We did?"
ALPB Online Quote from: Charles_Austin on Today at 10:24:40 AM I ask again: What does a bishop have to gain by giving a congregation a pastor they do not want? What does a bishop have to gain by "weeding out" any pastors, except perhaps for those who are ineffective and persistent troublemakers or who mess up in parish after parish? What is the "up side" of weeding out anyone but that sort?
---
I am sure this has been answered "again" but here it is "again". It is called risk management, and it really is quite easy to understand. For example, as to why a bishop wouldn't give a congregation what it wants:
A large and mostly conservative congregation, that gives generously to the synod, is not happy with decisions of the ELCA. They enter the call system because their pastor retires, dies, or whatever. Even though this congregation has not indicated that it wants to leave the ELCA the bishop understands that if a vote were to take place it is likely they would have the 2/3rds majority necessary. So, instead of assigning an orthodox interum or recommending an orthodox pastor the bishop places a radical revisionist as the interim. This upsets many people and the most vocal opponents leave reducing the chances that the congregation will ever be able to achieve a 2/3rds majority. The bishop then recommends only moderate ELCA loyalist for the call (who, by the way, now look orthodox when compared to the interim). This formerly "at risk" congregation now has been effectively neutered and the benevolence dollars continue to roll in.
As to why a bishop would want to "weed out" orthodox pastors, again it is a risk management thing. I have to believe that many bishops see putting orthodox pastors into orthodox congregations as adding fuel to the flame. Then there is the emotional factor. I don't know many bishops who enjoy meeting with angry and frustrated traditional/confessional congregations who oppose the changes caused by HSGT and the changes in V&E. I also understand that with ever decreasing budgets it must be painful for bishops to lay off synod staff and reduce ministries. The cause of this emotional pain in their minds? - those darn orthodox clergy. I find it quite easy to understand why an ELCA bishop would not want well spoken orthodox pastors like Stephen and Erma at their synod assemblies, stirring things up and drawing attention to things they just want to go away?
----
Comments from Bad Vestments:
28 Comments
Close this windowJump to comment formCreepy.
The rainbowish colors and all that gay stuff seem to go together, (I've seen too many bumper stickers, maybe)
On the other hand, it does not surprise me to see the Presiding Bishop of that outfit dressed like Merlin the Wizard. I think they're in full communion with the Druids.
You initially frustrated me with your ELCA comment. Then you promptly made it all better with your Druid comment. I'm actually still laughing. Thank you sir, thank you.
Disagreeing with somebody else and having the courage of your convictions isn't hateful. The notion that it is produces... well, the ELCA.
Whatever. As much as I respect my presiding bishop, that chasuble is as atrocious as they come.
The vestments fit the theology- strictly new age.
Anyone been there?
My "bound conscience" tells me that this silly display is just one more reason that we no longer are a part of the ELCA. We have been delivered!!
He wore it at the ELCA Youth Gathering at our closing worship which, by the way, was in no way watered down or dumbed down for the youth's sake. He wore the extremely Mardi Gras-esque chasabule because we were in New Orleans and our theme for the week was Jesus, Justice, Jazz.
As to all of the intentionally mean and unbelievably closed-minded comments about the ELCA, sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but spewing misinformation and anger and hate is hardly the adult or Christian thing to do.
So seriously guys, laugh at the funny vestments, but knock it off with the ridiculous and offensive theological assertions.
Scott Weidler
ELCA Associate Dirctor for Worship & Music
I find it amusing that as soon as someone points out the obvious degradation of scriptural and confessional authority in the ELCA, some ELCA-loyalist comes along and accuses said person of spewing misinformation and hate. That is hardly inclusive. That is harldy loving, especially when the person actually said nothing hateful nor spread any misinformation. You may not agree with what he said, but that does not qualify what he said as misinformation. Actually, that being the case, it would be more accurate to say that you were the one guilty of spreading misinformation.
-Michael