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.
Hey Obie,
I know this does not have to do with the discussion at hand, but rather it deals with the “Friends of LCMC” blog. Did you happen to see that Michael Root is possibly ending his blog “Lutherans Persisting?” Very interesting.
Do you really consider it “good news” the ELCA ended the year in the black, when the only reason that happened was of massive cuts? 35 staff laid off? 7 million cut from a lean budget?
The ELCA press release itself points out giving is at an all time low, and most Synods for 2010 are cutting back or not increasing their giving.
This would be like a parish pastor saying “we let go of 20% of our staff, and our offerings stink, but we are in the black! Hurrah!”
This despite my personal observation as a CWA voting member that the Treasurer’s Report given in MN told us that despite the economy, all was doing “well” with giving.
Now, seven months later, it is at all time low? Oh, that’s right, it is the economy after all as we are now being told.
Just be honest, folks. The giving is way down. It is not the congregations leaving, but all those in conflict, and numerous laypeople walking.
The full effect won’t be seen until Q 2 or 3 this year. Let’s see how it is one year later.
So what do you want to see, Jeff? Will you be happy if the ELCA is in the red? Will that somehow prove your point?
The giving is way down because on average people are only giving 2% and not 10% and people who are angry over the CWA have withheld funding as a way of getting back at the ELCA. I’m sorry, “getting back” might sound harsh to you. How about “making a point”?
Let’s not forget that the economy is still in the dumps. Many people who would like to give simply can’t because they don’t have a job. It’s more than just those who didn’t like CWA 09.
Pr. Warren says that he will pray for us (ELCA). Just what will he be praying for? Our success, I doubt it, I think, considering his Sophomoric statment on the blog that we will be just fine without him, and his prayers.
“Getting back” isn’t just harsh sounding. It’s more like a violation of the 8th commandment, especially when used as a generalization. Speaking well of our neighbors, especially those for whom giving is an act of biblically bound conscience rather than of anger or even political protest, isn’t “spin.” One could say it’s confessionally correct.
Don’t give me the 8th Commandment talk, folks. I have heard enough false witnessing from your side as well as the ELCA’s side to last a lifetime. If you cannot take the log out of your own eyes it is pointless to continue this conversation.
I am a director of a non-profit that relies heavily on congregations for support. After a recent newsletter I received two letters from congregations stating that they have left the ELCA, and are now LCMC congregations. They asked that they be taken off our mailing list and not to expect anymore contributions. Yes we are a ministry of a local ELCA congregation but our outreach is to everyone. So maybe it would be helpful for someone to explain to me just what the M in LCMC stands for. Or maybe they don’t see drug prevention/education and recovery a suitable mission for them now that they have joined a church body that supposedly focuses on mission.
Years ago, the ECLA taught everyone about redirection when it told us to withold or redirect funds from countries that practiced , such as South Africa, discriminatory policies. (where I have visited and we have sponsored a church and pastor) .
While this situation is in no way similar, the concept of redirection has been used before to express approval or not of a situation.
LCMC churches, as do most churches, Lutheran or not, engage in outreach. They just may engage in different forms.
This is something the leaders of the ELCA should have thought through before pushing the actions through with a simple majority vote. Look at the anger on this blog. Look at the decimation of the ELCA.
Jonathan, “getting back” is a harsh term. Some faithful people anguished over where their dollars go, and feel they cannot go to the ELCA anymore.
This is the myth of this schism, the loudest voices get the press. Those who scream “bigots” of all who oppose these actions need to realize MOST of us are not bigots. Some of us, myself included, have gay friends. We simply don’t agree with this issue in terms of leadership in the church. I support civil unions. I don’t support redefining marriage.
On the other side, calling people “heretics” or “evil” is not helpful either. The point is that it is rather useless to cry about ministries suffering when the reality is the ELCA leaders pushed this for years, ignoring the last report that showed 60% of the laity opposed this.
