Here are the latest figures according to an email received from the ELCA Secretary’s office. Please note that over 75% of the congregations that are leaving have indicated affiliation with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), which doesn’t leave many unaffiliated congregations for the North American Lutheran Church (NALC). The NALC will finally get off the ground with its convocation this month. It will be interesting to see if some switch from LCMC to NALC and whether turf wars develop. As an LCMC booster predicted months ago, “LCMC and NALC will be splitting a small pie”.
As of August 3, the Office of the Secretary has been advised that 504 congregations have taken first votes to terminate their relationship with the ELCA (some congregations have taken more than one first vote). Of these 504 congregations that have taken first votes, 348 passed and 156 failed. Synods also have informed the Office of the Secretary that 212 congregations have taken a second vote, 199 of which passed and 13 failed. Of the congregations that have voted to leave and advised synods of their intentions, more than 75% have indicated that they are affiliating with Lutheran Congregations in Missions for Christ (LCMC).
@ Obie — Church Grandpa here…Thanks for the latest numbers.
FWIW, Grandma and I are still wondering if anyone has found a reliable listing of congregations that have passed the second vote but still await synodical permission to leave. A few synods, but not all, are posting this information on a congregation-by-congregation basis. So far, no churchwide ELCA source has reported those names or numbers as far as I can find.
Just to restate my calculation as of end of June 2010 (see July 16 post in the thread on July figures of ELCA congregations departing): For every 10 congregations that have been publically acknowledged as having withdrawn from the ELCA, another 7 have passed the second vote but their withdrawal is still pending.
Whatever the reason for the difference or, in some cases,delays, there’s still a bunch of congregations awaiting synodical permission. God love ’em, as we should too.
As for our house, we’ve got a prayer list of neighboring congregations going though post-CWA 2009 transitions, including some that we know are awaiting permission. Hope that you all will do the same for your neighbors. That’s something which cuts across lines and labels.
I periodically go to the LCMC website and see who they list as being “theirs”. The list is growing- slowly but all the same- growing. I noted two congregations in Southwestern WI which used to be in my home church territory are now aligned with LCMC. This probably means there are others thinking seriously about it. So far as I am concerned, the publicity surrounding the 7 gay pastors being reinstated, will possibly push some of the iffy churches over the edge. I am waiting to see how many join NALC once it is available. Here in NE WI , there are churches I won’t join because I think they will pull out of ELCA as soon as they can. This is old ALC territory and so far the bishop is just letting them go.
Once again, this is not the press release that is most important this week. If you go on ELCA.org , that gives us the the press release of note this week- the one stating that giving is down 15% from a year ago through June , more budget cuts for the ELCA, and year end giving predicted down 9 million over 2009 by the treasurer of the ELCA.
Regardless of where one stands, looking at numbers of churches leaving is a false measure. The real difficulties for all, whether for or against the changes, are the number of churches that are in the ELCA but will become non-participatory. Also, those not leaving, but in conflict who have taken a big hit in membership. In our synod, at last count 15,000 members alone are gone by churches voting to leave, but this does not count those in conflict or where people have just walked. If you multiply that by 65, recognizing some synods will be far less and some far more, the real implications are staggering. Not in terms of churches voting to leave, but members voting to leave.
Secretary Swartling noted to the MD-DE synod that the giving in March and April this year was the worst in ELCA history. It will take five years or more to sort out how substantial the schism is.
When all is said and done, I believe less churches will leave than most think, but the financial hit will be huge. Also, LCMC and NALC will be splitting a very small pie. I don’t see turf wars developing at all, they have been in conversation.
I do see more to this than meets the eye. History will only be able to tell what will come of this.
@Jeff
You have made this point before, and others have replied that perhaps the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression is the primary factor in the financial difficulties of the ELCA. What charitable institution isn’t in dire straits these days? Local and state governments?
