Bergendorf Quote

[mchristi]

In other words, LCNA seems like a competing body to me.  They even have their own candidacy process for ordained clergy, congregations are calling people from that list, said congregations are not being disciplined in some of our syonds and yet LCNA is on a different list than LCMC.

As Richard correctly pointed out, LC/NA's membership is made up of individuals, not congregation.  The Reconciling in Christ program is a program of Lutherans Concerned.  It is essentially a list of congregations, synods, and other organizations that have made a "statement of welcome" and chosen to take the Reconciling in Christ designation.  Lutherans Concerned does sometimes organize local or national gatherings for RIC congregations, but there is no RIC organization as such.  It would be a stretch to call a list of congregations who have chosen to be public ally known as RIC a "church body" precisely because of its lack of any congregation membership organization associated with it.

But Brian is incorrect that Lutherans Concerned/North America has its own candidacy process.  I assume he is thinking of the Extraordinary Candidacy Project, but that is not a LC/NA program.  They have no control or governance over it.  While many, if not most, of the people involved are also members of LC/NA, but there is no organic connection.  The ECP is closely associated with Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries (LLGM) which had founded and sponsored the program and continues to work closely with it.  LLGM was formed around the time of the ordinations in San Francisco.  These various organizations cooperate often, but also retain distinct characters and foci.  The ECP also is not an organization of congregations.  It has individuals who are members of its board and a couple of regional panels as well as its roster.  It doesn't even have an extensive individual membership.

Mark C.

[Eric_Swensson]

OK, so what makes them Lutheran is they left the belief system of Lutherans. You miss the point that individuals and groups can and do change their beliefs. I would wager Rob's church still believes what they have, yet St Francis has progressed on from the beliefs of the people who built that church.

This seems very confused.  I think the point that Brian was making is that one can be Lutheran, and retain a Lutheran faith, and not be a congregation of the ELCA.  Or have we come to the point that to be defined as "Lutheran" a congregation or individual must have a particular understanding of the topic of homosexuality?  Can we not see that this is a topic on which faithful Christians, including faithful Lutherans, may disagree?

Mark C. Christianson

No, Mark, we have not come to the point where any one person or congregation or offical may definitively say that to be defined as "Lutheran" a congregation or individual must have a particular understanding of the topic of homosexuality, but we have always been able to say that something is biblical or it is not. Never forget that no one in the history of the Evangelical Lutheran Church before this generation ever tried to make the argument that there is some other understanding of human sexuality than was faithful to God's Word than what you are hintng at. Perhaps you want to come out and explain how a congregation such as th eaforementioned one in San Francisco teached that their understanding fits within the ELCA consititution.

The case has not been made yet, and until it has, it is not just an issue that we disagree on, but goes to core matters, essentialluy, that of the authority of Scripture.

[mchristi]

Never forget that no one in the history of the Evangelical Lutheran Church ever tried to make the argument that there is some other understanding of human sexuality than was faithful to God's Word than what you are hintng at.

No, Eric, many people have made such an argument.  Clearly, you don't find any of them convincing or maybe you haven't been looking or listening for them, but it simply wrong that no one has ever tried to make such an argument.

Mark C.

[Eric_Swensson]

Mark, it is an expression we use. When we say "The argument has not been made" it means that it falls short. It is significant that with all the resources that have been put into this voer 20 years or longer, the case has not been made and now, in 2007, Good Soil has dropped trying to prove the issue biblically and is going at it politically, hopoing to get enough votes.

I'm in Metro NY, OK? At our annual assembly all the speakers on the revisionist side made emotional arguments and not a one tried to argue Scripture.

[mchristi]

What you said, precisely, was "that no one in the history of the Evangelical Lutheran Church ever tried to make the argument."  That isn't the same construction as "no one has made the argument" which I would have understood as "the argument has not been convincing," at least in your assessment.  But when you speak of trying to make the argument is a different matter.

