Title: A Response to Bishop Tiemann's Synodwide E-mail and Letter Directly Mailed To The Members of Zion Lutheran Church In Kerrville
Zion Lutheran Church
624 Barnett Street
Kerrville, Texas 78028
September 1, 2005
Dear Members of Zion,
This week Bishop Ray Tiemann of the Southwestern Texas Synod of the ELCA sent you a direct mailing attempting to address some of the concerns which Zion and an increasing number of other churches have with the general state of affairs in the ELCA. He has accepted our invitation to speak at Zion on Tuesday, September 6th at 7:00 p.m. in the sanctuary.
Attached is his letter along with my brief response. Personally, I was disappointed by the letter and believe it falls way short of the mark for several reasons:
1) It addresses some of our concerns, but for the most part, inadequately
2) It fails to even mention some of our legitimate concerns
3) It addresses concerns as if they were our concerns, but aren’t
4) It uses fear and convoluted wording to confuse.
We will schedule more Open Forums after Bishop Tiemann’s visit. Please feel free to speak with me or any of your Church Council members about these matters. I recommend you do so during the week, rather than on Sunday morning. With limited time, these issues easily distract us from our worship and study.
Sincerely,
Pastor David Chancellor
P.S. My brief comments to the letter are in [Bold Italic Lettering]
August 29, 2005
Brothers and sisters in Christ
Grace to you and peace from God- the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.
I want to invite you to a time for conversation on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. at Zion Lutheran Church. It is an opportunity for us to talk together about your June 26th vote to terminate your membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Needless to say, I am saddened by this decision. Zion Lutheran has been a vital Lutheran presence in Kerrville for 104 years [and, by the grace of God, will continue to be a vital Lutheran Christian presence in the Hill Country], and my hope is that it will continue to be a part of the ELCA. To address some of the issues that led up to your first vote, I have included my response to a number of concerns. I ask that you read it in preparation for our meeting and compare it to the documents shared with you prior to your vote. [Please compare it to the documents posted on our website at www.zionkerrville.org]
While leaving the ELCA may be attractive to some, such a decision will disconnect with a broad range of ministries of which you have been a part - eight seminaries, twenty-eight colleges and universities, mission starts, missionaries around the world, Women of the ELCA, the Lutheran Youth Gathering and similar events, etc. I would like to talk about these things with you and pray that you will take the time to attend the meeting.
[LCMC members and members of any other Christian denomination are welcomed at Lutheran universities, seminaries, and camps. Organizations like Lutheran World Relief and Thrivent Financial for Lutherans are not ELCA institutions, but supported by many Lutheran denominations. / Our women’s groups are free to use WELCA materials or chose another source. And our women are free to form a new women’s group within the LCMC, Texas District. / There are much better alternatives to the ELCA’s Youth Gatherings which we have already scheduled. / One of our concerns with the ELCA has been the dramatic decline in missions, both foreign and domestic. Last year only ten new congregations were received into the entire ELCA! / While we have strong ties to Camp Chrysalis and have supported it for many years, and will continue to do so, we are “giving up” 1/160th ownership in the camp, which is controlled by the synod. But we are also giving up the liability if, God forbid, there was ever a horrible accident or worse.]
Ray Tiemann, Bishop
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[The following letter by Bishop Tiemann was sent by e-mail to all congregations on August 2nd. Since the letter, the ELCA National Assembly was held, which affirmed the slow but steady movement toward liberalism and hierarchy within the ELCA.
A brief summary of the major actions of the ELCA Church Wide Assembly, August 8-14, 2005:
1) On the new hymnal project, the assembly gave the National Presiding Bishop full authority to determine the final drafts of the Renewing Worship project. Surprisingly, the assembly did not approve a completed hymnal, but gave the bishop the final authority to determine what would be included in the new hymnal.
2) Restructured the national organization
3) On sexuality:
A) 67% of the voting members approved Recommendation #2 from the National Church Council which neither disapproves nor approves of homosexual behavior and blessing homosexual partnerships, but allows congregations and pastors to make their own decisions. The resolution was intentionally ambiguous and the National Church Council was unwilling to explain the resolution leaving both sides confused. (59% of the delegates voted against several proposed amendments to Resolution #2 which would have reaffirmed the traditional Christian understanding of sexuality and marriage.)
B) As to Resolution #3 from the National Church Council, which recommended that the ELCA allow practicing homosexuals to be pastors, the resolution failed with 50.6% voting against the resolution.
4) Approved an interim Pulpit and Communion relationship with the United Methodist Church, similar to the agreements we have with Episcopalians and Presbyterians. This allows a pastor in one denomination to serve another denomination, and it also allows us to officially share Communion with members of the other denomination.]
BISHOP’S RESPONSE TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE ELCA
As bishop of the Southwestern Texas Synod, I thank you for faithfully living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ as ordained and lay rostered leaders, congregational lay leaders, and members of congregations in this synod. We are called to work together as the people of God as partners in this ministry of Christ’s Church, and I am always amazed at how the Holy Spirit works among us.
