Conservative ELCA antagonists continue to rail about the ELCA decision making process in order to delegitimize the church wide decisions of 2009 (CWA09). The ELCA is too democratic and egalitarian say some. Failing to note the inconsistency of the argument, others claim that ELCA members and congregations are subservient to an autocratic regime in Chicago, disdainfully dismissed as “Higgins Road”. Over a thousand voting members, the actual electees from around the US who voted at CWA09, are alternately criticized as dupes of a well-organized and financed gay lobby or as independent spirits who followed their own whims rather than the will of their constituents (the “voting member” rather than “delegate” terminology argument).
Two weeks ago, I attended the NE Minnesota Synod assembly, and I watched and listened to the debate over a resolution to conduct a synod-wide polling of the attitudes of members and congregations regarding CWA09. If the ELCA only had a direct democracy, the sins of CWA09 would have been avoided; let the people decide! Then, this past weekend I listened to the debate over a resolution at the SE Minnesota synod assembly that called for synods to have a veto over the decisions of CWA voting members regarding social statements. A House of Lords to reign in the unbridled actions of the House of Commons?
Which is it? Too much democracy or not enough? Too hot or too cold, baby bear, or just right, Goldilocks?
Hm. I’ve never heard the too much democracy argument. I’ve always advocated for more.
A few thoughts.
I have mixed feelings about the whole “church as democracy” idea, because our concept of democracy comes overwhelmingly from an American constitutional and political context. And while neither America nor the church are “pure” democracies where the people rule unbridled, the church’s form of democracy is bound by Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Opponents of the actions of CWA09 say that in the votes of August we ignored those bounds. One such opponent suggested to me that in the ELCA democracy rules to such an extent that a future CWA could vote to do away with the Trinity or atonement through Jesus Christ. I don’t agree with him, but the question of where and how our bounds – Scripture and Confessions/tradition – butt up against the “democratic” nature of our church structure is a valid one to ask.
Also, you’re absolutely right that the opponents of CWA09 can’t figure out if it was unbridled democracy at work or hierarchical shenanigans that resulted in the August vote. However, they are correct when they say that outside organizations provided significant funding and support to Lutheran groups organizing to change the pre-CWA09 policy. The Arcus Foundation ($200,000; $75,000; and $194,200 – this last gift shared with Reconciling Ministries Network within the UMC) and the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr Fund ($100,000 to LC/NA) provided significant funding for the efforts to overturn the previous policy, and The Human Rights Campaign provided training and other support (not sure about $$ however). I don’t know if Word Alone or Lutheran CORE ever received significant funding from non-Lutheran organizations, but I’m pretty certain that we on the Left would be concerned if that were the case.
It is too bad that the local synods or the local congregations didn’t get a chance to vote directly on this issue. We were able to send our opinions about the whole statement but that didn’t count for much. While I am somewhat liberal, at my age I would have preferred to have ELM continue to serve the churches that wanted them and to minister to the larger GLBT communities. Segregation, yes, but I also think it was common sense given the split it has caused in congregations. My son on the other hand thinks the whole vote is great but he has friends who are gay. My daughter who went through her ex husband’s transition to be a woman says No Way and that most of the homosexuals she knows are too mixed up to make good pastors.
However, it is over and done with and it looks like the only choices are to take it or join a split off group. I don’t like it but I guess I have to “lump” it.
Pingback:Can We Stop Talking about August? « Darthjedi's Blog
The vote is what it is. There will always be factions on the minority end of a vote that will complain about the nitty gritty of the democratic process but will support it 100% when the vote turns their way.
*believe me, I’m all to familiar with that on a congregational level.*
With a Churchwide body of, what, 4 million people, holding a vote of every voting eligible individual would be nigh on impossible. I guess I don’t have a problem with the makeup of the Churchwide Assembly. The laity is well represented as is the leadership. You have Lords and Commons in one voting body. But neither the Lords nor the commons carries more weight. Each synod is represented, and within the delegation there should be a cross section of the various congregations. Your representative may not be from your congregation, but your voice should be represented.
the orthodox alphabet soup (no offense intended. I’m acronym impaired, and all of the groups seem to be acronyms: LCMC, CORE, NALC, etc)can’t decide who to blame for the CWA decisions: the laity that had too much power or the bishops who had too much power.
