Remember biology class in high school when we learned about the amoeba? These single celled, microscopic creatures would split and one would become two. It would seem that Lutheran CORE is also capable of binary fission, and it has just announced the spawning of a creature much like itself, but apparently separate, and they have crowned their progeny with the auspicious (audacious?) title of “The North American Lutheran Church” (one expects the emphasis to be placed on The, much like the pro football types who trumpet their alma mater). On February 18th (drum roll please), Lutheran CORE released its Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church–NALC for short.
To use another biology metaphor, the ganglia of disaffected ELCA Lutheran organizations (affiliations?, associations?, denominations?, church bodies?, collaborative ministries?, community of confessing Lutherans?, partners?) is becoming diffuse and confusing to track the connective tissue. Lutheran CORE apparently sees itself as the central nervous system connecting Lutheran Congregations in Mission (LCMC), the WordAlone Network, and the newly created NALC, while retaining its tentacles into the ELCA (but withholding its financial support, of course).
So, what exactly will this new NALC organization look like? How will it function? What services will it provide? Of course, we know they hope to be a “reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism”, crossing borders into Canada to the north and Mexico and the Caribbean to the south. Whew! Impressive. While NALC will be “a new denominational body for confessing Lutherans,” it will also “work in close partnership and cooperation with the community of Lutheran CORE” and “will look to Lutheran CORE … for many resources.” While NALC will have its own organizational structure headed by a bishop, will the Lutheran CORE hierarchy remain the real power behind the throne?
NALC proposes to be a “big tent” that accepts differing views of ministry policies regarding the status of those eligible for the ordained clergy.
The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.
Wait a minute. Isn’t the whole raison d’être for Lutheran CORE wrapped up in their unwillingness to accept the ELCA decision to recognize both gay and straight in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject? Do they not see the irony, if not the inconsistency, in their position? There’s room for differing views on women clergy in the NACL tent but not for differing views on gay clergy.
The document allows, nay encourages, dual membership in NALC and the ELCA.
Lutheran CORE recognizes and affirms those congregations and individuals who feel called to remain within the ELCA and who wish to continue to work for the reform of the ELCA and to witness to Biblical and confessional teachings and practices, as well as to support others remaining in the ELCA. Some of these congregations and individuals may choose dual membership in the ELCA and the NALC. Others may be members of Lutheran CORE on an individual, congregational or partnership basis.
While these individuals and congregations may remain within the ELCA only in a formal sense, they may look to the Lutheran CORE community as their church beyond the congregation … often re-designating their benevolence outside the mission support system of the ELCA.
Hmmm. How will other ELCA members and congregations view that posture? Retain influence but not allegiance. Receive ELCA benefits without obligation.
How will ELCA leadership respond? From the ELCA’s inception, its governing documents have precluded dual membership in another denomination for either pastors or congregations, according to a January 19th memo distributed by ELCA secretary David Swartling. While there have been instances in the past where such dual memberships have been overlooked (interestingly, the practice ended at the insistence of the LCMS, not the ELCA), one wonders whether and how the ECLA will enforce these policies in the future. Already, the January 19th memo produced a hew and cry about the heavy handed policies of the ELCA.
One final note for today; the document includes this statement:
We affirm the authority of the canonical Holy Scriptures as the only source and norm of our faith and life.
“Only”. That’s a significant statement. No room for reason. No room for conscience. No room for experience. No room for scientific, historical, or empirical evidence. It would seem that CORE is boxing itself into a corner with the infallible and inerrant fundamentalists with a far more restrictive attitude than any mainstream Christian denomination, including Roman Catholicism.
Core has no official relationship with LCMC. There is an agreement to work together in the future and look for ways to support each other. But LCMC has been around for almost 10 years, and is its own organization with 300 churches in the USA, and 48 more congregations around the world. Core and the NALC, etc., are looking to create something new…while LCMC is already established and flourishing.
@LCMCer
The NALC document states the following:
It will be interesting to see how this all sorts out since many, if not most, of the congregations that have voted out of the ELCA have chosen to join LCMC. What happens when NALC hits the ground? What congregations will they claim? Will there be competition?
When CORE and NALC state “foster further reconfiguration”, it sounds like they have rather grandiose expectations that may not be the same as the expectations of LCMC. I obviously can’t speak for CORE and NALC, but it sounds like they expect the LCMC congregations to be integral parts of their network–almost as if LCMC is a temporary landing spot until NALC gets organized. Hmmm.
LCMCer, your identity is unclear. Do you speak for LCMC?
I don’t think there will be much competition because each group appeals to a completely different type of church.