Most leaders try to lead by consensus. If there is no consensus, you try another route, or you wait, or you build consensus. If a pastor pushes a vote at a congregational meeting and he knows half the people or more are opposed to it, why is he or she surprised they quit giving or leave?
Don’t be angry at most of the folks leaving, they are in agony and confused also. Be angry at the passive aggressive nature of the leadership of a church that didn’t listen to it’s own laity.
Obie-
I enjoy reading your blog and listening to your views and perspectives on issues. I am active politically and last year led my campus chapter of College Democrats, so I appreciate much of your work. However, many of us who feel it is time to leave the ELCA feel this for other reasons. I for one am leaving the ELCA because adjusted to inflation the ELCA spends 45% less on mission than they did in 1988. I am leaving because there are 63% less international missionaries than there were in 1988. I am leaving because the MPLS Synod of the ELCA, in which the Twin Cities has gained over 500,000 new immigrants in 20 years, is LESS ETHNICALLY DIVERSE than they were in 1988. The gospel that calls us to reconcile, redeem, and love has been nothing but words to the ELCA leadership, and I for one have had enough.
Jeff, I’m not by any means saying you’re a “bigot” or someone who is hateful – but I am certain lots of homophobic people have gay friends. You mention your gay friends a lot, but I don’t think your social circle is the issue here.
I also think words like “decimation” are a little much when discussing the situation that the ELCA faces right now. It’s clear that there are plenty of folks who would like to see the ELCA decimated, but I’m not sure that’s what is happening here. It’s also clear that there’s plenty of passive-aggressive behavior going on in this situation, but I’m not sure that the ELCA is responsible for most of it.
It’s highly misleading to suggest that the denomination did not “think through” these resolutions. Anyone who was paying attention would have been aware years ago that human sexuality and the issue of celibate gay clergy were up for debate. I was part of a group at my then-church that studied the sexuality issue a few years back. You are free to disagree with the decisions, and even to leave the denomination over it – but congregations and individuals had a great deal of time to study and discuss these issues and to offer comments to the committee.
I think you’re coming awfully close to bearing false witness in your comments here.
@Jeff
Jeff,
I concur with Ann’s rejection of your implication that the ELCA leadership forced an unwelcome decision on an unsuspecting membership. As Ann suggested, anyone who didn’t know that these issues were coming down the pike just wasn’t paying attention. The sexuality statement process dates back to 2001. If opponents of these measures weren’t able to muster sufficient delegates, don’t blame the ELCA leadership.
Ann,
Since the CWA, there has been plenty of violations of the commandment about false witness, on both sides. To state that that leadership wanted this to happen, supported it happening, changed the 2/3 majority to a simple majority ; and ignored over half the laity is not bearing false witness, it is fact. I was a voting member to CWA. The agenda was changed to make certain things happen. Ecumenical greetings from three churches that asked voting members to vote against this were shown only after the votes. The Oromo church, paraded as the poster child of the ELCA multicultural ministry, was on the stage Monday, by Wednesday, they were asking people to vote against the resolutions and then left the ELCA, along with most other mc ministries.
Do either of you want to comment on the fact that ARCUS gave a quarter of million dollars to groups committed to making sure that these measures passed? Sure, many ELCA folks were in favor of them, and many opposed.
But the reality is that there was a disconnect between the laity and the pastors. And the church is not a PAC. The groups that worked against the resolutions passing did not receive outside funding. Is the church now reduced to outside groups giving money and influencing it’s decisions?
@Jeff
No matter how hard you try and stretch the truth to fit your facts, you cannot delegitimize the CWA09 vote. “We was robbed by the umps” rings hollow.
What was the standard applied in the early nineties when the Church Council adopted the ministry policies in the first place? Simple majority. Thus, don’t twist the facts to suggest this simple majority standard was adopted solely for CWA09.
What should control the deliberations and decisions of the church? Some poll that you refer to or the actual actions of the duly elected voting members in assembly? Disconnect between laity and pastors? Sixty percent of the voting members were laity so don’t lay CWA09 decisions at the doorstep of overweening clergy.
Yes, Goodsoil was well financed and well organized. While Arcus may have been the single largest contributor, I was a small contributor, and I was there on my own time and my own dime as a Goodsoil volunteer. Don’t whine that your crowd was not able to generate the same measure of support.
The confusion on the part of the African immigrant Oromo churches is sad, but when one looks at what is going on in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa, it is pretty clear that Africans have a woefully homophobic world view, and the confusion on the part of Oromo becomes understandable.
I have always loved the argument that the poor, unenlightened African countries are so ignorant while we here in the first world are so enlightened. That is not very inclusive.
As for the Arcus gift, thanks for confirming.
And we all know that on probably the biggest single vote in the history of the ELCA at least a 2/3 majority should have applied. Do we call our pastors with a simple majority vote? No, 2/3rd. Do you build a building or make a significant parish decision with a simple majority? If you want division, you do.
Obie, I am not arguing it is not legitimate vote, the vote passed. I am arguing how it was done, and methods used.
Funny thing is, many people who wanted the changes and desired them saw this would split the church, and voted against them. Two of them sat next to me.
There was great concern for the whole church by many on both sides, not just getting what they desired.
And, the “poll” I referred to was the latest study of HSGT issued before the assembly. It was not a random poll, it was a comprehensive study.
@Jeff
My Oromo comment did sound condescending, and I apologize for any offense. My point was that there is a decidedly different attitude that prevails in Africa regarding LGBT issues, and thus it is hardly surprising that the Oromo church would hold views consistent with the overwhelming view on the African continent.
I can’t confirm the Arcus gift … I am not an insider and have no knowledge independent of rumors and hearsay.
How presumptious of you to suggest “we all know”. All righty then.
I also am aware of many voting members who agreed with the CWA09 resolutions but voted against them for sake of unity, as you suggest. However, I draw a different conclusion than you … that the support for revised ministry policies was much stronger than the 55-45% vote totals would indicate.
Unity or justice? For many, that was the dilemma. Some voted for unity, and I understand that, but others sensed that true reform seldom comes without resistance and awaiting full agreement without dissension is an example of “justice delayed is justice denied”.
Jeff, the dire situation facing gay and lesbian Africans is a human rights issue that should concern each and every one of us, regardless of where we stand on issues of human sexuality in the ELCA. You’re being very glib about what is literally a life or death issue for gay and lesbian people on the African continent.
And since this was asked in a comment directed to me, I don’t know, nor do I particularly care, where Goodsoil got its money.
I’m amused by the argument that outsiders somehow influenced the ELCA to do something that “we” didn’t want them to do. The discussion in many rural ELCA churches focuses on the notion that a few “big city” Lutherans want to ordain gay people while “we” in the small towns would never do something like that. Incidentally, the rural parish where I heard this point articulated most clearly had a closeted gay pastor for many years, who periodically snuck off to the “big city” to be with his partner. I’m highly suspicious of anyone who wants to divide people into ‘us’ vs. ‘them’, and I think all Christians should be.
Obie,
I completely understand about the justice delayed concept. I can understand that coming from people who have waited a long time for this to happen.
As for ARCUS, just go on their website, the list of donors is there. It is not hearsay. Also listen on gifts received by LCNA and Goodsoil.
My comment “we all know” sounded similar to the Africa comment, which is it sounded condescending. What I meant to say was that on important decisions, consensus is important. If consensus is not possible, then a 2/3 vote or more is desirable.
You may be correct the support AT CWA was highter than 55-45. My point was that for several years people worked very hard to get elected to CWA 2009, knowing this coming. I would argue that 600 laypeople chosen at random from the ELCA would have had a very different result. But I could be wrong,
I completely understand that by the “rules” this all passed, but it seems in light of the schism that is happening ,(which is not centered on churches leaving, but those in conflict and losing membership, which is where the real hurting is) perhaps there was a “third way”. Not sure how that might have worked, but we all know that creating winners and losers in simple majority votes is never good. Especially when those votes change 2000 years of teaching and joins a church body to less than 1% of Christianity that supports these changes.
I am actually glad the vote occured because there is clarity now on the fact that our leaders have supported this covertly for years. What saddens me is that wiser leaderhip could have handled this in a better way.
The past is past, and water is under the bridge. It is time to move on. And as much as I agree with you rehashing CWA does no one any good, I believe it also is helpful for blogs like yours to not chastise CORE or NALC or LCMC for leaving or thinking of leaving. Bound conscience was passed at CWA, so if people want to leave, or redirect, let them. If people want to stay and disagree, so be it. Even LCNA in their latest release supports that.
.
Jeff, your comments include a number of pieces of misinformation. For example, there was no change from a 2/3 supermajority vote to a simple majority. A majority is the standard operating procedures for just about any decision. There may be kinds of decisions we hope for a much greater level of support, but there are only a small handful of topics required by constitution or Robert’s Rules to meet the supermajority level for passage. Complaining that this was a mere majority vote is little else than trying to move the goal posts. There was a proposal made to change the vote from simple majority to 2/3. The proposal was not adopted by the Church Council when it proposed rules for the Churchwide Assembly. It was proposed again at the assembly and, as you well know, it was defeated by the voting members, who have the right and the proper order to adopt their own rules. Nothing untoward happened here. Nothing sneaky. You may not be questioning the legitimacy of the votes, but the line of thought does question the legitimacy of the result, and it is not helpful for anyone in the church.
The claim that the leadership pushed this through is also dubious. It’s worth remembering that when this process began in 2001, the leadership recommendation was to say to the synods asking for changes in policy and a human sexuality study, essentially, “thanks for the input, but no thanks.” It was the assembly itself that decided to proceed, eventually accepting motions from voting members to do so. These passed despite a lack of enthusiasm, and even outright opposition, from the leadership of the ELCA. The recommendations at the last assembly came forward because previous assemblies had asked the church to produce them. There is nothing in the ELCA’s constitution or other governing documents that would demand that this be a matter for the CWA, either. Vision and Expectations is a creature of the Church Council. The Definitions and Guidelines of Discipline is specifically assigned by the constitution to the Committee on Appeals and the Church Council for creation and approval, thus actually not a matter for the assembly at all. At any time since the formation of the ELCA, the leadership could have, in good order, “pushed” changes in policies by nothing else than a majority vote of the Church Council. Wisdom has prevailed and that has not been the path we’ve chosen to address these matters. The Council is now in the situation of implementing an Assembly decision, very much the opposite of being “pushed” through by leadership. The vote at the CWA was free for all the voting members to vote as they thought best, and they could easily have crafted some other action, as they did in 2001 when the process began.
As to the ecumenical greetings, they all occurred in the plenary sessions they were originally scheduled to occur. I would note that the video of the Catholic greeting by Bishop Gregory was played the day before the final consideration of the ministry policies. Since it was a video greeting, it could be presumed that the content was known in advance, and certainly the position of Roman Catholic bishops was no surprise. The president of the LCMS did bring his greetings on the day after the policy votes. As it was originally scheduled for the Sunday of the assembly, however, it can’t be said to have been changed. The position of the LCMS on this was hardly a mystery. For anyone that it mattered to, it would not have been difficult to find out that position. As to the reason for LCMS greetings being scheduled for Sunday, for you and I that would be nothing but speculation. For all either of us know, Jeff, it was simply because that was when President Kieschnick could be in Minneapolis.
