LCMC Pastor Tony Stoutenburg, who has been a frequent commenter here at times, sent me an email link to a press release from the SW California Synod of the ELCA.
The Southwest California Synod Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, meeting at the Synod offices in Glendale on March 20, 2010, voted to instruct Bishop Dean Nelson to call together the Synod Consultation Committee to address whether or not there is cause for disciplinary action against Lutheran Church of the Good Shepherd, Torrance, and Christ Lutheran Church, Santa Clarita, and the clergy of both congregations. The Consultation Committee is made up of ordained and lay persons elected by the Synod Assembly.
The Synod Council took this action upon learning that both congregations had recently voted to affiliate with Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC), while retaining their membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). The ELCA has recognized LCMC as a separate Lutheran church body since 2003 but has no official relationship with the denomination. For clergy or congregations to attempt to belong simultaneously to different denominations is precluded by the constitution of the ELCA.
What is the ELCA to do with congregations or pastors that attempt to be dual rostered with both the ELCA and LCMC? While dual rostering is permitted with denominations in full communion with the ELCA (Episcopal, UCC, PCUSA, RCA, Moravian, & UMC), the ELCA has no such relationship with LCMC. Clearly, the present attempt to dual roster with the LCMC violates the ELCA constitution, but the question persists—what is the appropriate ELCA response?
A follower of this blog from Florida reported in a private email that she heard LCMC rabble rousers openly suggesting to congregations that were unable to mount the 2/3 necessary majority to sever ties with the ELCA, that dual rostering was a convenient shortcut. “Dual roster then wait for the ELCA to kick you out,” was the gist of the message. Similar sentiments were expressed on the Friends of the LCMC Google group (which is now private and hidden from prying eyes like mine) based on the example of a small group of Pennsylvania congregations that were not LCMC but part of their own tiny organization.
To the LCMC, this process serves the twin purposes of accomplishing a departure from the ELCA without following constitutional procedures and makes the ELCA out to be the “heavy” and the poor LCMC church that is expelled the martyr. Is expulsion a classic Br’er Rabbit briar patch response? Is a reprimand or censure the better response in the case of congregations? What is an appropriate punitive response for the pastors, who often are the real culpable party anyway? Removal from the ELCA roster?
No, God bless you and see you later, votes mean things and I do not think it is possible to “serve two masters.”
When I read your blog, I started going through a whole bunch of different scenarios, but then stopped myself and thought “Why is LCMC allowing an ELCA affiliated church into their group?” The responsibility for action should not honestly be in the hands of the ELCA, but rather in the hands of the LCMC. I mean, let’s see what is really going on here.
A congregation can’t gather then necessary votes, so the pastor enrolls in the LCMC anyway? The LCMC’s responsibility is to say, “Did you take a vote yet?” After all it is what the LCNA does (I know apples to oranges, but…) It just seems irresponsible for the LCMC to take in a congregation that has not passed the necessary requirements nor encourage pastors to break their constitution. If the ELCA really wanted to play hard ball, they could sue or remove their tax exempt status and remove the violating pastor from the roster.
I don’t blame the congregation. This one would lie at the pastor’s feet or the council’s. It is the council’s responsibility to uphold the church’s constitution.
Reality is that the ELCA has allowed dual rostering for years. Many times left up to the discretion of synodical bishops.
We have pastors from other denominations serving on our rosters (notably, UMC and Anglican).In rural areas there have been LCMS pastors serving ELCA congregations in certain cases For years the ELCA allowed over 50 ELCA congregations to affiliate with LCMC. They were never sent letters or threatened, -until after last August, when Sec Swartling decided dual affilation should not be allowed because now the dual rostering is coming from conservatives, not liberals.
I am actually opposed to dual rostering….our congregation is voting to leave the ELCA in two weeks, we will not join either CORE or LCMC for the time being (remain non-affiliated) , and i think if you want to play you have to pay. In other words, if you are in the ELCA, contribute time, money, and resources, if not, then you should have the integrity to leave. Last year we contribute 140K. Not this year.
