On March 10th, I reported on the actions of the ELCA Conference of Bishops to welcome to ministry those pastors on the Extraordinary Lutheran Ministry (ELM) Roster.  In my blog, I wondered about the use of the word “ordination” or its lack in the rite proposed by bishops.  I also updated my post immediately with word that Lutherans Concerned North America (LCNA) quickly and enthusiastically endorsed the action of the Conference of Bishops.  Since then, ELM has similarly offered its heartfelt gratitude toward the bishops. 

Members of ELM were present as observers during the Conference deliberations.  At one point, Bishop Stephen Marsh offered a motion which passed to allow one of the ELM persons present to have the privilege of “voice”, i.e. an invitation to address the assembled bishops.  On today’s ELM blog, the remarks offered by ELM member Erik Christensen are published, and I reprint them here in their entirety.

Remarks made by Rev. Erik Christensen to the ELCA Conference of Bishops 

Last weekend at the ELCA Conference of Bishops, Bp. Stephen Marsh (Southeast, MI) made a motion to give voice to a representative from ELM. With just a few minutes to prepare, Rev. Erik Christensen offered this response:

Good afternoon, my name is Erik Christensen. I’m a pastor here in Chicago at St. Luke’s Lutheran Church of Logan Square. I did my candidacy in the Southeastern Iowa Synod. I’m a son of St. John’s Lutheran Church in Des Moines, Iowa. And I did my seminary training both at Candler School of Theology at Emory, but also at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. I interned on the Jersey Shore at Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Toms River.

I want to say it’s really wonderful to be asked to speak. I really thank you for recognizing the privilege that it is to be allowed to speak to all of you and I thank you for extending that privilege. And I just want to say what you all know is true, but if I say it, it makes it a little less true for me in the moment…this is scary (laughter). So I just needed to say that so I could have permission to shake a little bit in my shoes.

I’ve often been afraid of what bishops think about the work that we do in ELM. And often I’ve been afraid because the way that our relationship has worked out historically has not been so good. But I really enjoy being in the room for the conversation right now because it builds my trust in the shared commitment to the Gospel that all of us have. And I can hear the sensitive, and the probing, and the discerning questions that are being asked, and it builds my trust in the church that we are becoming together.

A lot has been said, a lot has been written about the authority by which ELM has understood its ordinations to take place. So I actually don’t want to say too much about that at this particular moment, because I’m hearing a lot of that language filtering into your conversation. It’s really clear that this room of brothers and sisters has a really strong grasp on the myriad precedents, and that precedent alone isn’t really what we’re discussing here. And so I’ll be happy to entertain any questions, and others would as well, about that question of authority and by what authority we did those ordinations. But I think most of those points have been raised by you in these conversations already.

The contribution I want to make at this point in the conversation is to this question, “Why ordination?” Or why not ordination? How important is that word, really?

I want to lift up an image of my year at the Lutheran School in Philadelphia. I entered candidacy in Southeastern Iowa Synod, I made it through approval, I made it through endorsement, I made it through internship. I completed my M.Div and was in my Lutheran year in Philly and halfway through my Lutheran year, I was removed from ELCA candidacy by the candidacy committee in Southeastern Iowa Synod. And they attached a statement to their decision saying, “the only reason we have for denying approval for ministry is this policy that the church currently holds, and should that policy be removed, we would enthusiastically endorse this person.”

And there it was, I was denied, and I was no longer a candidate. And I was trying to make a decision about whether or not the ELM process had integrity, whether or not it was something I could offer my vocation up to, and put my faith in. So I went to my favorite professor and someone who is still a mentor in his writing and his speaking, Gordon Lathrop, and I said, “I’m trying to understand, Dr. Lathrop, whether or not I should offer myself to this process. Could I really understand an ordination that takes place without the full endorsement of the denomination as a full ordination?”

And he said, “No. That would be a broken ordination.” And I was confused.

And then I said, “Well, Dr. Lathrop, what about your ordination?”

And he said, “No, mine is broken as well. My ordination is also broken by the status of the body that we have right now and all of our ordinations won’t be completed until this reconciliation takes place.”

