Leaving the ELCA: Rural Kindred church changes affiliation to focus on the

[RC]

Leaving the ELCA: Rural Kindred church changes affiliation to focus on the Bible
By Sherri Richards,The Forum
Published Saturday, January 01, 2005


West Prairie Lutheran Church was at a crossroads, says David Strand, a lifelong member.

Attendance was dropping at the rural Kindred, N.D., church, averaging 30 people. Finances were dour.

And members were troubled by the direction of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. For example, it is considering ordaining non-celibate gay clergy.

"My own thing is that the ELCA is getting more concerned about social issues and not as concerned about a person's salvation," Strand says.

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=79322§ion=valleyrr

This begs the question that if Christ was a Liberal going around helping OTHERS and Christians are to live by his example, how does one own salvation get first billing. After all isn't Christianity
supposed to be named after Christ?
Would someone explain to me just what the hell is wrong with the church being involved with social issues for the betterment of the community?
Putting your own salvation ahead of the earthly welfair of others seems to be mighty selfish and counter productive to me.
I wonder what Mother Theresa would say? (The perceived one, not the real one.)

And some people are optimistic about 2005? Not me.

[camby]

1. Jesus warned us about folks like that...

When Jesus talked about salvation, he talked about the WAY YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE. When these folks talk about salvation, all they talk about is Jesus. I'm glad they believe, but they need to shut their mouths and actually LISTEN TO WHAT HE WAS SAYING.

[Calvinist Basset]

2. I think people like this have a distorted view of Christianity.

I would argue that the Christianity we witness with this group is more accurately described as "Ascetic Gnosticism." Most notably, it is a very austere and subjective approach to the Bible and the Christian faith. Consider what I mean:

1. "Biblical Inerrancy" as they define it and as they apply it are two different things. Despite an alleged commitment to and high regard for Biblical authority, they apply only those portions that coincide with their own notions of right and wrong. Other portions are disregarded or reinterpreted to suit previously held conclusions.

2. What they prohibit (or would like to see prohibited) are typically things with which they have personal "issues" and not what they have been taught by Scripture. I forget the name of the author, but there's an article I have somewhere that speaks about the "ick" factor regarding gays and lesbians. It's not that they truly see the Bible condemning such, but that they are put off by it and use the Bible to validate their feelings.

3. They may occasionally speak of contemporary issues, but find more interest in studying irrelevant matters and of demanding strict adherence to specifically defined behaviour. To illustrate, many Ascetic Gnostics will argue ad nauseum about whether Jesus will make a pre-millenial or post-millenial appearance, and they'll post bumperstickers that say "It's a child, not a choice" but refuse to engage culture by adopting an unwanted child, or volunteering time to give support to young unwed mothers, and so forth. For them, it is much easier to declare rigid rules and demand that the rest of culture comply or to withdraw from it (with home schooling, book banning, etc.).

[MaryH]

4. Its a truly strange type of "religious intellectualism" that I

see a lot. People meet for breakfast and discuss these weighty issues having to do with some minute point in scripture.

And they all listen to Hannity and Limbuagh - which I find very strange.

I wonder if it is possible to really have a hate filled religion and not even realize it?

[Calvinist Basset]

11. As to your question,

they prove it is not only a possibility, it is a reality.

[MaryH]

3. Evangelicals put high vlue on their own relationship to God

I hear "get yourself right with God" a lot. I'm not sure just what that means.

But I do think it is a fair statement about this new breed of Xtians that they are overly concerned with getting into heaven.

[Trekologer]

12. ELCA != evangelicals

While the name is deceiving, the ELCA is not an evangelical organization in the sence of fundamentalism. The ELCA is the most liberal and largest Lutheran church in the U.S.

[JVS]

15. Right you are! Welcome to DU

[Elise]

5. From your post:

"Would someone explain to me just what the hell is wrong with the church being involved with social issues for the betterment of the community?"

Nothing.

Remember Rev. King?

How about Archbishop Romero?

This is a phase; it is the fundies of the Repug party who are currently defining the role of religion in social issues: don't let them make you question your own views!

[RC]

7. I don't question my views.

It's idiotic views of some of those that believe in the invisible sky god, as in the article, that I question.

Where is the reality?

What would happen to war if everyone followed the Secular Humanism philosophy? The world already knows what happens to war if you are religious. Thousands of years worth of evidence to prove my case here.

[RandomKoolzip]

13. If I may offer some advice.....

Sorry to butt in, but I want to tell you that with that attitude, we'll drive more people of faith to the fundies. I'm an atheist, and I've been involved in my share of flamewars on DU about this shit, but I've kinda turned a corner.....it's time we start being nicer to people of faith who happen to be liberal, and stop demonizing all believers as superstitious twerps.

I DON'T believe in a god. But yowling about how right I am will never convince any religious person of a liberal political persuasion to my side. What WILL work is finding common ground in a desperate situation. I've got friends who are religious and liberal; the two traits are not mutually exculsive.

