Troubles leaving the ELCA

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

So as many of you know, there are churches in the ELCA attempting to leave the church following the 2009 assembly. But some have hit roadblocks according to the ELCA's "required" process for leaving which includes 2 votes with a 2/3 majority in each separated by at least 90 days and a meeting with the bishop.

A recent article was just posted on the ELCA website about a congregation in Iowa that tried to leave and failed by 2 votes (although they received 2/3 majority in 2 previous votes but the bishop ruled the 1st vote invalid-you can make your own opinion on that reading the article).

Basically, I guess I have two reactions to this: the ELCA-why would you be so overjoyed to have a congregation that clearly does not want to remain. All indications were that this church does not want to stay, so why work so hard to keep them? After three votes all with a clear majority wanting to leave what is the point of this effort? To the church-why not leave anyways? Why not stop giving (or more specifically give to a different body you want to be a part of) and double roster? Let the ELCA know you are done with it. If they do not approve of the actions you are taking have them kick you out (thus getting what you want).

I guess I think this process is ridiculous and while I intend to remain in the ELCA, I think those who want to leave should be able to. What is more likely to happen now is the disgruntled members just leave the parish for another one and the church falls to disarray, decreases significantly in membership and tithes and struggles to pay a staff and stay open.

Ok vent over.

Below are links to the ELCA article and a blog about this in which a member from the vote shares his side:

Iowa Congregation to Remain in the ELCA - News Releases - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

David R. Barnhart: ZION LUTHERAN, CLEAR LAKE, IOWA

Pax

 

[QuiltAngel]

I was wondering what the final outcome of that whole thing was. Hadn't heard anything in a while.

Looks like some people are going to leave anyway.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

In the end, even if a church cannot split, the people can, and will.

 

[RadMan]

It might be a ploy to get the church property away from the congregation like is happening in the LCMS. Maybe you could post some info from the ELCA and congregation's constitution to see if that's the case.

 

[DaRev]

So as many of you know, there are churches in the ELCA attempting to leave the church following the 2009 assembly. But some have hit roadblocks according to the ELCA's "required" process for leaving which includes 2 votes with a 2/3 majority in each separated by at least 90 days and a meeting with the bishop.

A recent article was just posted on the ELCA website about a congregation in Iowa that tried to leave and failed by 2 votes (although they received 2/3 majority in 2 previous votes but the bishop ruled the 1st vote invalid-you can make your own opinion on that reading the article).

Basically, I guess I have two reactions to this: the ELCA-why would you be so overjoyed to have a congregation that clearly does not want to remain. All indications were that this church does not want to stay, so why work so hard to keep them? After three votes all with a clear majority wanting to leave what is the point of this effort? To the church-why not leave anyways? Why not stop giving (or more specifically give to a different body you want to be a part of) and double roster? Let the ELCA know you are done with it. If they do not approve of the actions you are taking have them kick you out (thus getting what you want).

I guess I think this process is ridiculous and while I intend to remain in the ELCA, I think those who want to leave should be able to. What is more likely to happen now is the disgruntled members just leave the parish for another one and the church falls to disarray, decreases significantly in membership and tithes and struggles to pay a staff and stay open.

Ok vent over.

Below are links to the ELCA article and a blog about this in which a member from the vote shares his side:

Iowa Congregation to Remain in the ELCA - News Releases - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

David R. Barnhart: ZION LUTHERAN, CLEAR LAKE, IOWA

Pax

Unlike the LCMS, where the congregation owns its own property and assets, ELCA congregations (particularly those who were with the LCA prior to the merger) do not own their property, rather it is owned by the church body, so such a process is necessary in order for the congregation to leave the ELCA with its property and assets intact. The congregation can always disassociate itself with the ELCA, but it would have to give up its assets and start from scratch.

 

[QuiltAngel]

The third vote was needed due to a disagreement between the Bishop and the congregation disagreed about the first voted, whether it was a two-thirds vote or not. Then for the third vote, looks like some politics was used in getting people who had left long ago, but who had not transferred memberships to vote against leaving in an effort to drive away the current Pastor.

I think the whole thing was handled poorly.

 

[Studeclunker]

Rad, the Revrand is entirely correct as to the congregational property in the E*CA. It doesn't precisely belong to the congregation. Not the way it does in the LCMS. This is what makes it so difficult to leave.

