It is a clean sweep. Immanuel voted 94.7% to leave. 168 yes, 6 no, 3
> abstain. So all 3 Illinois churches have voted to leave the ELCA
Monday, July 12, 2010
norms news july 11TH
Thank you for your prayers everyone. This is Jennifer ____ of Our Savior's Lutheran Church in Inwood, IA. We passed our vote today with 81 percent in favor. It was a great day, but also a sad day, as we had to say goodbye to our pastor. He will be staying with the town congregation, which has voted to stay with the ELCA. We have our call committee in place already. We are excited about the future. Already, we have new members joining, and our giving in the offering plate is as high as it's ever been. Record offerings for summer Sundays. Yet another sign that God is on the move
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
norms news july 7th
understand that the second largest ELCA church in the Grand Canyon Synod has now passed their first vote to leave the ELCA by over 80%. The church, La Casa de Cristo, has over 3500 members and worships over 1700 each week-end. With their departure and the departure of Community of Joy, the ELCA has "lost" over 10,000 members.
I note from the ELCA website that the ELCA and Grand Canyon Synod still list Victory Lutheran of Mesa as a member church--though Victory's two votes to leave the ELCA passed with strong support (over 80%). Interestingly, the ELCA's church entry for Victory now has no pastors listed--like it's vacant! Victory's newsletter, The Messenger, however, indicates their 3 pastors and visitation pastor are all still serving the church and are now actively involved in amending their constitution to document their LCMC membership and delete ELCA references--a la Calvary Lutheran of Golden Valley. The Synod must think they can maintain a connection which the people and pastors (now apparently defrocked by the ELCA?) don't want. Are they keeping Victory "on the books" in an effort to minimize "statistical" losses? I think the "hard-ball" tactics of synods against congregations voting to leave are backfiring--and only intensifying support for their decisions. I suspect there will be a great movement to LCMC churches from surrounding ELCA churches in the Phoenix area. Victory has a growing satellite congregation, too. Great things are happening there!
I agree with Skip Sundberg that the ELCA's national and synodical strength are functionally disappearing. As people become aware that the consequence of ELCA actions has resulted in spiritually impotent churches, fewer people will be committed to serve in them. That's what will leave the denomination high and dry. Bishops will be sitting in their offices unable to mobilize the remaining luke-warm members.
What a tragic end for a once faithful church. But, the pastors and lay people who worked in the ELCA's predecessor church bodies did much great work and many came to know Christ as Savior. So all was NOT wasted.
Guess the number of LCMC congregations is now nearing 470! Soon it will be 500. Even churches in Pennsylvania are now leaving the ELCA and joining LCMC! Amazing!
Blessings to you in your work, Norm.
I note from the ELCA website that the ELCA and Grand Canyon Synod still list Victory Lutheran of Mesa as a member church--though Victory's two votes to leave the ELCA passed with strong support (over 80%). Interestingly, the ELCA's church entry for Victory now has no pastors listed--like it's vacant! Victory's newsletter, The Messenger, however, indicates their 3 pastors and visitation pastor are all still serving the church and are now actively involved in amending their constitution to document their LCMC membership and delete ELCA references--a la Calvary Lutheran of Golden Valley. The Synod must think they can maintain a connection which the people and pastors (now apparently defrocked by the ELCA?) don't want. Are they keeping Victory "on the books" in an effort to minimize "statistical" losses? I think the "hard-ball" tactics of synods against congregations voting to leave are backfiring--and only intensifying support for their decisions. I suspect there will be a great movement to LCMC churches from surrounding ELCA churches in the Phoenix area. Victory has a growing satellite congregation, too. Great things are happening there!
I agree with Skip Sundberg that the ELCA's national and synodical strength are functionally disappearing. As people become aware that the consequence of ELCA actions has resulted in spiritually impotent churches, fewer people will be committed to serve in them. That's what will leave the denomination high and dry. Bishops will be sitting in their offices unable to mobilize the remaining luke-warm members.
What a tragic end for a once faithful church. But, the pastors and lay people who worked in the ELCA's predecessor church bodies did much great work and many came to know Christ as Savior. So all was NOT wasted.
Guess the number of LCMC congregations is now nearing 470! Soon it will be 500. Even churches in Pennsylvania are now leaving the ELCA and joining LCMC! Amazing!
Blessings to you in your work, Norm.
Monday, July 5, 2010
norms news july 5th
FYI: We'd never know what's happening in Texas if it weren't for email. All we'd know is what Bp Wohlrabe in N.W. Mn Synod says about "8", or what Jon Anderson S.W. Mn. says about a few. But the ELCA is not bordered by some STATE: we are a national and international church, and want to know "the big picture" if we can find anyone who will tell us. Since "they" won't tell us what is a happening, I'm left to pass on the sad story, which is also very encouraging and joyful. Lutheraans are very much ALIVE. We have a great God and He is doing wonderful things IN SPITE OF the ELCA and our own sinfulness.
