Leaving the WELS, Never Easy

So, working at Starbucks is killing my writing.  Not that I was doing a ton of that anyway, but I'm a night owl, and my writing-brain usually turns on between 7:30 and 9, which is prime bed-time for me now.
Which is not to say that I don't love my job, because I do.  I work with only nice people (for the first time in my life - and I'm not exaggerating - literally, ONLY nice people.  Awesome!)  I have benefits.  It's tough supporting both myself and Husband on near-minimum-wage, but with food stamps (so great) and a little help from the parents, we're doing ok while he continues his job search.
Obviously, this post isn't about any of this.
The title comes from an REM song that I like.  It's not my favorite, but when the day arrives that I can't think of an REM song that's at least mildly related to the topic at hand, I might as well just stop living.  I like REM, is my point.  Also, the lead singer from REM looks a bit like a bald, sad Ewan McGregor, which is a fact that the world must acknowledge.
That's still not what this was meant to be about.  I suck at this blog crap.
Well, to be honest, I'm dancing around this because I'm at a weird crossroads and there's religious and personal and bitter and scary stuff all tied up in it, so I'm avoiding talking about it.
I've decided to leave the WELS, the church body that I was raised in.

Idk, probably people with think I'm overreacting in being so weirded out by this process.  I'm not converting to a different religion.  I'm not even leaving Lutheranism.  I'm not even leaving conservative Lutheranism.  I'm just shifting over to the Missouri Synod - it's hardly world-shaking.  It's just a big deal because I was raised in this small pocket - my family went to this church, since leaving my family, I've been surrounded by WELS folks at school, and my husband is and will continue to be WELS.
I guess that's what really scares me.  I have to find a new church, and I have to do it alone.  It's probably good for me to be taking my faith into my own hands, where I can't fall back on my husband to make me go to church or participate or whatever.  I do tend to do that, because I don't like leaving my house sometimes.  That's wrong and bad.  But what about our kids?  It's only a slight difference, but I feel enough bitterness toward the WELS and disagree with their doctrine enough that I'm not sure I would want my kids growing up in the WELS - it took that vehemence of feeling to make me make the break at all.  Maybe that'll fade with time.  Even worse, I wonder if he'll want the kids to go to a religious school.  I am vehemently against that regardless of which religion or synod or whatever runs the school.  It's stuff we talked about before we got married, but ideas change over time.  I'm getting ahead of myself.
I've sat down several times to try to write this post, and I just can't get it all out right.
I try to just address the doctrinal issues I have, but it seems flat, because that's really not all that's going on here.  I try to address the personal reasons and it seems too negative and personal.  I try to combine the two and it just doesn't work.
Idk guys.  I don't even know what I'm doing here.  But it's 5:30 in the afternoon and no one can be expected to write coherently at this ridiculous hour!  However, I want to do this anyway, both because it's been kind of a big deal in my own life (it's kind of an identity issue for me, I guess), and also because I can't find anything of the kind on the internet right now.  I went looking for blogs of others who had left the WELS, to see if they had the same issues as me and to feel a little less alone in the world, but all I found were complaints about people leaving the WELS and a couple people who left for completely different reasons and/or were more jerks about it than I'd like to be, I guess.  My point is, it all just made me feel more alone, and so I'm doing this to feel less alone myself and, I hope, to make others also feel less alone.  Maybe.  Your milage may vary.
I think some of my troubles came up in trying, like I do, to cross-reference everything too much, which lead down the rabbit hole.  So here's my spiel, with no corroborating evidence to back it up, to keep things simple.

Anyway, doctrinal stuff:
1) Feminism!  Yeah, you saw this coming.  I can't be a part of a church where women aren't even given a vote.  The argument runs that if a woman votes differently than her husband, she cancels out his vote, which violates the principle of headship.  Even if the woman is single and has no one to "vote for the family" as a man is "supposed" to do, she still can't vote because it gives her too much authority over the men in the congregation.  (Many in the WELS believe this is also applicable to civil votes - yes, they think a woman shouldn't vote for the president.)  I would argue that the point of voting is to take power away from a centralized authority.  By necessity, that does mean spreading the power out, so yes, it is an exercise of power, but more importantly, it is a way to determine the needs of a group without the power falling to anyone individually.  I see it as a removal of power more than anything else.

