New CORE Letter, Outline for Fishers

[Brian Stoffregen]

But does Paul intend it to go both ways? And if not, does the task force know more than Paul?

I see the task force applying Paul's principles to our situation. They certainly know more than Paul about our contemporary issue.

NON-ANSWER.

It was an answer, maybe not to the question you asked.

Paul's situation it was that the "traditionalists" are seen as the "weak" ones; whether it was the Jews who had grown up with the tradition of eating only kosher foods or of Gentile converts who had grown up with the tradition of the existence of pagan gods. Paul's "strong" beliefs can lead to actions contrary to those traditions (and the requirement made by the Jerusalem Council). Paul, I believe, is telling himself -- and the other "strong" believers like him, to respect the conscience of those who are "weak", but he doesn't tell them to no longer eat the offensive foods.

In our situation, I think that it means that bishops need to respect the position of congregations who oppose committed same-gender relationships when suggesting interims or candidates for call. Perhaps, as some in CORE are suggesting, a bylaw to that affect could be adopted. It could mean that a same-gendered couple does not attend a synod couples retreat where their presence could offend others. (I think Bishop Mark was wrong to be in the gay pride parade because the publicity did offend members of his "flock". Less public ways of showing support would be preferred, e.g., attending Lutheran Concern parties at assemblies, where the attendees would not be offended by his presence.)

[hillwilliam]

I've been a member of my congregation for 2 or 3 decades. I thought that whether my fellow parishioners were politically, philosophically, ethnically or culturally like me didn't really matter that much. We were all Lutheran Christians so we had unity that was more important than any other consideration. Now I find that the glue that held us together, the Lutheran Confessions, is no longer our common bond. I need a new game plan to deal with this new reality. I knew we were in serious trouble but I was surprised that the revisionists were happy to admit that they were voting for something that "...differs with the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions..".

Whether any of us stays or leaves is not really a group decision. What we, as a group, need to do is define our corporate identity and identify ways of giving and receiving mutual support. We need to show that our unity is still in the lordship of Jesus Christ and our identity can still be found in the Book of Concord.

[The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS]

Free standing synod souns like a separate denomination to me.  Since CORE has said they are not leaving the ELCA, I'm sure the have something else in mind, but it is a little confusing. 
 

Our problem as 21st century American Lutherans is that we hear the word "synod" and immediately think "denomination" or, worse, a sub-division of a denomination or "judicatory.".

A "synod" is a gathering of pastors and congregations.  That's it.  A gathering of pastors and congregations for a particular purpose.  "Synod Assembly" is like "The La Brea Tar Pits" (forgive the Southern California reference; it's a major historical site in Los Angeles: "la brea" is Spanish for "the tar pits").

If we wanted to be really precise about it, we could call the Convocation itself a "free synod," that is, a gathering that is open to anyone interested in the purpose of the gathering.  It is "free" because it is not associated with, in this case any official gathering of the church. 

So, a Free Synod of ELCA pastors and congregations is a gathering of ELCAers separate from the formal structures of the ELCA for a particular purpose -- in this case to provide support for those pastors and congregations in the ELCA who are conscience bound, by Scripture and Confession, to reject the errors of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly and the ELCA's leadership. 

That "support" happens primarily at the Free Synod, that is the gathering (something we seem to be forgetting of our ELCA synods), but since it must be on-going support (until the ELCA repents of its error) the Free Synod will likely have some sort of continuing existence to co-ordinate relationships with various ministries and missions, to provide common suggestions for alternatives to the anti-Gospel portions of the ELCA (such as curricula that will portray gay "families" or a pastor's "partner" as just another option, or liturgical/prayer resources that neuter the Lord God or emasculate the risen Christ, etc.).

A Free Synod within the ELCA enables those of us who reject the CWA's actions to stay together in mission to live out the mission that brought us together in the first place, the mission expressed in the Constitution of the ELCA, its synods, and congregations.  (See my "Why Stay?," originally posted on this online forum, for why we want to do that.)  A Free Synod of faithful ELCA folks would call upon the ELCA to return to its stated purpose.  The CWA's actions specifically provide for our voice to be there, and we should challenge the ELCA's leaders to be true to their word is every way we can, and that challenge includes participating as fully as possible in official ELCA, synod, conference, etc. activities.  (So, yes, it challenges us, too.) 

