Pastor Kruse writes:
I have no idea why Lehmann published it without at least making a disclaimer which as the ELCA magazine would have been right meet and just plain a good idea.
I comment:
That column is and always has been personal opinion. "Personal opinion." Personal opinion. Personal opinion.
It says "My View." "My View," the "my" referring to the writer of the article. Why is that so hard to understand?
Because the author is a former synod employee, a former Bishop's assistant, whose former position was in the by line and whose former call will be seen as a sign that he is someone who is supposed to know. Therefore the column is misleading about an ELCA matter about which it is purely wrong and as the ELCA magazine it was pretty much the duty of the editor to correct Pr. Christian's statement. As "our" magazine, it has our name, ELCA, on it, he cannot just hide behind the "my View" title or "accepted editorial practice."
Why is that so hard to understand.

Agreed that social statements become the background for some of our concerns as expressed legislatively. So what? You don't have to agree with that either.
That is a bit more complicated, but for some, maybe even many, things will be said on behalf of the ELCA. Things will be lobbied for in the name of ELCA. If one was to be a faithful member of ELCA and one sharply disagreed one's name would still be attached to the press release. That maybe offensive. There are a number of sport shooters in our church and I would bet we have a good number of members with concealed carry permits. Might they be miffed that the ELCA has signed its name to a petition to apply greater restrictions to gun ownership? (we did, BTW, about 2 years ago even before the current uproar, based on one of our social statements)
What we agree on in the ELCA is our statement of faith and we have voluntarily agreed to conduct ourselves according to our governing documents. And one is required to be on board with regard to those things.
As pastors, we did more than voluntarily agree. We vowed before God at ordination to do so. The lay folk agreed by virtue of membership and are much lighter bound. I realize I am a stickler and a bit severe with the matter of vows.
If one cannot do that for the sake of one's conscience; or if one concludes that an ELCA decision, for example, to let non-ordained persons preside at the Eucharist, is an offense of deal-breaking magnitude, then - as I have said a hundred times - one has a decision to make.
Actually, I would think you are nowhere close to 100 times on this. 30 maybe, 45 at the outside, but 100, no.

BTW, the matter of lay presidency has not driven away congregations or pastors to my knowledge though at least LCMC has no problem with the practice. It has been criticized here because the practice is seen by quite a few as an add on to the confessions, see the above thing of agreement and vows, which say one should be ordained to preside. The point made is that the creation of separate rosters is a grave confusion and that the matter would have ben better served by straight ordination. A move to do exactly that is in progress in a number of synods.
Some people have alleged that the decisions of 2009 were the deal-breakers. The writer of the "My View" article thinks a bunch of stuff was going on in the minds of people who left; those who left did make their decision based on their own reasons. Some were noble reasons; some, I suspect, were not. Why is it so terrible to recognize that?
Because the article was published in 2012 - almost 2013 - after everyone has been told so many times that " the church has moved on." I think you have used words with that sentiment yourself right here. It seems to me the NALC has "moved on" more than Pr. Christian or the editor who chose his piece to publish. On top of that, the column used language that really does not muster up under the 8th commandment.
Why is it so hard to recognize that?
