The constitution requires a special meeting

You can find this comment in its entirety here. It's dated Nov. 3 at 10:28 p.m. I wanted to make a few observations. 

Anonymous said …
Wonderful. Now a process set up by our leaders to include more members to vote and include everyone has been changed at the very last minute in a power play by the powers that be.

There is no power play here by the “powers that be”, by which I would assume you are referring to ELCA.  If you read the bishop’s letter, you will see that this action is mandated by our own constitution and bylaws passed by our congregation, not by anything or anyone else. I believe the requirement is there so that the membership can deliberate seriously and together before taking a final step to sever ties. I trust that discussion will be encouraged before a vote is taken.

I understand the frustration that the bishop’s finding caused, and especially that he didn’t act until after the letter had been sent to the congregation. That was unfortunate, especially when Pastor Garman had had a conversation with him about it.

Even so, the ruling was correct, and it wasn’t challenged. A vote proceeding as proposed would not have been legitimate because it was counter to the constitution adopted by the members of this congregation.

I personally favored the vote after each service format for exactly the reasons you point out.  But I can’t agree with you on this point. The vote must take place as specified in the constitution.

Anonymous said …
There is no sympathy for the ELCA here, this action will insure that even more. How inept can the bishop be?

I can see that at least for you, there is no sympathy for ELCA “here,” and you seem to believe you are speaking for the entire congregation.  However, comments to me by phone, by email, and in person would suggest that at least some members do not want to leave the ELCA at this time.

Anonymous said …
This change will actually result in less people voting because they go to church Saturday night or other times. Way to go, your newspaper article backfired and has caused a change.

I want open debate, and I want as many legal voters within the congregation as possible to vote on this issue.  The newspaper article did not cause the problem to which you refer.  To vote the way that was being proposed would have been illegal, according to our constitution and bylaws, and would have resulted in the vote being thrown out.   

Anonymous said …
And you just guaranteed a massive turnout to vote us out of the ELCA. Congratulations!

I would hope that we indeed do have a massive turnout. Then the family of La Casa will be represented more fully. I don’t know how the vote will go; no one does. But I’m praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit for each of us.

I maintain in my reading and studying of the scripture as well as prayer, that we are about to take a giant step backward away from our Lord and Savior, rather than to embrace all folk the way HE did and the way He admonishes us to do.  You disagree, I know.That, I would further argue, is the Glory of Christianity, insofar as we disagree but are still able to be brothers and sisters in Christ’s service. 

Thank you for voicing your concerns.  By all means, be at the congregational meeting now scheduled for Sunday, November 14, at 11:45 am, and vote your conscience.  And please learn all you can with regard to this entire issue and the step we are  proposing to take before casting your vote.

Yours in service to Christ, Tom Weller.