The ELCA Requires Nothing

[DCharlton]

It would be as if a "traditionalist" faction gained control of a denomination, drove out pastors and congregations that were too "moderate," disciplined (or threatened discipline) to all those not on board with a staunchly conservative agenda, took great pains to insure that seminary profs weren't closet moderates; and put only the strictest of conservative loyalists in synod - oops! I mean - denominational positions.

Well it certainly wouldn't be rehashed on ALPB Forum nearly 40 years later, would it?

Partisan politics and seminary faculties seeking to remake the synod in their own image in the LCMS?  Bad.  Bad.  Bad.

Partisan politics and seminary faculties seeking to remake "this church" over in their own image in the ELCA?  Quit whinging.  That's the way we do things.

[Charles_Austin]

Let me ask you where I ever said the conservative takeover of the LCMS was "bad," except that it took that church body a direction I find troubling. It is generally agreed by all but the most wooden-headed apologists that many of the tactics of the Preus faction smelled rather like Chicago politics of the 1915-1939 era. And there were unique aspects - the Otten enterprise, for example - that played critical roles.
   I do not dispute that the moderate-to-liberal factions of the ELCA have taken it certain directions; albeit without the bare knuckles and nightsticks of an earlier era.
   But... The LCMS has always been essentially "conservative," so no one should be surprised which wing triumphs, save for those who thought the more moderate view of the Harms era would prevail.
   And...The ELCA and its predecessor bodies have always been essentially "moderate" to "liberal," so no one should be surprised which wing rises, save for those in certain pietistic/conservative circles who for the most part, weren't really paying attention.
   Now ducking and running, covering my ears against the impending howls.

[DCharlton]

One wonders why a certain poster invoked LCMS politics on an ELCA thread, only to pretend he hadn't done so?  Oh, yes.  To divert us from the observation Pr Kruse had made.

[Dan Fienen]

Let me ask you where I ever said the conservative takeover of the LCMS was "bad," except that it took that church body a direction I find troubling. It is generally agreed by all but the most wooden-headed apologists that many of the tactics of the Preus faction smelled rather like Chicago politics of the 1915-1939 era. And there were unique aspects - the Otten enterprise, for example - that played critical roles.
   I do not dispute that the moderate-to-liberal factions of the ELCA have taken it certain directions; albeit without the bare knuckles and nightsticks of an earlier era.
   But... The LCMS has always been essentially "conservative," so no one should be surprised which wing triumphs, save for those who thought the more moderate view of the Harms era would prevail.
   And...The ELCA and its predecessor bodies have always been essentially "moderate" to "liberal," so no one should be surprised which wing rises, save for those in certain pietistic/conservative circles who for the most part, weren't really paying attention.
   Now ducking and running, covering my ears against the impending howls.

Who is surprised that church politics can be dirty?  Or is it only the conservatives that play dirty politics?  For another side of the Seminex era, I would suggest Exodus from Concordia: A Report on the 1974 Walkout from St. Louis Seminary Board of Control.  To pretend that one side played dirty politics while the other did not is naïve at best.

Dan

[Johan Bergfest]

Who is surprised that church politics can be dirty? 

I am!! 

I was brought up with a healthy understanding of the Lutheran confessions and with a healthy respect for the clergy.  Most laypersons who grew up in the church learned similar lessons.  It is shocking and hurtful to average parishioners whenever it is obvious that pastors are behaving in a manner that contradicts the confessions.  Out of the same mouths proceed blessings and cursings.  Pastor, that ought not to be so!

Or is it only the conservatives that play dirty politics?

No.  But, I learned in kindergarten - and, I suspect that you did, too - that two wrongs do not make a right.  And, when it comes to matters theological, if dirty politics are what is required to advance a theological agenda, something is wrong with the theology.

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
To pretend that one side played dirty politics while the other did not is naïve at best.

I comment:
No one is pretending that, Pastor Fienen; but the weight of the historical record shows that most of the muscle and mauling was done by a particular "side," the side that had the power, the votes, and the money.

[Dan Fienen]

Fourty years from now when CWA '09 is discussed I wonder how that and subsequent events will be remembered,  who had the muscle,  power, votes and money, who did the mauling?

Dan

[DCharlton]

No one is pretending that, Pastor Fienen; but the weight of the historical record shows that most of the muscle and mauling was done by a particular "side," the side that had the power, the votes, and the money.

Now, I'm not sure, but is Charles saying that the "revisionists" in the ELCA "had the power, the votes, and the money"?  And that "most of the muscle and mauling" was done by the winning side?  A remarkable admission!

[Johan Bergfest]

Fourty years from now when CWA '09 I wonder how that and subsequent events will be remembered,  who had the muscle,  power, votes and money, who did the mauling?