But what is the solution? If the Churchwide leadership makes all the decisions, people will curse a blue streak that the Bishops conspired to hijack the Church, but if decisions are made by laity, then there will be complaints that the inmates have taken over the proverbial asylum.
Shall I tie the shoes too tight or to loose?
It’s not as though the CWA decisions were performed in an absolute vacuum. It wasn’t sprung on the Churchwide body at the last minute as 1,2,3 GAY! There had been a dialog for years leading up to this. Plenty of time to discern and gauge the opinions of the individual congregations, laity, and leadership to reflect upon.
It is not the system, it is the participants. Most people do not understand how the church works, they assume that it is top down, when in fact it flows both ways. Many of the things that happen within the church start from congregations writing resolutions to they synod assembly and then flowing up to the churchwide level.
I see flaws in all forms as long as the people in the pews continue to complain more then they participate. Synod Assemblies and in many ways Churchwide Assemblies are like family reunions. The same people, year after year. Once again who is to blame, not sure. Pastor’s are lazy and they know who say yes when asked so they ask the same people every year. Maybe we should ask that the same person can not attend a Synod Assembly or CW Assembly more then twice in a row!
We are as good as we try to be. BTW, I have served in a Presbyterian congregation; they are required to vote by congregation on churchwide issues. I did not see that system working any better, or worse than ours.
@Chris Duckworth
I have to admit, I’ve heard this argument before – about Goodsoil and LC/NA receiving “outside funding,” and I’m having a hard time understanding why it matters. All kinds of Lutheran organizations (Lutheran Social Services and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services to name two) receive grants from any number of funders, including secular sources. And, just to be clear: LC/NA did not “change” the ELCA’s policy on same-sex pastors; the voting members of CWA in 2009 did.
@Ann
You describe various church agencies that receive funding – including from the government! – for the social services they provide. LC/NA and Goodsoil are different, for leading up to CWA09 they functioned in (large) part as advocacy organizations within the ELCA, and the grants they received were largely for their efforts to advocate for change within the ELCA. They received outside funding to influence change inside the ELCA. In a discussion on democracy within the church, this is not an insignificant point to highlight.
I’m sure many readers of this blog – myself included – would go nuts if we learned that Focus on the Family provided significant funding for Word Alone or Lutheran CORE. Fairly or not, we’d call that meddling by outside interests.
[I’d be interested in learning how other efforts to affect change within the church – ie, to influence “internal church politics” – were supported financially by outside organizations. Was there an advocacy effort leading up to the ordination of women within the ALC and LCA that included significant support from non-Lutheran organizations?]
Obie, above, had rattled off a list of various claims made by the opponents of CWA09, suggesting that those claims are flimsy or without merit. For the most part Obie is probably correct. However, when opponents claim that LC/NA and Goodsoil received significant funding by outside organizations, they are correct. What value or significance, if any, we place on that fact is another story (the opponents of CWA09 clearly see a problem with this funding).
And yes, it was the voting members of CWA09 who cast the votes, not organizations such as LC/NA or Goodsoil (or Lutheran CORE or Word Alone, for that matter). But we have to admit that these organizations were significant for their advocacy and organizing efforts … efforts that influenced the democratic process that is at work within the ELCA.
Should the ELCA be more democratic? Or less? Gosh, that’s a tough question. Thanks for asking.
@Chris Duckworth
Since I’m not privy to the LCNA or Goodsoil budget, I can’t speak to how they spend their money but staff expenses for a full time executive director, promotional materials, and mailings would probably rank high on the list of expenditures. At CWA09, Goodsoil rented a spacious room at the Mpls Convention Center, but Lutheran CORE had their own hospitality suite and promotional materials … much more strategically located near the action.
While the value of the contributions from Arcus and others shouldn’t be minimized, readers shouldn’t get the false impression that CWA09 was dominated by paid lobbyists or folks bussed in according to a Nestingen falsehood. I was there as a Goodsoil volunteer from day one to the end, and I spent my own dime. I paid my own registration fee, parking and the daily mileage from my Northfield residence an hour away. And that was the paradigm for all the volunteers, many who expended vacation time and flew in from far destinations.