Now that this issue has been “beaten to death”, I recall that in my former ELCA church in SE Wisconsin, the very idea of having a statement on sexuality caused a number of members to band together and form a WELS church just down the road from the ELCA church. The ELCA church had gathered in many Milwaukeans who had previously been raised in WELS or LCMS but those churches were farther in driving distance. This happened at the very beginning of the ELCA sexuality study some years ago and people have had plenty of time to be informed of what the study was about before the vote was taken in August. It isn’t that this was a new issue at all but most members didn’t pay any attention to it until someone hollered GAY. I am not especially a gay advocate but I know a couple of my kids friends with that life style. I do think they will be welcome in heaven where AIDS won’t be an issue and there is neither male or female. In this community GAY was defined as Pedofile. I think that is a whole other issue. Having a gay or lesbian pastor would take a little getting used to but then I don’t know what all the other pastors are doing in their spare time. They may be just as “sinful”. My son had a wonderful single man as pastor in his suburban Milwaukee church. He helped my son through some very tough times. He might have been ????? but I don’t care.
Lilly, those who oppose the CWA actions are , for the most part, not “anti-gay”. The issue is scriptural authority. One can disagree with a variety of things in life, like politics and social issues, and we don’t blast people as bigots or haters for different opinions.
There are some who are homophobic, no doubt about it. But for most , this is a leadership issue. Even though our church is planning it’s first vote to leave, and we have lost no one over these issues, as the 11th largest ELCA church we have gay members, and they are staying.
People on both sides of the issues need to be kinder.
Mark, the ELCA church council could have changed the vote to 2/3rd, and given that is the rule for called parish pastors and any significant decisions, they chose not to. Does a congregation vote on a building program with a simple majority ? Does a council or board seek some sort of consensus instead of division? Of course they do, if they are good leaders. As stated earlier, wise leaders seek consensus. Many people on both sides of this issue see a lot of flawed leadership in the run up to the vote.
Again, I don’t question the results, I question the process.
As to the CWA itself, I was there, I beg to disagree on your analysis. You may have been there and saw something different. From some of the youth telling voting members how to vote, to the sermons in worship , to the microphone order of who was allowed to speak from the chair, I observed something different. To say nothing of the fact that on significant votes there was not even a minute pause to allow people back into the hall who were in the restroom after three hour plenaries. When one key vote passed by exactly the margin needed and 45 people weren’t even there, that is not good. Let’s just say we agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Jeff, that may be in your church but in this NE Wisconsin church gay bashing was very much the issue and one member was even pointing out that her son had been assaulted by a pedophile teacher. A Sunday school teacher was worrying about what to teach the kids about homosexuality. There is one lesbian in the congregation that I know about and she does not bring her partner. I do not know if she is staying but her parents probably will. Yes, the pastors are saying it is about the authority of scripture. But with a WELS church and a LCMS church in this town of just under 5000 did the Lutherans really need another orthodox Lutheran church? I just think it is politics.
Lilly,
I totally agree with you that many in the current schism are saying mean things about gays, gay bashing, and the like . From the beginning, our leaders, including the laity and task force formed to address these issues made it VERY clear that was not the issue, nor to be condoned
Much as there are stereotypes about LCNA and Goodsoil, the same is true of CORE and NALC and LCMC. Yes, some extremists do push this angle. Yes, some do act immaturely.
However, I would say from what I have seen in my own synod, the vast majority are not that way.
What might be helpful is that for many, the decisions last August were not the central issue, they were the last in a long line.
Our task focused on the trends in universalism in the ELCA, which manifested itself in an ELCA study bible (since revised in second edition), which stated in Matthew 28 that evangelism is uneccesary and salvation is found outside Christ . Baptisms have been done at several of our seminaries in the name of “parent, child and spirit”.
So, please understand that for many of us this is not the central issue. You can go on our website and see in our documents regarding leaving that the word gay or homosexual never appears.
I agree with you that there is politics involved, but it comes from all sides, not just one side.
Sadly, some will use this as an opportunity to persecute a sexual minority. That is wrong, and our pastoral and lay leaders have made it clear hateful talk of any sort is unacceptable.