And so, I welcome the laying on of hands. I welcome the blessing with oil and with prayer and with every other form of public blessing that this church has to offer and I don’t think that “ordination” is the right word for that. Because I’ve been ordained. And you’ve been ordained. And our ordinations have been broken. And the healing and the reconciliation that needs to take place right now is contextual.

And I’m not ignorant to the fact that ordination is a word…it’s so nice to hear that there are these four different words, there are plenty of other words and they are not understood the same way at all moments in the life of the church and the history of the church. And so in one sense, “don’t get too hung up on it.” It’s ordination, it’s not ordination. But at this moment in the church, and in this does have meaning, now, for us. context, it’s a word that does have importance. It’s a word that

And so, if the purpose of the rite that you are trying to craft, if the purpose of this moment is to announce reconciliation and healing, then it will be important what word you choose. Not because that word always means that thing and always has meant that thing, but because you want that word to do something right now. And if you want it to do that thing, if you want the word, if you want the rite to do that thing that is healing and reconciliation in the body, that heals my broken ordination and your broken ordination, then affirm the ordinations that we’ve received. Affirm the calls that we’ve received.

Let’s bless one another in this ministry together.

The Upper Iowa River conference of the Northeastern Iowa Synod has passed a resolution to be considered by the synod as a whole.  Here it is:

Whereas the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a constitutionally governed organization served by constitutionally elected leaders at both the synod and church wide levels, and

Whereas the stated purposes of the organization known as Lutheran CORE are to 1) bring forth a proposal for a new Lutheran church body governed by a new constitution for those who choose to leave the ELCA, and 2) to plan for the continuation of Lutheran CORE as a free-standing synod for all Lutherans, and

Whereas it is an inherent conflict of interest for individuals who are members of CORE to fully and wholeheartedly support the ELCA constitution,

Be it Resolved that: 1) all rostered and lay leaders who are members of CORE and are currently serving in elected positions in the NE Iowa Synod be required to resign from those positions, and that 2) all rostered and lay individuals currently holding membership in CORE be disqualified from election to positions of leadership within the NEIA Synod.

Lutherans Concerned North America (LCNA) is the primary LGBT advocacy group within the ELCA.  At first blush, one might expect LCNA to support this resolution; not so, LCNA emphatically opposes it:

Regardless of what sparked this resolution into existence, it is very un-Lutheran and should be rejected immediately as such. It certainly is nothing fostered or endorsed by Lutherans Concerned/North America.

What do you think?  Can Lutheran CORE persons, with their strong and often heated opposition to CWA09 resolutions, effectively serve in ELCA leadership positions?

 UPDATE:  I”m not entirely satisfied with the Memedex poll used originally in this post.  Thus, I have deleted it and substituted  a poll from a different third party located in the sidebar to the right.  Try that instead.  Polling results to date are 16 yes and 10 no.

UPDATE TWO:  Dissatisfied with the second third party poll, I have taken that one down as well.  FYI the vote was mostly split between the 50-60 respondents.

On March 8th, the ELCA Conference of Bishops, an advisory body consisting of the 65 regional synod bishops and headed by the ELCA Presiding Bishop, reached consensus on a draft document for welcoming pastors of the Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries (ELM) into the ELCA.  The draft document will be reviewed and revised before reaching final form, which will then be sent to the Church Council for consideration and approval.

The draft document called for a rite that looks, feels, and sounds like ordination but without actually using that term.  The press release didn’t clarify why the term “ordination” was deliberately not used.  According to the press release:

“After formal approval these people would be received at a service of worship, (with) the laying on of hands and prayer by a synod bishop,” [New England Synod Bishop Margaret] Payne said on a behalf of a committee of bishops appointed to prepare the draft rite following a preliminary discussion by the conference March 6.

“All of us without exception felt it was utterly important and essential that there be the laying on of hands and prayer as a part of a rite,” she explained. “We know there are some people who would like to use the word ordination — we are not saying the candidates will be ordained — but we are suggesting that we use words in the authorized rite that replicate the promises of ordination, and will in fact be words from the ordination rite.”