Check out this Texas story. Sola Deo Gloria. (To God Alone The GLory) Norm PS: Remember "the gates of hell can not stand" when "my Church" built on the rock, launches its offensive.
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_15435274
--
Check out this Texas story. Sola Deo Gloria. (To God Alone The GLory) Norm PS: Remember "the gates of hell can not stand" when "my Church" built on the rock, launches its offensive.
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_15435274
--
Friday, July 2, 2010
norm's news 7-2 pt 2
For what it's worth, I've pasted a document below that we prepared
for use in our congregation regarding our leaving the ELCA and the
issues which have mainly to do with scriptural authority.
Ralph
CLC (Christ Lutheran Church)---LCMC---ELCA---What does it all mean?
On March 14, 2010, the people of Christ Lutheran Church (CLC) voted
with a 98% majority (ratifying the first vote of 88%) to leave the
ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and join LCMC (Lutheran
Congregations in Mission for Christ). What does that change mean for
us as the people of Christ Lutheran? Some of you have mentioned that
your neighbors and friends have asked what the change means. What
can you tell them?
To begin we may need to say what our change to LCMC does NOT
mean. From the beginning of our discussions last fall, numerous
people stood up and said this does not mean the rejection of any
group of people. All people are welcome at CLC, as we are all
sinners in need of our savior Jesus Christ. Some will say that our
decision is a rejection of people who struggle with
homosexuality. But that is untrue and misses what the real issues
are. To say that this is a rejection of people is a tactic often
used to raise emotions and divert attention from the real
questions. To say that something is contrary to God's will is a
reflection on the behavior, never a rejection of people.
The foundational issues being debated in the church have been
developing for years and are not unraveled quickly, but this article
is a start.
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ is an association of
congregations and individuals who are:
* free in Christ;
* accountable to one another;
* rooted in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions;
* working together to fulfill Christ's Great Commission to go and
make disciples of all nations.
The LCMC constitution states that "We believe, teach, and accept the
canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired
Word of God and the sole authoritative source and norm of our
proclamation, faith, and life."
How is that different from the ELCA? The ELCA constitution states
that the ELCA accepts, "the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source
and norm of our proclamation, faith, and life." The difference is
the lack of the word "sole".
It would be unfair to say that the ELCA does not accept the Bible as
authoritative. Yet the recent decisions by the ELCA assembly in
August 2009 are a clear indication that how the Bible is used by the
ELCA has changed. That different view of Scriptural authority has
been developing for a long time with other authorities given equal or
at times greater status than Scripture.
In March of 2005, ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson described the
problem to the bishops of the ELCA. In an ELCA press release he
mentions that there are 2 different methods of interpreting the Bible
(hermeneutics) at work in the ELCA. "Hanson said: Two
"hermeneutics" or paradigms are at work among the members of the ELCA
that make agreement difficult on scriptural and theological
matters. The Rev. Craig L. Nessan, academic dean and professor of
contextual theology, Wartburg Theological Seminary, an ELCA seminary
in Dubuque, Iowa, writes that there is a "traditional approach" and a
"contextual approach" in interpreting Scripture, both of which are
valid and irreconcilable, Hanson told the bishops. Similarly, Dr.
Marcus J. Borg, Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, writes that there are two irreconcilable "paradigms" in
which Christians differ in their understandings of the Christian
tradition and their interpretation of Scripture, creeds and the
confessions, he said. Hanson said he's heard people with different
understandings of Scripture and theology seeking to find a place for
their views in the sexuality recommendations. "Do we expect a
resolution to provide a bridge between two extremes?" Hanson asked
the bishops. "We Lutherans have come to say that when something is
'paradoxical' that we're going to live in the paradox at the foot of
the cross and not force ourselves to decide it with a vote."
http://archive.elca.org/ScriptLib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?article=3020
But at the 2009 ELCA assembly, it was decided by a vote. The ELCA
Social Statement "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" that was adopted
in August 2009 described the different views of sexuality that are
present in the ELCA and stated that there was not a consensus among
our members. Yet the vote (which was to allow persons in lifelong,
monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as pastors) is a clear
endorsement of the "contextual approach" of understanding the Bible
mentioned above.
