The ELCA Requires Nothing

[vicarbob]

I know pastors who have not been proposed for certain calls because they fail in providing fair mission support when it is perfectly clear the congregations have the funds to do so.

This gives me more then a pause for concern.............the determination on the amount of giving is not the pastor, but the church council. A pastor may encourage such giving, citing all the reasons.......but if a Bishop were to penalize a pastor because of the actions of a church council, is an abuse of episcopal oversight. That bishop should be canned.

Pax
Bob+

[Charles_Austin]

Don't be paranoid or overeact, Bob.
I'm not talking about a situation with a recalcitrant council. I'm talking about the pastor who - when the congregation is able and when the council is proper - continually fails in providing a fair amount of mission support or when it becomes evident that the pastor is refusing to provide or encourage mission support even when the congregation is able and willing to give it.
But we digress.

[George Erdner]

A congregation in my synod was disciplined for calling a pastor who was not on the ELCA roster.  I believe that some synods have removed congregations for dual-affiliation, but I'm not sure about that. 

There are consequences.  And at some times discipline is applied.

The point was that the consequences are not evenly or uniformly applied. Or, the consequences were inconsequential -- a slap on the wrist. Regarding dual affiliation, some have been removed. Some have not. Again, inconsistent consequence still make the requirements less "required".

[DCharlton]

I think that the "in but not of" solution has been rejected by both those who departed and those who remain in the ELCA.  As someone has said, if you can't do what is expected of pastors and congregations in the ELCA, you have a decision to make.  Many who departed did so because they could no longer do that.  Those who remain are committed to find a way to meet those expectations.  Staying in the ELCA because one might get away with nothing is of no interest.

[Brian Stoffregen]

A congregation in my synod was disciplined for calling a pastor who was not on the ELCA roster.  I believe that some synods have removed congregations for dual-affiliation, but I'm not sure about that. 

There are consequences.  And at some times discipline is applied.

The point was that the consequences are not evenly or uniformly applied. Or, the consequences were inconsequential -- a slap on the wrist. Regarding dual affiliation, some have been removed. Some have not. Again, inconsistent consequence still make the requirements less "required".

The benefit of all those "may" statements in our disciplinary process.

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Erdner writes:
The point was that the consequences are not evenly or uniformly applied. Or, the consequences were inconsequential -- a slap on the wrist.

I comment:
Anyone here have any experience in the real world, such as the real world of the courts? Consequences are almost never "evenly or uniformly applied." One miscreant may get 30 days in the hoosegow, another two years in the Big House up the river for the same crime. Situation and context have a bearing on sentencing. A first-time offender might get her wrists slapped and put on probation and a recidivist get her wrists handcuffed and be led away.
It is the height of folly to hold that every penalty in every case must be the same or else the consequences are "inconsequential."

[DCharlton]

Not only that, but staying in the ELCA because one might get away with doing nothing with or for the larger church is of no interest.  Those who leave do so in part because they believe that such cooperation has become impossible.  Those who remain are committed to finding ways to remain involved with integrity.  No one I know of is interested in being "in but not of the ELCA."

[Charles_Austin]

Pastor Charlton writes:
No one I know of is interested in being "in but not of the ELCA."

I comment:
Good. That's the way it should be. Unfortunately, there are such people. A recently deceased pastor in New Jersey was "that way." I believe we have all heard, or heard of pastors who dismiss synod and ELCA as meaningless to their work. And - a hard saying follows - there are pastors who fear that if their people know too much about the ELCA, they might not like it, so best keep them in the dark.

[DCharlton]

Yes.  I was speaking about two groups of people in particular.  1.  Those who have departed the ELCA.  2.  Those who disagree with HSGT but remain in the ELCA.  That to the people I know in both groups, being in but not of the ELCA is not an option one can choose with integrity.  As you say so often, those who believe that working with and contributing to the larger ELCA has become an impossibility "have a decision to make." 

You are correct that there are such people and will continue to be such people in the ELCA.  As often as not, the disconnect is not over theology or policy, but is the result of other factors.  In cases that I know of, the synod staff and local colleagues have made repeated attempts to reach out, only to be ignored or rebuffed.

[George Erdner]

I think that the "in but not of" solution has been rejected by both those who departed and those who remain in the ELCA.  As someone has said, if you can't do what is expected of pastors and congregations in the ELCA, you have a decision to make.  Many who departed did so because they could no longer do that.  Those who remain are committed to find a way to meet those expectations.  Staying in the ELCA because one might get away with nothing is of no interest.

