How far can the ELCA go?

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

So with the ELCA consistantly in the heat of new debates and new controversies, will they continue to win the day against congregations that oppose some of their stances? I think I am too young to have really witnessed the heat of women ordination (or was there ever really any)? But obviously it is hard to miss the divisivness that the same sex blessings and ordination controversies are having on our church. And more and more I am starting to hear people say they are drawing the line and if "such and such" or "so and so" happens either their congregation will leave the ELCA or possibly the synnod will split altogether. So my question is where do you draw the line? How far can you let the ELCA go before saying it is in such a state I can not even be a member anymore? Is it on ethical issues such as homosexuality? Theological issues such as confessionalism or ecumenism? How far would you be willing to go and if you left, why? What makes it that this isn't a church for you anymore? Or if you would stay through all the controversies and then some, why? Why is this your church? :wave: peace be with you!

[KagomeShuko]

Well, I'm quite liberal - just read any of my journals online (yes, same user name, not hard to find). When is it not for me - when it quits focusing on God's grace given through Christ. If that happens, it's no longer Christian. . .

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[AngelusSax]

I agree with what Kagome said. Also, I'd like to add that, historically, the Church has taken what Jesus said to His disciples at the time to mean He was saying it to all disciples for all time, and we're all His disciples today. (That means red-lettered text in Bibles with Words of Christ in red letters)

The Church has taken the stance that Jesus did tell Peter to, basically, begin the Church, and He also told him that thing about "whatever you bind will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose will be loosed in heaven."

The Church has said that line, essentially, means, on issues, the Church gets to decide.

So, in essence, the line works this way: If you place yourself under the authority of the Church, you do so in all things, even if you disagree with what the Church is saying right then, because the Church gets to decide because Christ said do. And since Christ said so, that means that if the Church decides X, then they do so with the authority of Christ backing them.

Granted, this is only my understanding, and it may be (and quite possibly is) flawed. But assuming the Church gets to decide, and being one who has placed myself under the authority of the Church, then whatever they decide, I live with.

Of course, if the Church goes off the really deep end and proclaims Christ is useless or meaningless or never existed, something like that, then I'd argue it isn't the Church anymore and therefore has no authority, so I'd skedaddle. But Christ is the line, not some rule that has existed for years whose time MAY be up (I say may, because I don't know, and it might be simply interpretational issues)

[Edial]

So with the ELCA consistantly in the heat of new debates and new controversies, will they continue to win the day against congregations that oppose some of their stances? I think I am too young to have really witnessed the heat of women ordination (or was there ever really any)? But obviously it is hard to miss the divisivness that the same sex blessings and ordination controversies are having on our church. And more and more I am starting to hear people say they are drawing the line and if "such and such" or "so and so" happens either their congregation will leave the ELCA or possibly the synnod will split altogether. So my question is where do you draw the line? How far can you let the ELCA go before saying it is in such a state I can not even be a member anymore? Is it on ethical issues such as homosexuality? Theological issues such as confessionalism or ecumenism? How far would you be willing to go and if you left, why? What makes it that this isn't a church for you anymore? Or if you would stay through all the controversies and then some, why? Why is this your church? :wave: peace be with you!
In that sense I do not see ELCA as a denomination to be abandoned, since they do not mandate some of the more liberal teachings upon the individual congragations.

When I see that being imposed upon my local church, I'll leave.

On the other hand, I was attending one ethnic evangelical church for about a year.
They were very good.
But when time came for me to join, I found out that they were a part of UCC.
I declined membership in that case, since UCC was practically legislating their agenda and I would have had to become a member of UCC.

I found ELCA to be an interesting combination of liberals, moderates and conservatives depending on the local congregations.

ELCA practices tolerance in some of the more surprising for me areas. But they do not legislate.

