"Realignment" is no more than a euphemism for more Lutheran schism.

The church born in schism will die in schism.

I know "facade of business as usual" makes for good rhetoric, but what is it that you're actually opposing here? Are you opposed to divided churches trying to heal their hurts? Or are you opposed to the ELCA failing to devote every resource possible to the sexuality debate? Or opposed to the people on both sides of the issue who want to put the sexuality debate behind them and move on with their lives?

I also find it curious that someone identifying as a "confessional Lutheran" is seeking to maintain a "moral right" based on a position that he holds. The only one who holds any kind of "moral right" is God alone. That puts us all on the equal footing of "moral wrong", regardless of which flavor of Lutheranism (or even Protestantism, etc) tastes best to us. It is only through Christ's death and resurrection that we are made right, and He died for people on all sides of the fence. Sorry, I guess that's not a question so much as commentary.

“"Facade of business as usual" is not a rhetorical flourish. The leadership in the ELCA has long believed—not without prior experience—that controversial decisions soon are accepted or tolerated or forgotten by the laity once they have been made. So too with the “gay-friendly” decisions of the ELCA’s last CWA.

The leadership and their allies have long believed that the average Lutheran in the pew would come around to openly practicing gay clergy who are in “committed” relationships—perhaps even the blessings of gay partnerships if not homosexual marriages. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard our Lutheran divines remark among themselves: “Just do it. In ten years everyone will look back and (just like they do with women in the clergy) wonder why anyone would have a problem with it”

At least so far, there remains serious unrest among some of the natives. Does it matter? Does it spell additional corrosion within the ELCA? Will it just pass?” None of us know. One thing that is sure is that The ELCA leadership doesn’t know either; but that doesn’t stop them from pressing ahead with their “reforms”. Is that wise?

Yes. This whole episode shoves the fact in our faces that within the ELCA we have a major fracture—a “theological” faultline if you will—in how we read and apply Scripture—even in what we mean by “Scripture”. But in the end, the question is one none wish to confront. Yes, we worship Christ. But is it the same Christ? The sneaking suspicion is it is not. We all hope not. But does wishing make it so?

You. Peter, have demonstrated that you do not act in good faith with your opponent. Instead of taking his arguments seriously, you reduce all the “dissenters’” Scripture-grounded objections to homosexual behavior to mere subjective, individual choice. That is, the only reason each dissenter believes homosexual behavior is a sin is because they personally decided it to be one. Likewise, according to you, all previous Church moral instruction against homosexual behavior is really only a human artifact. You have decided that Scripture and Christ ultimately have no problem with homosexual congress therefore you believe that no one else really hears a Scripturally based objection. Your attitude is insulting.
.
You see, Peter, instead of being the voice of conciliation, you are actually part of the problem.

I'm not clear on which "reforms" with which the ELCA leadership is pressing ahead on. Do you mean the implementation the Ministry Policy recommendations through receiving the ELM people?

Even when the Ministry Policy Recommendations passed, Bp Hanson's address was far from 'it's just business as usual'. For some congregations, discussion over sexuality only began with the realization that the CWA09 had passed those recommendations. Where specifically is this "facade of business as usual", and what actions would you like to see that would demonstrate that it was not "business as usual"? Or do you see the ELCA's commitment to unity as the facade?

I do agree with you that there is a large theological split within the ELCA, which the Ministry Policy Recommendations throw into sharp relief. However, this is not a new split, which some in CORE even seem to trumpet as "I told you so 20 years ago the ELCA would never work". It isn't even a new split in that similar problems have not happened throughout the Church's history. Interestingly, Article 7 of the Augsburg Confession lays out what is necessary for unity. The Defense of that article makes the case even clearer both that schism is not the best response, and that even traditions handed down by the apostles themselves are not required. The recent divisions in the ELCA also raise the question of 'how do we deal with theological differences?' Right now many churches have to concretely grapple with that question, and they're finding unpleasant answers to that question.

Which arguments was I not taking seriously here? I do not believe that the moment one reaches for a moral right, one lapses from confessional Lutheranism, and that no one in this entire discussion can consider themselves on the "moral high ground". Consider especially Luke 18:19.

My position on those claiming homosexuality as a sin is not that they personally decided it to be one. My charge is that they read Scripture wrong, specifically failing to distinguish Law from Gospel in a manner very similar to the Judaizing Christians, Luther's Catholic opponents, and others. There is also an elevation of Scripture to a level reserved for Jesus alone, where it is treated as though "doing" Scripture can save. Yes, I know officially those charges, especially the last two, are vehemently denied, because everyone "knows" them to be wrong. Yet the actions and reasoning that are employed against acceptance of sexuality are undergirded precisely by those wrong things. The problem is that of the Old Missouri logic: "major premise: The Bible is inerrant. minor premise: Missouri teaches according to the Bible. Conclusion: Missouri teaches right."

I apologize for having an insulting attitude. It is not intentional. I do remain convinced that the issue is primarily one of how to read Scripture and that reading Scripture to preclude married homosexuals from serving in ordained ministry is contrary to the Gospel, which makes it incorrect. Maybe part of the problem is that I want a Gospel-based objection rather than a Law-based one. Grounding in Scripture is not enough for me; it must be rooted in Christ's death and resurrection alone and only.

Can someone out there who is wiser than I am, or perhaps a pay grade or two higher, please explain to me why we need another Lutheran group? For those who don’t like the ELCA why not join the one of the “orthodox” Lutheran groups like the AALC or AFLC or AO&ELS or CLBA or LCMC or CLC or CLA or FLC or LC-MS or LCS or WELS to name just a few. Have some mercy on future students of Lutheran Church history.

Richard, I'm not too wise, but I do make lots of money so I'll try to answer. I've wondered the same thing for the last year or so. I think there are a couple of things going on. For one thing, when you talk to your pastor about moving the church to another group, the standard answer is, "Oh but there aren't any suitable alternatives."
If you press any further you get the usual diatribe about close communion, but you never get a straight answer about the various non-Mizzou groups. And the fact is that there are several that even allow female clergy, so that isn't the problem either. I think the problem is that many of those groups don't have a heirarchy and for some reason Lutheran pastors seem to really like heirarchy. I guess you can't aspire to climb the ladder when there is no ladder. So the NALC had to be formed so there could be a ladder (even though it probably doesn't go anywhere). I think this is pretty inefficient and silly, but if that's what it takes to move churches out of the ELCA, then it is worth a try. It certainly makes no sense at all for congregations full of old timey Christians who take the Bible seriously to stay in an ELCA that thinks they are stupid for "worshiping a book"-especially in those rare cases of Lutheran congregations with children. Parenting is hard enough without having to worry that every Sunday School book and every youth gathering is going to be used to undermine you.

I was sitting in the banquet hall when Gemechis Buba spoke. I was extremely disappointed! After the wholesome and incisive theology that preceded the banquet Thursday evening, I was underwhelmed by the parochial and intolerant tone Gemechis delivered re: the Muslim Cultural Center to be built in NYC. And the general reaction was that of a bunch of 'tea-partyers' not solid men and women of the cloth. The same intolerant tone was communicated to me at the end of the conference in an exchange with Francis Stephanos, who would not distinguish between Al Qaeda and the Muslim population in this country. Our African brothers seem to understand religious freedom and tolerance differently than I was taught here in our multi-cultural context. These two gentlemen have been highly touted by the NALC and Lutheran Core in their press releases...is that what the new theological movement portends? Paul, I think you were not your critical self that evening.

I was sitting in the banquet hall when Gemechis Buba spoke. I was extremely disappointed! After the wholesome and incisive theology that preceded the banquet Thursday evening, I was underwhelmed by the parochial and intolerant tone Gemechis delivered re: the Muslim Cultural Center to be built in NYC. And the general reaction was that of a bunch of 'tea-partyers' not solid men and women of the cloth. The same intolerant tone was communicated to me at the end of the conference in an exchange with Francis Stephanos, who would not distinguish between Al Qaeda and the Muslim population in this country. Our African brothers seem to understand religious freedom and tolerance differently than I was taught here in our multi-cultural context. These two gentlemen have been highly touted by the NALC and Lutheran Core in their press releases...is that what the new theological movement portends? Paul, I think you were not your critical self that evening.

Yes, Richard, you make a point which I concede. I too was not thrilled at those remarks. If you will recall, however, I went to the microphone the next day to thank Martinson for his sensitive and sophisticated discussion of the challenge of Islam. On the other hand, I do not come out of the African Christian experience of intolerant Islam, and in that light, we should be willing to cut Buba a little slack. In any case his regretable remark paled in comparison to his broader vision of reallignment on a global scale, and that was the motif which I highlighted in my reflections.

If Gemechis Buba and Francis Stephanos had just disembarked from a visiting cruise ship I might be able to cut them a little slack...but these are educated and prominent men representing their brothers in Africa. I do not know how long either has been in these United States but I am surmising at least 5 years in order to be an ELCA official, on the one hand, and President of the Mekane Yesus Church Fellowship in Minnesota on the other; apparently they have not come to learn but to proselytize for a brand of conservative christianity that is not in concert with my own background and training. (LC-MS Concordia Seward, Ft. Wayne Sr. College, Seminex, LSTC MDiv. 86)

I do remember Martinsons's remarks and applaud them, I had forgotten your support. What does slack require? I reject their intolerance, in spite of the hardship that they may have suffered at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists in their own histories. Christ and the Gospel requires more of us.