I was on the board of a congregation in So. Cal. when the merger took place that created E*CA. We (the board) voted not to participate in the merger and present the congregation with a choice of alternatives. The congregational vote was overwhelmingly in favour of not continuing in the new merged Church organization. The Bishop for the West Coast visited us and basically told us to leave the facility clean and securely locked up when we left. Or we could buy it from the LCA or the new ELCA. There was considerable discussion of alternatives and the decision was to capitulate and follow into the E*CA.

This situation doesn't surprise me a bit. The question is; have these congregations waited too long to leave? I know of two, and possibly a third, in So. Cal. who want to join the LCMS. Question is; will the Pacifica Synod Bishop make them jump through the same hoops? Then if they do so, what will he do? Only time will tell on this issue. The sad part is that E*CA's leadership will never get the message.

 

[jonathan1971]

In the end, even if a church cannot split, the people can, and will.

My father calls it "voting with their feet".

Just out of curiosity how much control does ELCA have over a pastor's retirement?

 

[IowaLutheran]

My father calls it "voting with their feet".

Just out of curiosity how much control does ELCA have over a pastor's retirement?

Do you mean retirement savings?

If so, they have no control over money that has already been contributed to the pastor's retirement plan.

 

[filosofer]

Rad, the Revrand is entirely correct as to the congregational property in the E*CA. It doesn't precisely belong to the congregation. Not the way it does in the LCMS. This is what makes it so difficult to leave.

This situation doesn't surprise me a bit. The question is; have these congregations waited too long to leave? I know of two, and possibly a third, in So. Cal. who want to join the LCMS. Question is; will the Pacifica Synod Bishop make them jump through the same hoops? Then if they do so, what will he do? Only time will tell on this issue. The sad part is that E*CA's leadership will never get the message.

That is only true for former LCA congregations - they need Synod Council approval to take the property, as well as the votes to leave. For former ALC congregations, the property belongs to the congregations, unless a specific clause was added to the congregation's constitution after the merger. In all my visits, I have not known or heard of one ALC congregation that included such a clause. So, all former ALC congregations do not have to fight that battle.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

My father calls it "voting with their feet".

Just out of curiosity how much control does ELCA have over a pastor's retirement?

That's actually a good question. For WELS, if you resign, there are some provisions for your retirement, especially depending on the reasons for resigning. If you come back to the WELS as a pastor, most is reinstated. It was not always this way, though. I do hear of some pastors who lost their pensions when they had to resign for various reasons (none for cause, mind you).

I have no idea how it works in the ELCA, but I imagine that if you're a congregation who votes out, the pastor who goes with it probably loses his pension, minus whatever he's already collected, I s'pose.

 

[jonathan1971]

Do you mean retirement savings?

If so, they have no control over money that has already been contributed to the pastor's retirement plan.

that's what I meant.
thanks

 

[BigNorsk]

The easy way to leave the ELCA is to call a pastor who isn't in communion with them, then they discipline you by booting you out of the synod.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

In response to the posts about the synod owning the property: Does anyone know about if the church acted as if not ELCA-duel rostering and such. If the ELCA kicks them out, what happens with the property?

In response to the retirement of ELCA pastors, I believe that can depend on how you had your pension money handled. I know of one pastor who does not use ELCA pension funds but has his own set up that the church pays through. While I'm not 100% sure, I would assume that those whose money runs through the ELCA pension funds have less/none if they leave.

While I was in the LCMS I know this was an issue for a pastor I knew who later wanted to leave the synod and another pastor of a church that was considering leaving the synod. He instructed the congregation that he was willing to go with them but they would have to commit to picking up his pension if he left with them.

Thanks for all the responses. As someone said earlier, regardless of legalities I think the this has been handled poorly by my synod.

Pax

 

[filosofer]

Even if the money was in ELCA pension plan, it belongs to the pastor, not the church body. He does not lose that pension.

 

[Studeclunker]

In response to the posts about the synod owning the property: Does anyone know about if the church acted as if not ELCA-duel rostering and such. If the ELCA kicks them out, what happens with the property?
...

Thanks for all the responses. As someone said earlier, regardless of legalities I think that this has been handled poorly by my synod.

Pax

I hope you don't mind my small correction. If it was wrong, please let me know and I'll correct it.

