Document Actions
The Rostered and the Ordained
Consider the curious case of Pr. Rebecca Heber. Pr. Heber has been an ordained pastor for 23 years, most recently in the Florida-Bahamas Synod, and she serves on the National Steering Committee for Lutheran CORE. On April 21st of this year, Pr. Heber was on her way to vacation when she received an email from the bishop’s secretary of the Florida-Bahamas Synod informing her that she needed to submit her annual request to the Synod Council to extend her On Leave From Call status...
Consider the curious case of Pr. Rebecca Heber.
Pr. Heber has been an ordained pastor for 23 years, most recently in the Florida-Bahamas Synod, and she serves on the National Steering Committee for Lutheran CORE. On April 21st of this year, Pr. Heber was on her way to vacation when she received an email from the bishop’s secretary of the Florida-Bahamas Synod informing her that she needed to submit her annual request to the Synod Council to extend her On Leave From Call status. This was the first time she’d been reminded of the need for a renewal. On her return a week later she submitted the following response (appropriate details omitted):
“I have been available for an ELCA Call since leaving St. John in 2002 and Rolling Hills since April 2009. I have expressed my willingness to serve as a regular Supply or Interim at ____ Church, in the city of ____, both after Pastor X’s death and after Pastor Y’s departure, but my name was not submitted to them in either instance, in spite of the congregation’s great interest in having me serve in one or the other capacity. Although I updated my profile per the request of the Bishop, no apparent consideration was given to my request to have my name submitted to any central Florida congregations which were vacant, such as ______. It therefore seems that the Synod is not interested in utilizing my many years of demonstrated effectiveness in ministry as reflected in the enthusiastic and positive comments of countless congregational members from the churches I have had the honor to serve. As a former Pastor of St. John, I respected the protocol of not continuing as an active participant in the life of that congregation, where Bill [Pr. Heber’s husband] is concluding his call on May 16, due in part to pressure from the Bishop’s office and in spite of an overwhelming vote of congregational support for Bill to remain as a Pastor of St. John. It seems clear that our orthodox and confessional positions find little place in the Florida-Bahamas Synod, except among those congregations who are seeking and greatly desiring such a Pastor. If the shameful treatment I received at the hands of _____, a member of the Synod Council, is any indication of how orthodox, confessional Lutherans such as myself are viewed by the Bishop and the Florida-Bahamas Synod Council, it would be difficult to conclude that I am welcome to continue on the ELCA roster, in spite of official admonitions to have bound consciences such as mine respected. Should that not be the case, I will await the decision of the Synod Council regarding my On Leave From Call status. In Christ, Rebecca
Readers take note: the ELCA Constitution permits three years of “On Leave From Call” status before removal from the roster. The roster, note. It is in cases of disciplinary action that the result is removal from the ordained ministry altogether.
On May 10, Pr. Heber received a certified letter dated May 7, bearing the signatures of the secretary of the Synod Council and Bishop Edward Benoway of the Florida-Bahamas Synod. Excerpts read as follows:
“Dear Pr. Heber: The Synod Council of the Florida-Bahamas Synod has voted not to extend your On Leave From Call status. Accordingly your name will be removed from the roster of ordained ministers of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America effective… April 29, 2010… [T]he Synod Council made its unanimous decision following prayerful consideration of how approval of an extension of Leave From Call would relate to the furtherance of the mission and ministry of this Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America… As someone who is not on the roster of ordained ministers of this church, you must no longer perform any duties or acts associated with ordained ministry. You are not to use the title ‘Pastor’ or ‘the Rev.’ Nor are you to baptize, preside for Holy Communion, perform marriages, or wear vestments normally associated with an ordained minister such as a stole or clerical collar… Thank you for your years of service as an ordained minister of this church. Our prayers are that God will lead you to new ventures and arenas of service.”