Due to recent developments, however, I am concerned with how we live together as the Body of Christ. I have been saddened by congregations that have taken their first step to terminate their relationship with the ELCA. [Six so far from this synod alone.] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is like a “body” within Christ’s Church. [Let us be mindful that the ELCA is not the church nor is it the body of Christ. The Church, which is the body of Christ, as Luther explained, is found throughout the world when the saints rightly gather around Word and Sacrament. Structure, hierarchy, administration, denominations, budgets, Robert’s Rules of Order, Constitutions, and other worldly concerns should not be mistaken for the Church.] The Apostle Paul reminds us that God has fashioned the church so that “…there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.” (1Cor. 12:25-26)
I am most concerned, however, that some of the information, or representations of another’s actions, that has been shared has not been accurate. [Our carefully published letters have been read and critiqued by many people and virtually no mistakes or misquotes have been found.] I realize, brothers and sisters in Christ, that this written response is a poor substitute for genuine, face-to-face dialogue. [With almost three weeks notice, and before the first vote in June, we invited a representative of the synod to come and speak at Zion on behalf of the ELCA. However, at our third open forum the synod representatives were not prepared to speak on behalf of the ELCA. Wanting a balanced debate on the issue of leaving the ELCA, we rescheduled an Open Forum for September 6th at 7 p.m.]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The ELCA is turning its back on the authority of Scripture. [ The major concern] The “Confession of Faith” that is contained in the constitution for congregations, synods, and the churchwide organization is very explicit: “This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for salvation for all who believe. This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.” This statement is more forthright than what existed even in some predecessor Lutheran church bodies. [Our constitutional statement on scripture is excellent! Our major complaint is that it is being regularly and intentionally ignored.] So, how have Lutherans dealt with the issue of the authority of Scripture? It is not in a literalistic use of selected verses but in the revelation of God’s saving work centered in Jesus Christ. It is this proclamation which makes it authoritative, because there is no other place where we receive this Good News. Jesus’ death and resurrection is the center of our faith, not keeping the Ten Commandments or upholding the correct political stance or having the best church structural system. Everything depends on whether justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone suffices as the center that holds the church together. [This previous statement on justification, as true as it is, is absolutely not sufficient for unity of the Church. Historically, Lutheran unity has been found in the authority of scripture and our historical Lutheran statements of beliefs, our “confessions”.] If not, then the unity and mission of the church has been sacrificed for things that are not of ultimate importance, even the issue of homosexuality. [Homosexuality is just a symptom of a deeper problem within the ELCA. Some of the major concerns are: an ever increasing disregard for the authority of scripture, movement toward becoming a liturgical-Episcopal denomination rather than a confessional-Lutheran denomination; growth in bureaucracy and hierarchy, the state of our seminaries and publishing house, the change in traditional Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality, bizarre political advocacy on our behalf, continued membership in the National Council of Churches, the decline of strong foreign and domestic missions, the ELCA Medical Plan which pays for any and all abortions, our synod’s official designation as a Reconciling in Christ synod which promotes the full acceptance of homosexual behavior, etc… all of are symptoms of a deeper problem, the disregard of scriptural authority.] When we say Scripture is the “norm of our proclamation, faith, and life,” it means that these things are to be measured against the witness of Scripture as a whole. As Lutherans, we understand that the Word comes to us as both Law and Gospel. The classic interpretation of this idea is that the Law kills and the Gospel gives life. [The very first use of the Law (boundaries) is to protect us from ourselves and others. The Law is good and holy but cannot save us. When the law convicts (kills) us it is to lead us to Christ in repentance and then forgiveness... and where there is forgiveness, there is new life and salvation!] We need to be cautious not to dispense “cheap grace,” but we also need to be cautious not to let the Law become legalistic (people seeking to keep the rules), where pleasing God and earning salvation means participation in right behaviors and is no longer related to the Gospel. This Luther calls a “theology of glory,” where we earn our own salvation and the cross of Christ and his forgiveness becomes secondary to our actions. Scripture is clear that the Gospel always has the last word in our lives.
[In a recent interview, Presiding Bishop Hanson shockingly
summed up the increasing disregard for scripture within the ELCA: “Instead of
relying on a bibliocentric version of Christian faith, I believe in a triune
God who reveals God's self to me in Scripture, who is revealed in Christ, and
who is revealed for us in the bread and wine of Communion.” ( The
Roanoke
Times, 2005)]
ELCA membership has decreased by almost 500,000 members in the last sixteen years. [The number is closer to 450,000… and yes, it should be more of a concern to our leaders.]
