Former Gov. Quie does about-face on leaving ELCA over gays

More proof that conservatives love democracy only as long as their side wins.

David – This, however, wasn’t a democracy. In theory, in a democracy those elected are supposed to represent those who elected them. These folks weren’t elected, they were selected, and they had no obligation to represent anything but their own convictions. Between no election and no obligation to represent, you can stack that deck however you want. If you were to take a truly democratic vote of ELCA members, this change would never have been approved. It doesn’t matter – because of this vote we were challenged to look deeper into what else the ELCA stands for. Once we discovered that our offerings were helping to cover abortions in the ELCA’s health insurance coverage, we had to leave. Real churches don’t kill babies.

Tom, you are mistaken. The voting members of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly were indeed ELECTED. I was a churchwide voting member in 2007 and 2005. I have been a synodical voting member (Minneapolis Area Synod) every year for about the last eight or nine years. I have been elected each and every time.

I don’t know if the process is totally uniform across the ELCA, but my experience in the NJ Synod has been pretty much the same as Tim’s – voting members to the synod assembly were affirmed by Congregation Council, and churchwide voting members elected at the Synod Assembly.

Let me clarify…the congregational members that went to the state synod assembly were not elected. To me, that’s where the “democracy” would have happened. In our church, those delegates were selected. Perhaps the national delegates were elected, but by that time, we’re not at a congregational level anymore.

By the way, those selected delegates were not given any direction on how they were supposed to represent us. they went and represented themselves.

Tom – who selected the voting members to Synod Assembly in your congregation? And what was the basis for the selection? Was a specific position on same-gender relationships required? In my experience, it usually comes down to who is willing and available to go, with Council (an elected body) affirming the choice. It has nothing to do with positions on any particular issue. So it’s not a purely democratic process, but it should produce a fairly random sampling of individuals that should yield fairly representative voting results. Maybe there’s more stacking-the-deck stuff going on in your congregation than I’ve seen in churches in our area.

In many congregations, voting members ARE elected by the congregation. Even when they are “selected,” as Tom Morgan puts it, they are usually, if not always, elected by the congregational council, who are themselves elected.

What would it mean, really, for a voting member to “represent” his or her congregation at an assembly? Would it mean that the voter should vote the way his congregations wants him to? If so, how does the voter KNOW what the congregation wants? Should congregations be required to vote on all issues beforehand, so that voting members could be sent with pre-ordained votes in hand? Well, if so, then there really wouldn’t be any reason to hold the assembly in the first place, since the congregation’s vote could just be sent in.

The ELCA has a decision-making process that, in terms of “representation,” is similar to many other organizations. In many ways, the ELCA is more “democratic” than a number of other denominations.

In the ELCA, when voters gather at an assembly, they gather there to do what they discern to be best for the whole denomination–including their own congregations. They assemble, go the microphone, and speak to the issues. They listen to each other and sometimes they actually learn something new from what is being said.

David,

It is actually the other way around. The revisionists are the ones who hammered at this single issue for years. When they finally get their way, it is suddenly “time to move on”.

Well, it is time to move on for those who see this as the last straw. I applaud any and all to take their money and support worthier organizations and denominations.

It sounds as though there is no standard for how people are chosen to represent their particular congregation at the local synod level. In our case, I believe the Pastor chose a couple people who were, as stated above, willing and available. They were then affirmed by the church council.

All of that, however, is just detail. I only brought it up as a response to the first comment, which mentioned democracy.

I, for one, feel like democracy is the whole problem with this issue. Since when is Biblical truth something that we get to vote on? Truth is Truth, whether we vote differently or not. We can vote to say the sun won’t rise tomorrow, but that vote doesn’t change fact. The ELCA decided that man’s vote can overrule God’s truth, as expressed in His Word. Now that you look at it, the ELCA has a track record of ignoring scripture – abortion, divorce, ordination of women, and now this. As a lifelong ELCA member (now a former member), I believe the ELCA to be nothing more than a heretical cult at this point. It took the vote this past summer to open my eyes to the rest of it. Shame on me that it took me this long.

Gov. Quie never once advocated that congregations stay in the ELCA. His comments at the national assembly were completely taken out of context by a reporter and bloggers, and reported as fact again and again and again.

His comments came in a larger context. Quie was actually responding to the position of Mark Hanson and GLBT activists that those opposed to the measures “live into this decision” and “see how it turns out” … He stated clearly in the context that it was ridiculous to support measures that would give false hope to the biblically faithful. Speaking against such measures, he also stated clearly that the only option that was going to be left was to leave. His comments came during discussion about a resolution that would have created a free standing synod in the ELCA for those that disagree with the proposal.

Quie opposed this move because his position at that time was that there should be a split if the proposals go forward. His position then, was the same as it is now- congregations that disagree with the move should quit pretending they can reform the ELCA. Quie belived/believes that the ELCA is not reformable.

