A week ago, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Minnesota announced a reorganization plan that will eliminate twenty-one congregations in the metro, merging them into fourteen existing parishes. Stated another way, thirty-five current congregations will be downsized into fourteen. Some have suggested that if it wasn’t for the influx of Hispanic immigrants, the Roman Catholic church nationally would be suffering even greater declines in membership.
Of course, the problem of declining religious participation is not confined to Catholicism. Indeed, statistics suggest the decline in Americans who identify with religion is startling.
That shift is the decline in participation by all Americans, but particularly young adults, in churches. In 1990 only 7 percent of Americans indicated “none” as religious affiliation. By 2008 that number had grown to 17 percent. But among young adults, in their twenties, the percent of “nones” is reaching nearly 30%. The new “nones” are heavily concentrated among those who have come of age since 1990.
But wait, aren’t many conservative Christian denominations growing? Many evangelical churches thrive but at the cost of theological depth—“a mile wide and an inch deep”. Some are thinly veiled entertainment ministries. Joel Osteen Ministries is merely the most blatant example of the appealing “prosperity gospel” that too often characterizes the mega-growth churches, and makes charismatic leaders such as Osteen very wealthy.
But it is the judgmental scapegoating that is turning off this generation of young adults according to an article out of Seattle last week. Blaming the public perception of Christianity, as espoused by the religious right, for the stark decline in those identifying with religion, the article discusses a poll and a book entitled American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, which:
makes the case that the alliance of religion with conservative politics is driving young adults away from religion …. Among the conclusions [of a major survey] is this one: “The association between religion and politics (and especially religion’s intolerance of homosexuality) was the single strongest factor in this portentous shift.”
Twenty somethings are walking away from the church, the article concludes, because of a skewed “public perception of religion as largely socially conservative,” and the perception of religion as homophobic is especially responsible for the growing percentage of “nones.”
An unrelated poll out last week suggests similar conclusions, and correlates with this blog’s recent theme of suggesting that conservative Christian policies are part of the problem of gay bullying and critically low self esteem for many young gays.
Most Americans believe messages about homosexuality coming from religious institutions contribute to negative views of gays and lesbians, and higher rates of suicide among gay youths, a new poll reports … Americans are more than twice as likely to give houses of worship low marks on handling the issue of homosexuality, according to a PRRI/RNS Religion News Poll released Thursday (Oct. 21).
After a recent spate of teen suicides prompted by anti-gay harassment and bullying, the poll indicates a strong concern among Americans about how religious messages are impacting public discussions of homosexuality.
Once again, there is a significant gap between the attitudes of younger versus older adults which mirrors very closely the higher percentage of “nones” among young adults.
Nearly half of Americans age 18-34 say messages from places of worship are contributing “a lot” to negative views of gay and lesbian people, compared to just 30 percent of Americans age 65 and older.
I’ll close by repeating the words of a young woman spoken at the ELCA Church Wide Assembly in 2009 (CWA09),
“Give us honesty,” she said. “My generation is turned off by what they see as hypocrisy in the church. ‘Love your neighbor’ is on the lips of the church, but a cold shoulder is what my generation sees.”
I think this might apply more to the younger people but I have a feeling that I am not the only grandmother who is feeling disillusioned with conservative organized religion. It isn’t uncommon in any generation for the teen to thirty year old crowd to drop out for awhile but often they come back for baptism and Sunday School for their children.
We posted this article on The Christian Left.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Christian-Left/109200595768753
Join us!
What I question is whether this is a problem of “skewed perception” or of reality. I’m afraid we in the moderate/liberal mainline are the ones with the misperception, still thinking of ourselves as the norm. I’m afraid that American Christianity has been trending conservative for many years now and what young adults are seeing is pretty accurate. And in reality, of course, even mainline church membership tends to be considerably more conservative than the clergy or “lay activists” than work at church headquarters and attend national conventions. We all know, for examply, that a “pew vote” in the ELCA on gay clergy wold have gone down in flames. I think it would actually help if we in the moderate, socially activist wing of the church would finally admit that WE are the anomally (as was the 60s & 70s church we fondly remember); and that the norm in Christianity is theologically, morally, socially and politically conservative.
Doug I certainly do not know that the “pew vote” would have gone down in flames. There was recently a vote in my synod – rural, small town where they thought they could force a vote to leave the ELCA by voting on the question “Do you agree with the CWA vote” — weren’t they surprised when the result was 85 yes, 83 no.
What I know is that there are people in many congregations who have power and loud voices who bully and silence many “pew votes” so that they do not speak out. But get them on their own and you would be surprised.
@Doug Kings
@pastor joelle
I think you’re right about conservative Christians outnumbering progressive Christians. And that is precisely why many, especially the young, are taking the Mr. Bumble approach–if that’s what Christianity is, then Christianity is an ass.
But, I think Joelle is also right. Had the CWA09 resolutions been put to a membership vote, I think it would have been a very even split.
May I give one example of a “pew vote”? I once pastored a very rural congregation, located out in the middle of a bean field (literally), that said it was conservative and proud of it. Back when the ELCA wide Bible study began as the Human Sexuality Statement was being formulated, one member (a professional politician, by the way) got all upset and demanded a vote from the 10 member church council – with witnesses present. And, he was a witness. The 10 members were age diverse, gender balanced, and genuinely representative of the congregation. The council members had read the materials available and brought their Bibles along to the meeting. The upset member spoke against the study and stated his reasons why. The chief reason seemed to be that the Bible was perfectly clear on this subject and therefore no study was needed. Interestingly, he did not directly quote the Bible, as I recall. The vote was taken – witnesses present. All 10 voted to do the study, and to hold the sessions at times guaranteed to be accessible to all. All 10 council members attended every session. The upset person never did. He and his family ended up leaving the church. Later on, I privately asked a couple of the council members for their reasons why they had voted to do the Bible study. The identical reply I received, “Pastor, nobody tells me whether or not I should participate in a Bible study, I don’t care who they are!”
