You can find this comment posted in its entirety here. I wanted to make some observations about it.
Anonymous said...
Nine people DID NOT decide. There have been six open forums on this issue. Congregational input was sought, and received, not only by the task force, but by the pastors. This has not been a closed or controlled process as you seem to suggest. And of course at least 85% or more of the congregation voted to leave.
A 10 person task force with one member not in attendance made the recommendation to leadership to begin the process to withdraw from ELCA. I would argue that a decision of this magnitude requires much more than 6 forums put on by and moderated by proponents for the argument, with no representation of, written material for, or information websites provided by or for non-proponents of the idea. One cannot make an informed decision based on only one side of any argument. The process, I would argue has not been transparent.
Anonymous said...
You seem to wield conspiracy theories when this process has been open. It is not the leaders fault if only several hundred people show up at meetings. Maybe they support they leadership. Maybe they have more important things to do. Maybe to them this is a no brainer to leave as the ELCA has defied thousands of years of tradition.
I would say that tradition is fine as far as it goes, but the world is evolving, humankind is evolving, and the Bible and our ability to interpret it is evolving. Modern theological scholarship has increased dynamically the interpretations available to us, much as modern science took us from the buggy, to the Ford, to the airplane, and now to space. Would you hold us back from progressing as a species for the sole purpose of observing tradition? Or would you choose to grow, encompassing new ideas, new interpretations and revelations that the living breathing Bible has to offer. To do so sir/madam, is simply humankind expressing our arrogance at the completeness of our own vast knowledge.
Anonymous said...
Finally, your biblical comments about ONLY Paul and Moses writing about this are false. Jesus said marriage was between a man and women in the Gospel of Matthew, did he not?
The seven passages of scripture represented in the post from which you draw this objection were all attributed to the writings of Moses and Paul. You are of course referring to the passage attributed to Jesus Christ in Matthew 19: 1-12. I would argue that there is no place in the 2026 words attributed to Christ where he addresses same sex relationships or marriage, because as a social phenomena it was neither visible, nor was it ever asked of Him. The relationships we speak of today are completely and totally different than relationships and sociology of the first century. I view Jesus Christ as the living Word of God, and therefore I turn to Him for clarity. The issue simply is not addressed, or condemned by Jesus Christ. Paul is another matter, as is Moses. There are varied and many societal and cultural differences at the times they authored their works and their writings reflect their social conditioning A complete discussion of just these two men and their literary efforts alone takes years to complete. For some in our society, it never ends.
Anonymous said...
I suppose if you got your way our single leaders and pastor could do whatever they wanted to do in terms of morality. It is a sad commentary when people buy into culture instead of being transformed by the bible. The ELCA has chosen to join only the Episcopalians in this , and look what is happening there. Maybe we should stick with the 99.5% of Christians who believe in what Jesus, Paul, and Moses said on this issue.
Our conversation has nothing to do with “my” way. It has nothing to do with your way either. It has to do with our ongoing daily struggle by each of us to interpret what Jesus is saying to us. It is not about anything else. The ELCA has joined not only the Episcopalian church, but conservative and reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ as well as the Presbyterians in acknowledging certain relationships. I would argue that these faiths are evolving and the revelation of the Holy Spirit has allowed them to see things yet again more clearly than in past days. Just as sure as Luther evolved in his understanding of the scriptures and began the Reformation, so our faith today is evolving. And in a very good way, may I add.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Forget about absentee ballots; show up to vote on Nov. 7
You can find this comment in its entirety here. I want to make some additional observations about it.
Anonymous said ...
Like one of the earlier posters, I found it very difficult to glean information from the internet on this issue. It just hasn't been condensed and published to the LCdC website, and I'm not sure why.
Frankly, everyone I’ve spoken with is somewhat dismayed with this fact, including other congregations who are wrestling with this problem. Unfortunately, not having complete information available and nowhere to get it leads to distrust of the process and an uninformed voter.
Anonymous said ...