Technically speaking—there are going to be a lot of “technically speakings” in the days to come, I fear—all that happened was that Pr. Heber was not renewed in her rostered status. This is a bit odd, because there was no evident reason not to renew her status: she is not guilty of any misconduct, and her three automatic years of renewal are far from being up. Only the implication that renewing her would not contribute to the “furtherance of the mission and ministry of this Synod”—again, odd, since as Pr. Heber herself indicated there was apparently at least one congregation very much interested in mission under her leadership—or even of “the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America”—so apparently the Florida-Bahamas Synod council felt itself qualified to speak on behalf of the entire denomination. It all seems a bit shifty, and it’s awfully hard to avoid the suspicion that it relates to her involvement in CORE. You might recall the that Florida-Bahamas Synod also refused to release a congregation that had voted to leave the ELCA on the grounds that it did not accord with the synod’s mission.
However, all that pales in comparison to the orders the council’s letter then issued to Pr. Heber. “You must no longer perform any duties or acts associated with ordained ministry. You are not to use the title ‘Pastor’ or ‘the Rev.’ Nor are you to baptize, preside for Holy Communion, perform marriages, or wear vestments normally associated with an ordained minister such as a stole or clerical collar.”
Is it just me, or did Pr. Heber get defrocked at the same moment she got derostered?
I've spent some time trawling around the ELCA Constitution. I could find no evidence at all that leaving rostered status suddenly deprives a properly ordained pastor of all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of ordination. I could also find no evidence arguing the contrary. I did find it specified that disciplinary penalties for pastors who teach contrary to the faith of our Confessions or are guilty of misconduct include “suspension from the office and functions of the ordained ministry in this church for a designated period or until there is satisfactory evidence of repentance and amendment” or “removal from the ordained ministry of this church”… which, again sounds an awful lot like what happened to Pr. Heber, just without the cause. Altogether I find quite a big conceptual hole regarding the relationship of rostered status and ordained status.
There are other peculiarities about the ordained/rostered distinction I’ve noticed before. After three years off roster, pastors need to be reinstated somehow (but not reordained). Curiously, in the case of family leave, only three years are permitted per child; has it never occurred to ELCA officialdom, normally so noisily aware of women’s issues, that free public schooling doesn’t begin till the age of 5, thus creating serious schedule and money problems for stay-at-home pastor parents? (In special cases it can be extended to 6 years, but this requires a lot more involvement of a lot more people.) Another curiosity is that while ordination is generally for the sake of word-and-sacrament ministry, all sorts of pastors are considered rostered, called, and in proper accord with their ordinations while serving in ministries that lack at least the regular adminstration of sacraments and public preaching of the Word, such as in bureaucratic or research positions. I myself fall in this last category. I’d like to think a defense could be made for this practice, but I’ve never seen or heard such a defense made. Getting the call on paper and staying on the roster is the only real concern.
All of these examples, and the peculiar case of Pr. Heber, suggest very strongly that rostering has replaced ordination as the truly relevant and meaningful status in the ELCA.
This is a horror. Ordination is a call from God and a call to serve the whole Christian church—our ordination vows are very clear about that, even if certain ecumenical realities prevent its full expression. Rostering is a matter of career, pension, and administration. Ordination is a one-time event carrying with it a lifelong responsibility. Rostering can come and go. Ordination is to an office. Rostering is to a function and location. Ordination gives pastors a necessary freedom within the ebbs and flows of denominational life. Rostering paves the way to authoritarian control and dishonesty. The synod didn’t need to defrock Pr. Heber because all it had to do was deroster her, and the deed was good as done.
Re: Pastor Heber
Heber Status/Mr. Meyer
Your comments are somewhat banal to Ms. Wilson's article.
The Rev. Rebecca Heber and many others in Lutheran CORE over many years have expressed their primary interest not to recruit destruction of the denomination, but to serve as faithful ministers of Word and Sacrament. Heber and others have acted on an understandable need to serve as a voice of critique and concern in the denomination in order to best serve Lutheran Christians and congregations in Word and Sacrament.
Yes, yes, you see changes looming as CORE prepares for an August announcement about a new alternative Lutheran institution. But this is moot to Pastor Heber’s struggles with the Florida-Bahamas Synod. Her availability for call preceded even the Minneapolis CWA.