LCMC is a flat organization, with no hierarchy (essentially a free church model)–where all rights and responsibilities are returned to each individual congregation. It has seemed to mainly appeal to low church folks, with either a pietist or evangelical heritage.
Many of the CORE people I have talked to are very uncomfortable with the free church model. They are looking for more hierarchy and governance, and many tend to be more “high church” and/or self describe themselves as “Evangelical Catholic”. Many would like to see bishops, and have no problem with the historic episcopate.
LCMC will never have bishops or the episcopate or hierarchy, so it will never satisfy the CORE crowd, and vice versa. The most interesting thing (in my opinion) will be to see if there will ever be any agreement made so that pastors can go between the two groups… (with two different approaches to ordination and rostering).
Sorry, my computer is acting strange today. I didn’t see the last part of your post…
No, I do not speak for LCMC. I have only recently become an official member.
In my interactions with many LCMC folks, I have yet to talk to anyone that sees LCMC as a “temporary landing spot”.
Again, it comes down to two completely different views of ecclesiology.
Also, the great thing about LCMC is that each congregation is able to decide who to relate to and who to network with (there is no overarching hierarchy to make those decisions for its churches). So, I’m sure some congregations will choose to have a closer relationship with CORE churches than others.
The Luthean Church of North American, my oh my, what a missional tone this will strike in South America. You all have a nice trip, we will miss you, but not much.
I have said all along that women clergy are the next target of these folks. I have been poo pooed for that view by BOTH sides. Hate to say I told ya so but…..
Once again, I must comment on your blog to make sure whole truths are proclaimed.
Your point out that since the NALC cites that Lutherans disagree with the ordination of women is ironical since Lutheran CORE is causing schism over ordaining gays. To which, I urge you to return to the Bible, find for me anywhere that God says to be a woman is just plain wrong. If men wrote the Bible with a bias towards men, would not we find such a comment?
You expressed that Lutheran CORE’s reason for being was because of the gay ordination issue. The “reason for being” for Lutheran CORE was first and foremost to call the ELCA BACK to the word of God. This is why CORE was an acronym for “Coalition for Reform”. The issue has never been about the gays, it has always been about the authority of Holy Scripture. The SYMPTOM of the malady comes in many forms, like ordaining gays
Shortly after the church wide assembly, it became very apparent that the ELCA is a sinking ship and so the leadership of Lutheran CORE changed the meaning CORE to “Coalition for Renewal”. We are now witnessing the meaning of renewal for them
Another point I wish to clarify is concerning your comments about dual rostering of congregations. Historically the ELCA has turned a blind eye on dual rostered congregations. As you cited, it was an issue for the LC-MS ( due to unionism), not the ELCA. Today, the ELCA is having issues with dual rostering. Why? Is it more to do with money and less to do with theological reasons?
Finally you took a stab at the proposed NALC constitution citing their position of the authority of Holy Scripture. In the ELCA constitution it says, “This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.” Hmmmm not much difference. You chided the word “THE” as in THE North American Lutheran Church can carry some significant weight. How about in a constitution? NO WHERE in the ELCA constitution does it cite the same level of authority of reason, conscience, experience, scientific, historical, or empirical evidence with that of Holy Scripture.
I would say the founders of the NALC are attempting to be honest and forthright and record this as so in their proposed constitution. Unlike the ELCA, which proclaims one thing on paper and another in practice.
Finally, you routinely point out the supposed shortcomings of the LCMC/L-CORE and now NALC and of those who support their movements and you continue to imply this will have no lasting affect on the ELCA. “Methinks…doth protest too much.”
How is Evangelical Lutheran Church IN AMERICA any better or more global. At least the NALC will potentially have Canadian and Mexican churches (which the ELCA does not!)
Not true for LCMC. There are many female clergy. Women in leadership (including clergy) is a non-negotiable for LCMC.
I’m interested to see the NALC’s official position on remarried divorced pastors (unrepentant adulterors according to the Bible).
@Rev. Cary Larson
Nice to hear from you Rev Cary after a long absence.
?? Is there a typo there or is that what you meant to say?
“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she to keep silent.” 1 Tim 2:12 This verse, and others like it, taken at face value would seem to prohibit female clergy. According to the statement by CORE, apparently some there agree but others are willing to take this verse in historical context and do not find this verse controlling for the issue of female clergy (and neither does the ELCA). The irony and inconsistency is that CORE is willing to accept differing scriptural interpretations regarding female ordination but not regarding gays.
How do you interpret this verse in 1st Timothy, Rev Carey?
