Post Reply
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Fallout from the ELCA's 2009 CWA
4 years ago  ::  Feb 20, 2011 - 9:33PM #1
G_Erdner
Posts: 170
Since the 2009 ELCA Church Wide Assembly in August of that year, some congregations have left the ELCA while others remain. Whenever congregations voted to leave, regardless of the outcome of the votes, congregations were torn apart. When the vote failed, new starts affiliated with other Lutheran church bodies arose. When the vote succeeded, then sometimes new ELCA missions were planted.

As of today, there are at least 392 Congregations that have left the ELCA, with a total of over 209,000 Baptized Members. There are another 93 congregations that have taken their first votes, and are waiting for the 90 waiting period to vote again and lead. They include another 46,000+ Baptized Members. (All membership data is from the 2010 ELCA Yearbook.) Given that the ELCA had 10,239 congregations in September 2009, and is on track to losing at least 485, with more congregations leaving every week, they've almost lost 5% of their congregations, and almost 6% of their Baptized membership since the 2009 CWA.

Even when an ELCA congregation's vote to leave hasn't gathered the 2/3rds super majority needed to leave, the "losing majorities" at many of those congregations started new LCMC or NALC missions in the same cities, with as many as half of their former ELCA members or more joining the new congregation. Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ almost doubled the number of affiliated congregations. Some members of Lutheran CORE (COalition for REnewal) started another new Lutheran denomination, the North American Lutheran Church. There are at least 144 new Lutheran congregations in those and other denominations or church bodies.

There are two bloggers who are doing outstanding work in reporting the events taking place as a result of the 2009 ELCA CWA. They are Pastor David Barnhart and "Captain Thin". They have done, and continue to do, an outstanding job of reporting the fallout from the decisions made in Minnesota in August of 2009. But, as good as they have been at reporting the news, it isn't in a format that's conducive to study.

So, I have collated the data that they reported, in an Excel file called "ELCA CWA Fallout.xls". This file is a work-in-progress that contains as much information as I can find about the congregations that were most impacted by the actions of August 2009. It includes congregations that took votes to leave the ELCA, including those that passed and those that failed. It includes new starts by those who were on the losing side of the votes taken, including new congregations in all denominations. It includes ELCA congregations that chose to dual-roster with other denominations, regardless of what official ELCA policy was on dual rostering. All congregations that left were cross-checked against the 2010 ELCA yearbook to identify the Predecessor Church body, reported Baptized Membership and Average Attendance.

To make this information available to anyone who wants a copy, I created a Yahoo! Group, located at groups.yahoo.com/group/ELCA2009CWAFallou.... Anyone can join and download the file. The file is incomplete. There are other congregations that have voted but that I wasn't able to find results of. Anyone and everyone is invited to download this file and then post notices of any errors or omissions that they find. I'll keep the file up-to-date, and replace the file with the newest version at least once a week.

If anyone finds an error in the file, or knows of other information that should be included, please e-mail me at g_erdner@yahoo.com. I'm especially interested in learning of any new ELCA mission starts in cities where there were large numbers of people who were displeased that their congregations left the ELCA, and therefore started new ELCA missions.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 1:04PM #2
G_Erdner
Posts: 170

Feb 23, 2011 -- 12:54PM, teilhard wrote:


The "dual-roster" Ploy is NOT being allowed by Synod Bishops, so is a moot bit ...


Ironically, there have been a couple of Congregations that left The ELCA that have later made one or another requests for "help" from The ELCA ...




There are 65 synod bishops in the ELCA. Each one pretty much does what is right in his own eyes. Some are taking a hard line on dual rostering. Some are turning a blind eye. It's like the policy towards following V&E. Some bishops honored it, some ignored it. Higgins Road did nothing, as is their practice.


As  for congregations that left the ELCA asking for "help", unless you can back up that assertion with specific names of congregations and the details of what they asked for, you allegations are meaningless. If the details were known, that "help" could be asking for someone's phone number, or asking an ELCA congregation to participate in a community food bank with congregations of several denominations and faith traditions.


Oh wait. I just remembered. A dual LCMC/NALC congregation in Georgia formed from refugees from an ELCA congregation that didn't get a 2/3rds majority did ask the congregation that they used to belong to which local park the neighborhood church softball league was using. Maybe that's what you are referring to.




Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 2:49PM #3
G_Erdner
Posts: 170

Feb 23, 2011 -- 1:53PM, teilhard wrote:


My Info. comes first-hand from a Synod Bishop ... It had NOTHING to do with a "Soft-Ball League" or any such thing ...


The "Dual-Roster" Question is in Part a LEGAL one and has indeed been decided by The ELCA and  SO is NOT simply left to the whims of Individual Bishops ...




Unless you have more specifics, you haven't posted any "info". You've just made wild and unsubstantiated allegations.


Secretary Swartling did indeed lay down one of his common pronouncements from on high, about dual rostering, but that means nothing. Individual bishops can, and do, honor or ignore what Higgins Road says.




Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 4:19PM #4
G_Erdner
Posts: 170

Feb 23, 2011 -- 2:59PM, teilhard wrote:


Do you not think the FACT -- much less, IDEA --  of being a "Rostered" ELCA Congregation or ELCA "Rostered" Clergy means anything ... ???