At the same time, in his comments, while opposing the measure to create a useless free standing ELCA reform district, he wanted to be careful not to be a loud advocate for leaving the elca at that moment so as not to push brand-name loyal conservatives towards staying in the ELCA.

Everybody who really know Quie knew what he was saying and the maneuver he was making- it bears itself out in the context of comments he made earlier and in the position he was taking against the proposed resolution to create a useless free-standing district.

Quie was simply opposing the free-standing district idea, urged people not to create something that was really a false hope, and in a brilliant and masterful display of political diplomacy told conservatives that day to either chit or get off the pot.

Tom – life would be much simpler if we all had perfect understanding of what scripture wants us to do in any given situation. Unfortunately, none of us possess that understanding. So rather than viewing the vote at churchwide as a choice between accepting or rejecting Biblical Truth, it would be much more accurate (and healthy) to see it for what it really was — a gathering of faithful Lutherans trying to come to grips with widely varying understandings of what God’s Word would have us do in this situation. Far from a perfect solution, but I don’t know how better to deal with such large differences in Biblical interpretation.

I regret that you feel you must leave the ELCA, and regret even more that you feel so angry and bitter about the decisions made at churchwide. But I do hope that someday you will find the humility to see that those of us who feel differently about those decisions are not the ignorant, unfaithful people you seem to think us to be.

I guess I shouldn’t have expected better from Quie, who chooses to hang out with convicted felon, Charles Colson, a man who decided a religious cover was the best way to practice politics on a tax-exempt basis, whilst collecting a large salary extracted from little old ladies who don’t have an extra five dollars to send in. Their time is over, but they refuse to go out gracefully. They want to hurt as many people as possible on the way out. Shameful.

Dave – I am neither bitter or angry, nor did I ever call you ignorant or unfaithful. Please do not put words in my mouth. I feel the voters in August felt like they were doing the right thing, but 2000 years of Church teaching says otherwise.

On the contrary, this decision forced me to think about my faith and make some tough decisions. As it has turned out, I feel very at peace with my decision to leave the ELCA and convert to Roman Catholicism. I never knoew what I was missing. There is a beauty and reverance in the Mass that was sorely lacking in our Sunday services, and a consistency in the teaching that is very reassuring. You can argue with the teachings, but you can’t argue that they’re inconsistent.

Tom – I assumed phrases like “overrule God’s truth” and “ignoring scripture,” were aimed at those of us who support the recent ELCA actions. I apologize if I exaggerated any negative intent on your part. For sure I could argue with many Catholic teachings, but that to me is almost secondary to being respectful in spite of the differences.

Dave – Apology accepted, howvere you are correct. Those phrases WERE aimed at those who supported the ELCAs actions. I just never called you ignorant or unfaithful, and want to remain respectful also.

If the Bible (which we all proclaim to be God’s Word) says one thing, and human beings vote to contradict it, I don’t know what else to call it. It IS a blatant disregard for scripture. I watched the Assemby with great interest on the web, and while the folks in favor of the changes had very compelling, personal stories to tell, none of them had any scriptual basis for the changes. And “love your neighbors as yourselves,” does not translate to “ordain people who unrepently practice a sin I’ve repeatedly defined – and not just in the Old testament, but the New as well”

Is God perfect? YES
Is his plan for us perfect? YES
How does homosexual sex fit into that plan?

Tom – I do know that Christians who support the ELCA actions often tend to jump ahead when explaining their reasons … for them it is a given that same-gender relationships of the sort discussed in the social statement are not sinful, and using that at as a starting point, it really does boil down to a matter of acceptance and love of neighbors regardless of differences. But if you push them to back up a little, you may find that most do have a scriptural basis for their beliefs.

You mention “love your neighbor as yourself,” which I know sometimes seems to be applied as if we should accept both sinner and sin. But for me that exchange between Jesus and the religious leaders of his day is not just about how we should relate to fellow sinful human beings. It’s a foundational statement that defines what sin is. Sin is about failure to love God and selflessly love others. (And lest that sound totally like warm fuzzies, Christ was talking about agape love, which is sacrificial and very hard and all-encompassing.)

Viewing all of scripture through this lens mostly leads to interpretations that everyone can agree on. It affirms the Ten Commandments (including Luther’s expanded views expressed in the catechism). It affirms moral laws all can agree on – rape, pedophilia, promiscuity, adultery, bigotry, greed, etc. – all represent evil because they are self-focused and work directly in opposition to love of others. Some Biblical laws are not affirmed which largely go unobserved by most Christians anyway. (Levitical dietary laws come to mind. Likewise for letting women speak in church and participate in church leadership.) And occasionally you run into issues – like same-gender relationships – where you can get widely-varying views, depending on your understanding of the issue and the historical context of seemingly-related scriptures.