@Jeff
Jeff, yes, when a congregation takes a vote on whether to embark on a building project the vote requires nothing but a simple majority to pass. One might question the wisdom of taking such a proposal to a vote if getting a simple majority was in doubt, but there is nothing in ELCA constitutions (including the model constitution) or Roberts Rules that moves such a vote to a supermajority. Our constitutions only require supermajorities for a very limited set of decisions, otherwise its pretty clear that passage by a simple majority is the norm. Consensus is good, but holding out for actual consensus can be paralyzing. While one might hope for consensus, I would hope that neither your congregation or mine, nor their councils, would be held hostage to carrying out mission and ministry because there is a vocal minority opposing one or another action while the majority is ready to move ahead. The sudden requirement that this be passed by 2/3 is a departure from the actual constitutional norm for our church no matter how much you argue about wanting consensus decision making.
I stand by my position about the leadership pushing these decisions upon the church. That’s a claim that goes far beyond perceptions of the various things you listed at the assembly. I could not be there, but did watch almost all the assembly via the streamed video. I was paying close attention to the order of speakers, precisely because I feared that either side could claim an unfair treatment, and I just did not see it. Bishop Hanson was very careful to keep the pro/con pattern going. And to regard the youth speaking for changes in policy as some sort of unfair push is just ridiculous. They should be allowed to speak as they saw fit to advise the assembly in either way and they did. Whenever one gets up to stretch their legs, go to the restroom, get some coffee or whatever in the middle of a business session, there is a risk that a vote will come up while gone. An assembly that waited for a few minutes at every vote would hardly get anything done. One might also wonder how respectful that is to the assembly as a whole. The only vote that occurred that was exactly on margin was the sexuality social statement, not the ministry policy. There were appropriate ways for that to be addressed at the time (such as a motion to reconsider by someone who had voted for the social statement), but a perusal of the minutes show no indication that it was raised by anyone on the floor.
You keep saying that you are not questioning the result, only the process. But in either case, it serves to delegitimize the decision. And ongoing complaint about having only a simple majority to pass rather than a 2/3 supermajority, still strikes me as an attempt to move the goal posts. Now it serves delegitimizing the decision. Before the vote it stuck me as little else than an attempt to game the rules to ensure that no decision could yet be made.
As I am reading this back and forth, I just wanted to inject for a few things that I keep seeing pop up. The sexuality process didn’t actually start in 2000, it was begun prior to the merger. If you read “Living Together As Lutherans” you will read about some of the process in Chilstrom’s article I believe. 2000 was when the first document came out after a few years of discussion.
The other piece of information that keeps getting left out is when Hanson was originally elected Bishop, the issue of sexuality was placed at his feet. It was tabled for more study. More documents were provided for church study and there were workshops in synods with authors of the documents as the process went along. I attended several of these and listened and added. Congregations I served, went into conversations around the documents as well. It wasn’t a surprise, nor was the church leadership forcing the issue. In my Synod, the LYO asked for these studies and resolutions as well and they were brought to the floor.
Another thing overlooked was that at the 2009 CWA, a resolution was brought forward that all the resolutions must pass by 2/3rds majority. It failed by vote of the Assembly.
Finally, what is constantly overlooked is that the actual sexuality statement did pass by 2/3rds majority. I have heard it spun with “well it was only passed by 1 vote,” but let’s not miss all the other votes that were behind it. It passed by 2/3rds no matter how you look at it. It was the resolutions that passed by majority. It was the majority of the people there that passed them.
Let’s face it, there were over 1,000 people voting. When one takes a poll, the goal is to get 1,000 people to answer it because generally you are going to get an accurate account of the rest of the population. This is one of the first things learned when one takes sociology. Since there were over 1,000 people there who were elected by their synods and conferences, it would be an accurate representation of the rest of the nation. It was essentially a live poll.
I just wanted to throw these things out there. Whether they help or not, I don’t know, but there has to be some clarity with a little history thrown in.
Mark,
As I said, we will agree to disagree. I don’t believe consensus is possible in every vote, but certainly on key votes it is is important, in a congregation, synod , or denmomination.
Certainly, given the fallout of post CWA, where over 27 synods are down 30% or more in giving , and the rest save five down 20% or more, it might have been wise to go a different path. We will never know, but since one seminary is on the verge of bankruptcy, and a lot of layoffs have occurred at churchwide, given the fallout it seems searching for some consensus might have been a wise thing.
Momentous change is often fraught with painful fallout, especially when demagogues are willing to exploit fears and hard feelings. Case in point: the civil rights legislation of the Johnson administration followed by Nixon’s creation of “The Southern Strategy”, which got him elected and spawned Willie Horton a generaton later and birthers of our day.
Obie,
Respectfully, calling people demagogues who disagree with these decisions is as un-Christ like as the names people use to demonize those who favor the changes. It is uncalled for. The church stated people can hold differing viewpoints.
And it is actually very offensive to many African Americans to equate this issue with their struggles. There are some similaries, but most ethnic ministries are leaving the ELCA because whether you agree with them or not, they don’t equate skin color with sexual behavior.
Maybe the change is worth the fallout. Maybe some may think differently a year or five from now. But in any case, to not care for the “fallout” is not compassionate.
@Jeff
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I made no broad brush suggestion that folks who disagree with CWA09 are demagogues. There are an awful lot of serious and well meaning folks who may disagree with CWA09 but who do not act as demagogues. That appellation only applies to those who prey on fears and misunderstandings with hyperbolic overstatement and misstatement, who falsely scapegoat ELCA leadership and advocacy groups, and who seek to delegitimize the actions of a majority of voting members.
Clarification is good. That wasn’t clear from your first post.
I truly wish the ELCA well. It will be a long slog. As a parish pastor in a larger congregation who has also pastored medium and smaller congergations, I always think it is wise to count the votes and avoid split votes.
As the multicultural director said to PB Hanson at CWA, now you will have the “old white church you never wanted.”. Problem with that is not only are multicultural churches leaving in droves, so is the largest base of giving, those over 40 years old. That is not overstatement, sadly , it is fact. Leadership always must count the cost. And you may be right, maybe this is worth it. Time will tell.
@Jeff
I agree that it will take a lot of time and effort on the part of the synods and individual congregations to return to “normal” after the 2009 vote.
I still sincerely think that phrases like “leaving in droves” are overstating the situation to some degree, at least in the areas of the country where I have some familiarity with what’s happening in the ELCA. Undoubtedly – people are leaving. But others are returning, or taking a look at the denomination for the first time. Congregations are leaving, but new congregations are forming, often out of the acrimony that surrounds a vote to leave the denomination. As a younger person with friends of all backgrounds, I feel much more comfortable now being able to talk about my faith life and my reasons for remaining a member of the ELCA, and a few of my friends have started attending services with me.
As I said before, I think people would like to believe that everyone is headed for the door, but I’m not sure it’s true – you, for example, claim that people of color and older members are leaving. Others claim it’s all young, middle class Caucasian families with kids at home. It almost seems as though people are hoping that the groups whose absence they believe would hurt the ELCA most are the ones going.
Ann,
Not true at all. I wish no ill will on anyone, certainly not the church of which I have been a member all my life (ULCA and LCA before ELCA), one that has nutured five pastors in my family, and roots tracing back to the ministerium of PA in 1767.
Having had lots of positions on both churchdwide committees, youth ministries, and synodical postions, as well as being a CWA voting member, I have a pretty good sense of what is going on in most of the country. In some places, this is not an issue. In North Carolina, giving is down 30%, as it is in NE Ohio and SE Synod. In my synod it is down 30-40%, and Pacifica it is down 40% with up to 20 congregations leaving in one area.
