Comments for Theological Oddments http://www.restenergy.net/oddments on theology, Bible, and church Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:04:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by Davd L. Miller http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Davd L. Miller Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:04:55 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-24 Thanks for your analysis. The movement toward professionalization of the churchwide sturcture has existed since the beginning of the ELCA--and well before, I am sure. This move has sped up during the leadership of the present bishop. The result has been a structure that, of necessity, drifts further from the needs and concerns of most congregations and pastors. Still, those congregations have always sought and found ways to support those churchwide functions they most valued, such as hunger, global mission, new mission starts and theological education. Overall mission support to Lutheran denominational structures peaked around 1963/4. Work by members of the ELCA Department for Research and Evaluation established this nearly 10 years ago. Since 1963/4, support sent to Lutheran denominational structures has been decreasing in inflation adjusted dollars. There have been brief plateaus in this decline, but the general trend is steadily downward. Analysis of what is happening now needs to consider a wide array of social and economic forces as well as political changes that have shook the foundations of many institutions during that time. One other comment: Subtle and not-so-subtle pressure to 'rein in' The Lutheran have also been there from the beginning, and the editors often with considerable success resisted those pressures. We were often accused of printing too much bad news: Keep the sexual abuse problem quiet. Downplay the struggles and missteps of the churchwide unit and other individuals and structures. Use a soft touch on financial stories. Don't get involved in issues of war and peace or editorialize about them. Don't emphasize the differences and conflicts within the church. Don't tell my parishoners what is happening with the abortion or human sexuality task forces or I'll cancel my subscription. The list is long and easily continued. We heard it all, always seeking to be sensitive to legitimate critique while seeking to ignore those who simply didn't want the periodical to have an independent editorial voice, which it has by virture of the ELCA Constitution. The move to make the magazine a PR/marketing piece got a major push during a previous restructuring move, also under Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, when a largely failed attempt was made to append the periodical to the communication unit and have the elected editor answer (in some vague, poorly defined way) to the appointed and bishop-approved head of commuications. For the most part, the magazine staff held its nose, played along but pretty much ignored what they knew would be a failed attempt to "streamline" the structure. David L. Miller Editor of The Lutheran 1999-2005 Senior editor of The Lutheran 1987-1999 Thanks for your analysis. The movement toward professionalization of the churchwide sturcture has existed since the beginning of the ELCA–and well before, I am sure. This move has sped up during the leadership of the present bishop. The result has been a structure that, of necessity, drifts further from the needs and concerns of most congregations and pastors.
Still, those congregations have always sought and found ways to support those churchwide functions they most valued, such as hunger, global mission, new mission starts and theological education. Overall mission support to Lutheran denominational structures peaked around 1963/4. Work by members of the ELCA Department for Research and Evaluation established this nearly 10 years ago. Since 1963/4, support sent to Lutheran denominational structures has been decreasing in inflation adjusted dollars. There have been brief plateaus in this decline, but the general trend is steadily downward. Analysis of what is happening now needs to consider a wide array of social and economic forces as well as political changes that have shook the foundations of many institutions during that time.
One other comment: Subtle and not-so-subtle pressure to ‘rein in’ The Lutheran have also been there from the beginning, and the editors often with considerable success resisted those pressures. We were often accused of printing too much bad news: Keep the sexual abuse problem quiet. Downplay the struggles and missteps of the churchwide unit and other individuals and structures. Use a soft touch on financial stories. Don’t get involved in issues of war and peace or editorialize about them. Don’t emphasize the differences and conflicts within the church. Don’t tell my parishoners what is happening with the abortion or human sexuality task forces or I’ll cancel my subscription. The list is long and easily continued. We heard it all, always seeking to be sensitive to legitimate critique while seeking to ignore those who simply didn’t want the periodical to have an independent editorial voice, which it has by virture of the ELCA Constitution.
The move to make the magazine a PR/marketing piece got a major push during a previous restructuring move, also under Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, when a largely failed attempt was made to append the periodical to the communication unit and have the elected editor answer (in some vague, poorly defined way) to the appointed and bishop-approved head of commuications. For the most part, the magazine staff held its nose, played along but pretty much ignored what they knew would be a failed attempt to “streamline” the structure.

David L. Miller
Editor of The Lutheran 1999-2005
Senior editor of The Lutheran 1987-1999

]]> Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by Mark Christianson http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Mark Christianson Fri, 15 Oct 2010 03:38:27 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-23 Paul, It seems to me that your comment makes the churchwide expression of the ELCA synonymous with the staff of the churchwide offices. It is a mistake to make such an equation. I do agree that it is beneficial for the ELCA churchwide organization to address a variety of matters like worship, Christian education, evangelism, stewardship, and more. But the question is how. As I wrote, the church has been over-professionalized during the last century. Is it really necessary that we have staff dedicated to each of those areas? How effective is the staff-directed model, really? I'm not sure what unique role and value having a staff person addressing faith formation, to use your example, might have over other ways we addressing the subject on a churchwide level. Might it not be more beneficial to approach such matters collectively with those having expertise in an area (from seminaries, publishing house, and congregations) working together to provide resources and guidance for the ELCA at all of its levels? It seems to me that this would tap more broadly into the church, and be an approach more in keeping with what the church actually is, the body of God's people. Plus I have the sneaking suspicion that such a member-driven rather than staff-directed approach may result in a churchwide organization with a slightly increased presence that is ignored a bit less. Paul, It seems to me that your comment makes the churchwide expression of the ELCA synonymous with the staff of the churchwide offices. It is a mistake to make such an equation. I do agree that it is beneficial for the ELCA churchwide organization to address a variety of matters like worship, Christian education, evangelism, stewardship, and more. But the question is how. As I wrote, the church has been over-professionalized during the last century. Is it really necessary that we have staff dedicated to each of those areas? How effective is the staff-directed model, really? I’m not sure what unique role and value having a staff person addressing faith formation, to use your example, might have over other ways we addressing the subject on a churchwide level. Might it not be more beneficial to approach such matters collectively with those having expertise in an area (from seminaries, publishing house, and congregations) working together to provide resources and guidance for the ELCA at all of its levels? It seems to me that this would tap more broadly into the church, and be an approach more in keeping with what the church actually is, the body of God’s people. Plus I have the sneaking suspicion that such a member-driven rather than staff-directed approach may result in a churchwide organization with a slightly increased presence that is ignored a bit less.

]]> Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by Marnie Rourke http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Marnie Rourke Fri, 15 Oct 2010 01:37:58 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-22 One more way of looking at the problems of how restructuring is being handled at churchwide... The need for calling, equipping, and encouraging pastors for the church of even the near future has been ignored or at best reduced to to a sound bite. ...this will never help us grow the church as biblically based, called to serve the poor and marginalized, proclaiming the truth in God's holy Word, and sustaining believers with holy food that expresses the real presence of Christ. Perhaps the ELCA needs to find a better way of looking like the church of the apostles. One more way of looking at the problems of how restructuring is being handled at churchwide… The need for calling, equipping, and encouraging pastors for the church of even the near future has been ignored or at best reduced to to a sound bite. …this will never help us grow the church as biblically based, called to serve the poor and marginalized, proclaiming the truth in God’s holy Word, and sustaining believers with holy food that expresses the real presence of Christ. Perhaps the ELCA needs to find a better way of looking like the church of the apostles.