Pax, Steven+

[vicarbob]

Most helpful Pastor Steven.

[DCharlton]

Free standing synod souns like a separate denomination to me.  Since CORE has said they are not leaving the ELCA, I'm sure the have something else in mind, but it is a little confusing. 
 

Our problem as 21st century American Lutherans is that we hear the word "synod" and immediately think "denomination" or, worse, a sub-division of a denomination or "judicatory.".

A "synod" is a gathering of pastors and congregations.  That's it.  A gathering of pastors and congregations for a particular purpose.  "Synod Assembly" is like "The La Brea Tar Pits" (forgive the Southern California reference; it's a major historical site in Los Angeles: "la brea" is Spanish for "the tar pits").

If we wanted to be really precise about it, we could call the Convocation itself a "free synod," that is, a gathering that is open to anyone interested in the purpose of the gathering.  It is "free" because it is not associated with, in this case any official gathering of the church. 

So, a Free Synod of ELCA pastors and congregations is a gathering of ELCAers separate from the formal structures of the ELCA for a particular purpose -- in this case to provide support for those pastors and congregations in the ELCA who are conscience bound, by Scripture and Confession, to reject the errors of the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly and the ELCA's leadership. 

That "support" happens primarily at the Free Synod, that is the gathering (something we seem to be forgetting of our ELCA synods), but since it must be on-going support (until the ELCA repents of its error) the Free Synod will likely have some sort of continuing existence to co-ordinate relationships with various ministries and missions, to provide common suggestions for alternatives to the anti-Gospel portions of the ELCA (such as curricula that will portray gay "families" or a pastor's "partner" as just another option, or liturgical/prayer resources that neuter the Lord God or emasculate the risen Christ, etc.).

A Free Synod within the ELCA enables those of us who reject the CWA's actions to stay together in mission to live out the mission that brought us together in the first place, the mission expressed in the Constitution of the ELCA, its synods, and congregations.  (See my "Why Stay?," originally posted on this online forum, for why we want to do that.)  A Free Synod of faithful ELCA folks would call upon the ELCA to return to its stated purpose.  The CWA's actions specifically provide for our voice to be there, and we should challenge the ELCA's leaders to be true to their word is every way we can, and that challenge includes participating as fully as possible in official ELCA, synod, conference, etc. activities.  (So, yes, it challenges us, too.) 

Pax, Steven+

Thank you.

David

[The Rev. Jeffrey Shealy]

Not to be persnickety, but since this thread began as discussion on the CORE event, could we perhaps get this thread back on topic? As one who will not be attending, I am very curious about how the CORE gathering is going to unfold. My hope is that maybe the Forum might be a place to hear what the gathering is supposed to accomplish, particularly in light of the goals outlined in the letter posted by Jeff Ruby.

Forgive me if my request to stay on topic is a bit abrupt and harsh. Just very concerned about what is happening at the CORE Convocation and would love to hear of others' input and thought on what the goals of the Convocation (outlined by letter) are.

I've been thinking about what's next for ELCA traditionalists especially here on the left coast. Obviously, we need more networking on a personal level. I have grown to know many people who I see as kindred spirits online but to go to the next step I believe that face to face discussions have to take place. A regional CORE group that sponsors retreats and conferences with CORE leaders and theological advisers would go a long way toward building solidarity among those of us in the occupied territories. I would be willing to get the ball rolling by compiling a list of those western CORE supporters who were interested enough to email me asking to be put on the list. We could have the outlines of such a group by the time we all meet in Fishers.

I have also been thinking alot about CORE having stronger presence here in the SC Synod. It seems to me though, as one who has lived in this synod all my life, that such "groups", i.e. Word Alone, CORE, have been looked upon with suspicion here in SC. This is interesting, considering most of our synod to be conservative, theologically speaking. Although I am merely speculating, it may have to do with the fact that CORE (and WA) both have their grassroots in the Midwest.