Proscription of "intolerance" is the one ethical imperative that our secular liberal cultural elite acknowledges, and it is used with great force in the ELCA to inhibit and suppress theological debate and deliberattion. I do not uncritically adhere to this proscription and I think that from time to time Christian theology has to assert its claim to truth no matter how "intolerant" that sounds in our culture's ears. Do you notice how "intolerant" you are towards "conservative Christians?" The problem with "tolerance is that it is a purely formal concept, a wax nose, reducible to the eyes of the beholder. What is "intolerant" depends on whose ox is being gored.
Substantively, like many US citizens, I hold both that Muslims have the right to build a mosque anywhere they like, and that Muslims, like Christians and everybody else in this country, have a public duty to respect the sensitivities of others. None of us are exempt from moral criticism when we act insensitively. This then is the "slack" I will cut Buba for his remarks. He has a much right to express moral criticism of the plans for a mosque in the shadows of Ground Zero as Muslims have a right to express moral hope for Christian-Islamic friendship by building one there. That's democratic political debate, not shutting it down by screaming "intolerance" whenever the friction of real people, with real passions, have to substitute language for weapons to negotiate life together.

Have you registered a public 'moral criticism' of Buba's remarks (or confronted him alone per Matt 18)? Has he not acted insensitively by U.S. constitutional standards (and more importantly by Christian standards)? Or is cutting him slack allowing his remarks to go unchallenged so as not to rock the boat of a fledgling new churchbody? Where is the accountability? What moral high ground does he stand on when he criticizes the right to build on secular turf 2 blocks from Ground Zero?

Buba's remarks don't distinguish properly between the American Muslim population and Al Qaeda. With there being now more American Muslims than Jews, why haven't we had innumerable events of domestic terrorism? - because there is no link!!!! You seem to fall for the right's 'sensitivity' argument. Balderdash! Minorities and their religious adherence are protected by our constitution...sensitivity be damned!

My intent is not to suppress theological debate but to encourage its full implementation. I consider myself a 'conservative' Christian and do not denigrate that appellation in the least. I did qualify my remarks by stating a 'brand of conservative Christianity which is not in concert'...I thought my LC-MS roots and educational journey would act as bona fides not as a rejection of same.

Richard, I think you raise valid concerns, and, as is evident from my first reply to you, I certainly do not hesitate on this public forum to indicate my disapproval of those particular remarks Buba made. But I "tolerate" those remarks, because what he said can be charitably construed to be within the bounds of democratic civil discourse, even though I happen to disagree (more on that in a moment). You, evidently, find his remarks "intolerable." Our little debate demonstrates just what a wax nose the concept of "tolerance" is. As I said, it depends on whose ox is being gored.
So, if you are trying to get me to denounce Buba, it ain't gonna happen. This is my suspicion: demand that I publicly criticize Buba fits right in with the ELCA narrative that all these immigrint congregations that want to leave over the decisions of August, 2009 are populated by primitive and prejudiced people. That's a little piece of elite racism that is not only tolerated but perpetuated in the post-August 2009 ELCA. Where is your sensitivity, not to say indignation about that?
I said Buba's remarks could be charitably construed. The reason you don't see this is because you insist that there is no link between American Muslim communities and Al Quaeda terrorism. This is not a fact, not since the Christmas day Detroit incident, the Fort Hood incident and the Times Square incident. There is some kind of link. This is a fact. It is my opinion that Buba exaggerated this fact, and that he did not distinguish between the Sufi imam in New York and the radical imams like Al-Alwaki sufficiently, and that he projected his African experience too easily onto American conditions. Yet, when I listent for his concern, I do not see an intention that can be ruled out of discourse as "intolerant." Bad reasoning, perhaps, but not viscious or intentionally hateful.
Finally, it is you, not me, who keeps introducing these stereotypical categories of the "right" and the "left." That is a what of making "intolerance" into a conceptual tool. Why don't we just drop this useless and unilluminating dualism?

And I see your from your argumentation, that since these are 'our' African Brothers (NALC and Lutheran CORE) that changes everything!

I could cite Timothy McVeigh and many other destructive so-called 'christian' fanatics and not arrive similarly where you do re: the Muslim community. I don't consider that either civil or democratic. 'Some kind of link' is rather a weak position from which to stereotype an entire religion. The link isn't that they are American Muslims but that they have come under the sway of a terroristic

(I thought I could save my comments and return to include further research, somehow I haven't mastered this procedure - save must mean post) continuing my comments.........group bent on damaging America. There are far more incidents of people in the Muslim community helping and informing the FBI than the three incidents you mention. Where is the balance here?

I do not desire a denouncement of Buba, rather a protestation of a parochial view that does not reflect America's or Christianity's tolerance and respect for all religious viewpoints. Yes, I have an intolerance to intolerance.

I sense a circle the wagons mentality protecting whomever as long as they side with us 'politically' in the current debate.

(I thought I could save my comments and return to include further research, somehow I haven't mastered this procedure - save must mean post) continuing my comments.........group bent on damaging America. There are far more incidents of people in the Muslim community helping and informing the FBI than the three incidents you mention. Where is the balance here?

I do not desire a denouncement of Buba, rather a protestation of a parochial view that does not reflect America's or Christianity's tolerance and respect for all religious viewpoints. Yes, I have an intolerance to intolerance.

I sense a circle the wagons mentality protecting whomever as long as they side with us 'politically' in the current debate.

Professor Hinlicky,
I am pleased to find that you maintain the traditional grounding of the rhetoric of abuse. I neither know nor care that the ELCA is spying on CORE, and I don't see why anyone would. But the way you address the issue of dialogue, however, seems to me somewhat suspect. To anticipate an "ad hominem" attack on speakers whom you support while you yourself engage in "ad hominem" attacks for the sake of your supporters reeks of the very same form that has been historically used against other "outside" groups (Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and GBLTs, among others). I recognize that the world is very frightening and that the "other" can be a very confusing and frightening person, but such statement do nothing to improve relationships or communication with those in the Church who are actually attending to your statements without your partisan bias. I ask and pray that you consider that a public statement is just that, and consider how what you say will be received by your audience.
In Christ,
Gary

Gary, how exactly have I commited an ad hominem? I reported a fact. You personally may not care to know about the spies from Higgins Road, but I dare say many other readers do. Maybe the word "spy" is what bothers you. If I had used the more neutral expression, "information gatherers," would that help?

Professor,
An ad hominem argument uses statements about character to distract from the facts of an argument. To say, publicly, that such an attack is anticipated is a statement about the character of another. This, when done to achieve a goal such as the support of a claim, is the definition of an ad hominem, specifically an ad hominem of abuse. You can not have been reporting a fact, since you said: "Predictably, ELCA “churchwide” will try either to ignore the collective force of the lectures’ critique of its departure from Christian orthodoxy, Biblical authority, Lutheran confessionalism, sanctified living and vibrant mission or resort to ad hominem attacks on the speakers." This is a prediction, not a statement of fact; it is about character, not facts. Therefore it is an ad hominem argument - you supplied rhetoric rather than reason. The word "spy" bothers me no more than "information gatherers" since the same meaning and intent lies behind both. In short, it is not your vocabulary but the way in which you pursue your agenda which impedes productive discourse. As I said, this is grounded in the history and tradition of the worst things Christians have ever done. I merely wished to point it out. I hope that clarifies my statements, and look forward to the faithful witness of the NALC and CORE in the ecumenical world - and especially your faithful witness to your bound conscience in the ELCA.
Yours in Christ,
Gary

Ad hominem is a fallacy when, and only when, an unethical attack on a person is made to distract from some weakness in the argument. Not to chop logic, but since you are confused about this, permit me to explain that a "prediction" is logically an induction from the particular to the general; to be sure, an induction has only probable, not necessary force. The syllogism runs like this: 1) Since the CORE critique amounts to a demonstration of ELCA heterodoxy, and 2) since ELCA had "information gatherers" taking notes on this, 3) it may be predicted that a counter-attack is being prepared. Of course, it is possible that the ELCA will instead be persuaded of its heterodoxy by the critique, thank God and critics for their calling them to the Lord, and change course. But I doubt it. And you should too.

Professor,
Actually, the syllogism runs this way: 1) You maintain that the ELCA is heterodox (this is the case you are making); 2) to support this thesis you mention the expectation of ad hominem counter-attacks (interesting that this infers the actions of CORE as an attack and not a critique); 3) thus your prediction is not derived from experience of these persons who were present but from the way you wish to view them; 4) thus the only point in support of your argument is your assessment of personality. But this is not really my point: my point is that in the entirety of your article above you utilize rhetoric and not reason. And this behavior has a very negative track record in Christian history. You can believe whatever you want, and you clearly do - but if you wish to reason with others, you must use reason. Your syllogism above does not hold since the very first point assumes assent to your primary thesis that the ELCA is heterodox. The entire syllogism begs the question - another fallacy. And this is a primary rhetorical technique that you have used above and in your lecture at the CORE Convocation (I listened to it online last night, it was quite fascinating). That use of rhetoric is what I'm trying to point out.
Now let's deal with the idea of "inductive argument." An example of this type of logical fallacy is as follows: 1) most American cats are domestic; 2) Thor is an American cat; 3) therefore Thor is domestic. This is an argument from probability and thus does not hold as a statement of fact. To do this with people in this situation is to say that: 1) an organization would normally prepare a counter-attack; 2) the ELCA is an organization; 3) therefore the ELCA will prepare a counter-attack. It simply doesn't follow, since it is based on your assumption that your perceptions will hold as true. I'm sorry that you are so embattled and embittered by this discussion and its history that you have resorted to this tactic, and I believe it says much about how deeply this fissure in biblical interpretation and theology runs. But my sympathy does not make my argument correct, just as your predictions do not make your assessment accurate.
Professor, I'm not saying you are a terrible person. I'm doing my best to withhold judgment from what you are saying and look at your defense critically but charitably. But I do believe that if CORE and the NALC are to have any future as Christian bodies, that they must be conscious of the language used in their statements. Certainly rhetoric is effective for rallying a base of supporters, and I would be hypocritical if I blamed you for this use. But Lutheran Forum (even more so than the CORE Convocation) is a public arena. To use that rhetoric here is a sign of something that frightens me in any organization: a complete and utter certainty that you are in the right. Without defense, without logic, without even a reference to a supporting document, you in a single line discard the character and substance of the ELCA's position and organization to make room for your righteous indignation. And this does not bode well. I beg you to accept this for what it is - simple concern for you and the Christian community you serve.

Yours in Christ,
Gary

Well, you are certainly right about "how deep this fissure in biblical interpretation and theology run." That is your opinion, and flesh and blood persons who cannot know all, or wait to know all, must in the press of conflict venture opinions, and express the reasonings of the heart which attend them, as any one who still studies Martin Luther knows. What you call the “rhetoric of abuse” is an exercise of the office of the keys, calling sin sin, and giving the reasons for such judgments, not only about arguments, but also on person. You, in any case, commit the same “abuse,” as I will shortly show.

But first, let me express the wish that I could believe your concluding paragraph. I really do. But you, unlike me, have not put your cards on the table and revealed your stance in this battle or what political interest your questioning serves. You finally grant that "rhetoric is effective for rallying a base of supporters, and I would be hypocritical if I blamed you for this use." Why would that make you a hypocrite? What rhetoric are you deploying? In whose interest? Come clean!
What's the beef? Really? That I "discard the character and substance of the ELCA's position and character?" Of course I do. I hold it to be wrong and unfaithful. That’s no secret!
You are abusive in this new post. Your problem now is that my original blog was an opinion piece, using rhetoric, as openly acknowledged in its opening sentences ("I am a partisan...") rather than a tightly reasoned argument. The argument in question about the ELCA's heterodoxy (considerably longer and more intricate than can be provided in a blog post) was in fact provided in the lecture at the CORE conference, which you mention only to dismiss by innuendo rather than report and engage, forgetting that the point of my opinion piece was to ask the opposition to take the critique seriously and respond in kind ("Love hopes all things..."). Now, who is being disengenuous and rhetorical, not to say, abusive?
As to the matter of logic, you switch your argument now to accuse me of "begging the question," when in fact I am "begging" the opposition to "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" the CORE lectures in which the arguments about ELCA heterodoxy are made. You drop the matter of ad hominem in any rigorous sense, though you continue to insist –rhetorically—on my guilt. As I previously pointed out, my prediction of an ELCA counter-attack was a probable argument based on induction. May I say for the record about this that I will be happy to be proven wrong? Wrong by what actually happens, that is, not by some alleged fallacy in my reasoning. In any case, I will not be intimated from voicing the anger among countless traditional Lutherans about the sense of betrayal they feel at the tactics that have been used to hijack their church.
Hence to the heart of the matter: there is a battle going on for hearts and minds. The demogogery that has been indulged in the entire ELCA process leading up to the 2009 decision, in which pathetic personal testimonies of exclusion trumped Scripture and Confession, and served to intimidate dissent and silence real debate and deliberation, are all the evidence one needs to recall. This is "the experience," consistent and of long duration, from which I induced my prediction that the ELCA note-takers were present to prepare for a "counter-attack." In any event, I did not create this battle. I did not wish for this conflict. It has been forced upon us.

Let me remind you for the record that CORE is not a church body. I am not a member of NALC. CORE is a movement for the reallignment of American Christianity on biblical, Reformational and orthodox lines.

Professor,
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble distinguishing your theses, and will therefore take you on a point-by-point basis. I assure you this is for the sake of clarity. I will number these for simple reference.

1. You say that you are exercising the office of the keys in what I call the "rhetoric of abuse". But if this is an exercise in calling sin sin, it cannot function as an argument against a position but only as a call to repentance. You have not, to my knowledge, made a case for what sin you are naming. This is, additionally, completely inconsequential to your defense of your rhetoric; had I simply driven into your statements as ad hominem and not explained how they were so, that would be an ad hominem. Thus, my point is not about whether or not you are wrong but about how you are asserting your position.

2. I would be hypocritical in saying that you have no right to rally with rhetoric because everyone does this, whether or not I support them. What I am trying to say is that the way you express your position does not work humbly with honest engagement. It works on the assumption that God is on your side. This is a dangerous assumption that, in my mind, is at the heart of your rhetoric. If you believe yourself so right, you may wish to explain how you are. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding the function of your posts.

3. To springboard off of 2, let's go to your talk about a blog post. Is this your blog? I thought this was Lutheran Forum - and I thought that everything posted here was subject to public scrutiny. It this not so? If you had no intention of actually making a case and were simply writing an advertisement for this book of lectures, then I have been remiss in my appraisal of the context. That would mean that Lutheran Forum is a forum for CORE press releases. If this is so, I have been ignorant of it.

4. Regarding your CORE convocation lecture - I have limited time, and a single listen gave me the following points (feel free to correct and instruct me where I misrepresent you): 1. homosexuality is (sinful? not exemplary?) because it separates sexual desire from procreation; 2. the ELCA is heterodox because it has entered antinomianism by advocating a perspective of cheap grace - and your use of Bonhoeffer astounds me here - which is a neutering of the Church by preaching Gospel without Law (using the categories of the Law as that which reveals human illusion and idolatry and Grace as the action of God which redeems humanity). I will listen to the lecture again and make a response, since that seems to be what you want.

5. I did not drop the ad hominem argument, but pointed out that in your defense you engaged in two other classic fallacies: inductive argument and begging the question. These cannot be "alleged" fallacies, especially in the case of inductive argument, since you yourself used that term. You are begging the question about the ELCA's heterodoxy because the syllogism you provided began with that assumption - this is the definition of begging the question. I'm not pointing this out to demean you, but simply to ask for clear communication.

6. Now we come to it - "the anger among countless traditional Lutherans about the sense of betrayal they feel at the tactics that have been used to hijack their church." Good! We have now agreed that you are coming at this discussion from a place of anger. I'm glad that you can admit that. I'm not aware of what "tactics" you are referring to - I know that pastors were kept informed about the Sexuality Statement by being mailed updated documents - but we've now established that you have an agenda in convicting the ELCA. Which is actually my point, Professor (and as a good postmodern thinker, you should understand this): any argument you make is suspect, by virtue of your anger. Thus, you face the difficult task of demonstrating that you are not simply heaping invective upon rhetorical abuse to prove a point that you and your audience are already convinced of. The burden of this proof is upon you, sir, and not upon me.

7. You seem to feel that personal testimony cannot be in dialogue with scripture and the confessions. Why do you feel this? When I read Paul and Luther, I see them very much in dialogue with their experiences. If you believe in the incarnate Word, is not experience to be in constant tension with scripture? And of course, all this anger makes no bones against the idea of bound conscience - anyone who doesn't agree with ordaining homosexual persons in relationships doesn't have to, doesn't have to have such a person as their pastor. I know pastors who do not believe in affirming that lifestyle who have remained in the ELCA and see it as a minor issue.

8. CORE is not a church body - but it is a Christian body. It is a group of people who are Christians. I know you're not a member of NALC, but you are speaking to a group which overlaps with that body.

9. You have not yet admitted that there is something very frightening about the way you deliver your message: your absolute conviction that you are right. That is the core of my concern, for you and those whom you instruct. Could you address this point?

In closing, I am a student at an ELCA seminary. Is that sufficient knowledge for you to feel comfortable in this discussion? Oh, and simply saying I don't think your argument holds is not abusive - saying (for example) that you are unscriptural and antichrist in your capacity as a public figure, using your office to terrify consciences and pronounce judgment to further your own goals - that would be the rhetoric of abuse. I don't think those things, I think you are a frustrated person who is trying desperately to be heard. But to engage in ad hominem attacks is beneath you and unhelpful.

In Christ,
Gary

No, Gary, I am not going to indulge you with a point by point reply to your pointless points. I am sure by now you have worn out the readers' patience. You certainly have worn out mine: the only thing I am frustrated about right now is your continued hiding behind the veil of the Tribunal of Reason, when it is clear that you simply are on the other side of the divide dividing the ELCA.
You have indulged in plenty of ad hominem as I previously indicated. Now we are informed that Hinlicky is "a frustrated person who is trying desperately to be heard." Let me assure you, I am heard far more than care to be. In any case, I am not taking your bait any longer. I have bigger fish to fry.
In sum: the substantive case for ELCA heterodoxy is made in the CORE lectures soon to be published, my original post was my self-acknowledged partisan "reflection" giving my opinions on the implications of the conference. You started all this with your attack on me for indulging a rhetoric of abuse. My reply in short is that, as AC 28 teaches, the office of the keys includes "judging doctrine and condemning doctrine that is contrary to the gospel, which, as an ordained clergyman of the ELCA and one of its "teaching theologians" I am both called and duty bound to do. So I have done, and so I am also done with you. Oh, one last comment: I am glad that my "aboslute conviction" about what is right and true to the gospel disturbs and frightens you. That tells us a lot about the kind of theological education you are getting at your ELCA seminary.

Dear Professor,
Thank you for illustrating my points so clearly! You have in one fell swoop assumed that you are in possession of the only possible interpretation of doctrine, engaged in an ad hominem attack on me, ignored (once again) my concern about your language, and ignored the question regarding the mixed audience this post clearly addressed. I was never baiting you - simply inviting you to reflect. I'm sorry that upsets you so much. I simply wanted to give you a fair hearing.

For the record, the reason I don't agree with much that is said on the other side of this "divide" that you insist exists is because none of those speakers seem to be able to remove reason from rhetoric. Thus I am still unaware of what the argument actually is (and just saying "Antinomian" doesn't answer this question).

I'll be praying on your behalf. I'm serious. I am very grieved by what I see in both CORE and the NALC, and I have no choice but to give that pain and concern to God - since conversation is clearly impossible. Even on Lutheran Forum.

In the peace of Christ, crucified and risen,

Gary

It is your duplicity which makes real debate impossible. I teach students: "You make criticize, when and only when, you can state your opponents position with such clarity, sympathy and intelligience that your opponent would say, 'Yes, that's it; I couldn't have said it better myself!" That way you criticize the real thing rather than a convenient fiction of your own imagination.
You haved failed to do this, and in its place, played a game of baiting me into questions about the logic of what I am saying, which I in good faith sought to answer, only to blindside me with invective of your own, innuendo, pot-shots, all the while hiding behind a pretence of neutrality. You in fact are as partisan as I, and don't have the intellectual honesty no personal courage to own your own position openly and fight fairly. That is what many, many people by the way are concluding about their own experience of the ELCA. So thank you too for revealing the tactic of duplicity for all to see.
In the peace that passes all understanding, Paul

Professor Hinlicky,
I'm surprised to hear from you again. I'm more surprised to hear you accusing me of lying. I said, in my second post: "In short, it is not your vocabulary but the way in which you pursue your agenda which impedes productive discourse." You have, not once, admitted that I have a point. You have accused me of the very thing I am expressing to you. Worse, when I tell you that I cannot express your position because I cannot separate your argument from your rhetoric, you accuse me of innuendo. I have listened to your lecture and could not, for the life of me, represent your position. I communicated in point 4 above (the points you're not going to respond to) the following: "1. homosexuality is (sinful? not exemplary?) because it separates sexual desire from procreation; 2. the ELCA is heterodox because it has entered antinomianism by advocating a perspective of cheap grace - and your use of Bonhoeffer astounds me here - which is a neutering of the Church by preaching Gospel without Law (using the categories of the Law as that which reveals human illusion and idolatry and Grace as the action of God which redeems humanity)." This is the closest I can come to representing your argument. I invited your correction - instead you accuse me of hiding and taking pot shots at you.

1. You cannot say that I have not trying to understand your argument - my primary concern was and has always been the fact that the way you express your argument is hard to receive since it seems so bound in rhetoric. Thus, my initial difficulty was that I cannot represent your argument simply because I have never seen or heard it presented. Your point here simply does not make sense to me. Can you elaborate?

2. If I do not understand your argument, why have you not attempted to correct me - even at my invitation to do so?

3. As I said in my last post, I am only "partisan" in the sense that I have heard nothing from the other side of the "divide" which makes any sense and is clearly stated. The closest I've seen to the case being made (such as the convocation lectures) always seems to be based on assumptions I'm not prepared to make. In other words, you've failed to convince me - and many others. That was, again, the point of my initial post.

4. This most recent post is a perfect example - you're not dialoging with me. You're attempting to defame me - the definition of ad hominem. I'm sure you feel very attacked, here, and for that I apologize. I'm not attacking you, Professor, simply telling you what I'm seeing. The fact that you do not like what I say does not give you license to critique my character, nor to draw conclusions about my thoughts and allegiances.

5. You seem confused. I have always told you that I feel that you are not making sense and seem aggressive and self-righteous in your rhetoric. This is not "baiting" or "blindsiding" you. Moreover, you have not answered my questions about the logic of what you are saying, but have instead attempted to say my logic is flawed by employing classical logical fallacies. So either there are posts I have not read, or there is something going on here of which I am unaware.

6. My position - to state it clearly - is that CORE has not now, nor has it ever, built a case. CORE, to my knowledge and experience, has always assumed that it was correct. Of course homosexuality is a sin! Of course the ELCA is a tyrannical bureaucracy! Of course our only course of action is to spew vitriolic diatribes and rage against this decision as much as possible! If seeing this as a lack of argument is what you call "partisan", then you are using the term in a way I do not understand.

7. You keep insisting that you see things as they are, that you have absolute conviction about the gospel, though what I said was "there is something very frightening about the way you deliver your message: your absolute conviction that you are right". Doesn't your location as a postmodern person deny this very statement, this absolute knowledge which you have? Isn't the gospel incarnated in different ways in different times and places? And aren't you still ignoring my concern, that you don't argue well because it simply hasn't occurred to you that you may be wrong?

8. I'm sorry you feel so attacked. I don't mean to present myself that way, but we are all human and fallible. I myself am shocked by the tone you have taken in your last two posts. As for "fighting fairly" - it is interesting you keep using attack and conflict language. Why is that?

And for the record, Professor, this is just about CORE's case - the NALC has even less ground to stand on, since everyone in that body has severed from the ELCA over... what? Let's assume that the ELCA, as a whole, is antinomian (and let me tell you, I know for a fact that this is nonsense - you may as well call the whole ELCA homosexual). But let's say this is true. Couldn't education and dialogue work much better, and be a far better alternative, than leaving? Wasn't that Luther's approach to the Roman church, before he was ejected (forcibly and directly) from it?

In sum: Professor, I cannot defend or agree with you, because I have not seen any clear and fundamental argument from you. Instead I have seen rhetoric with, occasionally, a briefly mentioned point that is unconnected to the flow of your argument, followed by unsubstantiated conviction in your cause. That is what I have received - and I offered the thought that this might not be helpful. All I have received in return, from you, is evasion followed by arguments to myself (ad hominem) rather than engagement of my points. This is the definition of the rhetoric of abuse, as used against all minorities and outsiders (Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, foreigners, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc.) across the history of Christianity. And, far from comforting me and saying that this is not your intent, you instead have engaged this practice further. I hope this does not presage things to come for the Christians you serve - and as a member of the ELCA, that includes me. I commend you to God's care and eternal grace, and hope this has not been too harsh on you, since I know you only have the best interests of the Church into which you were Baptized at heart.

Peace and Light in Christ,
Gary

Professor:
For those who don't have the patience for the above: You simply haven't made a case beyond rhetoric. You haven't defended your statements above. I have no idea what you are talking about. Since clarity of communication is vital, could we discard judgmental attitudes and simply talk about my concern: that the reason I don't understand you or CORE is because of the rhetoric you engage in?

Hope that was quick enough to avoid "TLDNR" status (that's "Too Long, Did Not Read" for those, like myself, who do not frequent the internet as much as some millennials).

In Christ,
Gary

Dr Hinlicky,

While that sounds like good advice you give to your students, I see precious little of it in evidence here on your part. Can you lay out Gary's position in such a way? Can you lay out mine? I can give you one hint with mine: it affirms all uses of the Law, which by definition precludes antinomian. If saying that one thing is not sin or sin no longer is antinomian, anyone who confesses the Augsburg Confession is antinomian in light of AC 28:65-66.

Since I didn't answer you below about LCMC, 500 is the total # of LCMC churches. 319 have joined since Aug 19, 2009 and the 307 was the number in the previous year. It is also interesting to note that you used that 'switching argument's tactic you accused Gary of concerning the Church of Sweden and ECUSA.

Gary, you make great arguments, but as for me I find Dr. Hinlicky merely stating the argument clearly, effectively and passionately. The ELCA can no longer be trusted. Take for example the study bible given to every youth at the National Youth Gathering in New Orleans. The notes in reference to Matthew chapter 28:16ff read that Jesus does not really mean for us to make disciples of all people. This note was later removed due to numerous protests. There are gnostic and marcion elements in ELCA. This is not anger speaking; this is fact. Continuing to divert the issue by stating that one of our finest theologians is conducting an Ad Hominem attack I would contend is beneath you.

Tony,
Thank you for your feedback. I'm curious - if you think I am making "great arguments", how then is making those arguments beneath me? There seems to be a tension in what you're saying there and it would be helpful if you could elaborate. Secondly, there are gnostic and marcion elements in the NALC, as well as donatist and gnostic and pelagian strands - so that point makes no bones. There are heresies everywhere, since the Church is a mixed body. Getting away from that is actually itself donatist, since Augustine specifically argued that the reason they were engaging in heresy was that they were denying that the Church is by its nature a mixed body. Your only point here, then, is that people have been hurt - but this happens in every community, everywhere, and so the question becomes what was so extreme that a split became necessary? While I appreciate your point regarding the study bible (was this the Lutheran Study Bible? What makes this scriptural interpretation not valid? Your complaint assumes that this is wrong, and assuming this is not the best persuasive point...), nevertheless this does not point to the organization called the ELCA being untrustworthy. On the contrary, the fact that feedback resulted in change underlines that the ELCA (or whatever organization) in such conduct shows true concern for those who support it and hears criticism leveled at it. This actually works against your statement, from my point of view. If I'm misunderstanding, let me know please.
Tony, I believe that you are not angry, but you are not Dr. Hinlicky. Not to mention that, again, your argument - saying the ELCA isn't trustworthy - would not make the ELCA heretical, or not church, or incorrect in the social statement. The point, again, is that an ad hominem directs the attention of the discussion to the character of a person or organization rather than engaging what they are saying. While I respect that you are trying to clarify and be honest and open, I have to honestly tell you that your post doesn't change this. You are saying "The ELCA can no longer be trusted." Fine, but that doesn't make their arguments or interpretations wrong. It's beside the point. Thanks for letting me respond. I hope you are well and take care of yourself. Wishing you the best in your life and ministry!
In Christ,
Gary

p.s. In reading your post, I suddenly realized that you starting talking about "one of our finest theologians". Who is "we"? I affirm that Dr. Hinlicky is a fine man and teacher, but I actually have no reason to join with you in your claim since I know neither him, nor his work (with the exception of a single listening to his recorded address to the CORE Theological Conference, which in all honesty did not impress me). Just something that confused me. Again, blessings and peace! -G

For those interested, I came across a passage in D.J. Hall's book, "The Cross in Our Context", which I feel communicates what I was trying to say here. He is addressing eschatology and the dualistic/apocalyptic frame that many seem to cache moral discussions in. Here it is:

"Christians in America today, and among America's friends, who resort to the languages of 'cosmic warfare' and ecumenical 'jihad' and a 'backbone' stiffened against moral decay and so forth must ask themselves, no matter what their cause, to what extent their witness contributes to the warmongering, enemy-imagining, and self-righteous moral vigilance of a society that needs to locate its problems outside itself in order to be able to maintain its value system and its lofty image of itself intact."

That's on page 227. The book was written in 2003. Maybe what he is saying is clearer than the way I tried to express the point here. Keep thinking, reading, and praying!

In Christ,
Gary

First - I think that standing _against_ schism means not abstaining from a vote, but voting no. Abstaining is a passive support for Church division. You did not stand against schism Dr. Hinlicky, you got out of its way.

Second - "realignment" cannot occur by further dividing the Church. To facilitate further division, as CORE has, is really to further the general theological problem which the Church faces. Ephraim Radner has made this case rather well in his book "The End of the Church" (I am sure you know who Radner is, but for the sake of others, I should point out that he is anything but a "liberal protestant"). As a result, CORE offers no real theological alternative to the liberalism that it believes it to be opposing. Rather it contributes to liberalism (in its worst forms) but participating in the very will-to-power emotivism that is foundation to modern thinking. Core, as a result, only raises the level of shrillness in a fragmented rancor.

Finally - There are many of us whom have been labeled "liberal" or "revisionist" (both false in that, in this case, the attempt to label requires the assumption that the labeler is not also those things) - We would be willing to engage in dialogue over these matters - and advance the discussion, as it were. Perhaps there is a format that Lutheran Forum or CORE could provide for such a discussion.

Core is not the perpetrator of schism, the August 2009 decisions of the ELCA are. Core is simply reacting, in an admirably nuanced way, to an enormous provocation. AS I see it, those who hold that Lutheranism already has a confessionally binding doctrine of sex, marriage and the family as per the Catechisms and AC 23 etc, have little choice but to repudiate church fellowship -- hence the 500 congregations that have already joined the LCMC and the nascent NALC. That fact that I abstained from this option, as readers of this blog should know, reflects the fact that I personally think the Lutheran confessional doctrine has a little wiggle room with which possibly to recognize, though not to bless same-sex unions under carefully specified conditions. Hence I am willing and able to remain in the heterodox ELCA to fight the good fight.
Second, I do not share the assumption that a liberal Protestant denomination like the ELCA is "the Church." Indeed in those decisions of last August we broke the bonds of baptism with what always, everywhere, and by everyone has been believed regarding Christian marriage. In this regard, the ELCA becomes an obstacle to the Church. The Church is emerging from its modern Babylonian captivity in the movement for reallignment. CORE is a servant of this movement.
Third, if you want dialogue then read the book of lectures and get serious. This blog pot shot of yours don't lack for the "shrillness" you percieve and lament in others.

If "the truth will set us free" why do you need to rely on exaggeration?

The statement "what always, everywhere, and by everyone has been believed regarding Christian marriage" is completely false.

Mark 12:18-23 shows that Levirate marriage was alive and well during Christ's time. There is no Scriptural evidence to suggest it was not also practiced by 1st century Jewish Christians.

1 Tim 3:2 indicates polygamy was practiced by some in the early church as well.

Witness from the Mideval period of history shows that "Christian marriage" in certain segments of the population was arranged almost entirely for political, not romantic, reasons.

The ELCA is not the first Lutheran body to recognize same-gender relationships. The Church of Sweden, among others already does. Nor is it the first Protestant body in America to do so: the Episcopalians hold that distinction.

Speaking of church bodies, your numbers are a little inflated, too. While there will soon be more, there are currently 18 congregations in NALC, and 307 congregations that have joined the LCMC in the last 12 months. That's a little bit lower than your 500. Nor is it possible that all 307 of the LCMC congregations have broken with the ELCA: the latest numbers I can find show that only 199 congregations have left the ELCA. While you make a big deal of numbers and the "show of strength" in your OP, are those numbers similarly inflated?

"Breaking the bonds of baptism" and "having little choice but to repudiate church fellowship" is also a complete misunderstanding of Article VII of the Augsburg Confession: "And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6"

The doctrine of the Gospel has not changed in the ELCA as a result of the CWA09. Neither have the sacraments. Without either of those, it's quite difficult to make this into an "enormous provocation". Unless, of course, one elevates marriage to the level of the Gospel, at which point that one no longer confesses with the Reformers, the Confessions or Scripture that it is Christ alone and only required for the forgiveness of sins. So if it is an "enormous provocation", CORE has adopted a false gospel. If it is not, why do you need to call it such?

AMEN!

One of the reasons why I usually ignore Peter's posts is because he repeats the same thing every time, constructing a caricature to attack and therewith to reassert his Antinomian version of Lutheranism.
Suffice it to say 1) the data about 500 congregations affiliating with LCMC is taken from their website, 2) the criterion of catholicity identifies the sectarian positions to which Peter historically refers as sectarian, 3)the process of disengaging with the ELCA will be protracted, as I have repeatedly argued, as people become more and more aware of where all this is headed, i.e. the ECUSA and the Church of Sweden exactly!, 4)this division of the house is not only or even primarily about homosexuality, but about Antinomianism. That is what is heretical. Read the book of lectures to see the case laid out in full.

To translate for Professor Hinlicky:

"Peter, thanks for your feedback and concerns. My facts may be wrong, but I was only using them to make my point and am not dependent finally on the numbers. You and I have different definitions of catholicity, so we need to define what we mean there. Your reference to other churches that affirm homosexual relationships illustrates my concern, as I feel that this is not the direction American Lutheranism should move in, and I have serious doubts about what constitutes "the Church" in any case. I'm not making a point about homosexuality in any case; I'm using this particular incident to illustrate the antinomianism of the ELCA. Buy the book!"

I hope I represented the professor fairly here. Of course, that simply would mean that he and Peter are talking past each other, using different terms formed by different assumptions. Which should surprise no one. Maybe we should just assume we need to define all theological terms...
In Christ,
Gary

Do numbers really matter? I could care less if 3 congregations join NALC or LCMC. What matters is who is faithful to scripture. The ELCA is wandering all over the place searching for truth. Jesus speaks truth, but I suppose we must exegete it out in Matthew 19.

Numbers aren't important but they are. Dr Hinlicky uses them to try to demonstrate the broadness of support for the CORE conference. That at least some of the numbers are inflated raises some very serious concerns about that point, the greatest concern being that movements with broad support don't need to inflate their numbers. Insofar as the numbers are supporting evidence, they are important.

Insofar as numbers reflect faith, I agree that they are not. However, one thing that we've been very sloppy about is the our object of faith. The object of our faith should not be Scripture, but rather Jesus Christ and God's promise on account of His suffering, death and resurrection to forgive sinners. It may sound like semantics, but it's the difference between Law and Gospel, death and life.

Dr. Hinlicky,

Thank you for your reply. A few comment in response.

1. The "provocation" to which you claim CORE to be responding is one in which a) Marriage was not redefined and b) those who disagreed were still given space to voice disagreement. What CWA09 said was that it would permit church units (for lack of a better term) to recognize same sex relationships that are publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous. While characteristically similar to a marriage, the assembly, to my knowledge, did not equate the two. The Assembly did permit the recognition and blessing of said relationships - so I realize that could be a point of contention for you.

2. Personally I would advocate for the ELCA to understand this as marriage because I believe that the traditional western church's understanding of marriage is limited and inaccurate. The traditional view of marriage, which CORE claims to be defending, is rooted in the Augustinian concepts of sexuality that require an end of sex to be offspring. This is problematic for several reasons.

A. First, such a theological stance does not acknowledge the historical situation of Augustine's argument. Augustine was opposing the Manichean position that the material world was evil. By insisting on a procreative element, Augustine set himself over-against the Manichean position.

B. Second, insisting on procreation, as you did at the CORE event, (for marriage) no longer makes sense. Should the Church not wed those who do not intend on having children? Or those who cannot have children (due to age, accident, or surgery)? Should these groups of people now also have relationships that are recognized, but not blessed, by the Church?

C. Third, your insistence on procreation ignores that the Eastern tradition has viewed procreation as only an appendix to marriage. Marriage in the Orthodox tradition is one of the means by which people move deeper into the life of the Triune God. Marriage is a sanctifying process. As Karl Barth put it, “Because the election of God is real, there is such a thing as love and marriage.” In other words, these two things are secondary and flow from the reality of God's love for us – therefore participation in those things becomes a grace from God that shapes us as God's people.

D. Finally, therefore marriage is neither about checking lusts nor procreation (the two most common Western arguments for marriage). Marriage is not functional, but ascetic and increasing our desire for something greater – the pearl of great price. Marriage, then, engages us is a discipline of giving ourselves over to another from whom we cannot easily escape. Such a discipline leads us into a greater understanding of God kenotic love for us. Sexuality is for sanctification. It is for God. It is one of the ways by which God draws us up into a life in the Spirit and identifies us as children of God. The “means” of marriage are, therefore, no mere functionalism as you have suggested; but rather a participation in the end (telos) of human life. It is an arena for discipleship, community, love, joy and virtue. In the marriage relationship, the couple gives their bodies over to the community as a communicative sign pointing to God's love for us. Such a view of marriage would not rule out couples who cannot otherwise produce children (whether because of accident or lack of desire). This is why, when all is said and done, the direction the ELCA has permitted for people to take is a better option than what CORE offers because its makes better sense of marriage than the functional procreative argument offered by CORE. CWA09 at least gives us space to speak of marriage in ways that make better sense of the overall thrust of Scripture and the wider tradition of the Church.

3. CORE is indeed the perpetrator of schism - or at least the progenitor of one. NALC is the embodiment of that schism. You argue that the ELCA, as a denominational body, is not Church. In this I think you are greatly mistaken. Dr. Yeago, in his debates with WordAlone (CORE's parent organization) pointed out the error that they made by ignoring the fact that the Church, as the Body of Christ, is also a body politic. The Church must also be a political creature – it must take up time and space. Bonhoeffer argued the same thing – I assume you are aware of that since you quoted him extensively in your presentation. As a result the Church has things like constitutions of canon law which help guide our common life together. It also has structures and organization for the ministry of the Gospel. To emphasize the Church-ness of these larger units we also install pastors to lead them: just as a the congregation has a pastor, so does the synod and the denomination.

4. Your argument against the ELCA, and in support of NALC schism, deny that this body can be a mixed one – therefore, as I have pointed out before, adopting an essentially Donatistic argument which permits the breaking away in order to protect teaching. Augustine demonstrated that this simply does not work. It is a failure at charity, he said, and a failure to recognize the nature of the Church and its mission. It is exceedingly local and not catholic and as a result, invites real heresy rather than the disagreement which you have labeled as heretical.

5. I do desire dialogue, but I do not fancy giving CORE/WordAlone any money. I will simply listen to the lectures on CORE's website.

Apparently I was not as clear as I had hoped in regards to the shrillness of the debate. I was appealing to the word of Alasdair MacIntyre and his critique of western modern culture with its tendency to cave in to will-to-power arguments shrouded in emotive thinking. My argument is that yes, the ELCA can also be very shrill – but CORE, despite its host of bright thinkers, offers us no real alternative to that shrillness and only furthers fragmented discussion with its emotiveist fostering of schism. I will attempt to be more clear:

A. The ELCA currently finds itself engaged in a rather extensive discussion about authority that led up to and continues after its decision to allow for the ordination and rostering of homosexual persons – whether celibate or in committed relationships. The central questions revolve around two key issues: 1) the authority of Scripture, and 2) the authority of an ecclesial governing body. There seems to be a general consensus with in the ELCA that Scripture is authoritative, but how we understand and apply what the Bible says is a growing debate. The question of the church's authority to interpret, or to allow for interpretations, of Scripture is the general way the second issue is played out.

B. Conversation about authority in the Church is often complicated by the fact that our understanding of what authority means is impoverished – that is, our definitions of authority are limited in scope. We tend to limit our understanding of authority in a way that equates it with power or, at least, the legitimacy or right to use power. More often than not, authority is understood as coercive, requiring compulsory behavior on the part of those to whom the authority of something is directed. As a result, if someone questions or engages critically with such an authority it is too frequently understood as rebellion. A binary is established in our thinking which says one either obeys or rejects authority. The space for critical reflection and engagement is being lost to a models of theological reflection that are either static or ungrounded.

C. In the ELCA, the debate around sexuality has seemingly intensified this bifurcation. Though it can be demonstrated that such a thing is being promulgated primarily by those opposed to the church's decision, the simple fact remains that the entire church is caught in the larger cultural schemes that seek to divide people into “for” and “against” camps. This is happening in ways that seem increasingly similar to the way in which American politics tends to divide people into groups that are either “Pro” or “Anti” any given thing. The problem with such thinking is that it leaves the problem as unresolvable. There is no telos (end/goal) which the discussion can reach.

D. It plunges us into the never ending struggle proposed by Nietzsche. We are caught in a “will to power” which has no reference point for conclusion; it only has the forever back and forth of one side verses another. In the Nietzscheian scheme we are left without any means or standards (any authority really) to determine the moral value of a position. We are left only with how we feel about something. This perhaps explains the shrillness of many moral debates in both the culture and the Church [cf. MacIntyre _After Virtue_, 1984 p.8].

E. It is unfortunate that the danger of the aping of such cultural and political schemes is not readily understood as spiritually dangerous. David Yeago pointed out a similar problem in 1998 surrounding the disputes about full communion between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church. Even then, the sexuality issue lurked in the background; therefore, that debate can be seen as the first chapter of the current one. He unfolds the problem as a culture-war hermeneutic: “...the Episcopal [Church] has figured essentially as an ideological enemy, corporately “soft” on homosexuality. A crucial test issue. . . . The problem with the culture-war hermeneutic, it seems to me, is that it is divisive in the wrong way, that it conforms the life of the Church to the wrong struggle. Those who follow this analysis are, I fear, in danger of doing from the right what they accuse the revisionists of doing from the left: subordinating the Church's life to the life of the civil community, reducing the struggle for faithfulness in the Church to an extension of the cultural struggles of the nations. The terms of the culture-war analysis are not, after all, especially theological; they are borrowed from secular neo-conservatism. The friend-foe polarization and the idea of protracted conflict which are so crucial to that perspective derive from Marxist intellectual origins of so many of the founding fathers and mothers of neo-conservatism. Shouldn't Christian theologians and pastors be a little suspicious of all of this? [David S. Yeago, “The Concordat, Ecumenism, and Evangelical-Catholic Politics,” The Lutheran Forum 32,1 (1998). pp. 42-43].

F. So, then, what happens when we disagree? What happens if we think the community has read the text wrong? Both Augustine and George Lindbeck offer hermeneutics which insistence on maintaining unity in disagreement. It shows up explicitly in two ways. The most famous of these, which I mentioned on other threads, is Augustine's dispute with the Donatists. His council was for unity in the midst of disagreement. Cyprian and Augustine disagreed about the Church's reception of those who had lapsed in the faith. Augustine considered Cyprian an authority in the Church, but wrong on this matter. The Donatist's position on baptism was inherited from Cyprian. However, Augustine pointed out that Cyprian would not have sacrificed the unity of the Church for a schism to protect his view. Augustine's view, then, is ultimately not an argument for silencing his opponents; instead, there is an implied assumption of room for disagreement, even on serious issues. In many ways, his argument against the Donatists could be summarized as “Disagree; but disagree in unity” [Compare to Augustine's argument in On Baptism 1.2 where he says, “We do not therefore say to them, 'Abstain from giving baptism,' but 'Abstain from giving it in schism.' Nor do we say to those whom we see them on the point of baptizing, 'Do not receive the baptism,' but 'Do not receive it in schism.' “]. Similarly Lindbeck urges for unity despite disagreement: “Those who denounce communally authorized misreadings, furthermore, are admonished by the examples of Jesus and of the apostles to remain loyal to the community and, according to Paul as reported in Acts, respectful of its leaders even if they are unbelieving high priests (23.5). A more effective strategy for maintaining unity despite disagreement cannot easily be imagined” [George A. Lindbeck The Church in a Postliberal Age , James J. Buckley, edt.,(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2002). p206]

The community to which I am loyal by virtue of baptism is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ, not the liberal Protestant denomination that goes by the name of the ELCA. Loyalty to the former may entail "impaired fellowship," as David Yeago puts it, with the latter. We are all now sorting out the implications of that. In any case, I totally reject your denunciations of CORE/NALC. Adults realize that there are consequences for their actions.
Arguing that marriage can be socially, as an Ordnung, as divine mandate as in Genesis 1:26-28, separated from procreation is precisely what the doctrinal division is all about and it is the position you advocated which is schismatic and sectarian.
Far from feeling like a Donatist, I feel like a Catholic trapped in a Donatist church and wanting out! But, as I have repeatedly said, I am staying on post until I am thrown out. So, if in your rage you can see it, I am not leaving but staying, but staying in angry protest against my denomination which has lost its way. But if others flee the fight, I will not judge them as you do.

1.
A. Yes, baptism (and ordination) is into the catholic Church - however, your distinction between the denomination and the Church is Donatistic at its heart. We cannot make such easy distinctions about where the Church is and is not because the Church is a mixed body. The ELCA remains part of that mixed-ness. Yes, there is Antinomianism in the ELCA, but you are wrong (in part) about its location and nature. And you cannot, like the Donatists, summarily dismiss the whole body because you disagree with a moral position. As my quote of Lindbeck emphasizes, the Augustinian ideal of maintaining unity in spite of disagreement is the Biblical norm and CORE's open rebellion and fostering of schism is not. Therefore, I again say, CORE offers us nothing new to the theological buffet problem we have but only participates in it more. Yeago's "impaired fellowship" is at least still fellowship - he leveled the same accusation at WordAlone (CORE's parent organization) when they were campaigning for the non-bishop ordination option. NALC is not fellowship and is therefore schism - a further dividing of the Body of Christ, and therefore in contradiction to Christ's desire that we be one so that the world may know that he was sent by the Father (cf.John 17:21, I'm sure you know the appeal, but I include this for others who may be wondering why some get so worried about unity vs schism).

B. Yes, adults realize their actions have consequences; and they normally respond with something other than, "I don't like how you play - I'm going to take my ball and go home." It was this mentality, embodied in CORE/NALC, that Yeago was specifically opposing on "Lutherans Persisting." If CORE had not allowed for NALC, then it would not be fomenting schism. It is not schismatic because it disagrees, but because its actually fostering a division in the Church and painting a very black and white picture of Church/not-Church rather than the mixed body Augustine describes over-against the Donatists.

2.
A. It is interesting that you call my articulation of marriage schismatic. Perhaps you missed the part where I said that I was drawing directly from the Eastern Orthodox - or perhaps you believe the schismatic and sectarian. It's from, specifically Paul Evdokomov who is in turn basing his work, in part, on St. Basil of Ancyra. My appeal is also based on a long standing and ancient tradition within the Church - it's simply not the same tradition that you are appealing to - and that was exactly Peter's point earlier. The "tradition" it not nearly as monolithic on this matter (as compared to, say, the Doctrine of the Trinity) as you and CORE seem to want to suggest.

B. Bonhoeffer understood that the "Ordnung" could be used to justify any state of affairs as an order of creation and was therefore a flawed argument. And not simply flawed but really really flawed because he saw it as unbiblical! He viewed them in this manner because the "orders of creation doctrine" presuppose that one can separate a domain of life from God’s reconciliation in Christ. Instead, he believed that all the orders of the world derive their value wholly from outside themselves, from Christ and the new creation (the promise of the Gospel - or as Braaten says in one of his earlier books, our ethics must be open to the eschatological horizon of the Gospel). These orders, therefore, are preserved by God only so far as they are open to the revelation of Christ. As a result, Bonhoeffer argued "any order … can be dissolved, and must be dissolved when it … no longer permits the proclamation of revelation" (No Rusty Swords 166-167).

C. If Christ is the revelation that defines the Ordnung then Christ defines family not as marriage and offspring but as disciples - and therefore around baptism, the means by which we make disciples. "Who are my mother and my brothers and sisters?" Our family is no longer constituted in the old Adam, but in the New Adam. "Christian marriage = procreation" lacks a certain Christocentrism that I find more appealing than merely populating a planet.

3. Rage? I'm more befuddled than enraged. I think you may be doing some projection there, but I could be wrong. And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the Donatists also thought that they were the catholics who needed to get out. I am glad that you have decided to stay and not to fully participate in CORE's schismatic agenda. If only CORE had from the very beginning, like Lutherans Persisting, persisted in staying. Then perhaps Doantism could have been completely avoided.

Its kind of odd that in one swoop you imply that I am antinomian and judgmental. I think I know how that works... its just kind of odd, especially since the antinomianism you claim to be going on in the ELCA is the "anything goes" sort. I do not apply the term individually, but primarily to the organization as a whole. The distinction is subtle, but I think it is significant. I will bear the label "judgmental" (if that's what naming sin is, because schism is sin) if you need me to also wear that - but if you really want to dialogue then perhaps you might want to address some of the points that have been made... I even carefully labeled them and everything.

So, Noah, do you condemn Michael Root for throwing in the towel and transiting the Tiber? The trouble with "Lutherans Persisting" is that they are not. They are not because the ELCA is no longer in any serious sense Lutheran -- accept in the gospel-reductionist, antinomian version we get from the likes of "Peter" -- a matter which David Yeago has repeatedly and impressively critiqued. The rest of the ELCA is Christianity-lite, and I am speaking here of "Church-wide" as a former DGM missionary and one who used to attend the Teaching Theologian Convocations, and as an ordained minister who has dutifully attended Synod Assemblies for years and listened to reports from "Churchwide."
Briefly to your points:
1. A Word Alone is evolving in the light of its experience of ELCA duplicity. At the CORE conference Jon Sorum and I talked extensively about this. We are still not quite on the same page on ecclesiology, but drawing closer in our mutual rejection of the direction ELCA is headed.
B. Who said that NALC wants to break altar fellowship with the ELCA? I and I think NALC intends to continue in altar fellowship with orthodox congregations within the ELCA. What none of us in CORE or ELCA will do anything longer is support the heterodox agenda of the ELCA. In other words, in spite of the denominational structure yoking us together, we are already in a de facto state of schism, witness only the San Fransisco liturgy used for the re-ordination of the partnered gays and lesbians.
2. A,.Evdokimov is a brilliant speculator, but hardly the voice of the Eastern Church. I find it quite amazing that you would appeal to his rather bizzare speculations on gender as if this somehow cancelled the contemporary witness of Orthodoxy that blessing of same-sex unions is church-dividing.
B. Why don't you look and see what Bonhoeffer actually had to say about Marriage as a mandate of creation?
3. Rage: the shrillness of your denunciation of CORE/NALC as Donatists, aside from being such a stretch of the imagination conceptually (would Augustine have urged church unity with the Manichaens, who claimed to be Christians?), when you overlook just how longsuffering the orthodox within the ELCA have been. You don't have the charity to imagine the accumulated list of grievances which fueled August, 2010.
I don't have any issue with people making judgments. We all do and we will all someday answer to the true judge. I too will bear the label judgmental. The problem between you and me is that we have contradictory, hence church-dividing judgments. I wish the others on your side would have the clarity to see this.

Root's Tiber crossing: We may as well add the host of others who have departed for what is, in my opinion, a myth of greener theological pastures on the other side of the Tiber (or in Constantinople): Pelikan, Hutter, Marshall, all the others, and now Root. I appreciate the question about them because I was not clear in my earlier post. Individually, no I don't see Donatism as possible; nor do I really see the individual members of the WA/CORE and their children LCMC and NALC as Donatistic (though they may at time rely on Donatistic ecclesiologies. Collectively, for WA/CORE it is institutional Donatism and schism. However, for individuals who have left on their own, without fanfare and without actively and publicly eliciting mass separation then no, I have trouble calling that Donatism – especially since it lacks the mischaracterization of the nature of the Church as being something other than a mixed body – which is as fundamental to ecclesiology as simul iustus et peccator is for justification.

Antinomianism:
You and I seem to view antinomianism very differently. My view has indeed been shaped by Dr. Yeago; though he and I have some different conclusions. I don't think “Mr.” Peter is an antinomian; if he is then so is St. Paul. Nor do I think the SF Reception (they were not reordinations) liturgy was, necessarily, antinomian. That is not to say I don't have problems with the liturgy in so far as I know how it was done there. It may have been “sloppy” theology – but even if it were, and I do not know, it does not an antinomian make. CORE's talking point about said liturgy is just as “sloppy.” They reduced the problem to “they used female pronouns for God.” The Bible uses female pronouns for the person Spirit and feminine imagery for God in general and for the Father specifically. God the Father has a womb from which God brought forth Creation. That “they used female pronouns for God” as an accusation is inflammatory and sloppy theology that presumes all three persons of the most holy and Divine Trinity are somehow male and not only the Son due to the scandal of particularity in regards to the Incarnation. But its still not antinomian. It could be that the SF liturgy risks error about the nature of God. Error does not automatically equal heresy. Error may simply be error.

Where I see the creeping in of antinomianism (still possibly merely as error and not heresy – which is CORE's claim) is rather in areas that more explicitly have to do with the Law. Antinomianism attempts to rear its head in things like congregations that don't want to talk about the Cross, or the Forgiveness of Sins, or the Body and Blood – because it may offend. Or because it may cause someone to feel sad or depressed. These things are where antinomianism lies because it denies our need for the Law, specifically in its “second use.” I fail to see how CWA09 can be confused with this kind of rejection about the Law because that is what antinomianism is about.

1 A. I'm not sure how WordAlone's evolution, nor its begetting of CORE, changes their status and inherently Donatistic organizations whose sole identity is an emotive disapproval of the ELCA. May I remind you that the mess that you find in the ELCA is partially wrought by CORE's mother, WordAlone. If you have trouble recalling that then I suggest going back and reading Root and Yeago critique them. Both Root and Yeago were willing to quickly cut ties with them and let them go if they wanted to schism – yes schism. They called WA schism. And now, by some miracle the child of WA will somehow messianically realign NA Lutheranism (lingo borrowed from the last chapter of Braaten's Mother Church)? Somehow I don't think so. Living with the Denver decisions is what they called for then. Living with the Minneapolis decisions is called for now. Root and Yeago were more willing to allow for schism then than I am now – perhaps I should be, but I am not. Actually I know why – because CORE with NALC only offers nothing new to the fragmented theology the Church faces exactly because of that schism.

