I finally have applied to become a member of the clergy roll of the North American Lutheran Church, which means leaving the clergy roster of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (Here is the NALC’s site.) About time, too, inasmuch as the NALC made me a dean back in early September. I am a sort of acting proto-bishop for NALC parishes in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Pretty easy job in the moment; the NALC has but one congregation in the entire four-state region. There are others pending. The one NALC congregation. however, is not the one I serve as pastor.
In my congregation, we are a mixed lot in the moment, as is the case with numerous ELCA parishes. While there is a lot of unhappiness with the ELCA, there is equally a lot of indifference and even some support for what the ELCA did on gay sexuality and gay pastors. I have not pushed my congregation for a vote to leave the ELCA and I have no plans to do so, so I cannot say what direction the parish will eventually take. But my displeasure with the ELCA is well known, and I did make sure the parish council voted permission for me to join the NALC. The vote was six in favor, one opposed, one abstention (my own), and the one absent member indicated she would have voted yes.
There is a wrinkle. ELCA congregations are served by ELCA pastors, period. Which I am not or soon won’t be. Otherwise, an ELCA congregation served by a non-ELCA pastor is subject to expulsion.
But the ELCA has been rather lax about enforcement heretofore. A number of gay pastors ordained by what was called the Extraordinary Candidacy Project – in the run-up time before gay pastors could be ordained in the ELCA – were serving ELCA congregations. The local bishop would issue a pro-forma reprimand and censure and decree the congregation would no longer be allowed to send representation to church conventions (boy, there’s a worry). But they were not expelled. We are warned that this practice is possibly subject to change, because leaving the ELCA is not an instance of an irregular call to a pastor, but a case of schism. I won’t bother trying to answer that charge. Besides, as I see it, the ELCA left me.
My real disaffection with the ELCA didn’t start with sex. It began in earnest over the ELCA abortion statement and the subsequent decision by the national council to treat elective abortion for pastors and dependents as a reimbursable medical expense under the church health plan. From the abortion statement, the church said to value my baptism as an infant regards my conception by step-siblings as a morally justifiable reason for terminating the pregnancy that became me at the baptismal font. From the schedule of benefits by the health plan, had my birth-parents in any way been covered under the ELCA health plan, my church would have paid to do it.
I took what steps I could at the time to distance myself: I dropped out of the health plan. It does not help that my present ELCA bishop had, before becoming bishop, been pastor to the late George Tiller, the Wichita, Kansas, late term abortionist murdered in May 2009, and regarded it as less than problematic.
If it was abortion that created the distance between me and the ELCA, the decisions on gay sexuality from August 2009 have only convinced me to seek a somewhat further distance and, Brother, at last I’m taking it.
Of course the ELCA bishop isn’t too happy, but then I have never made it part of my career to make him happy. I suspect he will get over it. Since he has not made any reply to my letter, I am guessing he is dealing with my loss very well. Which is good; one should stay cheery around Christmas. Soon, then, I shall receive a letter from the secretary of the ELCA telling me I am no longer a pastor, cannot dress like a pastor, and of a fact I may no longer do any of the usual things a pastor does. My reply, if I bother making one, will be: yes I am; I will if I want to; and yes, I may.
December 22nd, 2010 | 3:39 pm
As a former Lutheran, now happily Roman Catholic, I admire your courage to stand in the Truth.
Regarding the relationship with the ELCA bishop, I’m reminded of the words of Thomas Aquinas, addressd to God: “May I desire to please no one, nor fear to displease anyone, but You.”
December 22nd, 2010 | 6:22 pm
Why not move to the LCMS?
December 22nd, 2010 | 6:23 pm
Jesus Christ is reforming His church and you are helping to lead the way out of the wilderness that the ELCA has become.
Merry Christmas!
December 22nd, 2010 | 6:30 pm
Thank you for being a true shepherd of the sheep. A shepherd gently leads. I think you are dealing with it in a very godly way. My pastor is a lost sheep of the ELCA and made me out to be the bad guy because I was leaving the church that left the safe umbrella of the Word of God. It has made me study and pray all the more and this is a good thing.
December 22nd, 2010 | 7:38 pm
All churches bend their creeds to suit the desires and needs of the faithful. All of them.
The Bible is clear on divorce and remarriage.
Luke 16:18 “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.”
See the parallel passages in Mark 10:11, Matthew 19:9.
However, the Catholic Church devised the “annulment” whereby those who seek to remain in the Church despite being divorced and remarried could make their initial marriage “go away”. Some have grumbled about this, to be sure, but generally, there isn’t the same level of outrage that you see over the ELCA’s growing acceptance of gay couples.
The Orthodox Church will bless up to a third marriage, whatever the circumstances of the first two divorces. Most evangelical churches (with the exception of a few hardline fundamentalists) will accept remarried couples into their congregations, despite the very clear admonitions of Scripture.
So I must ask: why the outrage over the blessing of even monogamous gay couples when the blessing and sanctioning of technically adulterous relationships scarcely raises an eyebrow today?
