Tag Archives: ELCA

Split Allegiances Poll: Should Lutheran CORE folks be excluded from ELCA office?

The Upper Iowa River conference of the Northeastern Iowa Synod has passed a resolution to be considered by the synod as a whole. Here it is:

Whereas the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a constitutionally governed organization served by constitutionally elected leaders at both the synod and church wide levels, and

Whereas the stated purposes of the organization known as Lutheran CORE are to 1) bring forth a proposal for a new Lutheran church body governed by a new constitution for those who choose to leave the ELCA, and 2) to plan for the continuation of Lutheran CORE as a free-standing synod for all Lutherans, and

Whereas it is an inherent conflict of interest for individuals who are members of CORE to fully and wholeheartedly support the ELCA constitution,

Be it Resolved that: 1) all rostered and lay leaders who are members of CORE and are currently serving in elected positions in the NE Iowa Synod be required to resign from those positions, and that 2) all rostered and lay individuals currently holding membership in CORE be disqualified from election to positions of leadership within the NEIA Synod.

Lutherans Concerned North America (LCNA) is the primary LGBT advocacy group within the ELCA. At first blush, one might expect LCNA to support this resolution; not so, LCNA emphatically opposes it:

Regardless of what sparked this resolution into existence, it is very un-Lutheran and should be rejected immediately as such. It certainly is nothing fostered or endorsed by Lutherans Concerned/North America.

What do you think? Can Lutheran CORE persons, with their strong and often heated opposition to CWA09 resolutions, effectively serve in ELCA leadership positions?

UPDATE: I”m not entirely satisfied with the Memedex poll used originally in this post. Thus, I have deleted it and substituted a poll from a different third party located in the sidebar to the right. Try that instead. Polling results to date are 16 yes and 10 no.

UPDATE TWO: Dissatisfied with the second third party poll, I have taken that one down as well. FYI the vote was mostly split between the 50-60 respondents.

ELCA Bishops move toward reconciliation with ELM Pastors UPDATE

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.

More irritation from Nestingen

Former professor James Nestingen has long been a pricking thorn in the side of the ELCA.

Perhaps his deep seated resentment goes back to the formation of the ELCA a generation ago when the new constitution mandated gender, laity, and racial quotas for voting members–those most likely to be included are the manageable, those eager to please–instead of the elites–those with wisdom, fidelity and zeal (emphasis mine but the words are his).

Perhaps it was the full communion agreement with the Episcopal church more than a decade ago, when he was instrumental in the formation of the WordAlone Network whose initial raison d’être was resistance to the Episcopal dilution of Lutheran confessional purity.

Perhaps it was his failed candidacy for ELCA presiding bishop at the 2001 Church wide assembly when he received approximately 22% of the vote. Ironically, his concession speech included a call to unity; “fraction is terrible”, he said then. How quickly he forgets.

Perhaps the murky circumstances of his early retirement from his tenured professorship at Luther Seminary a few years ago have grated upon his grudges.

Whatever the reason, he continues to spew foul drivel that stretches the truth. I blogged earlier about his “whoppers”, but they keep on a’comin’. A hat tip to Both Saint and Cynic for pointing out Nestingen’s latest missive, which I then found on WordAlone’s website in their latest newsletter.

Nestingen starts in a familiar place, the recurring mischaracterization and diminution of the Biblical interpretation of those who support the revised ELCA policies regarding gay clergy. He suggests, per usual, that the ELCA is now “in direct opposition to God’s biblical Word,” again dismissing, not merely the exegetical abilities of many, but the very legitimacy of the ethical discernment of his opponents. It’s as if he says, if you don’t read the Bible my way, then you don’t read the Bible. Then, in a perverse twist of logic, Nestingen suggests it is he who supports the ECLA constitution against the unconstitutional decision of the ELCA voting members (well, maybe it’s not twisted logic; if the constitution is flawed for its inclusivity, then it follows that the flawed voting members would reach a flawed decision). Using one of his favorite words, Nestingen suggests that he and his ilk have been “unchurched” by the unconstitutional actions of CWA09.