The trend of membership decline follows the pattern that existed in the predecessor churches, although initially the downward trend slowed with the creation of the ELCA versus what had been the experiences of the ALC and LCA. This pattern is consistent with the experience of most “mainline churches” including the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, which lost 24,000 members in 2003 alone. What are some of the reasons for the decline? Certainly the struggles with social issues and seeking to be a public voice in the culture has contributed to these losses, but there are other factors. For example, the aging of the membership of the ELCA (the average age of which is ten years older than the average age of the population) is an issue.
Further, new members are gained only as each congregation in its own area seeks to reach out to those around the congregation and bring new people into the fellowship of Word and Sacrament. Clearly, that outreach by congregation has not been happening in many places. One of the Lutheran church’s greatest struggles in evangelism is acceptance of newcomers from other ethnic groups and non-churched backgrounds. This has a much larger effect than church statements on social issues. We need to be passionate about reaching out, inviting, and then truly accepting new people into our congregations. As I have often heard, “The church is the only institution that exists for those who don’t belong yet.” [Statistically speaking within all church denominations in the United States, having a strong sense of commitment to the authority of scripture is no guarantee for growth, as witness the LCMS, yet having little regard for the authority of scripture is almost a guarantee for decline. The Episcopal Church, which we are increasingly emulating and aligning with, is the fastest declining denomination.]
The Conference of Bishops is constantly seeking more power in the church. [Some concern.]
The Conference of Bishops is a non-legislative body in the ELCA, and thereby makes no formal decisions in the church. It serves as an advisory body which seeks to reflect the perspectives of congregations and members within each of the 65 synods. I have personally been impressed with the maturity of Christian faith among my fellow bishops and a genuine yearning to work collegially for what is best for the church. To contend, as some have, that the Conference of Bishops is becoming a “ruling body in the church” is far-fetched. Constitutional changes would have to be approved by the Churchwide Assembly to provide direct authority by bishops and such rarely happens. [Technically, this is still correct, but the Conference of Bishops has increasingly given their opinion on matters and frequently meets behind closed doors. As one example: The National Church Council, by a recommendation of 32 for and 2 against, recently recommended that the Conference of Bishops be given the authority to approve or disapprove some candidates for ordination, which has traditionally been done at the local level.]
Finally, ELCA bishops are not “ordained” to this office, but are “installed.” They hold the title of “bishop” only as long as they serve in this office. [In the last ten years the two elected terms which bishops may serve have been increased from four to six year terms and retired bishops may now continue to use the title Bishop. Also, the “installation” service of laying on of hands for an ELCA bishop must have at least one Episcopal Bishop laying on hands, with no exceptions allowed, so that the episcopacy may be “given”. The episcopacy is the idea that for the sacraments to be valid the elements must be consecrated by an ordained “priest” who claims to have the “touch” all the way to the Apostle Peter himself. Confessionally, Lutherans to not believe this at all, yet now we do it.] The role of the Conference, and of Lutheran bishops, cannot be equated with those within the Roman Catholic, Methodist, Anglican, or Episcopal traditions. [But they are moving in that direction which was the major concern when our district presidents were first allowed to use the term “bishop” in the 70’s]
The ELCA ‘sold out’ to the Episcopalians on having bishops ordain pastors. The Conference of Bishops just wanted to have more power. [This may sound like a minor concern, but our theological concerns are valid. We believe that the members of a congregation call an individual to serve in a pastoral function in order that the gospel and sacraments be rightly done. So an “ordination” is really just an “installation”, but if only the bishop can “ordain” a pastor, then instead of a call issued by the people of God, then it becomes more of an appointment/installation by a bishop. This is a small matter, but it does have long term consequences because what you practice declares what you believe. If we don’t believe it, then why did we recently decide to do it?]
Historically, the ordination of pastors by bishops was the normative pattern in both the Lutheran Church in America and The American Lutheran Church. A widespread custom, however, developed in The American Lutheran Church of district bishops assigning that task to pastors, especially when individual, rather than corporate, ordination became such a common practice. [Congregational installation, not ordination, is a much better theological understanding of the role and function of a pastor and the priesthood of all believers, which is why congregational installation/ordination became the normative practice in the ALC.]
In adopting “Called to Common Mission,” the Full Communion Agreement between the ELCA and The Episcopal Church USA, the ELCA agreed that the consistent pattern for ordinations in this church would have bishops presiding in the company of other pastors. This is listed in the synod constitution, that the synod bishop “…shall exercise solely this church’s power to ordain…” This did not change with the adoption of “Called to Common Mission” but remains similar to those exercised by bishops in our predecessor church bodies.
Please keep in mind also, however, that there is a bylaw 7.31.17, which provides for an exception to the provision that only a bishop will ordain a pastor. [Hard to accomplish and at the discretion of the bishop who must approve your call. See Professor Nestingen’s letter on this topic.] This bylaw was encouraged by the Conference of Bishops and approved by the 2001 Churchwide Assembly. Since that time, twenty-four ordinations have taken places that were not done by a bishop.