For me, based on what I know about same-gender couples (both from the science and from knowing them personally), there is nothing inherent in their relationships inconsistent with Christ’s call to love God and neighbor. It is hard to fully develop that argument in this forum, and you might find it silly in any case, but for what it’s worth, it is a sincerely-held view, grounded in my best understanding of the Bible. Dumb, maybe, but not in blatent disregard for scripture.

Reading this discussion is painful….

the hard left that is pushing and supporting the ELCA direction is wacky, loony, embarrassing….

this is why we’re losing elections all over the country now, (my DFL)- because we’re held captive by these loons, the same way ELCA is held captive by their own loons.

Dave – It’s been informative trading posts with you. My wife and I have been through your thought process and eventually couldn’t reconcile it with what we feel are clear, New Testament, statements. It would have been much easier for us to accept what the assembly did than to uproot our church affiliation.

Ultimately, one of us is incorrect. So, one day if God asks us why, you will have erred on the side of His Love, and we would have erred on the side of His Word. Who knows?

Honestly, as I stated earlier, this issue only opened us up to other issues that we found irreconcilable. How do you feel about the ELCA funding abortion through their health insurance? That was our last straw, not the August vote…

What is meant by those people who keep talking about “abortion”? There must be over 1,000 medical and insurance industry codes that cover “abortion” including a code for the medical removal of a stillborn fetus. Should medical insurance cover the “abortion” of a stillborn baby? Again I ask “What do you mean by ‘abortion’ “?

God gives life…only God should end life.

Tom – likewise on trading posts. I wasn’t actually looking to change anyone’s views … just hoping what I said was worth thinking about. God’s blessings as you move into a new congregation. As far as the abortion issue goes, we probably aren’t entirely on the same page there either (though I agree with much of what is in the ELCA social statement on abortion, and you may as well as it presents a fairly moderate view). But if my understanding of the ELCA health plan is correct, you are right that some of the procedures covered run contrary to the statement, and probably contrary to the views of many Lutherans. And so it becomes an issue of the degree to which we limit the choices of others with whom we disagree (a particularly complicated question here since so much hinges on the personhood of the fetus/child, which is itself part of the disagreement), whether our contributions to the health plan amount to support of procedures we disagree with (I tend to view them as providing health care specifically for our pastor and his family, but I know that’s fuzzy), and whether we stay and represent our views, or leave.

Pastor Wright – I’m not one that raised the abortion issue, but I think I can give a specific example. Consider a late-term abortion that is strictly voluntary … the baby is healthy, no rape/incest is involved, and the health of the mother is not at risk. The ELCA social statement would argue against such an abortion. But I believe the ELCA health plan for Pastors, staff, etc. and their families would cover the costs of such an abortion if it was desired by the mother. And so for ELCA Lutherans who strongly oppose such a procedure, that raises some moral dilemmas about belonging to a church body that in that sense supports those procedures … particularly given that their member donations help pay the premiums that ultimately reimburse the doctors performing those procedures.

Dave – Thanks for your kind words. Blessing to you as well as you remain in the ELCA and do what you believe God is calling you to do. Also, thanks for your explanation to Pastor Wright concerning his abortion question. I believe you have accurately portrayed the ELCA position.

I have read the ELCA’s social statement on the subject and as you predicted, do agree with pieces of it. I can’t however, agree with the whole of it, as it tends to speak out of both sides of its mouth on the issue. I was really surprised to hear of abortions being performed at an ELCA-affiliated hospital in Chicago (painfully named “Christ Hospital”). Thankfully the shenanigans there led to the introduction of the “Born Alive Protection Act,” so some good came of it.

I am a life long Lutheran who has left the ELCA. I place my Bible on the nightstand, read it when I go to bed in the evening, and cut out the middle man. Even a child could read the passages in the Bible pertaining to homosexuality and understand their meaning. Why is there the endless need to discuss this? Just get over it. Get out.

So Karen, why do you have a voice in this again, when the Bible says in effect that women have no say? Oh, is it because people applied common sense and more modern standards of equality to Bible statements? Okay, thanks.

Would you agree with men telling you to “get out” if you wanted a say in anything, just because the Bible, if taken literally and without allowance for historical interpretation, said so?

That is not the point Rev. Wright. The ELCA covers EVERY abortion procedure in their medical health coverage (up to 28 weeks I believe) Look at my links on http://www.exposingtheelca.com/on-abortion.html
Now that you know the truth, will you still keep posting your question to everyone that “Exposes” to ELCA members that the ELCA is funding all abortions, even for reasons of sex selection??

<
Dan

Dan – Thanks for speaking the truth on your website. I know alot of people don’t want to hear it. As someone who never really delved into what my synod believed, I was shocked. Shame on me, but I didn’t let the door hit me on the way out.

Dave writes:”Viewing all of scripture through this lens mostly leads to interpretations that everyone can agree on.”
Maybe not, Dave. This lens permits sons to marry their own widowed mothers and widowed men to marry their own daughters. I think not everyone would agree on that.
Rich