]]> Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by restenergy http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-21 restenergy Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:52:43 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-21 Thank you for your comment, Doug. But to be honest, the aim of my essay was to identify two primary problems I see with the ELCA's new structural plan. To try to state them succinctly: 1) we are too reliant on a churchwide staff and underutilize the many resources found in our church; 2) the structure that is proposed is wanting because it significantly de-emphasizes some tasks and concerns of primary importance or identified as priorities for the church. That second issue is one that can be raised independently of by whom and how the work of the church body is done. Even with a radically different way of working and living together as a church body, the question of structure, priorities, and holding certain aspects of our organizational life important applies. The first point was aiming toward a need to remodel rather than redecorate, to use your felicitous metaphor. What I wasn't really concerned about here was any particular proposals for how the church might live and work as a church body given my critique of the announced reorganization. I might do so in a follow-up post. Time will tell. Thank you for your comment, Doug. But to be honest, the aim of my essay was to identify two primary problems I see with the ELCA’s new structural plan. To try to state them succinctly: 1) we are too reliant on a churchwide staff and underutilize the many resources found in our church; 2) the structure that is proposed is wanting because it significantly de-emphasizes some tasks and concerns of primary importance or identified as priorities for the church. That second issue is one that can be raised independently of by whom and how the work of the church body is done. Even with a radically different way of working and living together as a church body, the question of structure, priorities, and holding certain aspects of our organizational life important applies. The first point was aiming toward a need to remodel rather than redecorate, to use your felicitous metaphor. What I wasn’t really concerned about here was any particular proposals for how the church might live and work as a church body given my critique of the announced reorganization. I might do so in a follow-up post. Time will tell.

]]> Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by Sarah Malm Lutter http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Sarah Malm Lutter Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:31:29 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-20 Mark, thank you for sharing your thoughts. There is much to be questioned in this new structure and the process which birthed it. It does seem a bit like re-decorating or re-arranging the furniture somewhat. I especially appreciate your comments regarding the formation and support of pastors. This doesn't surprise me, inattention to pastors, their training, formation, support, etc. has been waning for quite some time. Emphasis shifted to quantifiable growth in attendance and and membership, while the depth of members spiritual growth was an after-thought. The church always seems to be a day late and a dollar short. Once we finally realized that we have a whole generation or more of biblically illiterate members and a declining membership, then we initiate the "Book of Faith." Sadly, we don't have pastors formed and trained who can sit down with their members, open the bible and discuss it without having to have a whole program of bible studies to do it for them. I wouldn't be surprised if 20 years down the road we don't just become an association of free Lutheran churches, going back to congregational independence. Maybe that would be the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction from where we began in 1987. I don't know. So much to think about. Mark, thank you for sharing your thoughts. There is much to be questioned in this new structure and the process which birthed it. It does seem a bit like re-decorating or re-arranging the furniture somewhat. I especially appreciate your comments regarding the formation and support of pastors. This doesn’t surprise me, inattention to pastors, their training, formation, support, etc. has been waning for quite some time. Emphasis shifted to quantifiable growth in attendance and and membership, while the depth of members spiritual growth was an after-thought. The church always seems to be a day late and a dollar short. Once we finally realized that we have a whole generation or more of biblically illiterate members and a declining membership, then we initiate the “Book of Faith.” Sadly, we don’t have pastors formed and trained who can sit down with their members, open the bible and discuss it without having to have a whole program of bible studies to do it for them. I wouldn’t be surprised if 20 years down the road we don’t just become an association of free Lutheran churches, going back to congregational independence. Maybe that would be the pendulum swinging all the way in the other direction from where we began in 1987. I don’t know. So much to think about.

]]> Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by paul lutz http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-19 paul lutz Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:15:08 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-19 what seems to be missing from this analysis is an appreciation of the unique role of the churchwide offices. we are, and I hope remain, a three expression church. an appreciation of the unique contribution of each expression would be helpful in this analysis of the reductions. It saddens me, for example, that there is currently no one at the churchwide staff who is is concerned about congregational Christian education. The unique role of a churchwide staff person addressing congregational faith formation would be a beneficial partner for seminaries, publishing house, and congregations, trying to educate in the faith. what seems to be missing from this analysis is an appreciation of the unique role of the churchwide offices. we are, and I hope remain, a three expression church. an appreciation of the unique contribution of each expression would be helpful in this analysis of the reductions. It saddens me, for example, that there is currently no one at the churchwide staff who is is concerned about congregational Christian education. The unique role of a churchwide staff person addressing congregational faith formation would be a beneficial partner for seminaries, publishing house, and congregations, trying to educate in the faith.