Nestingen then jumps into a discussion of “the office of the keys” and “binding and loosing”, the idea of naming and judging sin: “pastors must be free to use the power of the keys to bind and loose—to challenge inappropriate behaviors and forgive the penitent,” Nestingen writes. Is this the crux of the matter? Curtailment of the pastor’s prerogative to judge and condemn?

Nestingen was against the constitution before he was for it, but then he turned against it again.

“[T]he assembly action must be rejected,” he states, and he offers two modes of resistance.

The first is not unconstitutional but redundant. He suggests congregations amend their constitution and bylaws to ensure that their congregation will not call gay clergy or bless same gender relationships. Ok, fine, but that is already the congregational prerogative, and such constitutional amendments or bylaws do not increase the “local option” policies already in effect.

Nestingen’s second proposal is more onerous … the wedge policy of withholding financial support of the ELCA. Even Nestingen allows that this is a questionable practice, “Withholding funds is an inherently scattershot form of resistance that instead of focusing on the particulars diffuses into all aspects of the church’s activities,” but he quickly overcomes his own objections because “the ELCA is particularly vulnerable at this point,” and he concludes that a financial boycott is warranted. His end justifies his means.

While some individuals and congregations would leave the ELCA, Nestingen apparently plans to stay and to continue as a pricking thorn irritant. Whoopee. At least I’ll have plenty of fodder for my blog.

ELCA Board of Pensions, British House of Lords, US Supreme Court

Here’s an interesting trio of institutions that made news this week for similar reasons—the advancement of LGBT equality.

First, the ELCA board of pensions announced that spousal benefits will extend to same gender partners. In a press release, Emily Eastwood, Executive Director, Lutherans Concerned/North America, said

This historic decision is indeed worthy of celebration. The action sets committed same-gender relationships on a more equal footing in critical areas of family life: health care, retirement, survivor, and disability benefits.

Meanwhile, in merry olde England, the ancient and venerable House of Lords removed any legal obstacles that would prevent churches from performing same gender blessings, if they are wont to do so.

The amendment to the Equality Bill does not force churches to accept civil partnership ceremonies. But it lifts the barrier that had been in place preventing homosexual blessings in churches and also the prohibition on religious language being used in such ceremonies.

The Parliamentary amendment was pushed by Lord Alli, an openly gay member of the House of Lords, who said,

This amendment does not place an obligation on any religious organisation to host civil partnerships in their buildings. But there are many gay and lesbian couples who want to share their civil partnership with the congregations that they worship with. And there are a number of religious organisations that want to allow gay and lesbian couples to do exactly that.

Nor does the amendment change British law regarding marriage equality. The current restrictions remain in place. The plan was backed by Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians as well as by many Anglicans.

Finally, the US Supreme Court refused to hear a conservative challenge to a law about to go into effect in Washington D.C. that allows gay marriage. Here is the Human Rights Council’s take on the whirl of courtroom activities:

Virtually no part of the judicial branch has been left unscathed in the past 24 hours as opponents of marriage equality have launched a desperate eleventh hour attempt to find a sympathetic court to halt D.C.’s same-sex marriage law scheduled to take effect tomorrow.

Yesterday, opponents – led by the national anti-LGBT legal group Alliance Defense Fund – filed for an emergency stay of the marriage law in the U.S. Supreme Court, reciting arguments that have been uniformly rejected by the lower courts and identifying no cognizable reason why the high court should intervene on an issue of D.C. law. The Supreme Court this afternoon denied opponents’ application for a stay of the D.C. marriage law. In a three page opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that a stay was not warranted, noting in part that the Supreme Court defers to D.C. courts on matters of local concern and that opponents still have their petition for a ballot initiative awaiting consideration by the Court of Appeals.

With the legal challenges out of the way, the news services and blogosphere are alive today with pictures and videos of DC citizens obtaining their marriage licenses.

With protesters holding up hate signs, an ecumenical group of clergy drowned them out.