However, I find this highly ironic, that now that that shoe is on the other foot dual rostering is not allowed.
Is LCMC a church? I thought it was more of an association, akin to the Willow Creek Association (whereas the new – or eventual? – North American Lutheran Church is indeed, a “church”). If LCMC is simply an association, and not a church, then it makes sense that a congregation, laypeople, and clergy can be “members” of both, since being a member of an association is not against the polity or policies of the ELCA.
Chris, excellent point. However, the ELCA is treating it as a church.
I’m not sure that it makes good sense for the ELCA should treat this like a church. However, a few months ago I recall seeing some diversity of language on the LCMC literature and website about what they are. Sometimes they use “association” language, and other times I’ve seen more “churchy” language in the way they describe themselves …
Since I inspired this, I will comment here.
1. Neither the ELCA nor LCMC are “churches.” Read AC VII. Church is what happens when the people gather around word & sacrament.
2. The ELCA has had dual rostered congregations for 95% of its lifetime. There were 7 dual rostered ELCA/LCMS congregations from 1988 until 1999. Check out the Lutheran archives and see the article with a VERY interesting quote from then PB HGA. (I think it is the March 98 or 99 issue.) Since 2001, dozens of congregations have been dual rostered. Only since January has anyone made a stink about it.
3. LCMC does not tell its member congregations what sort of organizations they can belong to. Some are ARC, some are WCA, some are NAE, some are ELCA, I think one is still UCC. Our understanding is that as long as the purpose of the organization does not conflict with the faith statement and purpose of LCMC, we are not going to dictate, because it is the congregations that run the show in LCMC.
4. ELCA Secretary David Swartling issued a memo on 1/13/10. After I pointed out that he had released it the day after the Haiti earthquake, it was reissued on 1/19. 🙂 It is nothing more or less than a legal brief. (Swartling is an attorney by vocation.) The interpretation of the constitution in there represents a massive powergrab by churchwide and on behalf of the bishops. He comes very close to saying that synods and / or churchwide can dictate all kinds of things to congregations, and specifically mentions that they can demand benevolence money.
5. Finally, there is NOTHING in the ELCA constitution and bylaws that FORBIDS dual rostered congregations. The fact that they have always existed and no one in the ELCA has done anything about that is proof of the claim. Read Churchwide constitution C.9.02. This is a paraphrase of the Federalist provision in US Constitution Bill of Rights Article X. Swartling’s opinion notwithstanding, I would bet money that his interpretation would never stand up in court.
Those seven dual rostered ELCA/LCMS congregations? LCMS demanded that they choose one or the other, or be kicked out. (2 of them were not technically dual rostered, it turned out.) The other 5 looked and said, in effect, ‘If you’re gonna get a legalistic on us, we will leave.’
So now, after 22 years of dual rostering, the ELCA wants to imitate the tolerance of Missouri?
Ohhhhhhhhh-kay.
Now if someone has a process or LCMC-related question, I will happily answer. I have learned that it is difficult to debate theology on here when we come from such different places.
Hope you all had a blessed Easter!
Tony
7th paragraph, last sentence should read, “The other 5 looked and said, in effect, ‘If you’re gonna get all legalistic on us, we will leave.’”
I find it rather disturbing that the LCMC is quite critical of anyone who dares interpret things (scripture, their own bylaws) differently than them yet the LCMC has no problem interpreting the ELCA’s constitution or those of individual congregations.
You didn’t reach the 2/3 majority twice in order to leave the ELCA? No problem! Just get kicked out by joining the LCMC anyhow.
This type of behavior is a smack in the face to every voting member of a congregation. The constitutionally mandated 2/3 majority is in place to protect congregations for unilateral decisions from pastors and councils on such incredibly important matters such as affiliation. To circumvent that ignores the entire democratic process and voice of the church. If 2/3 is not reached, then that congregation has spoken. It does not want to fragment from the ELCA, and that vote must be respected.