IF it DOESN'T mean much-if-anything, WHY would a Congregation BOTHER to "leave" The ELCA ( if it ISN'T really-truly LEAVING) ... ??? and/or WHY would a Pastor spend Time and Energy trying to LEAD his[sic] Congregation "OUT" of The ELCA ... ???





Being on the ELCA's roster, whether as a member of the clergy or a congregation has almost no meaning, unless one wants to be called to an ELCA congregation. Given how wishy-washy the ELCA is on matters of faith, theology, and doctrine, whatever their rules are regarding operating in "good order" are pretty much irrelevant. But, the fact that the ELCA is continually sliding into the abyss of apostasy and heresy, leaving that sinking ship for a safer alternative is a wise and prudent action.


Of course, others may see it differently. And in the ELCA, that's OK, because it doesn't matter if you agree with anything or not, you can do what ever is right in your own eyes, so long as you respect everyone else's right to do the same.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 4:23PM #5
G_Erdner
Posts: 170

Feb 23, 2011 -- 3:01PM, teilhard wrote:


LOL ... The Bishop in Question is NEITHER "wild" nor "unsubstantiated" ... But ... Anyway, as I indicated below, the Request for "help" had NOTHING -- NOTHING -- to do with a "SoftBall League" ...





But he is anonymous, so you could just be making stuff up. Only your own personal credentials and reputation would give meaning to anything you say. But, I notice you are also anonymous. You claim to be a member of the catholic clergy. So, I guess if you aren't proud enough of whatever denomination you are rostered in, and are keeping it a secret, being part of whatever denomination you are part of doesn't mean much to you, does it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 4:55PM #6
G_Erdner
Posts: 170

Feb 23, 2011 -- 4:47PM, teilhard wrote:


Let's skip the ***"Pi**ing Contest"*** and discuss The TOPIC of The Thread, okay ... ???




The topic of this thread is the database I have assembled (with help) of information available from a variety of sources and that can be verified. If you want to discuss the topic of this thread, then post something about the data in that file, such as specific corrections or additions.


If you want to anonymously make vague, general, and unsubstantiated allegations, those are not on-topic in this thread.


Understand this. I launched this thread. I wrote the launch post. I know what it is about. Your BS is not what this thread is about.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 5:00PM #7
teilhard
Posts: 52,196

Congregations and Clergy who THOUGHT they can choose to be "dual-rostered" will find that ELCA Policy does not allow such ...


Feb 20, 2011 -- 9:33PM, G_Erdner wrote:



 It includes ELCA congregations that chose to dual-roster with other denominations, regardless of what official ELCA policy was on dual rostering.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 6:40PM #8
G_Erdner
Posts: 170

Feb 23, 2011 -- 5:00PM, teilhard wrote:


Congregations and Clergy who THOUGHT they can choose to be "dual-rostered" will find that ELCA Policy does not allow such ...




I suggest you look up the difference between "can" and "may". Congregations and clergy "can" sign up to be on some other denomination's roster. The ELCA says that they "may" not do that, as in "they don't have the ELCA's permission". But, the ELCA has no power or ability to prevent it. The ELCA might choose to throw any congregation or clergyman who affiliated with another denomination out, but then again, the ELCA synod involved may choose to turn a blind eye.


The ELCA has a long history of some synods turning a blind eye to this violation or that violation. If the ELCA's judgements and rules were worth anything, the heretical "herchurch" in San Francisco would have been kicked out a long time ago.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 6:54PM #9
teilhard
Posts: 52,196

ELCA Clergy are perfectly FREE to be Members of some "Club" or "Association" or other -- but NOT to be "Rostered" as "Clergy" in some OTHER Church Body ...


Feb 23, 2011 -- 6:40PM, G_Erdner wrote:


Feb 23, 2011 -- 5:00PM, teilhard wrote:


Congregations and Clergy who THOUGHT they can choose to be "dual-rostered" will find that ELCA Policy does not allow such ...




I suggest you look up the difference between "can" and "may". Congregations and clergy "can" sign up to be on some other denomination's roster. The ELCA says that they "may" not do that, as in "they don't have the ELCA's permission". But, the ELCA has no power or ability to prevent it. The ELCA might choose to throw any congregation or clergyman who affiliated with another denomination out, but then again, the ELCA synod involved may choose to turn a blind eye.


The ELCA has a long history of some synods turning a blind eye to this violation or that violation. If the ELCA's judgements and rules were worth anything, the heretical "herchurch" in San Francisco would have been kicked out a long time ago.  





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 23, 2011 - 7:13PM #10
G_Erdner
Posts: 170

Feb 23, 2011 -- 6:54PM, teilhard wrote:


ELCA Clergy are perfectly FREE to be Members of some "Club" or "Association" or other -- but NOT to be "Rostered" as "Clergy" in some OTHER Church Body ...




So, what is anyone going to do about it? What authority does anyone have to create any consequences for a pastor allowing his name to be placed on the roster of another church body?


You can blather all you want about the ELCA's rules. That doesn't change the fact that they don't mean anything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 15  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook