Estranged members sue ELCA-LCMC congregation

[Erma S. Wolf]

By all means, let's save our sympathy for those who really need it - the poor members of the ELCA who were on the majority side, who got the policy changed to be more like what they thought was best and what they wanted and still found that not everybody thought that they were heros, celebrated their prophetic courage, and that some even dared complain that they had changed key elements of how the Bible was understood.  Some didn't like what happened but rather than decently keeping quiet, paying their dues and cheering for the victors, they were upset and angery.  How dare they!  The victors were willing for them to hang around so long as they didn't cause trouble and kept the mission support coming.  Wasn't that enough to placate the poor loosers?!?   

Dan

Actually, Pr. Fienen, I find many of your comments to not only be quite insightful, but written with a pastoral spirit.  You are one of the posters whose comments I will look for, for they often contain observances worth thinking about.  And I would also say, however you meant this comment, it is a fair assessment of what has been happening since a certain Wednesday in August, 2009. 

Erma

[Don Whitbeck]

By all means, let's save our sympathy for those who really need it - the poor members of the ELCA who were on the majority side, who got the policy changed to be more like what they thought was best and what they wanted and still found that not everybody thought that they were heros, celebrated their prophetic courage, and that some even dared complain that they had changed key elements of how the Bible was understood.  Some didn't like what happened but rather than decently keeping quiet, paying their dues and cheering for the victors, they were upset and angery.  How dare they!  The victors were willing for them to hang around so long as they didn't cause trouble and kept the mission support coming.  Wasn't that enough to placate the poor loosers?!?   

Dan

Well Stated, Pastor Fienen, however, the majority in the pews didn't support this at all; as well as many Pastors and some Bishops.  Antinomians now are now in control the ELCA.

[Coach-Rev]

That is a correct assessment:  we have a bunch of pelagian antinomians running most denominations today.  Most, but not all.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Actually, Pr. Fienen, I find many of your comments to not only be quite insightful, but written with a pastoral spirit.  You are one of the posters whose comments I will look for, for they often contain observances worth thinking about.  And I would also say, however you meant this comment, it is a fair assessment of what has been happening since a certain Wednesday in August, 2009. 

Amen.

[Evangel]

Yet another article published about the ongoing saga at Grace Eau Claire.

[Evangel]

An email from the Grace Eau Claire President was posted to the LCMC Facebook page:

UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 26, 2012, MEETING

As you should all be aware, on Sunday, Febuary 26, Grace Lutheran Church met in a special congregational meeting to determine a response to Synod Council demands resulting from an adjudication process brought against Grace by Amazing Grace ELCA, Inc. The motion that was unanimously passed (236-0) at that meeting was a successful first vote to disaffiliate from the ELCA. A second vote to disaffiliate is scheduled for May 30, 2012.

This week a letter was sent to Bishop Pederson and the Synod Council informing them of the meeting and the vote. Today an article was published in the Eau Claire Leader Telegram concerning that vote. I take this opportunity to challenge the claim that the vote was somehow "improper".

Each church has its own constitution which is its primary governance. The ELCA Constitution 9.52 states: "The governing documents of congregations recognized at the establishment of this church shall continue to govern such congregations." The ELCA also has a Model Constitution for Congregations that is updated periodically by the churchwide organization. When a church (such as Grace) updates its own constitution, it is required to include updates made to the Model Constitution. But a church is not required to update their constitution when and if any changes are made to that Model. That means that while the ELCA changed the rules regarding disaffiliation in the Model, we are not mandated to change our constitution to match the Model. We have rules regarding disaffiliation. Our rules do not require a 30-day notification to the bishop of our intent to vote to leave the ELCA. Our Constitution is our primary governance; and our vote is, therefore, valid and binding. Our Constitution requires notification to the Bishop of the results of the first vote, and a consultation with the Bishop within the 90-days before our second vote. The notice has been sent, and a consultation will be negotiated.

Within the court order, the congregation was instructed to review the recommendations of the Synod Council and discern a response. The "spirit" of the court order was met with a resounding vote to move away from the ELCA.

If anyone has any questions, please contact me.
Thank you.
Anne

[Chuck Sampson]

An email from the Grace Eau Claire President was posted to the LCMC Facebook page:

UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 26, 2012, MEETING

As you should all be aware, on Sunday, Febuary 26, Grace Lutheran Church met in a special congregational meeting to determine a response to Synod Council demands resulting from an adjudication process brought against Grace by Amazing Grace ELCA, Inc. The motion that was unanimously passed (236-0) at that meeting was a successful first vote to disaffiliate from the ELCA. A second vote to disaffiliate is scheduled for May 30, 2012.

This week a letter was sent to Bishop Pederson and the Synod Council informing them of the meeting and the vote. Today an article was published in the Eau Claire Leader Telegram concerning that vote. I take this opportunity to challenge the claim that the vote was somehow "improper".

Each church has its own constitution which is its primary governance. The ELCA Constitution 9.52 states: "The governing documents of congregations recognized at the establishment of this church shall continue to govern such congregations." The ELCA also has a Model Constitution for Congregations that is updated periodically by the churchwide organization. When a church (such as Grace) updates its own constitution, it is required to include updates made to the Model Constitution. But a church is not required to update their constitution when and if any changes are made to that Model. That means that while the ELCA changed the rules regarding disaffiliation in the Model, we are not mandated to change our constitution to match the Model. We have rules regarding disaffiliation. Our rules do not require a 30-day notification to the bishop of our intent to vote to leave the ELCA. Our Constitution is our primary governance; and our vote is, therefore, valid and binding. Our Constitution requires notification to the Bishop of the results of the first vote, and a consultation with the Bishop within the 90-days before our second vote. The notice has been sent, and a consultation will be negotiated.

Within the court order, the congregation was instructed to review the recommendations of the Synod Council and discern a response. The "spirit" of the court order was met with a resounding vote to move away from the ELCA.

If anyone has any questions, please contact me.
Thank you.
Anne

Some of us remember the assurances of many Bishops prior to the merger that no congregation would be required to adopt a new constitution.

[Dan Fienen]

Yes, but did they get it in writing from the final arbitur of such things, the Secretary of the ELCA?

Dan

[Coach-Rev]

I could've predicted that as the result of the drama there. Not surprised at all.

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Sampson writes:
Some of us remember the assurances of many Bishops prior to the merger that no congregation would be required to adopt a new constitution.

I comment:
No one could give any "assurances" about what the ELCA would require until the merge was actually completed. If "many bishops" gave you those assurances prior to the merger, they were stupid to do so and you were stupid to believe them.

[George Erdner]

Yes, but did they get it in writing from the final arbitur of such things, the Secretary of the ELCA?

Dan

And, do they get follow up notices in writing when a new Secretary of the ELCA replaces the previous Secretary of the ELCA, and makes up new rules out of thin air?

[Gary Hatcher]

Pastor Sampson writes:
Some of us remember the assurances of many Bishops prior to the merger that no congregation would be required to adopt a new constitution.

I comment:
No one could give any "assurances" about what the ELCA would require until the merge was actually completed. If "many bishops" gave you those assurances prior to the merger, they were stupid to do so and you were stupid to believe them.

So, if one asks those in authority over you, whom one ought to trust as a leader in the faith, and that leader gives an answer that is inaccurate, later proved to be false or reneged on by later church leaders, then one is to be considered stupid for not harboring the suspicions of the leadership you so often decry in this forum. 

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Hatcher writes:
So, if one asks those in authority over you, whom one ought to trust as a leader in the faith, and that leader gives an answer that is inaccurate, later proved to be false or reneged on by later church leaders, then one is to be considered stupid for not harboring the suspicions of the leadership you so often decry in this forum. 

I muse:
To quote a former president: "Trust, but verify."
To quote myself: "Use some common sense!"

[Ken Kimball]

Pastor Hatcher writes:
So, if one asks those in authority over you, whom one ought to trust as a leader in the faith, and that leader gives an answer that is inaccurate, later proved to be false or reneged on by later church leaders, then one is to be considered stupid for not harboring the suspicions of the leadership you so often decry in this forum. 

I muse:
To quote a former president: "Trust, but verify."
To quote myself: "Use some common sense!"

Which of course is what many of us--some of us now former ELCA and others still within the ELCA--have done in our critiques of the ELCA (i.e. "use common sense" and attempts to verify were met either with stone-walling or reneging or actually confirmed the reality of the revisionist agenda contra the ELCA's own Confession of Faith) which you have blithely dismissed or decried as paranoid rants or violations of the 8th Commandment. 

[George Erdner]

decried as paranoid rants or violations of the 8th Commandment.

Is it starting to seem like the last resort of anyone who can't come up with a rebuttal to anything is to autmatically invoke the 8th Commandment as some sort of magic talisman? Maybe it doesn't happen every time it could happen, but it certainly seems to happen with increasing frequency.