Thus, my hope is to see CORE take very seriously the need to reach all sections of the ELCA and I wholeheartedly agree with the creation of regional networks. However, CORE will need to take seriously that it is very likely to be perceived much as Word Alone has been - as a phenomenon of the the Lutherans "up there" in MN. (Which, subsequently, means that there will need to be some serious myth-busting as well, which I may get to in another post.)


 

[Paul L. Knudson]

Steven raises what he believes could be an effective way to bear witness to the ELCA to have them turn and change course.  Our witness to the ELCA is a very significant element to what should shape our witness and how we go about that.  After all this body and its predessor bodies have been home to most of us for many years, even life times. 

Without addressing directly your arguments, Steven, I offer another view point on our witness to the ELCA and also our witness as a missionary community in the early 21rst century to a world that is increasingly hostile to our witness, our convictions as to what is the way, truth, and the life.  I am by no means sure what is the most effective approach.  I do think the following needs to be in the mix of our decisions.

When you separate yourself from a denomination, the argument can well be made that you lose influence.  In ordinary times I would agree with that.  I think an argument can also be made, however, that a very substantial portion of this body withdrawing from what we know as the ELCA could give leaders pause.  Right now it seems that  synodical leaders are seeking to use family systems learnings with learnings on how to deal with conflict resolution and are not willing to take serious looks at the deeper identity and mission issues that we believe need to be faced.  I would simply advocate for the possibility that something very dramatic has a better chance of calling leaders up short than something less bold.  Your approach, Steven, could be sufficient, but some of us have become very skeptical.  I for one am still open to various options.

Any withdrawal from or stepping back from within, however, needs to be coupled with a willingness to bring a bold witness of conviction and compassion out in the world that needs both.  I just read an excellent review in Touchstone magazine of Timothy Keller's book, The Reason for God.  Louis Markos, the reviewer, did an excellent job of showing Keller's apologetic approach to the faith in Manhatten being timely in the face of younger generations turning from us and against us.  My hope is that whatever we do, we find ways to be bold in our convictions even as we listen well to the cries of younger folk who at the moment are walking away from us in droves.  We need to evaluate what we do, in other words, not only in how we can effect change in the ELCA and its institutions but also in how our witness in word and deed is faithful to our Lord's call upon us.  To that end we must not step back from concerns for compassion and justice.  Some of you may have read the article by the pastor from Zimbabwe in the current Lutheran Forum magazine.  It was the most depressing article I have read for a long time.  We cannot close our eyes to suffering brothers and sisters in the faith in hellish places like Zimbabwe.  Somehow this church is growing in the most horrific conditions.  Our witness to them cannot avoid justice concerns.  Public policy does matter.  Governmental actions are necessary.

[Marshall_Hahn]

Thus, my hope is to see CORE take very seriously the need to reach all sections of the ELCA and I wholeheartedly agree with the creation of regional networks. However, CORE will need to take seriously that it is very likely to be perceived much as Word Alone has been - as a phenomenon of the the Lutherans "up there" in MN. (Which, subsequently, means that there will need to be some serious myth-busting as well, which I may get to in another post.)

We are reaching all sections of the ELCA.  Notice the Steering Committee is from :  State College, PA; Tyler, Texas; Landisville, PA; Hutchison, MN; Lake Mary, FLA; Waterville, IA; Seattle, MN (um, I mean Seattle, WA); Washington, D.C.; Lock Haven, PA; Columbus, OH; and Brandon, S.D.  
Only one Minnesotan in the bunch.  Pennsylvania appears to be taking over, if that matters.  After the meeting at Fishers, I do not think it will.  As another poster predicted, the gathering at Fishers will probably be more diverse - and of greater numbers - than the voting assembly in Minneapolis.

Marshall Hahn

[hillwilliam]

Thus, my hope is to see CORE take very seriously the need to reach all sections of the ELCA and I wholeheartedly agree with the creation of regional networks. However, CORE will need to take seriously that it is very likely to be perceived much as Word Alone has been - as a phenomenon of the the Lutherans "up there" in MN. (Which, subsequently, means that there will need to be some serious myth-busting as well, which I may get to in another post.)

We are reaching all sections of the ELCA.  Notice the Steering Committee is from :  State College, PA; Tyler, Texas; Landisville, PA; Hutchison, MN; Lake Mary, FLA; Waterville, IA; Seattle, MN; Washington, D.C.; Lock Haven, PA; Columbus, OH; and Brandon, S.D.  
Only one Minnesotan in the bunch.  Pennsylvania appears to be taking over, if that matters.  After the meeting at Fishers, I do not think it will.  As another poster predicted, the gathering at Fishers will probably be more diverse - and of greater numbers - than the voting assembly in Minneapolis.

Marshall Hahn

But none from California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington or other western states. Some years back, I contacted CORE/WordAlone about who was the contact person for California. I was directed to Ryan Schwartz in DC. Last time I checked that is on the east coast so while I have high regard for Ryan he was not what I was looking for. Those of us who live in the occupied territories need regional representation. We have different and, I feel, more immediate needs to confront those in power here. The only possible advantage we have is the ability to throw money at the problem and even that is becoming problematic.

[The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS]

We are reaching all sections of the ELCA.  Notice the Steering Committee is from :  State College, PA; Tyler, Texas; Landisville, PA; Hutchison, MN; Lake Mary, FLA; Waterville, IA; Seattle, MN; Washington, D.C.; Lock Haven, PA; Columbus, OH; and Brandon, S.D.  

Uh, that's Seattle, Wash.

One of the groups of the Lutheran CORE coalition from the very beginning is the Fellowship of Confessional Lutherans which, shortly after I arrived at PLTS in June 1988, was already being organized by pastors in what would later be called the Sierra Pacific Synod.  The first of the ELCA reforming groups, FOCL has a national mailing list, but its mailing address is in San Jose, Cal.

There is also (or at least there was) the Evangelical Mission Network based in the Southwest California Synod.

And then in the Pacifica Synod there is a group that is part of CORE called Article 7.

That said, those on the West Coast who've been dissenting from the trends of the ELCA tend to lay pretty low, for they face considerable hostility from multiple sources when they do speak up.  So unless one is already tied into orthodox group, it's pretty easy to forget that they're out there.

Pax, Steven+
expat Californian

[passerby]

You say that CORE intends to be:
A free-standing synod, carrying out synodical ministries, apart from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

I ponder:
In every respect? Training of pastors? Discipline? Establishing congregations. Approving ordinations? Supporting overseas missions? You speak of the reformation of American Lutheranism and "new" structures.
Do you intend to form an organization of churches and people who have nothing to do with the ELCA?
How are we not to see this as secession from the ELCA?
You can try to do it, of course, it's just important that everyone knows exactly what is going on.

Bound conscience Pr. Austin.  Say it three times and click your heels together, "There's nothing like bound conscience.  There's nothing like bound conscience.  There's nothing like bound conscience..."  What is so wrong with those orthodox-traditional congregations, pastors, and laity (and perhaps some synods like NE Iowa or Alleghenny or NW Minnesota or West Virginia-Wesern Maryland et al) from working together within and under their shared bound conscience to tend to the raising up and training and calling of traditional-orthodox seminarians and pastors.  Or if we should work cooperatively to start new congregations..isn't that a good thing for the ELCA?  or cooperating together in overseas missions?   Are you now saying that the ELCA is a top-down centralized authority organization--that everything congregations and synods do must somehow first be cleared with Churchwide?   Why next you'll be saying that bishops and synods should have been strictly following Visions and Expectations in regard to non-celibate homosexual clergy out of respect for churchwide standards and a unified clergy roster!  So were the ELM (previously ECP) folks, who are pretty much the same folks in LC/NA and GoodSoil seceding from the ELCA with their unauthorized ordinations?  C
mon, what's good the goose is good for the gander--or is this a case that some bound consciences are more equal than other bound consciences? 

We're still in the ELCA--for a while--reisisting, bearing witness, gathering and working together.  So what will the ELCA Church and revisionist bishops do?  The more they squeeze, the harder they push, the more congregations, laity, and pastors they will lose. 