I have previously blogged about ELM (click on this link and all prior posts will be listed), which has ordained Lutheran clergy to willing congregations despite the restrictions of the Visions and Expectations of ELCA ministry policies (which were the subject of the CWA09 resolutions for change).  ELM’s website does not yet contain a response to the draft document nor does the Lutherans Concerned website.

UPDATE:

I had barely published this post when I received a press release from LCNA.  Here is the pertinent message:

Emily Eastwood, Executive Director, LC/NA, said of this weekend”s actions, “This discussion has been ongoing since the spring of last year.  Some ELCA leaders in our church leaned heavily toward requiring reordination for the seventeen. Others engaged the process of discernment within the conference of bishops and beyond with compelling witness of the ministries of these fine pastors.  The discussion was heartfelt, spirited, Spirit-filled, and tuned to the intersection of the mission of the church, the healing power of reconciliation and the full-communion agreements of the church.  Debate turned to possibility.  Anxiety to reconciliation.  Reordination to reception.  I am thankful, pleased, and most of all relieved that the ministries of these fine pastors will finally be recognized and received by the ELCA. Our thanks to the Conference of Bishops for their careful process and for their willingness to engage those of us most affected by their decision.”

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST:

However, some folks over at the “Friends of LCMC” were quick to offer their keen insights, such as:

Now I have a question, after reading this post and the consensus reached by all the ELCA bishops, does this really mean that if an ordained pastor wants to get married to his dog , pet goat, or pig that this is now allowed? Or even if an ordained pastor wants 3 or 4 wifes or husbands this will be accepted? Friends, I think we really need to be in prayer for these poor lost souls. How is it that 66 bishops can come to any kind of concensus on these issues ?
                                                                     Pr. Warren
P.S. I thank our God we are not part of this mess. But I will pray for them.

And, the Friends over there also offered their congratulations about the news that the ELCA finances finished “in the black” last year.

So much for starving them into submission.

Or,

“news releases” like this used to get to me.  It feels good to move on.  We’re done with the ELCA and leave them to stumble through the darkness.

Not quite done with the ELCA, it seems, but we’re sure the day will come when good news from the ELCA won’t upset him so much.

Or another expressing his well-wishes for the ELCA,

Since there were only 5 months since the August Churchwide Assembly, very little of the lasting negative effects of that assembly show up in the 2009 results.  The current year is likely to reveal the truth of the ELCA’s wayward ways.  It’s not going to be pretty.

Former professor James Nestingen has long been a pricking thorn in the side of the ELCA. 

Perhaps his deep seated resentment goes back to the formation of the ELCA a generation ago when the new constitution mandated gender, laity, and racial quotas for voting members–those most likely to be included are the manageable, those eager to please–instead of the elites–those with wisdom, fidelity and zeal (emphasis mine but the words are his).

Perhaps it was the full communion agreement with the Episcopal church more than a decade ago, when he was instrumental in the formation of the WordAlone Network whose initial raison d’être was resistance to the Episcopal dilution of Lutheran confessional purity.

Perhaps it was his failed candidacy for ELCA presiding bishop at the 2001 Church wide assembly when he received approximately 22% of the vote.  Ironically, his concession speech included a call to unity; “fraction is terrible”, he said then.  How quickly he forgets.

Perhaps the murky circumstances of his early retirement from his tenured professorship at Luther Seminary a few years ago have grated upon his grudges.

Whatever the reason, he continues to spew foul drivel that stretches the truth.  I blogged earlier about his “whoppers”, but they keep on a’comin’.   A hat tip to Both Saint and Cynic for pointing out Nestingen’s latest missive, which I then found on WordAlone’s website in their latest newsletter.

Nestingen starts in a familiar place, the recurring mischaracterization and diminution of the Biblical interpretation of those who support the revised ELCA policies regarding gay clergy.  He suggests, per usual, that the ELCA is now “in direct opposition to God’s biblical Word,” again dismissing, not merely the exegetical abilities of many, but the very legitimacy of the ethical discernment of his opponents.  It’s as if he says, if you don’t read the Bible my way, then you don’t read the Bible.  Then, in a perverse twist of logic, Nestingen suggests it is he who supports the ECLA constitution against the unconstitutional decision of the ELCA voting members (well, maybe it’s not twisted logic; if the constitution is flawed for its inclusivity, then it follows that the flawed voting members would reach a flawed decision).  Using one of his favorite words, Nestingen suggests that he and his ilk have been “unchurched” by the unconstitutional actions of CWA09.