While the LCMC doesn’t officially endorse such behavior, the suggestions are hardly secret.
It’s sad really. A Church should not prey on another to grow its rosters, and it certainly loses respect and credibility when its members and ambassadors actively try to find loopholes to thwart the voice of a congregation.
And yet Kelly, your congregation did reach 2/3rds and you have been complaining about it on here regularly. Is that also a smack in the face to every voting member in your congregation, since you consider 2/3rds of them nothing but dupes of your pastor?
I actually looked into this in the ELCA constitution several years ago while a member of the ELCA. Many congregations originally joined LCMC as a means of public protest. The ELCA chose to ignore them, chose not to listen, and now they choose to be like Missouri. Why are those congregations at fault? It is the ELCA that is changing.
@Tony Stoutenburg
Tony,
Since you are the unofficial LCMC voice here, I have a couple of questions.
Why would an ELCA church want to be LCMC also? What additional benefits would they receive? On the other hand, if a congregation’s sympathies lie with LCMC, why would they want to continue with the ELCA?
If, as you suggest, LCMC arose as a “protest” movement, isn’t that a significant distinction from prior cases where the ELCA allowed dual rostering? If anti-ELCA sentiment is a defining characteristic of LCMC congregations, why should the ELCA tolerate this persistent “thorn in the flesh”.
In some cases, as I recall the Lutheran article mentioned in at least one of the cases of the LCMS congregations 12 years ago, there are “bonds of affection,” if you will. One of the two congregations I served in Washington voted recently to remain affiliated with both. There are certainly a number of things that the ELCA does well, and some folks like to remain associated to support those things.
Also, as the conversation on here has shown, this is a highly divisive issue. It is splintering congregations. If the pro-ELCA faction in a congregation is ok with being in LCMC as well, and the pro-LCMC faction is ok with the congregation remaining dual rostered for the sake of harmony, why should the larger denomination seek to stir the pot. Romans 14:1ff fits in here. And I know that that is the situation at at least one of the California congregations.
Your wrote, “If, as you suggest, LCMC arose as a “protest” movement, isn’t that a significant distinction from prior cases where the ELCA allowed dual rostering? ” If that is the case, why didn’t they change the constitution at Denver in 99 after the LCMS congregations were no longer dual rostered? And is there no room in the ELCA for protest and disagreement? That is the implication of that paragraph.
But I find two of your phrases interesting, Obie. You wrote, “If anti-ELCA sentiment is a defining characteristic of LCMC congregations…” I would suggest that nothing is further from the truth. We stand for, not against. In fact, the press release demonstrates that it is the SWCa Synod that is Anti-LCMC, not the other way around.
And then you wrote, “why should the ELCA tolerate this persistent “thorn in the flesh”.” Why should the ELCA consider them such? You seem to be quoting Paul here. In doing so, are you saying that those who disagree with you are those you would entreat the Lord to relieve you of? Obie, they are brothers and sisters for whom Christ died.
Blessings, Tony
@Tony Stoutenburg
We have reached a 2/3 majority on ony the first vote. Contrary to popular belief, that firt vote is not the deciding vote. It is a vote to move forward to the second vote. (and in our case, the difference between 2/3 and not was as many votes as I can count on both hands.)
As you are well aware, until that second vote is held, a congregation is still fully affiliated 100% with the ELCA even if the pastors try to erase its very presence from everything in the building and newsletters.
In our case, the first vote was suddenly moved up and rushed through with a last-minute petition that was circulated a few weeks before the vote and many people who wanted to vote could not be present. It was on a weeknight as college finals were about to start. It seemed awfully convenient that this rushed vote was scheduled on a night when it was nigh on impossible for many young adults to still very much call our church home to vote.
Is that a true 2/3 vote or a rush job to skew a stacked quorum that the Anti-ELCA faction could use sway the vote.
That is why the 90+ days of discernment are so critical. It gives each voting member time to decide and for all sides to truly informed decision.