The professional politician had gambled on a “pew vote”, and I know he had furiously worked the phones for a week before the council meeting, and he lost completely. Though he was a self proclaimed conservative he seriously confused his own personal agenda with a genuine conservative insistence on studying scripture to help discern God’s will. The real point was to study together, not to hammer out a political agenda. And that’s exactly what we did. Period.
um..this is news?
As a member of the generation that has come of age since 1990, I know first of all that I am an anomaly among my friends because I attend church regularly. Secondly, most people my age assume upfront that I am intolerant, socially conservative, and anti-gay because I go to church. When people my age think of “the church,” that is what immediately comes to mind.
I hear the concern about the intolerant, homophobic church from my children, who came of age after 1990 in the “liberal” church (ELCA). They’re not so keen about the mainline church, either; and few of their friends have connections with the church, liberal or conservative. I think the social conservatism is part of the equation, but we have to be honest that even progressive Christianity hasn’t really connected with digital natives.
I hear you, Ann. People are further shocked to hear that I’m a gay individual who plans on attending seminary. It blows their mind – “How can you work for an organization that spurns you?” It’s an uphill battle, but it’s one that’s worth fighting. The fact that the church is a body where we do love our neighbor is one that should be made clear. The gospel that Jesus Christ died for all believers is worth spreading.
I remembering talking with some “traditionalists” about our synod when it wanted to work on outreach to the youth but to disapprove of the social statement on sexuality and the ministry policies. My position was basically one of confusion – “How can we say we are going to work to meet these people (i.e. youth) where they are when our message is basically that they must accept our positions without any compromise.” I was told that there are many youth who want a traditionalist viewpoint to prevail and that most youth don’t necessarily agree that “homosexuality” isn’t a sin. I think that some of these people are simply deceiving themselves…even conservative youth see gay and lesbian individuals as deserving of respect and acceptance. Those people who don’t tend to be older people – and they might even be “liberals” in that age bracket. It’s an age divergence, not a ideological one.
Hi! Interesting reflexion here! Well, here in Portugal (south Europe) the problem is the same. I am an open minded Roman Catholic and our experience is the same. It seems that a “generation war” is starting arround the world. Youths need and want a different world than the older ones…
…But the problem is not only social justice… Worse than it is the fact that it seems that youths are really tired with traditional Church Services… So they attend such “Entertainment Conservative Evangelical Churches”. We have them here too, especially Brazillian ones… I think Churches should consider to modify their methodology. For example: music. Youths born with rock… And the Church gives Pipe Organs, Choirs, Smells & Bells!… Today I haven’t more time, but tomorrow I will continue discussing it!… Excuse me to some errors, I am not a native Engoish speaker!… Congratulations for your work!…
I heard a preacher from a conservative church exclaim and complain, “Evangelical young people are becoming more accepting of gay people because they have become acquainted with them and have become friends!” Imagine that, allowing one’s own experience influence one’s outlook. Example 3003 of why young people might not want to join the conservative church.
It is difficult to conclude with full confidence how many in the ELCA support the decisions of the recent churchwide assembly. I tend to doubt, however, that a majority is in disagreement with them. The synod assembly season of 2009 seemed to suggest both broad and deep support of the proposals that were later adopted by the CWA. 38 synods called for the adoption of the social statement, most often by wide margins. That was 38 out of the 48 synods that considered it. 33 synods memorialized the CWA to pass the ministry recommendations, out of 51 synods considering the question.
Policy change was supported in places some would never have expected. It was supported not only in the urban synods, but also in such places as Eastern Washington-Idaho, Montana, Central States, Arkansas-Oklahoma, Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast, Indiana-Kentucky, and Florida Bahamas.
In 2010, 40 synods considered the issue in one way or the other. Among those 40 synods, only 5 synods voted against issues related to the full inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the church. (Two of those 5 had mixed results, pro and con.) As for the ministry policies specifically, 28 synods either defeated a negative memorial (to rescind) or adopted a positive one. Only 3 synods supported rescinding the ministry policies.
I hear it said over and over again by some that the synod and churchwide assemblies are not representative of the “people in the pews.” I am finding fewer and fewer reasons to believe that is true. Both the depth and the breadth of the numbers we are seeing (from assembly votes at synods and at churchwide and from various national polls and such) are making it harder and harder to maintain that the 2009 decisions of the CWA are counter to the will of the ELCA in general.
Significant change is discernible not only among elected voting members but within all aspects of the church: congregations, synods, churchwide, laypeople, clergy, bishops, synod vice-presidents, WELCA, LWF representatives, Thrivent, the various lutheran youth organizations, church basement ladies, breakfasting men in mission, quilters, my own parents, and even the children of some who are actively supporting Lutheran CORE (I’m not naming names).
What happened at CWA is not the result of mere politics. Far from it. Social change of this sort does not happen that way. As someone who has been deeply involved in the movement for full inclusion, I can tell you firsthand that by far the biggest factor leading to the recent decisions has to do with face-to-face interaction between people of faith. Overall, the more that people have had a chance to discuss the issues with others whom they know and trust, and the more that people have had the opportunity to meet faithful LGBT people and their families, the more comfortable folks have become with the kind of changes that occurred in 2009.
Grace and peace,
Tim Fisher
If you read “unChristian”, you will find there are many, many Christian youth today who will respect and care for gay people, while not agreeing that the scriptures endorse same sex marriage or relationships.
The evangelical churches, which are growing, are not all a “mile wide and inch deep”. Many have great ministries, social outreach, and certainly the mainlines could learn something from them in terms of outreach.
Finally, Tim, I would disagree with your assertion above. The last survey of HSGT taken before the CWA 2009 showed 55% of laypeople opposed to the proposals for change. Assuming that was based on churches which DID respond to the survey, the actual results may have skewed higher.
We all know there is a divide between the laity and clergy on this….Doug Kings blog does a good jog highlighting this. A pew vote “would have gone down” because the exodus from the ELCA is not in churches leaving, but laypeople leaving in some synods in droves.
The full impact wont’ be seen until parish reports in a year or two. But I would still say at the very least this issue is a 50-50 split.
Hi!… Of course gays are not the specific problem within your adherents… But there are other problems? For example: How is your Services run? Are they nice to the young people?… And what about educational system of faith? Is the message passing effectivelly?… And Sermons, Short and sharp or long and boring?… I suspect that ansering those questions we have a better answer to the youth decline in Churches. Here, locally in my as open minded as possible RC Parish we did this reflexion, so we move on to shorter Services, shorter Sermons, Brilliant colourful Vestments, some modern and Ecumenical music, some from Taizé too and a better educational system based on professionalism of the “teachers”. And here we are with 500 people per Service in our 4 major Sunday Services, and incredibly, 80% of them in their twenties!!!…
And of course, all youth people have biology and some psychology at school nowadays. They perfectly know that to be gay is as normal as to be straight, the difference is that they are for any reason a deviation from the straight norm. Let them have a good and happy life!… And Churches do a bit more for ALL the baptized, gay or straight!… Thank you very much!…
To use a much loved phrase of present, I think we have a case of an “enthusiasm gap” here…those who are strongly against it are going to respond. Those who are strongly for it are going to respond. Those who are apathetic aren’t going to respond. Those who strongly disapproved outnumbered those who strongly supported, roughly, 5:4. I’m not saying that the results aren’t necessarily representative of overall disapproval, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect, by my estimation, a strong vocal opposition to the policies. For all we know, the may be more people who support the new policies who didn’t speak up, sensing it was a lost cause anyhow. For so long their voices were muted and disregarded, why should another survey matter now? You can speculate, and what we’ve got here is this survey as empirical evidence. But it’s one survey filled out by those who were aware of, engaged in, and bothered by the new policies. Unless a census is taken of all ELCA members, you’re not going to know how things impacted the denomination. A voluntary survey hardly constitutes an accurate assessment of the sense of the church.
It would be interesting to know the numbers who left the Episcopal Church after this amount of time after their gay-friendly inclusive measures. I read today that roughly 1% +/- has left the ELCA. Is this number similar to, higher, or lower than what happened in the Episcopal Church? Many prognosticators have drawn many (appropriate) parallels between the two bodies in their “gay question,” and so it would be interesting to see hard and fast numbers related to the issue…how similar are really?
>>A voluntary survey hardly constitutes an accurate assessment of the sense of the church.>>
That’s exactly right, Daniel. Also, the survey in question was taken rather early in the game, relatively speaking. A lot of work was done by a lot of people to further the discussion.
And Jeff, a pew vote “going down in flames” (Doug’s original point) is different than a “50-50 split” (your point). Which underscores my point.
Again, it’s very clear to me that the more that people have had a chance to discuss the issues with others whom they know and trust, and the more that people have had the opportunity to meet faithful LGBT people and their families, the more comfortable folks have become with the kind of changes that occurred in 2009. THAT dicussion is what happened between the aforementioned survey and the CWA09. The synod assembly votes didn’t come out of a vacuum. Hearts and minds changed as a result of mutual discernment. That’s how it’s supposed to work, and to a significant degree, that’s how it did work.
@Daniel
@Tim
We will disagree about the assembly votes-they didn’t come out of a vacuum, but my observation, as one present and voting, was this: That many people were voting members who pushed to get elected there, had been voting members for many previous CWA’s, and I was one of a few first time CWA folks.
As to your comments, Daniel, about 1% leaving, I think you meant congregations, not people.
Far more people have left than congregations. Whether it is 5, 10, or 25% percent, no one will know for several years as the process of annual reports always lags a year. So next February reports, which won’t be published until 2012, will give us the first indicator, but not the last.
Also, the number of congregations leaving does not reflect congregations split or divided on this issue. In our synod, two substantial and larger congregations have split in half, in one case the pro-ELCA folks kept the property, in the other they did not, but in both cases the membership loss is fifty percent plus. In our synod alone there are 10,000 ELCA members who have left in congregations that have voted to leave, this doesn’t include those not reported , those who have just walked, or in divisive situations.
Jeff,
There were many who pushed to get elected for CWA09 who did so in order to vote AGAINST policy change. Many of those too, were not first timers. I know this because I have been to three CWAs, and so I recognized them from previous times. So
this sort of thing cuts both ways. And, actually, there were quite a number of first timers at CWA09. I don’t rememer the percentage, but it seemed quite healthy, to my recollection. The percentage received applause when it was reported.
And, again, the CWA votes were corroborated in the votes of many synod assemblies (a majority, actually), both in 2009 and 2010. These are not perfect measures, obviously, but they do support the claim that the larger portion of ELCA members are okay enough with the changes.
@Tim
For the sake of the ELCA, I do hope you are right. The reports on the ground indicate otherwise. Having served in the East, South, and Western US, I have a lot of friends who are parish pastors and Bishops in those areas.
And the reports they give about the staggering numbers of laypeople walking away and churches in conflict does not seem to jive with what you are saying.
Besides the very valid and important issue that voluntary responses to a study document do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of ELCA members (it not being a scientific sample and survey of opinions), there is also another important distinction to be made. Too much shouldn’t be read into the 55% number, I think. It may be that a fairly slim majority of the ELCA would have chosen not to change the policy, but that survey, if we assume it is accurate, does not translate into the number of people who would be upset by the change. Those respondents would include (perhaps in quite significant numbers) people who would not choose to change the policy but can certainly live with a new policy, or learn to live with it without great difficulty. On top of that, without greater detail on the data behind the supposed 55% that Jeff cites, it may be hard to tell exactly what idea they are reacting to. That is, can we be confident that they were actually responding to the question at hand (can we allow congregations to choose to call partnered gay and lesbian pastors) or might they have been answering a slightly different question (would I want to call a gay or lesbian pastor to my own congregation) or responding to the significant misinformation out there (with suggestions that a gay or lesbian pastor might be forced upon a unwilling congregation)?
