norm news 8-21

For those of you with some interest in these matters:
Lord of Life Lutheran Church, Ramsey, MN, is a congregation of some 3300
members who worship around 1400 each week-end. The congregation took a
first vote to leave the ELCA and it passed.
Before the second vote, effort was made to generate defeat of the motion to
leave the ELCA, with some inactive members contributing one penny in an
envelope so they could say they had given to the church within the past 2
years.
When the second vote failed to reach the 2/3 threshold, the senior pastor
and 80% of the church staff resigned then and there and are now worshiping
in a school nearby, with over 600 in attendance at the first service--and
growing.
So now the church building is sitting there with the bulk of the inactive
members responsible for paying the mortgage while the active members have
formed the new Northgate Lutheran Church with Steven Perkins as senior
pastor and his associate from Lord of Life with him at Northgate.
Obviously these people and church staff knew they could not remain in the
ELCA any longer regardless of the outcome of the voting. Pray for them and
their new ministry--which is a continuation of the old ministry without ELCA
baggage!
It may well be that the church will be on the market before too long--or,
better yet, Lord of Life will reconsider their last vote and move for
unity--distanced from the ELCA.
Phil

norm's news 8/4/10

FYI: PASTOR SCOTT GRORUD HAS WRITTEN AN EXCELLENT PREVIEW OF THE 'RITE OF RECEPTION' RECENTLY HELD, in which several pastors were" re-instated"on the clergy roster, under the new guidelines adopted last August. A copy of the bulletin is attached below. This is from -
Gerry Peterson
WA/CORE Coordinator MAS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FW: Rite of Reception "liturgy"
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:20:05 -0500
From: ScottG@faithlc.com
To: ScottG@faithlc.com


Dear Friends,

You may have seen the announcement that seven pastors were recently admitted to the ELCA clergy roster in the Sierra Pacific synod under the new rules adopted last summer. The e-mail below concerns the service held July 25 to "re-instate" them to the roster. The note below points out the deepest offense of this service --the theological distortion of the faith in service to various ideologies. Click on the link to see for yourself.

The note ends by pointing out how the "confession" reveals what a fiction the whole notion of "bound conscience" is, which is painfully evident. But that is the least of the problems here. Far more telling is that this "confession," despite its use of first person plural, is devoted to confessing the sins of others--all those who dared to disagree with the revisionist agenda. The "we" and "our" refer to the ELCA and especially that part of it that refused to embrace their agenda, but it includes no genuine confession of the sin of those who were in the room. This reflects a self-righteousness that would make the Pharisees blush and reveals how different a gospel they have come to believe, even as it masquerades under traditional litrugical forms.

For those who struggle to believe that the ELCA is afflicted by more than a dispute over ministerial policy or different views of sexuality, this helps to reveal the profound theological perversion that has come to be openly accepted in the ELCA (remember, three bishops were there, leading the service in full approval). For those of us who have shaken the ELCA dust off our feet, this may not be of much interest, but for those who are still languishing in a church that is increasingly losing its way, this can help to make the case. They need our concern, prayers and witness, that they can find the lifeboats before this creeping heresy infects their local church or even their own faith. (And trust me, this false theology is not limited to the San Francisco area!)

Grace and peace,
Pastor Scott



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Rite of Reception "liturgy"

For any of you who may not have seen this, you really ought to take a look at the service folder from the rite of reception "liturgy" last weekend in San Francisco restoring or receiving onto the ELCA clergy roster seven extraordinarily ordained or expelled pastors.

The service folder is here: http://www.welcomeministry.org/RiteofReceptionJULY252010.pdf I have downloaded it and can email it to any of you, but it is a very large file and I didn't want to clog your inboxes.

I could point out the SIX "alternatives" for the "Prayer of Jesus" (f.k.a. the Lord's Prayer), including the infamous "Our Mother, who is within us" from the equally infamous "Herchurch."

I could point out the prayers addressed to "Life-giving Mother" (don't get excited, they didn't mean the BVM) and "O Sophia, Wisdom and Mother of us all."

I could point out that every couplet of the Great Thanksgiving was rewritten to eliminate "Lord."

I could point to the rewriting of the Sanctus to eliminate, apparently, not just "Lord," but also "power and might" (the alternative text read "Holy Holy Holy are you, God of heavenly hosts").

I could mention that the congregation was dismissed "In the name of the Creator, + Redeemer and Holy Spirit."

I could mention that the entrance procession included, and you really can't make this up, a "liturgical parasol" -- a frilly and glittery pink umbrella.

I could mention that all this Scriptural disobedience and rank paganism was presided over by Bp. Mark Holmerud (Sierra Pac Synod), with two other sitting synodical bishops also participating in the service (Bp. Dean Nelson, SW CA, and Bp. David Brauer-Rieke, Oregon).

But all that pales, at least in terms of the integrity of the ELCA, to the words spoken by Bp. Holmerud as part of the confession and forgiveness:

Our church of the reformation has been too long captive to bias and misinformation.
We have not remembered the life giving words of our own Confessions.
We have not respected the gift of sexuality, nor the joy, delight and vulnerability sexual intimacy creates between loving partners.
We have not honored faithful and loving promises, marriages, and covenantalrelationships.
We have not acted quickly enough, for some have died and have not made it tothis day.
We have not accorded all families the dignity and respect they deserve.
We have not spoken up.
We have betrayed fellow members of the body of Christ because of cultural prejudice.
We have misused Scripture as a tool of discrimination.
We have forced celibacy upon too many, a gift God grants to only a few.
We have encouraged silence and complicity.
We have promoted invisibility and dishonesty.
We have hardened our hearts with bitterness and condescension.
We have intimidated and disciplined, censured and expelled.
Our actions have destroyed faith and have led people away from the gospel's call to love and justice.


Hearing that, from a sitting synodical bishop, in what possible way can it be said that the ELCA's claims to respect the "bound consciences of all" have any shred of integrity left? How can it be that the institutional ELCA intends to "bear each other's burdens" if a synodical bishop is free to attack, impugn and demean orthodox-traditionalist believers, all the more so in the context of confession of sins? How can the claims to respect diverse viewpoints on human sexuality be any more than, at best, hollow promises, and at worst, active deception?

And why is it that the only bishops I hear saying that they are called to be "a bishop to all people in the synod" are orthodox bishops who are trying to justify not taking a public stand?

It just boggles the mind.

norms news july 11TH PT 2

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

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

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.

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

--

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.



----------