Pastor Heber indeed speaks as a conscientious objector while also considering all available options given the actions of the denomination over the recent years. She and many others are acting as responsible leaders and stewards of the congregations and Christians they are called to serve.
More importantly, bound conscience is indeed not a "two-way street.” To call bound conscience such a thing is to “embrace” dissension and expect unity.
Call the thing what it is, Mr. Meyer. The denomination is indefensible on the curious case of Pastor Heber.
Pastor Rebecca Heber
And if I recall correctly, the Apostles were treated improperly by the religious authorities of that day too:
Acts 5:40-42 (King James Version)
40And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
42And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
So Pastor Heber, rejoice!
By the way, I was born and raised in Chicago, so close to the current ELCA headquarters building that we used to walk past it on five mile Boy Scout hikes to nearby Camp Fort Dearborn.
I was baptized and confirmed and served as a Luther League officer at what was most likely the closest ELCA parish to the current ELCA headquarters building.
Our Youth Director, when I was in Luther League, was a Presbyterian Seminary Student. We often had communion, within the Luther League, where no "Ordained and Rostered" Lutheran pastor was present.
For such sins the Senior Pastor wanted to fire that Presbyterian Seminary Student as Youth Director, however attendence at Luther League events was at an all time high, so had the Senior Pastor of the church fired the Youth Director, the Senior Pastor would have been fired by the Official Board of the Church and he knew it, so he left the Youth Director alone.
So, Pastor Heber, I know from talking with you and praying with you that your name is written down in the Lamb's Book of Life and I'm pretty sure that's the only "Roster" you need to be concerned about.
Ridiculous claim
Go get ordained by CORE, for it is clear you no longer have any intent to remain a part of a credible denomination.
Ordination vows
we're all sinners
There's one small problem in what you say. We've all put our own agenda ahead of Christ's. There isn't a single ordained pastor or lay person in the ELCA or other church body that has never put their agenda first. Pr Heber will not receive eternal life on account of adhering to her ordination vows. It will be only on Christ's account alone that she or any of us have a chance.
I think Russell raises a point that needs to be seriously considered. There is a distinction between advocating schism and withholding giving versus advocating repeal of the ministry policy changes. That line appears to be completely ignored by CORE, and the closest the ELCA officials are to making that clear is to say 'no dual rostering'.
That still doesn't mean everything is being done correctly down in FL. But it is important to remember How It Works: http://www.xkcd.com/385/
Re: The Strange Case of Pr. Heber
Haber's hate speech
Heber said, "But how can it be unloving to see someone on a track and know that staying on that track is going to kill them and not do something, even though
they say they love that track?"
That is beyond homophobia --- that is total hatred.
The blood of every gay and lesbian teenager who commits suicide and every hate crime victim will be upon the hands of Rebecca Heber. The Christ I believe in will hold her to account for that one day. Woe to Rebecca Haber and the hateful heresy she preaches.
Heber is your neighbor
Christ is also going to hold you to account one day, and unless you have God's own rightousness, you won't pass muster either. We're all worthy of hell in concrete, tangible ways. The question isn't 'are we condemned' so much as 'how can we be saved'. While the 2nd use of the law is to drive sinners to Christ, I highly doubt your statements are successful in that use. Specifically, would you expect her, or someone else who is opposed to the ministry policy changes to read what you posted and say 'whoa! I've seriously sinned against God and my neighbor. How can I turn from my hatred?' Or does it just reaffirm in their hearts that those in favor of the ministry policy changes are prejudiced against those opposed, and will call anything they say on the matter either 'homophobia' or 'hatred'? There's no faster way to shut down dialogue than to label your opponent 'homophobe', and as painful as dialogue will be for both sides, that's the only way forward if we intend to love our neighbors and enemies as ourselves.
