I Think I've Got It!

I think I understand what Lutheran CORE is trying to do, and become. In other words, I think I have finally got it. (Thank you, Henry Higgins, for those words.)

Wait a minute, you might be thinking. She's on the steering committee for Lutheran CORE. What does she mean by saying that she thinks she understands? What didn't she get before now?

Well, here it is. What I truly didn't understand was that the biggest part of Lutheran CORE's goal of a "reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism" was the reconfiguration of Lutheran CORE itself.

In other words, I was confusing the work of the task force working on a vision for a new, different Lutheran denomination with what Lutheran CORE is now about. But I think I have a lot of company. I think most people, including ELCA bishops, congregations, pastors and laypeople, and even those of us inside Lutheran CORE, got confused. Which shouldn't surprise any of us, since the last six - eight months have been so traumatic, even at times chaotic. It takes a while for order to start to emerge. But let me start to explain. (And this is the first of several posts on this whole matter. More will come!)

What we all need to realize is that Lutheran CORE, as a Coalition for Reform of the ELCA, died on the floor of the Churchwide Assembly in August of 2009. I think for me it died on Friday afternoon, with the passage of the fourth ministry recommendation. For others the death might have come earlier in the week, perhaps on Wednesday with the passage of the social statement, or even on Monday evening after the first plenary. But definitely by Friday it was indeed most really and sincerely dead. In fact, I think our gathering that night with other supporters was our form of a wake.

However, after death comes resurrection, God willing. And that is what is happening with Lutheran CORE. No longer about reform, but about renewal. No longer focused on the political workings of the ELCA, but on the mission and ministry of upholding a traditionalist, confessional, Biblical Lutheran identity in the one Church catholic.

Lutheran CORE is emerging as a "free-standing synod"/association that is pan-Lutheran. It is not attempting to become a "non-geographical synod" within the ELCA; we don't want that, and even if we tried, it wouldn't get approved. It is not a denomination (yes, the task force is proposing a new denomination, but that is a different matter; more on that later on). And most critically, it is not a split-off from the ELCA, or from any other Lutheran denomination for that matter. Lutheran CORE, now about renewal not reform, no longer sees it's reason for existing as reforming the ELCA. Reform may very well happen in the ELCA, and maybe even the kind of reform that Lutheran CORE had worked for in the past. (With God, nothing is impossible.) If it does, I for one will rejoice. But that is not why Lutheran CORE exists.

A pan-Lutheran, free-standing synod that is independent of any denomination but that works with individuals, groups, congregations (hopefully) in any of them, and maybe, someday, in all of them, is something we have not seen before. It will be a way for all those who are struggling to maintain and give voice to traditional, confessional, Biblical Lutheran identity to find connections with one another, without asking for or requiring anyone to leave their individual Lutheran denominations in order to work with one another.

This is an idea that we should be willing to at least entertain. And it is an idea that I am really getting excited about. Doing this does not require any particular Lutheran denomination to rise or fall. Even the task force's vision and proposal for a "North American Lutheran Church" can succeed or fail on its own. Lutheran CORE can and may encourage such a development for those that say they need and want such a new body; but Lutheran CORE does not need a new denomination in order for Lutheran CORE to exist, and indeed flourish.

I'll write more about this in a few days. Just let me say, it feels good to finally start to see and understand the big picture for Lutheran CORE. This "free-standing synod/association" thing is finally starting to make sense.

Pastor Erma Wolf

Lutheran CORE releases proposal for reconfiguration of Lutheranism

Lutheran CORE releases proposal for reconfiguration of Lutheranism
Proposal recommends new Lutheran church and continuation of Lutheran CORE

Leaders of Lutheran CORE released a proposal for the reconfiguration of Lutheranism in North America on Thursday, Feb. 18. The proposal calls for the continuation of Lutheran CORE as “a community of confessing Lutherans” and for the formation of the North American Lutheran Church (NALC), a new Lutheran church body.

Lutheran CORE’s national Convocation Sept. 25-26, 2009, in Fishers, Ind., asked that a proposal for the “reconfiguration of North American Lutheranism” be prepared and brought to Lutheran CORE’s 2010 Convocation Aug. 26-27 in Columbus, Ohio. The proposal released Feb. 18 is a response to that request. It was released now so that Lutheran CORE members can provide input to aid in drafting the proposals that will be considered by the 2010 Convocation.

“We are committed to maintaining the unity of as many faithful Lutherans in North America as possible,” said Ryan Schwarz of Washington, D.C., who chaired the Vision and Planning Working Group that created the proposal.

Many individuals and congregations are considering whether or not to remain affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) because of what they see as the ELCA’s continued drift from the teachings of the Bible and traditional Christianity. “These proposals are a way for those who uphold traditional Christian teaching — both those who are leaving the ELCA to join the NALC or another body, and those who will remain in the ELCA — to work together,” Schwarz explained.

“There are deep divisions in the ELCA as a result of the Churchwide Assembly’s recent actions,” he added.

The actions of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly in August to affirm same-sex sexual relationships and to allow pastors and other rostered leaders to be in those relationships in spite of the teaching of the Bible have been seen by many ELCA members as evidence that the Bible no longer functions as the ultimate norm for the faith and life of the ELCA. Similar concerns are being expressed about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC).

“These proposals are a way for Lutherans to move forward in carrying out the true mission of the Christian Church — which is sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ — while leaving behind past struggles to reform the ELCA,” Schwarz explained.

North American Lutheran Church
“Confessing Lutherans have raised their voices over the past several months, asking for a church body which is faithful in its preaching and practice to the Holy Bible and to the teachings of the Lutheran Confessions. Lutheran CORE has heard these requests and, in response, now proposes to form the North American Lutheran Church (NALC),” the proposal explains.

“The NALC is being established in response to those members and friends of Lutheran CORE who have expressed a preference for completely withdrawing from the ELCA or ELCIC. They are looking for a new Lutheran church body which stands in the tradition of the Church, is denominationally structured for leadership, oversight and accountability, enhances representative governance by congregations and affirms and supports ministry and mission at the congregational level.”

The NALC and Lutheran CORE will function cooperatively in shared ministry and mission. To express and build unity amongst their respective members, most ministries of the two bodies will be carried out jointly: domestic and global evangelism, theological education, and human service.

Lutheran CORE
“Lutheran CORE affirms that both staying in and leaving the ELCA and ELCIC can be faithful courses for confessing Lutherans. We envision a reconfiguration that maintains the highest degree of ongoing unity and cooperation possible among those who leave and those who stay,” the document states. “A primary vehicle for this unity will be the continuing ministry of Lutheran CORE, reconfigured as an association of confessing Lutherans spanning denominational bodies.”

“Lutheran CORE intends to be a community of Lutherans who acknowledge that Scripture is the only and final authority in matters of faith and life, and who accept the Lutheran Confessions as a faithful and trustworthy witness to the Word of God. It will be composed of individuals, congregations, partner renewal movements and church bodies, including the NALC, who agree with its constitution,” the proposal explains.

“Lutheran CORE is not becoming the NALC. It is aiding in the formation of this new church body,” explained the Rev. Paull Spring of State College, Pa., chair of Lutheran CORE’s Steering Committee and a member of the working group that prepared the proposal.

“Lutheran CORE will continue as an association of confessing Lutherans spanning denominational bodies. Lutheran CORE will serve those in the ELCA, those in the NALC, and hopefully those in other Lutheran church bodies such as LCMC who share a commitment to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions,” explained Spring, the retired bishop of the ELCA’s Northwestern Pennsylvania Synod. “The NALC will provide a church body for those who choose to leave the ELCA.”

Four Key Attributes
The proposal outlines four “key attributes” of both Lutheran CORE and the NALC: “Christ-Centered,” “Mission-Driven,” “Traditionally-Grounded,” and “Congregationally-Focused.”
“The vision statement’s commitment to prioritize making disciples of Christ in congregations, communities and in all nations is key. That’s the ‘main thing’ and if Christian churches don’t do it, no one else will,” said the Rev. Mark Chavez of Landisville, Pa., director of Lutheran CORE.

“The people who drafted the proposals for Lutheran CORE and the NALC come from several different backgrounds and traditions in North American Lutheranism. They are united in a common confession of the Christian faith and commitment to submit to the authority of God’s Word over all matters of faith and life. That’s hopeful and exciting,” Chavez said.

The proposal was drafted by an eight-member working group. It was reviewed and approved by Lutheran CORE’s Steering Committee and its Advisory Council of theologians and church leaders.

Members of the Vision and Planning Task Force are two lay people: Schwarz and Carolyn Nestingen, Dallas, Ore.; four ELCA pastors: the Revs. Cathi Braasch, Smithfield, Neb.; Dan Selbo, San Jose, Calif.; David Glesne, Fridley, Minn.; and Mike Tavella, Abington, Pa.; and two retired ELCA bishops: Spring and the Rev. Ronald Warren, Grove City, Ohio, former bishop of the ELCA’s Southeastern Synod.

“It is fitting that these proposals are being announced on the day that the Lutheran church remembers the great reformer Martin Luther. Luther brought new life and renewal to the church of his day. We pray that God will use these proposals to bring new life and renewal to the church of our day,” Spring said.

Feb. 18 is the date on Lutheran church calendars for the commemoration of Martin Luther as a renewer of the Christian Church. Luther died Feb. 18, 1546.

Congregations already leaving ELCA
Congregations around the country are already taking votes on whether to leave the ELCA. ELCA Secretary David Swartling reported that, as of Feb. 3, 220 congregations in 49 of the ELCA’s 65 synods have taken votes to leave the ELCA.

Two votes at least 90 days apart — each receiving a two-thirds majority — are required for a congregation to end its affiliation with the ELCA. Swartling reported that 156 congregations attained the required two-thirds majority on their first vote. Twenty-eight congregations already have taken their second vote. All of those votes attained the two-thirds majority for the congregation to leave the ELCA.

Several congregations have had a significant majority vote to leave the ELCA but failed to reach the two-thirds majority, increasing the crisis and division in those congregations.

Many ELCA congregations are facing divisions among their members and financial difficulties as a result of the ELCA assembly’s actions. Revenues to the ELCA churchwide organization and to many synods have decreased as congregations have chosen to redirect their benevolence giving to ministries other than the ELCA.

Additional information and the proposal draft are online at www.lutherancore.org.

ELCA taking hard line against those who dissent from actions on sexuality or redirect benevolence giving

Some ELCA synodical and churchwide leaders are taking a hard line and threatening disciplinary action in dealing with pastors and congregations expressing opposition to the actions of the 2009 Churchwide Assembly changing ELCA teaching and practice on sexual ethics to affirm same-sex sexual relationships and to allow pastors and other rostered leaders to be in committed same-sex relationships.

Many ELCA congregations have chosen to redirect their benevolence giving away from the ELCA churchwide organization because they believe the actions of the assembly violate the clear teaching of the Bible and the ELCA Constitution which states that the Bible is “the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of (the church’s) proclamation, faith, and life.” The changes in benevolence giving have resulted in some cuts in churchwide and synodical budgets.

The 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly committed the ELCA to “respect the bound consciences of all.” But some ELCA leaders have had difficulty respecting those whose “bound consciences” have chosen other ways of supporting the mission of Christ in the world than undesignated giving to the churchwide organization.

A Jan. 19 memo from ELCA Secretary David Swartling to synod bishops and vice presidents suggests that congregations could be disciplined and removed from the ELCA if they do not fully and financially support the churchwide organization.

“If it fails to live up to the commitments contained in the governing documents of this church, the congregation necessarily breaches the partnership relationships that are foundational in this church. It thus jeopardizes its standing on the roster of ELCA congregations,” Swartling states. “A congregation that repudiates its constitutional commitments to this church is subject to discipline.”

Some ELCA officials have said that congregations that choose the recipients of their giving beyond their congregation and have redirected some of their benevolence giving to ministries other than the ELCA churchwide organization are “withholding” financial support that the ELCA is entitled to receive. Congregations determine their budgets and the amounts to be sent for ministry beyond their congregation.

A January “Q & A” being used by several synods says, “Is it permissible for congregations to withhold mission support? No. Withholding mission support is unconstitutional and violates the governing documents of the church.”

The “Q & A” document also insists that a synod bishop is entitled to determine all aspects of a required consultation period between a congregation considering ending its ELCA affiliation and its synod bishop. “The bishop leads and is responsible for all aspects of the consultation. . . . The bishop determines how the consultation will be conducted, who participates, how many meetings or forums are necessary, whether mailings are sent, etc.” It also states that the bishop will involve ELCA lawyers in the process “to ensure legality and good order.”