The original letter that was sent out to the congregation last March (prior to the first vote) instructed everyone to visit the LCdC website for FAQs and further information. A google search indicates that there was more information out there at one time, but it has been taken down. Why take down that information, when we are so close to the 2nd (and deciding) vote?
I would concur. We desperately need to have all the information at our fingertips at this time. Without which we will not make an informed decision. This big of a decision demands complete and total knowledge, dispensed in a transparent method.
Anonymous said ...
I did eventually find enough information through other sources, however, so that I am now completely baffled what all the hubbub is about. The resolution that was passed by the ELCA leaves the decision on whether or not to hire gay clergy of any type completely up to the individual congregations. So the pastoral staff can always decide whether or not to hire someone based on their particular sexual preference.
This is precisely the original concern I had after reading the decisions and supporting documentation. Why in the world are we in such an uproar over something that need not directly affect us, unless we so choose to address it at time of a proposed hire. What is the reasoning here?
Anonymous said ...
Regarding the votes required in order for a congregation to leave the ELCA, I am perplexed why absentee balloting isn't allowed, as it is in political elections. In the first vote, there were roughly 450 congregation members who voted. Last I checked, LCdC has over 3300 members, however.
It is stated in our constitution, that “2/3rds of the membership PRESENT” is required to pass legislation at a congregational meeting. While I agree with you that absentee balloting or on campus balloting is common sense, we are playing by the rules here.
Anonymous said ...
Surely 14% of the laity cannot possibly be representative of the entire congregation! Why not allow absentee ballots? They could be mailed out with the next bulletin, and then perhaps we could get a much better representation of the congregation as a whole in the 2nd (and deciding) vote that is coming up on Nov. 7.
I think this is a wonderful idea, but our constitution does not allow for it. I would feel a whole lot more comfortable knowing that an entire congregation is in favor or not in favor of such a seismic shift in direction. I want to share a very very scary statistic with you. Everyone by now knows that Community of Joy has withdrawn from ELCA. But did you know, that out of a rostered membership of 5500, only 112 people showed up to vote and make that decision? 112 out of 5500! Is this what we want for La Casa to duplicate? I think not!
Anonymous said ...
Like one of the earlier posters, I found it very difficult to glean information from the internet on this issue. It just hasn't been condensed and published to the LCdC website, and I'm not sure why.
Frankly, everyone I’ve spoken with is somewhat dismayed with this fact, including other congregations who are wrestling with this problem. Unfortunately, not having complete information available and nowhere to get it leads to distrust of the process and an uninformed voter.
Anonymous said ...
The original letter that was sent out to the congregation last March (prior to the first vote) instructed everyone to visit the LCdC website for FAQs and further information. A google search indicates that there was more information out there at one time, but it has been taken down. Why take down that information, when we are so close to the 2nd (and deciding) vote?
I would concur. We desperately need to have all the information at our fingertips at this time. Without which we will not make an informed decision. This big of a decision demands complete and total knowledge, dispensed in a transparent method.
Anonymous said ...
I did eventually find enough information through other sources, however, so that I am now completely baffled what all the hubbub is about. The resolution that was passed by the ELCA leaves the decision on whether or not to hire gay clergy of any type completely up to the individual congregations. So the pastoral staff can always decide whether or not to hire someone based on their particular sexual preference.
This is precisely the original concern I had after reading the decisions and supporting documentation. Why in the world are we in such an uproar over something that need not directly affect us, unless we so choose to address it at time of a proposed hire. What is the reasoning here?
Anonymous said ...
Regarding the votes required in order for a congregation to leave the ELCA, I am perplexed why absentee balloting isn't allowed, as it is in political elections. In the first vote, there were roughly 450 congregation members who voted. Last I checked, LCdC has over 3300 members, however.
It is stated in our constitution, that “2/3rds of the membership PRESENT” is required to pass legislation at a congregational meeting. While I agree with you that absentee balloting or on campus balloting is common sense, we are playing by the rules here.
Anonymous said ...
Surely 14% of the laity cannot possibly be representative of the entire congregation! Why not allow absentee ballots? They could be mailed out with the next bulletin, and then perhaps we could get a much better representation of the congregation as a whole in the 2nd (and deciding) vote that is coming up on Nov. 7.
I think this is a wonderful idea, but our constitution does not allow for it. I would feel a whole lot more comfortable knowing that an entire congregation is in favor or not in favor of such a seismic shift in direction. I want to share a very very scary statistic with you. Everyone by now knows that Community of Joy has withdrawn from ELCA. But did you know, that out of a rostered membership of 5500, only 112 people showed up to vote and make that decision? 112 out of 5500! Is this what we want for La Casa to duplicate? I think not!
The vote was overwhelming (as far as it went)
You can find the original comment below in its entirety here. It's dated Sept. 19 at 10:52 p.m.
Anonymous said ...
You I heard the vote was overwhelming.
The vote tally was 364 in favor of leaving, and 69 in favor of staying. My point is do you want the future of your church to be dictated by 433 people or by the entire church family, all of whom have a stake and a say in this. Also, it takes two thirds of the congregation to ratify leaving. Granted, the first vote represents far more than two thirds, but there is a second vote to be taken.
And I would add, just as you and I will.
I would argue that the congregation has not spoken. 439 people out of 3,500 rostered members have spoken. I would not question those who were present and voted either way. I’m sure their choices were for good reason.
By “certain people”, I would assume you are referring to me. My name is Tom Weller; not “certain people.” I would argue that I first addressed this issue with Pastor Garman over a year ago, Pastor Carol and Pastor Jeff at separate times and have been working diligently gathering and dispensing information ever since. I do NOT sow seeds of dissent. This blog champions transparency, open discussion, full disclosure and intelligent conversation in order to encourage informed voting.
Anonymous said ...
I’ve seen this happen many times before in various churches of different denominations.
You have stated my point exactly. It is far better to be open and transparent with a decision of this magnitude than to allow for the slightest hint of impropriety, would you not agree? I openly disagree with Pastoral leadership and have stated so publicly. I do not publish anonymously.
Anonymous said ...
Instead of accepting the decisions of the church and supporting the church, or choosing another church home that more closely conforms to their doctrinal statement, people will do all they can to split the church, cause problems, dissention, and generally wreak havoc.
I accept the decisions of the church and support them. Mine happens to be the ELCA, of which I am currently an active member. What church would you be speaking of?
You are saying then that because I exercise my freedom, granted by the church and by the United States Constitution to speak my dissent freely and openly prior may I add to a vote that will affirm a final decision, that you would accuse me of doing all I can to split the church, cause problems, dissension, and generally wreak havoc. I am trying to save this church from making, IN MY OPINION, the mistake of walking away from our Lord and Savior and turning our backs on the only commandment in the current canon, which as you I’m sure will recall is: “A new commandment I give to you; that you shall love one another as I have loved you.” What part of Commandment do you not understand, and which part excludes parts of society? Please sir/madam, explain yourself.
Satan gains no victory here, and derives no pleasure. There are two or more of us gathered in HIS name of which we speak. And when that happens, sir/madam, there is love!
Thank you for your post. You express your passion well, and although we disagree, we are still equal in His eyes. Please remember to be in attendance at the next congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Anonymous said ...
You I heard the vote was overwhelming.
The vote tally was 364 in favor of leaving, and 69 in favor of staying. My point is do you want the future of your church to be dictated by 433 people or by the entire church family, all of whom have a stake and a say in this. Also, it takes two thirds of the congregation to ratify leaving. Granted, the first vote represents far more than two thirds, but there is a second vote to be taken.
Anonymous said ...
In any event, the Pastors are responsible for the direction of their flock and will have to answer for their decisions good and bad when they meet their maker.
In any event, the Pastors are responsible for the direction of their flock and will have to answer for their decisions good and bad when they meet their maker.
And I would add, just as you and I will.
Anonymous said ...
In the meantime the congregation has spoken, and instead of believing they are all a bunch of stupid sheep easily misled, I believe they all sought God's guidance, examined the choices carefully and voted based on how they felt the Lord was guiding them.
In the meantime the congregation has spoken, and instead of believing they are all a bunch of stupid sheep easily misled, I believe they all sought God's guidance, examined the choices carefully and voted based on how they felt the Lord was guiding them.
I would argue that the congregation has not spoken. 439 people out of 3,500 rostered members have spoken. I would not question those who were present and voted either way. I’m sure their choices were for good reason.
Anonymous said ...
It's a shame that when the vote went against the people who wanted to stay in the ELCA, certain people then turned around and started a blog to sow seeds of dissention, instead of running their concerns through the proper procedures and channels.
It's a shame that when the vote went against the people who wanted to stay in the ELCA, certain people then turned around and started a blog to sow seeds of dissention, instead of running their concerns through the proper procedures and channels.
By “certain people”, I would assume you are referring to me. My name is Tom Weller; not “certain people.” I would argue that I first addressed this issue with Pastor Garman over a year ago, Pastor Carol and Pastor Jeff at separate times and have been working diligently gathering and dispensing information ever since. I do NOT sow seeds of dissent. This blog champions transparency, open discussion, full disclosure and intelligent conversation in order to encourage informed voting.
Anonymous said ...
I’ve seen this happen many times before in various churches of different denominations.
You have stated my point exactly. It is far better to be open and transparent with a decision of this magnitude than to allow for the slightest hint of impropriety, would you not agree? I openly disagree with Pastoral leadership and have stated so publicly. I do not publish anonymously.
Anonymous said ...
Instead of accepting the decisions of the church and supporting the church, or choosing another church home that more closely conforms to their doctrinal statement, people will do all they can to split the church, cause problems, dissention, and generally wreak havoc.
I accept the decisions of the church and support them. Mine happens to be the ELCA, of which I am currently an active member. What church would you be speaking of?
You are saying then that because I exercise my freedom, granted by the church and by the United States Constitution to speak my dissent freely and openly prior may I add to a vote that will affirm a final decision, that you would accuse me of doing all I can to split the church, cause problems, dissension, and generally wreak havoc. I am trying to save this church from making, IN MY OPINION, the mistake of walking away from our Lord and Savior and turning our backs on the only commandment in the current canon, which as you I’m sure will recall is: “A new commandment I give to you; that you shall love one another as I have loved you.” What part of Commandment do you not understand, and which part excludes parts of society? Please sir/madam, explain yourself.
Anonymous said ...
Of course Satan loves every second of it.
Of course Satan loves every second of it.
Satan gains no victory here, and derives no pleasure. There are two or more of us gathered in HIS name of which we speak. And when that happens, sir/madam, there is love!
Thank you for your post. You express your passion well, and although we disagree, we are still equal in His eyes. Please remember to be in attendance at the next congregational meeting on NOVEMBER 7, 2010 and vote your conscience. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
Some thoughts from Pastor Garman
Several days ago, I received a post, shown below. I informed all of you that I would be forwarding the post to Pastor Garman for a response and would post the response when it became available. I have received the response. Below is the original post, followed by my letter to Pastor, followed by his response.
Here is the blog post by, of course, anonymous, to which I responded.
Anonymous said...
The Bible is not clear on homosexuality. So you have "heard" that a group called ARCUS gave money to push this through. "Doesn't that trouble you." What troubles me is this statement in itself is part of the problem. You heard someone did this. well great, but don't you think the people of lacasa or any church can make up their own mind given all the facts. Its a rather cynical comment.
As for the blog writer choosing an article that was slanted in his direction. I don't believe so. It appears to me that, I think his name is Tom, presented another position that in fact exposed not only the weaknesses in the position you seek to defend but which represents the thinking of Luther. This is the whole point; we should openly discuss these issues. I would argue that you sir are afraid of the light of day and are afraid to discuss these issues openly and that in effect you ask the rest of us to "dumb down" our beliefs by preferring that we accept something without understanding it.