Further, I have my doubts about a lot of those verses in the Bible that exclude women.  I don't for a second doubt the inerrancy of scripture, let's be clear, but we are so willing to say of one verse: "Well, that was just a cultural thing," and of the next, "It is law."  So for example: 

1 Corinthians 14:33-35: Women should be silent, and if they have questions, ask their husbands later at home.  BUT Romans 16 lists many women as leaders in the church (including a deaconess) and as Paul's' coworkers.  How can both be true?  It's kinda hard for a woman to be a leader if she has to be silent.  The epistles, however, are written to specific churches to combat specific issues in the church.  The Corinthians were having trouble with rowdy services, where there was prophesying, speaking in tongues, drunkenness, and ecstatic worship that contributed to an overall sense of chaos.  Paul is stepping in to say, "you need to calm it down."  He offers multiple principles and solutions to the problem.  Telling someone to shut up at a church where everyone's shouting all the time makes sense.  The church in Rome didn't have those same issues, so they didn't receive the same advice.  They had women as leaders.

Or:

1 Timothy 2:11-15: "I do not permit a woman to teach," also, women will be "saved through childbirth" - whatever that means?  Here, Paul says I do not permit - there are many times in Paul's epistles where he goes off on a tangent and says, "this is what I think," but those things aren't necessarily binding.  A good example is where he says that everyone should be single.  WE accept that this is just Paul having issues with women, because the rest of the Bible thinks marriage is great.  But somehow this verse in Timothy is binding?  Especially considering that last part, which is weird and doesn't fit at all with anything else I've been taught anywhere.  (My CSSB gives three different interpretations of this verse, all of which are unsatisfying, and at least one of which is deeply unsettling.)

If you go back a few verses, you'll see that these verses immediately follow verses that say that women shouldn't wear jewelry or braid their hair.  Why are the latter verses relevant, but not the former?  If the prohibition on braids is cultural, why isn't the thing about women teaching?  It's our job to make the gospel look good.  There are plenty of places where Paul tells the churches not to set themselves up against prevailing cultural norms (that don't go against scripture).  We don't want to look weird and bad to the outside world, we want to look good so that people come in.  That's why women weren't allowed to have short hair - to a Christian, it means nothing, to a modern person it means nothing, but back in the day, it meant you were a hooker.  If the world saw the Christian church full of short-haired ladies, they would think, "Dang that church is full of hookers.  What an immoral place."  That's not what we want.  (Obviously, this is only true of things that don't go against scripture or jeopardize us spiritually.)
I have always considered these prohibitions against women to be similar: If we let women take charge, the outside world might think we're bad. Today, the opposite is true.

So Idk.  I'm still exploring this whole issue, but I feel that voting, at least, is something that women should be able to do.  That's one of the reasons I'm looking at LCMS.  They allow women to vote, and they even let them take leadership positions in the church.  They just don't ordain them.  Part of this is the belief that only the pastoral office is divinely called - which I've agreed with for a long time.  Which brings me to

1.5) The call system is silly even for pastors, and I don't think it accurately reflects Biblical teaching on the subject - but the idea that even 2nd grade teachers must be called (in a different way than a regular person is called to their vocation) is just nonsense.  There's no Biblical support for the call system that we have at present, and less to suggest that anyone other than the pastor needs to receive a divine call.  We have to admit that the only reason the call system even functions is because we have a small enough synod that everyone knows everyone.

2) I have long felt that the WELS is more interested in protecting its parishioners than educating them.  For example: A Purpose Driven Life.  Very popular book, definitely not written by a WELS member.  WELS members were discouraged from reading it because it promoted "pietism" or "works righteousness."  (It doesn't.)  Rather than explain to its parishioners what the book was about and the pros/cons of it, we were handed a "don't."  If one were to actually read the book, they would find that the book does not speak of salvation at all, but merely provides suggestions for how someone could get more involved in their church - ways they can live out their faith.  It never says, "this is how you will be saved."  It says, "since you are saved, here's some ways you might consider showing that, maybe.  If you want."  BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOO!  I'm terrified.  "Works righteous" certainly has a meaning, but I think it gets thrown around more as the ultimate conversation ender: "What do you think about this?"  "WORKS RIGHTEOUS."  Game over.
It leads to a terror of discussing Christian living that I just don't understand.  The book of James is a thing, guys.  We can start by reminding people, about Justification through faith, then move forward from there.  It's really not that tough.
That's only one example, but it's an attitude I run into frequently and it has always upset me.

3) In the same vein, the fellowship issues are ridiculous too.  Now, obviously, there needs to be moderation here, because there are serious doctrinal differences between Lutherans and Calvinists/Reformeds/Catholics/etc.  But the fear that we might "imply a unity which does not exist" gets taken way too far.  We can't pray with Missouri Synod Lutherans?  Who are we protecting?  And from what?  What is this fear?

It's the reason my mom's sister couldn't sing a hymn from our hymnal at my mom's wedding - her sister wasn't WELS, and merely by singing a song, she was giving offense to our fellowship.

It's the reason an LCMS member attending a WELS high school was not allowed to give her valedictorian speech (because the graduation ceremony was also a worship service?  What?)

Yet the principle is still applied hypocritically - that is, it only applies in cases where money isn't involved.  The WELS happily accepts financial support from Thrivent, even though Thrivent also supports the ELCA.  Is this a fellowship conflict?  Does it imply that the WELS believes the same things the ELCA does (such as ordination of women and acceptance of homosexuality)?  The Confessional Lutheran Church does - that's why they split off from the WELS years ago.  I think the whole thing is stupid, but I can respect that the CLC stuck to their guns and upheld the doctrine that they espoused.  Not so the WELS.

They've even gone so far as "blog fellowship," where a pastor whose blog is hosted by a cross-synodical blog site can be chastised.  That's like saying you can't even speak in a room full of non-WELS members.  Yet pastors read papers at non-WELS conventions all the time, and that's ok?   I get that it's the internet, so it's new and scary, but it's just plain ridiculous.  

I appreciate knowing your doctrine and standing firm in it, but we must also acknowledge that "unity" is not achievable (I believe that every person worships a different God, in their way - we all differ on little nitpick issues, there's only unity to a certain extent) and that other Christians have the same core beliefs.  So, I will still go to a Lutheran church, because I am Lutheran.  But if I want to pray with a Methodist, I'm going to do it.  If I want to take communion at a Lutheran church (I would still stick with the Real Presence believers on this one point), I'm going to do it, because (a) nobody makes the assumptions that the WELS seems to think they do, and (b) how far are we going to take this unity thing anyway?  Once we get past primary issues (those that affect salvation) and into secondary, tertiary, etc issues, how close do we have to be before we can't pray together anymore?  Where is that line and who decides it?

Paul warns against dividing ourselves up or calling ourselves after any religious leader.  Certainly, there are large theological differences that mean we need to separate our worship, but to say that we can't even pray with another Christian - another Lutheran, even! - is just not right. 
The really funny thing is that they usually quote Romans 16:17-18 when discussing why they had to divide from another church body...something's fishy in that logic.  I would cite Romans 16:17-18 as one of my reasons for leaving the WELS.  All they are interested in is causing divisions.  In their quest for "pure doctrine," they are willing to cut off the rest of the Christian church.  Again, divisions are inevitable, and pure doctrine (such as can be had) is important, but everything in moderation.

I have other issues with the WELS, many of them relating to my personal history.  My mother's quest to find a helpful and understanding WELS pastor following her (Biblically legal) divorce has been rough, and has lasted for about a year now.  I've been tied up in that quest and heard a lot of her complaints along the way.  I know that that's what's brought it to a head recently, even though I've had issues for years (at least 10, by my count).  I don't think that makes my claims less relevant.  I would even argue that I've seen what lies beneath more than my WELS-raised fully in-the-bubble Husband has.  He's gone through the school system and attended all the camps, but he's never been a step above.  He's never had to deal directly with the hierarchy itself, only with his lay peers and superficially with his own pastor.  Certain events in my past have brought me or my family members into the workings of the (often hypocritical and ineffective) WELS hierarchy in a way that not many lay-members encounter.  I may not have gone to a WELS school, I may not have ancestral ties to the WELS (having been raised by a pair of adult converts), but that doesn't mean I don't know what's going on.

So, that's my long tale.  It's not meant to convince you of anything, it's just an explanation as to why.  Since all of my friends are either WELS or atheist, I figured it might need explaining.  Probably no one really cares, since I'm only going as far away as the LCMS, which is not so far away at all.  Actually, even my staunchly WELS dad and step-mom have lightened up on the Missouri synod lately.

What's the point of making a life decision if it doesn't piss off even one of your parents?  Ugh.