What is the concern about the “historic episcopate?” [Not a big concern, just a symptom]
The historic episcopate is the orderly transmission of the office of bishop, with its roots in the time of the early church. It is a symbolic succession pointing back to the centrality of Christ and the teaching of the apostles. It also looks forward to the carrying out of the mission of the Gospel in the Church today.
This pattern existed for centuries prior to the Reformation of the 16th century, long before the rise of the Lutheran or Anglican (Episcopal) Church. According to Called to Common Mission, our full communion agreement, the three bishops who “preside and participate in the laying-on-of-hands” at the installation service for a bishop shall be a part of the historic episcopate, with one of the being Episcopalian.
The historic episcopate has been part of the life of some Lutheran churches, such as Sweden and Finland, since the time of the Reformation. In more recent years, the historic episcopate has become a part of Lutheran church life in Tanzania, Namibia, El Salvador, and Norway. [FYI - The Swedish Lutheran Church is about the deadest Lutheran denomination in the world, but they do have the episcopacy!]
We have spent millions of dollars on this homosexuality study. [Not a big concern]
Gary Brugh, ELCA Office of the Treasurer, confirmed that the ELCA Church Council allocated $1,150,000 from surplus funds to carry out the 2001 Churchwide Assembly’s action to conduct both a study on homosexuality and a study on human sexuality. The study was, therefore, not funded out of current mission support gifts, even though congregations made decisions not to send mission support out of protest to the study.
As of January 31, 2005, the amount spent was $613,039. The Human Sexuality Study, which was to be presented to the 2007 Churchwide Assembly, is now being considered for presentation in 2009. The funding for it will come out of this same allocated amount by the ELCA Church Council.
We used to call them “district presidents.” Why are they now called “bishops?” [Not a big concern]
Historical documents reveal that the title, “bishop,” began in San Antonio, Texas at the 1970 General Convention of The American Lutheran Church. [Yes, and at the convention there was great concern that the title of bishop would eventually change the role of the district president.] The ALC was the first Lutheran church body in North America to use the title, “bishop.” The reason for that change involved the fact that the title “bishop” underscores the pastoral responsibilities in the office, whereas the previous term, “district president,” was seen only in administrative context. Ten years later, the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) followed the ALC pattern.
The role of bishop goes against the understanding of the priesthood of all believers. [Not a concern]
Martin Luther, when he spoke of the priesthood of all believers, did not want to make a distinction between the laity (temporal estate) and the clergy (spiritual estate). In Luther’s Open Letter to the Christian Nobility, he wrote, “…through Baptism all of us are consecrated to the priesthood…and there is no difference at all but that of office.”
In section S8.12 of the synod constitution, there are thirty-three specific responsibilities given to the office of synod bishop. Thus, the bishop’s role is not about hierarchy, but describes the elected role of the synod bishop during the six years when he/she serves in that office. In my estimation, it accurately lives out the “priesthood of all believers” by providing specific responsibilities for the elected leader of this specific office. In the same way, the responsibilities of the office of pastor are spelled out constitutionally, as are the offices of an elected church leader, committee members, etc. in congregational constitutions.
The ELCA is joining forces with some of the other declining liberal-protestant denominations in the country. [A concern]
The ELCA has Full Communion Agreements with several ecumenical partners: The United Church of Christ (1997), The Reformed Church (1997), The Presbyterian Church, USA (1997), The Episcopal Church, USA (1999), and The Moravian Church (1999). At the 2005 Churchwide Assembly in August there will be consideration of Interim Eucharistic Sharing with the United Methodist Church, but we currently have no official agreement with them.
Full Communion Agreements provide for shared ministry among denominations when cooperation will enhance the mission and ministry of Christ’s Church. Some characteristics of Full Communion include: 1) a common confessing of the Christian faith; 2) a mutual recognition of Baptism and a sharing of the Lord's Supper, allowing for joint worship and an exchangeability of members; 3) a mutual recognition and availability of ordained ministers to the service of all members of churches in full communion; 4) a common commitment to evangelism, witness, and service; 5) a means of common decision-making on critical common issues of faith and life; and 6) a mutual lifting of any condemnations that exist between churches.
In our synod we celebrate an example of such a relationship, where the Rev. Nathan LaFrenz, an ELCA pastor, serves both a Lutheran and an Episcopal congregation in Brackettville.
In such situations, the pastor from the partner denomination is not “called,” but under “contract” on an annual basis. There is a detailed list of items that pastors serving in different traditions must know in order to serve well. For example, for a pastor from a different Christian tradition serving in an ELCA congregation, he/she must be familiar with the following resources, 1) The Book of Concord, 2) the Constitution of the ELCA, 3) Vision and Expectations, 4) The Use of the Means of Grace, 5) The Lutheran Book of Worship, 5) With One Voice, 6) Christian Dogmatics, by Braaten and Jensen, The Lutherans in North America, by Nelson, and One Great Cloud of Witnesses, by Almen.
