Started by Christopher Miller, December 02, 2011, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: Erma S. Wolf on December 26, 2011, 11:54:41 PMAlso, what constitutional provision allowed the leadership of Grace Lutheran to "re-adjust the status of those who left to 'associate members'"? (And, btw, the provision for "associate members" was not "created by the Bishops of the ELCA.") I have always thought that if one learns (reliably) that a member of the congregation has joined another congregation, that the council could remove that person from the list of church members. Or can one have dual membership in more than one congregation of the ELCA at one time? And how was it determined that the 70 who left Grace Lutheran had "no intention of returning"? Was anyone told this explicitly, or was this yet another (of many, it seems) assumption?
Quote from: George H. Erdner on December 27, 2011, 10:33:29 AMI still notice that no one is picking up on the fact that the congregation has over 2,500 baptised members, and fewer than one out of every five even showed up for the meeting to vote! Can anyone state with certainty that the opinions expressed after the vote by the 4 out of 5 who didn't show up might not have had some impact on what happened next? Might not the fallout from outcome of the vote have shaken those who didn't show up out of their apathy, leading to the beginning of a broader consensus? After all, the real results of the vote were around 10% for changing affiliation, 10% against, and 80% OK with either decision.
Quote from: Charles_Austin on December 27, 2011, 10:26:23 AMErma writes:Some in the ELCA have said that congregations vote to dual affiliate with LCMC only so that they get kicked out of the ELCA because of their insistance on being dually affiliated. And some have accused LCMC of encouraging this as a tactic to "get around" a failure to get a 2/3 majority to vote to leave the ELCA. I'm not saying that is true; but actions such as this would muddy the water at best, build distrust and resentment at worst. I comment:Yes, indeed. Wise words. It need not be complicated at all. To me (and I often like complications) it seems very simple.1. If a congregation wants to leave the ELCA, there is a regular process by which they can leave. We have heard heard of many congregations that have done that. 2. If the vote to leave fails, it fails. Period. Stop. End of story. Those who don't like the result might end up leaving the congregation.3. If the vote to leave gets the 2/3rds majority, there are still some things to consider, but there are stipulated ways of doing so. And those in the 1/3rd might end up leaving that congregation.4. It seems to me that any other "tactic" - dual affiliation, repeated "first votes," weepy talk about the 50 percent (but not the two-thirds) majority, - whether by those who want to leave or those who want to stay, breeds distrust and does no good. It's just not that complicated.
Quote from: Coach-Rev on December 27, 2011, 08:07:04 AMYou are correct - the required percentage to join LCMC was simple majority (as opposed to 2/3), which passed congregational vote. It was not a unilateral action by the council.
Quote from: Chuck on December 27, 2011, 01:11:18 PMQuote from: Coach-Rev on December 27, 2011, 08:07:04 AMYou are correct - the required percentage to join LCMC was simple majority (as opposed to 2/3), which passed congregational vote. It was not a unilateral action by the council.That assertion does not seem to fit the facts of the article..."However, two days after the vote, the council voted to also affiliate with the LCMC..." [emphasis added]
Quote from: Charles_Austin on December 27, 2011, 11:38:29 PM....No one has yet addressed what seems to me to be the oddity (idiocy?) of a congregation...
Quote from: Coach-Rev on December 27, 2011, 03:47:53 PMThe information is from first hand conversation with the pastors there, NOT from an article in the paper. I am well familiar with the situation there, and there was indeed a congregational vote to join LCMC at the same time they voted (and failed to pass) the termination with the ELCA. the latter required 2/3 majority. The former was a simple majority, which passed easily. The council was only affirming what the congregation had already passed.
QuoteWhat is also largely being ignored is the bishop's complicity in sending in ringers to derail the constitutional process at Grace, his subsequent aid in developing another congregation just down the street for the minority who wished to remain ELCA, and his support and involvement in the current lawsuit.
Quote from: Charles_Austin on December 27, 2011, 11:38:29 PMWho would want to join an organization with a three-card-monte shuffle scam going on?
Quote from: Charles_Austin on December 27, 2011, 11:38:29 PMJust to note that the "problem" is not unique to the ELCA, an Assemblies of God congregation in New Jersey is locked into a battle with the denomination, which has determined that the congregation is too small and unstable to continue and has - as the denomination's and congregation's procedures apparently allow - taken over the property. No one has yet addressed what seems to me to be the oddity (idiocy?) of a congregation joining a group formed to be in opposition to the ELCA, yet still pretending to want to be a part of the ELCA. "Dual affiliation," it would seem to me, would compromise the witness and integrity of the congregation. "Oh," says an inquirer, "you're ELCA?""No," says the outreach committee member, "we're really not." Or, "well, yes, we are, but we don't pay any attention to it."Who would want to join an organization with a three-card-monte shuffle scam going on?