Is there a train wreck round the bend? LCMC & NALC tracks diverge

It has become clear that congregations that depart the ELCA will not become part of a single, unified dissident body; instead two separate and distinct organizations will be vying for allegiance: the existing Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) and the yet to be formed North American Lutheran Church (NALC), spawned by Lutheran CORE. And then there is the third organization, the WordAlone Network that is caught between but with an apparent lean toward CORE (shared offices and staff, for instance).

Public pronouncements from the two organizations do not hint at any competition—“two rails of the same track” saith their spokesmen. Yet, there are subtle indicators of tension.

A disclaimer has suddenly appeared on the blog of the WordAlone Network:

This website is sponsored solely by the WordAlone Network and is not a publication of LCMC – Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ, nor does it necessarily represent all the organizations that are a part of Lutheran CORE.

Last week, I commented upon the schism amongst the schismatics by quoting at length from a post from the Google Group, “Friends of the LCMC” where the question was raised, “what, specifically, does the NALC offer that LCMC DOES not or CANNOT offer?”, and the post concluded that the “LCMC and NALC will be splitting a small pie”.

In response to my post, there was a “shhh” whispered on the LCMC friends group site.

we [must] watch what we say and how we appear to the inquiring public … But last fall, we had some harsh comments being made. I am just reminding everyone (myself included) that our tone matters because this is a publicly accessible forum.

More recently, a Friend of the LCMC created and posted a pdf document comparing the proposal for a new denomination from NALC with the existing LCMC. The creator commented about the comparison:

Suffice to say, the proposal may differ from the final product, but based on what I see, I am not impressed.

train-tracks Clearly, there are ecclesiological differences (in a nutshell, denominationalism vs congregationalism), but the point I want to make here is that there are elements within these organizations at pains to draw distinctions, thus evidencing the competition that exists and will exist as NALC nears formation. To carry their metaphor of a railroad track forward, are the tracks about to split?

For the sake of perspective, I again offer the reminder that the ELCA consists of over 10,000 congregations; to this point, less than 200 have passed a first vote to leave the ELCA. I think the LCMC critic of NALC is absolutely right—the two organizations will be splitting a small pie, and Lutherandom will see two more small, splinter organizations to take their place with the Lutheran Brethren (123 congregations) and Association of Free Lutheran Churches (AFLC) (270 congregations) while aspiring to the size of the Wisconsin Synod which claims around 1,300 congregations.

Reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism? Splitting a small pie or pie in the sky?

Gay and female clergy civil disobedience

Dr Martin Luther King Jr. championed civil disobedience as a pushback or resistance to existing law with the goal of ultimately changing the law; of course, that is precisely what happened. Rosa Park’s refusal to sit in the back of the bus and lunch counter sit ins are prototypical examples of civil disobedience. Of course, King had learned from Mohatma Gandhi who used civil disobedience, first in South Africa and later in India, to exact reforms and ultimately Indian independence from colonialist England.

In the Episcopal Church, the election of V. Eugene Robinson as New Hampshire bishop in 2003 was also a form of civil disobedience. Despite denominational rules to the contrary, Robinson was elected as bishop as an openly gay man in a committed relationship. Six years later, the Episcopalians revised their rules to include “all the baptized in all the sacraments”. The fait accompli of Rev Robinson forced the Episcopalians to confront the issue of gay clergy and to ultimately change church policy de jure to accord with the de facto status of Bishop Robinson.

The extraordinary ordinations of gay clergy in the ELCA in the early ‘90’s, accelerating in the new millennium, similarly helped to push the issue of gay clergy to the forefront of the ELCA consciousness, culminating in the momentous actions of the ELCA churchwide assembly of 2009 (CWA09) in which ministry policies were formally changed to allow persons in same gender, livelong, monogamous relationships to become rostered clergy. Those who pushed back, who exerted pressure through civil disobedience, are now being welcomed back into the ELCA (see prior posts here and here).

The most recent example is Pastor Anita Hill of St Paul Reformation church. After I sent Pastor Hill a congratulatory email, she replied, “I’ll be glad when the process is complete for all of us in ELM [Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries]”, and her email contained a quotation from Alice Walker: “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.”