Did we have an effect? I hope so, but our “ministry of presence” was largely an exercise in preaching to the choir. The voting members had experienced months of prior preparation and prayer, dialogue and debate, study and soul-searching. I don’t think many voting members changed their minds during the course of the week–a procedural vote on the first day clearly demonstrated the mood of the assembly (see my post dated Monday, August 17th about the 57-43% procedural vote that presaged the final vote on partnered gay clergy).
Long story short: Arcus and other non-Lutheran contributors to the pro-gay efforts didn’t cause the results of CWA09.
Oh the irony of the 57-43% split.
For the AntiCWA 09 crowd, that was not a supermajority, so the vote should be tossed out.
When we had our second vote on ELCA affiliation in April and the motion was defeated, guess what the split was?
57-43%.
I kid you not.
Only this time, the majority as “enough” for them, even though this time a supermajority was required was for the motion to carry.
So it’s okay to respect the vote ONLY when it is in your favor? That’s not the democratic process. That’s pitching a fit when the vote doesn’t go your way.
Am I wrong? I believe when the US constitution is changed or added to that the states have to ratify it. This is hind sight but it would probably have worked better if the synod conventions had “ratified ” the vote. Our bishop was a delegate that did not vote for the part of the CWA 09 that gave ordination to gays in committed relationships. It is too late to change that now. I personally didn’t think it would pass this past year. I was wrong but I want to stay in the ELCA. The social statement on genetics will probably be another statement with controversial sections. Do we want just anything to go on ?
@Chris Duckworth
The various agencies that make up Lutheran Social Services do indeed advocate, both within the ELCA and in the public realm. When they do, they are using “outside funding to influence change.”
@Obie Holmen
I was a voting member of the CWA09 from the SE MN Synod. When we had our last voting member orientation meeting, Bishop Usgaard invited us to physically stand on a five point line, the ends were those decidedly pro or con concerning the ordination of practicing gays. The three points in the middle where undecided (with leanings towards one direction or the other). The MAJORITY of the voting members from SE MN stood on those three points. So, yes, a “ministry of presence” had an effect, at least for SE MN Synod as only 4 of the VMs voted against this resolution to permit the ordination of practicing gays.
Your comment about the physical local of the CORE hospitality room was a difference of maybe 100 feet. And it too was staffed by volunteers much like yourself. Come on Odie, quit being the spin doctor! If you in fact stand on “good soil”, no spin on your part is required. Eh?
If you don’t think half a million dollars had an affect on the outcome, I’m sure your friends at LC/NA and Good Soil would invite you to keep this thesis to yourself. As, I’m sure the Arcus foundation and Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr Fund would not appreciate knowing that their donations merely supported overhead. I appreciate Chris’ candor in spite of the idea we stand apart on the issue.
For the record, Word Alone and CORE have yet to accept significant funds from “outside” sources, according to the directors of both organizations. I know them both.
Here is the deal. It isn’t about winning or losing it is about the future of the ELCA. Last year the ELCA created less than 35 new congregations, since August nearly four times that left the ELCA or are on the way out. Odie, you keep saying there are hundreds of more ELCA congregations that are not moving. What is this a war of attrition? Every congregation lost is not a good thing for the ELCA. I don’t disagree that the decisions of the CWA09 have attracted people to the ELCA but the slow and constant bleed of those who cannot stay in the ELCA clearly overshadows any gain. You saw how the SE MN Synod Budget was cut for remainder of 2010 and now only 9 cents on the dollar goes to mission within the synod from benevolences. This is pathetic but sadly because we have a divided church it will only get worse, here in Minnesota and throughout the ELCA.
Enjoy your victory.
Obie, you going to have a column on this? A synod with a huge shortfall?
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/278468/
Could it be that the economy has enough impact on these churches that the giving is down ? Could it be that members are protesting CWA09 on their own by not going to church ? Could it be that individual members rather than churches are leaving the ELCA and going to ,say, LCMS or the local evangelical church ? We are just getting numbers for the churches that are leaving not the membership. Time will tell how this plays out . I live in Wisconsin but have a cousin in Forman, ND who was plenty upset with the vote. I haven’t heard what is happening in that synod or that church.
On the surface your argument that opponents of CWA are trying to “have it both ways” makes sense. You would be right to point out that is is difficult to argue that the church is “too democratic” and “not democratic enough” at the same time?
However, there is a faulty premiss at work here, one that unravels your argument: that the CWA is a democratic assembly. I do not know a single dissenter to this summer’s actions who believes that CWA is “democratic.” So they are not arguing that the ELCA is “too democratic”… that’s just you misrepresenting their position.
CWA is insufficiently democratic to be compared to anything like “a House of Commons.” We elect “Voting Members” after all… NOT representatives, delegates, assemblymen/women, etc. The “Voting Members” do not function as representatives of those who elected them… they have no constituents, they must not reveal how they voted, and there is no way for those at the local end to hold them accountable.
At it’s core, the CWA is not a democratic body. Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter. However it is not illogical for people to argue for more “democracy” to function as a “check and balance” for the lack of accountability inherent in the way the Churchwide Assembly was set up… even while at the same like lamenting the lobbying efforts (by ELCA leaders and LCNA) they perceive as exploiting this lack of accountability.
@Dana
There are elements within CORE that deride the democratic and egalitarian impulses of the ELCA as mandated by the voting member requirement of at least 60% laity, equal representation for women, and encouragement for persons of color. Listen to the words of CORE spokesman, James Nestingen, which I interpret to be a criticism of too much democracy within the ELCA:
While you and other ELCA critics may not think the CWA process was democratic, others would disagree. My normally soft-spoken bishop bristled at those who would impugn the integrity and good faith of the voting members who approached their task prayerfully, seriously, and studiously. For some who disagreed with the result of CWA09, it is a convenient but self-delusional response to blame the voting members or to blame the process; the reality is that gay rights marches on in both secular society and within the church. Stick your finger in the dike if you wish.
@Pastor Cary Larson
Where’d you go at the synod assembly after arguing for your resolutions? There was a lot more going on, but I noticed that your seat at the table was vacated. I had hoped to introduce myself to you.
I hate to quibble over such trivialities as the respective locations of the CORE hospitality room and the Goodsoil Headquarters at CWA09, but if you think the separation was a mere 100 feet, your perspective is dubious.
I again refer to the procedural vote on the first day of CWA09 that went 57-43% in favor of the pro-gay faction that closely mirrored the 55-45% margin at the end of the assembly in favor of the revised ministry policies. If any minds were changed during the week, it would appear a small pct actually became more negative.
@Obie Holmen
Again…I think you’re misrepresenting the arguments. Nestingen is criticizing the quotas mandated by the ELCA… not the “democracy” of the church. Surely it is not “anti-democratic” for people to question the balance between the “democratic and egalitarian impulses of the ELCA” which led to quotes and the basic democratic principles of “majority rule,” “one person one vote,” and the ability of people to have transparent representation.
Do you not have any doubts about things turning out different at CWA if the “voting members” would have to explain their votes individually back home to their “constituents”… or if ALL the members of the ELCA were entitled to vote? And if one believes a majority of voting members has reached a decision that is different than that of a majority of ELCA members, why is is not ok to question the process that brought about that result? And how is it more “egalitarian” to say that a majority of CWA voting members is somehow more “representative” than a majority of ELCA members?
I think strong cases can be made for the faithfulness of CWA, for it’s diverse makeup, and for the way things stand now. However, it is legitimate to question whether a body of “voting members” who are told explicitly that they are not “representatives” and whose individual votes are not recorded is truly able to “represent” the majority of people in our church…. especially as we understand it from our secular political systems (a comparison which you made…). And like I said, whether voting members should be more like delegates, and whether the way things are currently structured is a good thing is another matter.
And I want to say emphatically that I am NOT an “ELCA critic” or “dissident” (and more than the average member of any church is would be, anyway). Rather, I am someone who believes strongly that dismissive, divisive comments (those that are strong on rhetoric and weak on the 8th commandment) are harming our church. Basic philosophical (and Christian) charity is difficult to maintain in the internet age… and so we need to hold each other accountable…