I know in other areas, like pocekts of the east coast , midwest, and pacficic northwest, there is little or no fallout. But as stated, the number of congregations having voted to leave or planning to vote is not an indicator. Because the real fallout is in the congeregations in conflict, split, or where laity are leaving.
The full repurcussions will only begin to be seen later this year, and into the next few. If it is not bad, I rejoice, that means less congregations in conflict and the decisions mean only a small percentage have left. But if giving patterns are any indication, there is cause for concern.
Like watching a relative struggle with an issue or challenge, I am only emphatheic and sad about the situation. Some may rejoice, I don’t.
And no, not everyone is headed for the door. But even if only 20 or 25 or 40% leave, it is sad-for those remaining, and those leaving. But God is always up to new things.
Shortly after the CWA vote, we heard repercussions in my synod from the expected places, including some of the multicultural ministries. As of today, however, none of those multicultural ministries have even moved to a first vote. I believe only one is even talking; the rest have very pressing issues of mission that have taken priority. This issue is off the table for them.
The congregations that have either voted to leave or are in the process of doing so haven’t been interested in being in the ELCA for a long time. In essence, they’re finally getting their paperwork done. They’ve been moving in a different direction, following a more fundamentalist theology for many years. Some of them have been threatening to leave since the merger!
I also think an earlier comment bears repeating: it is inaccurate to ascribe the downturn in ELCA revenue ONLY to the CWA vote. Far too many people in our congregations are out of work, and it has affected budgets from one end of the church to the other. As “House of Brat” pointed out, if folks don’t have a job it of course becomes more difficult for them to give abundantly (if at all). The whole country is in a financial tailspin, but this too shall pass.
I would be interested in knowing if any of the ELM people are serving in rural or small town areas. There weren’t very many of them in the first place compared to the total ELCA. $27,000 is a lot of money for people in a small town to raise to give to benevolences in the ELCA especially when most of the members are blue collar workers and farmers. This was probably a more important issue than the actual ELM issue. I prefer to have a church body and will probably stick with a church that does but maybe the ELCA needs to tighten its belt a bit and make the executives pay their own plane fare etc. Our ELCA remnant is considering becoming a mission church but will the ELCA be able to continue to support us. I see the bishops flying all over the world to different missions and that makes good press. How are the mission fields surviving ? Is it even safe for white missionaries to serve in Africa ?
The sad reality is that missionaries are now being sent to the USA from Africa and Asia, etc. They see us as the real mission field. I was in Seoul, Korea a few years ago, and the church we were at was commissioning 20+ missionaries to America!
@Zach Thompson
Indeed… A friend from Australia was telling me about her churches work to send missionaries to St Paul.
I guess they know where they are needed. The reason I asked is because a few years ago the missionary daughter of our then pastor and her husband didn’t renew their missionary commitment in Aftica because of threats made against white people.
In this little town our neighbor across the road commented that with the new ELCA church starting , there would be more churches than taverns. I said YAAA.
I never felt safer than in a black township in South Africa. Our parish has established a feeding center that feeds 1000 kids a week whose parents have died of AIDS, and have built a church and support a pastor in a village near Mafikeng.
I agree, most countries are sending missionaries here, but I think that the global south has a lot to teach us about scripture, church growth, and where our focus should be . They are dealing with studying the word, dynamic worship, and helping people where they have the most needs.
I don’t see the churches in Africa and Asia where Christianity is growing exponentially dealing with navel gazing and endlesss social statements. The ELCA has just issued a new one on genetics. How many millions and how long with this one take?
I agree. There are some things that the church should stay out of until science and medicine have had a chance to work on it a while. Then it maybe needs to be a medical issue. If these things are misused, then say something. But do we really need a 100 page document written by seminar professors again ? All this does is get the uneducated public making up fairy tales about it or believing the sci-fi people. Now I really don’t know a lot about the many genetic things going on but many of them appear to be useful as an answer to birth defects, medical conditions , and disabilities. We have family members who could use some of this kind of help.