And since you are talking about my church, let’s talk about the exceptionally slanted campaign this has been. In our Easter bulletin, this is how the final vote has been phrased (bold emphasis mine):
So yes, there are those who want to think the first vote means it’s a done deal. Our own bulletin makes it sound like the only option we have is to leave.
Good luck, Kelly and God be with you in your struggle. Tomah is a smaller city and in smaller cities, there is a lot of political pressure put on businesses to conform . Here the wife of one of the local funeral directors was/is leading the ELCA group. Her husband was threatened that people would take their funerals to the other funeral home. (That was the rumor and I don’t know exactly where it started.) The wife of one of the local car dealers sat in on our meetings but is very happily going along with the crowd that went LCMC because it is her lifetime church. Some of the others who voted or wanted to vote to stay with ELCA are staying in the now LCMC church because of their businesses. It is not right but that is what happens. It is easier to go along with the crowd and pay lip service to what others are believing and doing than to make waves and lose a sale. So much for human nature.
Kelly, it seems that we may have another mutual acquaintance. An old family friend emailed me this weekend to get contact info for my mom. She is a member of GDLC. She was complaining that if some of them had not started pushing, you pastor never would have started the process.
As for her opinion of your faction … well’ I’ll just say that the slings and arrows are flying both ways. Truly sad.
When GLC formed here 6.5 years ago, and they just left an existing congregation and formed a new one, GLC member with businesses likewise reported that they lost business. When a new congregation in a nearby town formed, I met with them and chastisted them that it shall not be so among them. When the organist’ husband at Calvary (ELCA) died, the New Hope (LCMC) folks called and volunteered and ended up providing most of the dishes for the funeral luncheon. I hope and pray that more folks can behave so. I am shocked at some of the behavior of folks on both sides who claim to be holding up Christ, and yet do him no credit with their behavior.
As for the timing of the vote, I have no knowledge of that. I can tell you that most often when I have been accused of planning things in some conspiratorial fashion, that is the first I had thought of it. I’m just not that smart.
As for the bulletin announcement, I suspect that your church constitution probably says that at special meetings, only announced topics can be voted on; no other topics can come up. We might quibble on the wording of the announcement, but I suspect that that is the wording of the resolution. Imagine if someone who supported the ELCA skipped the meeting because it was just an affiliation vote. It sounds to me more like a disaffiliation vote, and as such, they called it that.
I do feel badly for both you and Lilly. Perhaps more for Lilly, because there is no alternative congregational home in her town. This is why I think the ELCA is so badly misguided to push to end dual affiliations. They are pushing for more pain, more disunity, more anger, and more brokenness within congregations.
blessings
Tony
@Lily I am just curious. You mentioned that the meeting was moved up. Was there the proper notification given to the congregation as outlined by the constitution? If not, the first vote can be declared invalid. The model constitution calls for the pastor to announce it for 2 consecutive Sundays and 10 days notice by mail. This cannot be done in a newsletter.
Back to the dual rostering issue. I am not a constitutional expert, but I try to keep up with reading it somewhat regularly. I remember three things that might be pertinent. The first was under the congregation heading. Doesn’t it say something to the effect that the congregation is ELCA and under the rules and guidelines set out by the ELCA? The second was under responsibilities of the congregation doesn’t it say that one of the things to do is give to the ELCA? Something like pledging its financial support for the life and ministry of the ELCA? The third thing is in the ELCA’s constitutional bylaws about relationships to other Lutheran bodies.
If 7 congregations/pastors were dual rostered, it was done with the permission of the Synod/Church council. New congregations trying to do that don’t. It seems simple. I know it feels like a rule change, but things have changed in the relationship to the LCMC. To me, the ELCA has just decided to enforce a rule that was already on it’s books. Whether or not it is fair is up in the air, but 10 years ago members of the LCMC weren’t trying to form a new denomination, as some members of the LCMC are doing now.
Most of what you have to say is true. Except,
Yeah, we were.