Ken

Running the risk of contradicting myself in another post, I don't see why the ELCA can support a conservative seminary. The Episcopal Church as Trinity in Western Pennsylvania; I'm pretty sure the United Methodists give some support to Asbury (I may be wrong here), so it all doesn't necessarily imply conflict.

[Dadoo]

You say that CORE intends to be:
A free-standing synod, carrying out synodical ministries, apart from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

I ponder:
In every respect? Training of pastors? Discipline? Establishing congregations. Approving ordinations? Supporting overseas missions? You speak of the reformation of American Lutheranism and "new" structures.
Do you intend to form an organization of churches and people who have nothing to do with the ELCA?
How are we not to see this as secession from the ELCA?
You can try to do it, of course, it's just important that everyone knows exactly what is going on.

Bound conscience Pr. Austin.  Say it three times and click your heels together, "There's nothing like bound conscience.  There's nothing like bound conscience.  There's nothing like bound conscience..."  What is so wrong with those orthodox-traditional congregations, pastors, and laity (and perhaps some synods like NE Iowa or Alleghenny or NW Minnesota or West Virginia-Wesern Maryland et al) from working together within and under their shared bound conscience to tend to the raising up and training and calling of traditional-orthodox seminarians and pastors.  Or if we should work cooperatively to start new congregations..isn't that a good thing for the ELCA?  or cooperating together in overseas missions?   Are you now saying that the ELCA is a top-down centralized authority organization--that everything congregations and synods do must somehow first be cleared with Churchwide?   Why next you'll be saying that bishops and synods should have been strictly following Visions and Expectations in regard to non-celibate homosexual clergy out of respect for churchwide standards and a unified clergy roster!  So were the ELM (previously ECP) folks, who are pretty much the same folks in LC/NA and GoodSoil seceding from the ELCA with their unauthorized ordinations?  C
mon, what's good the goose is good for the gander--or is this a case that some bound consciences are more equal than other bound consciences? 

We're still in the ELCA--for a while--reisisting, bearing witness, gathering and working together.  So what will the ELCA Church and revisionist bishops do?  The more they squeeze, the harder they push, the more congregations, laity, and pastors they will lose. 

Ken

Running the risk of contradicting myself in another post, I don't see why the ELCA can support a conservative seminary. The Episcopal Church as Trinity in Western Pennsylvania; I'm pretty sure the United Methodists give some support to Asbury (I may be wrong here), so it all doesn't necessarily imply conflict.

I am not so sure the question is "can she," as much as "will she."  Let's not get into conspiracy theory and national leaders being in the pocket of etc. If the church writes a single candidacy manual then the seminaries will teach into that manual since it would not profit them to be known as the seminary from which you might graduate but with whose teaching you will not make it past candidacy committee. That, BTW, cuts both ways, even though professors have a knack of "advising" how one can get past sticky questions.

THere might emerge the view that one sem is more conservative than another- both LNTS and LSTC have been batted about in that respect. Will the synods put up with their candidates going to that seminary, will be the question that needs answer. I remember that even in the relative giddy days of 1988, my candidacy committee was very insistent that I attend a certain seminary but then grudgingly put up with me attending the other sem they were supporting. Got away with it because the leading pastor on the committee had attended that seminary as well.

Synods will be insistent about where their candidates need to attend and it will have something to do with which cluster they are supporting. In a way the battle will be a synodical one as well as a cluster one. Best one might be able to do is to make sure that the synods do not get too authoritarian about these matters and do not punish those who do not tow the synod line. For both sides of the issue might boil down to transferring potential candidates to congregations and synods that match their outlook before they register, but then that is the way we got here anyway.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I think an argument can also be made, however, that a very substantial portion of this body withdrawing from what we know as the ELCA could give leaders pause.  Right now it seems that  synodical leaders are seeking to use family systems learnings with learnings on how to deal with conflict resolution and are not willing to take serious looks at the deeper identity and mission issues that we believe need to be faced.  I would simply advocate for the possibility that something very dramatic has a better chance of calling leaders up short than something less bold.