The terminology can be confusing. To understand the context in which
the Bible was written, or to know the surrounding context that a
verse of Scripture comes out of, is essential. But the "contextual"
approach mentioned by Bishop Hanson refers to the context of the
reader. According to that view, one's situation or context has a
strong effect on what the Bible means. So if the views of the world
have changed then that changes what Scripture has to say to
us. Bishop Hanson said in a town hall meeting on Dec 6. "The
understanding we have of homosexuality today does not seem to be
reflected at all in the context of the Biblical writers." The
assumption is that the Biblical writers express a primitive view
peculiar to their context that no longer applies to our modern context.
The other competing view referred to as the "traditional" view by
Bishop Hanson is often mistakenly portrayed as a narrow-minded,
literalistic, fundamentalist view. But those holding a traditional
view of Scripture know that the Bible includes sections that are to
be understood literally and those that are poetic or metaphorical.
Often attempts are made to discredit the "traditional" view.
* Things like the Old Testament prohibition on eating shellfish
are often presented as examples of Biblical teachings we no longer
follow. The New Testament recognizes that Jesus did not maintain all
of the Old Testament laws but those he did not endorse were laws like
those related to dietary and Sabbath restrictions and not basic moral
teachings. Jesus endorsed the moral law of the Old Testament and in
some cases even gave it more force. Jesus said, "You have heard that
it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in
his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28) What Christians follow of the Old
Testament laws does not depend on our own interpretations, but on
what Jesus said and how New Testament writers applied Jesus' teaching.
* Some people mention that Jesus had nothing to say about
homosexual behavior. But if Jesus had wanted to overrule the Old
Testament teaching on homosexual behavior he would have had to say
that clearly and often since it was a foundational understanding for
his Jewish people. And Jesus did clearly refer to God's creation of
humans as male and female. Jesus said, "Haven't you read," he
replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and
female." (Matthew 19:4)
* It is often claimed that Jesus' message contained only love and
acceptance. Yet he taught that God's love is both law and gospel for
our blessing and good. God's law is intended to maintain order in
our world, to show where we fail to keep God's law and therefore our
need for Christ as our savior, and to provide guidance as to what
God's intention is for us.
* Comparisons are often made between our view of women's roles
and how they have changed with our views of homosexual behavior. But
the clear difference is that Scripture presents several different
views of women's roles which allow us to decide how those varying
views apply, while wherever homosexual behavior is addressed it is
always seen as contrary to God's will. Dr. Robert Gagnon addresses
these and other Biblical questions in the article listed below.
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf
Most importantly, this changing use of the Bible in the ELCA is
related not just to sexuality, but to the whole foundation of our
faith. Marcus Borg, the professor referred to in Bishop Hanson's
report above was a primary member of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus
Seminar was the group of scholars who concluded that only 18% of the
words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were probably spoken by
him. Things like the miracles of Jesus and the physical reality of
Christ's resurrection are dismissed as the words of ancient people
who misunderstood what happened. Scholars like Marcus Borg would say
that they take the Bible seriously, but they do so in a very
different way than Christians have for 2000 years, ways that discount
many of the basic beliefs of Christianity and the life of
Christ. Once you do that, questions of sexuality (and whatever
issues come next) are no longer decided on the basis of Scripture,
but on the basis of the powerful voices of the culture around us.
Timothy Wengert's article "Reflections on the ELCA Churchwide
Assembly and the Bible" illustrates the difference in the "2
hermeneutics" mentioned before. He writes, "Every command in
Scripture must be focused by this question, 'How does following this
commandment enhance love for God and neighbor?'", and he uses that as
a question that might lead to endorsing same-sex relationships. But
Wengert assumes that a same-sex relationship is a healthy thing and
that the Biblical commands against same-sex behavior come from some
basis that has no validity any more. The "traditional hermeneutic"
would say that the command against same-sex relationships comes out
of God's love, it is God's loving response, knowing that he created
humans with a male-female complementary nature that is what is right
for his people and is healthy, physically and emotionally. Often
ignored is the large body of scientific research that supports the
scriptural view of homosexual behavior, strongly pointing to same-sex
attraction being triggered by complex causes, often including sexual
abuse and psychological trauma.
Wengert's assumption that endorsing a same-sex relationship would be
the loving thing to do doesn't come from Scripture. It comes from
somewhere else--the culture--and is an example of where other
authorities are allowed to trump Scripture.
Rev. Kenneth Sauer, former bishop and chair of the ELCA Council of
Bishops, writes, "There are deep divisions over the fundamental
meaning of the Gospel, the authority of Scripture, and the purpose
and work of the Holy Spirit. The division reaches into congregations,
synods, and seminaries and agencies. When a voting member from
Wisconsin said at the assembly that the Scripture that guides the
opponents of the more liberal policy was written by mortals, at a
much earlier time, and doesn't reflect what many Christians now
believe, then it becomes clear that a divide exists."