It doesn’t really pay for me to get back into this discussion. Everyone has a right to his/her opinion. Just remember, we don’t really know where God stands on this yet. One can quote this scripture and that scripture to back up statements. To me the phrase “The authority of scripture” has become a hiding place for pastors and others who don’t really want to admit how biased they are. The average blue collar church member isn’t going to realize that. The faithful are being told that theologically LCMC is identical to ELCA. Well, yes, and no. How many of them have gone on line and read the strict interpretations in Word Alone, LCMC, and Lutheran CORE writings ? I am not 100 percent with the ELCA in some of their statements either but I choose to go the route of inclusion rather than exclusion.
@Justin
I think your question was directed at me.
anyhow, I have a feeling the petition to move up the vote was just squeaking by to make it legitimate. I was out of state the week leading up to the vote and recall knowing about it for a bit before I left. But there is no doubt there was a rush campaign to move it forward. They petition was shoved in people’s faces as they entered the building, “here, sign this.”
I’m exhausted by the whole process. It didn’t have to be that way. There is no reason the church needed to be held hostage in all of this.
Sorry Kelly.
>>There were 7 dual rostered ELCA/LCMS congregations from 1988 until 1999. Check out the Lutheran archives and see the article with a VERY interesting quote from then PB HGA.>>
I believe Bishop Anderson was referring to dual congregations, not dual rostering of congregations. A dual congregation is one that is actually two congregations. The members of these two different church bodies have agreed to use the same church building and (usually) worship together. Each congregation maintains its own seperate roster and is governed by its own constitution.
A dual-rostered congregation, on the other hand, is really just one congregation, governed by just one constitution, with rostering in two or more church bodies.
This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but organizationally, constitutionally, and legally, the two models are distinct.
I believe Bishop Anderson has been quoted out of context on this issue.
@ Tim Fisher. If so, he was misquoted by the Reporter. But he seems to be referring to both kinds of congregations, since the article is about both. Of equal interest in the quote, not just the paraphrase that precedes it.
I was working from memory in my earlier references to this article. Someone had sent me the .pdf of the original article, and I have it on a different computer than I was responding from the other day. I have pasted it in full below. Some of the details are at odds with my earlier (from memory) posting. Apologies for that.
Blessings
TS
The Lutheran March 1999
Dual ELCA-LCMS congregations face deadline
By January 2000 they’ll have to choose or get the LCMS boot
Six congregations with ties to both the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America and the Lutheran Churchￋ
I’ll try the HGA paragraph…
ELCA Presiding Bishop H. George Anderson told the LCMS news
organ Reporter that dual congregations don’t pose a problem for
the ELCA, though official documents don’t provide for them.
“Concern for the spiritual needs of congregations sometimes
requires unusual solutions,” he said.
I just stopped over at the LCMC church a little while ago to give Obie’s book to the church secretary. I visited a bit with the pastor. He was busy typing up the new constitution for the church. I kidded him about making work for himself.
I think a lot of folks are missing the bigger picture. As I stated earlier, I have no problem with dual rostering, but if you allow it, allow it for all. I happen to believe a congregation not happy with the ELCA is better off to leave, and be honest about it, then to use a simple majority LCMC vote to protest.
What this all points out is that even WITHOUT the sexuality wars in the ELCA the future is multiple options ,both/and, not either/or. I clearly see in the not too distant future a Lutheran church that may (or may not) be affiliated, or associated, or a member of a larger entity like the ELCA or LCMC, but it may also be affiliated with Willow Creek, some other megachurch, or even an overseas association.
Twenty years ago the church growth guru Lyle Schaller said denominations are dead . He was laughed at. On the left, John Spong said the same thing.
New coalitions will be formed, some based on scripture, some on social issues, some around other things.
I don’t think that is a bad thing. But to think this is simply the ELCA/LCMC/CORE/NALC is foolish. It is much, much bigger than that.