]]> Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by Doug Kings http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-18 Doug Kings Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:51:04 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-18 "The plan means more of the same, only on a smaller scale." I think you're right on the money here, Mark. But if I may say so, it strikes me that your suggestions fall into that same trap. The temptation is to redecorate when what we really need to do is remodel--or even tear down and start over. I'll be honest and say that I thought the ELCA's formation was a mistake (I was a fairly new LCA pastor at the time of the merger) and intervening events have only re-affirmed my judgment. Frankly, I think we need to go back to the drawing board, start over, and QUESTION EVERYTHING. “The plan means more of the same, only on a smaller scale.”
I think you’re right on the money here, Mark. But if I may say so, it strikes me that your suggestions fall into that same trap. The temptation is to redecorate when what we really need to do is remodel–or even tear down and start over. I’ll be honest and say that I thought the ELCA’s formation was a mistake (I was a fairly new LCA pastor at the time of the merger) and intervening events have only re-affirmed my judgment. Frankly, I think we need to go back to the drawing board, start over, and QUESTION EVERYTHING.

]]> Comment on Structural Engineering the ELCA by Bill Strehlow http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/10/structural-engineering-the-elca/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Bill Strehlow Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:29:38 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=230#comment-16 This is very good input Mark. The Committee on the New Lutheran Church gave (CNLC) did over staff the ELCA...compromises between the church bodies that were merging ended up making the elca...everything LCA. A top down church that weakened what was the structure of the ALC, AELC. Leadership has been around the ElCA since day one...such leadership differentiates pastors from others in a priesthood of all believers that I never have liked. So thanks for the insight... If this vision of Hanson is followed who and what will perish... This is very good input Mark.

The Committee on the New Lutheran Church gave (CNLC) did over staff the ELCA…compromises between the church bodies that were merging ended up making the elca…everything LCA. A top down church that weakened what was the structure of the ALC, AELC.

Leadership has been around the ElCA since day one…such leadership differentiates pastors from others in a priesthood of all believers that I never have liked.

So thanks for the insight…

If this vision of Hanson is followed who and what will perish…

]]> Comment on Prayer by Terry Frovik http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/07/prayer/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Terry Frovik Sun, 12 Sep 2010 13:57:17 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=218#comment-15 Yes, nicely done. Yet, prayer need not be anymore than talking to God the Father through Jesus the Son, for Christians. When prayer is urgent, we don't think, we pray. However, I like the notion of prayer as speaking - let your requests be made know to God and the peace of God . . . . will be with you, said Paul. Terry Yes, nicely done. Yet, prayer need not be anymore than talking to God the Father through Jesus the Son, for Christians. When prayer is urgent, we don’t think, we pray. However, I like the notion of prayer as speaking – let your requests be made know to God and the peace of God . . . . will be with you, said Paul.
Terry

]]> Comment on The Proper Place of the Law: What of Antinomianism? by Tony Stoutenburg http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/2010/03/proper-place-of-the-law/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Tony Stoutenburg Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:15:32 +0000 http://www.restenergy.net/oddments/?p=178#comment-14 I am not sure that that is fair to Benne over all (I know it is not fair to Nestingen) but I do agree that that is the general tone of some of what has been written, probably by both. Good dialogue. Thanks Blessings. TS I am not sure that that is fair to Benne over all (I know it is not fair to Nestingen) but I do agree that that is the general tone of some of what has been written, probably by both. Good dialogue. Thanks

Blessings. TS

]]>