I agree with you in part that gay clergy was not the full cause of the schismatic movement. There was a group that has been anti-ELCA for years, many dating back to the original merger, and this was their chance at a power play.
But, please Rev Carey, do not insult the rest of us in the ELCA with the claim that we are unscriptural. It is really tiresome. Which brings me to your last point. When the bully comes along on the beach and kicks sand in my face and calls me unscriptural, I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. If you and the CORE spokesfolk will stop insulting the rest of us in that way, perhaps we’ll stop protesting.
A good post and discussion. A technical question, though, about the format of this blog: What is the difference between a “trackback” and a comment?
@Lee
A trackback occurs when I post a link to another blog within my posting. With some blog platforms, a trackback will appear in the linked blog back to my blog. Posting a link to another blog is obviously a benefit to that blog, and the trackback functionality provides a reciprocal benefit.
A comment obviously contains a message, but it also creates a link back to a website or blog if the commenter adds such link information.
Since Word Alone appears to be a parent group for both LCMC and Lutheran CORE I will find it interesting to see where this division goes. It reminds me of the many splits in Ethnic Lutheranism in the 19th century. My previous church had Hauge Norwegian roots and had had a “white church” a quarter of a mile away led by a Lay pastor who got himself ordained by a German. My childhood home had many little Norwegian Lutheran churches a few miles apart mostly because people couldn’t get along. Nothing is new with human beings. We are created a little lower than the angels but also a little higher than the apes. We surely act that way.
@Lilly
Indeed. See my post today about the schism amongst the schismatics.
I honestly do not know if the arguements that led to the national assembly decision last August have a theological or scriptural foundation. I attended the ELCA Metro DC Synod assembly in the spring of ’09 and this was NEVER a point of discussion. Pop-psychology, personal anecdotes, and political whimsy were all used to advocate for essentially the same language – but no Gospel, no law, no confession.
My frustration w/ the decision making process (at least at the Synod level w/ which I am familiar) is due to the flawed reasoning and logic used to justify the decision. I could take ANY adult behavior and substitute it for “same-sex” and have an unchanged arguement. Using this established logic – the ELCA would have to accept other forms of relationships – polyamorous, free-love, polygamous, and adult incestuous included. I am NOT creating a moral equivilency here – I am discussing the LOGIC and RHETORIC used. It appeared to me a well-organized and committed power play by a radical, highly motivated sub-culture – that clearly worked for years to get their advocates elected.
The vote passed by the slimest of margins, and the “winners” acted like they won a football game – rather than passing far reaching and highly controversial policy language. And yet over half of our neighbors are not in a relationship with Jesus and his church – but at least we have some Gay pastors – so that’s fabulous. I think that the priorities of our church are out of whack. Complete the Great Commission – then do social engineering.
@An ELCA guy – for now
Thanks for your comment.
Don’t expect to find a Bible verse that says “gay clergy is ok”. It isn’t that simple. But, lacking such clarity is not the same as saying there is no scriptural support for the ELCA’s action. Christian ethics is a matter of applying the two commands, a balancing test if you will. See prior posts here & here about the scriptural basis for the ELCA action.
I hope you’re not referring to the national assembly actions when you state: “the ‘winners’ acted like they won a football game.” As one who was there, that is definitely not the way it was. The reaction of the assembly was solemn, prayerful, and respectful.
No one suggests that LGBT issues should be the primary focus of the church. Yet, the church cannot ignore the demands of justice either.
I was referring only to the DC Synod Assembly – was not at the National one.
Thank you for the links to your earlier posts – I appreciate that. I am not a “proof tester” nor a theologian, nor a Biblical scholar. I do not pretend to know the will of God wrt GLBT issues. My frustration based on my experience in the Metro DC assembly ONLY, is that the advocates of this policy change were extremely heavy handed, uncharitable, unwilling to engage in debate, and seemed far more motivated by the politics of the process than by finding common ground or developing sound policy (that can withstand logical and theologic scrutiny).
Even your posts, while well written, respectful, and thoughtful, do not create a positive arguement for the new policy, rather they are a “permissive” approach – since it is not objectively stated as wrong (given modern interpretation and understanding) it may well be permitted. Fine, that is a reasonable jumping off point for a good discussion – but hardly a convincing theologically sound justification.
As for matters of justice – I know there are those who are abusive, violent, hateful towards LGBT persons, but not all who oppose this policy are – in fact I suspect the largest majority are not. However, there is a difference between being inclusive in spreading the Gospel, and celebrating behaviors and lifestyles that are counter-cultural, or even further, placing those practicing such behaviors in positions of leadership and authority in the church.