Also, should a pastor from a Full Communion partner serve an ELCA congregation, complete and continuing disclosure to the synod of all information concerning the past and present ministry, as well as any disciplinary proceedings concerning such person, will be provided. Also, this pastor must meet all the provisions in Vision and Expectations-Ordained Ministers in the ELCA, which outlines proper conduct for ordained clergy.
The new Renewing Worship materials take male and female references out of the text for the marriage rite, creating a ‘genderless’ marriage rite.
It was from a WordAlone article entitled, “Redefining Marriage Liturgically,” that this accusation first surfaced. It is important to remember that in the process of developing the Renewing Worship series, many provisional materials were tested. This is commonly done in order to engage the church on a number of issues and levels. There were congregations in the synod, like MacArthur Park Lutheran, San Antonio, which were part of this process. It was in response to some of these materials that the article was written.
However, the proposed marriage rite is clearly intended for the union of one man and one woman. [See options C & D in the marriage rite whereby a fully genderless marriage rite is available. Why is this option available? You decide.] It states, “Marriage is a gift of God, intended for the joy and strength of those who enter it and for the well-being of the whole human family. God created us male and female and blessed us with the gifts of mutual companionship, the capacity to love, and the care and nurture of children. Jesus affirmed the covenant of marriage and revealed the height and depth of self-giving love on the cross. The Holy Spirit sustains those who are united in marriage, that they may be a living sign of God’s grace, love, and faithfulness.” In the service itself, wife/husband and her/him are used throughout. Hence, there is no “genderless” marriage rite. For more information, please go to www.renewingworship.org
[At the ELCA National Assembly, the assembly did not vote on a completed hymnal but gave the Presiding Bishop Hanson the authority to decide what will be in our next hymnal to be published next year. This is just one more step toward hierarchy.
Excerpts from Gracia Grindal’s letter, who is a professor at Luther Seminary, titled:
“Questions to Ask About the New Hymnal Resources Project”
WHAT ARE THEIR LITURGICAL ASSUMPTIONS?
The major theologian of this project, Gordon Lathrop, of the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, is a devotee of the liturgical revival who strongly approved of Called to Common Mission (CCM). CCM, with its emphasis on who can do the sacrament, elevates the Lord’s Supper as the central mystery of the church and denigrates preaching (thus the widespread use of lay people to preach, but not to do the sacrament). The new worship resources fully support this emphasis and are going to make visible and permanent this new theology in its new liturgies and hymns. There is a rule liturgical experts repeat frequently, “how you pray will become the way you believe—lex orandi, lex credendi.” If you can capture the hymnal and get your theology into it, it will, after some generations, become the theology of the people. After some years, our people will have forgotten what true evangelical worship is all about because the new practices will become the content of their theology.
Here are some questions that need to be asked:
1. Why did the committee decide to sanctify the water in baptism, i.e., make it holy? For example,
“At this font, holy God, we pray:
Breathe your Spirit into this water…”
(see RW Volume 3, “Holy Baptism and Related Rites, p. 16; online at www.renewingworship.org/resources/baptism ) .
In contrast, Luther, in his Small Catechism (see Baptism question #3, “How can water do such great things?”), clearly teaches that it is the Word that has the power, not the water.
3. Why has the committee added to the traditional prayers for baptism and how much longer a service will babies and their parents have to endure with this extra language? For example:
“Holy God, holy and merciful, holy and mighty,
You are the river of life
You are the everlasting wellspring
You are the fire of rebirth.
Glory to you for oceans and lakes, for rivers and creeks,
Honor to your for cloud and rain, for dew and snow.
Your waters are before us, around us, above us,
Our life is born in you.
You are the fountain of resurrection.
Praise to you for your saving waters:
Noah and the animals survive the flood,
Hagar discovers your well
The Israelites escape through the sea,
And they drink from your gushing rock.
Naaman washes his leprosy away,
And the Samaritan woman will never be thirsty again. Etc. etc.” (from RW vol. 3, “Holy Baptism and Related Rites,” option E, p. 16)
4. It is possible, using the options, in the new proposed marriage service to avoid any mention of Genesis 1 or 2 (male and female he created them) or Mark 10 (“a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife”). Is this gender-neutral language, with its lack of scriptural references, a preparation for a service of homosexual marriage? For example, note the optional vows:
I, name, give myself to you, name.
By the grace of God,
I promise to support and care for you.
In the love of Christ,
I promise to love and cherish you.
With the Spirit’s help,
I promise to be faithful to you,
as long as we both shall live.
(from RW vol. 4, “Life Passages: Marriage, Healing, Funeral,” VOWS, option C, p. 14. See also marriage Supplemental Materials: “Introduction,” options B and D, p. 12; “Declaration of Intention,” Couple option C and Assembly option B, p. 13)
6. Why did the committee decide to rid many hymns of any references to Christ as King, Lord, or God as Father? (Over thirty in all.) As in “All Creatures of our God and King” (LBW #527) changed to “All Creatures, Worship God most high! Sound ev’ry voice in earth and sky” (RW “Congregational Song: Proposals for Renewal,” p. #8)? End of Letter.
