There are still some points that people seem reluctant to address.
In prior threads, it has been noted that the courts are very reluctant to address any issue having to do with any sort of theological issues, but the courts will rule on strictly procedural issues based on regarding constitutions and bylaws as contracts. The courts won't rule on theological matters. In this case, there is no theology involved in determining if Swartling's imaginative interpretations of the ELCA's governing documents are consistent with the actual letter of the documents and with the ELCA's prior practices/precedents. Therefore, my best guess (and it's purely a guess) is that there is a good chance that the courts will rule that Swartling's novel interpretation of dual rostering is questionable. I would also guess (and this is purely a guess as well) that they'll rule that the only action that the ELCA can take as punishment for a congregation being dual rostered is what it says in the constitution and bylaws -- expulsion with the expelled congregation retaining its property.
I also note the usual automatic responses to pray for all involved. I can't argue with that advice, but I was taught that when we pray, we should be specific. So, I would specifically urge those praying for the people involved to pray that the outcome will be that those whose basic position is correct will prevail in judgement over those whose basic position is incorrect. I'd also pray that everyone on both sides is given the strength to be charitable winners and gracious losers when the final decision is reached.
And finally, in light of the other threads running about forgiveness of sins, penance, and purgatory, while it is true that some individuals on both sides have done things that were wrong, those actions shouldn't change the fundamental issue of one side being right and the other being wrong. If people on the right side err in their pursuit of justice, that shouldn't negate the rightness of their position. And if people on the wrong side err in their pursuit of justice, that shouldn't affect the wrongness of their position. It's really easy to cluck ones tongue and say, "Tsk, tsk" about the behaviour of others. Too easy, perhaps. But aside from making the person passing that judgement on both sides feel good about passing judgement, do such statements of the blatantly obvious really benefit any discussion about actual issues?