Just because no one has made arguments from Scripture at your synod assemblies doesn't mean that no one has presented such arguments in the ELCA, either in print, in other forums, or in assemblies of the ELCA or its synods.  In fact, I can tell you that such arguments from scripture and theological principles have in fact been made, even at synod assemblies.  I've heard them.

Mark C.

[Eric_Swensson]

I thought I had included "before this generation" in the sentence. I've since gone back and inserted it. I would have thought that was implied in what I said. Sorry to have put you to the trouble.

As to your second paragraph, you continue to misread me. If you read Scripture as literally as you are reading me we would not be having this discussion! If I didn't say it, I impied it, but to be clear, I meant this year. This year, following a round of six papers dealing wiht these issues seriously, the revisionist abandoned arguing from Scripture or Lutheran law and Gospel and went to emotional agruments urging a legislative solution.

[Brian Stoffregen]

OK, so what makes them Lutheran is they left the belief system of Lutherans. You miss the point that individuals and groups can and do change their beliefs. I would wager Rob's church still believes what they have, yet St Francis has progressed on from the beliefs of the people who built that church.

Y'mean like worshiping in English now.

This time you really are going to have to explain what you mean. I take it this is humor? Did they recently switch. Is there any point. Be fair, Brian. We are busy.

St. Francis Lutheran has gone through many changes in its long history. It was formed in 1964 by a merger of Ansgar Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church (began in 1903) and Gethsemane Lutheran Church, which began in 1899 as the First Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church of San Francisco. The name change occured in 1958. For its first 30 years, Ansgar had Danish and English services. Finnish language services continued until 1982. Besides changes in languages, both churches went through changes of location and buildings. St. Francis does not have the same mission as the founding members had. They are no longer reaching Finnish seamen nor Danish settlers in San Francisco.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Indeed a congregation may have entered the system believing that they had the capacity to read and apply their constitutions as they had always done.

If they did, they weren't reading the materials well. From the very beginning, congregations were given five years to conform to the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations.

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

Indeed a congregation may have entered the system believing that they had the capacity to read and apply their constitutions as they had always done.

If they did, they weren't reading the materials well. From the very beginning, congregations were given five years to conform to the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations.

Or they where "reading the materials well" and you are not in relation to the fact that they say nothing about dual roster for congregations but does give congregations "authority in all matters" through section 9.31?     

Perhaps you could show me where "the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations" states they do not have "the capacity to read and apply their constitutions"?

Rob Moskowitz

[Brian Stoffregen]

Indeed a congregation may have entered the system believing that they had the capacity to read and apply their constitutions as they had always done.

If they did, they weren't reading the materials well. From the very beginning, congregations were given five years to conform to the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations.

Or they where "reading the materials well" and you are not in relation to the fact that they say nothing about dual roster for congregations but does give congregations "authority in all matters" through section 9.31?     

Perhaps you could show me where "the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations" states they do not have "the capacity to read and apply their constitutions"?

The ELCA Constitution lists these requirements for congregations:

9.21. This church shall recognize, receive, and maintain on the roster those congregations which by their practice as well as their governing documents:
a. preach the Word, administer the sacraments, and carry out God’s mission;
b. accept this church’s Confession of Faith;
c. agree to the Statement of Purpose of this church;
d. agree to call pastoral leadership from the clergy roster of this church in accordance with the call procedures of this church except in special circumstances and with the approval of the synodical bishop;
e. agree to be responsible for their life as a Christian community; and
f. agree to support the life and work of this church. (boldface added)

A congregation's governing documents have to agree with the ELCA's Confession of Faith. They do not have the right or authority to create a different confession of faith.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Re: Dual Rostering

The Manual of Policies and Procedures for Management of the Rosters of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America contains this paragraph.