The Renewing Worship liturgies also provide for politically correct alternatives for using trinitarian language such substituting phrases like “Holy Eternal Majesty, Holy Incarnate Word, and Holy Abiding Spirit.” for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.]
Augsburg Fortress Publishing regularly promotes the gay agenda while restricting the publishing or traditional teachings on sexuality. [A concern] [Augsburg is definitely dominated by liberals, losing congregational support and running large budget deficits.]
Scott Tunseth, publisher at Augsburg Fortress, responded to this statement by saying that Augsburg Fortress cannot presume to speak on behalf of the ELCA. While they are the publishing ministry of the ELCA, they maintain a certain amount of independence, especially in the area of book publishing. Their role as publisher is not to make judgments or pronouncements, but to develop and provide resources that help individuals and congregations to study the issue of sexuality, and many other topics, and determine their own faithful response.
Concerning actual books, traditional stances published by Augsburg Fortress include Robert Gagnon’s Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views; Robert Benne’s Ordinary Saints, and James Nestigen’s Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspective on Homosexuality.
Other books published, which provide a wide spectrum of material related to sexuality and encourages discussion, include James Childs’ Faithful Conversations, Robin Scroggs’ The New Testament and Homosexuality, and Craig Nessan’s Many Members, Yet One Body.
Lutherans Concerned [a gay advocacy group] was allowed a display at the 2005 Synod Assembly but WordAlone was denied. [A definite concern. Lutherans Concerned, an advocacy group working for the full acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender behavior, is fully recognized by the ELCA and eligible for grants, while Word Alone, a renewal and reform movement of ELCA churches like ourselves, has not been given the same status as Lutherans Concerned.]
Every year at the Synod Assembly, organizations, institutions, and agencies have the opportunity to have a display. The standard policy is that only those who are directly affiliated with the ELCA may have display space and, except for Augsburg Fortress, promotion or sale of items is restricted.
In 2004, however, a request was made by Via de Cristo. After discussion, the Synod Council agreed to provide display space, realizing that this set a precedent for consideration of other requests. Then, in 2005, a request was made by Lutherans Concerned. After much discussion and with the consideration that the Southwestern Texas Synod is a “Reconciled In Christ” synod by action of the 2000 Synod Assembly, that space was granted for 2005. Each year such a request must be made and previous inclusion does not guarantee future space. What is most significant, however, is that WordAlone never requested a display and was not denied. [We have never said they did.]
I don’t like it that we send ‘voting members’ to synod and churchwide assemblies rather than ‘delegates’ who represent us. [A concern]
The membership of this church is defined as the baptized members of its congregations. Given our ecclesial understanding of the nature of the church and the polity of this particular church, the term “voting member” seems more suitable as a gathering of folks who come together to worship, pray, seek the guidance of God’s Spirit, and make decisions for the well-being of the whole church. Individuals do not come as politicized “delegates” from a particular caucus if they are to serve on behalf of the members of this whole church. [This means a synod can be 100% against a resolution, yet the “voting member” from that synod can vote for it. The synod may not instruct their delegates.]
Therefore, the term “voting member” was deliberately chosen in the formation of the ELCA to underscore the fact that we come together as the baptized members of this church to make decisions on behalf of the whole. They serve on behalf of all the members of all the congregations in this church, including those from which they are a member.
To say “delegates” are to represent “us,” who is “us?” And on which issues would they be representing “us?” Whether the person is a “voting member” or a “delegate” their work is the same – to listen to all sides on the decisions before the church and to use their gifts and their best judgment to make decisions for the church as a whole.
Why did the ELCA Church Council vote 32-2 in favor of ordaining practicing homosexuals?
They did not. [Of course they did, and to say otherwise is political double-speak and disingenuous to put it mildly! Not only did the national council approve forwarding the taskforce report, but they made it more liberal and recommended that bishops have more authority over the ordination process! Even the ELCA’s own new service reported it as support.] The ELCA Church Council, by the direction of the 2001 Churchwide Assembly, was given the specific task of conducting a study on homosexuality, particularly related to two issues: the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination, consecration, and commissioning of people in committed same-sex unions. They were to present the results of the study to the 2005 Churchwide Assembly and bring for action any amendments to the ELCA constitution and bylaws and all other related governing documents.
The ELCA Church Council has been faithful to that calling. They provided for the study and received the report at their April, 2005, meeting. At that time, their responsibility was to transmit, in legislative language for consideration by the Churchwide Assembly, action items based on the Report and Recommendations of the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality. Whether or not to support a particular position on the issue was not the question.