Thanks,
Ed

[KagomeShuko]

Yep, that's what I like about the ELCA. I'm liberal. . .and I'm accepted. The moderates and conservatives are accepted as well. We all acknowledge each other as Christians. We disagree, but we do not come to odds over the fact that God loves all the people. . .

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I agree with what Kagome said. Also, I'd like to add that, historically, the Church has taken what Jesus said to His disciples at the time to mean He was saying it to all disciples for all time, and we're all His disciples today. (That means red-lettered text in Bibles with Words of Christ in red letters)

The Church has taken the stance that Jesus did tell Peter to, basically, begin the Church, and He also told him that thing about "whatever you bind will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose will be loosed in heaven."

The Church has said that line, essentially, means, on issues, the Church gets to decide.

So, in essence, the line works this way: If you place yourself under the authority of the Church, you do so in all things, even if you disagree with what the Church is saying right then, because the Church gets to decide because Christ said do. And since Christ said so, that means that if the Church decides X, then they do so with the authority of Christ backing them.

Granted, this is only my understanding, and it may be (and quite possibly is) flawed. But assuming the Church gets to decide, and being one who has placed myself under the authority of the Church, then whatever they decide, I live with.

Of course, if the Church goes off the really deep end and proclaims Christ is useless or meaningless or never existed, something like that, then I'd argue it isn't the Church anymore and therefore has no authority, so I'd skedaddle. But Christ is the line, not some rule that has existed for years whose time MAY be up (I say may, because I don't know, and it might be simply interpretational issues)
I'd be careful with this interpretation of Matthew 16. Luther criticized the catholic church for taking this very stance that they have the freedom to create whatever restrictions they want (on this I would suggest reading his treatises "On the Keys" and "On the Ban" sometimes also called the "Sermon on the Ban"). To Luther, if the church makes a claim about right/wrong that is not in line with God's word, then you are being "burdened" unnecessarily and the only thing they are able to forgive is what they create and in fact the power of the keys dimishes within this abuse. I apologize for paraphrazing him here but he essentially said that if the pope binds his own laws and doctrines and not those of God then he can only loose his laws and doctrines. So to say that the church can decide whatever they want so long as they not deny Christ is I think against Luther's point of view and a potentially dangerous thing to think. However, I recognize that as you probably (and I would hope rightly) assume that the ELCA does not make decisions simply on its own desire but what it believes to be God's will and revealed in God's word (in which case it is acting justly to Matthew 16). Where the water gets tricky and then perhaps you might have more validity to your argument is on issues not directly dealt with or addressed in the Bible in which the church would have to make a careful decision based on what we do know from God's word. Of course those issues can be quite decisive.

[Edial]

Concerning Matthew 18 ...

This text was presented as one that justifies decisions that the church makes.

However, once one looks at the text and the surrounding context, one comes away with a strong impression that Matthew 18 is talking about the church making a judgement concerning disciplinary actions agains an unrepentant sinner.

MT 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, n go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' n 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
MT 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be n bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be n loosed in heaven.
MT 18:19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
MT 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
MT 18:22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

V. 18 comments on the final disciplinary act to be done in vv. 15-17 to an unrepentant sinner.

Vv. 19-22 further comment on the v.18.

(In v.19, the word "again" ties these verses with v.18).
v.19 - if two or three agree on anything, it will be done so in heaven.
And v.20 confirms that Christ will be in their midst while they make that agreement.

What is this that they have to agree upon?
They have to agree on what disciplinary actions to be taken against that sinner.

And vv. 21-22 state that if that sinner repents, the disciplinary action should be voided and the sinner forgiven.

Some take Mt.18:18 to say that if anything the two or three decide on it wil be done for them.

But once one studies about 6 to 7 instances in the Scriptures concerning "asking anything and it will be done", one sees that this "anything" must be according to God's will. In other words, not against the Scriptures.
"Anything" within God's will.

Many misuse this text to justify their own decisions in the church leadership.

However, if these decisions are not according to God's will, Scriptures, these decisions are not valid as far as being established so in heaven.

