That is my main critique of the ELCA: Notice the frequent use of the word "we." That, coupled with the assumption that what "we" do is automatically the work of the Holy Spirit, or what God intended, or ? ? Is an egocentric power trip that stifles any real ongoing dialog with the "malcontents."
Pr. Cottingham - on behalf of the author, I apologize for his having written this piece in a way that tempted you to put something other than the best construction on it.
I believe, as does the author, that when two or three are gathered in Christ's name that Jesus is faithful to His promise to be present with us. We experienced that in Pittsburgh and, having experienced it, it is hard not to be a little bit enthusiastic.
The difficulty in all of this is coming to terms with the reality that Christ fulfills His promise among all who call on His name, not just those who do so while also being in agreement with me. The same Spirit can lead ELCA in one direction and NALC in another, yet both remain at the foot of the Cross.
I think it is instructive that Christ's promise to be with those who call on His name occurs in the middle of His instruction to brothers who are in disagreement. I am critical of the manner in which the 2009 decision was made. To express that criticism in the context of this conversation, I think Matthew 18 and a corresponding commitment to listen for the still small voice of the Spirit got lost in the cacophony of too many people who were too impatient to wait for God to lead the ELCA through a very difficult conversation.
As a footnote, please recall that Bishop-elect Eaton spoke to the matter of reconciliation. Those words were not aimed at the "malcontents". She spoke about the ELCA's duty to reach out to them.