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is now witnessing the same process of civil disobedience. The John Knox Presbytery covers SW Wisconsin, NE Iowa, and SE Minnesota. As an ELCA person, I think of a Presbytery as being similar to an ELCA regional synod (or diocese in the Roman Catholic and Episcopal traditions). A lengthy article published Feb 22 by the Presbyterian News Service provided background and context to the news that the John Knox Presbytery had voted to reinstate Scott Anderson, a gay man in a twenty year committed relationship, to the rolls of Presbyterian ordained clergy despite ministry policies to the contrary.

The ordination standards of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) [require] that those being ordained practice “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

The Anderson case is based on an apparent loophole in the polity of the PCUSA based on a “scruple” which is an “objection of conscience”. That is, Anderson claimed an objection of conscience to the fidelity-and-chastity rule, and his Presbytery, by a vote of 81-25 agreed. But, that is certainly not the end of the story as opponents will likely appeal this decision to the judiciary of the PCUSA, which must decide whether the policy of “scruple” may be used to circumvent the fidelity-and-chastity ordination rule. If the PCUSA judicial system upholds the ordination of Anderson, it will have established a precedent, a fait accompli, that the PCUSA General Assembly must confront.

The PCUSA is scheduled to convene its 219th annual General Assembly on July 3 in Minneapolis (perhaps ironically, in the same venue as the ELCA assembly which voted to allow gay clergy last year). Certainly, ministry policies will be front and center of the assembly business. If the PCUSA judiciary affirms the Anderson ordination based on the policy of “scruple”, it would appear that the burden of persuasion will have shifted from gay clergy advocates to their opponents; that is, it will be the burden of the opponents of gay clergy to persuade the assembly to change the policy and not vice versa.

In a similar context, there is a “Womanpriest” civil disobedience effort underway within the Catholic Church in the US (see prior posting). The official Roman Catholic policy prohibiting female ordination is set in stone, and there are no exceptions based on “scruple”. Yet, a group of women, and their male supporters, are proceeding to ordain females nevertheless, at the risk of excommunication.

Womanpriest Bishop Andrea Johnson spoke the following as quoted by a Nashville blogger in advance of Johnson’s appearance at Vanderbilt:

“We feel that canon law, which does not represent the people at all — only a few guys in Rome — is unjust,” Johnson [said]. “We’re breaking canon 1024. Like Rosa Parks, we’re saying, ‘No, we are not going to sit on the back of the bus.’ “

A closer look at Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC)

What is Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC)? This question jumps to the fore with the realization that a turf war is looming between LCMC and Lutheran CORE/NALC. “LCMC and NALC will be splitting a small pie” in the words of one LCMC pastor who is skeptical of Lutheran CORE’s announcement of the formation of a new denomination to be called The North American Lutheran Church (NALC). It seems that some folks in LCMC are warning CORE/NALC, “don’t you be stealing our sheep.”

One LCMC commenter suggested that LCMC is “low church” while CORE/NALC will be “high church”. I assume this means LCMC congregations offer a non-liturgical worship style and LCMC as an “association” functions as a lesser ecclesiastical structure than the proposed “denomination” of NALC with a bishop at its head.

A perusal of the LCMC website certainly confirms their limited organizational structure. They apparently have a paid staff of two persons! Congregational autonomy is the watchword. LCMC publishes a list of certified pastoral candidates and a list of congregations seeking pastoral leadership, but that is the extent of their role in the call process. LCMC offers group health insurance and pension planning to pastors through third parties but without any subsidy or contribution from LCMC.

There is a “resources” page on the LCMC website which merely contains links to documents, videos, photos and other websites. LCMC has no colleges or seminaries, but they claim an affiliation with five listed seminaries that would seem to have a greater Baptist influence than Lutheran (two are Baptist, one is evangelical, one is a Lutheran online/internet entity out of Brookings, South Dakota (with a limited faculty that includes James Nestingen!), and the fifth is non-denominational but with ties to the Minnesota mega-church movement (North Heights, Woodland Hills, Redeemer of Fridley) and Fuller Theological seminary of California.).

Obviously, LCMC is conservative, and the website contains a “pastoral admonition” that “it is God’s will and intention that human sexual expression and fulfillment take place only within the boundaries of marriage between one man and one woman”. Their website also states:

Our association is firmly committed to accepting the normative authority of the Bible. We reject the notion that science, personal experience, tradition, or other human endeavors have equal footing with the Bible. We are certainly aware that these endeavors contribute to our conversations and deliberations, but the Bible must be our final authority in matters of faith and practice.

Actually, this is not as conservative as CORE’s statement about Biblical authority which fails to acknowledge any role for science, experience, or tradition. Also notably lacking in the LCMC website is the brusque harshness of CORE polemics. There is no condemnation of the ELCA as “unchurched” or “unbiblical”; in fact, there is no mention of the ELCA at all.

Many of the ELCA congregations that have voted to leave the ELCA or are currently in the voting process have already affiliated with LCMC, and their roster of congregations has swelled to around 300 in the US (covering 38 states). So, at this point they are still relatively small (for comparison, the ELCA has over ten thousand congregations and even the WELS has over a thousand).

Schism amongst the schismatics

I have a confession. I was brainwashed. Though I have been a persistent critic of the Lutheran CORE and a skeptic regarding their grandiose claim to “reconfigure North American Lutheranism”, I confess that I bought into their hyperbole, or at least, I failed to question the implication that CORE would become the focal point and landing spot for Lutheran congregations that choose to depart the ELCA.

CORE’s lengthy statement released a week ago, called A Vision and Plan for the North American Lutheran Church, (NALC for short) stated in its introduction:

we are now also proposing the formation of a new denominational body for confessing Lutherans: the North American Lutheran Church (NALC).

Does this not imply that CORE expects to become the home of those departing congregations who vote themselves out of the ELCA? Is this not the implication of CORE’s visible presence at the 2009 Churchwide Assembly (CWA09), their much ballyhooed Convocation in September, their frequent press releases and blog postings, their slate of rabble rousing appearances at ELCA gatherings around the country, and in their professed commonality with the dissident Lutheran organizations that have been around for a decade?

Oops. Wait a minute. There’s a hint of trouble. More than a hint, actually. Right here in River City. Trouble with a capital “T”. And that rhymes with “LCMC” and that stands for Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ! (My apologies to the Music Man).

I caught the hint in a comment to my Saturday posting about the Anatomy of Lutheran CORE. An anonymous commenter, calling himself LCMCer, said:

Core has no official relationship with LCMC. There is an agreement to work together in the future and look for ways to support each other. But LCMC has been around for almost 10 years, and is its own organization …

I responded,

it sounds like [CORE and NALC] expect the LCMC congregations to be integral parts of their network–almost as if LCMC is a temporary landing spot until NALC gets organized.

And, LCMCer replied:

In my interactions with many LCMC folks, I have yet to talk to anyone that sees LCMC as a “temporary landing spot”.

I dug deeper into the potential conflict or competition between CORE/NALC versus LCMC, and I found a Google discussion group called “Friends of LCMC”. Whew. There’s a lively discussion going on there in response to CORE’s announcement of the formation of NALC.

On February 19th, LCMC pastor Bradley Jensen of Duluth posted his open letter to CORE (NALC):

Most of what the NALC is proposing already exists in LCMC.

Many congregations who (a) are seeking dual affiliation with confessional
Lutherans while remaining in the ELCA or (b) are seeking to leave the ELCA
will have already done so by joining LCMC long before the NALC’s August 2010
constituting convention. Furthermore, LCMC has proved itself as a viable
on-going entity whereas NALC has not. In light of these issues, I have two
questions at this time:

1) What, specifically, does the NALC offer that LCMC DOES not or CANNOT
offer?

2) Given that many, if not most, traditional ELCA Lutheran congregations
will have affiliated with LCMC long before 08/2010, what will NALC do if
there are, say, less than 100 congregations who formally affiliate with
NALC? In other words, what will you do if the NALC fails to become an
established, on-going entity?

The next day, he posted the following:

I’m giving these reflections a title: “NALC: Lutherans ‘Waiting for
Godot'” In Samuel Beckett’s play, two characters wait for the arrival of
Godot—who never arrives. I’m arguing that the NALC is will host its
constituting convention and then wait for in influx of congregations who,
like Godot, won’t arrive. The number won’t be a bleak as “zero,” but I
don’t believe that very many congregations will either (a) establish dual
affiliation with NALC or (b) actually leave the ELCA for single affiliation
with NALC. Here is why: I think that traditional Lutherans are too
optimistic about how many congregations will leave the ELCA (it won’t be
that many) … Thus, LCMC and NALC will be splitting a small pie. LCMC
is up, running viable for the long haul, and receiving new congregations
every week. NALC is not. … I think that the energy for dual affiliation/leaving the
ELCA is rapidly dissipating. Most of the action will happen prior to this
summer … NALC will have its constituting convention in August.

Too late. I expect that the NALC will be “waiting for Godot.”

Indeed. Stay tuned.

Anatomy of Lutheran CORE & NALC

Remember biology class in high school when we learned about the amoeba? These single celled, microscopic creatures would split and one would become two. It would seem that Lutheran CORE is also capable of binary fission, and it has just announced the spawning of a creature much like itself, but apparently separate, and they have crowned their progeny with the auspicious (audacious?) title of “The North American Lutheran Church” (one expects the emphasis to be placed on The, much like the pro football types who trumpet their alma mater). On February 18th (drum roll please), Lutheran CORE released its Vision and Plan for The North American Lutheran Church–NALC for short.

To use another biology metaphor, the ganglia of disaffected ELCA Lutheran organizations (affiliations?, associations?, denominations?, church bodies?, collaborative ministries?, community of confessing Lutherans?, partners?) is becoming diffuse and confusing to track the connective tissue. Lutheran CORE apparently sees itself as the central nervous system connecting Lutheran Congregations in Mission (LCMC), the WordAlone Network, and the newly created NALC, while retaining its tentacles into the ELCA (but withholding its financial support, of course).

So, what exactly will this new NALC organization look like? How will it function? What services will it provide? Of course, we know they hope to be a “reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism”, crossing borders into Canada to the north and Mexico and the Caribbean to the south. Whew! Impressive. While NALC will be “a new denominational body for confessing Lutherans,” it will also “work in close partnership and cooperation with the community of Lutheran CORE” and “will look to Lutheran CORE … for many resources.” While NALC will have its own organizational structure headed by a bishop, will the Lutheran CORE hierarchy remain the real power behind the throne?

NALC proposes to be a “big tent” that accepts differing views of ministry policies regarding the status of those eligible for the ordained clergy.

The NALC and Lutheran CORE will recognize both women and men in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject.

Wait a minute. Isn’t the whole raison d’être for Lutheran CORE wrapped up in their unwillingness to accept the ELCA decision to recognize both gay and straight in the office of ordained clergy, while acknowledging the diversity of opinion that exists within the Christian community on this subject? Do they not see the irony, if not the inconsistency, in their position? There’s room for differing views on women clergy in the NACL tent but not for differing views on gay clergy.

The document allows, nay encourages, dual membership in NALC and the ELCA.

Lutheran CORE recognizes and affirms those congregations and individuals who feel called to remain within the ELCA and who wish to continue to work for the reform of the ELCA and to witness to Biblical and confessional teachings and practices, as well as to support others remaining in the ELCA. Some of these congregations and individuals may choose dual membership in the ELCA and the NALC. Others may be members of Lutheran CORE on an individual, congregational or partnership basis.

While these individuals and congregations may remain within the ELCA only in a formal sense, they may look to the Lutheran CORE community as their church beyond the congregation … often re-designating their benevolence outside the mission support system of the ELCA.

Hmmm. How will other ELCA members and congregations view that posture? Retain influence but not allegiance. Receive ELCA benefits without obligation.