I know there is a lot of anger over what has been done against the LGBT community, especially in Christ's name, but the only way that healing comes is to counter the hatred that is felt with love. Commenting on Christ's command to love your enemy, Martin Luther King Jr says it very well (here: http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv4-2.html ), especially the last part: "To our most bitter opponents we say: 'We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering.'"
Love intolerance?
Peter
That is exactly the argument they use. The majority of what you call hatred and homophobia is a rejection of what they see as blasphemy. The fruits of 'rejecting intolerance and blasphemy' in the way that you (and they) are doing is something you've seen firsthand. Exclusion, hatred, despair, suicide. What love do you sow by categorizing Heber as a hater and blasphemer? What love has been sown by the exclusion of the LGBT community? How well has any of that driven anyone to Christ?
How do we move past the charges of blasphemy and live as brothers and sisters in Christ? In a way, answering this question is common ground both sides have.
Give Me A Break!
There are more important things to preach today other than sin and salvation. Let's see now, let's all just hold hands, sing Kum By Ya, drink our certified organic coffee and see where the wind blows us next!
I think Uncle Marty himself spoke of "wind passing."
Thank God Almighty that He in His (notice the "inappropriate" use of masculine pronouns)mercy is bringing the last vestige of orthodoxy together in the new NALC - certainly more "credible" than the not-so "Evangelical" Lutheran Church of America.
To make the issue about something so trivial as sexual preference over-simplifies the argument. We all stand at the foot of the cross as undeserving wretches. May God in His mercy continue to forgive us and may He continue to forgive me when I lambaste those with whom I totally disagree with.
Heber (2)
Let me add a few clarifying comments:
1. When I say bound conscience is a two way street, I mean that there are also many who find their conscience bound by the appropriateness of the churchwide assembly actions. Whatever the will of the majority, the conscience of the individual has a place of due regard and high respect. Thus those who want to donate funds to support a policy have as much right to do so as those who want to donate funds to avoid such policy support. As a doctrine about the inviolability of the individual, bound conscience is not a group concept.
2. Reflections on ordination and roster are probably long over due. It would take more than a comment to document, but within Lutheran tradition ordination has always been tied to the public office of ministry. In Luther's day this was a state-chartered office. Part of the Reformer's attacks on radicals amounts to "they are preaching publicly without a license and that's sedition." My point is that ordination (in Christianity and Judaism) has normally been for a specific person to present God's word to a particular community. I can understand the emotion around the terms, but at the end of the day, I'm not certain there is a logical distinction between defrocked and unrostered, unless one gives the first some mark of shame and considers the second an administrative act, both result in a person no longer being authorized to speak God's word in that community.
3. It can be fun, as it were, to poke at the actions of the Florida-Bahamas synod council as somehow Southern and hick. Who doesn't understand regional pride and prejudice? Yet the recent cases include many more issues than have been brought out in public. Roasting the council members in open media knowing that for a host of reasons they should not comment on such matters is a bit like beating the mute for not speaking.
Grace and peace to all.
Beating the Mute?
I don't think anyone would accuse the synod council of being Southern and hick. Politicized and pushing an agenda would be the more likely charge.
As far as complaining about "beating the mute" goes, the Florida-Bahamas synod council was accused of doing the same thing when it adopted a resolution prasing the work of the ELCA Church Council. This same resolution was presented the the Florida-Bahamas Synod Assembly as "information". There was no debate or discussion, and yet it was presented to all. In effect, those who disagree where told, "We will speak on your behalf whether you like it or not." Weren't they also guilty of "beating the mute"?
Perhaps the synod council did not act in a partisan way in refusing to let a congregation leave the ELCA and in defrocking a member of CORE, but the partisan message it sent to its own synod assembly leaves room for doubt.
Pastor David Charlton
Synod Council Actions
You are right that the Synod Council report at the FB Assembly included sharing information about a resolution the synod council sent to the churchwide council commending them on staying the course of churchwide assembly actions. No doubt there are many ways to perceive this. Organizationally, it was one trustee saying to another trustee, "Good for you for coloring in the lines." Council speaks to council, assembly to assembly. Perhaps the arrangement is more symmetrical than some would prefer, but it is the arrangement until a movement rises to change it.