I think you may be right Jeff. This small city where I live has at least 11 denominations represented . 4 are Lutheran including a small struggling group of ELCA holdouts that are thinking of trying to become a mission church. So far there is no group that tries to be interdenominational or non denominational. We have visited the local UCC church where my husband grew up. The old timers are holding out for whatever reason on letting the little Lutheran group rent time and space there. At the same time of the 128 members of the UCC church about 25 show up any given Sunday and there are 2-8 in the Sunday School. We heard that the Baptist church may be on the way out. Last week the Assembly of God, the Baptists, and the Evangelical and Free got together for a joint Easter service. The Methodists, UCC, and the little ELCA worshiped together for Lenten services. No one here though is ready to think beyond denomination for anything other than the Thanksgiving and Summer Ecumenical services. This town does well on cooperating with community charity things though without worrying about whether the hymn book came from Pilgrim or Augsburg. Maybe there is hope.
Obie,
Just wanted to let you know that we had our second vote this afternoon, and the motion to end affiliation with the ELCA did NOT carry. Needless to say, I am very happy, but we have lots of work to do to move toward healing the congregation as a whole as there were many upset people today. But as someone who was on the opposite side of the first vote I am glad we handled this vote with respect and dignity.
Kelly,
I will be praying for you and your congregation.
Kelly, you have fought the good fight and this one ended up on the side of justice at least for now. Give the healing time. It will probably take a couple months for the initial conflict to cool off. If there is a big enough group that want L.C.M.C they may decide to go for a church of their own. The L.C.M.C group at New London is now advertising for a part time pastor. They have enough people to form a church.
I had hoped that on that side of the state that people were a bit more liberal than the Germans over here. When my parents were still living, my husband would go trout fishing by Sugar Creek Bible Camp. I am glad your church will still be supporting them.
Wait, I am one of those Germans from the other side of the state 🙂 Grew up in Green Bay.
Sugar Creek is an amazing place. I can’t wait until my girls are old enough to attend.
@Kelly
Kelly,
Here is a link to a prior post that may offer hope and encouragement as your congregation moves forward: http://www.theliberalspirit.com/?p=1956. May God’s blessings be on your congregation and may the Holy Spirit light your way.
@Kelly
Oops, foot in the mouth. I am 1/4 German myself and my mom’s people would be fighting it out over at Edgar. I don’t know my cousins over there but I am sure there are probably some involved in that dispute. My sister is a Gays Mills Methodist and she hadn’t heard anything about any disputes in the Crawford, Vernon, Richland Co. areas of the ELCA. So I am just judging by Clintonville/New London German attitudes. The Iola and Scandinavia Norwegian Lutherans have long since gone LCMC. Have a good week in Tomah.
Incidentally, do we know if there are other instances of a move to disassociate with the ELCA passing on the first vote and failing on the second? My impression from my vague recollection of ELCA press releases on the topic suggests that this might be the first, or at least one of the first since CWA 09…
Obie, thank you for your dedication to the continued coverage of these issues.
Kelly, congratulations…I do think you may be one of the first instances of the second vote failing…at least from what I’ve read of the ELCA press releases.
My story is unlike any I’ve read online. Our female pastor announced last December that she was leaving the ELCA and really stirred up fear among the council members. To make a long story short – they completely ignored the church constitution and Robert’s Rules in a series of meetings. Any opposing voice was shut down. A CORE representative was invited to speak in January and was allowed to use the sermon as a bully pulpit. LCMC was presented as an alternative option. LCMS is not an option as they don’t allow women pastors.
After repeated requests of open forums were ignored, I participated in a small group to plan a forum to review what really happened at CWA. For my efforts, I (along with two other members) received a pastoral admonishment.
Letters pleading with the council to consider the feelings of ALL members were ignored and then published on the bulletin board as “hateful messages to the council.” We were told that all questions must be given to the council in writing. After doing so, none of them were ever answered.
Members opposing leaving the ELCA were told many times that they were not as important as the ones wanting to leave the ELCA and could be easily replaced.