I agree that history will ultimately be the judge of CWA09, as well as the broader religous and secular movement toward marriage equality and full LGBTQ inclusion, and I have an inchoate blog post rattling around in my brain in which our children and grandchildren question our roles in these debates. Will they be proud of Grampa or embarrassed? While I claim no special prescience, I’m pretty confident of the broader historical sweep of the current struggles, and I hope and expect that my yet unborn progeny, some who may be gay, will know that grampa was on the right side of history.
Here’s a quote from an op-ed piece penned by Peggy Wallace Kennedy, the daughter of segregationist icon George Wallace, who lamented that her father had been on the wrong side of history, but she was comforted by his apparent change of heart late in life. I think her comment is apropos:
I think that in 5 to 10 years this whole thing will have died down and be a background issue. The test will come when churches are calling pastors. There is a fear out there in LCMC that churches will be legally obligated to call gay pastors even if they don’t want to. I don’t see that happening yet but a lot will depend on where gay issues go nationally in the public sector. Obie, as an attorney do you think that might happen?
@Lilly
The courts and statutes have long applied a “ministerial exception” to cases of employment decisions by religious institutions. A recent example of such cases was a seminarian who worked for a Catholic church who claimed the church failed to pay him overtime. The courts dismissed his lawsuit by reaffirming the “ministerial exception” doctrine:
The essential idea behind the doctrine is that the 1st Amendment mandates that when governnmental policy conflicts with church policy on employment issues, the church policy takes precedence. Bottom line? To the extent that the LCMC churches in your area, or any church anywhere, fear that gay clergy will be forced upon them, the fears are irrational. And that’s the CORE (pun intentional) lesson to be learned–irrational fears behind opposition to gay inclusion.
@Obie Holmen
Thanks Obie. That inference had come from the LCMC person from Hayward when he spoke in our town. I wondered at the time if he was just fear mongering.
I guess so. Thanks again.
@Church Grandpa and Grandma
So, grandpa, what do you have to say about situations such as my former congregation where that second vote did not meet constitutional muster yet the pastor still declared the congregation no longer part of the ELCA and declared that all assets–building, contents, and foundation–were part of the LCMC congregation and that the ELCA members had no rights to any of it?
Is this something you would crow about too? Or is this a sad new playbook where the mob rule supersedes any constitution merely because someone no longer likes the ELCA?
What type of moral or legal lessons can be learned from that?
@Jeff
While it is true that some congregants are leaving the ELCA over the vote a year ago, I have a hard time swallowing that the majority of those exiting are doing so for that reason. On the whole, mainline protestant denominations are seeing declining numbers in membership for years now. This has to do with many things, not the least of which the litany that Anne Rice cited as reasons for leaving Christianity. While I don’t at this time want to debate why she was wrong in characterizing all of Christianity on the basis of her experiences in the Roman Catholic Church, there is validity to the idea that some in the mainline protestant denominations would advocate for exclusionary policies based on “plain sense readings of scripture” (read, “my interpretation of scripture”) and “doctrinal purity” (read, “my presumption about Luther’s intentions”). And now, when the ELCA, a mainline protestant denomination, makes a move to be more inclusive of people with different backgrounds and opposing viewpoints from the “mainstream,” the reaction of some only serves as a sore validation of Rice’s opinion.
@Lily — just my two cents — if churches aren’t legally obligated to call a woman, why would they be legally obligated to call a gay pastor? hmmmm. there was an article in the Metro Lutheran this month about how few women senior pastors there still are.
@Daniel,
My post was in response to the posting of Sec Swartling by Obie….and bringing up the ELCA press release. You point to broader trends as well….
You are correct-many are leaving mainline churches in droves for a variety of reasons. What is interesting is why do they then either become unchurched (as you note with Rice) , or join churches that are non-denominational These churches tend to have more of f an emphasis on bible study, youth ministry, and and adult education than is present in many mainline churches, In addition, many are focusing on social outreach in inner cities, Africa, etc.