Politics do run many denominations and they are often tightly knitted to church matters and decisions.

Denominations (leadership) is accountable to the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, some leadership make Scriptureas accountable to them.

And that destroys the church.

Thanks,
Ed

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Concerning Matthew 18 ...

This text was presented as one that justifies decisions that the church makes.

However, once one looks at the text and the surrounding context, one comes away with a strong impression that Matthew 18 is talking about the church making a judgement concerning disciplinary actions agains an unrepentant sinner.

MT 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, n go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' n 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
MT 18:18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be n bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be n loosed in heaven.
MT 18:19 "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
MT 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
MT 18:22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

V. 18 comments on the final disciplinary act to be done in vv. 15-17 to an unrepentant sinner.

Vv. 19-22 further comment on the v.18.

(In v.19, the word "again" ties these verses with v.18).
v.19 - if two or three agree on anything, it will be done so in heaven.
And v.20 confirms that Christ will be in their midst while they make that agreement.

What is this that they have to agree upon?
They have to agree on what disciplinary actions to be taken against that sinner.

And vv. 21-22 state that if that sinner repents, the disciplinary action should be voided and the sinner forgiven.

Some take Mt.18:18 to say that if anything the two or three decide on it wil be done for them.

But once one studies about 6 to 7 instances in the Scriptures concerning "asking anything and it will be done", one sees that this "anything" must be according to God's will. In other words, not against the Scriptures.
"Anything" within God's will.

Many misuse this text to justify their own decisions in the church leadership.

However, if these decisions are not according to God's will, Scriptures, these decisions are not valid as far as being established so in heaven.

Politics do run many denominations and they are often tightly knitted to church matters and decisions.

Denominations (leadership) is accountable to the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, some leadership make Scriptureas accountable to them.

And that destroys the church.

Thanks,
Ed




I agree Edial about your analysis of Matthew 18, although I think that "I think therefore I am ELCA" was referring to Matthew 16 when he said "Jesus did tell Peter to, basically, begin the Church, and He also told him that thing about "whatever you bind will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose will be loosed in heaven."
However, it is important I think to always look at that passage in its relation/connection to Matthew 18 since there is an obvious connection regarding its exact language in the passages. We often see these also tied to the passage in John "If you forgive anyone their sins, they are forgiven. If you do nto forgive them, they are not forgiven" (I think its John, forgive me it might be Luke).
Still, this passage does still have some weight on the issue (one could perhaps have a forum on this issue alone actually), that is, if the church makes stances about sin/not sin that one sees as apart from scripture, is that grounds to leave? Or does the church still remain since it is not the righteousness of the people/leaders but that of Christ that sustains and maintains its holiness? I guess now I am starting to get into questions about what is church. Although one might see why issues regarding homosexuality are such a heated debate today because if you think it is a sin, and your church does not, what does that mean? But like I said, that is a deep issue that might start going beyond this thread. Anyways, good insights.

[RegularGuy]

I am proud to be a member of a church body that engages in moral deliberation and embraces a variety of Christian viewpoints without dictating opinion on adiaphora.

If the ELCA ever denies the essentials of the Christian faith as expressed in the Apostles' Creed, or if it ever denies such a core Lutheran doctrines as justification by grace through faith, then I'll walk.

[RayJGentry]

I think the ELCA will continue to move in the direction that they are currently. From my perspective, the ELCA (the governing body, not the individual congregations) is continuing to move more liberal, while large parts of congregations tend to be more in the middle, or less concerned with the church taking a stance on politics, leaving that to the individual. I think that's the largest problem right now. Not that the ELCA is moving left, but that the national group is moving that way without regard to the congregations. This is largely a problem because the ELCA is supposed to be a grassroots church. The bishops and synods should be trusted servants of the congregations, not moving forward with issues on their own.