As to people leaving congregations, I cannot deny that some congregations will see some significant membership losses. But there will be many (even most) that will be largely untouched, with only a family or two, if that. It’s only anecdotal, but the decision was almost entirely a non-issue in my former central Wisconsin congregation. I don’t think that there was any loss of members over the decision. If there were any, they were non-active members. This was not a particularly liberal or particularly conservative congregation. Might the ELCA see a 5% drop of membership over the CWA09 decisions? It’s possible. But I do find a 10% drop, much less 25%, quite unlikely. The scenario strike me as no different than the predictions, dare I say hopes, of a massive departure of congregations and the “reconfiguration of Lutheranism” in the U.S.
Jeff,
And what does “staggering numbers” mean? Like you, I have talked with a number of people from all over the ELCA. In fact, I have attended every Conference of Bishops meeting for the last 2 1/2 years or so, and so I’ve heard reports from every synod. There are surely stresses about folks leaving–no doubt about that. And it’s true that losses are greater in some areas than others. But the reports from the Conference of Bishops do not jibe with the term “staggering.” Perhaps you and I have different working definitions of that term.
@Mark C. Christianson
If you were a pastor in central Wisconsin, it may pay for you to look at what is happening in the ECWS of the ELCA. Recently 13 families joined the LCMC church in Clintonville. I understand that many of them came from a neighboring town that has a church that has decided to stay ELCA. You can downplay this all you want– but if you do , you may be hiding your head in the sand. The smaller churches in this area have left or are leaving the ELCA to join one of the conservative groups. What are you going to do about it except deny that it is a problem ?
In the November issue of the Christus Herald there is a list of 19 LCMC churches that were invited to get together Oct. 17 to share ideas and resources. All of these churches were in the East Central Wisconsin Synod of the ELCA and several neighbor each other. Since then at least 2 more have taken their first vote to leave the ELCA. It is expected that some more of the small churches may follow suit.
@Tim,
I don’t know how many times this has to be repeated..the COB is only reporting CONGREGATIONS voting to leave. Until annual reports begin to be filed in February, which is year old info, we won’t begin to have a clue on how many lay people have left. And really, it will be a couple years as the annual reports lag by a full year in real times.
What is staggering? I don’t know, it seems Jesus was concerned about only one lost sheep and not the many. Human feelings will say “good luck and good riddance”, and that seems to be the prevailing feelings….we don’t want you if you disagree. What is too much? One percent? Ten? Twenty ?
@Lilly
I don’t deny that there are people leaving the ELCA, of that some congregations may be hit significantly. But it is also true that there are congregations that are not being significantly impacted by this, and they are not just congregations that are Reconciling in Christ or strongly supporting changing ELCA ordination policies. Jeff is suggesting maybe even 10-25% of members are leaving. Put that into absolute numbers, and it becomes something in thhe ballpark of 454,000 to 1,136,000 members leaving. I simply do not find this a likely outcome, in the least. That is not hiding my head in the sand or downplaying the impact to some congregations and communities. It is suggesting that such a huge membership loss is something I don’t regard as realistically likely.
Last December the ELCA had a story through it’s news service about a congregation very near to where I used to live. It was a place torn by the decisions. The leadership wanted to leave, and one of the yolked congregations essentially shut out the pastor because of differences. The other congregation has stayed, although much of the council resigned, and yet there were others who stepped up to fill the void, people returned to mire active membership, and the congregation was looking forward to a good future. Do the people there necessarily agree with the CWA decisions? I don’t know, and it is somewhat beside the point. And while the synod in NW Wisconsin has seen congregations leave or in turmoil, there is nothing there that would lead me to believe that that synod is seeing anything like the 10-25% membership losses that Jeff is suggesting. The bishop specifically said that there was nothing like that kind of fallout showing up by assembly time, although there have been losses in members.
What am I going to do about it? I’m prepared to argue that the CWA did the right and good thing, and that even if one doesn’t agree, it should not be occasion to tear apart the body of Christ, be it the ELCA or the local congregation, because it is our faith in God and his Son, Jesus Christ, that unites us, not ordination policies or a shared opinion about an ethical matter. But since these are not my communities, I’m not sure what I can do about it myself. But, in any case, I’m not denying that this is a problem for many congregations. It just isn’t a problem for all congregations.
Jeff ,
I’m sorry, but in my interaction with the bishops, I know for an absolute fact that they have been talking about (and reporting about) much more than just numbers of congregations. They are deeply concerned about the whole church: individuals, congregations, synods—-the whole denomination. And they talk about it all. All I am saying is that those expressed concerns (which include concerns about the numbers of individuals and families leaving) do not seem to fit with the notion of “staggering” losses. Anyhow, the term is yours, so you should attach whatever number you want to it.
You’re right–we don’t yet know what the real number is, not until the annual reports are filed and analyzed. That’s why I am uncomfortable with characterizing the losses as “staggering” (which sounds like a fairly extreme term, to my ears) until we have more concrete evidence.
Sure, anecdotal evidence is of some value–and that’s why I provided the anecdotal evidence from my experience with many of the folks who are in the trenches of conflict–in this case, the bishops. It’s certainly true that such anecdotal evidence might be misleading in this case.
As far as I’m concerned, one person leaving the ELCA because of the changes in ministry policies is too many. I have never said or felt “good riddance.” I am someone who has been deeply involved in helping the church change its policies. And I am someone who has felt a great weight since August 2009. I do not feel guilty or regretful that the change came—-not in the slightest. However, I feel “heavy.” That’s the best word I can find to describe how I feel. Even though I rejoice in the policy change, it has not been an easy time for anyone.
