At this point, I am no longer interested in trying to "make" anyone stay in the ELCA. First of all, I can't do it. If they do not agree with my reasons for staying, I probably can't convince them. Then, once that "decision" - even semi-undecided - is made, I favor letting the process go forward. If the final decision to leave is made, they should go. If the decision to stay is made, some others might decide to go, and then I say: "Go."
I would rather focus on what the ELCA is, rather than on what the LCA, ALC or AELC (or LCMS or ULCA, or Augustana) were.
I support those who responsibly work for change or who learn how to stay even if they don't agree with everything. I'm getting fed up with those who can't get over the idea that their views did not prevail.
Charles,
I hope someone will journal all the stories, from both sides of the fence, of congregations embarking on and traveling the perilous road to departure or fracture into an injured ELCA and LCMS/ NALC mission congregation. DCharlton recalls in very recent pages what the characterization from our side, ELCA, has been of those who have departed: "Schismatic, unreasonable, benighted, etc." Many anecdotes exist. They tell stories of ELCA officials, prominent members or vocal groups in clutches of clergy saying in effect: "Good riddance! They were defective anyhow." Stories from Iowa tell of long standing friendships with synodical leadership suddenly turning into consultation addresses that clearly state that the pastor has been disloyal, disingenuous, dishonest, intellectually deficient, is intentionally misleading the congregation, and that the representative is now here to educate the congregation properly. The lines that then follow are reported to be the "this is not church dividing," or "you will not have to call," or "the bible was really not at issue," bromides. Our pages attest to ire with bishops who did take this tack in consultation. One the other side, I have seen my own bishop attacked in public for not putting up the nastiest fight possible to make congregations stay ELCA.
These are all anecdotes and need to be collected and assembled at some point. I am really hoping that will also bring to light positive, lucid arguments that are being recalled by those who heard them. My sense is that the reasons that do in the end allow an individual or a congregation to stay are intangible and attest to the complex tapestry of thought that individuals and sometimes congregations are certainly capable of, so it might be a difficult project. Yet, at the same time, we have recently expanded the consultation time that will be needed to depart the ELCA and we made changes in the methodology employed in the process. I am certain that the idea that it will keep more congregations ELCA is misguided if the argument made during those consultations is not considerably better than ad hominem attack against leadership or questions concerning the congregation's common sense. Such counter attacks merely drive the listeners deeper into their position. Creating a good rationale to remain is therefore not a bad next step after changing the methods of departure.
ANd should that rationale not be similar to how we attracted people to the ECLA in the first place? Yes, we attract them one at a time, I know, but should those arguments not be expandable? It has no doubt been noticed by everyone here that the ELCA has not exactly grown recently. To put it in different words: we weren't growing with the departed congregations in our fold, what gives us reason to think we will now grow without them? (NALC and LCMC can ask that question in modified form.) So I would think that being able to make a solid argument for staying ELCA is actually an investment in the future.
