Home > Religious News > Lutheran CORE financial boycott of ELCA revisited

Lutheran CORE financial boycott of ELCA revisited

Yesterday I came across a two week old newspaper article from Pipestone, Minnesota, a small city on the prairie of SW Minnesota.  The article reported on Tensions Within the Church Body, referring to the ELCA and the Lutheran CORE opposition.  It was a well written piece which addressed the status of a couple of local ELCA churches, and it also quoted extensively from Pastor Erma Wolf, one of the primary spokespersons for Lutheran CORE.  Although several of her comments merely parroted Lutheran CORE talking points, I was struck by this quote:

“I’m not withholding my church offerings and I would not encourage a congregation to do that,” CORE’s Wolf said. “As long as we’re in the ELCA, we need to be financial stewards of the church.”

This is striking, of course, because Wolf deviated from the Lutheran CORE party line, which has consistently encouraged ELCA congregations to withhold financial support of the ELCA.  On August 22, before the 2009 Church wide assembly had closed, the CORE newsletter stated,  “Lutheran CORE leaders are inviting faithful Lutheran congregations and individuals to direct funding away from the national church body because of the decisions made this week by the Churchwide Assembly.”  Furthermore, the Lutheran CORE website promotes a paper by Pastor Steven King which attempts to provide a justification for withholding financial support of the ELCA.

This morning, Pastor Wolf has taken her views a significant step further.  In an article posted on two blogs, Satis Est, her own personal blog and on Lutheran CORE’s blog, she proposes a radical departure from the Lutheran CORE financial boycott.  “I am going to make a suggestion, request, perhaps plea is the best word for it, now,” she writes.

“Send an offering to the ELCA Vision for Mission Fund,” Pastor Wolf pleads.

Haiti Of course, one could minimize Pastor Wolf’s radical departure from the Lutheran CORE position by pointing out the exceptional circumstances of the Haiti earthquake, which is the occasion of her appeal.  Yet, her own stated rationale goes further than Haiti (bearing in mind, her newspaper quote before Haiti, “As long as we’re in the ELCA, we need to be financial stewards of the church.”):

Why? Because the main reason the ELCA International Disaster Relief Fund can dedicate such a high percentage of the offerings it receives to those who are most in need is because the ELCA Churchwide budget covers the cost of offices, lights, office machines, and staffing expenses. That is part of the mission work of this denomination. The Disaster Relief folks don’t have to pay for that stuff, so their money can go to places like Haiti. (And the flood victims in Iowa, and the hurricane victims on the Gulf Coast, and the tornado victims in Oklahoma, and you name the places where the ELCA has been in the past 10 years.)

Kudos to Pastor Wolf. 

One can only hope that her good sense and compassion rubs off on her cronies at Lutheran CORE.  Perhaps she sees that the CORE financial boycott has been a classic “cut off the nose to spite the face” effort from the outset.  Perhaps she understands that the financial boycott affects those who need ELCA missions and ministries the most.  Perhaps she senses that the boycott serves only to depict Lutheran CORE as mean-spirited, vindictive, and manipulative.  Certainly, Wolf’s plea reflects an adult understanding of the positive benefits that flow from the denominational infrastructure of the ELCA, something which Lutheran CORE as a separate denomination can only aspire to years down the road.

Most importantly, let’s hope that we can mark this as a breakthrough in the acrimonious relationship that has developed between CORE and the ELCA.  Again, kudos to Pastor Wolf.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • LiveJournal
  • Yahoo Messenger
  • AOL Mail
  • Tumblr
  • Amazon Wish List
  • Read It Later
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Hotmail
  • Reddit
  • TypePad Post
  • Blogger Post
  • Google Buzz
  • Delicious
  • Google Gmail
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Google Reader
  • Linkatopia
  • Technorati Favorites
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Share/Bookmark
Categories: Religious News Tags: , ,
  1. January 23rd, 2010 at 08:55 | #1

    Although I don’t agree with Erma on a number of issues, I recognize that she is a person of integrity and she understands the point that I have been arguing – if a church is too evil to take your money, than you should not be part of it. Those who are staying in the ELCA but not supporting it are using the church. I think she gets that. I respect that. I also respect people who decide to leave the ELCA because they cannot support it. What I don’t respect is staying and not supporting your own church.

  2. January 23rd, 2010 at 09:12 | #2

    @Joelle

    I couldn’t agree more.

    In the early blogpost of David Yeago “In the Aftermath“, he offered the best advice to those who disagree but stay. Rather than being petulant and vindictive, he suggested:

    Instead of thinking of ourselves primarily as dissenters and opposition, let us ask God to make of us a movement of repentance and renewal, so that the continuing presence of traditionalists in the ELCA will be a blessing and an adornment for the whole church. Let us traditionalists be the ones who live most deeply in the Scriptures, who bring forth the bread of life most richly from the Scriptures, who let themselves be most drastically challenged and remade by the word of God, who live most intensely in prayer, who are able to teach prayer to others. Let us traditionalists be in the forefront of ministry among the poor, the apparently hopeless, the despised; let us be the ones who volunteer to go to the hard places. Let our revisionist brothers and sisters, let homosexual persons in the church, be conscious when they meet us mostly of how much we care for them, how far we are willing to go for them, of the respect and honor with which we treat them, despite our clear disagreement with aspects of their teaching and/or life.

  1. No trackbacks yet.