If the congregation is 'kicked out of the Synod,' then the Bishop sends the Sheriff to lock the congregation out. The entire property of the congregation is forfiet to the denominational leadership, is disposed of (sold) and the proceeds are added to the missions fund. The only reason I know this is because I was facing such a thing twice.

With all due respect, Doulos, there is very little that the E*CA hasn't done poorly of late.

 

[TheScott]

I think it sounds like the synod wants the church property, or they they think the winds may change if most of the people leave. Either way, they win.

Regarding dual rostering, that way out only works if the synod chooses to discipline them, in which case the church keeps their property. But if the synod wants their property, then they won't discipline them. A former LCA congregation in Florida did this. They did the votes, but the bishop wouldn't let them go, so they dual rostered and stopped "playing along" with the ELCA. They only claim LCMC, but they are officially still ELCA. I've heard this is risky because the synod might try to declare the pulpit vacant, the congregation is not viable, etc. and then they end up with the building. It sounds very complicated, and I am very thankful my congregation got out years ago.

 

[IowaLutheran]

In response to the posts about the synod owning the property: Does anyone know about if the church acted as if not ELCA-duel rostering and such. If the ELCA kicks them out, what happens with the property?

In response to the retirement of ELCA pastors, I believe that can depend on how you had your pension money handled. I know of one pastor who does not use ELCA pension funds but has his own set up that the church pays through. While I'm not 100% sure, I would assume that those whose money runs through the ELCA pension funds have less/none if they leave.

While I was in the LCMS I know this was an issue for a pastor I knew who later wanted to leave the synod and another pastor of a church that was considering leaving the synod. He instructed the congregation that he was willing to go with them but they would have to commit to picking up his pension if he left with them.

Thanks for all the responses. As someone said earlier, regardless of legalities I think the this has been handled poorly by my synod.

Pax

The Model Constitution for ELCA congregations indicates that if a congregation is expelled for disciplinary reasons, the congregation keeps the property:

*C7.02. If this congregation is removed from membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America according to its procedure for discipline, title to property shall continue to reside in this congregation.

Model Constitution for Congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America


Regarding pensions, here is a link to the FAQ section of the "Word Alone" website, the group which has ties to both the LCMC and the new North American Lutheran Church:

If our pastor leaves the ELCA with us what happens to his/her health insurance and pension?

Only people who at one time worked in ELCA congregations and institutions may make use of the ELCA health insurance and may continue to contribute to the ELCA pension fund. All pension contributions made to date belong to the pastor and go with her/him. For instance, pastors in Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) speak very highly of the fine service they have received from the ELCA pension department. Some have continued to maintain the ELCA portion of their pension there. Others have rolled the whole amount over into the fine LCMC pension program. A congregation leaving the ELCA will need to make arrangements for health insurance and pension. The new denominations we are recommending have made provision for their congregations to maintain group health insurance and pension plans for their pastors.

WordAlone Ministries — Questions About Leaving the ELCA?

 

[DaRev]

That is only true for former LCA congregations - they need Synod Council approval to take the property, as well as the votes to leave. For former ALC congregations, the property belongs to the congregations, unless a specific clause was added to the congregation's constitution after the merger. In all my visits, I have not known or heard of one ALC congregation that included such a clause. So, all former ALC congregations do not have to fight that battle.

I wonder if this also applies to former AELC congregations.

Just out of curiosity how much control does ELCA have over a pastor's retirement?

I would think that once they are vested it can't be touched.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Thank you for all your input. I've never been good on the legal side of things, so I really appreciate those who know more about that, since my knowledge in that area is pretty much based on what I hear from others.

The fact that the Bishop was praising that this congregation is staying (or maybe for a better word stuck) on the ELCA website just makes me so sick. In what way does this seem like something praise-worthy for my church? Not only did it outrage this congregation enough to consider leaving, but the votes clearly show that them staying is nothing to brag about. Nothing about this situation is praise-worthy. Not that they want to leave, not that they couldn't leave.

Makes my blood boil every time.

I think I also feel really bad for the members of that church who wanted to stay, now they are in a hard position of seeing this issue tear their church, probably watching now a fair sized exodus of members and begin struggling to make budget and stay open. All the while watching their bishop praise the whole situation. Being among the minority in a close vote (as for example the social statement on sexuality) it is not an easy feeling being in the minority on that close of a vote. Let us keep this entire congregation lifted up in our prayers.

Pax