People's positions are not always clear-cut. They may not fully
accept either the "contextual" or the "traditional" view. They may
be at various places across the spectrum. But the ELCA vote signals
that one view is now dominant in the leadership of the ELCA and other
changes are sure to follow.
So what does the CLC change from ELCA to LCMC mean? It is not really
a change at all from what CLC has always taught. It is the ELCA who
has made the changes and they are ones that focus attention on
sexuality because that is the present issue. But the changes of the
ELCA are foundational ones that will lead to many other changes as
time goes on.
Obviously, anyone is free to interpret Scripture as they please. The
ELCA is free to make the decisions they have made. But CLC has said
that that's not the direction we believe God is calling us to follow.
What do you say to neighbors and friends who ask what our decision to
join LCMC is all about? CLC is saying that we believe and teach "the
faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude
1:3). CLC is saying that we still love and pray for the well-being
of those who disagree with our decision. CLC is saying we wish our
ELCA friends well, and hope to work together in some ways in the
future. But we believe that the recent ELCA decisions signal a major
shift away from the authority of Scripture which undermines the
foundation of our Christian faith.
----------
for use in our congregation regarding our leaving the ELCA and the
issues which have mainly to do with scriptural authority.
Ralph
CLC (Christ Lutheran Church)---LCMC---ELCA---What does it all mean?
On March 14, 2010, the people of Christ Lutheran Church (CLC) voted
with a 98% majority (ratifying the first vote of 88%) to leave the
ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and join LCMC (Lutheran
Congregations in Mission for Christ). What does that change mean for
us as the people of Christ Lutheran? Some of you have mentioned that
your neighbors and friends have asked what the change means. What
can you tell them?
To begin we may need to say what our change to LCMC does NOT
mean. From the beginning of our discussions last fall, numerous
people stood up and said this does not mean the rejection of any
group of people. All people are welcome at CLC, as we are all
sinners in need of our savior Jesus Christ. Some will say that our
decision is a rejection of people who struggle with
homosexuality. But that is untrue and misses what the real issues
are. To say that this is a rejection of people is a tactic often
used to raise emotions and divert attention from the real
questions. To say that something is contrary to God's will is a
reflection on the behavior, never a rejection of people.
The foundational issues being debated in the church have been
developing for years and are not unraveled quickly, but this article
is a start.
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ is an association of
congregations and individuals who are:
* free in Christ;
* accountable to one another;
* rooted in the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions;
* working together to fulfill Christ's Great Commission to go and
make disciples of all nations.
The LCMC constitution states that "We believe, teach, and accept the
canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired
Word of God and the sole authoritative source and norm of our
proclamation, faith, and life."
How is that different from the ELCA? The ELCA constitution states
that the ELCA accepts, "the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source
and norm of our proclamation, faith, and life." The difference is
the lack of the word "sole".
It would be unfair to say that the ELCA does not accept the Bible as
authoritative. Yet the recent decisions by the ELCA assembly in
August 2009 are a clear indication that how the Bible is used by the
ELCA has changed. That different view of Scriptural authority has
been developing for a long time with other authorities given equal or
at times greater status than Scripture.
In March of 2005, ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson described the
problem to the bishops of the ELCA. In an ELCA press release he
mentions that there are 2 different methods of interpreting the Bible
(hermeneutics) at work in the ELCA. "Hanson said: Two
"hermeneutics" or paradigms are at work among the members of the ELCA
that make agreement difficult on scriptural and theological
matters. The Rev. Craig L. Nessan, academic dean and professor of
contextual theology, Wartburg Theological Seminary, an ELCA seminary
in Dubuque, Iowa, writes that there is a "traditional approach" and a
"contextual approach" in interpreting Scripture, both of which are
valid and irreconcilable, Hanson told the bishops. Similarly, Dr.
Marcus J. Borg, Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, writes that there are two irreconcilable "paradigms" in
which Christians differ in their understandings of the Christian
tradition and their interpretation of Scripture, creeds and the
confessions, he said. Hanson said he's heard people with different
understandings of Scripture and theology seeking to find a place for
their views in the sexuality recommendations. "Do we expect a
resolution to provide a bridge between two extremes?" Hanson asked
the bishops. "We Lutherans have come to say that when something is
'paradoxical' that we're going to live in the paradox at the foot of
the cross and not force ourselves to decide it with a vote."
But at the 2009 ELCA assembly, it was decided by a vote. The ELCA
Social Statement "Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust" that was adopted
in August 2009 described the different views of sexuality that are
present in the ELCA and stated that there was not a consensus among
our members. Yet the vote (which was to allow persons in lifelong,
monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as pastors) is a clear
endorsement of the "contextual approach" of understanding the Bible
mentioned above.
The terminology can be confusing. To understand the context in which
the Bible was written, or to know the surrounding context that a
verse of Scripture comes out of, is essential. But the "contextual"
approach mentioned by Bishop Hanson refers to the context of the
reader. According to that view, one's situation or context has a
strong effect on what the Bible means. So if the views of the world
have changed then that changes what Scripture has to say to
us. Bishop Hanson said in a town hall meeting on Dec 6. "The
understanding we have of homosexuality today does not seem to be
reflected at all in the context of the Biblical writers." The
assumption is that the Biblical writers express a primitive view
peculiar to their context that no longer applies to our modern context.
The other competing view referred to as the "traditional" view by
Bishop Hanson is often mistakenly portrayed as a narrow-minded,
literalistic, fundamentalist view. But those holding a traditional
view of Scripture know that the Bible includes sections that are to
be understood literally and those that are poetic or metaphorical.
Often attempts are made to discredit the "traditional" view.
* Things like the Old Testament prohibition on eating shellfish
are often presented as examples of Biblical teachings we no longer
follow. The New Testament recognizes that Jesus did not maintain all
of the Old Testament laws but those he did not endorse were laws like
those related to dietary and Sabbath restrictions and not basic moral
teachings. Jesus endorsed the moral law of the Old Testament and in
some cases even gave it more force. Jesus said, "You have heard that
it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who
looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in
his heart." (Matthew 5:27-28) What Christians follow of the Old
Testament laws does not depend on our own interpretations, but on
what Jesus said and how New Testament writers applied Jesus' teaching.
* Some people mention that Jesus had nothing to say about
homosexual behavior. But if Jesus had wanted to overrule the Old
Testament teaching on homosexual behavior he would have had to say
that clearly and often since it was a foundational understanding for
his Jewish people. And Jesus did clearly refer to God's creation of
humans as male and female. Jesus said, "Haven't you read," he
replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and
female." (Matthew 19:4)
* It is often claimed that Jesus' message contained only love and
acceptance. Yet he taught that God's love is both law and gospel for
our blessing and good. God's law is intended to maintain order in
our world, to show where we fail to keep God's law and therefore our
need for Christ as our savior, and to provide guidance as to what
God's intention is for us.
* Comparisons are often made between our view of women's roles
and how they have changed with our views of homosexual behavior. But
the clear difference is that Scripture presents several different
views of women's roles which allow us to decide how those varying
views apply, while wherever homosexual behavior is addressed it is
always seen as contrary to God's will. Dr. Robert Gagnon addresses
these and other Biblical questions in the article listed below.
Most importantly, this changing use of the Bible in the ELCA is
related not just to sexuality, but to the whole foundation of our
faith. Marcus Borg, the professor referred to in Bishop Hanson's
report above was a primary member of the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus
Seminar was the group of scholars who concluded that only 18% of the
words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were probably spoken by
him. Things like the miracles of Jesus and the physical reality of
Christ's resurrection are dismissed as the words of ancient people
who misunderstood what happened. Scholars like Marcus Borg would say
that they take the Bible seriously, but they do so in a very
different way than Christians have for 2000 years, ways that discount
many of the basic beliefs of Christianity and the life of
Christ. Once you do that, questions of sexuality (and whatever
issues come next) are no longer decided on the basis of Scripture,
but on the basis of the powerful voices of the culture around us.
Timothy Wengert's article "Reflections on the ELCA Churchwide
Assembly and the Bible" illustrates the difference in the "2
hermeneutics" mentioned before. He writes, "Every command in
Scripture must be focused by this question, 'How does following this
commandment enhance love for God and neighbor?'", and he uses that as
a question that might lead to endorsing same-sex relationships. But
Wengert assumes that a same-sex relationship is a healthy thing and
that the Biblical commands against same-sex behavior come from some
basis that has no validity any more. The "traditional hermeneutic"
would say that the command against same-sex relationships comes out
of God's love, it is God's loving response, knowing that he created
humans with a male-female complementary nature that is what is right
for his people and is healthy, physically and emotionally. Often
ignored is the large body of scientific research that supports the
scriptural view of homosexual behavior, strongly pointing to same-sex
attraction being triggered by complex causes, often including sexual
abuse and psychological trauma.
Wengert's assumption that endorsing a same-sex relationship would be
the loving thing to do doesn't come from Scripture. It comes from
somewhere else--the culture--and is an example of where other
authorities are allowed to trump Scripture.