Pr. Fienen - how were delegates selected for the 1973 LCMS convention?  How did that process compare with that used to select voting members for the 2009 CWA?  I would also be curious to read your perspective regarding the politics involved in the LCMS approach to nominating/electing persons to leadership compared with the ecclesiastical ballot that ELCA uses.

My observation is that the ELCA's approach is more egalitarian than LCMS' approach.  I'm not suggesting that one is more or less prone to political manipulation.  But, given the differences in the polity, it seems like the political manipulations likewise must be different.

[DCharlton]

Fourty years from now when CWA '09 I wonder how that and subsequent events will be remembered,  who had the muscle,  power, votes and money, who did the mauling?

Pr. Fienen - how were delegates selected for the 1973 LCMS convention?  How did that process compare with that used to select voting members for the 2009 CWA?  I would also be curious to read your perspective regarding the politics involved in the LCMS approach to nominating/electing persons to leadership compared with the ecclesiastical ballot that ELCA uses.

My observation is that the ELCA's approach is more egalitarian than LCMS' approach.  I'm not suggesting that one is more or less prone to political manipulation.  But, given the differences in the polity, it seems like the political manipulations likewise must be different.

Perhaps I am confused.  I am not aware of "the ecclesiastical ballot" being used to elect anyone in the ELCA, including delegates to the CWA.

[Team Hesse]

Fourty years from now when CWA '09 I wonder how that and subsequent events will be remembered,  who had the muscle,  power, votes and money, who did the mauling?

Pr. Fienen - how were delegates selected for the 1973 LCMS convention?  How did that process compare with that used to select voting members for the 2009 CWA?  I would also be curious to read your perspective regarding the politics involved in the LCMS approach to nominating/electing persons to leadership compared with the ecclesiastical ballot that ELCA uses.

My observation is that the ELCA's approach is more egalitarian than LCMS' approach.  I'm not suggesting that one is more or less prone to political manipulation.  But, given the differences in the polity, it seems like the political manipulations likewise must be different.

Perhaps I am confused.  I am not aware of "the ecclesiastical ballot" being used to elect anyone in the ELCA, including delegates to the CWA.

I believe, David, that that term was used to describe the process by which Churchwide officials are elected at Churchwide Assemblies.


Lou

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Charlton writes:
Now, I'm not sure, but is Charles saying that the "revisionists" in the ELCA "had the power, the votes, and the money"?  And that "most of the muscle and mauling" was done by the winning side?  A remarkable admission!

I comment:
No. It was clear in my postings that I was referring to the LCMS in the schism of the 1970s. There was not even a reference to honoring "bound conscience" following the LCMS convention decisions of those days.

[Pastor Ken Kimball]

Got anything helpful to say, "Lutherman"? If not, why are you here?

Answer your own questions Pr. Austin.

[DCharlton]

Pastor Charlton writes:
Now, I'm not sure, but is Charles saying that the "revisionists" in the ELCA "had the power, the votes, and the money"?  And that "most of the muscle and mauling" was done by the winning side?  A remarkable admission!

I comment:
No. It was clear in my postings that I was referring to the LCMS in the schism of the 1970s. There was not even a reference to honoring "bound conscience" following the LCMS convention decisions of those days.

Once again, politics in LCMS?  Bad.  Politics in ELCA? Good.  Seminary faculty that want to remake church in their image?  LCMS*, bad.  ELCA,  good.  Power, votes and money in LCMS?  Bad.  Power, votes and money in ELCA?  Good.  A chance that some who learned their politics in the LCMS brought it into the ELCA?  No.  Not a chance.     

Now, I suggest an alternative way of looking at this:  The lesson is that when politics trumps theology, you have trouble.  If we are liberal, then we will find liberal politics to be just fine, and conservative politics to be unsavory.  If we are conservative, it may be the opposite.  But the effects of placing politics first is the same, even if it looks different.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Fourty years from now when CWA '09 I wonder how that and subsequent events will be remembered,  who had the muscle,  power, votes and money, who did the mauling?

Pr. Fienen - how were delegates selected for the 1973 LCMS convention?  How did that process compare with that used to select voting members for the 2009 CWA?  I would also be curious to read your perspective regarding the politics involved in the LCMS approach to nominating/electing persons to leadership compared with the ecclesiastical ballot that ELCA uses.

My observation is that the ELCA's approach is more egalitarian than LCMS' approach.  I'm not suggesting that one is more or less prone to political manipulation.  But, given the differences in the polity, it seems like the political manipulations likewise must be different.

Perhaps I am confused.  I am not aware of "the ecclesiastical ballot" being used to elect anyone in the ELCA, including delegates to the CWA.

Voting members to CWA are not elected by ecclesiastical ballot. They are elected by each synod. In the synods where I have served, conferences also had a role in the selection of voting members. In some cases they nominate people to fill the "slots" of that conference, and from the nominees the synod assembly elects the voting members. In another case, they elect the voting members, and the synod assembly ratifies the election.