No Dual Roster Membership: An ordained minister of this church who enters the ordained ministry of another church body, or who joins a religious group or congregation of another church body (except as provided in 7.41.17.), or who serves a group schismatic from this church or from a congregation thereof, shall cease to be a member of this church. The ordained minister’s name shall be removed from the roster of ordained ministers by the bishop of the synod, who shall report the action to the secretary of this church and to the next Synod Assembly. (boldface in original)

This document was originally approved by the Church Council on November 14, 1994. With the ELCA's restructuring, and constitution and bylaw changes, the document was revised and again approved by the Church Council on November 12, 2005.

I note: it was the Church Council who approved Definition and Guidelines for Discipline and Vision and Expectations. These, like the Manual, have never been approved by a Churchwide Assembly.

[Mel Harris]

Indeed a congregation may have entered the system believing that they had the capacity to read and apply their constitutions as they had always done.

If they did, they weren't reading the materials well. From the very beginning, congregations were given five years to conform to the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations.

I do not think that this is correct.  As I recall, former ALC congregations were encouraged to bring their constitutions into conformity with the constitution of the ELCA within so many years, but were not required to do so.

Mel Harris

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

Re: Dual Rostering

The Manual of Policies and Procedures for Management of the Rosters of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America contains this paragraph.

No Dual Roster Membership: An ordained minister of this church who enters the ordained ministry of another church body, or who joins a religious group or congregation of another church body (except as provided in 7.41.17.), or who serves a group schismatic from this church or from a congregation thereof, shall cease to be a member of this church. The ordained minister’s name shall be removed from the roster of ordained ministers by the bishop of the synod, who shall report the action to the secretary of this church and to the next Synod Assembly. (boldface in original)

This document was originally approved by the Church Council on November 14, 1994. With the ELCA's restructuring, and constitution and bylaw changes, the document was revised and again approved by the Church Council on November 12, 2005.

I note: it was the Church Council who approved Definition and Guidelines for Discipline and Vision and Expectations. These, like the Manual, have never been approved by a Churchwide Assembly.

Excuse me???!!   Where do you see NO DUAL ROSTER FOR CONGERATIONS?  CONGREGATIONS? not "ordained minister"s?   Did you miss the point or is it an attempt to redirect?

Rob Moskowitz

[ROB_MOSKOWITZ]

Indeed a congregation may have entered the system believing that they had the capacity to read and apply their constitutions as they had always done.

If they did, they weren't reading the materials well. From the very beginning, congregations were given five years to conform to the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations.

Or they where "reading the materials well" and you are not in relation to the fact that they say nothing about dual roster for congregations but does give congregations "authority in all matters" through section 9.31?     

Perhaps you could show me where "the ELCA's Model Constitution for Congregations" states they do not have "the capacity to read and apply their constitutions"?

The ELCA Constitution lists these requirements for congregations:

9.21. This church shall recognize, receive, and maintain on the roster those congregations which by their practice as well as their governing documents:
a. preach the Word, administer the sacraments, and carry out God’s mission;
b. accept this church’s Confession of Faith;
c. agree to the Statement of Purpose of this church;
d. agree to call pastoral leadership from the clergy roster of this church in accordance with the call procedures of this church except in special circumstances and with the approval of the synodical bishop;
e. agree to be responsible for their life as a Christian community; and
f. agree to support the life and work of this church. (boldface added)

A congregation's governing documents have to agree with the ELCA's Confession of Faith. They do not have the right or authority to create a different confession of faith.

So where does the confession of faith state "NO DUAL ROSTER FOR CONGREGATIONS" or negate section 9.31?   

Does that confession of faith declare the use of higher criticism?  Ordaining gay ministers or same sex unions?  So who then would be that is creating "a different confession of faith"?
 
Rob Moskowitz

[Keith Falk]

So the congregation is, or is not, still a member of the ELCA?  Still listed on the synod and ELCA's website... though the pastor in question is not on the Rostered Leaders directory.

A Confession of Faith, seems to me, is a declaration that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, fully human and fully divine, who died that we could live.  You know, something along those lines - and that really doesn't seem to be the issue at place.  The congregation and pastors aren't becoming, let's say... Muslim, for example