Rev. Kenneth Sauer, former bishop and chair of the ELCA Council of
Bishops, writes, "There are deep divisions over the fundamental
meaning of the Gospel, the authority of Scripture, and the purpose
and work of the Holy Spirit. The division reaches into congregations,
synods, and seminaries and agencies. When a voting member from
Wisconsin said at the assembly that the Scripture that guides the
opponents of the more liberal policy was written by mortals, at a
much earlier time, and doesn't reflect what many Christians now
believe, then it becomes clear that a divide exists."
People's positions are not always clear-cut. They may not fully
accept either the "contextual" or the "traditional" view. They may
be at various places across the spectrum. But the ELCA vote signals
that one view is now dominant in the leadership of the ELCA and other
changes are sure to follow.
So what does the CLC change from ELCA to LCMC mean? It is not really
a change at all from what CLC has always taught. It is the ELCA who
has made the changes and they are ones that focus attention on
sexuality because that is the present issue. But the changes of the
ELCA are foundational ones that will lead to many other changes as
time goes on.
Obviously, anyone is free to interpret Scripture as they please. The
ELCA is free to make the decisions they have made. But CLC has said
that that's not the direction we believe God is calling us to follow.
What do you say to neighbors and friends who ask what our decision to
join LCMC is all about? CLC is saying that we believe and teach "the
faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude
1:3). CLC is saying that we still love and pray for the well-being
of those who disagree with our decision. CLC is saying we wish our
ELCA friends well, and hope to work together in some ways in the
future. But we believe that the recent ELCA decisions signal a major
shift away from the authority of Scripture which undermines the
foundation of our Christian faith.
----------
norm's news 7-2
FYI: Here's a great explanation and summary of the current controversy, from Grace Lutheran in Thornville, OH. This would be a great piece to forward on, or to COPY and distribute, or leave at church for people to pick up . Norm
http://www.gracethornville.org/ELCAissues/issue_roots.htm
http://www.gracethornville.org/ELCAissues/issue_roots.htm
norm's news 6-16
FYI: I just read in Living Word, LCMC, Alexandria's newsletter that the
number of LCMC congregations has more than doubled since last August, now
numberintg 433 congregations and still growing. And addtional 263 ELCA
congregations have taken their first vote to leave, and many others are in
the informational phase which will lead many more congregations to vote on
leaving or staying with the ELCA. So we will be getting reports like the one
below for quite a while yet. This is gradually changing the landscape of
American Lutheranism. We have much for which to praise God, amid our tears.
Blessings abound always, Norm
Christ Lutheran of Warren, MI (Southeast Michigan Synod), had its
FIRST vote to leave the ELCA this morning. It passed by a 94%
margin. Of 169 voters present, 160 voted to leave, 8 to stay, plus 1
invalid. Our Affiliation Task Force has worked hard to get the word
out to our members and prayers have been answered. The congregation
is united and standing firm on the authority of God's Word and the
Lutheran Confessions and hoping to soon join LCMC. We praise and
thank God for leading us this far and hope that we can be a beacon of
hope to orthodox confessional Lutherans in Macomb County and beyond.
Now we enter a 90-day consultation with the Synod but the process is
somewhat unsure since Bishop Marsh unexpectedly resigned his office
last Friday. Our second and final vote is expected to take place on
October 3rd. Thank the Lord and sing His praise!
Pastor
number of LCMC congregations has more than doubled since last August, now
numberintg 433 congregations and still growing. And addtional 263 ELCA
congregations have taken their first vote to leave, and many others are in
the informational phase which will lead many more congregations to vote on
leaving or staying with the ELCA. So we will be getting reports like the one
below for quite a while yet. This is gradually changing the landscape of
American Lutheranism. We have much for which to praise God, amid our tears.
Blessings abound always, Norm
Christ Lutheran of Warren, MI (Southeast Michigan Synod), had its
FIRST vote to leave the ELCA this morning. It passed by a 94%
margin. Of 169 voters present, 160 voted to leave, 8 to stay, plus 1
invalid. Our Affiliation Task Force has worked hard to get the word
out to our members and prayers have been answered. The congregation
is united and standing firm on the authority of God's Word and the
Lutheran Confessions and hoping to soon join LCMC. We praise and
thank God for leading us this far and hope that we can be a beacon of
hope to orthodox confessional Lutherans in Macomb County and beyond.
Now we enter a 90-day consultation with the Synod but the process is
somewhat unsure since Bishop Marsh unexpectedly resigned his office
last Friday. Our second and final vote is expected to take place on
October 3rd. Thank the Lord and sing His praise!