I invite anyone who is today concerned about the numbers leaving because of the changed policies: Tell me about the concern you felt BEFORE August 2009. Tell me about your concern for the numbers of those who left the ELCA, or never considered joining, because of what were experienced by many as the ELCA’s exclusionary policies and hurtful teachings? Folks have been driven away for years and years because they felt the ELCA (and its predecessor bodies) did not want them or wanted them only for their money and to boost attendance figures. And I ask all those who were concerned about THOSE lost sheep: How did you put that concern into action to change things for the better?
I grieve with all who leave because they feel uncomfortable with the changes. And I rejoice with all those who return or who join for the first time.
My concern with the churches leaving is that at present there is not a viable alternative ELCA church within driving distance for some of us. Surely there are ELCA churches but some of them are still in conflict or just trying to get started with strong community opposition. The cities don’t seem to be affected as much. It seems to be these large rural pockets that are affected the most. I am seeing a real influence of Word Alone in finally finding an issue they can use to pull out. Right now I am attending the UCC church . I find it a more or less neutral alternative in that most of the members of the LCMC church here don’t realize that the UCC went through the same conflict several years ago. Besides, they are full partners.
@Tim,
I respect your sentiments. I would suggest before CWA we did have a policy that welcomed all to churches. We had a policy that welcomed gay pastors, if they were celibate, as their single heterosexual counterparts who are pastors are called to be.
What changed was that the church, based on a simply majority vote, changed a substantive policy without a 2/3 margin needed to call a pastor, build a building, or leave the ELCA as a congregation.
I went to MN fully believing if it passed by 2/3, I would accept it, while still disagreeing, but accept it. After seeing the hijinks of the church council and everything that was done to push it through by a simple majority, I can respect the fact it happened, I don’t respect the way it happened, because it was a highly political move, not one that came from the grassroots.
If a parish pastors pushed something he or she knew half of the congregation opposed, and pushed it for 20 years, he or she may get it passed, but don’t whine and bellyache when half your church leaves or quits giving. That is what has happened on a larger level.
As far as the lost sheep, I have worked in establishing a feeding ministry in South Africa, in the inner cities, and establishing the largest Latino ministry in the ELCA, as well as an AIDS ministry. All prior to last year, and continuing to this day.
@Jeff
I promise you that LGBT people experienced the pre-August 2009 policy as explicitly unwelcoming, and most/all of the LGBT folks I know who were ELCA members prior August, 2009 belonged in spite of the ELCA’s attitude about LGBT people.
I also only have anecdotal information regarding changes in membership, but my small church has added 25 members since CWA 09, and 6 or so additional people who attend services and participate in other ways but have not joined the church. This is around a 20% increase for us. Some are coming from totally different church backgrounds, while others are formerly inactive members of the ELCA who decided to join an ELCA church again. So take from that what you will, I guess.
As one tries to sort out how this is all shaking out, I believe that the Project Lift initial survey stats, published in July of this year, speak very well to where people are and what they want to see from the “big” ELCA going forward. This was a nonpartisan, inclusive invitiaion for feedback and I’m surprised I have not seen it referenced. It is interesting in both what is said and NOT said as repsonses to some of the questions. Invitations to participate in the survey were run both in the Lutheran and on the ELCA website. Would be interested in comments.
I found the info on the ELCA site under “WHO WE ARE” then you have to drill down through office of the Presiding Bishop to get to the Project Lift info. It is a download on the bottom of the page called – Analysis of Research [July 28, 2010) http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Office-of-the-Presiding-Bishop/Plan-for-Mission/LIFT.aspx
Jeff,
You say “hijinks.” So I guess now you feel privileged to call the integrity of the council into question.
I am so tired of this type of wreckless talk. I withdraw from this thread.
>>I am so tired of this type of wreckless talk>>
Not to mention reckless spelling. 😉
There is no doubt the impact of the CWA decision has been significant and can’t be measured simply in the number of congregations that have left the ELCA. I think you have to take a look at the number of individual’s that have left congregations and the financial impact as well. We are seeing a downsizing of Churchwide headquarters and staff as a result; synods are eliminating bishop’s assistants and are trying to get conference deans to do more of the work. The CWA decision was inevitable once the voting power switched from rural to urban and a majority of the seminary professors, pastors, and seminarians advocated for changing the ministry policies. The problem is that a lot of conservatives can’t live with a “big tent” view of things and demand “purity” in the ranks. So, we have lost a lot of conservative lay people, pastors, and congregations. It’s just the way it was going to be if the CWA voted to overturn the ministry policies. I’m a conservative/orthodox pastor that is staying, but I was at one time very liberal theologically. What has been lost in all of this is the mission of the church and you can’t put numbers on that reality.
As for young people being turned off by the church, especially because of social conservative views on sexuality questions–somewhat according to this logic, the UCC should be transforming into a potent player on the American religious scene. They certainly are going after the “liberal” minded folks, but surprise….most of these techno driven youths want nothing to do with organized religion. The new religions of video gaming, on-line porn, and rabid following of pro sports especially the violent gladitorial sports of NFL football and ultimate fighting seem to have their rapt attention at the moment, especially the male segment of the demographic. Interesting thought–all of these phenomenon are post 1990 and really only came into deep “play” in the culture in the late 1990’s. Any connection between this and the 30% “nones”? Anyway, I don’t think it’s all bad news because I forsee if the church got its act together there will be a lot of opportunity to reach these people down the road. Just some probably useless musings on my part…..
You know, I’ve said this here before and I’m a little amazed that everyone keeps forgetting it…..perhaps you are all quite fortunate to have experienced none of the horrific fallout of this recession, but I can state unequivocally that the dismal economic situation is a MAJOR player in this whole scenario. To completely ignore that reality, and claim that the ELCA’s financial shortfalls are due solely to the CWA decisions, is not being honest. They are BOTH players here – not simply one or the other.