So all this talk of being “inclusive” is fine, but what does that mean? Are our mainlines inclusive of people with differing beliefs about scripture? Who want solid bible study? Who desire meaningful outreach into the community? Not suggesting these things are not happening, but obviously mainline Protestantism is not doing them real well right now. We have to be thick skinned enough as pastors and leaders to say “why?”
So yes, this is not just an issue of the ELCA , all mainlines are declining. If these churches were a business ( I am sure I will get someone upset with this, but just an analogy) , maybe a good question to ask is why are my customers not coming anymore, where are they going, and if they are going somewhere else, what are they doing that I am not?
Recognizing Lutherans
@Obie,
You are right, only history will tell.
We all tend to see ourselves on the “right side of history”. Equating this with the civil rights struggle of the sixties is offensive to many African Americans, some of whom as my friends faced the hoses of Bull Conner in Alambama. While they support full civil rights in society for all (as I do) , once again, the issue of clergy leadership is a different story. Being a pastor is not a right. It comes with certain conditions and behaviors, which of course is the subject of debate.
You are correct, maybe in twenty years all of us will ask what the fuss. But also, please don’t infer that those of us who may disagree about a church polity issue are somehow the equivalent of George Wallace or worse. I have never in 22 years of ministry ever judged anyone on the basis of their behavior or their sins, but also sought to bring the love of Jesus to them. Just because some do believe that clergy should have certain expectations of their lives doesn’t mean witch hunts take place or people are barred from worship.
The extremes of both sides are shouting , and sadly, one side is claiming the other is evil if they accept the changes, the other is claiming all are bigots if they don’t. Most people are kind, generous, and don’t agree on a lot of things. So have a conversation and be at peace.
Jeff, what you say about non denominational churches is happening in many places. My daughter married a Baptist and they set about to find a church they both liked. They happened on a non denominational church in Green Bay and both have become active in it. The pastor is very charismatic with a small c. He is funny and friendly. He is a nationally known speaker on improving marriages. The church body just grew by 700 members when a church in Tulsa decided to affiliate with them. It was the pastor’s brother’s church. This is becoming a mega church fast.
I think one of the things that may be happening to main line churches is that the “old guard” in them is afraid to make changes. I saw that happen at the now LCMC church and they made some changes anyway. But the organist’s husband was upset because her playing was the fun money they had. I see this happening in the UCC church I attend right now . The pastor would like to try some things but they get shot down. But of course, nothing is new. A number of years ago I was Sunday School superintendent when the associate pastor wanted us to have and Epiphany program instead of a Christmas program. That got shot down even if it was a Christmas program a few days late.
I read a study some years ago about a company that made little changes in the lighting in their office and productivity shot up. The workers didn’t notice the small changes and the company benefited. Sometimes we are too afraid of what people will say, to try anything new. How about orange jello instead of red ?
Gee, I wonder who that was…
I do not believe that I said that a congregation would get sued for not calling a gay pastor. (Though that may happen, too. Even if you win, getting sued is an expensive proposition.)
I have repeatedly said that, if congregations choose not to do same sex blessings (or in some states, weddings), one of them will some day get sued. (That has happened in NJ. A complex case, but the Methodists lost.) Someone will try to use the commerce and non-discrimination clauses to sue a congregation for refusing to do a wedding that the congregation collects a fee for. Up until last summer, an ELCA congregation could have called their bishop as a defense witness. Now, it is just as likely that the plaintiff will call the bishop, and if the bishop favors the 09 decisions (and I don’t think there are very many who do not), how is the bishop going to explain the congregation’s decision as other than discrimination?
If a congregation opposes the 09 decisions, they have a right within the ELCA to act as they want, but, in my opinion, staying in the ELCA walks them toward a legal minefield in the future.
And that does not even take into account the future internal politics and “Neuhaus’s Law.”