December 22nd, 2010 | 7:42 pm
Bless you in your endeavors to be a faithful shepherd for our Lord. If only “your [former] bishop”, and seemingly many like him, really understood their roles, this would never had been a problem. But instead of behaving as servants to the flocks they’ve inverted the hierarchy and mistakenly acted as if they are masters. Mischief was bound to follow.
December 22nd, 2010 | 7:49 pm
Russ:
My prayers are with you in the process of being rostered in the NALC. I am pleased you have the support of your congregation council.
Merry Christmas!
December 22nd, 2010 | 11:26 pm
Welcome to the NALC, Russ!
December 23rd, 2010 | 1:29 am
[...] When You Leave Rome, This is What Happens – Russell E. Saltzman, First Thoughts Share this editon with friends: Digg this post Recommend on Facebook Buzz it up Share on netvibes share via Reddit Share with Stumblers Tweet about it Bookmark in Browser Tell a friend [...]
December 23rd, 2010 | 9:57 am
Russ-
Welcome to freedom, my brother! Though I have chosen a different path, any one that leads out of the culture of death is a good one.
December 23rd, 2010 | 10:04 am
To James;
Two wrongs do not make a right. Using your logic to justify one sinful activity because another sinful activity is accepted is exactly why the ELCA is on the slippery slope of heresy. Continuing this pattern wil lead to the lifting up of doctrine placing man’s opinion and reasoning in authority of Scripture. Too late, this has already happened with the adoption of the doctrine of bound conscience. Perhaps a better Scripture verse is Galations 6:1, “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But, watch yourself or you also may be tempted.”
December 23rd, 2010 | 10:17 am
You say “even some support” for the statement. I’ve been extremely surprised at the numbers of people who are extremely supportive of the 2009 vote, both pastors and lay people. I didn’t seek out these people; they are my acquaintances and also people who write blogs, etc.
I respect you for having your own views and stating them, not tying your decision to that of your church. I think that the pastor’s decision and the church’s decision need to be separate. There are pastors “leading” their churches out of the ELCA. In one case I know of, this was done even though the pastor was retiring within months. In other cases, the churches are so large that they don’t need the ELCA to survive. But what about the small churches that are impacted financially by leaving? And what about the pastors of small churches who are without a job if they leave? I think that each situation needs to be decided separately.
Regarding the abortion coverage in the ELCA insurance plan. While I don’t know the exact wording of the coverage, I do know that it might need to in there to cover extraordinary situations, but it might make that seem as if abortions are encouraged, or at least, sanctioned. For example, when I was 36, I had a procedure that was absolutely medically identical to an “abortion” for a condition called a “missed abortion” in the second trimester. I would sure hate to be judged by someone who doesn’t understand this and has superficial knowledge. And I’m glad that my own insurance paid for it. Without the procedure, I probably would have eventually had toxic infection, perhaps moving into the blood stream, and then a hysterectomy. I had a lot of heart ache over this. And no, the baby wasn’t killed by this procedure, in case you are wondering.
December 23rd, 2010 | 11:29 am
Congratulations for your courage in leaving the ELCA. I am a just-retired ELCA pastor and retired in considerable part because the members of my (two) congregations did not take seriously the three position papers I prepared for them on the whole issue of human sexuality. The reality is that they, like many members of ELCA congregations, may have reservations about what the ELCA has done but are concerned to go along and avoid controversy,for their own perceived survival, in the tent of the synod and larger church.
I am now de facto without a denomination, persona non grata with the bishop and unconnected elsewhere. I was inspired by the rhetoric of the NALC gathering, but I wonder if it will turn out to be something like ELCA lite.
I am deeply concerned about abortion, not to mention the growing acceptance of gay marriage within and without the church. I find the positions of the Missouri Synod Lutherans to be refreshingly clear on these issues and with my family have been attending and much appreciating a Missouri church, with solid liturgy and outstanding preaching.
I would appreciate your response, Pastor Saltzmann, to the question, Why not Missouri?
December 23rd, 2010 | 11:57 am
Does the NALC now have a way to receive pastors as clergy members independent of whether they are serving in a call extended by a congregation that is a member of the NALC?
December 23rd, 2010 | 12:59 pm
@Joel
@Jack Miller
Why not the Missouri Synod?
I did seriously consider leaving the ELCA for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the period when abortion finally shook itself out, 1994-1996. I have friends I admire and respect in the St. Louis headquarters, and several close friends who are LCMS pastors. So it wasn’t altogether unattractive. But for two reasons I had to lay it aside. I keep getting stuck with dinosaurs, by that I mean the officially raw literal interpretation of Genesis and the broadly Biblicist approach to Holy Scripture. I am acquainted with a couple Missouri pastors whose entire biblical world would shatter if one could prove beyond all doubt that Samson killed only 999 Philistines instead of 1,000, and used the jawbone of a giraffe and not of an ass to do it. Perhaps I exaggerate, and if my LCMS friends want to pile on, I shall raise not a squeak in self-defense.
As for the possibility of the NALC becoming ELCA Lite, that – my opinion – would be a failure. Where I hope the NALC ends up is in the middle. Thirty years ago there were three main Lutheran bodies in the U.S. – roughly regarded as conservative, moderate, and liberal – they each informally served as a check against their peculiar, individual excesses. In the middle is where the NALC hopes to find itself: biblically open, confessionally articulate, structurally flexible.