As far as younger people not flocking to the UCC – the unchurched people (of all ages) I speak to are turned off by church, period. The people who call themselves Christian and who manage to get close enough to a microphone on a regular basis are seen as representative of all of us – and if I were in those unchurched folks’ shoes, I don’t think I’d want to get involved either! Between that and the usual cultural lures, it is indeed a tough sell.
@Tim
The church council was constitutionally correct in allowing a simple majority, because Visions and Expectations was not a part of the constitution. However, many widely expected this vote to be two -thirds. Why? To call a pastor is at least two-thirds, to leave the ELCA is two-thirds, any significant decision is a two thirds vote in the ELCA.
However, they ignored the advice of COB in expressing a desire for a two thirds vote….and after talking to several council members in MN, it is my understanding pressure was applied to ignore the COB and go with the simple majority. I am not sure who applied the pressure, whether that was other council members, the PB, or someone else. Of course, no one thought through that a simple majority (with a final vote of 561-445) would divide the church and be more harmful than the two-thirds vote.
That to me shows that the Council ,rather than listening to the bishops of the church, was either weak willed or allowed themselves to be swayed.
Now, to be fair, the COB were given little power when the ELCA was formed. If you are going to have bishops, give them some sort of teaching authority.
But I stand by my assertion….politics was occuring at the highest level.If a pastor pushes an issue for twenty years in a parish, bringing it up every annual meeting, and knows that half the church opposes it , why is he or she surprised when it does pass by simple majority that half the church leaves or quits giving?
I had several folks in favor of the changes in 2009 tell me they voted against them for the unity of the church and because the two thirds vote was not applied to the most significant decision in the past decade in the ELCA.
@ Mary
No doubt, you are correct ,it is both the recession and the CWA. However, it is interesting that except for three bishops (NW Minn, Southeast, and Pacifica) , the rest of the bishops have attributed all the decline to the economy alone and not even mentioned the other issues.
The other thing I find fascinating is that the treasurers report at CWA said “despite the recession, things are going pretty well and better than expected, although still tough” Within six months that mantra changed quickly.
I suspect the people in this culture are continuing the trend of embracing the privatized view of religion. If one ever notices the number of FACEBOOK entries that extol the person as being “spiritual but not religious”, one could get a clue to this. I really don’t know what that means other than those people don’t attend religious services. All it does is leave me then wondering what exactly is “spiritual”. I also suspect there is a growing number of people that now classifies themselves as nones that are deists; people that hold to a vague view of “God” but not really worthy of worship or their time. I agree with them on THAT actually. I don’t think a deist God is worthy of “worship” or even bothering with.
I agree that many young people are rejecting organized religion, but I’m not at all ready to say this is the “fault” of organized religion. In my mind it is what it is. It makes sense because most of their parents have had nothing to do with the church or very little contact with it.
Dear Jeff,
I note that your response provides no evidence of “hijnks” undertaken by the Church Council (CC). “Hijinks” was your word, and you have provided no support for it.
The problem with requiring a 2/3 vote on “any significant decision” is that it becomes nearly impossible to define what “significant” means, and thus it’s impossible to mandate when the 2/3 standard should be invoked. Yes, there are certain provisions in our constitutions for when 2/3 is required—most notably, for social statements and major ecumenical agreements between the ELCA and other church bodies. But ministry policies are not among those provisions. A 2/3 vote is ALSO not required for policies about adopting budgets, evangelism strategies, stewardship campaigns, and a whole host of other policies and actions that profoundly affect the ministry of the ELCA.
To say, as some have . . .
“Well, everyone KNOWS that the ministry policies regarding gay and lesbian ministers are a huge deal—so of COURSE they should require a 2/3 majority to change them”
. . . would be to abandon the governing rules that we have committed to as a church. It would deprive the majority (that is, the simple majority) of its fundamental right under Roberts Rules to take actions that do not automatically require 2/3s to take. You can’t just take away that right, no matter how compelling you think your reasons are. (It probably isn’t even LEGAL, in the secular sense, although I am not 100% sure about that.)
Now it should be noted here that, under Roberts and our governing documents, churchwide assemblies can vote to require a 2/3 standard for something, but they have to do so by a 2/3 vote. This is standard Roberts, and it is sound parliamentary practice.
To set a precedent that a general feeling that something SHOULD require 2/3, and have that sentiment somehow rule the day, rather than allow for the existing rules to so govern, is dangerous.
It should be remembered that Vision and Expectations and Definition and Guidelines for Discipline (the policy documents which had previously banned the rostering of partnered gay and lesbian ministers) were enacted by a simple majority vote by the church council. In other words, the parliamentary standard for ADOPTING the policy in the first place was a simple majority AND it was done by a legislative body lower than the CWA. So, if anything, since the action was taken by a churchwide assembly, that action was held to a higher standard than immediate, historical precedent had established.
A correction: the Church Council did NOT ignore the advice of the Conference of Bishops (CoB). In reality, the CoB did NOT provide advice on this matter, although there has developed an oral history dedicated to this notion.
What really happened is this: the CoB took a straw poll in an executive (i.e. secret) session. There was no will on the part of the CoB to use the results of this straw poll as advice to the CC. Had the CoB wished to provide such advice, they had the privilege and the ability to do so. They did not exercise that privilege. The straw poll was taken simply for the information of the bishops themselves; they wanted to know what each other was thinking. But, for their own reasons, they did not wish to influence the views of the CC, even though they had every right to do so—that’s why they did it in secret session.
What happened then is that somebody leaked a story about the CoB’s straw poll to somebody else, who proclaimed it loudly on the ALPB.org website, complete with a specific “vote” count. Bishops who were at that executive meeting reported that no actual count was taken; the report of the specific vote count is completely spurious.
Jeff, you say that “pressure was applied to ignore the CoB.” Then you go on to say, “I am not sure who applied the pressure, whether that was other council members, the PB, or someone else.” Well, it seems to me that other council members are exactly the ones who SHOULD be expressing their views about what they think is best for the church. The only “pressure” that any CC member can apply to another CC member is to express their thoughts and convictions. I presume that such would also apply to the Presiding Bishop.