Even if all 65 synodical bishops and the presiding bishop voted for the resolutions (and I doubt that all voted the same,) that's only 66 votes out of over 1000 that were cast. From the beginning, this was not a leader-led issue. When the original resolution came before the CWA to form a sexuality task force to look into same-gender relationships and ordination, the leadership, most notably the presiding bishop, spoke against it. The assembly with 60% lay people voted against his position.  It sounds like you want to punish the "leaders" who were thrown into this conflict by votes of cwa just as much as our congregations and lay folks.

[The Rev. Steven P. Tibbetts, STS]

When the original resolution came before the CWA to form a sexuality task force to look into same-gender relationships and ordination, the leadership, most notably the presiding bishop, spoke against it.

Uh, Brian, that was a different Presiding Bishop than the one we have now, who was elected a couple of days later by that same CWA and who (as was rightly his prerogative) immediately began installing new people into leadership positions.

You know all this, of course, which once again raises the question of why you bother to write such dissembling comments.

kyrie eleison...

[Erma Wolf]

Thus, my hope is to see CORE take very seriously the need to reach all sections of the ELCA and I wholeheartedly agree with the creation of regional networks. However, CORE will need to take seriously that it is very likely to be perceived much as Word Alone has been - as a phenomenon of the the Lutherans "up there" in MN. (Which, subsequently, means that there will need to be some serious myth-busting as well, which I may get to in another post.)

We are reaching all sections of the ELCA.  Notice the Steering Committee is from :  State College, PA; Tyler, Texas; Landisville, PA; Hutchison, MN; Lake Mary, FLA; Waterville, IA; Seattle, MN; Washington, D.C.; Lock Haven, PA; Columbus, OH; and Brandon, S.D.  
Only one Minnesotan in the bunch.  Pennsylvania appears to be taking over, if that matters.  After the meeting at Fishers, I do not think it will.  As another poster predicted, the gathering at Fishers will probably be more diverse - and of greater numbers - than the voting assembly in Minneapolis.

Marshall Hahn

But none from California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington or other western states. Some years back, I contacted CORE/WordAlone about who was the contact person for California. I was directed to Ryan Schwartz in DC. Last time I checked that is on the east coast so while I have high regard for Ryan he was not what I was looking for. Those of us who live in the occupied territories need regional representation. We have different and, I feel, more immediate needs to confront those in power here. The only possible advantage we have is the ability to throw money at the problem and even that is becoming problematic.

Lutheran CORE came into existence in November of 2005.  At that time, the steering committee was elected from among people nominated at the constituting event, which people represented a mixed bag of movements, regions, etc.  In fact, at that time we weren't sure just who might be in California.  A lot of that first year was spent trying to get in touch with movements that we had heard existed, but often we didn't have current names and contact information for them.  The 2007 CWA in Chicago was helpful, as folks found our room (not the easiest thing due to its almost-hidden location!) and introduced themselves.  That's how the connection with southern California was established. 

Following the 2007 assembly, the CORE steering committee divided up the 65 synods so that each member would have synods of responsibility.  Sometimes this resulted in a steering committee member working with synods that were geographically close at hand; other times not.  Ryan Schwartz travels to California on a regular basis, and had already made contact with one group out there; that's how he got that area.  Vic Langford, who lives in Seattle WA took synods up there.  Some of the relationships don't make sense on paper, until there is some explanation of why certain folks are working with certain synods.  And like in all systems, some of this has worked better with some pairings than others. 

We have and continue to discuss how to best "cover" the entire country.  What we have now is probably not ideal for going forward; it may work for the next year, which is what is being proposed, but really needs to be looked at again.  (Without taking too much time dealing with internal dynamics when there is so much of vital need to be done.)  No one from the south was on the steering committee before Mark Braaten from Texas came in (to represent LC3) and Rebecca from Florida.  California is the real missing part.  Are you volunteering to serve on the steering committee from CA? 

Otherwise, if you would like to discuss this further, I really do encourage bringing it up with Paull Spring or with Ryan.  If you don't have their contact information, please contact me privately and I will give it to you.  I know they would welcome discussion, and particularly ideas, on how to make the steering committee stronger and more representative. 

Erma Wolf
vice chair L-CORE steering committee