Nestingen then jumps into a discussion of “the office of the keys” and “binding and loosing”, the idea of naming and judging sin: “pastors must be free to use the power of the keys to bind and loose—to challenge inappropriate behaviors and forgive the penitent,” Nestingen writes.  Is this the crux of the matter?  Curtailment of the pastor’s prerogative to judge and condemn?

Nestingen was against the constitution before he was for it, but then he turned against it again.

“[T]he assembly action must be rejected,” he states, and he offers two modes of resistance.

The first is not unconstitutional but redundant.  He suggests congregations amend their constitution and bylaws to ensure that their congregation will not call gay clergy or bless same gender relationships.  Ok, fine, but that is already the congregational prerogative, and such constitutional amendments or bylaws do not increase the “local option” policies already in effect.

Nestingen’s second proposal is more onerous … the wedge policy of withholding financial support of the ELCA.  Even Nestingen allows that this is a questionable practice, “Withholding funds is an inherently scattershot form of resistance that instead of focusing on the particulars diffuses into all aspects of the church’s activities,” but he quickly overcomes his own objections because “the ELCA is particularly vulnerable at this point,” and he concludes that a financial boycott is warranted.  His end justifies his means.

While some individuals and congregations would leave the ELCA, Nestingen apparently plans to stay and to continue as a pricking thorn irritant.  Whoopee.  At least I’ll have plenty of fodder for my blog.

Here’s an interesting trio of institutions that made news this week for similar reasons—the advancement of LGBT equality.

First, the ELCA board of pensions announced that spousal benefits will extend to same gender partners.  In a press release, Emily Eastwood, Executive Director, Lutherans Concerned/North America, said

This historic decision is indeed worthy of celebration.  The action sets committed same-gender relationships on a more equal footing in critical areas of family life: health care, retirement, survivor, and disability benefits.

Meanwhile, in merry olde England, the ancient and venerable House of Lords removed any legal obstacles that would prevent churches from performing same gender blessings, if they are wont to do so.

The amendment to the Equality Bill does not force churches to accept civil partnership ceremonies.  But it lifts the barrier that had been in place preventing homosexual blessings in churches and also the prohibition on religious language being used in such ceremonies.

The Parliamentary amendment was pushed by Lord Alli, an openly gay member of the House of Lords, who said,

This amendment does not place an obligation on any religious organisation to host civil partnerships in their buildings.  But there are many gay and lesbian couples who want to share their civil partnership with the congregations that they worship with. And there are a number of religious organisations that want to allow gay and lesbian couples to do exactly that.

Nor does the amendment change British law regarding marriage equality.  The current restrictions remain in place.  The plan was backed by Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians as well as by many Anglicans.

Finally, the US Supreme Court refused to hear a conservative challenge to a law about to go into effect in Washington D.C. that allows gay marriage.  Here is the Human Rights Council’s take on the whirl of courtroom activities:

Virtually no part of the judicial branch has been left unscathed in the past 24 hours as opponents of marriage equality have launched a desperate eleventh hour attempt to find a sympathetic court to halt D.C.’s same-sex marriage law scheduled to take effect tomorrow.

Yesterday, opponents – led by the national anti-LGBT legal group Alliance Defense Fund – filed for an emergency stay of the marriage law in the U.S. Supreme Court, reciting arguments that have been uniformly rejected by the lower courts and identifying no cognizable reason why the high court should intervene on an issue of D.C. law.  The Supreme Court this afternoon denied opponents’ application for a stay of the D.C. marriage law. In a three page opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that a stay was not warranted, noting in part that the Supreme Court defers to D.C. courts on matters of local concern and that opponents still have their petition for a ballot initiative awaiting consideration by the Court of Appeals.

With the legal challenges out of the way, the news services and blogosphere are alive today with pictures and videos of DC citizens obtaining their marriage licenses.

 With protesters holding up hate signs, an ecumenical group of clergy drowned them out.