The CC members and the PB are elected leaders of a 4.5 million member denomination. Of course they should express their views to each other. Unless you can substantiate some sort of UNDUE pressure (not sure what form that could possibly take)—and I strongly suspect you can’t—then your words in this matter continue to be reckless.
To be sure, there was so-called “pressure” applied throughout the 8-year process. And before then. And it will be applied in the future. Sure, folks on all sides of the issue (including bishops, churchwide staff, other clergy, and other laypeople from all imaginable affiliations) applied pressure. Expressing one’s views and exerting powers that are constitutionally granted—and in some instances and contexts, confessionally granted—is exactly how decisions should be made. Of COURSE there were “politics occurring at the highest level.” We shouldn’t expect or want otherwise.
Grace and peace,
Tim
@ Jeff – I think you would agree with me that for anyone to say that a decline is due to one issue alone, and no others, is engaging in head-in-the-sand behavior. My bishop is one who will acknowledge both realities, but that is also because we have been hard hit due to a pocket of ultra-conservatism in one geographical area of our synod.
I should also mention that within said pocket, most of the ELCA churches had been vocally opposing the ELCA on whatever issue struck their fancy, so their leaving was no surprise; indeed, some people who had relocated to other synods, when they heard of a particular parish voting to leave, said “we thought they left years ago!”
What has been affirming to me is seeing what many, many parishes – both in and having left the ELCA – are doing in their communities. The harvest is indeed plenty.
@Tim
You are woefully ignorant of facts and history, Tim. The evidence is plain in the minutes for the past five years of the ELCA church council.
The ELCA Church Council decided at its meeting Nov. 15-17, 2008 , in Chicago to recommend a simple majority vote at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly on recommendations from the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality and the ELCA Church Council regarding the rostering changes.
The Constitutional and Legal Committee of the Church Council had voted unanimously prior to the meeting, with some abstentions, to recommend a two-thirds vote on all resolutions or memorials that relate to the subject of the social statement on sexuality, including the rostering proposals. The committee gave four reasons for recommending a two-thirds vote:
1. It sets a clear rule for all matters and heads off potential confusion and ambiguity.
2. Since the social statement needs a two-thirds vote all matters relating to it should also require a two-thirds vote.
3. If the council wants the Churchwide Assembly to move toward communal discernment, then a two-thirds vote helps move the Churchwide Assembly in that direction.
4. The Church Council (and Churchwide Assembly) will have to deal with the rules anyway, so the committee’s recommendation was a starting point for discussion.
During the council’s discussion of the committee’s recommendation, an amendment was offered to lower the bar from two-thirds to 60 percent, but that amendment was overwhelmingly defeated.
Next an amendment was offered to delete the two-thirds rule, thereby making it a simple majority decision. After much discussion the council approved the amendment 19-10, with one abstention.
Council member Mark Helmke, from San Antonio, Texas, then offered an amendment to restore the 2005 Churchwide Assembly two-thirds rule, which applied to changes in existing ELCA policies (the 2005 rule was narrower in scope than the two-thirds rule recommended by the Constitutional and Legal Committee).
A council member requested a written ballot (not normally used) for the vote on the Helmke amendment. The amendment was defeated 18-14 with two abstentions.
The Constitutional and Legal Committee did very good work. The committee’s arguments for the two-thirds rule were articulate and logical, and the committee demonstrated great care for the well being of the ELCA.
However, a clear majority of the ELCA church council stated it wanted the ELCA to approve of rostering practicing homosexuals as soon as possible — this was stated in the discussion — and voted for a simple majority rule even though the decision flies in the face of all the council’s other priorities.
Politics and pressure? Hijinks? You bet.
At the very least, a leadership out of the touch with the pulse of the ELCA, and doing what it only wanted to do.
Hope that enlightens you.
Blessings,
Jeff
@Jeff
Rather a judgmental and self-serving conclusion, Jeff.
That the elected Church Council exercised its discretion and rejected the recommendation of a committee is hardly “hijinks”. Frankly, it is despicable behavior for the so-called “loyal opposition” to act disloyally and attempt to delegitimate the actions of the church wide assembly (the ultimate legislative authority of the church) and the church council (the penultimate legislative authority).
But then, you really aren’t the “loyal opposition” are you? I note that you and your cohorts have successfully led your congregation out of the ELCA. Save us the moral high ground bluster; your view didn’t prevail, and your response is to take your ball and go home, sniping at the constitutional processes of the ELCA as you go. Sour grapes.
I do remember Jeff saying that only a handful of people in his church would vote against staying in the ELCA. Turns out that just over 150 people voted to stay in the ELCA. I hope he’s more pastoral in his attitude toward those people than he has been here.
That should read “only a handful of people would vote to stay.”
@Ann
And for those 150, very few are leaving the church, in fact probably less than ten. And yes, we are pastoral, and it was a respectful process. I am having coffee with several of them next week. Don’t tell me how to run a parish, especially one you have no experience with or knowledge of.
Out of 3600 members, 150 is a very small portion.
@Hobie
Do “cohorts” include 800 laypeople and a ten person task force with no clergy on it that made the recommendation to leave? Spare me the usual bluster about clergy “leading” people out. The fact is, you can’t deal with the large percentage of laypeople opposed to this.
If a 15 month open process with six forums, a task force, and other input is “taking our ball and going home”, then maybe you want to note our parish has taken the longest time of any to date in deciding to leave, including a four month cooling off period where there was no discussion at all.
@Jeff
The name is “Obie”.
The fundamental disagreement I have with your repeated comments is that you mistakenly judge the actions of CWA09 by how many leave rather than the inherant justice and morality of the decision. Sort of like blaming Lincoln and the abolitionists because the south seceded.
@Obie
Ah, got ya. We are the bad Confederate racists and you are the good Yankees who are pure.
Gotcha.