Needless to say, I think the ELCA will eventually make a decision contrary to how congregations and subsequently the synods have guided them. Granted, it's happened already several times, but when the next large issue happens, I think congregations will look and decide that the ELCA is not serving them anymore, just themselves.

I don't know when it will happen, but I'm sure eventually something will cause a rift. I don't think it will be the cause of the ELCA moving too far 'left' or anything, just not listening to the congregations they're supposed to be serving. WordAlone is starting a seminary tract next fall, so there's already the beginning of a subset, rift or alternative. So yeah. Let's keep talking about this :D

[KagomeShuko]

I know that to those who disagree, it seems like the ELCA isn't listening, but I really don't think that's the case. Really, I think it has to do with opting out of taking all the surveys or going to these conventions because people just "don't want to hear it" from those with whom they disagree and therefore they don't get to have their say. . .and they complain about it, but it's really their fault for not participating.

Now, that isn't saying that individual synod and/or congregations don't let the congregations or people know what's happening. I've had that type of thing happen many times in my synod and my congregation.

However, overall, the people do have the right to have input - it's why they have all those gatherings - Youth, LYO, synod conventions. . .

[TheCosmicGospel]

I know that to those who disagree, it seems like the ELCA isn't listening, but I really don't think that's the case. Really, I think it has to do with opting out of taking all the surveys or going to these conventions because people just "don't want to hear it" from those with whom they disagree and therefore they don't get to have their say. . .and they complain about it, but it's really their fault for not participating.

Now, that isn't saying that individual synod and/or congregations don't let the congregations or people know what's happening. I've had that type of thing happen many times in my synod and my congregation.

However, overall, the people do have the right to have input - it's why they have all those gatherings - Youth, LYO, synod conventions. . .

I do not have any stake in the ELCA. But in my history, I was ALC. I think they are the "conservative" voice in the ELCA and wonder what keeps them there. I have to feel that they are only tolerated and do not have much say. I would like to hear a former ALC that now is in the ELCA and what their take is.

And while you do have conservatives, I guess they feel they have no option. But the current history of ELCA is not in their favor.

Ah, the ALC, the good ole days. TAALC is hanging on. Maybe they will get a comeback at this rate.

Cheers,
Cosmic

[jcj3803]

"Ah, the ALC, the good ole days. TAALC is hanging on. Maybe they will get a comeback at this rate"

2 churches in the Chicago area, a total of 3 in Illinois. Too far away for me to go to regularly, but I'd be curious to visit one.

[RayJGentry]

But what I'm saying is that they, in fact, don't listen. CCM was only passed by 40% of the synods, yet it passed by like 72% at the Assembly. That means that the synods either didn't want to approve it, or weren't yet sure and a decision was made nonetheless. the 2005 report stated that the ELCA should not change it's stance on the ordination of openly homosexual pastors and not to add a homosexual blessing, but it's being brought up again and (as far as i know) not in a way congregations and synods can give their input through voting. my big problem is just that the ELCA still states it is a grassroots church when it is not anymore. That's fine if they want to change structure (as CCM requires) but a similar change needs to be stated in the ELCA's statement about identity.

However, I think the ALC's conservatism is alive and well in the congregations that are leaving the ELCA and in groups like WordAlone, who will soon begin providing pastors for those and other more conservative congregations who, ultimately, will end up leaving the ELCA (in my opinion).

[Jackson50]

I am new to ELCA and am not sure about the historical differences and whatnot, but if ELCA starts to accept homosexuality and other things of that nature, then I cannot join it. When a church starts accepting what is open sin then I truly believe that it is not of God any longer.

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Jackson, I think you should know then before you join that the ELCA already affirms homosexuals within their community. I think that has been the case since the early 90's that homosexuals are to be welcomed and embraced within the church, the issues that are hot and still on the table right now are regarding gay marriage and ordination of open homosexuals. But for years it has welcomed the gay community. However you feel on that subject or if that makes any difference I don't know, I just thought you should know. Here is a link from the ELCA's website on their current policies and resources regarding homosexuality:
http://www.elca.org/faithfuljourney/policy/
Peace be with you.
Doulos_Tou_Kuriou

[RayJGentry]

homosexuality is not embraced as an appropriate action (at least not by doctrine) but being homosexual is seen as being a sinner. therefore they are welcome in the church, as any other.

[Luther073082]

I think we've reached the limit of how liberal the ELCA can get. It was determined in 2005 that non-celibate homosexuals can not be pastors. It was also determined that the ELCA will not be doing same sex unions.

This may come up again but I'm sure it will lose again. If it wins, it will split the church.

[RayJGentry]

agreed.

[FaithfulRemnant]

It will be good if Solid Rock Lutherans will renew their work to help keep the ELCA on track, as they believe they did in the last ELCA assembly concerning these issues. The ELCA has its conservatives, no doubt, but their voice isn't given much priority.:sigh:

[jcj3803]

agreed.

And then some.

[RayJGentry]

I think the ELCA has gone as far left as is scripturally defensible; unfortunately I don't think that means that they won't continue to try and move farther left. I don't think it's because they're bad people, or even bad Christians, but right now the ELCA is struggling how to look at the world. Right now, the current "powers", are moving back and forth between society (and what makes a lot of sense in the world and being far and equal) and how scripture asks us to deal with certain things.

I think even an example of this is a thread that just got started in the main TCL forum. Currently they're discussing what is acceptable worship and how to bring the unchurched in (specifically on Easter Sunday). Ultimately God brings people into the Church. His Word alone is enough to do that if we believe the spirit is truly present. We are currently struggling with what an acceptable container or medium we can use to deliver the message though.

This struggle falls directly within the discussion for the ELCA moving left. As the more liberal of the Lutheran denominations, we're looking at how our denomination can relate to society. Unfortunately, some of our efforts to express that we are a loving tolerant denomination are affecting our doctrine to the point we are wobbling on the scriptural foundation of our beliefs. We're letting what's acceptable in society form what's acceptable in the church.

Now that's not to say that there hasn't been some good come from this sort of discussion, experience and learning. When we began ordaining women, that was a direct discussion between what was happening in society and where the ELCA possibly needed to re-examine their doctrine and stance on an issue. Unfortunately, when it comes to women in leadership roles, there is solid scripture (regardless of how controversial the way we interpret those verses is) that places women in leadership roles and that those instructions may have been for specific churches in a specific time. It become a lot harder to use similar justification when the main thing people who support same sex unions and practicing ordained homosexuals is the Galatians verse stating that in God there is no man or woman, free or slave, etc.

I personally am not as left as the ELCA is currently leaning. I say leaning because I truly believe that a majority of the denomination is not as left as the leadership or the vocal liberals within. Unfortunately the more conservative (or even just less liberal) voices are either staying silent, content to stay comfortable in a conservative congregation or are not being heard (such as WordAlone, LC3 and Lutheran CORE. Ultimately the leaning from the leadership will eventually tip church policy and a split will occur. This is why I'm becoming more involved in conservative movements within the ELCA. Eventually enough will break that these groups will come together to form a Lutheran denomination somewhere between the ELCA and LCMS.

I do think this is unfortunate. A church that was founded upon being a grassroots church, but seems to neglect the positions of the members, congregations and synods has lost its way. I would rather see a restructuring and reformation of the ELCA that would not require a split and ultimately another Lutheran denomination.

WordAlone has 10 Affirmations that some people in here may find helpful or interesting. I'm posting them not because I read them and decided that's what or how I wanted to believe, but rather, because when I ran across them, I found a group that already held beliefs similar to mine. I don't look to them as my answer, but rather found that the current answers I've found in my identity in Christ were mirrored by others:

WordAlone's 10 Affirmations (http://www.wordalone.org/docs/wa-tenaffirm.shtml)