When Karl Rove and the other strategists of the right discovered that religion was the perfect wedge issue to divide the Democrats, they really musta been happy. The inclusion of religion into political debate on the left turns everyone involved into a bigot; everyone's prejudices come out and the conversation turns round and round, never landing anywhere safe. Those of faith are offended by the coarse language of the faithless, and the faithless are pissed of about having to knuckle under to what they view as superstition....and any kind of unity, however fragile, is ripped asunder. This is exactly what the GOP wants.

This is my own New Year's Resolution: to work WITH people of faith on the left for a solution to the Democratic Party's crises. Even as an unbeliever, I am honored to be on the side of Martin Luther King, The Berrigan Brothers, Jesse Jackson, the Dalai Lama, and Mahatma Ghandi: these are all persons of faith (Another resolution: to stop using "religion" as a euphemism for "Christianity.") whose goals are my goals, whose struggles are my struggles.

Atheists should start looking for a way to build a coalition with liberal people of faith in fighting for the same goals. And liberal Christians ought to be standing up in their churches, demanding a return to the traditional Christianity which produced Dr. King and rejecting the radical new apocalyptic rhetoric of the Christian Right. They ought to be taking their faith back from the Rapture-boosting usurpers. We, as atheists, ought to be helping them in doing this, not condescending to them for their adherance to a different set of spiritual beliefs. In the new year I vow to refrain from harsh language when talking about my beliefs and AVOIDING CUL-DE-SAC FLAMEWARS WHENEVER POSSIBLE....in the past, I've called their god "The invisible cloud being." Ha ha ha, but for every laugh I get from a fellow atheist, there's six believers who take umbrage. And as long as these guys and gals are on my side, I want them to feel like part of the team. (This also goes for North vs. South debates: I pledge to be more magnanimous about this shit, seeing as how there's liberals in every part of the country) The church, as a social force, CAN be used for good; it can be used as a vehicle for social justice, fairness, and peace, which I think 99% of atheists can all agree are legitimate concerns.


Anyhow, I just thought I'd add my two cents in here, because I'm seeing a rupture in the hard-won unity I saw on the left post-primaries, and it troubles me. I know I can be more tolerant if it helps our common goals in the long run. Not telling you what to do, just passing some advice. Feel free to ignore it.


(Now, freepers posing as DUers to start religious flamewars, that's a COMPLETELY different subject! Fuck them; they're easy to spot, as they never post about anything else)

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Well, Chrisitianity is a religion, not a social services agency...

and most Christians do believe that salvation is the point of it all.

No problem with that, it's just that historically Christians also believe that living a life in Christ also lead one to live a life with certain social responsibilities. Just what those social responsibiilities are seem to be up for debate in some quarters.

[starroute]

8. So when did Christianity turn into a "me" religion?

Historically, the great religions have been all about sacrificing your own needs for the sake of others. Taken to its logical extension, as in the boddhidarma concept, this means even sacrificing your own salvation for the sake of the salvation of others.

But these right-wing Christians seem to have been infected along the way by the "me"-centered excesses of the 70's and 80's. With the narrow exception of being willing to contribute time and money to their own congregations, they have no sense of actually doing anything for others.

As Dylan said when he was going through his Christian period, "You gotta serve somebody. It may be the devil or it may be the lord, but you gotta serve somebody."

By that standard, I don't think any "Christian" whose primary obsession is their own personal salvation could be said to be doing the lord's work.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. See, that's the appeal

"By that standard, I don't think any "Christian" whose primary obsession is their own personal salvation could be said to be doing the lord's work."

One reason the fundie churches are growing (aside from possible right-wing financing) is that they fit perfectly into the spirit of the "me" generation. Years ago, a Methodist clergyman wrote a satirical book called How to Become a Bishop without Being Religious, and in the section on selecting hymns, he suggested choosing only hymns that contained a lot of mentions of the words "I," "me," "my," and "myself." I'm sure that's even more true today.

[banana republican]

10. It is best that they did leave

since that church obviously does not understand the teachings of Martin Luther...

[davsand]

14. There's more to the ELCA thing than just the gay clergy issue.

I'll grant you, it is a part of the discontent--there can be no denial of that. Locally we've had a huge thing going on in the local ELCA church because the minister actually stood in the pulpit and dared to ask if maybe the resurrection of Christ was not a literal event. That sent a lot of the local folks screaming.

In part, the argument has been based on the denominational stances on social issues, but when you introduce any questions about the foundation of a mystery religion it really does cause some pretty big waves. It is a shame, too, because the churches have historically been a foundation for these small farm towns in our area.

Two of our local churches have either left the ELCA or else are discussing it seriously, with a third making rumbling noises about it.


Laura

[JVS]

16. Ask rhetorically, or ask for real?

Because according to the ELCA's webpage, the ELCA subscribes to the Augsburg Confession and on the topic it says: "He also descended into hell, and truly rose again the third day..." If this pastor will not uphold the faith of the Lutheran church he/she should go elsewhere.