@James
On marriage.
The disorder of gay sexuality is but a reflection of disorder among heterosexual marriages. The rise of divorce rates and illegitimate birth rates from the 1960s onward nicely coincides with the rise of the gay rights movement. Perhaps it is a false correlation, but I suspect one social disorder widely practiced leads to others. That is the first thing to note. Disorder in a society that previously preferred stable families loosens the bonds that once glued our culture together, and other things begin to slip in through the side door. If divorce rates were five in a hundred, this conversation would not be taking place.
But biblically, theologically, addressing divorce, I still don’t hear anyone saying divorce is no longer a sin. Divorce contradicts scripture in the same exact way as gay sex. I don’t know anyone divorced – including myself – who does not regard it as the single most grievous failure they’ve ever experienced. And for sin like that the Lutheran remedy has always been ample doses of Law (you screwed up) and equally liberal doses of Gospel (“a broken and contrite heart,” quoting the psalm, “the Lord will not despise”).
December 23rd, 2010 | 2:07 pm
Russell, thank you for your candid admission. My goal is not to attempt to throw stones.
My point is that most churches (liberal or conservative) have been a great deal more sympathetic to the divorced and remarried than to its gay parishioners, despite the equally clear Scriptural dictates in both areas.
If churches were consistent, they would place the same expectations on its divorced parishioners as its gay ones: lifelong celibacy (although the divorced do have the option of reuniting with their first spouse).
For most churches (liberal or conservative), such an expectation is seen as too drastic, unrealistic and not compassionate. It’s not “ideal” to remarry, perhaps, but it doesn’t necessarily prevent one from entering Heaven.
So why two different standards? Why is the bar set almost impossibly high for same-sex attracted Christians while heterosexual parishioners are given more leeway?
Whatever the reasons, it’s clear to me that the notion of sin has been tweaked to accommodate this more forgiving approach to straight believers.
December 23rd, 2010 | 2:23 pm
@Rev. David M. Frye
Yes, the NALC is able to receive pastors not presently called by NALC congregations in all the usual circumstances: retirement, on leave from call, call to special service, etc. The NALC also can receive a pastor onto its clergy roster and then “authorize” that pastor to serve a non-NALC congregation, as will be the case with Pr. Saltzman.
December 23rd, 2010 | 2:43 pm
To James,
You are mislead if you think the opposition to what is really going on in the Catholic Church is anything less than
furious outrage.
The Catholic Church is ignoring a tremendous scandal and willingly supporting open, unrepentant adultery.
If the Pope had the guts and integrity, he would come here himself. I would personally ask him to resign, right to his face. He is a reprobate for doing nothing to help abandoned spouses. He does not have integrity. He plays
both sides and is a huge disappointment!
December 23rd, 2010 | 10:29 pm
“So why two different standards? Why is the bar set almost impossibly high for same-sex attracted Christians while heterosexual parishioners are given more leeway?”
Perhaps because heterosexual relations, even fornicating ones, are not disordered in the same way as homosexual ones are.
No question that there have been abuses in the annulment process in the Catholic Church; but the underlying principle – that certain marriages may well have never been valid in the first place – is not without validity.
December 24th, 2010 | 11:29 am
Having been recieved as a NALC pastor a few weeks ago, I too still serve my ELCA communities. At present, I remain serving them, though this may change in the near future. My reasons my roster change are written on: http://motorsage.blogspot.com
Therefore. brother Saltzman, please know that you are not in the departing boat alone, and with two of us rowing in unison we may make certain headway straight toward the foot of the cross. Have a Blessed Christmas!
December 26th, 2010 | 12:48 am
NALC also have a Facebook page, currently with 342 members, at:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=148674858495043
December 26th, 2010 | 9:20 pm
When you leave a denomination like ELCA, how does this affect your pension benefits? Do they honor them? Just curious about some of hidden costs for such a change. God’s Blessings.
December 29th, 2010 | 9:45 pm
I am the council president for Peace Lutheran Church (ELCA / Lutheran CORE) in Edmond, OK so we are in your area. We are currently in the call process for a pastor and have just posted a notice in CORE’s Clergy Connect. We have scheduled our first congregational vote to leave the ELCA on January 30, 2011 after over 18 months of prayer, Bible study and defining our core values and mission statement. The issue is purely the Authority of Scripture, which the ELCA and Bound Conscience has made irrelevent.
God Bless you and all Pastors who have been left behind as our congregation has been.
Also, we found the ELCA Pendion Board is not actually “ELCA” and benefits can continue for our six staff members.
January 4th, 2011 | 12:02 am
[...] I read a blog post over at First Things that was a blast from my past. The author, a Lutheran pastor, recently left the ELCA to become a [...]
January 5th, 2011 | 7:24 pm
What I do not understand is why those who are leaving the ELCA for NALC can’t just walk away as you seem to be doing. We have a group that broke away from the ELCA and formed an NALC church with about 15 members, but they keep harassing the ELCA members to join them. Why can’t they just leave us alone and go in peace?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact