The Lutheran Core Convocation has come and gone. Was it a big wind or a burst of hot air? Apart from red meat speeches that rallied the troops, the actual substantive accomplishments were de minimis … the much ballyhooed question of schism in the ELCA was postponed for a year.
Oh, the Core leaders are grandiose enough, calling for a “reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism”. Ahem. They aspire to a free floating synod that includes ELCA members, congregations, even synods. And LCMS folks too. Do they expect the ELCA to share autonomy with them? The LCMS? Or, are they merely going to be an organization like WordAlone has been for a decade, building membership lists and holding conventions and sending out newsletters but in reality a toothless lion? For all its holier-than-thou bluster, how much real influence has WordAlone wielded in the ELCA since the network came into existence?
Some have left the ELCA with more to follow. With each defection, the conservative influence within the ELCA diminishes proportionately.
Or, does Core think that their hyperbolic rhetoric and name calling is the way to win friends and influence people? Or childishly taking their football and going home by withholding financial support?
Speaking of the financial boycott, what is the moral or theological justification for that beyond pure power politics? True enough, Core can inflict pain—financial, spiritual, and emotional—but can they heal? Where is the churchmanship?
We all have our biases, and I certainly have mine. Thus, my ears hear the call to uphold the Law as legalism; the call to uphold the scriptures as literalism; the call to “speak the truth in love” as judgmentalism; the call for reform as reactionary; the call to withhold funds as petulant. More law and less gospel. More judgment and less grace. Exclusion not inclusion. To my Core readers, I apologize, but this is what I hear in your shrill voices. If this is not your reality, know that it is your appearance.
I have been referred to as “not a Christian” from members of my ELCA congregation, because of my support of the social statement. It breaks my heart that talk of leaving the ELCA is rampant in my congregation. I may have to find another place for my husband, son & I to attend.
Kelly, you and your family are in my prayers.
And in mine, too, Kelly. I’ll pray for all of us!
I can’t even begin to tell you what I have been called by the “pro-statement” folk. I certainly have been told I’m not a Christian and a hard-hearted $%^%&$ because I don’t see it your way. I’ve had my fill of judgment and exclusion among you “enlightened” folk who think knows more about God and what the Bible really means than us stick-in-the-muds.
I understand Obie sees us a shrill. How does that compare with his appearance as self-serving and snotty? Until you see that it is a profound crisis of conscience for us,(you don’t have to agree)you will have no understanding of where we are coming from.
By the By. I don’t see any reference to the Core leaderships’ call to leave anger behind and appeal for prayer, respect and compassion for the opposition. I also see no reference to their statement that the future is uncertain and that for each individual leaving or staying in the ELCA could be equally faithful responses to this “crisis of conscience”.
@Crabby Apple Mick Lee
I”ll admit to “snotty” (I prefer “sarcastic”, “ironic”, or even “glib”). Not sure how “self serving” applies.
I think most progressives will accept your crisis of conscience and respect you for that. What bites are the suggestions that we are “unchurched” (per Nestingen), “unbiblical” (“The ELCA is the one that has departed from the teaching of the Bible,” per Core talking points), or “unchristian” (see Kelly’s original comment).
Finally, your last paragraph is appropriate and needs to be stated. I have great respect for Professor Yeago’s lengthy article which voices similar sentiments and which is the subject of earlier blogposts here.
@Crabby Apple Mick Lee
I am truly sorry that people have called youe “hard-hearted” and I do respect your crisis of conscience. I’m not sure what will happen with the ELCA but I do believe that the only way to move forward is to focus on what unites us (our mission & ministry) not what divides us. God’s Peace to you!
“…the much ballyhooed question of schism in the ELCA was postponed for a year.”
Is that the desire? A schism? Because, as you are possibly hoping for (from the tone of your blog), that is where this is going. Those of the Word Alone and Lutheran Core belief systems think enough of their faith that they are willing to leave the ELCA.
The scorched earth policy of the ELCA elitists will leave no other choice. The first step is becoming a Church in protest. My understanding is that most protesting congregations will give it a year. Is that too long for you?
Within a year, if our own congregation does not vote on withholding all financial aid to the ELCA, it can be expected that fully 3/4 of the congregation will quit giving in its entirety. Our uber-Liberal pastor says he will seek a new calling within the ELCA if we stop sending money to the synod. He knows why… 13 of the top 15 givers (who represent 80% of congregational giving) are not pleased with this assembly vote. Money talks.
The liberals in our church have been patient. They have endured. Impressive. Now is their time. Instead of finding another religious denomination that more closely reflected their thought, they decided to destroy the one they were in.
And in their victory, a schism. The Word Alone and LutheranCore types will move on. Congregations will disperse.
Happy, Pastor? A bit of schadenfreude, perhaps?
@Wettap
You misread this post if you think I promote schism; I lament the harsh language that resonates from Lutheran Core and WordAlone that sounds schismatic to me.
Who would you include among the ELCA elitists? The 55% of voting members who affirmed the ministry policies? The 2/3 who voted for the sexuality statement? Or, does it include anyone who disagrees with you?
Perhaps more than anything, it is holier-than-thou name calling that fouls the air. “Heresy” (per Braaten),”unchurched” (per Nestingen), “uber-Liberal” (per your comment).
FYI, I am not a pastor.
Obie: In fairness to all, the ELCA Sexuality statement did NOT endorse same sex relationships. Rather, it left it to individuals and their congregations to decide the question as their bound consciences dictate. It identified 4 specific, and inconsistent interpretations, all of which it held were reasonable.
The fact that same-sex proponents have touted the assembly as a “victory” suggests unity was not achieved, or not even a goal. But, the Statement does stress unity in the principle of liberty of bound consciences, which would include you supporting those who believe that only male-female relationships are acceptable for marriage, and even supporting Braaten, Nestingen, and others who also have bound consciences.
Heresy, unchurched, and uber-Liberal could be considered name-calling, but those adjectives also describe the thought process and the result. On one hand, the ELCA tells its members to be bound to their consciences; on the other hand, it offers them no guidance as to the proper method to train their consciences. The assembly did not church its members, it went against centuries of established teachings, and it adopted principle of theology that depends upon public authority’s approval/acceptance (“publicly accountable”).
Further, the fact that 2/3rds voted in favor of the Sexuality Statement does not mean that they favor same-sex relationships being treated the same as opposite-sex relationships. It is reasonable to conclude that a good share of the participants were simply voting upon the principle that national assembly should not dictate the policies for the locals. Consequently, a vote by a local congregation banning same-sex marriages would be consistent with the Social Statement.