Blessings, Bishop Tony of Hayward
Ultimately, isn’t it God who will be the judge? 🙂
@Tony Stoutenburg
Thanks for that legal opinion. Stick to the pulpit.
God as Judge. There’s a metaphor you can embrace.
@Obie Holmen
Part of Lutheran preaching is to name the Law. 🙂
As to God as judge, I’ll post my sermon today later this week. I think you’d find my perspective outside what you might expect.
Now, seriously, as an attorney, do you hold that sufch a suit getting to trial is not a possibility? If a wedding photographer can be ordered to pay a fine for discrimination, how about a pastor?
These are not just my questions… they are examples of things that come from the right-wing fear-mongers at NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340
@Tony Stoutenburg
Yes, Tony, seriously, as an attorney, such a suit has zero chance of getting to a jury. The constitution and the “ministerial exemption” are that strong and protective of church decisions about hiring and firing. That a wedding photographer is not the same as a clergy person would seem to be self evident.
First, not “getting to a jury” does NOT mean that the congregation (or its insurers) will not spend a lot of money defending the thing.
Second, a certain state Supreme Court Justice disagrees with you. Somewhere, someday, a judge will decide that there is a compelling legal interest in over-riding the freedom of religion for such a purpose. He may be overturned, but my expert agrees it will happen. And a congregation of pastor will be bankrupted by it.
And where is the tolerance for the wedding photographer, anyway?
It would seem to me that there is a flaw in the thinking here…..I would tend to agree with Obie on this one………gasp! 🙂
First of all, I doubt that any two couples interested in gay marriage would go to a church where they know the pastor would not preside at the ceremony. I just dont’ see that that happening when there are many churches and pastors who would preside, and civil options available which will continue to proliferate.
Secondly, even if they did, I would see any such “test” case as thrown out, as Obie said.
I have no issue with all Americans being afforded full civil and legal options under American law. Luthers’ two kingdoms would apply here.
@Tony Stoutenburg
The legal issue you raise is a red herring, and if you’re scaring folks by telling them gays might sue their church if they remain in the ELCA, you’re guilty of fear-mongering and spreading falsehoods.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Also not noted is that joining LCMC, or any other church body officially opposed to same-sex marriage, will not keep a congregation from being sued. However, no matter their church body, the rights of congregations and church bodies regarding their ministers–though not their adoption agencies, housing offerings, educational offerings, medical services, psychological services, wedding services, wedding facilities, or non-clergy staff of non-church organizations–is in no way diminished by any of the examples cited in the NPR story.
Could a legal example of this type of litigation be cited from the many turbulent years since the schism caused by church bodies ordaining women in opposition to the beliefs of individual congregations? If so, which side lost (and paid the legal fees of the winning party)?
@ Obie and Tyler: I was not clear. My point is not that changing affiliation will prevent a suit, but, in the event my expert tells me will someday happen, your case for defense is stronger.
@ Jeff. I agree with you regarding civil rights under law. As for it not happening or being thrown out, read the NPR link cited above.
@Tony Stoutenburg
That link does paint an interesting picture. I often turn off the talk part of NPR because they drag it on and on and on. I do like the music though.
This kind of picture just makes another thing for the lawyers to chase and try to make a case. ( not personal, Obie ) It does seem to take a long time for civil rights to be recognized. In “The Shack’ we have a black woman representing God the father, “Papa”. Can we make a case for not being allowed to have a discussion group at church about the book ? 🙂
@Lilly
I agree with you that an ability to embrace change and a lack of “but this is the way we’ve always done it” can help any kind of church. My church allows the pastor the freedom to make changes to the liturgy and the worship space as deemed appropriate and she changes things up quite a lot. Somehow, the world keeps turning!
The suit that Tony uses as an example is about public accommodations, not religious freedom. I agree that using this example to argue that churches that don’t hire gay pastors will be sued is misleading at best.