Ignorance would suggest that someone in this blog is asking that we dismiss paul and moses. that is a political statement. the blog writer is asking that we discuss the issues. the whole point here is that there are different interpretations. Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they are ignoring paul and moses. If i follow that logic then you too are dismissing paul and moses and possibly Luther. Then there is no discussion and you sir have accomplished your goal of controlling the conversation. I believe the blog writer is asking that we have an open discussion of these issues. So what's wrong with that.
Speaking of lacasa's website in an other comment. why don't the pastors put this blog up on the church's website. Why not have open discussions, and use its posting as a precursor to a broader conversation.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 6:31 AM
Tom Weller said...
I’d like to thank the last two posters for their comments. Since the two of you have a discussion in progress, I don’t want to “clutter things up”, as it were. Let me simply address both of you with a thought.
I am here in defense of transparency. I am not here to push an agenda. I have researched this question and both sides of the issue substantially. I have come to my conclusion based on research. I find that many of my fellow family members do not have the understanding or interpretation of scripture that some of us, on both sides of the issue have. What I am arguing is that we are moving too fast, without complete and total discussion and information. I would further argue that this entire process has not been transparent and that an awful lot of our family has been excluded from the decision making process. That is the position I present here in the blog. This post and responses to it will be forwarded this day to Pastor Garman, along with the recommendation that it be put up on the church web page. I will post his response when it becomes available to me.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 11:08 AM
Here is my letter to Pastor Garman.
Dear Pastor,
So that we can be clear: I oppose our move from ELCA on theological, philosophical, and moral grounds. The Lord and Savior I love with all my heart would not discriminate against any of His people regardless of color, nationality, sex, sexual persuasion, or any other anthropological characteristic. How we as Humankind can defend our propensity to do so is simply beyond me, in addition to other people involved in the struggle for human rights. On this issue we obviously disagree. That having been said, I still respect your views as a pastor, and consider you to be a friend. That is one of the challenges I face in taking an opposing viewpoint to your position.
My intent is to get people to vote; give them information with which to decide for themselves, and encourage them with full information and disclosure to vote their conscience. The outcome of the vote is inconsequential in the broader scheme of things. You will do what you must, as will I. However, I maintain that there are 3500 fully capable people here who need to hear both sides of this argument.
To that end, I authored the blog. The reason was simple: To keep discussion, argument if you will, passion, and the love we all have for Christ, and for you, centered right here where it belongs. No one outside of our family need know of our difficulties with this issue but us. It is out of respect for you and our family that I heed your admonition of yesterday to stop putting out fliers in the parking lot.
However, as you will see in the attached blog post and comments today, a question has been asked. This individual wants the blog posted on the church website to allow for discussion and interpretation of the issues that face our family. I would agree that a link should be posted to the blog and have so noted in my response and agreed to forward this particular post to you for your response.
I therefore request we put a link to the blog on our La Casa website for dissemination of information and comment to ALL who are a part of our family. This approach will solve your issue with fliers, and mine with getting people's attention to the issue, and disseminating information. I have asked questions and cited information for folks to refer to in their quest for knowledge, but have taken great steps to ensure that no one disrespects you or the other pastors. Hard questions do have to be asked and answered, but in a respectful manner, don't you agree?
You will recall that I first addressed these concerns with you a year ago. I have subsequently spoken to Jeff and to Carol, along with several hundred other clerical and lay people of various positions on the religious continuum. As I've said in my posts, I now have well over 20,000 pages of documentation, both on and off line regarding this issue. I would propose to share pieces of this information if asked to do so with our congregation before my book is published at the end of October. (Again out of respect to you, I have pushed back the publishing date so as not to confuse the issue close to the vote date.)
I respectfully ask for a quick answer to this question so that I can respond to our poster in an appropriate time frame.
Thank you.
Yours in service to Christ, Tom Weller
Here is Pastor Garman's response
Dear Tom,
Sorry about the problem of getting through on my e-mail address…since we changed over to a new whatever we have had problems…slowly they are being worked out but it supports my theory that the internet is demonic in nature!?!
I had not gone to the blog as I “don’t blog” mainly because I like to have conversations with people either in person or on the phone. Too much that gets printed is either wrong or partial misinformation and as it is passed on it becomes fact. Another reason I don’t particularly care for the anonymous nature either…I just like to know to whom I am speaking. As you can attest, even though we have disagreed, we have remained friends! That to me is a good example of open conversation.
In reading the blog for the first time I guess the first thing that comes to mind is what we have been doing over the last year. We have had numerous opportunities for discussion and questions…even had the Bishop here at a well-publicized meeting and had very few questions asked. We have taken over a year in our process of discernment when a lot of congregations have taken as little as three months! Pastors outside of our congregation including the Bishop have suggested an even faster time table so that it would not interfere with the ministry of the congregation.
The comment of control is always one that seems to crop up when someone wants us to do something other than what is going on. Yes, we determine what subjects are covered and who the teachers are in all of the classes held here on campus. We even require one of our Pastors to be present at any wedding done on our campus…why? Because what happens on this campus represents who we are and what we believe whether it is in a classroom or at a worship service.
From our website anyone can e-mail any one of the pastors if they have a question and as you are well aware, anyone who does gets a personal reply. The date for the second vote has been set, November 7th. There is still time for anyone to ask any question that is on their mind.
Thanks for sharing,
Pastor Garman
So folks, there you have it. Draw your own conclusions from this post and its responses, but please mark your calendars now for the NOVEMBER 7, 2010 VOTE. Please join us at the congregational meeting and remember to vote your conscience. This is our church, and your vote matters!
Here is the blog post by, of course, anonymous, to which I responded.
Anonymous said...
The Bible is not clear on homosexuality. So you have "heard" that a group called ARCUS gave money to push this through. "Doesn't that trouble you." What troubles me is this statement in itself is part of the problem. You heard someone did this. well great, but don't you think the people of lacasa or any church can make up their own mind given all the facts. Its a rather cynical comment.
As for the blog writer choosing an article that was slanted in his direction. I don't believe so. It appears to me that, I think his name is Tom, presented another position that in fact exposed not only the weaknesses in the position you seek to defend but which represents the thinking of Luther. This is the whole point; we should openly discuss these issues. I would argue that you sir are afraid of the light of day and are afraid to discuss these issues openly and that in effect you ask the rest of us to "dumb down" our beliefs by preferring that we accept something without understanding it.
Ignorance would suggest that someone in this blog is asking that we dismiss paul and moses. that is a political statement. the blog writer is asking that we discuss the issues. the whole point here is that there are different interpretations. Because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that they are ignoring paul and moses. If i follow that logic then you too are dismissing paul and moses and possibly Luther. Then there is no discussion and you sir have accomplished your goal of controlling the conversation. I believe the blog writer is asking that we have an open discussion of these issues. So what's wrong with that.
Speaking of lacasa's website in an other comment. why don't the pastors put this blog up on the church's website. Why not have open discussions, and use its posting as a precursor to a broader conversation.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 6:31 AM
Tom Weller said...
I’d like to thank the last two posters for their comments. Since the two of you have a discussion in progress, I don’t want to “clutter things up”, as it were. Let me simply address both of you with a thought.
I am here in defense of transparency. I am not here to push an agenda. I have researched this question and both sides of the issue substantially. I have come to my conclusion based on research. I find that many of my fellow family members do not have the understanding or interpretation of scripture that some of us, on both sides of the issue have. What I am arguing is that we are moving too fast, without complete and total discussion and information. I would further argue that this entire process has not been transparent and that an awful lot of our family has been excluded from the decision making process. That is the position I present here in the blog. This post and responses to it will be forwarded this day to Pastor Garman, along with the recommendation that it be put up on the church web page. I will post his response when it becomes available to me.
SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 11:08 AM
Here is my letter to Pastor Garman.
Dear Pastor,
So that we can be clear: I oppose our move from ELCA on theological, philosophical, and moral grounds. The Lord and Savior I love with all my heart would not discriminate against any of His people regardless of color, nationality, sex, sexual persuasion, or any other anthropological characteristic. How we as Humankind can defend our propensity to do so is simply beyond me, in addition to other people involved in the struggle for human rights. On this issue we obviously disagree. That having been said, I still respect your views as a pastor, and consider you to be a friend. That is one of the challenges I face in taking an opposing viewpoint to your position.
My intent is to get people to vote; give them information with which to decide for themselves, and encourage them with full information and disclosure to vote their conscience. The outcome of the vote is inconsequential in the broader scheme of things. You will do what you must, as will I. However, I maintain that there are 3500 fully capable people here who need to hear both sides of this argument.
To that end, I authored the blog. The reason was simple: To keep discussion, argument if you will, passion, and the love we all have for Christ, and for you, centered right here where it belongs. No one outside of our family need know of our difficulties with this issue but us. It is out of respect for you and our family that I heed your admonition of yesterday to stop putting out fliers in the parking lot.
However, as you will see in the attached blog post and comments today, a question has been asked. This individual wants the blog posted on the church website to allow for discussion and interpretation of the issues that face our family. I would agree that a link should be posted to the blog and have so noted in my response and agreed to forward this particular post to you for your response.
I therefore request we put a link to the blog on our La Casa website for dissemination of information and comment to ALL who are a part of our family. This approach will solve your issue with fliers, and mine with getting people's attention to the issue, and disseminating information. I have asked questions and cited information for folks to refer to in their quest for knowledge, but have taken great steps to ensure that no one disrespects you or the other pastors. Hard questions do have to be asked and answered, but in a respectful manner, don't you agree?
You will recall that I first addressed these concerns with you a year ago. I have subsequently spoken to Jeff and to Carol, along with several hundred other clerical and lay people of various positions on the religious continuum. As I've said in my posts, I now have well over 20,000 pages of documentation, both on and off line regarding this issue. I would propose to share pieces of this information if asked to do so with our congregation before my book is published at the end of October. (Again out of respect to you, I have pushed back the publishing date so as not to confuse the issue close to the vote date.)
I respectfully ask for a quick answer to this question so that I can respond to our poster in an appropriate time frame.
Thank you.
Yours in service to Christ, Tom Weller
Here is Pastor Garman's response
Dear Tom,
Sorry about the problem of getting through on my e-mail address…since we changed over to a new whatever we have had problems…slowly they are being worked out but it supports my theory that the internet is demonic in nature!?!
I had not gone to the blog as I “don’t blog” mainly because I like to have conversations with people either in person or on the phone. Too much that gets printed is either wrong or partial misinformation and as it is passed on it becomes fact. Another reason I don’t particularly care for the anonymous nature either…I just like to know to whom I am speaking. As you can attest, even though we have disagreed, we have remained friends! That to me is a good example of open conversation.
In reading the blog for the first time I guess the first thing that comes to mind is what we have been doing over the last year. We have had numerous opportunities for discussion and questions…even had the Bishop here at a well-publicized meeting and had very few questions asked. We have taken over a year in our process of discernment when a lot of congregations have taken as little as three months! Pastors outside of our congregation including the Bishop have suggested an even faster time table so that it would not interfere with the ministry of the congregation.
The comment of control is always one that seems to crop up when someone wants us to do something other than what is going on. Yes, we determine what subjects are covered and who the teachers are in all of the classes held here on campus. We even require one of our Pastors to be present at any wedding done on our campus…why? Because what happens on this campus represents who we are and what we believe whether it is in a classroom or at a worship service.
From our website anyone can e-mail any one of the pastors if they have a question and as you are well aware, anyone who does gets a personal reply. The date for the second vote has been set, November 7th. There is still time for anyone to ask any question that is on their mind.
Thanks for sharing,
Pastor Garman
So folks, there you have it. Draw your own conclusions from this post and its responses, but please mark your calendars now for the NOVEMBER 7, 2010 VOTE. Please join us at the congregational meeting and remember to vote your conscience. This is our church, and your vote matters!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
