This came up in the topic on congregations that are voting to leave, but it seem this is a separate topic.
This is what they report to be the new requirements that will be voted on at the ELCA's August 2011 Churchwide Assembly.
The proposed changes — all of which make the process more difficult for congregations — include the following:
A congregation must hold a 30-day consultation period with its bishop before taking a first vote to leave the ELCA, in addition to the current 90-day consultation after a congregation’s first vote.
The synod bishop is given authority to determine how the consultation will be conducted “in consultation with” the congregation’s council.
The bishop will be able to appoint “designees” with whom the congregation will be required to consult.
The bishop or his/her designee must be granted the opportunity to speak at special congregational meetings regarding ending ELCA affiliation.
A congregation will be required to vote by a two-thirds majority to join a new Lutheran church body, or else it will be “conclusively presumed” to have become an independent Lutheran congregation, potentially forfeiting its property.
Congregations will be required to meet any financial obligations to the ELCA before leaving.
Congregations must wait at least six months before taking another first vote if the original first vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.
Congregations must wait at least six months and restart the process if their second vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.
Congregations which fail to follow the specified process must obtain synod council approval in order to leave the ELCA.
My observation: They strike me as quite Draconian. And, I'm speculating, but perhaps this proposal will serve to accelerate the number of congregations leaving the ELCA. Another thought: in spite of what appears to me a somewhat "it's nothing" attitude when the numbers of ELCA congregations leaving or associating with other groups as these things are reported from the ELCA PR office, it seems that in fact there is great angst at the national level over the growing exodus out of the ELCA. Proposing such stringent measures indicates the level of concern. I can see these proposals actually having the opposite effect of what might be intended. I suspect that between now and next August the ranks of the NALC are going to grow beyond what anyone in the NALC, or the ELCA, may have anticipated.
End of McCain Quotation
---
James Gale, another heavy hitter on the ALPB Forum:
Some of the changes do resolve ambiguities. Others add what might be regarded as helpful additional details. And if this had all been proposed, say, 20 years ago, one could read it without any suspicion regarding motives. However, in the current environment, motives will be questioned. The church council doesn't trust congregational leaders to provide truthful information. Unhappy congregations don't trust their synods to refrain from unjustifiable power grabs. And the church council's solution? Add a new, highly legalistic process to govern how congregations leave the ELCA.
I think that this is a big mistake from the ELCA's perspective. A very big mistake. It will foster distrust, further poisoning an already close-to-toxic environment.
Looking at the substance, the new proposal has problems. Among those --
The church council wants to add a new consultation period before the first vote. Why? Is the reason to ensure that a congregation has the benefit of the synod's best and strongest statements and arguments before deciding whether to leave? If so, that purpose is already served by the existing consultation period, which takes place after the first vote and before any second vote. In other words, the current process ensures that a congregation won't vote to leave without the benefit of whatever the bishop and his or her colleagues have to say. So what new purpose is served by the new consultation period? None, really, other than to add more complexity to the process of considering whether to leave the ELCA. In other words, it makes the process more difficult. That's about it.
Richard Mathison stated his concern for the provision that arguably gives the bishop the power to decide what form any consultation will take. The bishop could arguably decide, for example, that he or she (and any number of "designees") would deliver the sermon each Sunday during the discernment process. The bishop and any number of "designees" are given voice at the congregational meetings at which a congregation votes on whether to leave. In other words, these provisions would arguably give the bishop power to be very heavy-handed. And the congregation would have no choice but to go along. That would hardly be effective consultation. The rules should require that all sides agree on what is and what is not appropriate, including regarding the rights of bishops at congregational meetings.
The new sub-section (g) is at first glance perplexing. It states that "congregations seeking to terminate their relationship with this church which fail or refuse to comply with each of the foregoing provisions in 9.62., shall be required to receive Synod Council approval before terminating their membership in this church." What does that mean? Is this an acknowledgement that not all congregations are obligated under their congregational governing documents to follow the general rules? After all, if the ELCA could impose a new rule on all congregations, there would be no need for this sub-section. All congregations would be required to comply. Period. On the other hand, if the ELCA can't impose a process on congregations, this new sub-section could only apply to those congregations adding it to their congregational constitutions. In other words, the sub-section would apply only to congregations that have added all the new rules to their congregational governing documents. As to them, the sub-section would be redundant. So what purpose does this serve?
In the short term, I think that the answer is "none." But this sub-section has the potential to be a very dangerous trojan horse. Once a congregation has added it, that congregation would never be permitted to delete it. And going forward, the ELCA could amend Section 9.62, thereby unilaterally imposing new limitations on the ability to leave the ELCA. These new limitations could even put a congregation's property at risk. Congregations therefore should understand that if they add this sub-section to their constitutions, the ELCA will gain enormous new power over them -- power that congregations will be legally unable to resist. The ultimate power regarding whether a congregation leaves will pass from congregations to the ELCA and its synods.
In short, while some parts of the proposal might be helpful, it is on balance, a turkey. And not one for which to give thanks. Indeed, sub-section (g) is downright toxic.
