the losing minority, they still had influence with the whole body.

Brian, even though I supported both the Concordat and Call to Common Mission, what you have written here is most incomplete, misleading and inaccurate.  As you should well know, the first time a CWA voted on a full-communion agreement with the PECUSA, the Concordat, it failed to pass.  It failed to achieve the constitutional mandate of a 2/3s vote to adopt it, and by the reasoning of many here regarding such things as 2/3s votes the whole thing should have stopped there, and those who lost that vote should have accepted their loss and never brought the matter up again.  And your description of the "exception clause" that was passed is also demeaning in its description. 

One of the few positive memories I have of the past few years is hearing the Rev. Stan Olson, then working in the churchwide offices of the ELCA, say at a Church Council meeting that there was no "minority" position following the 2009 CWA, but instead four equally valid positions within the ELCA on these matters.  Whether holding to that interpretation was realistically workable long-term or not, I appreciated hearing that from him and believed then and believe now that he spoke as an "honest broker" on these matters.  I wish he was still in the churchwide office. 

[readselerttoo]

I suppose I should have been specific enough to clarify that the "old" ALC at least in my neck of the woods was represented within the German tradition.

Considering that the old ALC (1930) came from German roots as did the LCMS and WELS, we can easily understand some of the great differences of German Lutheranism. Johann Konrad Wilhelm Löhe (who is commemorated on January 2) sent missionaries who helped start the Synod of Ohio and Missouri Synod, and Iowa Synod. Even from one school in Germany, different synods arose whose differences remain today. (Iowa and Ohio synods were part of the old ALC).

Yes.  Part of my own dilemma when I matriculated at Wartburg before moving to St. Louis was whether Lutheran confessionality could be used in a critical way (and not simply as some historically confined document), say as it was in Bonhoeffer's Germany.  To my surprise I discovered that Christ Seminary-Seminex filled that bill.

[Dan Fienen]

The day that the ELCA becomes confessional and orthodox is the day I leave.   

Just wow . . . but it will be interesting to see how Charles and Brian respond to this admission.

A. I believe that the ELCA is confessional and orthodox. I believe that we have the correct understand and practice of what it means to be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.


B. The ELCA is not confessional and orthodox in the very narrow sense that the LCMS uses the terms. Should the ELCA became that kind of confessional, orthodox church, I'm gone, too.

Actually, it seems to me that your definition of confessional and orthodos is much narrower than most of us in the LCMS.  If I read you correctly, for you confessional and orthodox consists only one thing - salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  A quite limited and narrow definition.  As long as that doctrine is somehow adhered to one is orthodox and confession no matter what from the Scripture and the Lutheran confessions is discarded, denied or toyed with.
 
Dan

[Steven Tibbetts]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination?

Charles, no one expected the ELCA to be a "conservative" Lutheran church.  We did have reason to expect it to be a "confessional" Lutheran Church, that she would use Scripture, Creeds, and Confessions to play a central role in her teaching and decision making.  Because she was primarily a confessional church, there was room for conservatives such as myself, as there had been room for us in the LCA. 

I have noted before that most of the "traditionalists" who opposed, and continue to oppose (either inside or outside of this church) the major innovations of the last 6 years (feminist language, are proud "liberals."  But it is a liberalism that does not extract the church from its biblical/confessional roots, and that is what the leadership of this church has done. 

The ELCA united 2/3rds of US Lutherans into a confessional church committed to an even fuller Lutheran unity.  The lawsuit that opened this particular topic is yet one more demonstration that it has, instead, been turned into a bureaucratic sect.  And like all bureaucracies, it is interested primarily in self-preservation.

Christe eleison, Steven+

[Steven Tibbetts]

(The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)

That's what the local (Los Angeles area) ALC and LCA pastors said often in the '70s and '80s.  I remember my (LCA) pastor coming back from the first meeting of the two ministeria (still in the CNLC days) astounded at just how different the ALC and LCA pastors were from each other.  And this was in Southern California, where Lutherans (except WELS and CLC) had been co-operating with each other for as long as there were Lutherans in metro Los Angeles!

Pax, Steven+

[pearson]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Only a post like this could get me to set down my mug of glӧgg and retire from the glow of a Texas victory in the Holiday Bowl in order to respond.

I was pastor/senior pastor of an LCA/ELCA congregation in St. Louis (Clayton), MO from 1982-1989.  Until April, 1987, we were part of the LCA's Illinois Synod, under the leadership of the sainted Bp. Paul Erickson.  Throughout the time I served as pastor of that parish, we provided office space, financial support and hospitality for a number of AELC agencies.  Bp. John Tietjen was in our building every couple of weeks, meeting with Larry Neeb (ELIM), Richard Mueller (Lutheran Perspective), Arden Mead (Creative Communications), Al Horst (Campus Ministry), and a host of other AELC leaders, working at just stayin' alive.  During that time, the CNLC held one regional meeting, and one national meeting, in our facilities.  One had only to squat in the corner and stay awake to see what was going on.

What was going on -- at least in our corner of congested Lutheranism -- was an LCA and ALC leadership being led into a reconstituted Lutheran body by a deeply motivated and visionary AELC leadership.  It was the AELC leaders who repeatedly insisted that we were forming, not a "merged" church, but a "new" Lutheran church, beholden to none of the traditions and practices of what came to be known dismissively as "the predecessor church bodies."  It was the AELC leaders who kept urging that we didn't need to resolve conflicted issues of ecclesial order, pastoral identity, theological commitments or biblical authority; these were matters best left to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the future corporate wisdom of this "new" Lutheran church.  Dr. Serge Castigliano, who was a member of my parish, joined in 1987 the initial staff at Churchwide in Chicago as supervisor of chaplains and pastoral counselors; he told me early on that "this (the ELCA) is a really strange place."

The bottom line is that many of us pastors had no idea what to expect of the ELCA in 1987.  I do know that while the AELC folks in St. Louis were exulting, the LCA pastors there were expressing various degrees of uncertainty and concern.  If anything, we hoped that the ELCA would continue to be "liberal" in just the way that the LCA was "liberal."  We understood the LCA to represent a socially sensitive, confessionally orthodox Lutheran community, minimally diverse, with a lot of theological common ground.  We did not expect the ELCA to be "conservative," especially if that meant ethnically isolated.  But we also did not expect -- although some may have feared -- that the ELCA would speed up away from a distinctive "LCA liberalism" and toward a generic "American cultural progressivism."  If anyone in 1987 expected the ELCA to look as it does on the brink of 2012, it was those who patiently manufactured this current ELCA, and those who cheered them on.

Well, this reflection has been mostly anecdotal, as these things must be, so take it all with the proverbial grain of salt.  It's one man's perspective.

Tom Pearson 

[Brian Stoffregen]

On one hand, you can say that the minority position (WordAlone types) lost much of its influence when they couldn't sway the CWA to reject the full-communion agreement with the Episcopalians. On the other hand, the ELCA revised its constitution and bylaws just for this minority group, so that it would be possible for candidates to be ordained without a synod bishop present. Even as the losing minority, they still had influence with the whole body.

Brian, even though I supported both the Concordat and Call to Common Mission, what you have written here is most incomplete, misleading and inaccurate.  As you should well know, the first time a CWA voted on a full-communion agreement with the PECUSA, the Concordat, it failed to pass.  It failed to achieve the constitutional mandate of a 2/3s vote to adopt it, and by the reasoning of many here regarding such things as 2/3s votes the whole thing should have stopped there, and those who lost that vote should have accepted their loss and never brought the matter up again.  And your description of the "exception clause" that was passed is also demeaning in its description.

I was at the assembly when the concordat failed to pass by six votes (684-351 -- 690 needed to approve it). A large majority supported it (66.1%), but not quite 2/3rds -- even closer than the vote at the congregation that started this whole discussion. After many hours of discussion the following resolution was passed 930 to 79:

CA97.5.23 WHEREAS, while a solid majority (66.1 percent) voted for the adoption of the Concordat of Agreement, this was not sufficient for the required two-thirds majority; and
WHEREAS, despite the sadness among us and within the church at large, our church remains committed to the ultimate goal of full communion with The Episcopal Church and other churches; and
WHEREAS, we recognize our need as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to understand our own doctrine, creeds, and polity and that of The Episcopal Church; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in Churchwide Assembly, hereby,
1. Request that the presiding bishop, Church Council, Department for Ecumenical Affairs, and Conference of Bishops create opportunities for dialogue and teaching within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America concerning the possible avenues for full communion with The Episcopal Church;
2. Request that educational opportunities be created in consultation with The Episcopal Church for members of the faculties of ELCA colleges and seminaries, the Conference of Bishops, clergy, and laity designed to communicate the history, theology, and ecclesiology of both The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and that materials will be made available to allELCA congregations and rostered persons during the two-year period before the next Churchwide Assembly;
3. Calls for discussion in the 1997-1999 biennium within our church of the process toward full communion and the implications of full communion with The Episcopal Church; and
4. Aspires to ratification of an agreement for full communion with The Episcopal Church at the 1999 Churchwide Assembly.


An overwhelming majority (92%) voted to proceed. This resolution brought some peace and unity back to the assembly after the majority "lost" the vote for the Concordat. Would that all contentious resolutions could result in the same group of people approving steps to move forward on the same issue with over 92% agreement.

Perhaps the whole issue should have been dropped then. We can also say that when a congregation fails to approve withdrawing from the ELCA, all steps related to withdrawing should cease. The ELCA didn't in 1997. Some congregations didn't in 2011.

What do you think caused the "exception clause" to be placed in our constitution? It was not part of the CCM (and some supporters object to it being there). It was not WordAlone who asked or pushed for it, but the ELCA leadership recognizing the validity of some of their concerns, provided the exception clause. I do not think it would be there if WordAlone hadn't raised their concerns throughout the full-communion discussions.

Minority positions are heard. I stand by my position that the minority position had an influence on the ELCA and led to the "exception clause."

[Erma S. Wolf]

What do you think caused the "exception clause" to be placed in our constitution? It was not part of the CCM (and some supporters object to it being there). It was not WordAlone who asked or pushed for it, but the ELCA leadership recognizing the validity of some of their concerns, provided the exception clause.

And I was at the assembly of the Southeastern Minnesota Synod when my then-bishop Glenn Nycklemoe, speaking from the floor, brought a/the resolution that would create the exception clause in the ELCA Constitution.  The reason he gave at that time was to preserve the ELCA and prevent the rupture that would take place, as he anticipated the loss of numerous congregations in the synods in North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and elsewhere over Call to Common Mission.  He pleaded with the assembly to vote for this, to keep the ELCA from splitting. 

This also is anecdotal and should be read with the usual caveats.  But it is seared on my memory.

[Chuck Sampson]

I'll ask again, and it is a serious question.
Which of you thought that the ELCA would be a "conservative" denomination? Which of you thought that the ELCA would not speak frequently on social issues and generally take what is considered a moderate to liberal approach? Which of you thought that the ELCA would lean towards the LCMS way of doing hermeutic? Which of you thought that the ELCA would carry on the culture, piety and practice of the "old" ALC? (The ALC at the time of the merger had begun to look much like the LCA.)
Was it not clear from the earliest days, through the ecumenical agreements, through virtually every social statement, through all our involvements with issues that the ELCA was going to be considered
"liberal"?
Those who joined in the ELCA merger got on this bus. I cannot understand why some are surprised at the direction it is going.

Only a post like this could get me to set down my mug of glӧgg and retire from the glow of a Texas victory in the Holiday Bowl in order to respond.