Pastor
norm's news 6-29
I wanted to let you know about the spiritual violence done to my friend who is a pastor in Wisconsin. He is being attacked now by 10 pastors who are bringing formal charges against him for being "schismatic," for his opposing the direction of the ELCA. 10 pastors who have never talked to him, and who do not even know him.....and they are trying to get him defrocked. So much for the bound conscience...... Anyway, the charge is being led by the interim pastor who was at the two churches right before C____ arrived as pastor. The former interim has been meeting with members of the parish trying to stir up trouble. Below is the email that the interim sent after C____ had sent him a letter asking what he was doing meeting with the members. The guy obviously makes the ELCA his precious golden calf.
I have also have attached C____'s solid and faithful response immediately after the heretic's letter.
Anyway, keep C____ in your prayers
The Heretical Former Interim's letter:
C_____,
Thank you for contacting me. This is the first message I have
received from you. You spurned my attempts to meet with you when you
first arrived, and I haven't heard from you since.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about what I am doing, and what
I'm not, as well as why.
I am following the ELCA constitution sections http://www.facebook.com/l/2eadckb1jRn9vNxATwin2rF_PGQ;20.21.01 and 2021.03 in
bringing formal charges against you for conduct incompatible with the
ministerial office. The requisite signatures have been acquired and
such has been sent to the synod office. I expect you'll hear from
them shortly. You will of course see specific charges and be given a
chance to respond, as per the process laid out in that same section.
At the heart of the matter is that your actions have caused the loss
of your protected status from outside interference. By your own
declaration the rest of the ELCA is no longer in communing status with
you. You have continually "stumped" for groups looking to split the
ELCA, at the same time you've sworn to preach and teach in accord with
the ELCA (read your letter of call). You lied to the call committee
about your intentions of leading them out of the ELCA. You spread
ridiculous rumors regarding the ELCA without doing due fact checking.
You refuse to acknowledge anything good within the denomination.
Given this, it is indeed my duty to utilize our discipline process.
My motive is to protect the congregation, not you. I believe you will
be happier not in the ELCA, and why you chose us in the first place
continues to be puzzling. Your ethical path is to resign your call
and your roster status, and seek to be rostered somewhere that you can
follow the vows you make to that group. It is not to try to lead out
a group with 125 years of contented relationship with its
denominational affiliation.
I am meeting with the folks of Zion, not Peace, as a representative of
the ELCA. Not the synod, not the national church, just a member of
the rostered clergy who takes his vows seriously. I am providing
factual information about what the ELCA does and does not teach, as
well as the options congregations have at times like this. I do see
this as my duty, given the lack of healthy process you've enacted. I
do not do so secretly; indeed the announcement of such was at the
public worship. I do not do so in isolation, but do what I do in
consultation with a broad base of colleagues as we collectively work
to figure out what is the most health-ful response at this point. I
do own my decisions, however, and carry the sole responsibility for
what I am doing.
I am serving my twenty-fourth church, (ahh the life of an interim).
With all of those former congregations Zion is the only one where I
have met with a group like this. Why? I liken it to the ethical
problem that goes like this: Is lying wrong? Yes. If the S.S. from
WWII Germany is asking you if you are harboring Jews in your home (and
you are), is it ethical to say yes, or no? There, the situation
dictates an exception to the general ethic that lying is wrong. Here,
a pastor who lied about his intentions to get where he is, and
continues to lie about the ELCA to push a congregation out, and stumps
for dissenting groups at congregations not his own, demands a change
from the normal rule of non-interference.
And finally, rumor control. I am on call to the synod council for
specialized ministry as an interim pastor. I am not interested in a
settled call period. Not at Zion, or anywhere else. I do not make
the interim assignments, and go where I am sent.
I am also not working with Peace. I believe Zion has the capacity to
hear what I have to say and discuss what a healthy discernment process
will look like. I believe Peace will do whatever Henry wants
regardless of process, or of you or me.
Well, I don't expect you to like it, but I hope that clarifies what I
am doing, and why.
C____'s response to the heretic:
John, one might wonder how charges against one can be brought, when there has been no attempt to actually research the facts. And might I ask just under what authority the charges are being brought? From 2/3 of the congregation council, 1/3 of congregation or from 10 pastor or even the bishop? Seeing that no one has actually ever asked me to explain myself, the charges are dubious at best.
Given that I have sworn (in my ordination vows, mind you) to preach and teach, not according to this church (denomination) but to the Word of God found in the Old and New Testaments and according to the Confessions of this church, then any charges need to be made according to what I have preached and taught. So, I am linking you to my blog where I place my sermons each week. Read through these, compare them to Scripture and the Confessions, and then get back to me on where I have erred in my doctrine. Here is the link: http://weeklysermons.blogspot.com/
In service to Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church,
Rev. C______
I have also have attached C____'s solid and faithful response immediately after the heretic's letter.