How will ELCA leadership respond? From the ELCA’s inception, its governing documents have precluded dual membership in another denomination for either pastors or congregations, according to a January 19th memo distributed by ELCA secretary David Swartling. While there have been instances in the past where such dual memberships have been overlooked (interestingly, the practice ended at the insistence of the LCMS, not the ELCA), one wonders whether and how the ECLA will enforce these policies in the future. Already, the January 19th memo produced a hew and cry about the heavy handed policies of the ELCA.

One final note for today; the document includes this statement:

We affirm the authority of the canonical Holy Scriptures as the only source and norm of our faith and life.

“Only”. That’s a significant statement. No room for reason. No room for conscience. No room for experience. No room for scientific, historical, or empirical evidence. It would seem that CORE is boxing itself into a corner with the infallible and inerrant fundamentalists with a far more restrictive attitude than any mainstream Christian denomination, including Roman Catholicism.

2010: the status of ELCA Lutheran—Roman Catholic ecumenical dialogue

As part of a two week, “2010 Ecumenical Journey”, ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson and his delegation recently met with Cardinal Walter Kasper at the Vatican. Cardinal Kasper is the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity–the Vatican’s point man for ecumenical relations with other church bodies.

Prior to this Vatican meeting on Feb 12th, Bishop Hanson’s delegation had met with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on Feb 4th for discussion of Lutheran-Anglican relations, and with Eastern Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I and Orthodox ecumenists in Istanbul on Feb 8th and 9th.

What is the status of Lutheran – Catholic dialogue? A little over a decade ago in 1999, ecumenical discussions led to the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”. Wikipedia provides a succinct explanation of this agreement:

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is a document created by and agreed to by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue, ostensibly resolving the conflict over the nature of justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation.

The Churches acknowledged that the excommunications relating to the doctrine of justification set forth by the Council of Trent do not apply to the teachings of the Lutheran churches set forth in the text; likewise, the churches acknowledged that the condemnations set forth in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the Catholic teachings on justification set forth in the document. Confessional Lutherans, such as the International Lutheran Council and the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference, reject the Declaration.

On July 18, 2006, members of the World Methodist Council, meeting in Seoul, South Korea, voted unanimously to adopt this document as well.

That was then; what’s happening these days?

In an honest appraisal of Lutheran-Catholic relations, former ELCA Presiding Bishop Herb Chilstrom last year acknowledged that ordaining women “was the first nail in the coffin of further ecumenical progress,” and he asked “how long are we going to live with the illusion that Vatican II is alive and well in Roman Catholicism?” Chilstrom’s comments were in the context of CWA09 and the probable dampening effect of ELCA pro-LGBT ministry policies on ecumenical relations with the Vatican.

What did Cardinal Kasper have to say about the consequences of CWA09? Seemingly, his greatest concern was not with the ministry policies themselves but with the schismatic actions of dissenters.

“We are concerned, but the dialogue goes on,” Kasper told the Lutherans. “We want to continue … so we do not interrupt any dialogue. But what we see are new ‘fragmentations’ in the Protestant world in the churches. This has bothered us a lot.”

ELCA Bishop Robert Hofstad of the Southwestern Washington synod, a delegation member, responded:

If our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters can say to us, “do not go away from each other too fast,” then how can we in the ELCA be running away from each other with such speed, at least in some anecdotal instances? How can we be running away from each other so fast when we have a commitment from people like yourselves, and a hope to say “please let us not run away from each other too quickly?”

“That’s a very encouraging word, and that’s a word that I’m going to take back to my colleagues,” Hofstad said.

The report of the meeting from the perspective of the Catholic News Service included both hopeful and troubling aspects of the discussion.

Cardinal Kasper said it is essential “to keep alive the memory of our achievements” in dialogue, educate the faithful about how much has been accomplished and prepare a new generation to carry on the work.

On the other hand, the Cardinal said, “the Vatican needs to better explain to its dialogue partners the Catholic conviction that ‘the Catholic Church is the church of Christ and that the Catholic Church is the true church … [including] the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the pope.’”

Hmmm.