1 B. The ELCA is a community of congregation in communion with themselves. By your very words you deny this communion and therefore deny fellowship with fellow Christians (as Augustine to the Donatists, this is something that even Cyprian would not do). We are in a state of disagreement, not Schism. Schism requires the breaking of fellowship with Christians. You have confused the liturgy of one synod with the ELCA. Again, here you display the typical donatisitc inability to see that the Church is a mixed body. Christian fellowship is not a “salad bar” - it does not mean that one must agree with every congregation or synod. But is should mean at least not causing more division. I know “The ELCA caused the division...” I also know that the Donatists said the catholics cause the division when they readmitted the morally weak “hander-overs”.

2 A. Evdokimov's bizarre speculations on gender also do not somehow cancel the the contemporary witness of Orthodoxy that Ordination of Women is Church-dividing. Of course, neither that nor blessing same sex unions was my point. My point is that Evdokimov rather accurately describes the Orthodox understanding of marriage as not primarily being about procreation, nor requiring procreation – Which allows them to wed couples that cannot otherwise have children. I say it creates a space for marriage that makes more theological sense than it being about procreation because it has more to do with the Trinity than it does children. I happen to believe that in such a context, which is within the over all Tradition of the Church, that there is space for blessing same sex unions. This is just like the fact that you have theological construct which you believe are within the over all Tradition of the Church which allow for the ordination of women. Even though we both know that there are interpretations of the Scriptures and the Tradition that do not support such a view. We both happen to not agree with the underlying hermeneutic. I happen to believe that the same hermeneutic undergirds the exclusion of “homosexuals.”

2 B. I am aware of what Bonhoeffer says about marriage. I am equally aware that his view is shaped by his time and culture – which is exactly why he argues that the orders of preservation must be mutable to their chief end – Jesus Christ who has become our new definition of family. In the same way that Luther said that Church, State, and Family were bound up in Adam – no now they are radically renewed in Christ.

3. Your sudden inclusion of the Manichaens strikes me as a comparing of apples to organs that boarders on absurd – not that I cannot appreciate argument ad absurdam and have used it myself on occasion. The catholic/Donatist split was along moral and biblical grounds – much like this issue in the ELCA. Bringing the Manichaens in is like assuming that the ELCA has entered into full communion with the New Age Movement. Yes, the ELCA has problems. Yes it has some very bad theology in spots. But the Church is a mixed body and fragmenting it further does not move anyone further away from that problem. You listed your credentials as former churchwide staff, pastor, etc... So here I list mine as a former rigorist/fundamentalist/neo-donatist. It simply does not work. I do understand the pain and frustration. Yeago was my professor, I was his TA. I scraped my money together to make at least one trek to Northfield to the Center for Catholic and Evangelical studies gathering on the Marks of the Body of Christ. Braaten and Jensen take up at least one shelf in my library. Braaten's work (and Raymond Brown) are partially responsible for my exodus out of fundamentalism. Not because I hated what I left – but because I loved what I found. I hope that’s true for Root and the others also. I really do. But there is a significant way in which what I see and hear in CORE sounds too much like what I left and not what I fell in love with.

I do have charity. I am, really, at one level very sympathetic and disappointed in what I see in CORE. Some of my favorite theologians are in their camp. But in the end, I am persuaded that authority, real authority, is persuasive and not coercive. So while we both have different judgments, the real difference is you see them as church-dividing and I think CORE has mislabeled the problems and, therefore, not worthy of splitting the Church.

I fully admit that I am just a layman. I’ve never attended a single day in seminary. I had a couple of “religion” courses in college. I’ve read a few books on Lutheran theology. By golly, I’ve even study Luther’s Large Catechism. But knowledgeable? Not by a long shot. The history of the Lutheran Church? I haven’t a clue.

Nevertheless, there are times I’d like to say to our learned speakers that the Church is not a university. It is not a forum for indetermination debate. At some point, the Church must come to a conclusion. It must speak clearly. It must think thoughtfully. It must speak rightly in trying to follow along with the Word Of God But the Church is commanded to instruct those in her care.

As a layman, I find all this preoccupation with “schism” and “catholicity” odd. There is a deep spiritual hunger among us in America. Those of us in the pews want to hear and be taught from the Word of God. We want to be able to count on the Church to speak the truth. Too many of us have seen that the ELCA can no longer be counted on to do that. If we can’t get it here, many of us will leave to go find it somewhere else.

Will these know where to go? Will they find a Church which teaches the true Gospel? Will they be seduced by some false prophet? Will they just stay home?

Perhaps the NALC should not be viewed as a “schismatic” Church; but rather a safety net.

I almost died last May. (Indeed, further surgery prevented me from attending the theological conference.) Coming close to death has a way of grabbing one’s attention. It makes to re-evaluate one’s relationships. It calls the attention to what one’s true priorities should be. I have four grandchildren—two of whom I am fully responsible. I may never see their first communion much less see them finish their Confirmation; but I can at least set them on their way. I don’t need a Church that fights me.

Perhaps I am uninformed and ill qualified to comment on these matters—looking through the wrong end of the telescope so to speak. But I’ve said my piece. Perhaps, lend a thought or two?

Mr. Lee,
First, let me say how glad I am that you are still with us to ask questions! There is a deep value in questioning, so please do not feel that you do not have a right to do so. With that in mind, I have some questions to ask of you and hopefully some thoughts in response to your concern.
What has shown you that "the ELCA can no longer be counted on to [speak the truth]"? And how has the ELCA not come to a conclusion? And how has the "Church" fought you? It's not that these are not valid concerns, sir. I simply don't know where you are coming from and am having difficulty understanding your context. Shedding some light here would be greatly appreciated.
Now, to your question, which I receive as "why do we care about schism and catholicity?" This is in effect the same as asking why we debate about and concern ourselves with the oneness of the Church. If I have misinterpreted your question, please tell me.

The third article of the Nicene Creed states "In one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." This is where the concerns come from.

The Augsburg Confession goes on, in Article VII, to say: "It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, Christian church. It is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel. For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere."
And Article VIII: "Likewise, although the Christian church is, properly speaking, nothing else than the assembly of all believers and saints, yet because in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even public sinners remain among the righteous, the sacraments-even though administered by unrighteous priests-are efficacious all the same." (These quotes are from Wengert/Kolb's edition, the German translation. The Latin of Article VIII, paragraph 2, says: "Both the sacraments and the Word are efficacious because of the ordinance and command of Christ, even when offered by evil people.")

What does this mean? That the Church cannot be split. To break off from the ELCA and accuse it of heterodoxy is 1) to say that the gospel is not being preached and the sacraments being administered there and 2) to maintain that the group splitting off holds a union with Church teaching that the ELCA does not. That is the heart of the debate.

Why is this important? Because there is only one Church. The accusations made by NALC and CORE are, perhaps, comparable to Luther's complaints about the Roman Catholic body - though there is a difference of degree, if not of kind. This is not an interminable debate, but a debate over whether or not ordination of homosexual persons by willing synods and congregations makes the proclamation of the gospel in the ELCA unfaithful.

Please let me know if that was unclear - I'm a bit of an egghead. I hope it helped!

In Christ,
Gary

So, Hinlicky posits that the Fort Hood shooter is linked to Al Qaeda. With the addition of the circular arguments about whether there ought to be a Muslim presence at ground zero, it's pretty clear that the discussion has moved far afield of the dispute between the ELCA and the NALC. There is a common denominator between bigotry and elitism. I sense a lot of elitism in many of these comments.

Mr. Johnson,
Thank you for your point - it's very true that this discussion seems incoherent (at least to me). But I'm not sure where the elitism is; could you point it out more directly? Perhaps we have different definitions. I wonder if your point might be related to mine regarding rhetoric. In any case, God bless you for caring! Be well.
In Christ,
Gary

As a layman (also), I beg your indulgence as I interject my take on matters. One of Luther's arguments regarding the Catholic Church was that man's relationship with God was personal, and that the Catholic Church used their polity as means of diffusing that relationship. Our inspiration of faith (at least to my way of thinking) comes directly from the Holy Spirit. How well we listen to that voice tends to affect our interpretations of Scripture and our reaction to those interpretations.

To argue semantics in a disagreement of this type is fruitless. No less an authority than Walter Sundberg has stated that the two positions involved are irreconcilable. There is no "middle ground" to be found regarding homosexuality...either you believe it to be sinful behavior, or you don't. No amount of proseltyzing, pontificating, and posturing is apt to change anyone's mind therewith.

We are all called to love and obey God. Those who believe homosexuality is a sin will attempt to convince those who don't, and vice versa. But this is only a backdrop to a far larger dynamic. Evil finds sly and seemingly innocent ways to infiltrate our lives, and these arguments merely serve as yet another way to splinter and dilute our spirituality. Rather, let us focus on our mission to spread the Good News.

Simplistic, I know, but it seems to work for me.

Gemechis Buba, the Missions Director for the NALC...no wonder I got a tepid or no response from those in the hierarchy of the NALC when I complained about his presentation at the NALC formative convention.