There was also a resolution that had significant conversation on these issues. The resolution concerned the Together in Mission campaign. Concerns were raised about spending that honored bound conscience, and assurances given. There were also those who spoke deeply about the present challenges and their commitment to work through them. That resolution passed.
Another resolution on calling for congregational ratification of future social statements was defeated.
The sentiment of the majority of the synod assembly seemed to be aligned with the synod council, but that may be my faulty interpretation.
That said, I know how it feels to be on the losing end of a vote, so my heart goes out to all.
At the same time the synod assembly was meeting, CORE was in Tampa recruiting people to leave the ELCA in preparation for the upcoming NALC gathering. Doesn't that juxtaposition really say more about what's going on than anything else?
Again, grace and peace to all.
Coloring Inside the Lines?
A further question would be why, if this is communication between trustee to trustee, this resolution was presented to the Synod Assembly in the way it was. It could have been included in the Vice-presidents report. It wasn't. It was presented in the packet of resolutions to be considered by the assembly as the first resolution. It was brought to the floor by the resolutions committee, if I recall correctly. Why, if it was trustee speaking to trustee? The only conslusion that I can come to was that the Synod Council wanted to send a message to a captive audience.
Finally, concerning CORE's recruiting. If the synod council thought Pastor Heber was acting in a schismatic way, they could have asked that charges be brought against her. They chose not to do that. Instead, they used their power to extend leave of call as a way to apply discipline, without having to go through the formal process.
The only conclusion that I can reach is that both cases, the synod council was using its power inappropriately.
Pr. Heber & the ELCA
Pr. Heber
Do we know why Pr. Heber was 'on leave from call,' and for how long?
Why did she think it was necessary to send such a defensive letter to the Synod council? If she felt strongly that she was being overlooked, or her gifts were being ignored, perhaps a personal conversation with the bishop could have ironed out some misrepresentations. She drew a line in the sand, and the synod council seemingly had little choice.
It isn't an ordination that bestows the title and office of pastor; those come with the call to serve a congregation or an approved specialized ministry. Pr. Heber was not defrocked, but, as all synods do when someone is deleted from their official roster, she was reminded that she could not present herself as a called pastor (officiating at services, wearing clergy attire, etc) because she was not rostered. That's official business throughout the ELCA. That has occurred in many places, and have nothing to do with one's theological bent, or 'bound conscience.'
As to not receiving consideration to congregations that were available for her services... WE don't chose the call, the congregations choose us. Synods have a role is presenting candidates, but the congregations are the bottom line. If the congregations she was interested in asked for her by name, the synod should have respected their request. If the congregations did not request her services personally, it is a moot point.
There are curious views on ordination... God may call us to follow him, but that is a result of our baptism. The call to public ministry occurs in a congregational setting, with the approval of the Church body, represented by the synod.
God can't take away ordination? Since when is ordination an indelible charism? It is not equal to baptism, nor is it a sacrament.
One more point: the ELCA and synods are NOT out to get rid of pastors with views that oppose the CWA09- I serve in a synod in a northeastern state, and we have pastors who proudly wear the mantle:
"confessional and orthodox." We may not agree on every single thing, but we are sisters and brothers in Christ- HE is the bottom line of faith.
As to quoting scripture regarding these issues,
here are my 2 cents worth:
"If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5:15
It seems as if people on both sides of this issue are so eager to sift through any story or problem, and arrive at more judgements and stone throwing.
Are we not all one in Christ?
Excellent Point
I'm not sure how one can claim to support the unadulterated Confession and not take that at face value.
Role of Synods
As to the news today from the Presbyterian USA vote, now it goes back to the presbyteries. If more folks had input into the final acceptance or rejection of the ELCA vote, which passed by ONE vote in assembly, there wouldn't be as much a role for L CORE. There are a lot of us lay people who are feeling disinfranchised with the whole church structure. They want our money but don't respect our requests.
Theology by referendum?
Social statements and churchwide policy are not subject to a vote by over 2 million members nor should it be. Congregations elect representatives to synod assemblies, and synod assemblies elect representatives to churchwide assemblies.
Your notion that churchwide policy should be subject to the approval of every single member of every single congregation is ridiculous. The church doesn't operate like a presidential election.
faulty logic
Really, David?
P.S. The PCUSA is a very different denomination than the ELCA, for it is not hung-up on Euro-centric ethnic identities.
Really what?
PS: You don't seem to understand Sarah's point, how the PC-USA works, or (most likely) all of the above. The only person who has mentioned letting every single member in the ELCA vote on something is you.
David, read again
What does that translate to? "Let ME vote on every policy. If I don't get what I want, then I'm leaving."
We have an elected church structure... congregation to synod assembly to churchwide assembly. If you feel "disenfranchised", then go join an independent denomination where there are no standards, where there is no consistency, and where there is no structure.
sigh
synod assemblies tell a different story
I think it's a false belief perpetuated by the minority that the majority of people would have voted against the ministry policy recommendations had it not been at churchwide assembly. The first place to look are the synod assemblies from both this year and last. The majority of synod assemblies passed memorial resolutions last year, and resolutions challenging/disagreeing with/generally against the changes have failed. Even in my synod, which is rather opposed to rostering married homosexuals, only one of the six resolutions against the ministry policies passed, and that was only defining marriage as the non-Biblical one man/one woman and even that was a close one.
Even if you're disinclined to believe the synod assembly results, look at the local congregations. How many out of the ~10,000 congregations in the ELCA have voted to leave? Last number I heard was about 1%. That's a far, far cry from a majority. The NALC convention this August will be more evidence. IIRC, WELS is the 3rd largest Lutheran body with ~1000 congregations. If NALC could convince even 10% of the ELCA to leave, they'd be tied for 3rd largest. If there is overwhelming opposition to the ministry policies such that everyone is ready to leave over it, 10% should be no problem. This is also why CORE is hard at work-- they know that they can't get anywhere close to that 10% without preying on the anger and fear many people feel right now. This is also one reason why I believe CORE will be a losing prospect-- it's building itself on anger and fear as anti-ELCA and anti-gay. At the end of the day, any denomination that preaches "hating with Christian love" will not stand.
This also forgets that the ministry policy recommendations are not forcing any congregation to call a married homosexual. Sure, there's lots of fear it's going to be rammed down congregation's throats, but a) no cases of that so far and b) that is never healthy for congregation or pastor, and the bottom line is that destroying congregations only hurts bishops, financially and politically.
Mathematics isn't your strong suit...or germane!
Those leaving could care less about 'competing' with WELS the ELCA or any other body...the concern is the sanctioning of immorality as 'blessed' and a 'gift' and turning it into a role model. Anger is righteous indignation not animosity directed at the innocent.
The definition of 'Synod' means that we walk together in faith/doctrine - many of us can not do that in good conscience any longer. The stigmata of being associated with the ELCA has become an obstacle to mission for many of us. We are asking for a peaceful release and are having to fight tooth and nail in order to receive it.
I look for at least another 250 congregations minimum to leave and join the NALC within 6-12 months after the upcoming convening convention August 26-27.
Here's hoping that your majority vote zeitgeist continues to safeguard the ELCA and leads to ever more 'enthusiastic' doctrinal novelties.
righteous indignation was also the Pharisee's strong suit
It'll be interesting to see how NALC deals with ecumenical dialogue, especially considering the vehement unwillingness to walk together with either LCMS or ELCA.
Heber status
Is it not curious that anyone who actively recruits congregations to withdraw from from one church body to form a new church body believes and desires that some sort of right exists for holding ordained status in the very church body he or she seeks to dissemble?
I strongly believe in the right of conscientious objection, loyal dissent and prophetic action. All forms of organized society benefit from protecting such speech. But that should be distinguished clearly from actions and methods that seek to destroy the organization.
Bound conscience is a two-way street. Let's find ways to live together with respect for each.