Some bishops have required extensive consultation processes with congregations considering changing their church affiliation. They have approached the process in an adversarial fashion rather than in a pastoral and consultative manner seeking to help a congregation make the best decision given its realities.

In a Dec. 19 story, The Washington Times described what it called “bullying” by ELCA officials against pastors and congregations that do not support the ELCA’s new teaching and policy regarding same-sex sexual relationships. The article highlighted situations in two Illinois synods. Similar stories have come from other parts of the country.

The adversarial approach has not been shared by all ELCA bishops. Some synod bishops have been gracious and understanding in working with congregations that have “bound consciences” that make it difficult for them to provide unquestioning financial support for the ELCA churchwide organization. Some synods have found ways for congregations to give designated gifts to their synod and to some ELCA ministries through the synod.

Some bishops have also been gracious and served in a truly consulting role in working with congregations that are considering the possibility of ending their affiliation with the ELCA.

ELCA Secretary says congregations may not have dual church affiliations in spite of 22 years of allowing it

ELCA churchwide leaders are trying to discourage congregations from affiliating with other Lutheran church bodies while maintaining their ELCA affiliation.

“‘Dual Rostering’ of ordained ministers and congregations is impermissible under the Constitutions, Bylaws, and Continuing Resolutions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,” ELCA Secretary David D. Swartling said in a Jan. 19 memo to synod bishops and vice presidents.

The ELCA Secretary’s pronouncement fails to note that there have been ELCA congregations with more than one church body affiliation for nearly all of the ELCA’s history.

Several ELCA congregations held dual membership in the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod from the ELCA’s founding until 1998 when the LCMS asked those congregations to choose one church body affiliation. Some ELCA congregations still maintain dual affiliation with the LCMS. For example, Lutheran Church of Arcata in Arcata, Calif., and Palisades Lutheran Church in Pacific Palisades, Calif., continue to have dual ELCA-LCMS affiliation.

The Lutheran Church of Guam, a congregation in Hagatna, Guam, maintained a dual LCMS-ELCA affiliation until 2009 when it voted to end its ELCA affiliation following the actions of the 2009 ELCA Church-wide Assembly. The congregation is now affiliated with the LCMS and Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC).

Several ELCA congregations have been members of Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ since 2001. LCMC lists more than 30 ELCA congregations as members of LCMC.

While serving as Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, the Rev. H. George Anderson was quoted by The Lutheran magazine, an ELCA publication, as stating that “dual congregations don’t pose a problem for the ELCA.”

The ELCA Constitution (9.31) states that “Congregations of this church shall have authority in all matters that are not assigned by the constitution and bylaws of this church to synods and the churchwide organization.”

Neither the ELCA churchwide nor synodical constitutions prohibit a congregation being affiliated with two different church bodies. Congregations have the constitutional authority to make decisions regarding their own affiliations based on the reservation of authority provision in the ELCA constitution.

Swartling’s memo notes that “although an express prohibition does not exist, the governing documents of this church do not authorize congregations to join an additional church body.”

Swartling builds his case that a congregation cannot hold more than one church body affiliation on the statement that ELCA congregations “agree to support the life and work of this church.” He determines that a congregation with more than one affil-iation cannot fully support the ELCA.

“Evaluating what constitutes ‘support for the life and work of this church’ on the part of a congregation requires an assessment of both these and other provisions in the governing documents, and also an analysis of the actual practices of the congregation. If a congregation chooses to be on the roster of another church body, it implicitly is repudiating the interdependent relationship that exists among expressions of the ELCA. If it fails to live up to the commitments contained in the governing documents of this church, the congregation necessarily breaches the partnership relationships that are foundational in this church. It thus jeopardizes its standing on the roster of ELCA congregations,” Swartling states.

“The judgment on whether a congregation has breached its commitment to support the life and work of this church is made by the synod in whose territory the congregation is located,” the memo states. “A congregation that repudiates its constitutional commitments to this church is subject to discipline.”

Some congregations may choose to express their “bound conscience” and to accept discipline as a way to leave the ELCA rather than to vote on ending their ELCA affiliation.

That approach would eliminate any concerns about church property. The ELCA Constitution states that “Title to the property of a congregation that is no longer recognized by this church as a result of discipline shall continue to reside in the congregation” (9.71.d).