When it comes to use ordinary pewsitters, there are a surprisingly large number of us who remain in our congregations because of a strong enough desire to remain in them who still chafe at the fact that our congregation is bound to the ELCA. I am "in" the ELCA only because my congregation is still affiliated with it, even though that affiliation causes me many negative feelings. I am not "of" the ELCA. If my congregation were to change affiliations and join a different Lutheran Body, I would rejoice.

[DCharlton]

I think that the "in but not of" solution has been rejected by both those who departed and those who remain in the ELCA.  As someone has said, if you can't do what is expected of pastors and congregations in the ELCA, you have a decision to make.  Many who departed did so because they could no longer do that.  Those who remain are committed to find a way to meet those expectations.  Staying in the ELCA because one might get away with nothing is of no interest.

When it comes to use ordinary pewsitters, there are a surprisingly large number of us who remain in our congregations because of a strong enough desire to remain in them who still chafe at the fact that our congregation is bound to the ELCA. I am "in" the ELCA only because my congregation is still affiliated with it, even though that affiliation causes me many negative feelings. I am not "of" the ELCA. If my congregation were to change affiliations and join a different Lutheran Body, I would rejoice.

I understand.  That won't, or shouldn't, work for pastors and congregations.  It really comes down to a question of integrity.  We ought not promise to do things we don't intend to do. 

Now, I understand that this works both ways.  I wish the ELCA placed more emphasis on confessional integrity.  I am very troubled when I notice the laxity you often describe.  And I think that confessional laxity an even greater danger than the laxity in fellowship and mutual support that Charles and I were discussing.

[Team Hesse]

  It really comes down to a question of integrity.  We ought not promise to do things we don't intend to do. 

Yes, it does come down to a question of integrity. And integrity and trust are closely related.


Lou

[Charles_Austin]

 Pastor Charlton writes:
In cases that I know of, the synod staff and local colleagues have made repeated attempts to reach out, only to be ignored or rebuffed.
I comment:
Yep. I've known such, too. Even to the point of a pastor refusing to let council members speak with an assistant to the bishop. Had I the authority, I would be taking steps to have such a pastor removed from the clergy roster.
 

[George Erdner]

I think that the "in but not of" solution has been rejected by both those who departed and those who remain in the ELCA.  As someone has said, if you can't do what is expected of pastors and congregations in the ELCA, you have a decision to make.  Many who departed did so because they could no longer do that.  Those who remain are committed to find a way to meet those expectations.  Staying in the ELCA because one might get away with nothing is of no interest.

When it comes to use ordinary pewsitters, there are a surprisingly large number of us who remain in our congregations because of a strong enough desire to remain in them who still chafe at the fact that our congregation is bound to the ELCA. I am "in" the ELCA only because my congregation is still affiliated with it, even though that affiliation causes me many negative feelings. I am not "of" the ELCA. If my congregation were to change affiliations and join a different Lutheran Body, I would rejoice.

I understand.  That won't, or shouldn't, work for pastors and congregations.  It really comes down to a question of integrity.  We ought not promise to do things we don't intend to do. 

Now, I understand that this works both ways.  I wish the ELCA placed more emphasis on confessional integrity.  I am very troubled when I notice the laxity you often describe.  And I think that confessional laxity an even greater danger than the laxity in fellowship and mutual support that Charles and I were discussing.

In that case, maybe it would be helpful to bear in mind that the pewsitters in the ELCA outnumber the clergy by a really, really wide margin. Maybe you should consider how the pewsitters view things before making blanket statements about how the entire denomination actually works. That's especially true in the ELCA where the laity outnumbers (and can out-vote) the clergy on deciding issues that they laity isn't really qualified to evaluate.

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Erdner writes:
In that case, maybe it would be helpful to bear in mind that the pewsitters in the ELCA outnumber the clergy by a really, really wide margin. Maybe you should consider how the pewsitters view things before making blanket statements about how the entire denomination actually works. That's especially true in the ELCA where the laity outnumbers (and can out-vote) the clergy on deciding issues that they laity isn't really qualified to evaluate.

I comment:
It is to laugh. Here, all along and for years, it has been contended that the "leadership," that is, the clergy, (and most of our national staff, even, are clergy), have been driving the ELCA and forcing decisions down on the poor folks in the pews. Now we are told that it is the folks in the pews whose vote carries the day.