Jeff,
You write: “You are woefully ignorant of facts and history, Tim. The evidence is plain in the minutes for the past five years of the ELCA church council. ”
Yes, I agree the evidence is plain.
Unfortunately for your case, I am not ignorant of the facts. I was in attendance at all those meetings you reference. And I have the official record of the meeting in front of me right now. From the evidence that I have before me, and from my time spent with the coucnil, I believe the narrative you offer about the council discussion and activity is not fully accurate. I will address the inaccuracies below.
First, however, let me say that one of the problems I see with how you are arguing your case is that you keep changing your bases. Earlier, you had asserted that the council “ignored” the Conference of Bishop’s “advice.” Well, as I explained earlier, there was no official advice offered, and so there was no ignoring of it.
Now you are bringing out a new argument to our discussion, about how the council did not follow the Legal and Constitutional Committee’s advice. But what really was the nature of that committee’s advice? Page 6 of the “Report of Actions of the Church Council (November 14-17),” which is an official record of the council’s work, reads as follows:
“The Office of the Secretary and the Legal and Constitutional Review Committee proffered these rules, not as advocates of a particular point of view, but primarily to clearly frame the discussion.”
In that spirit, three members of the Legal and Constitutional Committee voted to forward TWO different rule options to the floor of the full council. The committee provided TWO versions of rules-language regarding what it would take to pass the ministry policy recommendations: one that called for 2/3 majority and one that called for a simple majority.
(Yes, the remaining two committee members abstained. They abstained because they really didn’t think it was entirely helpful for the 2/3 vote requirement idea to go to the floor of the full council–but they also didn’t want to vote against open discussion on important topics. What you have here is essentially split vote among the committee.)
Jeff, you accurately present the arguments that were given in favor of imposing a 2/3 vote requirement. Certain members of the Legal and Constitutional Committee, as well as other council members, provided that argument.
However, you do not accurately present the argument of those who called for the simple majority–including arguments provided by those who were on that same committee (the abstainers, apparently). These arguments are recorded in the minutes, and yet you leave them out of your depiction of the meeting.
You wrote, “However, a clear majority of the ELCA church council stated it wanted the ELCA to approve of rostering practicing homosexuals as soon as possible — this was stated in the discussion — and voted for a simple majority rule even though the decision flies in the face of all the council’s other priorities.” That is simply not true. Only ONE member of the council made that particular argument. Others gave different arguments. To thoroughly detail those arguments would take up too much room here (if anyone wants to know what those arguments are, please email me individually–or else look at the ELCA minutes). But, quickly, here are some of the reasons for going with the simple majority:
1. The fact is that never before had an assembly adopted rules so broad as to require a two-thirds vote on “anything related” to a particular topic.
2. The original rostering policy banning partnered LGBT clergy was passed by a church council operating by simple majority, rather than a churchwide assembly requiring two thirds. Therefore, to be consistent with precedence and thus with fairness, a simple majority was best.
3. Other historical precedents: at CWA07, policy change required only a simple majoriy (it didn’t pass, but the simple majority was the standard). For CWA05, the recommended changes included bylaw changes, so they automatically (constitutionally) required a 2/3 majority (the council in 2005 was very clear in making that distinction between a bylaw issue and a non-bylaw issue and the voting standards requiring to pass each category).
Jeff, you continue to fail to demonstrate that undue pressure or “hijinks” occurred. Regardless of what the Legal and Constitutional Committee may have recommended, it is up to the full council to consider the committee’s recommendation and to decide what it thinks is best for the whole church. The committee doesn’t represent the full council, and even that same committee was split 3-2. It is not “hijinks” to move in a different direction than what a committee suggests. It happens all the time.
It seems rather off the mark to label the process and the decisions of the council as “pressure” (which for you seems to mean “undue pressure”). Following your implied logic, one could just as well say that the Legal and Committee was trying to exert undue pressure on the rest of the church council.
The council did its job well. Councilmember Mark Helmke, whom you mention in your earlier note, himself has said he is proud of how the council acted.
Grace and peace,
Tim
@Tim,
Thanks for your insights, Tim. You and I disagree about some fundamental things, and having spoken to several other council members, there are very differing perceptions on this history.
Which is probably why the church is in schism now.
I don’t disagree that people worked hard or did not do their work well. I do disagree that in a church where 2/3 super majority is needed to call a pastor; where 2/3 is needed (twice) to leave the ELCA as a congregation, indeed, where 2/3 is needed for any significant decision, that this did not call for the same.
Reality is that many who were for the changes voted against this because they knew it would splinter things. I spoke to several voting members who wanted to vote yes but voted no because they believed the process was deeply flawed.
But enough. We agree to disagree.
Blessings,
Jeff
Jeff,
>>where 2/3 is needed for any significant decision>>
No, 2/3 is not needed for all significant decisions. There are significant decisions made every year about budgets, mission, stewardship, hunger, disater relief–all sorts of things, some of which have life or death consequences for some, and yet we make these decisions by simple majority.
No doubt there are others who think the process was flawed and so voted “no” when they would have rather voted yes. But there were also some who voted yes who would rather have voted no, but they felt they didn’t need to impose their own views onto others by continuing limiting the ministries of LGBT people. In reality, there was all sorts of reasons for how people voted.
And I don’t “agree to disagree” with you about your earlier accusations of “hijinks.” I disagree, plainly and with significant evidence. You haven’t even come close to justifying your claims.
If there are so many who think the process was flawed, and you have talked with these many people, one would think that you could come up with some good evidence about the flawed process. So far you have not.
If your argument was simply that a 2/3 vote SHOULD have been the standard, that’s one thing. Reasonable people can disagree about that matter, regardless of their views on same-gender relationshps. But you haven’t left your argument there. You have gone further to say that the result stemmed from a flawed proces, one that inovolved undue political pressure and something you have called “hijinks.” I think you conflate your views about the result with your views about the process–which is a logical error.
Tim