@Ann
Thanks Ann. That is why I raised the issue. There are a number of churches in my area considering LCMC and if this is one strategy being used, I think people need to know about it. It seems to turn out that the real issue is the Called to Common Mission that has been around for a few years. Somehow this has been twisted to the point that some people think we are headed towards joining the Catholic church again. I am a lay person but I have always had an interest in all things Christian especially Lutheran or Catholic. I think people forget that Luther was himself a Catholic and did not set out to do more than to correct some abuses of power he saw in the church.
@Kelly —
You’ve described the pastor’s position, which, providing the constitutional process was followed, would have no grounds. Are you saying that pastor and the side that didn’t prevail are challenging the outcome of the vote via legal and/or ecclesial channels — or just sitting and refusing to let go? Sounds like it’s time for the pastor in your former congregation and those of his mindset to move on, in more ways than one, and to do so more graciously and grace-fully than what you’ve described. Likewise, the time comes when synods and minority, pro-ELCA blocks need to do the same.
As for speculation about mob rule and a sad new playbook? I wouldn’t want to generalize on the basis of any single experience or anecdote, even Grandma’s and mine. That said, more complete, transparent processes and reporting of same — painful as that could be for all sides in this controversy — might just help keep us sinners from becoming any more curved-in than we already are.
Blessings, Kelly, and prayers that you’ve found a congregation where your soul is well-fed.
@Kelly
Hi Kelly, I think about you every time Tomah gets inches of rain that ends up going down the Kickapoo and flooding my old home town of Gays Mills 🙂
Seriously, I don’t doubt that there are some churches that went LCMC that could be test court cases but it would take money that most people don’t have to try them and then the court might not try them because they are religious institutions. I am watching the church , St.Johns in Marion up the road from me that decided to stay with ELCA. Your new pastor used to be there. St. John’s still has a link to WA. I don’t know where that came from. They have just, in the last couple months, entered the interim process after trying to work out the conflict in the congregation.
@Ann
and I submit that all it will take is one judge to declare that a church (that collects a fee for performing weddings of non-members) is a public accommodation and you will have a repeat of the suit. Public accommodation language has been used expansively over the last 45 years.
And I know, Obie disagrees with me… 🙂
BTW, I heard something interesting but lack the willpower to dig through the resolutions to see if it is true: I heard that under the language passed last summer, a *congregation* can refuse to bless gay unions, but if the *congregation* chooses to host such blessings, there is no provision for the pastor to opt out. True?
Dear Obie,
Have you been following what is taking place in Hutchinson regarding the two former ELCA churches leaving the ELCA? By next month, I am confident there will be a new ELCA church in town- River of Hope Lutheran Church. At our first gathering, over 100 folks were in attendance and nearly $4000 was collected in the offering. We are psyched! We are energized with the spirit of Christ! Keep an eye on us.
Today I stopped by the LCMC church to give a book to the library. I picked up a copy of the newsletter because we are no longer on the mailing list. I am gratfied to see how well life is going on with the congregation. The youth of the LCMC area have met together and a meeting of the LCMC women is set for next month. It almost looks like a “synod”.
This afternoon we got our newsletter for the UCC church so we can start to get a feel for that church. We will formally become members soon.
Faith Lutheran Church in the Clintonville area is moving forward as a SAWC and will be meeting in a local town hall. This will give them an area where they can worship, have Sunday School, and have that all important COFFEE. Blessings on them. Good things don’t have to be big.
I do not really see the LCMC and the NALC as a competition against each other since churches can be a member of both! I asume many churches will choose to apply for both LCMC and NALC. I think in the end, NALC will be a bit more liberal since it is more of a ” high church” than LCMC. Also the LCMC left a while ago when the 1st signs of the “extreme liberal left” started (which shows less tolerance) while the NALC started just now, when it became “too much”. As of now however, the NALC is more bitter against the ELCA because their divorce is more recent. Eventually however, theywill become just to the “left” of the LCMC because they are “high church” (Bishop, joining LWF etc)