As a result, Recommendations #1 and #2 were forwarded to the Churchwide Assembly in the style of a resolution, following the recommendation of the Task Force. However, with Recommendation #3 the Church Council took the concept of the Task Force, to seek to find some space for rostered service, and provide a model for exceptions, with constitutional provisions, for the Churchwide Assembly to wrestle with. Thus, by a 32-2 vote, it was forwarded to the Churchwide Assembly for their action, which must pass by a 2/3 vote.
The pedophilia case in Marshall, Texas, was a commentary on the “whatever” attitude that pervades the ELCA. [A major concern! The Marshall, Texas case was just one small example of the disregard which some ELCA leaders have had for sexual boundaries (not Bishop Tiemann). I know plenty of examples and will be glad to share them with you privately (and you probably know examples too) where pastors have committed gross violations of appropriate sexual conduct and simply remained in their current position or moved to another setting. While the ELCA is not the Roman Catholic Church, it is a sad commentary that secular courts have had to enforce appropriate standards of conduct in religious institutions, including the ELCA.]
The criminal conduct of former pastor Gerald P. Thomas in Marshall, Texas, was not a case of a “whatever attitude” or what has been insinuated as ELCA personnel knowingly doing nothing to prevent a predatory pedophile from serving in the ELCA. To slight the faithful and diligent work of candidacy committee members and synod staff in this way is inappropriate and offensive.
These are the facts. No one in the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod leadership knew that Thomas had molested children until after his arrest. There was an incident in Wilson, Texas, that occurred during Thomas’ internship in which he gave alcohol to minors at the parsonage and the youth found a pornographic video. His internship supervisor, along with local law enforcement authorities, investigated the incident, confronted Thomas, and the supervising pastor subsequently approved Thomas’ internship. The law enforcement authorities filed no charges, but a memo was sent to Trinity Lutheran Seminary requesting leadership there to ensure that Thomas was debriefed about this incident and that he receive counseling. Thomas subsequently passed his senior year of seminary and was approved by the Michigan Multi-synodical Candidacy Committee for ordination. He received his first call to Marshall, Texas and was ordained in 1997. Immediately upon Thomas’ arrest in May, 2001, Bishop Kevin Kanouse visited Thomas in jail and acquired his resignation from the clergy roster of the ELCA.
In the process, the ELCA settled out of court prior to the jury trial for $8 million, Trinity Lutheran Seminary settled for $22 million, the Michigan candidacy committee settled for $1.2 million, and Good Shepherd Lutheran, Marshall, settled for $750,000. In the trial concerning the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod, the verdict was for $37 million, although there is still speculation about how much of the money already settled will affect this amount. The settlement is still in litigation.
As a result of the Marshall case, there has been a reworking of the candidacy process. Specifically, the ELCA has sought to address communication issues between Candidacy Committees, the seminary, internship supervisors, and synods to better supervise candidates. Part of the revision also includes a full background check on each candidate in the process – a national criminal check, a county-by-county residence check, driving record, and credit history. It is important to note, however, that a background check on Gerald Thomas would not have surfaced any previous allegations. [Bishop Tiemann skims and skips over the details of what the actual “co-conspirators” knew, and how they knowingly turned a blind eye to the clear and present danger of a pedophile (see court documents).]
I heard the Lutheran Youth Organization passed a resolution approving of same gender relationships. [A concern]
It is true that the Lutheran Youth Organization (LYO) passed a resolution at its 2003 meeting which “supports the blessing of same-sex unions and the ordination of non-celibate individuals in committed relationships.” [And affirmed all sexual orientations.] Please note that the young adults of the LYO, representing synods across the church, make decisions on their own, without consultation or pressure from adults. [So we have a nationally sponsored and funded youth group that is outside adult supervision and accountability???] Having personally read the minutes of this decision, there were numerous amendments and much discussion. The final vote was 48% yes, 40% no, and 12% abstentions.
You should also know, however, that the Council of Synod LYO Presidents recently passed a resolution calling for unity in the church. In it they resolved, “that we want to stay a united church regardless of potentially divisive conversations and actions concerning the issue of sexuality in the church…we encourage members and congregations to maintain their commitment to work together as one body in the mission of Jesus Christ within the ELCA, regardless of actions taken during the 2005 Churchwide Assembly…and to individually commit to living out these intentions in our lives, congregations and synods.”
One other item that has received some discussion occurred during a skit at the 2003 Youth Gathering. In Luke 14:1-24, Jesus tells a parable of a great feast. Youth served as actors with colored, monogrammed t-shirts with names like crippled, landowner, rancher, rich, vain, etc. Some had IN or OUT on them to describe whether they were welcomed at the feast. When the text was read and some could not attend because “they had just been married,” two girls came together across the stage. It was interpreted, by some, that this was a subtle introduction of the homosexual agenda and the blessing of same-sex unions. In speaking with Heidi Hagstrom (Director for Gathering Program) and Pastor Scott Maxwell-Doherty (Team Leader), the choice of persons for the skit was a practical matter, as they had a certain number of sized t-shirts to fit the youth that were helping. In no way, conscious or otherwise, was a message meant to be conveyed except that of the awesome grace of God in the parable, filling his table with guests. [Just an accident… of course, the person in charge of Bible Studies at the Youth Assembly, the Rev. Barbara Lundblad, is a lesbian who openly performs gay weddings, and a featured author for Augsburg Fortress Publishing.]