After repeatedly bringing up the constitution and Robert’s Rules violations, the Council president told us the council would only be held accountable at a specially called congregational meeting. A valid petition was presented to recall and replace the council at a specially called meeting. The meeting was called to order, the president announced that he found the petition unconstitutional, and the meeting was adjourned. Again, no discussion was allowed.
They barely achieved their 2/3 vote at the first meeting but they’ll certainly achieve it again as most of the other 1/3 have moved on.
The synodical bishop is visiting on 4/20 but it’s too little, too late. He is allowing their first vote which was not held per the church constitution. He has not answered emails and letters from concerned members of the church. We supported the ELCA but feel that they did not support us.
It’s amazing how wicked people can act when property is up for grab. Also, many church members have been convinced that this is the only way the church can retain ownership of the church property. This particular church doesn’t even know where they want to go yet…they are just in a huge hurry to get out of the evil clutches of the ELCA.
I will continue to keep all of the churches in conflict in my prayers. However, my husband and I will be moving our membership to a non-Lutheran denomination.
@Ann
No, not the first. It is fairly rare. I think the numbers on failed first votes are something like 60 out of 210 (?) Anecdotally, I know of two or three similar situations.
Blessings
TS
There are a couple churches in this NE WI area that had voted to join LCMC but didn’t make the vote number to pull out of the ELCA.
The action of the ELCA council will either make this issue heat up again or put it to rest. When CORE gets its church organized there may be a new move out by those congregations that want a synod organization without the ELCA. Time will tell.
I chuckled last week when the LCMC pastor (still my church) was kind of stressed typing up the new constitution. It is better if he does it and gets it the way he wants it, but I was thinking “you asked for it”.
@Mona
Wow, Mona, what a story. If this were a political race, the media would be having a hay day. I felt that at my church it might be better to bring in both sides in the newspaper but I was overruled. Good luck with your situation. It does sound like you need to call the bishop to get some support for those of you who would rather stay in ELCA. My husband and I have been visiting the local UCC church. I am not sure it will work for me but it has given me a perspective to use in evaluating other churches. However, we haven’t resigned our membership in the LCMC church and until we do, we are still members.
Mona,
Your story almost echos mine. The vote was steamrolled through, and quite frankly, I think the leadership was surprised that they did not take the second vote.
All ELCA information had been removed from our church. The synod and churchwide bulletin inserts stopped making it into the weekly bulletins. We were denied a current mailing list. “Open forums” were nothing more than lectures from CORE and the LCMC where no debate was allowed.
Prayers to your congregation. If they barely attained 2/3 in the first vote, it can be defeated the second time around. The 2/3 supermajority is vulnerable. But there will be a lot of work to get the word out that those wanting to remain ELCA have an equal voice. They need to see the second vote through.
Hang in there.
LCMC is definitely provoking this for its own gain. I think the real losers will be congregations that end up in LCMC not knowing what they’ve gotten themselves into.
LCMC tries to be all things to all people — so straight-arrow traditional Lutherans are finding themselves standing next to folks spouting off theology based on their readings of the Left Behind series. Once the issue of gays and lesbians fade, they will probably find themselves even more shocked at who’s in bed with them.
That takes on deeper meaning when one is aware that LCMC has also become a refuge for pastors who have seriously violated their calls — on sexual, financial and ethical grounds — because of the very loosey-goosey nature of its organization and oversight.
My heart goes out to all of those congregation members who are being misled about this LCMC haven. It may very well be the right choice for some, but is certainly not a good solution for most who have looked in that direction.
@David
Thank you David. I am a retired teacher not a pastor but I have been thinking along those lines too. There are some pastors who have really studied the issue and feel that their churches would do better in LCMC. There is a pastor in my area like that. She has a “charismatic” church. There are others who jump in with both feet but not really knowing what they are doing. That is what I think is happening here at my (soon to be former) church. The congregation is blindly(?) following him. Time will tell how this plays out. This is a conservative church.