Question About ELCA Congregation Departures

[ThePaul711]

In the 2000s, when the sexuality wars in the Mainline were heating up, you were seeing conservative congregations depart for other denominations.

Before ELCA 2009, the PC(USA) had an underreported sexuality controversy in 2006.

Since the late 90s or early 00s, you saw dozens of PC(USA) congregations depart to join the PCA, which itself is a schismatic denomination which left the mainline Southern Presbyterians.

One thing I did notice, however, is that very few, if any, ELCA congregations post-2009 joined the LCMS. They either joined the already-existing LCMC (itself an ex-ELCA denomination) or formed the NALC.

Why is that? Why did the conservative ELCA congregations not follow the Presbyterian example and join an already-existing conservative denomination?

I was always curious about that.

[peter_speckhard]

I talked to a few. Women’s ordination and literal creation were generally the biggest stumbling blocks, as I recall.

[J. Thomas Shelley]

I talked to a few. Women’s ordination and literal creation were generally the biggest stumbling blocks, as I recall.

Aye.

Plus the ability for any one disgruntled LCMS layman anywhere to initiate charges against any LCMS clergyman anywhere.

Full disclosure:  I have repented of the first point.

[Charles Austin]

Agreed. Women pastors and approach to scripture.
Furthermore, LCMS had officially been denouncing us as “heterodox” or worse for a number of years prior to 2009, so for most clergy, it did not seem like a pleasant option.
Back in the early 80s, an LCMS congregation twice invited me to preach and preside. Many of us back then in what is now the ELCA knew LCMS congregations where we would be welcome to attend or preside, but mostly those congregations were under the leadership of pastors ordained before the LCMS schism of the 1970s.

[Jeremy_Loesch]

But comparing early 80s ELCA with 2009 ELCA is practically impossible. The two are not the same. I think it would have been much easier for the two churches to get along in the 80s when the drifting apart was not as noticeable. By 2009 the drift apart had been going on for decades. Both denominations would have looked much more similar in the 80s.

Jeremy

[Richard Johnson]

But comparing early 80s ELCA with 2009 ELCA is practically impossible.

Especially since the ELCA didn't exist until 1988.

[Charles Austin]

And until 1969, the ALC and LCA and LCMS were “drifting” towards each other.

[peter_speckhard]

And until 1969, the ALC and LCA and LCMS were “drifting” towards each other.

I think it is an obvious point, though, that any Lutheran church of any denomination in the 1980’s was far more like an LCMS congregation of today than like an ELCA congregation of today.

[Charles Austin]

Not so obvious. If LCA and ALC congregations were “sort of” like the LCMS in the 1960s, our different ways of approaching scripture and dealing with the world had not yet fully emerged. And the LCMS, after 1969, rejected the emerging consensus among us on scripture, church order and social engagement.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

Practically speaking, I think LCMS would have required colloquy studies for rostering clergy in the LCMS. I'm guessing LCMC and NALC had no such requirements.

I'm serving an independent,  former ALC congregation. The differences from LCMS are minimal.  One clear point of difference is the ALC allowed lodge membership,  LCMS taught against it.  Since lodges are declining,  it's largely a moot point anymore.

[Charles Austin]

The LCA, through its Augustana heritage, prohibited clergy from being members of Masonic Lodges or any “organization which claims for itself that which God has given solely to the church,“ namely a means of salvation.

[peter_speckhard]

Not so obvious. If LCA and ALC congregations were “sort of” like the LCMS in the 1960s, our different ways of approaching scripture and dealing with the world had not yet fully emerged. And the LCMS, after 1969, rejected the emerging consensus among us on scripture, church order and social engagement.

I think that is the point everyone is making. In the 1980's, the fault line was there, but it was a crack easy to miss or ignore, not yet a chasm that has become unbridgeable. I grew up at a liberal LCMS congregation and my wife grew up at a nearby mainstream ELCA congregation (formerly LCA, I believe), and our upbringing in the church was very similar. I've written several times in FL that much of the pan-Lutheran ecumenical spirit in the ALPB and elsewhere comes across as wistfulness or an effort to have 1988 (or 1969) trapped in amber. The ELCA is the rational, logical result of the revisionist approach to Scripture and Confessions, and the LCMS (or something very like it) despite its quirks, is the rational, logical result of the traditional approach to Scripture and Confessions. They keep getting further apart. Those who want to just be in the middle because they are offended by extremes end up falling between two stools.

[Dave Likeness]

In the 1960's there was a pronounced difference between the Masonic Lodge
and the Animal Lodges (Elks, Moose, Eagles, etc)  The Masonic Lodge had
religious rituals which were contrary to the Holy Scriptures.  The Animal Lodges
were more social groups.  For example in Minnesota the Elks bought a golf
course with a swimming pool and tennis courts.  In this particular city you had
to join the Elks and buy a family membership to play golf, tennis and swim.

A local LCMS parish while condemning the Masons as contrary to Christianity,
made allowances for families to join the Elks for social benefits.  The Masonic
Lodge has always been contrary to Christianity while the social aspect of the
Animal Lodges of playing cards and drinking beer has been allowed 

[John_Hannah]

I think there were other factors to the course that American Lutheranism took from 1945 forward. Namely:

O   The completion of Americanization. Whether Swede, Slovak, or other, the popular pew sitter (and his pastor) equated the ethnic language and culture with the confessional (Book of Concord). Neglecting our confessions and our intrinsic Lutheran identity we sought to find an American equivalent model as we looked for legitimacy from our neighbors. Some found the American mainline Protestant bodies which became more and more separated from historic Christian orthodoxy; others found what became the American Evangelical complex of simplistic dogma and worship. Too few where willing to model Roman Catholicism; some are but they were shunned and ridiculed.

O   Internal polity. Centralization of leadership increased. Missouri excused centralization on the basis of previously held homogeneous theology (not necessarily confessional based dogma). The bodies that became the ELCA seemed to excuse centralization as necessary for bringing all the pre-1960 bodies together.

O   Over identification with secular American political parties by the leadership as a wedge to maintain their positions. By now it is abundantly clear that a Democratic cannot become the LCMS President; a Republican cannot become the ELCA Presiding Bishop.

It seems to me overly simplistic to characterize our recent history as merely a struggle between pro-Bible forces and anti-Bible forces or some such narrative.

Peace, JOHN

[Mike in Pennsylvania]

Practically speaking, I think LCMS would have required colloquy studies for rostering clergy in the LCMS. I'm guessing LCMC and NALC had no such requirements.

Both NALC, of which I am a part, and LCMC have procedures for receiving clergy from other denominations.  LCMC is somewhat looser in their requirements.
I serve on the vetting committee of the NALC, which is what the LCMS would call the colloquy process.  We get applicants from all sorts of Lutheran groups, including ELCA, LCMC, LCMS, WELS and AFLC in my recall.  We also get Anglicans, Methodists, and some others.  We generally take these on a case by case basis, and in some cases require further studies at the NALS or ILT before approving the candidates.
My ball park is that we ultimately accept about 92% of candidates, but there are some we turn down for various reasons.