I was pastor/senior pastor of an LCA/ELCA congregation in St. Louis (Clayton), MO from 1982-1989.  Until April, 1987, we were part of the LCA's Illinois Synod, under the leadership of the sainted Bp. Paul Erickson.  Throughout the time I served as pastor of that parish, we provided office space, financial support and hospitality for a number of AELC agencies.  Bp. John Tietjen was in our building every couple of weeks, meeting with Larry Neeb (ELIM), Richard Mueller (Lutheran Perspective), Arden Mead (Creative Communications), Al Horst (Campus Ministry), and a host of other AELC leaders, working at just stayin' alive.  During that time, the CNLC held one regional meeting, and one national meeting, in our facilities.  One had only to squat in the corner and stay awake to see what was going on.

What was going on -- at least in our corner of congested Lutheranism -- was an LCA and ALC leadership being led into a reconstituted Lutheran body by a deeply motivated and visionary AELC leadership.  It was the AELC leaders who repeatedly insisted that we were forming, not a "merged" church, but a "new" Lutheran church, beholden to none of the traditions and practices of what came to be known dismissively as "the predecessor church bodies."  It was the AELC leaders who kept urging that we didn't need to resolve conflicted issues of ecclesial order, pastoral identity, theological commitments or biblical authority; these were matters best left to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the future corporate wisdom of this "new" Lutheran church.  Dr. Serge Castigliano, who was a member of my parish, joined in 1987 the initial staff at Churchwide in Chicago as supervisor of chaplains and pastoral counselors; he told me early on that "this (the ELCA) is a really strange place."

The bottom line is that many of us pastors had no idea what to expect of the ELCA in 1987.  I do know that while the AELC folks in St. Louis were exulting, the LCA pastors there were expressing various degrees of uncertainty and concern.  If anything, we hoped that the ELCA would continue to be "liberal" in just the way that the LCA was "liberal."  We understood the LCA to represent a socially sensitive, confessionally orthodox Lutheran community, minimally diverse, with a lot of theological common ground.  We did not expect the ELCA to be "conservative," especially if that meant ethnically isolated.  But we also did not expect -- although some may have feared -- that the ELCA would speed up away from a distinctive "LCA liberalism" and toward a generic "American cultural progressivism."  If anyone in 1987 expected the ELCA to look as it does on the brink of 2012, it was those who patiently manufactured this current ELCA, and those who cheered them on.

Well, this reflection has been mostly anecdotal, as these things must be, so take it all with the proverbial grain of salt.  It's one man's perspective.

Tom Pearson

Your reflections are quite similar to Carl Braaten's commentary on his experience at LSTC after the AELC influx.

[Charles_Austin]

I covered the decision to merge the three Lutheran bodies as a reporter for The New York Times, which put the merger story on Page One. Later, I was director of news for the LCA and attended a number of CNLC meetings, including the final ones; and I spent time with all the key players, writing for the LCA news service, The Lutheran magazine, and guiding secular reporters through the merger process, including running the newsroom at the ELCA Constituting Convention.
    I agree that the AELC had undue influence. They were strong and stubborn and the LCA and ALC were maybe (in my not-so-humble opinion) a little too nice to them. After all, they had come through the great tribulation. 
     Segments of the ALC never took the "national church" very seriously. Or they didn't like "Minneapolis" and came to conventions to complain about "Minneapolis."  I concluded this after I had attended several national ALC conventions. Some of these segments - ELCA bishops have told me - never "really" joined the ELCA.
     At the last, or maybe the penultimate, CNLC meeting, Bishop Crumley told the LCA representatives that he had reservations; that maybe "we don't have it all in place" and hinted that a postponement might be in order. Some back-room negotiations kept the process rolling.
    Dr. David Preus of the ALC, it seemed to me, took a "looser" approach to the merger documents and agreements than did the LCA and AELC people. The ALC leaders might have fostered the idea that the "national expression" of the ELCA would be weak and easy to ignore or control.
     And here we are, more than two decades later. We haven't yet hit the time span between All Saints' Eve, 1517 and 1580, but then it took longer to spread the words around in those days.
 
P.S. I still contend that overall the ALC and LCA and AELC were "moderate" to "liberal" in all things and that no one should be surprised at the directions the ELCA took.