That is the point I was trying to make with the discussion of other “lifestyles” which perhaps even the advocates of the changed LGBT policy might object. The rationale used to support Same-sex relationship rostering could just as easily be applied to Polygamous relationship rostering. What is unique about same-sex relationships that forms distinction from the other types I’ve listed?
I am not convinced one way or the other at this point on the correctness of the National Assembly’s policy decision – but I am convinced that at least locally, the advocates for this change have not made the case in a way that stands up to scrutiny. And the heavy handed approach they took creates suspicion rather than comity. Further, it is naive for those that advocated this position to think that there would be no economic or structural implications to the decision (just as those on the other side would have been silly to think that NOT making this change would have no implications). Forcing the issue was going to force a reaction – period.
@An ELCA guy – for now
You’re correct, discounting the “clobber texts” only gets us part way. A further step is needed in order to affirmatively endorse same-gender relationships. This is where the utilitarian, balancing test applies.
Application of a balancing test in response to the two commands of Jesus requires data input. Evidence on one side of the scale needs to be balanced against evidence on the other side. In this much, at least, the conservatives are correct, we do consider the evidence of modern science and experience. For me, the evidence of mutual support, growth, love, fulfillment, etc., that flows from folks in committed, same gender relationships is compelling and clearly tips the scale toward the side of saying such relationships are a good thing and ought to be recognized and supported by the church. On the other hand, I think a strong case can be made that a different result obtains when we weigh the pros and cons of “polyamorous, free-love, polygamous, and adult incestuous” relationships (in your words). Same balancing test, but different evidence and a different result.
@Obie Holmen
Fair enough – I have not seen a fair comparison of the evidence – and at times I fear that modern science and experience are given greater weight, perhaps because we are so much more evolved, smarter, more wonderful, etc. than the ancients, and scripture. The DC assembly speakers did not want to hear other viewpoints – and ended debate with a club approach. It seems that the balance test, when including modern science and experience should also factor in the health and well-being of same-sex practitioners – higher alcoholism, domestic violence, drug abuse, mental illness rates, etc. than in the population as a whole.
How does the B in LGBT translate using this test wrt church policy? Should bi-sexual people be celbrated and given positions of teaching and authority in the church while acting upon their sexual attraction for both sexes? The 2009 Assebly action seems to preclude this – since one can not be both active bi-sexually, and monogomous simultaneously. Seems to be a violation of the justice principle you suggested. Would it not have been an act of conscience to those supporting the change to vote “No” because these persons are excluded from participation in rostered ministry simply because of who they are?
Why would loving, committed, monogamous adults who happen to be siblings fail your balance test? As things currently stand – they can also be of the same-sex – which would invalidate the objection due to genetic problems associated with producing offspring from close family relationships. And hetero couples could promise to refrain from reproduction to avoid that problem. Using the logic presented, we should all get behind these relationships. Who’s with me?
Apologies for the typo’s on the previous post – keyboard is acting up 🙁
I do not want to get into a legalistic spitting contest on this – I am only suggesting that the lack of an authoritative bright line (historically in the Church – scripture) creates problems with the logic and rhetoric that SHOULD create a greater barrier to major policy changes than one based (primarily) on anecdotal evidence (experience) and popular culture (social sciences). Using hyperbole to make a point – but I think the point is valid and worthy of greater respect and more consideration than I have seen it given to date. (Not in this space – but in the DC Synod). And advocates for this policy in my experience are faster to wield a club to beat down opposition, than are scripture based persons using “clobber texts” (your description).
@An ELCA guy – for now
One final response to your comment, and then I’m done.
Don’t paint with such a broad brush and don’t overstate what the ELCA policies are. The ELCA policy is limited to lifelong, monogamous relationships. Thus, the evidence to be considered must be limited to such realtionships and not all “same-sex practioners.”
I get that. first time here – interesting discussion – thanks. Just read your bio. Thank you for your service to our country!!!
Might see you again – slow day today and most are not like that.
All the best!
@Rev. Cary Larson
Thank you Rev Larson for stating the truth about LutheranCORE and its mission.
Much like Wordalone that birthed LCMC, Wordalone networked with LutheranCORE. Now, LutheranCORE, in contact and agreement with LCMC and Wordalone are in the process of creating NALC. NALC will have a structure that LCMC was designed NOT to have. LCMC was onboard from the beginning with LutheranCORE’s work to have a “landing” area for those congregations that wanted out of the ELCA’s grasp. (LCMC Central District) LCMC provided that landing pad. It does not preclude that some congregations will like the format of LCMC and not wish to go further and join NALC.