The ELCA is always pushing a liberal political agenda through its office in Washington, DC, like opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. [A concern. Did you know that the Lutheran Governmental Office in Washington D.C. recently pronounced on your behalf that incarcerating illegal-immigrants is immoral and defining marriage to be between a man and a woman is wrong? Half truth? No, the whole truth.]
The Lutheran Office of Governmental Affairs (LOGA) in Washington, D.C., is minimally budgeted to advocate on behalf of the ELCA. They follow the guidelines of ELCA social policy statements. The process for developing such a statement is 4-5 years, intentionally includes study participation of congregations throughout the ELCA, and the statement must finally be approved by the Churchwide Assembly.
LOGA is not free to advocate on whatever topics it wants. According to Les Weber, Associate Director for Church in Society, advocacy is based only on policy. The church seeks to speak only on issues about which there is a clear mandate. It does not take Democratic or Republican positions, but reflects the social policy statements of the ELCA.
Concerning the Federal Marriage Amendment, LOGA joined numerous other religious denominations and organizations issuing a statement objecting to the amendment on the basis of violation of civil rights. Speaking against civil rights violations has a long history within the ELCA.
Specifically, the Federal Marriage Amendment states: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” The impact of the language negating any state or federal law that permits “legal incidents” of marital status which confer rights and benefits for individuals threaten hundreds of legal rights that gay and lesbian families currently have under a number of state and local laws. It was felt that the U.S. Constitution should not be used as a vehicle for enacting discriminatory provisions against gays and lesbians or to deny any such group equal protection under the law.
The ELCA Division for Outreach promotes the gay agenda by showing solidarity with the gay movement.
The Division of Outreach does have a publication entitled, “Congregational Hospitality to Gay and Lesbian People: Resources for Congregations.” It was written after consultation with congregations who are having success at mission with gay and lesbian persons. It revealed that gay and lesbian visitors sometimes look for tangible clues to the congregation's openness, hoping to see visible signs that this congregation will be a "safe place." Such possible signs of welcome include a framed mission statement or an announcement in the worship bulletin; encouraging an intentionally welcoming attitude and environment; clergy and lay leaders modeling hospitality in their words and actions, and perhaps using a symbol of welcome, such as a rainbow flag. However, the division does not involve itself in the politics of gay and lesbian issues or take a political stance, which solidarity implies. [What does solidarity with the gay movement mean? Of course we welcome all people to church, including homosexuals, but affirming and encouraging homosexual behavior is an entirely different issue. The ELCA is avoiding the obvious question that needs to be asked. Is homosexual behavior a sin, or not?]
We have no real voice in the ELCA, as individuals or as a congregation.
The ELCA is made up of almost 11,000 congregations and 5 million baptized members. Its size requires a structure that allows for decision-making across the expanse of the whole church. It is not a perfect structure, but it is one that seeks to be representative of the diversity of the ELCA, with provisions that at assembly gatherings at least 60% of voting members be lay persons and that equal male/female ratio be observed.
Individual participation in the ELCA provides a multitude of opportunities. Persons can be elected or elected to various congregational positions, synod positions, and churchwide positions. Nominating processes are in place for serving beyond the congregation that allow interested ELCA members to serve the whole church. They can be elected to the Synod Council, ELCA Church Council, one of a number of synodical and churchwide boards, and as a voting member to the Synod Assembly or the Churchwide Assembly. They are able to bring resolutions and memorials to the assembly process, so that issues can be discussed, debated, and decided upon.
Congregations are an integral part of the ministry of the church, but not in the same way as in the former American Lutheran Church. In that structure, congregations were called on to ratify constitutional actions that took place at the National Convention. This process of ratification is similar to that of the Presbyterian Church (USA). When the ELCA was formed, however, the current method of governance was decided upon, where voting members at synod assemblies and churchwide assemblies make decisions on behalf of the whole ELCA.
This does not mean, however, that the structure will always stay that way. Memorials have been brought to the churchwide assembly to provide for just such a ratification process or to restructure the composition of the ELCA Church Council to provide for the election of one member from each synod. So far, those memorials have not been approved, but the dialogue continues.
In conclusion, I commit myself to continuing dialogue on all issues which we face together, and I ask that we respect each other’s positions and represent them with fairness and love. We will not agree on everything, but we can hold to Jesus Christ, who is the center of our faith.
---Ray Tiemann, Bishop
Thanks for reading the entirety of this letter!
Peace,
Pastor David Chancellor
For more information see www.zionkerrville.org