Here is the latest email received from the office of the ELCA secretary, David Swartling:
Here are the updated numbers on congregational votes to leave the ELCA: as of 12/7/10, 666 congregations had taken first votes to leave the ELCA. These 666 congregations have taken a total of 700 first votes. (As we’ve seen, some congregations have taken multiple first votes.) Of the first votes taken, 481 passed and 219 failed. 326 congregations have taken second votes (and one congregation has taken two second votes!) Of the total of 327 second votes; 308 passed and 19 failed.
Meanwhile, the silliness over the pending ELCA social statement regarding genetics continues. It was previously reported that this potential social statement has some Dakota farmers erroneously concerned that their farming practices are criticized by the statement. A Fargo newspaper has been in the firestorm. Following a newspaper report that a small rural ELCA congregation had decided to depart the ELCA based—in part—on the pending genetics social statement, a letter to the editor from that congregation denied that the genetics social statement was important for their decision, notwithstanding an earlier quote from the congregational president to the contrary.
So, who is fanning the flames? Who is spreading the misinformation? The usual suspects.
Many of those involved in agriculture think the ELCA should focus on its mission of preaching the Gospel and making disciples of Christ rather than telling them how to grow crops.
So says Lutheran CORE spokesman David Baer on the CORE blog, referencing a discredited Dakota Farmer magazine article.
Meanwhile, even as Baer and CORE criticize the ELCA for “focusing on political activities and social statements,” NALC bishop Paull Spring joined the efforts of Archbishop Tim Dolan, President of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, to oppose marriage equality in the political arena. The President of the Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America (a dissident splinter group from the Episcopal Church) also signed on to the effort.
CORE gave birth to its own denomination, the North American Lutheran Church (NALC) in August. Since then, over half the posts on the CORE blog continue to be harsh criticisms of the ELCA. One would think that the business of starting a new denomination would be their core focus going forward, but it seems CORE just can’t break their habit of ELCA bashing. Is antipathy toward another Lutheran and Christian denomination their core reason for existence?
The ELCA does not speak through a blog, but regularly issues press releases. In the 75+ ELCA press releases since the formation of the NALC, there were countless reports of ELCA missions and ministries but nary a word criticizing CORE.
666 isn’t that the work of the antichrist (NALC)?
I’ve been reading blogs for about 5 years. During that time, I’ve come across a number of “Lutheran” blogs that are definitely from other groups besides the ELCA, not CORE and not NALC, that also seem to focus on the perceived evil of the ELCA. So ditto to your sentiment: Aren’t they pro something? If they are Lutheran, why not be for spreading the Gospel rather than bashing other groups?
That’s been one of my frustrations. I’m a member of a large ELCA church whose pastor got up this past Reformation Sunday and gave an inflammatory and generally inaccurate sermon about various “heresies” of the ELCA. I’m assuming that he’s fanning the flames to push us toward a vote.
I wish that the ELCA would have more materials out there to counter the CORE efforts. I’ve been very quiet about the issue in general, hoping that the discord would die down and we’d get back to working toward unity. Now, I’m in the distasteful position of having doing the politics thing to counter our two pastors who have attended all the major CORE conferences.
Instead, I’d like to be spending my time on spreading the Gospel.
For how long will we be assuming that congregations leaving the ELCA are doing so because of CWA09? This is not intended to question the current assumption, but rather to ask how long this assumption will be valid.
Re: Tyler’s comment
Are there available figures that would show the rate at which congregations were exiting pre-CWA09. Are you aware of such figures, Obi? Surely they must be available somewhere. Is Chicago making these figures available for public consumption as a result of CWA09 or have they always made public the figures on a monthly basis?
Bravo – I too have seen this trend. So much of the online presence of so called “confessional lutherans” is to confess they aren’t affiliated with the ELCA.
It needs to be pointed out that in those congregations where there have been conflict over this issue, all are at fault. It is not just those wishing to leave. In the Grand Canyon Synod, two “pro-ELCA” factions forced votes because they knew speeding up the process would cause the vote to fail and hopefully rid the church of the traditionalist.
In fact, the opposite happened, the vote almost passed in both cases and the folks forcing the vote have now left to form churches meeting in schools.
All have sinned and fall short. Thank God for grace.
Yesterday, we may have seen the precursor to discussions to come pertaining to ELCA affiliation in my congregation at the annual meeting to approve the budget. Normally this meeting is perfunctory, but yesterday there was heated discussion about what the role of benevolence should be at the parish level. One member, because the “national church” isn’t representing us as a “Christian organization,” stood up and urged us to cut our benevolence and to “hit the national church where hurts most: in the pocketbook.” It was encouraging to see even some of the most conservative members of the congregation speak in support of maintaining current benevolence levels, especially in times of hardship and despite our disagreements. When making a motion to amend the benevolence figure on the budget, it was only moved, but not seconded. The budget passed with a near unanimous vote – one dissenting vote from the individual who wanted to cut the benevolence. It really was encouraging to see that my home congregation, at least at the time being, is going to stick it out and make it go, despite having a collective bound conscience that goes the other way than what is perceived to be the majority view in Chicago (that is, if you go by a raw majority view of a collective bound conscience). I believe this is what was meant by respecting the bound conscience of all. It doesn’t mean we are going to give up our points of view…instead, it means we are going to agree to love one another with our differences in Christian love. Christ says, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
@Eric
The term “confessional lutherans” traditionally has been reserved for those who acknowledge that the Holy Scriptures as THE source and norm of all Christian teaching and the collection of works within the Book of Concord as being the correct expositions of Scripture.
So there is little wonder then that those who are confessional (as defined above) are attempting to distance themselves from a “Lutheran” church which reduces Holy Scripture to something that is superseded by sinful human experiences and the Lutheran confessions have been reduced to a collection of historical documents that have little relevance to today’s expression of American Lutheranism.
In a couple of congregations in my Synod, the process has been slow because sometimes the pastor is “pro-ELCA” while some members are not. The pastor does not want a vote, but constitutionally a gathering of members can call a vote. This is not widespread mind you and some went no where, but I have heard rumblings of some such measure.
I personally would think that after a year and a half people would have decided by now whether to stay, go, or whatever. I just had a member leave a few weeks ago citing the decisions of the national vote a year and a half ago as the reason without sitting and talking to me which I found interesting, but that was the reason.
So, yea, it still weighs on people’s minds. I think the Genetics document is just and excuse from some people. Have you tried reading that thing? I have farmers in my congregation and they could care less.
@Justin
I have no idea how prevalent this is, but do not assume that all congregations become aware of the news at the same time. A congregation of the ELCA near here had their pastor retire 2 years ago. Reportedly, the synod office got a call from the congregational president asking for the phone number for the ALC District office, because they could not find it in the phone book. (I am told that is a true story.)
@Pastor Cary
Some “Confessionals” distance themselves from Missouri and/or Wisconsin for similar reasons.
A colleague pose an interesting question recently: can protestantism sustain a denomination larger than 1 million in the long run. Since we have no popes, the Bible is “open to interpretation”, and the societal trend is toward decentralization, is the day of the huge denomination over?