Will numerous congregations jump on the band wagon when NALC is official? Maybe, maybe not. The one fact I am sure of is that a whole lot of people that stayed informed are in the prcess of leaving the ELCA or have already left the organization known as ELCA.
Obie, you sir need to re-read your Holy Bible. I will stand with scripture, not man made words and ideas that are inconsistant with the Authority of the Word. One final thought: According to scripture, we are to hate the sin and love the sinner. There really are absolutes!
Blessings ……..
How interesting . One thing I have read in commentaries lately is that since men believe that they are created in the image of God, they suppose that God has to be a lot like them. I can picture the ancient Hebrews sitting around the fire looking at the stars and listening to the story teller once again telling the ancient stories that didn’t get written down until writing was invented. Yes, re-read the Bible. There are many beautiful stories in there. They are the basis for our faith. But are they literal or symbolic ? I like the old stories for the children. They will remember them when they are older and fall asleep during the sermon. They point the way to God but so far as I am concerned its ok to question the historical accuracy of the stories when one can think for one’s self. I find that my faith changes and is strengthened when I do question although sometimes I have to think about it for a few days. Read many things too. I didn’t realize that men didn’t understand the biology of human reproduction until fairly recent history so they thought the woman was only a vessel for the baby and didn’t add any genes. Thus we have the virgin birth.
The Catholics even had to add the immaculate conception of Mary after the biology was understood.
The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.
=================================================================================
But if this against the bible teachings then how is it different then from what the ELCA did with homosexuals??
The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men
Don’t expect to find a Bible verse that says “gay clergy is ok”. It isn’t that simple. ”
Actually… it is! (sigh)
Living as I do in ‘Lutherland’, and having family that were raised in the Lutheran Church before the ELCA (the ALC/ELC days, and the ‘Red Book’) I can only point out that the defect in Lutheranism which has led to this morass of competing alphabet soup jurisdictionalisms/ecclesial styles/theological cacophony, is that which the traditional Anglicans have said were the reasons they did not become Lutherans in 1530! (…their [Anglican/Episcopalians] problems, while equally numerous, came about from different sources, but now bring them equally under the same anathemas)
Luther divorced himself from the Body of Christ, and then realized his error, and ‘made up’ a variation on the historic episcopate, as well as being stubborn to the point of a dog with a bone, on his avoidance of Eucharistic presence (which might have meant a sacrificial priesthood was obligatory – which it is) in order to ‘de-legitimize’ Rome, to buttress his theological positions, most of which were rehashed Augustinianism, at any rate, and his false ‘law/gospel’ dichotomy is why we have institutional Lutheranism today behind the LSS thrust to make minorities of Europeans in the Upper Midwest!
When the talks with the Orthodox Patriarch by the Lutheran theologians offered hope to the true Christians of Europe, they (the Augsburg crowd) just didn’t listen to Jeremias – theywere already ‘died in the wool’ Lutherans, and no longer Catholics – of either the ‘Roman’ or the ‘Ecumene’ variety! It sadly, has only gone downhill from there…
The ELCA and TEC have supposedly found ‘common ground’ in their theological aberrations, not in the construct of ‘apostolic succession,’ yet it would ‘appear’ that the latter is behind the ‘joint communion’ pronouncements. Meanwhile, they both have priestesses, and gay clergy, neither of which ‘floats my boat’ as a canonically-minded anglo-catholic.
On the other hand, traditionalist Lutherans and confessional/male priesthood-only Anglicans have MUCH MORE in common, and could effect a NATIONAL CHURCH that would restore the 1928 BCP and the old 1958 Lutheran SBH (which resources are ASTOUNDINGLY similar, in both eucharistic piety, and linguistic/hymnic similarity) if they would only TALK TO ONE ANOTHER, rather than pretend the other does not exist. My Bishop would WELCOME such a venture, and I think (personally) the Smaller Catechism is the best thing out there -‘this is most certainly true’ – for either Anglicans or confessional Lutherans.
We missed talking TO one another, 500 years ago…. why should we miss out now? Rome is still ‘no true church,’ and her continued opposition to married clergy/Bishops is still allowing pederast priests, etc. is proof enough of that truism! We in traditional Anglican and Lutheran circles NEED EACH OTHER, and we could restore Christendom, at least in the USA/CANADA, if we only tried. But is anyone listening?
I, for one,would welcome my Scandic and Germanic brethren to the table to at least TALK about it… (now if only we can interest the Scots as well!)
Well, that’s my 2 cents worth.