Anyway, keep C____ in your prayers
The Heretical Former Interim's letter:
C_____,
Thank you for contacting me. This is the first message I have
received from you. You spurned my attempts to meet with you when you
first arrived, and I haven't heard from you since.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about what I am doing, and what
I'm not, as well as why.
I am following the ELCA constitution sections http://www.facebook.com/l/2eadckb1jRn9vNxATwin2rF_PGQ;20.21.01 and 2021.03 in
bringing formal charges against you for conduct incompatible with the
ministerial office. The requisite signatures have been acquired and
such has been sent to the synod office. I expect you'll hear from
them shortly. You will of course see specific charges and be given a
chance to respond, as per the process laid out in that same section.
At the heart of the matter is that your actions have caused the loss
of your protected status from outside interference. By your own
declaration the rest of the ELCA is no longer in communing status with
you. You have continually "stumped" for groups looking to split the
ELCA, at the same time you've sworn to preach and teach in accord with
the ELCA (read your letter of call). You lied to the call committee
about your intentions of leading them out of the ELCA. You spread
ridiculous rumors regarding the ELCA without doing due fact checking.
You refuse to acknowledge anything good within the denomination.
Given this, it is indeed my duty to utilize our discipline process.
My motive is to protect the congregation, not you. I believe you will
be happier not in the ELCA, and why you chose us in the first place
continues to be puzzling. Your ethical path is to resign your call
and your roster status, and seek to be rostered somewhere that you can
follow the vows you make to that group. It is not to try to lead out
a group with 125 years of contented relationship with its
denominational affiliation.
I am meeting with the folks of Zion, not Peace, as a representative of
the ELCA. Not the synod, not the national church, just a member of
the rostered clergy who takes his vows seriously. I am providing
factual information about what the ELCA does and does not teach, as
well as the options congregations have at times like this. I do see
this as my duty, given the lack of healthy process you've enacted. I
do not do so secretly; indeed the announcement of such was at the
public worship. I do not do so in isolation, but do what I do in
consultation with a broad base of colleagues as we collectively work
to figure out what is the most health-ful response at this point. I
do own my decisions, however, and carry the sole responsibility for
what I am doing.
I am serving my twenty-fourth church, (ahh the life of an interim).
With all of those former congregations Zion is the only one where I
have met with a group like this. Why? I liken it to the ethical
problem that goes like this: Is lying wrong? Yes. If the S.S. from
WWII Germany is asking you if you are harboring Jews in your home (and
you are), is it ethical to say yes, or no? There, the situation
dictates an exception to the general ethic that lying is wrong. Here,
a pastor who lied about his intentions to get where he is, and
continues to lie about the ELCA to push a congregation out, and stumps
for dissenting groups at congregations not his own, demands a change
from the normal rule of non-interference.
And finally, rumor control. I am on call to the synod council for
specialized ministry as an interim pastor. I am not interested in a
settled call period. Not at Zion, or anywhere else. I do not make
the interim assignments, and go where I am sent.
I am also not working with Peace. I believe Zion has the capacity to
hear what I have to say and discuss what a healthy discernment process
will look like. I believe Peace will do whatever Henry wants
regardless of process, or of you or me.
Well, I don't expect you to like it, but I hope that clarifies what I
am doing, and why.
C____'s response to the heretic:
John, one might wonder how charges against one can be brought, when there has been no attempt to actually research the facts. And might I ask just under what authority the charges are being brought? From 2/3 of the congregation council, 1/3 of congregation or from 10 pastor or even the bishop? Seeing that no one has actually ever asked me to explain myself, the charges are dubious at best.
Given that I have sworn (in my ordination vows, mind you) to preach and teach, not according to this church (denomination) but to the Word of God found in the Old and New Testaments and according to the Confessions of this church, then any charges need to be made according to what I have preached and taught. So, I am linking you to my blog where I place my sermons each week. Read through these, compare them to Scripture and the Confessions, and then get back to me on where I have erred in my doctrine. Here is the link: http://weeklysermons.blogspot.com/
In service to Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church,
Rev. C______
wlecome
Last Aug the ELCA Churchwide Assembly in Mlps voted to allow the ordination of homosexuals who are in a life long committed relationship. This action was opposed by many people and as a result there has been a lot of discussion and actions taken in response to it by many individuals and congregations. My friend Rev Norm Olsen (Ret) of Starbuck has a e-mail list that contains news about such actions and other happenings with regards to the actions of the CWA. this blog will contain some of those e-mail from him and others. Word Alone was started as an org in opposition to Called to Common Mission the full communion agreement between the ELCA church and Episcopal church and it has spawned several spin off org such as Lutheran Churches Called to Missions (LCMC) which is where many former ELCA churches and members have landed.
for more info visit http://wordalone.org/
for more info visit http://wordalone.org/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)